# Risk Budgeting: Concept, Interpretation and Applications

## Transcription

Risk Budgeting: Concept, Interpretation and Applications
```Risk Budgeting:
Concept, Interpretation and
Applications
Northfield Research Conference 2005
Eddie Qian, PhD, CFA
Senior Portfolio Manager
260 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 439-6327
217538 8/11/2005
The Concept
Risk Contribution
§ Risk contribution – attribution of total risk to individual
underlying components of a portfolio in percentage terms
§ Examples
Ÿ Fixed income portfolio: sector risk, yield curve risk, …
Ÿ Equity portfolio: systematic risk (risk indices/industries), specific risk, …
Ÿ Asset allocation: TAA risk (stock/bond, cap rotation, …), sleeve active
risk, …
Ÿ Manager selection, strategy allocation
Ÿ Asset allocation portfolio: beta risk from stocks, bonds, commodities, …
Ÿ Parity portfolios
217538 8/11/2005
1
The Concept
An Example
§ A simple illustration
Ÿ Two active strategies – strategy A at 1% active risk, strategy B at 2%
active risk, two sources uncorrelated
§ Total active risk
Ÿ Equals 1% + 2% = 2.24%
Ÿ What is the risk contribution from strategy A and B?
Ÿ Answer – A contributes 20% and B at 80%
Ÿ Contribution to variance
2
Ÿ Strategy A
2
1
1+ 4
, Strategy B
4
1+ 4
§ Contribution based upon variances and covariances
217538 8/11/2005
2
The Concept
Mathematical Definition
§ Marginal contribution - ∂∂wσ
∂σ
w
§ Risk contribution - ∂w
§ VaR contribution - w∂VaR
∂w
i
i
i
i
i
§ Well defined in financial engineering terms
§ But objected by some financial economists for a lack of
economic interpretation
217538 8/11/2005
3
The Concept
Objections
§ Risk is not additive in terms of standard deviation or VaR
§ You can only add risk when returns are uncorrelated
§ A mathematical decomposition of risk is not itself a risk
§
§
decomposition
Risk budgeting only make sense if considered from meanvariance optimization perspective
Marginal contribution to risk is sensible, but not risk
contribution
217538 8/11/2005
4
Interpretation
Loss Contribution
§ Question: For a given loss of a portfolio, what are the likely
§
contribution from the underlying components?
Answer: The contribution to loss is close to risk contribution
§ Risk contribution can be interpreted as loss contribution
§ Risk budgeting ~ loss budgeting
§ Risk budgets do add up
217538 8/11/2005
5
Interpretation
An Asset Allocation Example
§ Balanced benchmark
Ÿ 60% stocks, 40% bonds
Ÿ Is it really balanced?
§ Risk contribution
Ÿ Stock volatilities at 15%, bond volatilities at 5%
Ÿ Stocks are actually 9 times riskier than bonds
Ÿ Stocks’ contribution is roughly 95% and bonds at 5%
6 2 ⋅ 32
= 95%
4 2 ⋅ 12 + 62 ⋅ 32
§ The balanced fund – a misnomer
217538 8/11/2005
6
Interpretation
Loss Contribution of a 60/40 Portfolio
Loss >
2%
3%
4%
Stocks
95.6%
100.1%
101.9%
Bonds
4.4%
-0.1%
-1.9%
§ Stocks’ contribution is almost 100%
§ It is greater than the theoretical value of 95%, because
stocks have greater tail risk
217538 8/11/2005
7
Interpretation
Mathematical Proof
§ Question: For a given loss of a portfolio, what are the likely
contribution from the underlying components?
2 2
2 2
Total risk: σ = w1 σ 1 + w2σ 2 + 2 ρw1w2σ 1σ 2
Risk contribution:
 ∂σ 
w12σ 12 + ρw1 w2σ 1σ 2
 σ =
p1 =  w1
∂
w
σ2
1 


w22σ 22 + ρw1 w2σ 1σ 2
∂σ 
 σ =
p 2 =  w2
σ2
 ∂w2 
Loss contribution?
ci = E ( wi ri | w1r1 + w2 r2 = L ) / L
217538 8/11/2005
8
Interpretation
Mathematical Proof
§ The loss contribution is approximately risk
contribution
§ Cases where they are identical
ŸZero expected returns
ŸLarge losses
ŸMean-variance optimal weights
p2 w1 µ1 − p1w2µ2
D
@ p1 + 1
L
L
p w µ − p2 w1µ1
D
@ p2 + 2
c2 = p2 + 1 2 2
L
L
c1 = p1 +
217538 8/11/2005
9
Interpretation
Mean-variance Optimal
§ Risk contribution is equivalent to loss contribution
§ Risk contribution is also equivalent to expected
return contribution
w1 µ1 w2 µ 2
=
=λ
p1
p2
§ The interpretation is valid and very close even if the
portfolio is not MV optimal
217538 8/11/2005
10
Interpretation
Loss Contribution
Figure 1 The value of D 1 over standard deviation for asset allocation portfolios
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
-4.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Stock Weight
§ The difference between risk contribution and loss
contribution is quite small
217538 8/11/2005
11
Application
Loss Contribution of a 60/40 Portfolio
Loss
-4% to -3%
-5% to -4%
-6% to -5%
-7% to -6%
-8% to -7%
-19% to -8%
Predicted c 1
Realized c 1
93.5%
92.8%
92.3%
92.0%
91.8%
91.3%
89.8%
92.7%
88.1%
99.5%
90.1%
102.4%
N
45
23
11
9
8
12
Predicted Std
28.0%
21.0%
16.8%
14.0%
12.0%
10.5%
Realized Std
26.1%
20.7%
16.1%
18.7%
18.6%
12.3%
§ Realized loss contribution from stocks increases as losses
grow
§ It could be due to higher tail risks of stocks
217538 8/11/2005
12
Application
Fat Tails
Avg Return
Stdev
Skewness
Kurtosis
Corr w/ S&P 500
S&P 500
0.98%
5.61%
0.39
9.58
1.00
US LT Gvt
0.46%
2.27%
0.66
5.09
0.14
60/40 Portfolio
0.78%
3.61%
0.40
7.64
0.97
Ÿ Ibbotson 1929 - 2004
§ Risk contribution in terms of standard deviation assumes
normal distribution
§ We need to extend the risk contribution to non-normal
return portfolio
ŸHedge funds
217538 8/11/2005
13
Application
Hedge Fund Returns
Convertible Dedicated
Arbitrage
Short
Emerging
Markets
Equity
Mkt
Neutral
9.80
Distressed
13.00
E.D. Multi- Risk
Strategy
Arbitrage
10.31
7.82
Fixed
Income
Arb
6.64
Average
8.94
-0.87
8.83
Stdev
IR
4.70
17.66
16.88
2.99
6.64
6.13
4.30
1.90
-0.05
0.52
3.28
1.96
1.68
1.82
Skewness
Kurtosis
-1.36
3.38
0.86
2.03
-0.62
4.30
0.30
0.33
-2.85
17.82
-2.64
17.57
-1.29
6.41
-3.26
17.33
Global
Macro
Long/Short Managed
Equity
Futures
13.70
11.77
6.89
3.79
11.46
10.52
12.20
4.35
1.75
1.20
1.12
0.57
2.10
0.01
2.50
0.24
3.75
0.04
0.43
-1.30
3.76
Ÿ CSFB Tremont 01/1994 – 03/2005
§ Some strategies have high IR, but also high negative
skewness and high positive kurtosis
217538 8/11/2005
14
MultiStrategy
9.13
VaR Contribution
Same Interpretation
§ Value at Risk
Ÿ Maximum loss at a given probability
Ÿ 95% VaR, 99% VaR
§ Contribution to VaR
Ÿ Interpretation: the expected contribution to a portfolio loss equaling the
size of VaR
Ÿ It changes with different level of VaR
Ÿ It is not easy to calculate because analytic formula is rarely available for
VaR
217538 8/11/2005
15
Calculating VaR Contribution
Cornish-Fisher Approximation
§ Cornish-Fisher approximation for VaR
VaR = µ + ~zα σ
(
)
(
)
(
)
1
1 3
1
~
z a ≈ z a + zα2 − 1 s +
zα − 3 z a k −
2 zα3 − 5 z a s 2
6
24
36
§ Example
Ÿ 99% VaR for the 60/40 portfolio
Ÿ Normal assumption VaR at 99% is -7.6%, zα = −2.33
Ÿ Approximate VaR is -13%, z% α = −3.81
217538 8/11/2005
16
Calculating VaR Contribution
Cornish-Fisher Approximation
§ Approximation for VaR contribution
§ We have an analytic expression of VaR
§ Algebraic function, linear, quadratic, cubic and quartic
§
polynomials
We can then calculate
217538 8/11/2005
∂VaR
wi
∂wi
17
Calculating VaR Contribution
Application to 60/40 Portfolio
Loss
-3.50%
-4.50%
-5.50%
-6.50%
-7.50%
-8.50%
Predicted VaR % Predicted c 1 Realized c 1
84.90%
93.5%
89.8%
90.50%
92.8%
92.7%
94.20%
92.3%
88.1%
97.10%
92.0%
99.5%
99.20%
91.8%
90.1%
100.90%
91.3%
102.4%
§ Stocks’ VaR contribution increases as VaR increases
§ Capture the high tail risks
§ Contribution to standard deviation shows declining instead
217538 8/11/2005
18
Calculating VaR Contribution
Other Applications
§ Need to calculate skewness and kurtosis from historical
§
returns
Risk management and risk budgeting
Ÿ Asset allocation with traditional assets and hedge funds
Ÿ High moments strategies: event driven, distressed securities, fixed
income arbitrage, etc
Ÿ Strategy allocation among managers with non-normal alphas
217538 8/11/2005
19
Summary
§ Financial interpretation of risk contribution
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Loss contribution
It applies to both standard deviation and VaR
Cornish-Fisher approximation can be used to calculate VaR contribution
It should clear up some doubts about the concept
§ Applications
Ÿ Risk budgeting for active risks
Ÿ Risk budgeting for beta portfolios – parity portfolios
Ÿ Efficient method for risk budgeting of hedge funds
217538 8/11/2005
20
```

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail

Plus en détail