IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2203.00148.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improved iterative methods for solving risk parity portfolio

Author

Listed:
  • Jaehyuk Choi
  • Rong Chen

Abstract

Risk parity, also known as equal risk contribution, has recently gained increasing attention as a portfolio allocation method. However, solving portfolio weights must resort to numerical methods as the analytic solution is not available. This study improves two existing iterative methods: the cyclical coordinate descent (CCD) and Newton methods. We enhance the CCD method by simplifying the formulation using a correlation matrix and imposing an additional rescaling step. We also suggest an improved initial guess inspired by the CCD method for the Newton method. Numerical experiments show that the improved CCD method performs the best and is approximately three times faster than the original CCD method, saving more than 40% of the iterations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaehyuk Choi & Rong Chen, 2022. "Improved iterative methods for solving risk parity portfolio," Papers 2203.00148, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2203.00148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.00148
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hyuksoo Kim & Saejoon Kim, 2021. "Reduction of estimation error impact in the risk parity strategies," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 1351-1364, August.
    2. Griveau-Billion, Théophile & Richard, Jean-Charles & Roncalli, Thierry, 2013. "A Fast Algorithm for Computing High-dimensional Risk Parity Portfolios," MPRA Paper 49822, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4688 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Xi Bai & Katya Scheinberg & Reha Tutuncu, 2016. "Least-squares approach to risk parity in portfolio selection," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 357-376, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. da Costa, B. Freitas Paulo & Pesenti, Silvana M. & Targino, Rodrigo S., 2023. "Risk budgeting portfolios from simulations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(3), pages 1040-1056.
    2. Jean-Charles Richard & Thierry Roncalli, 2019. "Constrained Risk Budgeting Portfolios: Theory, Algorithms, Applications & Puzzles," Papers 1902.05710, arXiv.org.
    3. Vaughn Gambeta & Roy Kwon, 2020. "Risk Return Trade-Off in Relaxed Risk Parity Portfolio Optimization," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-28, October.
    4. Miquel Noguer i Alonso & Sonam Srivastava, 2020. "Deep Reinforcement Learning for Asset Allocation in US Equities," Papers 2010.04404, arXiv.org.
    5. Anis, Hassan T. & Kwon, Roy H., 2022. "Cardinality-constrained risk parity portfolios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 392-402.
    6. Erdinc Akyildirim & Matteo Gambara & Josef Teichmann & Syang Zhou, 2023. "Randomized Signature Methods in Optimal Portfolio Selection," Papers 2312.16448, arXiv.org.
    7. Rubesam, Alexandre, 2022. "Machine learning portfolios with equal risk contributions: Evidence from the Brazilian market," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(PB).
    8. Giorgio Costa & Roy Kwon, 2020. "A robust framework for risk parity portfolios," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(5), pages 447-466, September.
    9. Francesco Cesarone & Andrea Scozzari & Fabio Tardella, 2020. "An optimization–diversification approach to portfolio selection," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 245-265, February.
    10. Silvana M. Pesenti & Sebastian Jaimungal & Yuri F. Saporito & Rodrigo S. Targino, 2023. "Risk Budgeting Allocation for Dynamic Risk Measures," Papers 2305.11319, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    11. Eduardo Bered Fernandes Vieira & Tiago Pascoal Filomena, 2020. "Liquidity Constraints for Portfolio Selection Based on Financial Volume," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 56(4), pages 1055-1077, December.
    12. Ayse Sinem Uysal & Xiaoyue Li & John M. Mulvey, 2021. "End-to-End Risk Budgeting Portfolio Optimization with Neural Networks," Papers 2107.04636, arXiv.org.
    13. Francesco Cesarone & Rosella Giacometti & Manuel Luis Martino & Fabio Tardella, 2023. "A return-diversification approach to portfolio selection," Papers 2312.09707, arXiv.org.
    14. Adil Rengim Cetingoz & Olivier Gu'eant, 2023. "Asset and Factor Risk Budgeting: A Balanced Approach," Papers 2312.11132, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    15. Giorgio Costa & Roy H. Kwon, 2020. "Generalized risk parity portfolio optimization: an ADMM approach," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 78(1), pages 207-238, September.
    16. M. D. Braga & C. R. Nava & M. G. Zoia, 2023. "Kurtosis-based risk parity: methodology and portfolio effects," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 453-469, March.
    17. Ravi Kashyap, 2024. "The Blockchain Risk Parity Line: Moving From The Efficient Frontier To The Final Frontier Of Investments," Papers 2407.09536, arXiv.org.
    18. Wonbin Ahn & Hee Soo Lee & Hosun Ryou & Kyong Joo Oh, 2020. "Asset Allocation Model for a Robo-Advisor Using the Financial Market Instability Index and Genetic Algorithms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Bernardo K. Pagnoncelli & Domingo Ramírez & Hamed Rahimian & Arturo Cifuentes, 2023. "A Synthetic Data-Plus-Features Driven Approach for Portfolio Optimization," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 62(1), pages 187-204, June.
    20. M. Barkhagen & S. García & J. Gondzio & J. Kalcsics & J. Kroeske & S. Sabanis & A. Staal, 2023. "Optimising portfolio diversification and dimensionality," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 85(1), pages 185-234, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2203.00148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.