{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03300970873786408, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011650485436893204, 'mean_word_length': 5.325153374233129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of the Mean-Variance-Leverage Optimization Model and the Markowitz General Mean-Variance Portfolio Selection Model

The mean-variance-leverage (MVL) optimization model (Jacobs and Levy 2012, 2013a) tackles an issue not dealt with by the mean-variance optimization inherent in the general mean-variance portfolio selection model (GPSM) — that is, the impact on investor utility of the risks that are unique to using leverage. Relying on leverage constraints with a conventional GPSM, as is commonly done today, is unlikely to lead to the portfolio offering a leverage-averse investor the highest utility. But investors can use the MVL model to find optimal portfolios that balance expected return, volatility risk, and leverage risk. The MVL model has intuitive appeal and offers straightforward implementation for portfolio selection. In contrast, practical use of a broader application of GPSM, as suggested by Markowitz (2013), is dependent on successful future development of a stochastic margin-call model (SMCM).