Talk:Financial Portfolio Optimization Methods

Josef: Thank you for an interesting, and already rather detailed, Wiki article.

What I struggle with is the relationship of your article with the management of project portfolios. There are in fact serious limitations to the applicability of financial portfolio theory to project portfolios, for example the assumptions that you can invest/divest into options without changing their risk/return balance, or the assumption that you can actually divest from options ("selling" a failing project will almost always be impossible, as I am not aware of a secondary market for projects). I am not sure how we can "salvage" all the details you have already produced. What I would suggest is to focus on what part of financial portfolio management theory is applicable to project portfolio management, or better, why it is not applicable.

Reviewer 1 – User: s141938

Reviewer 3 – User: s113735

Feedback:

Formal Aspects:

• The article clearly follows the “method or tool” requirement for the wiki article
• I recognize very few spelling errors. Things I were able to find are small mistakes like omitting a word or missing a large letter in the beginning of a new sentence:

“In order [for] a business to minimize the danger of exposure to a failed project… “ “… strategic alignment and resource levelling. [A]application of such methods…”

• I am not sure I fully understand figure 1: “Tranlation of MPT criterias to PPM criterias”, maybe this can be elaborated better? You second figure is well explained and easy to understand.
• You make great use of the <math></math> tool in your article. And although the content is quite complex, it gives the article a wiki-“esque” feeling, which is good.

Content Aspects:

• The article is clearly within the topic scope, as it directly relates to a “portfolio” topic
• You clearly have extensive knowledge of the subject and your very rigid use of references show me that you back up every statement you make. Sadly, (and this is of no fault of yours or a drawback to the content of the article) most of your references are hard-copy (aka. Book) references so I do not currently have to possibility to review your sources.
• “Northwestern” part of the curve… Why not “Top left?”
• I have no idea what “[καινουριο paper CVaR]” (in the CVaR model section) is or means, maybe this is something you left by mistake in the article?
• The size, quality and references of the article are definitely up to par. It is very clear that you know much more about the topic than I ever will.

Overall conclusion:

As mentioned, it is very clear by the content and quality of the article, that you have extensive knowledge of the tools you present. The only, albeit minor, drawback is that I feel the article is not very engaging. I think the article could benefit a lot from a few “bridging” sentences about the general purpose of the models you present – some more example uses or sentences of how exactly they relate to portfolio management. I think that would really bind the article together.