Second Investment Course November 2005

Second investment course november 2005 l.jpg
1 / 50
0
0
740 days ago, 177 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation
4 - 1. Review of the Portfolio Optimization Process. The former investigation shows that it is workable for speculators to lessen their danger presentation essentially by holding in their portfolios an adequately expansive number of advantages (or resource classes). This is the thought of na

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Second Investment Course – November 2005 Topic Four: Portfolio Optimization: Analytical Techniques

Slide 2

Overview of the Portfolio Optimization Process The former investigation shows that it is workable for financial specialists to decrease their hazard introduction just by holding in their portfolios an adequately huge number of advantages (or resource classes). This is the idea of gullible broadening , yet as we have seen there is a point of confinement to how much hazard this procedure can evacuate. Effective broadening is the way toward choosing portfolio property in order to: (i) limit portfolio hazard while (ii) accomplishing expected return destinations and, perhaps, fulfilling different imperatives (e.g., no short deals permitted). Subsequently, proficient broadening is at last a compelled enhancement issue. We will come back to this point in the following session. See that basically limiting portfolio chance without a particular return objective at the top of the priority list (i.e., an unconstrained streamlining issue) is occasionally fascinating to a financial specialist. All things considered, in a proficient market, any riskless portfolio ought to simply acquire the hazard free rate, which the financial specialist could get more cost-viably with a T-charge buy.

Slide 3

The Portfolio Optimization Process As set up by Nobel laureate Harry Markowitz in the 1950s, the productive expansion way to deal with building up an ideal arrangement of portfolio speculation weights (i.e., {w i }) can be viewed as the answer for the accompanying non-straight, compelled advancement issue: Select {w i } in order to limit: subject to: (i) E(R p ) = R* (ii) S w i = 1 The primary limitation is the financial specialist's arrival objective (i.e., R*). The second requirement basically expresses that the aggregate speculation over all "n" resource classes must equivalent 100%. (See that this limitation permits any of the w i to be negative; that is, short offering is admissible.) Other imperatives that are regularly added to this issue include: (i) All w i > 0 (i.e., no short offering), or (ii) All w i < P, where P is a settled rate

Slide 4

Solving the Portfolio Optimization Problem by and large, there are two ways to deal with understanding for the ideal arrangement of speculation weights (i.e., {w i }) contingent upon the information sources the client indicates: Underlying Risk and Return Parameters : Asset class expected returns, standard deviations, relationships) Analytical (i.e., shut frame) arrangement : "Genuine" arrangement however here and there hard to execute and moderately firm at taking care of numerous portfolio requirements Optimal pursuit : Flexible outline and least demanding to actualize, yet does not generally accomplish genuine arrangement Observed Portfolio Returns : Underlying resource class hazard and return parameters evaluated certainly

Slide 5

The Analytical Solution to Efficient Portfolio Optimization

Slide 6

The Analytical Solution to Efficient Portfolio Optimization (cont.)

Slide 7

The Analytical Solution to Efficient Portfolio Optimization (cont.)

Slide 8

Example of Mean-Variance Optimization: Analytical Solution (Three Asset Classes, Short Sales Allowed)

Slide 9

Example of Mean-Variance Optimization: Analytical Solution (cont.) (Three Asset Classes, Short Sales Allowed)

Slide 10

Example of Mean-Variance Optimization: Optimal Search Procedure (Three Asset Classes, Short Sales Allowed)

Slide 11

Example of Mean-Variance Optimization: Optimal Search Procedure (Three Asset Classes, No Short Sales)

Slide 12

Measuring the Cost of Constraint: Incremental Portfolio Risk Main Idea : Any limitation on the streamlining procedure forces a cost to the speculator as far as incremental portfolio unpredictability, yet just if that limitation is authoritative (i.e., shields you from putting resources into a generally ideal way).

Slide 13

Mean-Variance Efficient Frontier With and Without Short-Selling

Slide 14

Optimal Search Efficient Frontier Example: Five Asset Classes

Slide 15

Example of Mean-Variance Optimization: Optimal Search Procedure (Five Asset Classes, No Short Sales)

Slide 16

Mean-Variance Optimization with Black-Litterman Inputs One of the reactions that is in some cases made about the mean-fluctuation advancement handle that we have quite recently observed is that the information sources (e.g., resource class expected returns, standard deviations, and relationships) must be assessed, which can impact the nature of the subsequent vital assignments. Regularly, these information sources are evaluated from recorded return information. Notwithstanding, it has been watched that sources of info assessed with verifiable information—the normal returns, specifically—prompt to "outrageous" portfolio assignments that don't have all the earmarks of being practical. Dark Litterman expected returns are frequently favored by and by for the utilization in mean-fluctuation improvements in light of the fact that the balance reliable figures prompt to "smoother", more practical allotments.

Slide 17

BL Mean-Variance Optimization Example Recall the suggested expected returns and different contributions from the prior case:

Slide 18

BL Mean-Variance Optimization Example (cont.) These sources of info can then be utilized as a part of a standard mean-fluctuation enhancer:

Slide 19

BL Mean-Variance Optimization Example (cont.) This prompts to the accompanying ideal allotments (i.e., productive boondocks):

Slide 20

BL Mean-Variance Optimization Example (cont.)

Slide 21

BL Mean-Variance Optimization Example (cont.) Another favorable position of the BL Optimization model is that it gives a route to the client to fuse his own particular perspectives about resource class expected returns into the estimation of the proficient wilderness. Said in an unexpected way, on the off chance that you don't concur with the inferred returns , the BL demonstrate permits you to make strategic conformity to the sources of info and still accomplish all around expanded portfolios that mirror your view. Two segments of a strategic view: Asset Class Performance Absolute (e.g., Asset Class #1 will have an arrival of X%) Relative (e.g., Asset Class #1 will beat Asset Class #2 by Y%) User Confidence Level 0% to 100%, showing assurance of return view (See the article "A Step-by-Step Guide to the Black-Litterman Model" by T. Idzorek of Zephyr Associates for more subtle elements on the computational procedure required with joining client determined strategic perspectives)

Slide 22

BL Mean-Variance Optimization Example (cont.) Suppose we alter the contributions to the procedure to incorporate two strategic perspectives: US Equity will beat Global Equity by 50 premise focuses (70% certainty) Emerging Market Equity will outflank US Equity by 150 premise focuses (half certainty)

Slide 23

BL Mean-Variance Optimization Example (cont.) The new ideal distributions mirror these strategic perspectives (i.e., all the more Emerging Market Equity and less Global Equity:

Slide 24

BL Mean-Variance Optimization Example (cont.) This prompts to the accompanying new proficient boondocks:

Slide 25

Optimal Portfolio Formation With Historical Returns: Examples Suppose we have month to month return information throughout the previous three years on the accompanying six resource classes: Chilean Stocks (IPSA Index) Chilean Bonds (LVAG & LVAC Indexes) Chilean Cash (LVAM Index) U.S. Stocks (S&P 500 Index) U.S. Securities (SBBIG Index) Multi-Strategy Hedge Funds (CSFB/Tremont Index) Assume additionally that the non-CLP designated resource classes can be impeccably and costlessly supported in full if the financial specialist so wants

Slide 26

Optimal Portfolio Formation With Historical Returns: Examples (cont.) Consider the arrangement of ideal vital resource distributions under a wide assortment of conditions: With and without supporting non-CLP presentation With and Without Investment in Hedge Funds With and Without 30% Constraint on non-CLP Assets With various meanings of the advancement issue: Mean-Variance Optimization Mean-Lower Partial Moment (i.e., drawback hazard) Optimization "Alpha"- Tracking Error Optimization Each of these streamlining illustrations will: Use the arrangement of authentic returns specifically instead of the hidden arrangement of advantage class hazard and profit parameters Be based for verifiable return information from the period October 2002 – September 2005 Restrict against short offering (aside from those short deals inserted in the fence investments resource class)

Slide 27

1. Mean-Variance Optimization: Non-CLP Assets 100% Unhedged

Slide 28

Unconstrained Efficient Frontier: 100% Unhedged

Slide 29

One Consequence of the Unhedged M-V Efficient Frontier Notice that in light of the reinforcing CLP/USD swapping scale over the October 2002 – September 2005 period, the ideal distribution for any normal return objective did exclude any presentation to non-CLP resource classes This "unhedged remote venture" productive wilderness is proportionate to the effective boondocks that would have come about because of a "local speculation just" limitation . The issue of remote money supporting will be considered in a different theme

Slide 30

Mean-Variance Optimization: Non-CLP Assets 100% Hedged

Slide 31

Unconstrained M-V Efficient Frontier: 100% Hedged

Slide 32

Comparison of Unhedged (i.e. "Residential Only") and Hedged (i.e., "Unconstrained Foreign") Efficient Frontiers

Slide 33

A Related Question About Foreign Diversification What assignment to remote resources in a local venture portfolio prompts to a diminishment in the general level of hazard? Van Harlow of Fidelity Investments played out the accompanying examination: Consider a benchmark portfolio containing a 100% designation to U.S. values Diversify the benchmark portfolio by including a remote value designation in progressive 5% increases Calculate standard deviations for benchmark and differentiated portfolios utilizing month to month return information over moving three-year holding periods amid 1970-2005 For each outside allotment extent, figure the rate of moving three-year holding periods that brought about a hazard level for the expanded portfolio that was higher than the household benchmark

Slide 34

.:t

SPONSORS