Estimation Error and Portfolio Optimization by 1rgrJJJ

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 15

									Global Asset Allocation and Stock Selection


  Estimation Error and
 Portfolio Optimization
                     Campbell R. Harvey
             Duke University, Durham, NC USA
 National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge MA USA

                   Cam.harvey@duke.edu
      +1 919.660.7768 office || +1 919.271.8156 mobile
               http://www.duke.edu/~charvey
                   Motivation
• The Markowitz Mean-Variance Efficiency is the standard
  optimization framework for modern asset management.
• Given the expected returns, standard deviations and
  correlations of assets (along with constraints), the
  optimization procedure solves for the set of portfolio
  weights that has the lowest risk for a given level of
  portfolio expected returns.
• Standard algorithms (linear programming/quadratic
  programming) are available to compute the efficient
  frontier with or without short-selling/borrowing
  constraints.
                         Motivation
•    A number of objections to MV Efficiency have been
     raised:
    1.   Investor Utility: Utility might involve preferences for more than
         means and variances and might be a complex function.
    2.   Multi-period framework: The one-period nature of static
         optimization does not take dynamic factors into account.
    3.   Liabilities: Little attention is given to the liability side.
    4.   Instability and Ambiguity: Small changes in input assumptions
         often imply large changes in the optimized portfolio. The MVE
         procedure overuses statistically estimated information and
         magnifies estimation errors.
•    Jorion (1992, Financial Analyst Journal) addresses
     “Portfolio Optimization in Practice” and proposes the
     first resampling method.
                    Motivation
•   Richard Michaud (1998) has built a business around
    resampling. Implemented in Northfield optimizers.
•   Ibbotson Associates also uses a resampling technique
                    The Procedure
    The procedure described below has U.S. Patent #6,003,018 by
    Michaud et al., December 19, 1999.

•   Estimate the expected returns and the variance-
    covariance matrix () [say, the MLE (average) or using
    Bayesian techniques]. Suppose there are m assets.

•   Solve for the minimum-variance portfolio. Call the
    expected return of this portfolio L. Solve for the
    maximum return portfolio. Call the expected return of
    this portfolio H.

•   Choose the number of discrete increments, in returns, for
    characterizing the frontier. That is, for the purpose of the
    Monte Carlo analysis, one can think of looking at a series
    of points on the frontier - rather than every point on the
    frontier.
                   The Procedure
•   Suppose for L=.05 and H=.20 and we choose the number
    of increments, K=16. This means that we evaluate the
    frontier at expected return={.05, .06, ..., .19, .20}, that is
    16 different points.

•   We will represent the „frontier‟ as ak, where „a‟
    represents weights. So for m assets, ak is Kxm (rows
    represent the number of points on the frontier and
    columns are the assets). The pair (ak, ) then represents
    the efficient frontier. In our example, we would have 16
    rows (discrete increments) and m columns (number of
    assets).
E[r]
                  The Procedure
 0.20                                           H
 0.19
 0.18
 0.17
 0.16
 0.15
 0.14
 0.13
 0.12
 0.11
 0.10
 0.09
 0.08
 0.07
 0.06
 0.05        L
 0.04
 0.03
 0.02
 0.01
 0.00
        0   0.2     0.4   0.6     0.8   1           1.2

                                            s
                        The Procedure
                       Columns are Asset Weights
Row   E[r]   Asset 1   Asset 2   Asset 3     Asset 4   Asset 5
  1   0.05
  2   0.06
  3   0.07
  4   0.08
  5   0.09
  6    0.1
  7   0.11
  8   0.12                  Matrix = ak                          k=16 rows
  9   0.13
 10   0.14
 11   0.15
 12   0.16
 13   0.17
 14   0.18
 15   0.19
 16    0.2

                m=5 columns
                  The Procedure
•   Now begin the Monte Carlo analysis. Generate i from
    the likelihood function L(). Hence i and  are
    statistically equivalent.

•   For example, suppose we have m=5 assets and T=200
    observations. Give a random number generator, 
    (means, and variance-covariance matrix), assume a
    multivariate normal (not necessary but simplest), and
    draw five returns 200 times. With the generated data,
    calculate the simulated means and variance-covariance
    matrix, i. Note that i and  are “statistically
    equivalent”.
•   Using i, calculate the minimum variance portfolio
    (expected return Li) and the maximum expected return
    portfolio (expected return Hi). Use these to determine the
    size of the expected return increments.
                  The Procedure
•   Following our example of K=16, suppose using i,
    Li=.03 and Hi=.25. Hence, the discrete points would be
    expected returns of {.030, .044, .058, ..., .236, .250}.

•   Calculate the efficient portfolio weights at each of these
    K points. (Solve for the minimum variance weights given
    expected returns of .030, ...).

•   With this information, we now have ak,i. This is the same
    dimension, Kxm.

•   Repeat the simulations, so that we have 1,000 ak,is.
                  The Procedure
•   Average the 1000 ak,is. For each increment, this gives us
    average portfolio weights. Call this ak*

•   We can redraw the efficient frontier, by using the original
    means and variances, i.e.  combined with the new
    weights, ak*
                   The Procedure
•   Note, the new efficient frontier is inside the original
    frontier. Why?

•   If we look at any particular Monte Carlo draw, say i, we
    could draw a frontier (which could be to the right or left
    of the original frontier). However, we are keeping track
    of the weights at the discrete increments. We average the
    weights (not the frontiers) - and then apply these average
    weights to the original .

•   We know that the efficient weights for , are ak. If we
    apply, ak*, then we must be to the right of the original
    frontier. In other words, if ak is the best, then ak* cannot
    be the best. However, importantly, ak* is taking
    estimation error into account.
                    Variations
•   Instead of using K increments for the indexation based on
    the high and low returns, assume a quadratic utility
    function is used.

•   A function of the form  = s2 – lm is minimized. Each
    value of l ranging from zero to infinity defines a
    portfolio on the mean-variance and simulated frontiers.
    Decide on the values of the ls and then use for the
    indexation.
    Does the resampled frontier outperform?
•     Based on simulations, yes. Here is the evaluation.

•     Given the first draw of i, do another Monte Carlo
      exercise to determine the resampled frontier defined by
      ak,i* (notice difference in notation).

•     Do this extra Monte Carlo on each i - so we will have
      1,000 different ak,i*
•     Compare the average of ak,i* to the average of the ak,i,(that
      is, compare the average of the simulated portfolios based
      on the “true” value of i to the average of the portfolios
      that do not incorporated any allowance for estimation
      error). Simply draw frontiers based on .
    Is Resampling What We Want to Do?
•    Resampling provides an improvement over
     traditional methods
•    However, there are issues:
    –   Average of maximums is not the maximum
    –   Hence, allocation will be suboptimal and we should be
        able to improve on this work
•    New research on the horizon that provides an
     alternative.
    –   See Harvey, Liechty, Liechty and Muller (2004).

								
To top