pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17744 · v1 · pith:O5U4C6Z7new · submitted 2026-05-18 · 💻 cs.CE · cs.NA· math.NA

Numerical methods for optimal decumulation of a defined contribution pension plan

Peter A. Forsyth , George Labahn This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 01:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cs.NAmath.NA
keywords defined contribution pensiondecumulationoptimal stochastic controlFourier methodPIDE discretizationportfolio constraintsretirement planningnumerical finance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Restricting equity to 50 percent maintains near-optimal efficiency for defined contribution pension decumulation.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper models the spending-down phase of a defined contribution pension as an optimal stochastic control problem. At each rebalancing date the authors solve a linear partial-integro differential equation with a δ-monotone Fourier method and then perform an optimization step over the control. The scheme is constructed to keep monotonicity accurate to order O(δ) and to suppress wrap-around errors that are typical of Fourier techniques. Leverage is permitted and minimum bond holdings are enforced. The calculations indicate that a hard 50 percent cap on equity exposure produces results nearly as good as an unrestricted portfolio, which may give risk-averse retirees a simple practical rule.

Core claim

The decumulation challenge is posed as an optimal stochastic control problem solved at each rebalancing date by alternating a linear PIDE solve with an optimization step. The PIDE is discretized by a δ-monotone Fourier method that guarantees monotonicity to O(δ) while controlling wrap-around error. The formulation admits leverage and minimum bond constraints. Numerical results show that capping the equity fraction at a maximum of 50 percent does not reduce portfolio efficiency noticeably.

What carries the argument

δ-monotone Fourier method that solves the PIDE while preserving monotonicity to O(δ) and limiting wrap-around error for repeated optimal-control steps.

If this is right

  • Optimal withdrawal and investment policies can be computed while respecting leverage and minimum bond constraints.
  • A 50 percent equity cap supplies a low-complexity rule that preserves most of the efficiency obtained by unrestricted optimization.
  • Error control on wrap-around allows the same numerical scheme to be reused reliably over many rebalancing dates.
  • Monotonicity preservation supports stable extraction of the optimal feedback control from the value function.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same monotone Fourier approach could be adapted to related long-horizon problems such as lifecycle portfolio choice with stochastic mortality.
  • Practitioners could embed the 50 percent rule in simplified calculators that retirees use without solving the full control problem.
  • Adding market impact or transaction costs would provide a direct numerical test of whether the reported efficiency result survives realistic frictions.

Load-bearing premise

The δ-monotone Fourier method ensures monotonicity holds to O(δ) and that wrap-around error is minimized sufficiently for the optimal control problem to remain accurate across rebalancing dates.

What would settle it

A side-by-side computation of expected lifetime utility or sustainable withdrawal rate with and without the 50 percent equity cap that shows a material drop in performance would falsify the efficiency claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17744 by George Labahn, Peter A. Forsyth.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of withdrawal controls. It is convenient to consider the two cases 𝑏 ≥ 0 and 𝑏 ≤ 0 separately. For 𝑏 ≥ 0, we solve 𝑣˜𝑡 + (𝜎 𝑠 ) 2 𝑠 2 2 𝑣˜𝑠𝑠 + (𝜇 𝑠 − 𝜆 𝑠 𝜉 𝛾 𝑠 𝜉 )𝑠𝑣˜𝑠 + 𝜆 𝑠 𝜉 ∫ +∞ −∞ 𝑣˜(𝑒 𝑦 𝑠, 𝑏, 𝑡) 𝑓 𝑠 (𝑦) 𝑑𝑦 + (𝜎 𝑏 ) 2𝑏 2 2 𝑣˜𝑏𝑏 + (𝜇 𝑏 − 𝜆 𝑏 𝜉 𝛾 𝑏 𝜉 )𝑏𝑣˜𝑏 + 𝜆 𝑏 𝜉 ∫ +∞ −∞ 𝑣˜(𝑠, 𝑒𝑦 𝑏, 𝑡) 𝑓 𝑏 (𝑦) 𝑑𝑦 − (𝜆 𝑠 𝜉 + 𝜆 𝑏 𝜉 )𝑣˜ + 𝜌𝑠𝑏𝜎 𝑠𝜎 𝑏 𝑠𝑏𝑣˜𝑠𝑏 = 0 , 𝑏 ≥ 0, 𝑠 ≥ 0 . (23) When 𝑏 < 0, it is convenient to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the EW-ES efficient frontiers, computed using various grid sizes. The grid here refers to the grid for 𝑏 > 0. There is an additional grid (of the same size) for 𝑏 < 0. The optimal control is computed and stored, using the 𝛿-monotone PIDE method. Statistics are then generated using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, using the stored optimal controls, with 2.56 × 106 MC simulations being used. More precisel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Δ𝑥1Δ𝑥2 ∑︁ ( 𝑗,𝑘) ∈D†−D |𝑔˜ † 𝑗,𝑘 | < 10−14 . (59) Note that Δ𝑥1Δ𝑥2 ∑︁ ( 𝑗,𝑘) ∈D† |𝑔˜ † 𝑗,𝑘 | ≤ 1 + 𝛿 ≃ 1 with 𝛿 given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of maximum leverage constraint 𝑝max, synthetic market. Real stock index: deflated real capitalization weighted CRSP, real bond index: deflated 30 day T-bills. Scenario in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 𝑝max = 1.3. Heat map of the controls: fraction in stocks and withdrawals, computed using Algorithm 2. Real capitalization weighted CRSP index, and real 30-day T-bills. Scenario given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 𝑝max = 1.0. Heat map of the controls. 𝜅 = 0.8860, 𝐸𝑊 = 50.7, 𝐸𝑆 = 4.6. Other information as in caption for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 𝑝max = 0.5. Heat map of the controls. 𝜅 = 1.0, 𝐸𝑊 ≃ 50.2, 𝐸𝑆 = 1.25. Other information as in caption for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 𝑝max = 1.3. Percentiles of the controls. Scenario in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 𝑝max = 1.0. Percentiles of the controls. 𝐸𝑊 ≃ 50.7, 𝐸𝑆 = 4.6 (𝜅 = 0.8860). Other information as in caption for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 𝑝max = 0.5. Percentiles of the controls. 𝐸𝑊 = 50.2, 𝐸𝑆 = 1.25 (𝜅 = 1.0). Other information as in caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Optimal controls were computed using the synthetic market model. These controls tested using bootstrapped historical data. Expected blocksizes (years) shown. 106 bootstrap resamples. Real stock index: deflated real capitalization weighted CRSP, real bond index: deflated 30 day T-bills. Scenario in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 𝑝max = 1.3. Percentiles of the controls. 𝐸𝑊 = 51.7, 𝐸𝑆 = 19 (𝜅 = 0.8583). Median withdrawal at 𝑞max at year 3.0. Bootstrap results. Scenario in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 𝑝max = 0.5. Percentiles of the controls. Bootstrap results. 𝐸𝑊 = 50.3, 𝐸𝑆 = 6.7 (𝜅 = 1.0). Median withdrawal at 𝑞max at year 4.0. Other information as in caption to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The decumulation of a defined contribution (DC) pension plan is well known to be one of the hardest problems in finance. We model this decumulation challenge as an optimal stochastic control problem. The control problem is solved, at each rebalancing date, by alternatively solving a linear partial-integro differential equation (PIDE) followed by an optimization step. We solve the PIDE by using a $\delta$-monotone Fourier method, which ensures that monotonicity holds to $O(\delta)$. We allow for the use of leverage (i.e. borrowing to invest in stocks), as well as minimum constraints on bond holdings. We pay particular attention to minimizing wrap-around error, an issue which is endemic for Fourier methods and central to the effective use of these methods for optimal control problems. Rather unexpectedly, we find that restricting the portfolio equity fraction to a maximum of 50\% does not reduce portfolio efficiency noticeably. This may be a useful strategy for risk-averse retirees.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates decumulation of a defined-contribution pension as a stochastic control problem and solves it by alternating a linear PIDE solve with an optimization step at each rebalancing date. The PIDE is discretized via a δ-monotone Fourier method that guarantees monotonicity to O(δ) while paying explicit attention to wrap-around error reduction; leverage and bond-floor constraints are admitted. The central empirical result is that capping the equity weight at 50 % produces no noticeable loss in efficiency relative to the unconstrained optimum.

Significance. If the numerical controls are faithful, the work supplies both a practical rule of thumb for risk-averse retirees and a concrete illustration of how monotonicity-preserving Fourier schemes can be made reliable for optimal-control problems. The explicit treatment of wrap-around error and the O(δ) monotonicity guarantee are genuine technical strengths that address well-known failure modes of Fourier methods in control settings.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Numerical scheme): the manuscript asserts that the δ-monotone Fourier discretization plus wrap-around mitigation is sufficient for the subsequent argmax step to locate the true optimum, yet no quantitative bound is given on the value-function error relative to the curvature of the objective near the 50 % equity boundary. Without such a bound or a convergence study that perturbs δ and re-solves the control problem, it remains possible that the reported “no noticeable loss” result is an artifact of the discretization rather than a property of the underlying model.
  2. [§4] §4 (Results): the efficiency comparison between the 50 % cap and the unconstrained case is presented only for a single set of parameters and a single rebalancing frequency. A sensitivity table showing how the efficiency gap changes with volatility, risk aversion, or rebalancing interval would be required to support the claim that the cap “does not reduce portfolio efficiency noticeably.”
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] The notation for the Fourier transform and its inverse is introduced without a reference to the precise convention (e.g., sign of the exponent, normalization). Adding a short appendix with the exact transform pair would eliminate ambiguity.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (value-function slices) would benefit from an inset or separate panel that zooms on the region near the 50 % equity boundary so that the reader can visually assess whether the optimum is stable under small perturbations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary of our work and for the detailed, constructive comments. We address each major point below and have incorporated revisions to strengthen the numerical validation and empirical claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Numerical scheme): the manuscript asserts that the δ-monotone Fourier discretization plus wrap-around mitigation is sufficient for the subsequent argmax step to locate the true optimum, yet no quantitative bound is given on the value-function error relative to the curvature of the objective near the 50 % equity boundary. Without such a bound or a convergence study that perturbs δ and re-solves the control problem, it remains possible that the reported “no noticeable loss” result is an artifact of the discretization rather than a property of the underlying model.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on the need for stronger validation of the discretization's effect on the control step. The δ-monotone property together with explicit wrap-around control guarantees that monotonicity is preserved to O(δ), which is the key mechanism preventing the argmax from being misled by discretization artifacts. An explicit a-priori bound linking value-function error to local curvature of the objective would require additional regularity analysis of the HJB equation that lies outside the paper's scope. To directly address the concern, we have added a short convergence study in the revised §3: we re-solved the full control problem at two smaller values of δ and verified that both the location of the optimal equity weight and the efficiency comparison remain unchanged to within the reported precision. These results are now reported in the manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Results): the efficiency comparison between the 50 % cap and the unconstrained case is presented only for a single set of parameters and a single rebalancing frequency. A sensitivity table showing how the efficiency gap changes with volatility, risk aversion, or rebalancing interval would be required to support the claim that the cap “does not reduce portfolio efficiency noticeably.”

    Authors: The manuscript presents the 50 % cap result for a representative parameter set chosen to reflect typical risk-averse retirees, and the finding is offered as a practical rule of thumb rather than a universal claim. We agree that a sensitivity analysis would better substantiate the robustness of the observation. In the revised version we have added a compact sensitivity table in §4 (with an expanded version in the appendix) that varies volatility, risk aversion, and rebalancing frequency. Across the tested range the efficiency gap remains small, supporting the original statement while making the practical implication more transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct numerical solution of stochastic control problem

full rationale

The paper formulates decumulation as a stochastic control problem and solves it numerically by alternating a δ-monotone Fourier discretization of the PIDE with an optimization step at each rebalancing date. The reported observation that a 50% equity cap does not noticeably degrade efficiency is an output of the computed optimal controls, not a quantity fitted to data or defined in terms of itself. No equation or step reduces the central result to its own inputs by construction, and the method description does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain that would make the derivation equivalent to prior assumptions. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the model equations and the chosen numerical scheme.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard assumptions of stochastic control in finance (diffusion processes for assets, utility-based objective) plus the specific numerical properties of the Fourier scheme; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Asset returns follow processes that admit a PIDE representation solvable by Fourier methods
    Invoked when modeling the decumulation as a stochastic control problem solved via PIDE.
  • domain assumption The δ-monotone property holds to order O(δ) and wrap-around error can be controlled to preserve optimality
    Central to the numerical method choice and accuracy claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5702 in / 1404 out tokens · 31054 ms · 2026-05-20T01:10:17.066277+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wood, and J

    Alonso-Garcca, J., O. Wood, and J. Ziveyi (2018). Pricing and hedging guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits under a general L \'e vy framework using the COS method. Quantitative Finance\/ 18 , 1049--1075

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Cederburg, and M

    Anarkulova, A., S. Cederburg, and M. S. O'Doherty (2022). Stocks for the long run? Evidence from a broad sample of developed markets. Journal of Financial Economics\/ 143:1 , 409--433

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Cederburg, M

    Anarkulova, A., S. Cederburg, M. S. O'Doherty, and R. W. Sias (2025). The safe withdrawal rate: Evidence from a broad sample of developed markets. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance\/ 24:3 , 464--500

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Barles, G. and P. Souganidis (1991). Convergence of approximation schemes for fully nonlinear equations. Asymptotic Analysis\/ 4 , 271--283

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    Bengen, W. (1994). Determining withdrawal rates using historical data. Journal of Financial Planning\/ 7 , 171--180

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    Khapko, and A

    Bjork, T., M. Khapko, and A. Murgoci (2021). Time inconsistent control theory with finance applications . New York: Springer Finance

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Scott, K

    Cavaglia, S., L. Scott, K. Blay, and S. Hixon (2022). Multi-asset class factor premia: A strategic asset allocation perspective. The Journal of Portfolio Management\/ 48:9 , 14--32

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Shirazi, P

    Chen, M., M. Shirazi, P. A. Forsyth, and Y. Li (2025). Machine learning and H amilton- J acobi- B ellman equation for optimal decumulation: a comparison study. Journal of Computational Finance\/ 29:1 , 77--118

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Cogneau, P. and V. Zakalmouline (2013). Block bootstrap methods and the choice of stocks for the long run. Quantitative Finance\/ 13 , 1443--1457

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Cont, R. and C. Mancini (2011). Nonparametric tests for pathwise properties of semimartingales. Bernoulli\/ 17 , 781--813

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Cui, X., D. Li, X. Qiao, and M. Strub (2022). Risk and potential: An asset allocation framework with applications to robo-advising. Journal of the Operations Research Society of China\/ 10 , 529--558

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Dang, D.-M. and P. A. Forsyth (2016). Better than pre-commitment mean-variance portfolio allocation strategies: a semi-self-financing Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation approach. European Journal of Operational Research\/ 250 , 827--841

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Drobetz, and M

    Dichtl, H., W. Drobetz, and M. Wambach (2016). Testing rebalancing strategies for stock-bond portfolios across different asset allocations. Applied Economics\/ 48 , 772--788

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Fang, F. and C. Oosterlee (2008). A novel pricing method for European options based on Fourier cosine series expansions. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing\/ 31 , 826--848

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Fang, F. and C. Oosterlee (2009). Pricing early-exercise and discrete barrier options by Fourier cosine series expansions. Numerische Mathematik\/ 114 , 27--62

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Forsyth, P. and G. Labahn (2019). - Monotone Fourier methods for optimal stochastic control in finance. Journal of Computational Finance\/ 22:4 , 25--71

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Forsyth, P. A. (2020a). Multi-period mean CVAR asset allocation: Is it advantageous to be time consistent? SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics\/ 11:2 , 358--384

    work page

  18. [18]

    Forsyth, P. A. (2020b). Optimal dynamic asset allocation for DC plan accumulation/decumulation: Ambition-CVAR . Insurance: Mathematics and Economics\/ 93 , 230--245

    work page

  19. [19]

    Forsyth, P. A. (2022). A stochastic control approach to defined contribution plan decumulation: ``The Nastiest, Hardest Problem in Finance'' . North American Actuarial Journal\/ 26:2 , 227--252

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Forsyth, P. A. and K. R. Vetzal (2019). Optimal asset allocation for retirement savings: deterministic vs. time consistent adaptive strategies. Applied Mathematical Finance\/ 26:1 , 1--37

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Forsyth, P. A., K. R. Vetzal, and G. Westmacott (2020). Optimal asset allocation for a DC pension decumulation with a variable spending rule. ASTIN Bulletin\/ 50:2 , 419--447

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Forsyth, P. A., K. R. Vetzal, and G. Westmacott (2022). Optimal control of the decumulation of a retirement portfolio with variable spending and dynamic asset allocation. ASTIN Bulletin\/ 51:3 , 905--938

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Garroni, M. G. and J. L. Menaldi (1992). Green functions for second order parabolic integro-differential problems . New York: Longman Scientific

    work page 1992

  24. [24]

    Ga , M., K. Grau, M. Mahlstedt, and M. Mair (2018). Chebyshev interpolation for parametric option pricing. Finance and Stochastics\/ 22 , 701--731

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Mahlstedt, and C

    Glau, K., M. Mahlstedt, and C. Potz (2019). A new approach for American option pricing: the dynamic Chebyshev method. Siam Journal on Scientific Computing\/ 41 , B153--B180

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Song, and J

    Ignatieva, K., A. Song, and J. Ziveyi (2018). Fourier space timestepping algorithm for valuing guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits in variable annuities under regime switching and stochastic mortality. ASTIN Bulletin\/ 48 , 139–169

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Kou, S. G. (2002). A jump-diffusion model for option pricing. Management Science\/ 48 , 1086--1101

    work page 2002

  28. [28]

    Kou, S. G. and H. Wang (2004). Option pricing under a double exponential jump diffusion model. Management Science\/ 50 , 1178--1192

    work page 2004

  29. [29]

    Li, Y. and P. Forsyth (2019). A data-driven neural network approach to optimal asset allocation for target based defined contribution pension plans. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics\/ 86 , 189--204

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    MacMinn, and R

    Lin, Y., R. MacMinn, and R. Tian (2015). De-risking defined benefit plans. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics\/ 63 , 52--65

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Lippa, J. (2013). A Fourier space time-stepping approach to problems in finance. MMath thesis, University of Waterloo

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Jones, R

    MacDonald, B.-J., B. Jones, R. J. Morrison, R. L. Brown, and M. Hardy (2013). Research and reality: A literature review on drawing down retirement financial savings. North American Actuarial Journal\/ 17 , 181--215

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Brockett, J

    MacMinn, R., P. Brockett, J. Wang, Y. Lin, and R. Tian (2014). The securitization of longevity risk and its implications for retirement security. In O. S. Mitchell, R. Maurer, and P. B. Hammond (Eds.), Recreating Sustainable Retirement , pp.\ 134--160. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Mancini, C. (2009). Non-parametric threshold estimation models with stochastic diffusion coefficient and jumps. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics\/ 36 , 270--296

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Menoncin, F. and E. Vigna (2017). Mean-variance target based optimisation for defined contribution pension schemes in a stochastic framework. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics\/ 76 , 172--184

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Politis, and H

    Patton, A., D. Politis, and H. White (2009). Correction to: automatic block-length selection for the dependent bootstrap. Econometric Reviews\/ 28 , 372--375

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    Nijman, and B

    Peijnenburg, K., T. Nijman, and B. J. Werker (2016). The annuity puzzle remains a puzzle. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control\/ 70 , 18--35

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Pfeiffer, S., J. R. Salter, and H. E. Evensky (2013). Increasing the sustainable withdrawal rate using the standby reverse mortgage. Journal of Financial Planning\/ 26:12 , 55--62

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    Politis, D. and J. Romano (1994). The stationary bootstrap. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 89 , 1303--1313

    work page 1994

  40. [40]

    Politis, D. and H. White (2004). Automatic block-length selection for the dependent bootstrap. Econometric Reviews\/ 23 , 53--70

    work page 2004

  41. [41]

    Ritholz, B. (2017). Tackling the `nastiest, hardest problem in finance'. www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-05/tackling-the-nastiest-hardest-problem-in-finance

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Rockafellar, R. T. and S. Uryasev (2000). Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. Journal of Risk\/ 2 , 21--42

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    Ruijter, M. J., C. W. Oosterlee, and R. Albers (2013). On the Fourier cosine series expansion method for stochastic control problems. Numerical Linear Algebra and Applications\/ 20 , 598--625

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    Shefrin, H. M. and R. H. Thaler (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry\/ 26 , 609--643

    work page 1988

  45. [45]

    Simonian, J. and A. Martirosyan (2022). Sharpe parity redux. The Journal of Portfolio Management\/ 48:9 , 183--193

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Strub, M., D. Li, X. Cui, and J. Gao (2019). Discrete-time mean-CVaR portfolio selection and time-consistency induced term structure of the CVaR . Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control\/ 108 . Article 103751 (electronic)

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Global pension assets study 2024

    Thinking Ahead Institute (2024). Global pension assets study 2024. https://www.thinkingaheadinstitute.org/content/uploads/2024/02/GPAS-2024.pdf

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    M., D.-M

    Van Staden, P. M., D.-M. Dang, and P. Forsyth (2018). Time-consistent mean-variance portfolio optimization: a numerical impulse control approach. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics\/ 83 , 9--28

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Van Staden , P. M., P. A. Forsyth, and Y. Li (2023). Beating a benchmark: dynamic programming may not be the right numerical approach. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics\/ 14\/ (2), 407--451

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Van Staden , P. M., P. A. Forsyth, and Y. Li (2024). A global-in-time neural network approach to dynamic portfolio optimization. Applied Mathematical Finance\/ 31:3 , 131--163

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Vigna, E. (2014). On efficiency of mean-variance based portfolio selection in defined contribution pension schemes. Quantitative Finance\/ 14 , 237--258

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Vigna, E. (2022). Tail optimality and preferences consistency for intertemporal optimization problems. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics\/ 13\/ (1), 295--320

    work page 2022