There have been similar posts here already but nevertheless I find the question worth posting: why do some people claim that log returns of assets are more suitable for statistics than discrete returns.
E.g. in the ESMA CESR guidliens about SSRI log returns are used. I personally think that discrete returns are as good for means of risk management as continuous returns. Furthermore in portfolio context I can calculate the portfolio return by weighting the discrete returns of the assets which does not work with log returns. The time-aggregation of log returns is easier that's true. But people rather think in discrete returns. If my NAV drops from $100$ to $92$ then I have lost $8\%$ and that's it.
Is there any study on this - any good reference? Anything that I can tell my regulator why I stick to discrete returns.