Open alexander-myltsev opened 3 years ago
You're absolutely correct. I tried Ledoit-Wolf and the impact is minimal on a universe of ~10 assets. It might even screw up your optimization if you have assets with ~1 correlation in there (e.g. QQQ and TQQQ). There's even a cooler paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3530390 with a similar, theoretically sound idea, but its impact is negligible too. The most critical thing is to get your mean estimates right... or at least not too wrong which is where Black-litterman or other regularization approaches comes to play.
OK. Thanks for your reply. Did you try Black-Litterman? What's the impact?
@Marigold would you answer ⬆️ ?
I haven't implemented it, BL is just a framework, you still need to come up with return estimates. I'm for instance using an assumption of constant Sharpe ratio across all assets (i.e. return = sharpe * volatility) and then put it into MPT optimization. That gives reasonable allocation across assets (I believe it even has a name, just don't remember what it was). Pretty much all experiments where I estimated expected returns failed.
Hi @Marigold,
You suggested to implement Ledoit-Wolf covariance estimation at the end of modern-portfolio-theory.ipynb.
I read the paper. The shrinkage ratio of
F
estimator should go to zero when there are 11 assets (like there is at the modern-portfolio-theory.ipynb) or so. Hence the result Covariance Matrix equals to Sample Covariance Matrix. To show the benefit they made an estimation for ~900 assets having monthly historical data. I wonder what impact do you expect to achieve by implementing the method at the universal-portfolios?