Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Borsa _Istanbul Review

_
Borsa Istanbul Review 19-2 (2019) 132e138
http://www.elsevier.com/journals/borsa-istanbul-review/2214-8450

Full Length Article

Risk, return and portfolio optimization for various industries in the ASEAN
region
Duc Hong Vo a,*, Thach Ngoc Pham a, Trung Thanh Vu Pham b, Loc Minh Truong c,
Thang Cong Nguyen a
a
Business and Economics Research Group, Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Viet Nam
b
Curtin University, Australia
c
Vietnam-the Netherlands Economics Program, Viet Nam
Received 20 May 2018; revised 27 September 2018; accepted 28 September 2018
Available online 3 October 2018

Abstract

This paper examines risk, return and portfolio diversification at the industry level in four member countries of the ASEAN for which required
data are available: Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. Market indices are examined for 10 industries from 2007 to 2016, comprising
different economic periods, including 2007e2009 (crisis), 2010e2012 (post-crisis), and 2013e2016 (normal). Conditional value at risk is used
to measure extreme risk. The Markowitz's risk-return framework is utilized to determine the optimal weight of industries in the portfolio.
Findings suggest that, overall, the health-care industry should be given priority and importance as a sector with a dominant role in Vietnam, as
this sector experiences the lowest extreme risk, earns the highest returns, and has become the second-largest contributor to the portfolio, which
includes all sectors of the economy. Similar findings emerge for Singapore and Malaysia. However, in Thailand the industry in first place is
consumer services.
_
Copyright © 2018, Borsa Istanbul Anonim Şirketi. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

JEL code: G11; G12; G15

Keywords: ASEAN; CVaR; Portfolio optimization; Returns; Risks

1. Introduction an answer to the vital question of how investors should allo-

Academic studies related to risks and returns at the industry
level generally provide useful information for many stake-
holders. In particular, the information could help bankers to
establish appropriate lending and borrowing strategies and
investors to determine the risk premium and corresponding
returns for each industry. This information also supports policy
makers in employing timely policies for industrial growth.
Among the most fundamental risk-return models, the theory of
portfolio selection developed by Markowitz (1952) provides
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: duc.vhong@ou.edu.vn (D.H. Vo).
_
Peer review under responsibility of Borsa Istanbul Anonim Şirketi.
cate their funds among assets to generate an efficient portfolio.
Generally, after quantifying risks and returns, the theory sug-
gests that investors consider various combinations on the basis
of the risk-return trade-off. In previous studies on the issue, the
standard deviation or variance is used to measure risk.
Among several other risk measures that have been devel-
oped, value at risk (VaR) has become one of the most common
financial risk measurements since its introduction by Risk-
Metrics and practical adoption by the Basel Committee. VaR
measures the expected maximum loss of an asset/portfolio that
may be incurred at a specified threshold a for a selected time
horizon t. However, some limitations of VaR are pointed out in
previous studies. For example, Artzner, Delbaen, Eber, and
Heath (1999) and Embrechts, Resnick, and Samorodnitsky

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2018.09.003
_
2214-8450/Copyright © 2018, Borsa Istanbul Anonim Şirketi. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 _
D.H. Vo et al. / Borsa Istanbul Review 19-2 (2019) 132e138
(1999) argue that VaR is not a coherent risk measure because it
does not satisfy the sub-additivity property. In addition, when
VaR is applied in the minimization function of a portfolio, the
results can generate multiple local minimizers (Rockafellar &
Uryasev, 2002). Also, the losses beyond the threshold cannot
be captured by a VaR measure (Choudhry & Wong, 2013;
Yamai & Yoshiba, 2005).
An alternative measure of VaR, conditional value at risk
(CVaR), is derived and has proved to be a coherent market risk
with desirable properties (Acerbi & Tasche, 2002; Pflug,
2000). For a given threshold a and a selected time horizon t,
CVaR is the conditional expected losses that exceed VaR. Both
VaR and CVaR have attracted much attention from academics,
who have applied it widely in many research areas, including
commodity markets (Powell, Vo, & Pham, 2018; Powell, Vo,
Pham, & Singh, 2017), stock markets (Gencay & Selcuk,
2004; Mensi, Shahzad, Hammoudeh, Zeitun, & Rehman,
2017), oil markets (Marimoutou, Raggad, & Trabelsi, 2009),
and derivatives markets (Barone Adesi, 2016; Chang,
Jimenez-Martín, McAleer, & Perez-Amaral, 2011). Another
stream of research related to CVaR focuses on incorporating
CVaR as a risk measure in the objective function of portfolio
optimization (Alexander, Coleman, & Li, 2006; Lim,
Shanthikumar, & Vahn, 2011; Rockafellar & Uryasev, 2000,
2002).
The objective of this paper is to examine risk, returns, and
portfolio optimization, with the application of CVaR at the
industry level in the context of member countries of the As-
sociation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) over different
periods. Because the capital market in ASEAN is increasingly
integrated, this study explores two research questions. First,
are the relative rankings of risk, returns, and the contribution
of industries in the portfolio similar among ASEAN countries?
Second, did these sectoral relative rankings change during the
global financial crisis (GFC), the post-GFC, and the non-crisis
periods?
Following this Introduction, this paper is structured as
follows. Section 2 briefly discusses theories related to portfolio
selection as well as selected previous academic studies on the
topic. Section 3 presents the research methodology, including
a measurement of risks, returns, ranking strategy, and neces-
sary data for the analysis. Section 4 discusses our empirical
findings, followed by concluding remarks in Section 5.
2. Literature review
Since the introduction of modern portfolio theory by
Markowitz (1952), several studies have been conducted to
apply and improve the theory. In relation to portfolio selection,
Do, Bhatti, and Konya (2016) show that various methodolo-
gies have been used, such as the intertemporal capital asset
pricing model (Merton, 1973), dynamic mean-variance models
(Grubel, 1968), the security market line benchmark (Mayers &
Rice, 1979), incorporating Bayesian framework into an asset
pricing model (Pastor, 2000), a vector autoregressive model
(Barberis, 2000), and an autoregressive integrated moving
average model (Hui, 2005).
133
Another research stream examines portfolio selection using
the VaR framework (Al Janabi, 2014; G. J.; Alexander &
Baptista, 2002; Campbell, Huisman, & Koedijk, 2001; Chen
& Yu, 2013). In particular, Campbell et al. (2001) develop a
model that maximizes the expected return given the downside
risk, measured by VaR, and applied to US stocks and bonds.
They show that when the expected returns follow a normal
distribution, the mean-variance and mean-VaR approaches
yielded almost identical results. Also, the effects of a non-
normal distribution of returns and the length of the invest-
ment period on portfolio optimization are also highlighted.
The economic implications of using the mean-VaR framework
is examined by Alexander and Baptista (2002), and their re-
sults suggest that the optimal portfolio may contain a higher
standard deviation if VaR is used to measure risk. Given the
heavy tail distribution of market risk factors, Chen and Yu
(2013) propose a nonlinear model to compute and compare
the VaR values of an option portfolio. Results from various
methods show that risk factors with a multivariate mixture of
normal distribution tend to generate a more accurate VaR.
Some literature studies the application of CVaR in portfolio
optimization. Alexander et al. (2006) examine 196 derivative
instruments in European options, including vanilla calls, va-
nilla puts, binary calls, and binary puts. Results of a Monte
Carlo simulation illustrate that minimizing VaR and CVaR for
derivatives portfolios could lead to infinite outcomes if the
deltaegamma approximations are used to calculate derivative
values. Other methods, including analytic formulas, numerical
partial differential equations, or Monte Carlo methods, also
generate many portfolio solutions with a similar CVaR/VaR.
Allen, Kramadibrata, Powell, and Singh (2012) investigate the
application of CVaR to the global mining industry with a
sample of seven key markets: Australia, Canada, China,
Russia, South Africa, South America, and the US. Using data
on ten years of daily prices in 161 companies, the study uses a
historical approach at the 95 percent confidence level to
calculate CVaR. Data are divided into two separate period-
sdlow volatility (2000e2006) and high volatility
(2007e2009)dto explore the effect of the global financial
crisis (GFC). Findings in this study demonstrate that the
optimal weightings of individual markets change over
different research periods. In addition, the results obtained
using the CVaR as optimizer are different from those obtained
through the traditional mean-variance approach.
In the context of portfolio optimization using a mean-CVaR
framework, Allen and Powell (2011) and Akyuwen, Boffey,
Powell, and Wijaya (2017) focus their studies on relative in-
dustrial risk in Australia and Indonesia, respectively, across
various economic circumstances. In the context of Australia,
Allen and Powell (2011) use VaR and CVaR to measure
extreme risk and conduct optimization over two different pe-
riods, before and during the GFC. The variance-covariance (or
parametric) approach is applied to calculate VaR and CVaR. In
addition, their nonparametric testing includes Spearman rank
correlation, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to confirm the
association between relative risk rankings across research
periods. Findings from this study indicate changes in relative
134
D.H. Vo et al. / Borsa Istanbul Review 19-2 (2019) 132e138
sectoral risk before and during the GFC. Also, the optimal
outcomes of industries indicate some differences when CVaR
is used in comparison to VaR. They find no association be-
tween the two periods. Using a dataset for the 2004e2011
period, together with 217 stocks listed on the Indonesia Stock
Exchange, Akyuwen et al. (2017) conclude that, although
consumer discretionary spending and consumer staples have
similarities in terms of optimal weights over various periods,
other industries, such as agriculture and diversified financials,
have differences. Moreover, the historical and parametric ap-
proaches used to measure VaR and CVaR have the similar
outcomes. However, in contrast to findings by Allen and
Powell (2011), the optimal results obtained from VaR and
CVaR show some similarities.
From a different angle, Basak and Shapiro (2001) analyze
optimal, dynamic portfolios and wealth/consumption policies
of utility-maximizing investors, who must also manage their
exposure to market risk using VaR. Findings from this study
indicate that VaR risk managers often optimally choose a
larger exposure to risky assets than non-risk managers. As a
consequence, these VaR risk managers incur larger losses
when losses occur.
In a similar manner, Jang and Park (2016) incorporate a
VaR constraint on a fund manager's wealth and ambiguity.
Their study employs a model of optimal portfolio choice for
fund managers who allocate wealth between high-risk and
low-risk assets. Findings from this study indicate that when a
fund manager controls asset composition, her reactions differ
with respect to an increase in only risk aversion and only
ambiguity aversion.
3. Methodology and data
3.1. Data
Our data come from Datastream, including daily indices on
ten industries for each country: basic materials, consumer
goods, consumer services, finance, health care, industry, oil
and gas, technology, telecommunications, and utilities. The
research period is 2007e2016. Because this period includes
the GFC, it is also divided into subperiods: during the crisis
(2007e2009), after the crisis (2010e2012), and the non-crisis
period (2013e2016).
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Returns
For each industry, returns are measured by the average of
all daily log returns for each year of the period researched.
3.2.2. Risk
In this study, risk is measured using CVaR to capture the
extreme risk of the distribution, rather than standard deviation
or VaR. By definition, CVaR is conditional expected losses
that exceed VaR. In other words, CVaR is calculated by the
average of the return beyond VaR. The two most common
methods to calculate VaR, and the corresponding CVaR, are
_
the parametric method and the historical method. For the
parametric method, assuming that assets' returns follow a
normal distribution, VaR is obtained by multiplying the stan-
dard deviation of returns by the relevant confidence factor
(e.g., 1.645 for the 95 percent and 2.33 for the 99 percent
confidence level). VaR from the historical approach is the
return at the selected confidence level with returns sorted in
ascending order from highest to lowest (e.g., VaR 95 percent is
the 95th worst return). Because a stock may experience a fat
tail distribution during the GFC, this study uses the historical
approach to calculate CVaR, as in recent prior studies (Allen
et al., 2012; Powell et al., 2017, 2018). Accordingly, histori-
cal CVaR 95 percent is the average of 5 percent returns that
exceed VaR 95 percent.
3.2.3. Optimization
Portfolio optimization was first developed by Markowitz
(1952) in modern portfolio theory. The theory presents the
efficient frontier, which illustrates various combinations of
maximum portfolio return given each level of risk, or mini-
mum portfolio risk for each return level. With variance (or
standard deviation) as a risk measure, portfolio returns and
risk are calculated after taking into account the correlation
between assets' returns. On the basis of the variance-return
framework, the optimization process is obtained by changing
combinations of assets with the objective function to maxi-
mize the portfolio returns or to minimize the portfolio risk.
The minimization objective is described as follows:
X
n X
n
min si;k xi xk ð1Þ
i¼1 k¼1
Subject to:
X
n
xi ¼ 1 ð2Þ
i¼1
X
n
ri xi ¼ rp ð3Þ
i¼1
0  xi ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n ð4Þ
where xi are asset weights, ri is the assets' rate of return, and
si;k is the covariance between returns on assets i and k. Total
weights of assets are 100 percent while the weight for any
individual asset cannot be negative, and the weighted average
expected return of the portfolio equals a predetermined level
rp .
In this paper, 10 industries are used to form the market
portfolio for a country. CVaR is used as a risk measure to form
the CVaR-return framework, rather than the variance-return or
VaR-return frontiers. Allen and Powell (2011) consider that if
returns follow a normal distribution, the VaR-return and the
variance-return frameworks provide similar optimal outcomes
because VaR is derived from the variance. However, CVaR
considers the actual losses beyond VaR and as such forms a
different optimal combination of assets than the variance-
 _
D.H. Vo et al. / Borsa Istanbul Review 19-2 (2019) 132e138 135

return framework. Accordingly, CVaR is applied to calculate a Table 2

variance-covariance matrix to account for the correlation be- Average CVaR for each sector in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore,
2007e2016, in percent.
tween assets. The CVaR-return efficient frontier is obtained by
minimizing CVaR at a selected level of returns, or: Vietnam Thailand Malaysia Singapore

Xn Basic Materials 2.97 (4) 4.43 (10) 2.33 (9) 5.88 (10)
min CVaRðxÞ; ri x i  rp ð5Þ Consumer Goods 2.64 (2) 3.69 (5) 1.33 (2) 1.86 (3)
i¼1 Consumer Services 3.13 (7) 2.97 (2) 1.92 (5) 1.61 (2)
Financials 3.00 (5) 3.43 (4) 1.28 (1) 1.40 (1)
Healthcare 2.59 (1) 3.82 (6) 0.02 (8) 1.88 (4)
4. Results Industrials 3.53 (8) 3.19 (3) 1.50 (3) 2.32 (6)
Oil & Gas 4.01 (9) 4.29 (9) 1.96 (6) 2.92 (8)
4.1. Return, risk, and optimization Technology 5.01 (10) 3.93 (7) 5.30 (10) 4.80 (9)
Telecoms 3.06 (6) 4.08 (8) 1.55 (4) 2.26 (5)
Utilities 2.78 (3) 2.76 (1) 1.99 (7) 2.89 (7)
Estimated returns and risk, proxied by CVaR, for each in-
dustry over the period from 2007 to 2016 are presented in Max 5.01 4.43 5.30 5.88
Mean 3.27 3.66 2.14 2.78
Tables 1e3. Min 2.59 2.76 1.28 1.40
Table 1 shows differences in both absolute returns and
Note: Values in parentheses are the relative ranking of industries within a
relative rankings of industries across the four countries. First, country.
the average returns for all industries in Vietnam and Singapore
are negative (0.05 percent and 0.01 percent, respectively)
but positive in Thailand and Malaysia (0.03 percent and 0.04 Table 3
Average weight for each sector in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and
percent, respectively). Second, in Vietnam and Thailand the Singapore, 2007e2016, in percent.
health-care sector has the largest returns whereas in Malaysia
Vietnam Thailand Malaysia Singapore
and Singapore the technology sector attracts the highest
returns. In addition, basic materials have the lowest returns in Basic Materials 12.33 (4) 0.07 (10) 1.92 (9) 18.68 (3)
Consumer Goods 16.51 (3) 10.13 (4) 12.79 (3) 9.35 (4)
both Vietnam and Thailand. In Malaysia, industry has the
Consumer Services 7.55 (6) 27.38 (1) 0.00 (10) 0.76 (7)
lowest returns, whereas in Singapore is the industry with the
Financials 0.00 (8) 5.08 (7) 4.49 (7) 7.92 (5)
lowest return is oil and gas.
Healthcare 20.58 (2) 18.84 (2) 25.46 (1) 33.00 (1)
Estimated risks, measured by CVaR, are listed in Table 2. Industrials 0.00 (8) 9.64 (6) 2.65 (8) 0.54 (8)
At the overall level, differences between countries exist in Oil & Gas 0.00 (10) 3.88 (8) 9.98 (6) 0.00 (9)
relation to the relative risk rankings. In Vietnam, the health- Technology 26.96 (1) 13.80 (3) 12.05 (5) 24.29 (2)
care sector appears to be the best industry, with the lowest Telecoms 9.14 (5) 1.22 (9) 17.90 (2) 5.45 (6)
CVaR (lowest risk). In Thailand, the industry with the lowest Utilities 6.92 (7) 9.96 (5) 12.76 (4) 0.00 (9)
risk is utilities. Finance is the safest sector in Malaysia and Max 26.96 27.38 25.46 33.00
Singapore. In addition, the lowest CVaR estimates in Vietnam Mean 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
and Thailand, at 2.59 percent and 2.76 percent, respectively, Min 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00
are approximately double their counterparts in Malaysia and Note: Values in parentheses represent the relative ranking of industries within
Singapore, at 1.28 percent and 1.40 percent. country.

Table 1
Fig. 1aed illustrate the relationship between extreme risk,
Average daily returns for each sector in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and
Singapore, 2007e2016, in percent. as measured by CVaR, and returns in all 10 industries for each
country in the sample. Overall, it appears that the relationship
Vietnam Thailand Malaysia Singapore
between extreme risk and returns is not consistent across the
Basic Materials 0.29 (10) 0.01 (10) 0.06 (3) 0.02 (2)
four countries. In Vietnam, the correlation coefficient is
Consumer Goods 0.02 (4) 0.04 (3) 0.01 (8) 0.00 (5)
Consumer Services 0.00 (5) 0.06 (2) 0.01 (9) 0.02 (8) 0.0298, with a corresponding R2 of almost zero, which
Financials 0.03 (7) 0.03 (6) 0.01 (7) 0.01 (6) suggests that risks and returns have no relation. This finding
Healthcare 0.03 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.06 (2) 0.01 (3) may imply that the Vietnamese financial market is not yet
Industrials 0.13 (9) 0.03 (5) 0.00 (10) 0.01 (7) mature. As a result, investors appear to take any investment
Oil & Gas 0.12 (8) 0.02 (9) 0.03 (4) 0.08 (10) opportunities available, rather than making a serious exami-
Technology 0.03 (2) 0.03 (4) 0.12 (1) 0.03 (1) nation of risk-return correlation. This view is confirmed by the
Telecoms 0.03 (6) 0.03 (7) 0.03 (5) 0.00 (4) findings in other ASEAN markets, which appear to be more
Utilities 0.02 (3) 0.03 (8) 0.02 (6) 0.06 (9) developed than the Vietnamese market. In Thailand and
Max 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.03 Singapore, the estimated coefficients imply moderate out-
Mean 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.01 comes, with a negative correlation in Thailand (4 ¼ 0.4473),
Min 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.08
and a positive association in Singapore (4 ¼ 0.3036). The
Note: Values in parentheses are the relative ranking of industries within a corresponding R2 values are 0.2001 and 0.0921, respectively.
country. 1 is the highest ranking (the highest return) and 10 is the lowest
ranking (return).
The strongest association (4 ¼ 0.9200) between risks and
136 _
D.H. Vo et al. / Borsa Istanbul Review 19-2 (2019) 132e138

Fig. 1. Correlation between risks and returns.

returns is found in Malaysia. Findings on the relation between Singapore have the same dominant industry as the winner:
risks and returns appear to be similar when standard error, health care. Singapore appears to provide the most advanced
rather than CVaR, is used to measure risk (see Figure S1, services among ASEAN countries and is an attractive desti-
available online). nation for health-care services for residents of other Asian
The study now considers the optimal weight for each in- countries. Vietnam is an emerging market for health care. With
dustry in the four countries. Table 3 presents the findings. The a population of almost 100 million and rising income levels
technology sector contributes the most to the market portfolio over the past 10 years, Vietnam offers health-care services that
in Vietnam, with a weight of 26.96 percent. In Thailand, the attract huge demand among its own people. As a result, in-
highest contribution is from consumer services, with a weight vestment in health care has increased significantly. Wealthy
of 27.38 percent. Albeit at different levels of contribution, Vietnamese families can now afford to use advanced health-
health care is the greatest contributor to the overall market care services provided locally. These observations explain
portfolio in Malaysia and Singapore. why the sector has lower risk (due to stable demand), higher
Now, we examine the best industry in relation to the returns (due to increased demand) and greater investment
combination of risk, returns, and weight in the four ASEAN weight (due to the attractiveness of the sector). In Thailand,
countries. The final ranking of the sector in each country is consumer services are the winner. In Malaysia, telecommu-
based on the ranking of risk, returns, and optimal weight. The nications are also in first place, along with health care.
results are presented in Table 4. Vietnam, Malaysia, and
4.2. Subperiod results
Table 4
Combination of risk, returns, and weight.
We now examine the best industry in each country, broken
down by subperiod: the GFC period (2007e2009), the post-
Vietnam Thailand Malaysia Singapore
GFC period (2010e2012), and a normal period
Basic Materials 6.0 (6) 10.0 (10) 7.0 (8) 5.0 (5) (2013e2016) (see Table S1, Table S2, and Table S3, available
Consumer Goods 3.0 (2) 4.0 (3) 4.3 (3) 4.0 (2)
online). Consumer services are the best-performing sector in
Consumer Services 6.0 (6) 1.7 (1) 8.0 (10) 5.7 (7)
Thailand, a finding that is consistent over the three periods
Financials 6.7 (8) 5.7 (7) 5.0 (4) 4.0 (2)
considered (see Table S4, available online). However, in
Healthcare 1.3 (1) 3.0 (2) 3.7 (1) 2.7 (1)
Vietnam and Malaysia, the sectoral winner changes across
Industrials 8.3 (9) 4.7 (4) 7.0 (8) 7.0 (8)
Oil & Gas 9.0 (10) 8.7 (9) 5.3 (5) 9.0 (10) these periods. In Vietnam, the industry in first place switches
Technology 4.3 (3) 4.7 (4) 5.3 (5) 4.0 (2) from health care in the post-crisis period to basic materials in
Telecoms 5.7 (5) 8.0 (8) 3.7 (1) 5.0 (5) the non-crisis (normal) period. In Malaysia, telecommunica-
Utilities 4.3 (3) 4.7 (4) 5.7 (7) 8.3 (9) tions come in first during the post-crisis period, but health care
Note: Values in parentheses represent the relative ranking of industries within plays the dominant role in the non-crisis period. Singapore
country.
 _
D.H. Vo et al. / Borsa Istanbul Review 19-2 (2019) 132e138
does not have sufficient data for a complete analysis so it is
excluded from this analysis.
5. Concluding remarks
Risks and returns are generally considered the key de-
terminants in any investment decision. Estimating returns is
straightforward, whereas various measures have been found as
good proxies for risk. Given its ability to capture extreme risk,
CVaR has attracted great attention, including its application in
the context of the Markowitz optimization function. This
paper examines the risk, returns, and optimal weight in the
market portfolio at the industry/sector level in four ASEAN
countries over different periods from 2007 to 2016. In this
study, the first of its kind on ASEAN member countries, CVaR
is used to estimate extreme risk at the industry level.
Findings from this study suggest that the best-performing
industry varies across Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and
Singapore during the research period. In particular, health care
plays a dominant role among all 10 industries in Vietnam and
Singapore. Consumer services are in first place in Thailand
and Malaysia. In Malaysia, telecommunications are also the
best-performing sector, together with consumer services. Even
across the three periods, consumer services are in first place
whereas in Vietnam and Malaysia, the first-place industries
change over time.
Findings in this study provide additional evidence for
policy makers to formulate relevant economic policies that
take advantage of the relative strengths of various sectors in
their national economies. In the context of the Comprehensive
and Progressive Agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership in
which most of the ASEAN member countries in this study
sample participate, relevant and appropriate economic policies
are extremely important.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by Ho Chi Minh City Open
University, Vietnam, [Grant E2017.12.020.2. dated 11 October
2017]
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2018.09.003.
References
Acerbi, C., & Tasche, D. (2002). Expected shortfall: A natural coherent
alternative to value at risk. Economic Notes, 31(2), 379e388.
Akyuwen, R., Boffey, R. R., Powell, R. J., & Wijaya, K. (2017). Optimizing
the industry mix of Indonesian portfolios. KINERJA, 18(2), 101e114.
137
Al Janabi, M. A. (2014). Optimal and investable portfolios: An empirical
analysis with scenario optimization algorithms under crisis market pros-
pects. Economic Modelling, 40, 369e381.
Alexander, G. J., & Baptista, A. M. (2002). Economic implications of using a
mean-VaR model for portfolio selection: A comparison with mean-
variance analysis. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26(7e8),
1159e1193.
Alexander, S., Coleman, T. F., & Li, Y. (2006). Minimizing CVaR and VaR for
a portfolio of derivatives. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(2), 583e605.
Allen, D., Kramadibrata, A., Powell, R., & Singh, A. (2012). Conditional value
at risk applications to the global mining industry. Journal of Business and
Policy Research, 7(3), 11e23.
Allen, D., & Powell, R. (2011). Measuring and optimising extreme sectoral
risk in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Economics and Business, 15(1),
1e14.
Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J. M., & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent measures of
risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203e228.
Barberis, N. (2000). Investing for the long run when returns are predictable.
Journal of Finance, 55(1), 225e264.
Barone Adesi, G. (2016). VaR and CVaR implied in option prices. Journal of
Risk and Financial Management, 9(1), 2e7.
Basak, S., & Shapiro, A. (2001). Value-at-risk-based risk management: Optimal
policies and asset prices. Review of Financial Studies, 14(2), 371e405.
Campbell, R., Huisman, R., & Koedijk, K. (2001). Optimal portfolio selection
in a Value-at-Risk framework. Journal of Banking & Finance, 25(9),
1789e1804.
Chang, C.-L., Jimenez-Martín, J.-A.,  McAleer, M., & Perez-Amaral, T.
(2011). Risk management of risk under the basel accord: Forecasting
value-at-risk of VIX futures. Managerial Finance, 37(11), 1088e1106.
Chen, R., & Yu, L. (2013). A novel nonlinear value-at-risk method for
modeling risk of option portfolio with multivariate mixture of normal
distributions. Economic Modelling, 35, 796e804.
Choudhry, M., & Wong, M. (2013). An introduction to value-at-risk. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Do, H. Q., Bhatti, M. I., & Konya, L. (2016). On ASEAN capital market and
industry integration: A review. Corporate Ownership and Control, 2(1),
8e23.
Embrechts, P., Resnick, S. I., & Samorodnitsky, G. (1999). Extreme value theory
as a risk management tool. North American Actuarial Journal, 3(2), 30e41.
Gencay, R., & Selcuk, F. (2004). Extreme value theory and value-at-risk:
Relative performance in emerging markets. International Journal of
Forecasting, 20(2), 287e303.
Grubel, H. G. (1968). Internationally diversified portfolios: Welfare gains and
capital flows. American Economic Review, 58(5), 1299e1314.
Hui, T.-K. (2005). Portfolio diversification: A factor analysis approach.
Applied Financial Economics, 15(12), 821e834.
Jang, B., & Park, S. (2016). Ambiguity and optimal portfolio choice with
value-at-risk constraint. Finance Research Letters, 18(2016), 158e176.
Lim, A. E., Shanthikumar, J. G., & Vahn, G.-Y. (2011). Conditional value-at-
risk in portfolio optimization: Coherent but fragile. Operations Research
Letters, 39(3), 163e171.
Marimoutou, V., Raggad, B., & Trabelsi, A. (2009). Extreme value theory and
value at risk: Application to oil market. Energy Economics, 31(4), 519e530.
Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77e91.
Mayers, D., & Rice, E. M. (1979). Measuring portfolio performance and the
empirical content of asset pricing models. Journal of Financial Economics,
7(1), 3e28.
Mensi, W., Shahzad, S. J. H., Hammoudeh, S., Zeitun, R., & Rehman, M. U.
(2017). Diversification potential of Asian frontier, BRIC emerging and
major developed stock markets: A wavelet-based value at risk approach.
Emerging Markets Review, 32, 130e147.
Merton, R. C. (1973). An intertemporal capital asset pricing model. Econo-
metrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 41(5), 867e887.
 (2000). Portfolio selection and asset pricing models. Journal of
Pastor, L.
Finance, 55(1), 179e223.
Pflug, G. C. (2000). Some remarks on the value-at-risk and the conditional
value-at-risk. In U. Stanislav (Ed.), Probabilistic constrained optimization
(pp. 272e281). Boston, MA: Springer.
138 _
D.H. Vo et al. / Borsa Istanbul Review 19-2 (2019) 132e138

Powell, R. J., Vo, D. H., & Pham, T. N. (2018). Economic cycles and
downside commodities risk. Applied Economics Letters, 25(4),
258e263.
Powell, R. J., Vo, D. H., Pham, T. N., & Singh, A. K. (2017). The long and
short of commodity tails and their relationship to Asian equity markets.
Journal of Asian Economics, 52, 32e44.
Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2000). Optimization of conditional value-at-
risk. Journal of Risk, 2, 21e42.
Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2002). Conditional value-at-risk for general
loss distributions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1443e1471.
Yamai, Y., & Yoshiba, T. (2005). Value-at-risk versus expected shortfall: A
practical perspective. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(4), 997e1015.