1 / 18

A Survey on Portfolio Optimisation with Metaheuristics

A Survey on Portfolio Optimisation with Metaheuristics. Prisadarng Skolpadungket Keshav Dahal School of Informatics University of Bradford, UK. Outline. Introduction. Portfolio Optimisation Problems. Realistic Constraints Metaheuristic Methods and Results

Download Presentation

A Survey on Portfolio Optimisation with Metaheuristics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Survey on Portfolio Optimisation with Metaheuristics Prisadarng Skolpadungket Keshav Dahal School of Informatics University of Bradford, UK

  2. Outline • Introduction. • Portfolio Optimisation Problems. • Realistic Constraints • Metaheuristic Methods and Results • Conclusion and Future works

  3. Introduction • Portfolio optimisation objective: to find minimum risk a given expect return . • A portfolio manager task: to select K assets from a universe of N assets (K <= N) (e.g. all listed companies’ stocks) to form an equity portfolio. • 2 relevant characteristics of any assets • 1) Expected return • 2) Risk profile. • Risk is a relatively vague concept thus can be quantitatively represented by many definitions.

  4. Introduction (Cont.) • The most popular representations of risk • Variance of return (or Standard Deviation) • Value at Risk (VaR). • Variance and VaR of a portfolio not equal to plain summation of the assets’ returns • Assets’ returns may be correlated thus portfolio’s return less than the plain summation. • The more un-correlated, the less risk the portfolio. • The choices of assets in combination affect • weight average expected return • non-linear and inter-related risk

  5. Portfolio Optimisation Problems The general model of portfolio optimisation (modified Markowitz model by Black) is • xi are selection variables, short-sale allowed. • xi can be negative (short position of asset i). • If xi are all continuous and differentiable then the model has • a closed form solution (solved by standard calculus). • a Portfolio Frontier represents the set of portfolio optima .

  6. Portfolio Frontier rp (Return) r (Return)

  7. Portfolio Optimisation Problems (Cont.) • The original Markowitz model has no short-sell • xi cannot be negative. • Non-negative constraint is added into the general model • This model cannot be solved by calculus. • But by some specialised techniques • e.g. interior point algorithms, branch and cut approaches, other numerical techniques using structures of the co-variance matrix.

  8. Realistic Constraints • Realistic constraints arise • Regulations • Market institution • investment policies • economic (cost) reasons etc. • Integer constraints: every asset includes in the portfolio must be rounded normal trading lot). • Cardinality constraints: the maximum number and minimum number of assets to include in the portfolio

  9. Realistic Constraints (Cont.) • Floor and ceiling constraints: lower and upper limits on the proportion of each asset held. • Turnover constraints: upper bound for variations of the asset holding from one period to the next. • Trading constraints: limits on buying and selling tiny quantities of assets • Transaction costs: associate with purchases and sales of assets incorporated in the realistic models.

  10. Metaheuristic Methods and Results • With realistic constraints: • Portfolio optimisation became Non-Polynomial Hard problems (NP-Hard). • Integer and cardinality constraints: • The problems become combinatorial optimisation problems with factorial time complexity (O (C (N, k)) ). • Two ways to cope with the NP hard problems. • Approximate Models • Approximate Algorithms • Heuristics are Approximate Algorithms. • Simple heuristics: tend to end their searches in local minima. • Metaheuristics: • Heuristics with mechanisms to escape local minima. • Allowing temporary moves to inferior points. • Two categories of Metaheuristics: • Local search metaheuristics (LSMs) • Evolutionary algorithms (EAs).

  11. Simulated Annealing • The oldest among the metaheuristics. • Allowing moves toward worse solutions to escape from local optima. • The probability of worse moves diminishs like molecules slowing down as the temperature cooling down. • Crama and Schyns (Crama 2003) • With floor, ceiling, turnover, trading and cardinality constraints. • Approximated the optimal portfolio frontier (medium size problem with 151 assets) within acceptable time. • Could handle more classes of constraints than classical approaches. • Versatile to apply to different measures of risk. • Needs to customize and fine tune parameters for different classes of constraints.

  12. Tabu List X X X X X X X X X • Tabu Search • Keeps lists of previous searches (tabu list) • Forbids moves toward tabu list. • Used to avoid local optima • To implement an explorative search strategy (Blum 2003.) • Busetti (Busetti 2000) • Used Tabu Search/Scatter Search • Compared with Genetic Algorithms (GA) • Found that tabu/scatter search is unsuitable for cardinality constraint problem (40 assets) • Concluded that GA is better than tabu/scatter search

  13. Ant Colony Search • Imitation ants’ findind shortest path between food sources and their nest. • Ants deposit pheromone on the ground. • Decide the direction based on the concentration of pheromone. • Maringer (Maringer 2005) applied ant colony algorithms for small portfolios (with cardinality constraints). • Similar to Knapsack problems with some modifications. • The “value” of asset depends on the overall structure of portfolio. • Has to decide jointly • to include an asset or not • the amount of the asset. • Found that AC is more efficient for smaller K (=3) and with pheromone evaporation

  14. Hybrid Local Search • Maringer (Maringer 2003, 2005) • Applied hybrid local search. • Combine population based with local search. • A crystal-like structure represents a portfolio of assets. • All of the crystals represent the population. • The iterations consist of three stages; • Modification of crystal (portfolio) structure • Evaluation and ranking of the modified structure • Replacement of the poorest crystal in the population. • Test the algorithm against SA and SA with a group of isolated crystals (GSA). • Results: • HLS (best) >> GSA >> SA (worst) • Conclusion: • Evolutionary strategies improve metaheuristic algorithms for portfolio optimisation

  15. Genetic Algorithms • GA are population based heuristic algorithms • Imitating the natural selection of survival of the fittest. • Represented as chromosomes • breed by crossover • modified by mutation • Busetti (Busetti 2000) compared GA with tabu search • Found that GA performs better. • Streichart et al. (Streichart 2004a) applied the Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA) • Use 2 binary bit-string based genotypes • Gray-code encoding • Real-valued genotype (32 bits) • Compare: • GA with and without Lamarckism (can be modified not only being removed from the population) • Knapsack GA (KGA) with and without Larmarckism. • With constraints: cardinality and integer (discrete) constraints

  16. Genetic Algorithms (Cont.) • The reults: • with constraints, KGA produced better results and converged faster than ordinary GA. • without constraints, both GA and KGA perform almost the same. • GAs without Larmarckism tend to be premature convergence and trapped in local minima. • The real value coding performed worst • Bit gray-coding and Larmarckism was the best • Intrepretations: • The mutation and crossover operators are more effective in the gray code representation. • Larmarckism adds performance due to its ability to remove neutrality in the search space.

  17. Conclusion Future Works • A portfolio optimisation with realistic constraints is a NP hard problem. • Pure search metaheuristics tends to be trapped in local optima. • Population based metaheuristics tends to be time inefficient. • Uses of hybrid algorithms can improve the situations. • A clear trend is heading toward hybrid models. • Our future work will be toward improving hybrid and novel metaheuristic implementations. • We also plan to extend the techniques to implement on other portfolio selection models with • Different definition of risk and return, • Estimations of the volatility and of the returns.

  18. The End Thank You !

More Related