RESUMO
Robust optimization (RO) models have attracted a lot of interest in the area of portfolio selection. RO extends the framework of traditional portfolio optimization models, incorporating uncertainty through a formal and analytical approach into the modeling process. Although several RO models have been proposed in the literature, comprehensive empirical assessments of their performance are rather lacking. The objective of this study is to fill in this gap in the literature. To this end, we consider different types of RO models based on popular risk measures and conduct an extensive comparative analysis of their performance using data from the US market during the period 2005-2020. For the analysis, two different robust versions of the mean-variance model are considered, together with robust models for conditional value-at-risk and the Omega ratio. The robust versions are compared against the nominal ones through various portfolio performance metrics, focusing on out-of-sample results.
