Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

2.2K views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- [Goldman Sachs] Introduction to Mortgage-Backed Securities and Other Securitized Assets
- Hot-To Guide to Quant Models NOMURA
- DB QUANT Market Timing
- Db Handbook of Portfolio Construction Part 1
- Wai Lee - Regimes - Nonparametric Identification and Forecasting (1)
- Signal Processing 20101110
- Quantitative Asset Manage 102727754
- Macquarie technicals
- DBG_020911_94525
- Correlation, Correlation everywhere, but not a drop to sell…
- Risk Premia Strategies b 102727740
- Style Rotation
- [JP Morgan] Abritrage Pricing of Equity Correlation Swaps
- Optimal Diversification 102727757
- JPMorgan 2010 Academic Reference
- 19606721 JP Morgan Correlation Vechicles Techniques for Trading Equity Correlation
- How to Jumpstart an Interstellar Civilization
- A Signal Weighting
- Dispersion Trading and Volatility Gamma Risk
- 2006 Loeys, J., Exploiting Cross-Market Momentum

You are on page 1of 11

Signal Weighting

RICHARD GRINOLD

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

RICHARD GRINOLD ctive strategies face the challenge level. Every strategy has an internal risk budget

was a global director of

research at Barclays Global

Investor (1994–2009),

director of research at

BARRA, (1979–1993), and

a professor at the University

A of combining information from dif-

ferent sources in order to maximize

that information’s after-cost effec-

tiveness.1 This challenge is evident for investors

who follow a systematic, structured investment

that shows how the aggregate risk is being allo-

cated among the various sources/themes that

we anticipate can add value. We should peri-

odically, say, every six months, re-examine and

possibly change that allocation. A similar recon-

of California in Berkeley, process. It is also an issue, although often unrec- sideration of the internal risk budget should

CA (1969–1989). ognized, for more traditional managers who take place if there is a significant change in the

rcgrinold@hotmail.com

must balance top-down views and the views signal mix (e.g., adding a new theme) or if there

of in-house and sell-side analysts. In any case, is a major change in the market environment.

a decision is made either through default, The method we present in this article

analysis, or whimsy. We favor analysis and to gives substance to the signal-weighting process

that end this article presents a simple and struc- by isolating the important aspects of the deci-

tured approach to the task. This task is com- sion and providing a structure that links those

monly called signal weighting, although risk features to a decision. The procedure we out-

budgeting seems to be a better description. line mimics the investment process. Each

The approach is based on standard methods signal is viewed as a sub, or source, portfolio

of portfolio analysis and their extension to that is a potential place to allocate risk. We

dynamic portfolio management. allocate risk to the source portfolios in a

We can consider an active investment manner that makes the most sense at the

product on three levels: strategic, tactical, and aggregate level. In this effort we are trying to

operational. At the strategic level are the target be comprehensive enough to depict the essen-

clients, fee structure, level of risk, amount of tials and simple enough to easily capture the

gearing, level of turnover, marketing channel, link between inputs and outputs. Thus, we

decision-making structure, and so forth. At the compromise between the desire to be rea-

operational level, we run the product: main- sonable and robust, on the one hand, and to

taining and replenishing data, executing trades, provide a clear box rather than a black box,

tracking positions and performance, informing on the other.

clients, and so on. At the tactical level, we allo- To preserve transparency we should err

cate resources to improve the product and its on the side of simplicity rather than on exces-

operations, and do some fine-tuning on such sive elaboration. There is a temptation to more

parameters as risk level and turnover level. The and more closely mimic the actual investment

signal-weighting decision belongs at the tactical process (e.g., backtesting). Our unadorned

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 25

approach is to assume the portfolio is run with the straight- cost-free world with multiple signals. This exercise allows

forward and easy-to-analyze method A, although we realize us to introduce many of the terms and concepts we will

that we actually use the complex and impossible-to-ana- use in the more difficult setting with transaction costs.

lyze method B. We have to trade off the benefits of get- The next step is to introduce transaction costs. Costs

ting sensible, comprehensible answers against the costs of are difficult to handle in an analytic way. Our approach is

departing from the operational reality. Any effect we want traditional; we make an assumption. We assume that the

to consider has to argue for a place at the table. The watch- portfolio manager acts as if he is following a simple rebal-

word is simplicity and the burden of proof is against making ance rule. The rebalance rule has three parts:

it complicated. This focus on simplicity also argues against

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

a profusion of sources. In our view, the number of themes • For each signal we construct a source portfolio that

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

should be more than two and certainly less than, say, seven. captures that signal in an efficient (i.e., most signal

If you believe there are a larger number of significant alpha per unit of risk) manner.

drivers of a strategy you should 1) look up “significant” • We construct a model portfolio that is a mixture of

and 2) aggregate the signals into broader themes. the source portfolios.

One benefit of the proposed approach is that it is • We stipulate a rebalance rule to fix the rate at which

based on a theory. There is a logical consistency that lets the portfolio manager tries to close the gap between

us track cause and effect. The assumptions are few and the portfolio the manager actually holds and the

transparent. It is not a sequence of ad hoc decisions and model portfolio.

jury-rigged improvisations where the often hidden

assumptions are many and their implications are obscure. In Appendix A, we show that this type of rebalance

This clarity makes it easy to link cause and effect. In par- rule is optimal under certain conditions.2 We feel that a

ticular, it facilitates the use of sensitivity analysis to study rule, that is optimal under one set of conditions, will be

the links between important inputs and outputs. reasonable in a much wider group of situations. In

Signal weighting is a forward-looking exercise. We Appendix B, we study the consequences of using such a

are planning for the future not over-fitting the past. Past decision rule. The signal-weighting model and results are

performance of signals can, of course, inform us about illustrated using a three-signal example.

each signal’s presumed future strength, how fast the infor-

mation dissipates, and how the signals relate to each other. OTHER WORK

However, we will usually be in a situation with old sig-

nals that are part of the implemented strategy and new sig- This article stems from the author’s previous work

nals that have only seen hypothetical implementation. In on dynamic portfolio analysis, Grinold [2006, 2007]. The

addition, we may feel strongly that some signals will lose most directly related paper is Sneddon [2008]. Similar

strength because they are being arbitraged away. What we techniques to those described in Appendix A are used by

see in a backtest is one sample from a nonstationary prob- Garleanu and Pedersen [2009].

ability distribution. By all means consider past perfor-

mance, but add a large pinch of salt. ONE SIGNAL AND NO

The analysis is designed for an unconstrained imple- TRANSACTION COSTS

mentation. There may be some idiosyncratic features of

a signal that will make it unsuitable for say a long only We start with a quick description of the framework

implementation. These are difficult to predict, so the with only one signal and then expand the analysis to cover

analysis here should still provide a starting point of any multiple signals. There are N assets whose return covari-

study of the interactions of signals and constraints. ance is described by the N by N covariance matrix V.

The basic material in the weighting exercise is an N ele-

ment vector a, called a raw alpha. It is scaled to have, on

PREVIEW average, an information ratio of one,

consider a cost-free world with one signal, and then a

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 26

To obtain a weight, we need an assessment of the • it makes things much simpler when we introduce

strength of the signal. Let IR be the information ratio of transaction costs.

the signal, then

First, we will consider the multiple-signal case with

α = IR ⋅ a (2) no transaction costs.

We are done. With one signal we simply weight the

raw alpha to have the desired information ratio. J SIGNALS AND NO TRANSACTION COSTS

We can get to the same place by a longer route that

We have J signals (sub-strategies), each with a raw

approaches the problem from a portfolio perspective. The

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

each of the N assets. In addition, we start with a level

eralizes in a natural way when there are multiple signals

playing field; each aj is standardized so that its informa-

and transaction costs.

tion ratio is one,3

We associate a source portfolio s with our signal,

a ′j ⋅ V −1 ⋅ a j = 1 (6)

−1 2

s = V ⋅ a ⇒ ω = s′ ⋅ V ⋅ s = 1

S

(3)

We can, as in Equation (3), associate a position with

The source portfolio is an efficient implementation each raw alpha. These positions have, on average, 100% risk

of the signal, that is, among all positions x, it maximizes and will be the building blocks of our investment strategy,

the ratio

a j = V ⋅ s j , s j = V −1 ⋅ a j

(7)

a⋅x x′ ⋅ V ⋅ x s ′j ⋅ V ⋅ s j = 1

As noted in Equation (3), the source portfolio has an Because we have multiple signals, we have to take

excessive risk level of 100%. Suppose we choose a more into consideration any correlation between the informa-

realistic risk level ω. This is akin to scaling the source port- tion sources. We define that correlation in terms of the

folio. If ω is the risk level, then the portfolio is q = ω ⋅ s. expected return covariance between any pair of positions,4

This portfolio has an alpha of IR ⋅ ω and a variance of ω 2.

If we have a risk penalty, λ, and we do the standard mean- ρ i , j ≡ si′ ⋅ V ⋅ s j (8)

variance optimization, we choose the risk level ω to

maximize, For example, if i is a value signal and j is a momentum

signal, they will tend to be negatively correlated. Recall

λ 2 that signal weighting is a forward-looking exercise; the cor-

IR ⋅ ω − ⋅ω (4)

2 relations ρi,j are predictions. Nonetheless, a historical analysis

of past correlations should be informative;5 often, a fairly

The solution is ω = IR λ . For example, if IR = 0.75, stable relationship exists. In other cases, the relationship

and we have a risk penalty of λ = 18.75, then ω = 4%. appears to depend on the caprice of the market. As a prac-

The alpha resulting from this is tical matter, if any of these correlations are very large (say,

above 0.5), it might be wise to combine the signals. If a

α = λ ⋅ V ⋅ q = λ ⋅ V ⋅ s ⋅ ω = {λ ⋅ ω} ⋅ a (5)

correlation is large and negative, then either you have found

which gets us to the same place as the straightforward a very good thing or, more likely, you have uncovered

approach in Equation (2) since λ ⋅ ω = IR. something that is too good to be true.

The reasons for the portfolio optimization approach We build a strategy by assigning risk levels, ωj, to

used in Equation (5) are that each of J sub-strategies. The vector representation is

ω = {ω j } j =1, J . The result will be portfolio

• it generalizes nicely when we have multiple signals,

and q( ω ) = ∑s j

⋅ωj (9)

j =1, J

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 27

given by the J element vector IR = {IRj}j=1, J. The J by Three-Signal Example

J correlation matrix with elements ρi,j is denoted as R.

With this notation the alpha expected by using the

weights ω is

α (ω ) = ∑ IR j

⋅ ω j = IR ′ ⋅ ω (10)

j =1, J Note: The input data are the information ratio, IR, and the correlation.

The optimal result is in the column labeled “Risk.”

The variance of the portfolio, q(ω), with weights ω is

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

EXAMPLE

σ 2 (ω ) = ∑ω ⋅ ∑ ρ i i, j

⋅ω j = ω′ ⋅ R ⋅ ω (11)

i =1, J j =1, J The following is an example with three sub-

strategies. In anticipation of the next section, we have

We choose ω to maximize, classified the signal by the rate of information turnover.

The sources are SLOW, INTERMEDIATE, and FAST.

λ

α (ω ) − ⋅σ 2 ( ω ) (12) The goal is to mix these three sources to get an ideal port-

2 folio with 5% risk.

The data in Exhibit 1 represent our best estimates for

The solution is obtained by solving the first-order

a reasonably long planning horizon, say, a year or more.

equations,6

Referring to Equation (16), the net effect of these data is an

aggregate information ratio of IRQ = 1.11. If we want an

IRi = λ ⋅ ∑ ρi , j ⋅ ω j overall risk of ωQ = 5.00%, we can set the risk penalty as

j =1, J

λ = IRQ/ωQ = 1.11/0.05 = 22.17 and achieve the desired

or

result. The final column is the optimal risk level derived

IR = λ ⋅ R ⋅ ω (13) from Equation (14). We can interpret this as running the

INTERMEDIATE sub-strategy at 3.78% risk, the SLOW

The maximizing vector of weights is given by sub-strategy at 1.96% risk, and the FAST sub-strategy at

4.10% risk.

1

ω= ⋅ R −1 ⋅ IR (14)

λ RISK BUDGETING

We will refer to the optimal portfolio (a.k.a., the Signal weighting, like portfolio management, is an

ideal portfolio) as Q with positions exercise in risk budgeting. We can express the result in

terms of the resulting risk budget. The variance of the

q( ω ) = ∑s ⋅ ωj (15) ideal portfolio Q is

j

j =1, J

i. ω Q2 = ∑ω ⋅∑ ρ j j ,k

⋅ωk

The information ratio and risk of the ideal port- j =1, J k =1, J

folio Q are or

ω j ω k

IRQ ≡ IR ′ ⋅ R −1 ⋅ IR , ω Q = ω ′ ⋅ R ⋅ ω , IRQ = λ ⋅ω Q ii. 1 = ∑ ω ⋅ ∑ ρ j ,k ⋅ (17)

j =1, J Q k =1, J ω Q

(16)

j ω ω

If we allocate a fraction {ωQ } ⋅ Σk =1, J ρ j ,k ⋅ {ωQk } of the

Note that IRQ is independent of the risk penalty λ,

risk to alpha source j, we are in effect taking the two

and thus we can choose λ to get the desired level of active

covariance terms for sources j and k, ωj ⋅ ρj,k ⋅ ωk + ωk ⋅

risk, ωQ.

ρk,j ⋅ ωj, and splitting the baby, thus attributing ωj ⋅ ρj,k ⋅

ωk to signal j and ωk ⋅ ρk,j ⋅ ωj to signal k.

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 28

In our example, over 52% of the risk comes from the EXHIBIT 2

FAST signal, 34% from the INTERMEDIATE signal, Three Views of the Solution to the Signal/Source-

and only 14% from the SLOW signal. Weighting Problem with No Transaction Costs

of portfolios. According to Equation (15), our ideal

portfolio is

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

q( ω ) = ∑s

j =1, J

j

⋅ ωj TRANSACTION COSTS

The alphas that lead to this ideal are7 approach the source/signal-weighting problem when there

are no transaction costs. But the presence of transaction

αQ = λ ⋅ V ⋅ q = ∑a

j =1, J

j

⋅ (λ ⋅ ω j ) (18) costs introduces three new obstacles. These obstacles are

WEIGHTS commissions, spread, taxes, and so forth, or indirectly

by demanding liquidity and shelling out too much

Equation (18) can be interpreted in terms of weights for purchases and getting too little for sales (a.k.a.,

(i.e., numbers that sum to one), as follows: market impact).

• Transaction costs are intimidating. They keep you

from fully exploiting your information, which cre-

i. αQ = scale ⋅ ∑ a j ⋅ weight j , where

j =1, J ates an opportunity loss.

• Transaction costs are levied on changes in positions,

ii. scale = λ ⋅ ∑ ω j

so the initial position is a crucial part of the analysis.

j =1, J (19)

ωj

iii. weight j = The last point implies a multi-period perspective is

∑ ω

i =1, J i required. Our approach will be to look for strategies or

decision rules that can, in some sense, be considered

The scale factor is to ensure that the resulting alphas optimal in a multi-period setting. To do this, we make

have the correct information ratio, for example, assumptions that allow us to abstract from the reality of

the day-to-day portfolio management environment and

α Q′ ⋅ V −1 ⋅ α Q = IRQ = 1.11 (20) still capture something of its essence. This is, after all, both

the power and the Achilles’ heel of any economic analysis.

The weights in our examples are 38% for INTER- As Solow [1956] said, “All theory depends on assumptions

MEDIATE, 20% for SLOW, and 42% for FAST. Note that that are not quite true.”

these are similar, but not equal, to the risk budgeting num-

bers mentioned previously.

The following three ways of presenting the results THE PORTFOLIO’S LAW OF MOTION

are illustrated in Exhibit 2: An active portfolio is an object in motion. Call it

portfolio P. If we look at portfolio P periodically, say, every

• risk of each source ∆t years,8 then we see a sequence of positions. The changes

• risk budget in these positions, defined as

• weights that sum to one

∆p(t) ≡ p(t) – p(t – ∆t) (21)

Now we turn to the more challenging and realistic

situation where we consider transaction costs. determine the cost.

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 29

way. To do this we will specify a rule, called the law of

motion, to show how portfolio P changes in response to We can gauge the rate of change in the signal j

changes in the source portfolios. We will do this in two between times t and t – ∆t by measuring the correlation

steps, as follows: of the positions sj(t) and sj(t – ∆t) using the asset covariance,

V(t), at time t. To do the calculation in a sensible way, we

1. Combine the source portfolios into a model port- should tailor the time interval, calling it ∆tj, on a signal-

folio M. by-signal basis so that a reasonable amount of change takes

2. Show how the portfolio P attempts to track the place resulting in a value for γj(t) in Equation (24) in the

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

model portfolio. range of 0.8 to 0.975. This will avoid spurious results if

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

data we might want to calculate the correlation over one

THE MODEL PORTFOLIO

week, two weeks, or one month so that we can see sig-

The model portfolio is a mixture of the source port- nificant changes.

folios. Its holdings at time t are This past correlation is given by

m( t ) ≡ ∑ s j ( t ) ⋅ ω j ⋅ ψ j (22) s ′j (t ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ s j (t − ∆t j )

j =1, J

γ j(t ) =

s ′j (t ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ s j (t ) ⋅ s ′j (t − ∆t j ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ s j (t − ∆t j )

The risk levels ωj are the same levels we used to (24)

define the ideal portfolio; see Equations (13) and (14).

The parameters ψj, where 0 < ψj < 1, are explained in We can eliminate the effects of the tailored time

detail in the next section. interval selection, ∆tj, by calculating a rate of change,

ln(γ j (t )) − g j ( t )⋅∆t j

g j (t ) = − or e = γ j (t ) (25)

The changes in portfolio P are governed by a linear ∆t j

decision rule of the form

The data will show how the signal has moved in the

i. p(t ) = δ ⋅ p(t − ∆t ) + (1 − δ ) ⋅ m(t ) past; for example, seasonality (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual

release of earnings) or a trend (e.g., getting faster or slower)

or may be present. The challenge is to use this analysis to

choose a point estimate that we will call gj, that will deter-

∆p(t ) (1 − δ ) mine how fast, on average, we believe the signal will move

ii. = ⋅ {m(t ) − p(t − ∆t )} (23)

∆t ∆t in the future. One way to consider this question is in terms

In Appendix A, we demonstrate that the rule described EXHIBIT 3

in Equations (22) and (23) is optimal under special cir- Values of gj for Various Half-Lives

cumstances. The leap of faith is to assume that the rule is

at least “reasonable” under more general conditions.

The parameters δ, ψj mentioned in Equations (22)

and (23) depend on the rate of change of the signals as

represented by either the raw alphas aj(t) or the source

portfolios sj(t) and on the change in the portfolio p(t)

itself. We now turn our attention to measuring those

changes and determining values for these parameters.

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 30

of a half-life, that is, the time it will take for the correlation, lags M. Both P and M are based on information that has

as calculated by Equation (24), to drop to 0.5. Exhibit 3 flowed in over previous periods. The age-weighted expo-

shows how gj depends on the half-life. sure of P to this information is about 1/d years longer

In our example, we will use nine months as the half- than the age-weighted exposure of M to the same infor-

life for the SLOW signal, one month for the FAST signal, mation. Slow trading leaves P under exposed to recent

and six months for the INTERMEDIATE signal. information and relatively over exposed to older stale

information. Exhibit 4 shows lags of one to six months

THE PACE OF PORTFOLIO CHANGE and the corresponding values for d.

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

rate of change of portfolio P. We will express delta as

δ = e–d⋅∆t, where d measures how fast we attempt to close It is possible to get a rough estimate of d by exam-

the gap between where we start, p(t – ∆t), and where we ining the history of the portfolio and the source portfo-

would like to be, m(t). The choice of d, whether it is made lios. As we indicate in Appendix B, we can use a regression,

explicitly or implicitly, is an attempt to balance two costs: or portfolio optimization, approach to estimate parame-

ters δˆ(t ) and βˆ j (t ), so that

1. Transaction costs: A larger d (thus lower δ ) leads to

more trading and higher costs.

p(t ) = p(t − ∆t0 ) ⋅ δˆ(t ) + ∑ s (t ) ⋅ βˆ (t ) + εˆ(t )

j j

(26)

2. Opportunity loss: A smaller d (thus higher δ ) implies j =1, J

a less efficient implementation; the fraction of port-

folio P’s risk budget directed toward alpha declines and the unexplained variance, εˆ ′(t ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ εˆ(t ) , is mini-

and the amount of uncompensated risk increases. mized. If things are going along relatively smoothly (i.e.,

no radical changes of policy) and the time interval ∆t0 is

In Appendix A and in Grinold [2007], we show selected in a reasonable manner,9 then estimates δˆ(t ) will

how, under special circumstances, the optimal choice of tend to be positive and less than one. In such cases, we get

d is possible. In what follows, we first discuss the inter- an estimate of d as

pretation of d, which should isolate a reasonable range of

values, and then we consider procedures that will help us ln(δˆ(t )) ˆ − dˆ( t )⋅∆t0

dˆ(t ) = − , δ (t ) = e (27)

discover an implied value of d by examining the past ∆t0

behavior of the portfolio.

The analysis will also produce implied risk levels,

INTERPRETATION OF d βˆ j (t )/(1− δˆ(t )), and a measure of the fitting error,

{εˆ ′(t ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ εˆ(t )}/{p ′(t ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ p(t )}.

Portfolio P chases the model M. It is always behind From these estimates of implied past policy in

the curve. Indeed, 1/d is a measure of just how much P addition to the intuition that might be gained from

Exhibit 4 and future policy plans, we settle on values for

the parameters d and gj, j = 1, …, J. Then, for any rebal-

EXHIBIT 4 ance interval ∆t, we can calculate the risk adjustments ψj

Relationship between Trading Rate d and Lag promised in Equation (22),10

between Average Age of Information in Model

Portfolio M and Tracking Portfolio P − g j ⋅∆t

i. δ = e − d⋅∆t , γ j = e

1 −δ (28)

ii. ψ j ≡

1 −δ ⋅ γ j

example introduced earlier. The data in Exhibit 5 are

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 31

EXHIBIT 5

Assumed Half-lives of the Three Signals and Corresponding Values of gj, γj, and ψj based on ∆t = 1/52

and δ = 0.926

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

week, ∆t = 1/52, thus δ = 0.926. Risk Budgets and Weights before (Q) and after (M)

In Exhibit 5, the gj are based on the assumed half- Adjustment for Trading

lives. If HLj is the half-life in months, then gj = 12 ⋅ {ln

(2)/HLj}. The γj are calculated using item (i ) of Equation

(28) and the ψj are derived from item (ii) of Equation (28).

The column “Risk Q” repeats the optimal risk levels, ωj,

of the ideal portfolio previously reported in Exhibits 1

and 2. The final column, “Risk M,” contains the risk levels

ψj ⋅ ωj associated with the model portfolio, as in Equa-

i. α M = scale ⋅ ∑ α j ⋅ weight j , where

tion (22). The risk levels of all the signals fall, although the j =1, J

decrease, evident in the “psi” column, is more dramatic for

the FAST signal. The risk11 of model portfolio M is 3.06% ii. scale = λ ⋅ ∑ {ψ j ⋅ ω j } (30)

j =1, J

compared to the 5% risk level for the ideal portfolio Q.

To raise the risk level of the model portfolio to, say, 5%, {ψ j ⋅ ω j }

iii. weight j =

merely decreases the risk penalty lambda from 22.17 to ∑ i =1, J

{ψ i ⋅ ω i }

{3.06/5} ⋅ 22.17 = 13.57 and repeats the calculation. This

will scale up the risk, but keep the risk budget allocation

and weights the same. Exhibit 6 compares the results pre-adjustment (ideal

Q) and post-adjustment (model M) for transaction costs.

THE ALPHA PERSPECTIVE REVISITED

OPPORTUNITY LOSS

The adjustment for transaction costs works for alphas

as well as for portfolios. According to Equation (22), our The adjustment from ideal portfolio Q to model

model portfolio is portfolio M effectively lowers our sights from one unob-

tainable goal to another slightly less unobtainable goal. In

the process, we have left some potential value-added on

m= ∑s

j =1, J

j

⋅ {ψ j ⋅ ω j }

the table.

If we measure the value-added from any portfolio,

The alphas that would lead to this portfolio are say F with positions f, as

λ

α M = λ ⋅ V ⋅ m = λ ⋅ ∑ a j ⋅ (ψ j ⋅ ω j ) (29) U F = αQ′ ⋅ f − ⋅ ω2 (31)

2 F

j =1, J

WEIGHTS to M is

Equation (29) can, as before, be interpreted in terms λ

of weights (i.e., numbers that sum to one), as follows: UQ − U M = ⋅ ω2 (32)

2 Q−M

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 32

where ωQ–M is the risk of a position that is long the ideal EXHIBIT 7

portfolio Q and short the model portfolio M.12 In our Risk Budgets for the Portfolios: Ideal Q, Model M,

example that risk is ωQ–M = 2.58% and the corresponding and Actual P

loss in value-added is UQ – UM = 0.74%.

the rebalancing strategy portrayed in Equation (23). If we

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

determine the alpha, risk, and implementation efficiency

of the implemented strategy P, as follows:

REVERSE ENGINEERING

i =1, J

then we can alter the analysis to get that outcome. If we

ii. ω P2 = ∑ψ 2

i

⋅ ω i ⋅ ω i ,M (33) change the risk penalty lambda from 22.17 to 22.17 ⋅

i =1, J

{2.58/4.00} = 14.30, we will scale up the risks. The risk

iii. ω M2 −P = ∑ ψ ⋅ (1 − ψ ) ⋅ ω ⋅ ω

i i i i ,M

budget numbers in Exhibit 7 will not change.

i =1, J

ESTIMATE OF COSTS

ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY LOST

As previously discussed, opportunity losses are

The opportunity loss just described was due to drop- incurred by lowering our sights from portfolio Q to port-

ping our sights from portfolio Q to portfolio M. Because folio M, 0.74%, and by, in fact, lagging behind M, 0.69%.

of trading costs, the portfolio we actually hold, P, will not We also will incur direct costs in the form of fees and

capture all the potential value added to the model portfolio commissions or indirect costs through market impact.

M. It is possible to take the analysis one step further (see We can estimate these costs as well (see Appendix A).

Appendix B) and look at the efficiency of portfolio P, the Let’s call the difference between portfolios M and P the

portfolio that results from using the updating rule described backlog. This is the trade we would make if we had one

in Equations (22) and (23). In our example, portfolio P has period free of transaction costs. We can measure the size

2.58% risk. Its correlation (transfer coefficient) with Q and of this backlog by its variance, ω M2 −P . The estimated annual

M is 0.727 and 0.857, respectively. The loss in potential transaction costs, cP, for portfolio P are a function of that

value-added moving from the ideal portfolio Q to the actual backlog variance

portfolio P is 1.43%. Given that we lost 0.74% by lowering

λ

our sights from the ideal Q to the model M, we lose another cP = ⋅ ω M2 −P (34)

0.69% because we cannot exactly track M. That means a cer- 2

tain fraction of portfolio P’s risk budget will be residual Based on the data, this cost is 0.30%. In addition to

(i.e., not correlated with any source of alpha) and thus that the 1.43% opportunity loss, transaction costs bring the

risk is taken with no expectation of return. Exhibit 7 con- total bill to 1.73% and the annual value added after costs

tains the risk budgets for the three portfolios Q, M, and P. to 1.04%.

Exhibit 7 shows the magnitude of the compromises

forced upon us by trading frictions. With no trading costs,

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

we would allocate 51.74% of our risk budget to the FAST

signal. When costs are taken into consideration, however, One of the attractive features of our approach to

we allocate only 2.93% to the FAST signal. This is a huge signal weighting is the ability to do sensitivity analysis. The

shift. equations used in this article can be coded in a spreadsheet

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 33

Alpha Weights for the Model Portfolio M as Trading Rate d Varies strategy, including level of risk, risk budget,

and Other Parameters Are Held Constant opportunity loss, and annual trading cost.

Finally, our approach can change per-

spective by viewing each signal as a sub-

strategy and the weights as active risk levels

for the sub-strategy. These risk levels, in

turn, allow the calculation of risk budgets

that are a better measure of the importance

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

in a matter of minutes. As an example, we calculated the and the portfolio. The exercise of trying

weights of the model portfolio M for various values of the to measure the rate of change of the signals, gj, and the

trading rate parameter d, as shown in Equation (30). trading rate, d, of the portfolio requires a novel, dynamic

The cases in Exhibit 8 bracket the base case with look at the signals and the portfolio.

d = 4 that is summarized in Exhibit 6. We can also con-

sider the ideal portfolio Q as the case with very large d. ENDNOTES

The weight for the ideal portfolio is shown in Exhibit 6

1

as 19.95%, 38.42%, and 41.64% for SLOW, INTERME- In this article, the following terms—sources, themes, and

DIATE, and FAST, respectively. signals—are used as synonyms.

2

The technical appendices, A (Optimization) and B

(Policy Analysis), are available by writing to the author at

CONCLUSION rcgrinold@hotmail.com.

3

It is best practice to have this standardization work in a

We have presented a relatively straightforward time-average fashion. This allows a natural emphasis on a theme

approach to the signal-weighting problem in the face of when more information is available and, in particular, avoids

transaction costs. Our approach has several attractive attrib- trying to make something out of nothing when less informa-

utes. First, it is portfolio based. It looks at the signal- tion is on hand.

weighting problem as an investment problem by linking 4

Note this also implies that ρi , j = ai′ ⋅ V −1 ⋅ a j = ai′ ⋅ s j = a ′j ⋅ si .

each signal to an investment strategy and then looking 5

If there is a history of the past source portfolios sj (t), and

for the optimal mix of strategies. Second, the approach is dated covariance matrices, V(t), then ρ (t ) ≡ si′(t ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ s j (t )/

i,j

{ si′(t ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ si (t ) ⋅ s ′j (t ) ⋅ V(t ) ⋅ s j (t )} gives a measure of the

problem in the absence of costs. And third, it is forward

correlation at time t.

looking and depends on three traits of signals: predicted 6

If one or more of the ωj turn out to be negative, it just

information ratio, IRj; predicted return correlation, ρi,j;

means that we are willing to short that particular sub-strategy

and rate of change of each signal, gj. In addition, our or replace sj with –sj. This is not of any technical concern

approach depends on two investment strategy parame- although it definitely is a danger sign. λ ⋅ω j

ters: 1) trading rate of the portfolio, d, a surrogate for 7

Another way to say this is α Q = Σ j =1, J {IR j ⋅ a j } ⋅ { IR j }. In

turnover, and 2) a risk penalty, λ, that controls the strate- this case we have scaled each signal j to have the correct information

gy’s level of risk. ratio, IRj. If the signals are not correlated, ρi,j = 0 for i ≠ j, then

Additional attributes include the fact that it is easy the expression λ ⋅ ωj/IRj equals one for all signals. In the more

to perform sensitivity analysis with our approach, a capa- general case, we see λ ⋅ ω j /IR j = ω j /Σ k =1, J ρ j ,k ⋅ ω k as an adjust-

bility that is vitally important in establishing a firm under- ment for the correlations among the signals.

8

standing of the model and its results and in testing the In other words, monthly ∆t = 1/12, weekly ∆t = 1/52,

robustness of the answers to reasonable adjustments in the and so forth.

9

As mentioned earlier, even if the portfolio were to change

inputs. Our approach also lends itself to reverse engi-

on a daily basis, we would likely want ∆t to represent a longer,

neering in that it is relatively easy to adjust the risk penalty

say, one- or two-week timeframe, so that more substantial

and trading rate to attain the desired level of turnover and changes take place.

active variance. Furthermore, the approach predicts some

JPM-GRINOLD:JPM-GRINOLD 7/16/10 11:52 AM Page 34

10

As ∆t goes to zero ψj → d/{d + gj}.

11

If ω̂ j = ψ j ⋅ ω j , then ω M2 = Σ iωˆ i {Σ j ρi , j ⋅ ωˆ j }.

12

The portfolio Q – M has positions q − m = Σ j =1, J ,

s j ⋅ω j ⋅ (1 − ψj ).

REFERENCES

dictable Returns and Transactions Costs.” Working Paper, Haas

It is illegal to make unauthorized copies of this article, forward to an unauthorized user or to post electronically without Publisher permission.

The Journal of Portfolio Management 2010.36.4:24-34. Downloaded from www.iijournals.com by IMPERIAL COLLEGE on 09/07/10.

Journal of Investment Management, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2006), pp. 5-22.

agement, 34 (2007), pp. 12-26.

for Active Managers.” Journal of Investing, Vol. 17, No. 4 (2008),

pp. 106-111.

Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 70, No. 1 (1956),

pp. 65-94.

dpalmieri@iijournals.com or 212-224-3675.

- [Goldman Sachs] Introduction to Mortgage-Backed Securities and Other Securitized AssetsUploaded by00aa
- Hot-To Guide to Quant Models NOMURAUploaded byPrimo KUSHFUTURES™ M©QUEEN
- DB QUANT Market TimingUploaded byjojotrader
- Db Handbook of Portfolio Construction Part 1Uploaded byKenan Cinar
- Wai Lee - Regimes - Nonparametric Identification and Forecasting (1)Uploaded byramdabom
- Signal Processing 20101110Uploaded bysmysona
- Quantitative Asset Manage 102727754Uploaded byh_jacobson
- Macquarie technicalsUploaded byKevin MacCullough
- DBG_020911_94525Uploaded byexperquisite
- Correlation, Correlation everywhere, but not a drop to sell…Uploaded byJunyuan
- Risk Premia Strategies b 102727740Uploaded byh_jacobson
- Style RotationUploaded byRaphael
- [JP Morgan] Abritrage Pricing of Equity Correlation SwapsUploaded bymarco_aita
- Optimal Diversification 102727757Uploaded byh_jacobson
- JPMorgan 2010 Academic ReferenceUploaded bytanmartin
- 19606721 JP Morgan Correlation Vechicles Techniques for Trading Equity CorrelationUploaded bypkanaka
- How to Jumpstart an Interstellar CivilizationUploaded byErika Ilves
- A Signal WeightingUploaded byOrathai Beeba Che
- Dispersion Trading and Volatility Gamma RiskUploaded byHenry Chow
- 2006 Loeys, J., Exploiting Cross-Market MomentumUploaded byArthur Fournier
- SSB 1995 - Part 1 Overview of Forward Rate Analysis - Understanding the Yield Curve Part 1Uploaded byArjun Prakash
- Tail Risk Management_PIMCO Paper 2008Uploaded byGeouz
- A Computational Methodolgy for Modelling the Dynamics of Statistical ArbitrageUploaded bytaylormd01
- thewisdomofcrowdscrowdsourcingearningsestimates-140317100341-phpapp01Uploaded byanon_608381748
- A Guide to the VIX Derivatives Landscape 2-BarclaysUploaded bytbochud
- Trading DayUploaded bydmid
- Ribeiro Volatility 2012Uploaded bypbecker126
- GEM3 Empirical NotesUploaded byxy053333
- 213311967-DB-QUANT-Market-Timing.pdfUploaded bycaxap
- IndicesBrochure[1]Uploaded byarvoip

- Artemis - Volatility of an Impossible-ObjectUploaded byrspence0114
- Brazil Local Market GuideUploaded byJolin Majmin
- ssm abn amroUploaded byJolin Majmin
- Will Resource Boom Be Derailed by Us and Eu Debt ProblemsUploaded byJolin Majmin
- RBS Xccry Basis Swaps StratUploaded byJolin Majmin
- Triple Trouble2 (Mar09)Uploaded byJolin Majmin
- fed accord 1945-1951Uploaded byJolin Majmin
- DoubleShortLeveredETFs(Apr10)Uploaded byJolin Majmin
- 712F5E76C1C91FC6C125759E00545A31Uploaded byJolin Majmin

- 2013 CDP Business Report LowUploaded bylkjhgfdsa2037
- MfsUploaded bygau_dani50
- FERA SECUploaded bytaubush
- IAS 18 RevenueUploaded byshogunijow
- Lums Cases Bibliography FinalUploaded byOsman Anwar
- Financial Literacy Initiatives by Various Regulatory InstitutionsUploaded byarcherselevators
- Form 8960 InstructionsUploaded byforbesadmin
- IFG Network v. Rua L. King, 386 F.3d 1364, 11th Cir. (2004)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- Presentation-Accounting Standards-.pptUploaded byJose Bradford
- CXC POA SECTION 2: THE CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET NotesUploaded byArcherAcs
- Guide to Big Data for FinanceUploaded byPedro Alam Sarges
- BRAC BankUploaded byHumaira Hossain
- FRL 300 Chapter 2 (1)Uploaded bySol
- MC-0901Uploaded bymcchronicle
- Demand Increase in Retirement Age Final DocumentUploaded byAnonymous 4yXWpD
- Director Investment Banking in NYC NY Resume Pascal KabembaUploaded byPascalKabemba
- RA english07Uploaded bymcastilho
- Upstate Left Behind: Job Loss, Policy Challenges, and a New Path to Create Jobs Across New York StateUploaded byNew York State Senate Democratic Conference
- Novus OverlapUploaded bytabbforum
- BOMA StandardUploaded byIrina Tudorache
- gr chi wtcs pressreleasedraftUploaded byapi-291016335
- 06 Hints Class Quiz Securities and charges (1).docUploaded byVikashKumar
- 01_BWFF_5053_Syllabus_1[1]Uploaded byHameed Wesabi
- Mark Regan C.V 2017Uploaded bySylvia Qiu
- Plazee Dubey New Format CVUploaded byas
- Chua, Cheong Gould (2012).pdfUploaded byFaricha EW
- Ch4 - GROSS INCOME.docUploaded byJuan Frivaldo
- Possession is Nine-Tenths of the LawUploaded byDr. Jeff Lewis
- ECON 251 Financial Theory- Notes H1Uploaded bymingymag
- Internal Controls QuestionnaireUploaded byAdam Kahn