Constrained defined-contribution pension management: A reparameterized neural network approach

Yueman Feng; Wenyuan Li

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.06495

Constrained defined-contribution pension management: A reparameterized neural network approach

Yueman Feng·Wenyuan Li

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper studies constrained defined contribution (DC) pension management under a two-factor financial market model. The pension participant is allowed to invest in cash, two nominal bonds, an inflation-linked bond, and a stock index. Moreover, they can also purchase term life insurance to manage pre-retirement death risk. Unlike traditional literature, we consider a pension member restricted to a general non-empty, closed, and convex trading constraint set that includes no short-selling, no borrowing, and portfolio-mix constraints as special cases. Such restrictions reflect common limits on pension-account trading. To solve the problem, we construct a family of unconstrained artificial markets, in which the original trading constraints are satisfied by adjusting the drift terms of the risky assets. Using a duality transformation, we derive the Lagrangian dual problem and propose a reparameterized neural network method to compute lower and upper bounds on the primal value function. We calibrate our model with U.S. data using a Kalman filter method, and find that our method produces a smaller duality gap than the benchmark methods. We also compare the constrained results with the unconstrained explicit solution and find that trading constraints substantially change wealth accumulation, portfolio strategies, and insurance demand. This highlights that unconstrained solutions may provide misleading guidance for pension management in practice.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.PM math.OC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Yueman Feng, Wenyuan Li. 2026-11-04. Constrained defined-contribution pension management: A reparameterized neural network approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06495

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Breaking the Trend: How to Avoid Cherry-Picked Signals

Our empirical results show an excellent fit with the theoretical Sharpe formula of a trend-following strategy depending on the parameter of the signal, which was derived by by Grebenkov and Serror (2014). That empirical fit convinces us that a mean-reversion process with only one time scale is enough to model, in a precise way, the reality of the trend-following mechanism at the average scale of CTAs and as a consequence, using only one simple EMA, appears optimal to capture the trend. As a consequence, using a complex basket of different sophisticated indicators as signal, does not seem to be so rational or optimal and exposes to the risk of cherry-picking.

q-fin.PM↗

arXiv2026

Mitigating Return Drag and Regime Whipsaws in Sector Rotation: An Asymmetric Downside-Aware Nested Clustered Optimization Framework

Hierarchical clustering and Nested Clustered Optimization (NCO) mitigate the mathematical ill-conditioning of classical Markowitz covariance matrices. However, two structural vulnerabilities persist in equity markets: (1) symmetric variance penalizes upside and downside return dispersion identically, inducing acute return drag against soaring momentum sectors; and (2) unconstrained Hidden Markov Models (HMM) exhibit hyper-active regime switching (whipsaw instability), incurring excessive turnover and transaction drag. We propose Asymmetric Downside-Risk Nested Clustered Optimization with Sticky Regime Dynamics (Asym-Sticky-NCO) for tactical sector rotation across all 11 S&P 500 GICS sectors. The framework substitutes symmetric covariance with the Bawa-Lindenberg downside semi-covariance matrix across both hierarchical tree clustering and two-stage allocation. Furthermore, we introduce a Sticky Gaussian HMM incorporating a diagonal self-transition persistence prior (\k{appa}) and confidence-adaptive boundaries (δ) to enforce macroeconomic persistence. Strictly non-anticipative walk-forward backtesting across 65 out-of-sample months (August 2020 to December 2025) demonstrates that the architecture elevates CAGR from 10.65% (Plain NCO) to 13.41% (+276 bps/year), delivers a 97.74% total return versus 72.99%, suppresses maximum drawdown to 14.22% (versus 23.93% for the S&P 500), and achieves a Calmar ratio of 0.94 (+38.2% over S&P 500; +84.3% over Baseline Regime-NCO). Crucially, sticky dynamics cut regime whipsaws by 75.0% (from 16 to 4 switches) and reduce monthly turnover from 60.78% to 30.48%, addressing core limitations of machine learning asset allocation.

q-fin.PM↗

arXiv2026

Interpretable Allocation and Model-Predictive Rebalancing of Equity Portfolios, Tested on Real and Synthetic Markets

A live equity portfolio poses three problems: which stocks to hold, when to trade, and whether the strategy holds up beyond the observed market. We built one system for all three and tested it on 373 US equities, calibrated on 2014-2024 and traded from January 2025 to September 2026. A selection rule chose stocks by score, by a bandit, or at random, and one of seven weighting rules, four consumer-theory utilities, and three standard portfolios, set share counts under limits on budget, single-stock weight, portfolio volatility, and turnover, with each stock's preference weight a bounded score of its trend, market beta, and the market's recent direction. A model-predictive controller forecasts portfolio value with a multi-asset geometric Brownian motion and re-planned at its horizon, when the value left its forecast band, or at a drawdown stop. To probe deeper declines than the real window held, we also ran the system on simulated markets from per-asset hidden Markov generators with jumps, linked by market and sector factors. On real prices, the stocks chosen mattered more to terminal wealth than the weighting rule, and the early re-plans shrank the worst drawdown in most rule combinations against a fixed calendar without consistently raising wealth. In the deepest simulated declines, every combination, random picks included, ended above simulated SPY and the equal-weight universe in the median, even without early re-plans, so the margin came from shared parts of the system, not from stock selection or re-plan timing. A market hedge that tightened a beta cap as the market weakened cost wealth on real prices but paid off in the most sustained simulated declines, and the generator's persistent trends favored score-based selection more than the real market did, which suggests a synthetic test judges stock selection fairly only if its generator does not build in that persistence.

q-fin.PM↗