This website uses cookies to collect usage information in order to offer a better browsing experience. By browsing this site or by clicking on the "ACCEPT COOKIES" button you accept our Cookie Policy.

Risk Parity Asset Allocation

Quantpedia

Contributor:
Quantpedia
Visit: Quantpedia

By:

Quant Analyst, Quantpedia

Excerpt

This article is a primer into the methodology we use for the Portfolio Risk Parity report, which is a part of our Quantpedia Pro offering. We explain three risk parity methodologies – Naive Risk Parity (inverse volatility weighted), Equal Risk Contribution and Maximum Diversification. Quantpedia Pro allows the design of model risk parity portfolios built not just from the passive market factors (commodities, equities, fixed income, etc.) but also from systematic trading strategies and uploaded user’s equity curves.

Introduction

Risk parity is an investment management strategy that focuses on risk allocation. The main aim is to find weights of assets that ensure an equal level of risk, most frequently measured by volatility of the portfolio. To allocate the correct “risk parity” weight to an asset, we must understand its risk (and in some variations also return) characteristics. As the simplest benchmark, we use an equally weighted portfolio.

An equally weighted portfolio can be a great choice in many cases; however, when it comes to risk, it has one significant disadvantage. Imagine, we have an equally weighted portfolio consisting of ten assets, of which all but one are highly volatile. In this case, the one low volatile asset brings no diversification benefit. Additionally, the risk contribution of each of the nine highly volatile assets (such as stocks or commodities) is much larger than the risk contribution of the one low volatile asset (such as bonds).

We use simple historical 126-day volatility as a measure of risk. Marginal risk contribution of an asset is calculated as a product of marginal contribution and the weight of the asset divided by 126-day volatility of the portfolio. To find each asset’s marginal contribution, take the cross-product of the weights vector and the covariance matrix divided by 126-day volatility of the portfolio. Portfolio’s diversification ratio is calculated as the ratio between weighted volatility of the assets and volatility of the whole portfolio. The higher the ratio, the more diversified the portfolio.

The following figures show an equally weighted portfolio consisting of SPY (US equities), EFA (EAFE equities), GLD (Gold) and IEF (US 7-10y bonds) ETFs. The figure in the top left shows the weights of the ETFs. As the name suggests, each of the four ETFs has a quarter of the weight in the equally weighted portfolio. The top right figure shows the volatility contribution of each ETF in case of our benchmark equal weight allocation. The bottom left figure shows marginal risk contribution, and the figure in the bottom right shows the diversification ratio.

Risk Parity Asset Allocation

As you can see in the Volatility Contribution graph and the Marginal Risk Contribution graph, the diversification benefit of IEF (US 7-10y bonds) is minimal. Most of the portfolio’s risk is in the SPY (US equities) and EFA (EAFE equities) ETFs. The following figure shows the Cumulative Performance of Equally-Weighted Portfolio.

Risk Parity Asset Allocation

Naïve Risk Parity

In order to give a low volatile asset an equal opportunity to contribute to a portfolio, we can use naïve risk parity. Naïve risk parity or naïve risk weighting does not use equal weights. Instead, it uses the inverse risk approach. This approach gives lower weight to riskier assets and more significant weight to less risky assets. This method ensures that the risk contribution of each asset is the same.

Theoretically, naïve risk parity is based on the assumption that all the assets in the portfolio have a similar excess return per unit of risk; in other words, have similar Sharpe Ratios. However, the assets’ correlation cannot be determined with high confidence, i.e. it is omitted from the calculation.

There are multiple ways to measure the risk, i.e. input for the risk parity allocation. The most commonly used is volatility; however, variance, Value at Risk (VAR), Conditional Value at Risk (CVar), Conditional Drawdown at Risk (CDaR) or Maximum Daily Loss, and many more can also be used. In the case of normally distributed data, all the listed methods should agree on the optimal asset weights.

Calculating volatility is equal to calculating the standard deviation of daily returns. When the volatility is calculated, we assign the weights using the inverse risk approach:

where sigma stands for the vector of asset volatilities.

The following figures show a portfolio consisting of SPY, EFA, GLD and IEF ETFs created using Naïve Risk Parity. The top left figure shows the weights of the ETFs. As you can see, the weights are no longer the same. IEF, an ETF consisting of US 7-10y bonds, has the greatest weight, because of its low volatility.

The top right figure shows the volatility contribution of each ETF. The volatility contribution of each ETF is nearly equal when using naïve risk parity. The bottom left figure shows marginal risk contribution, and the figure in the bottom right shows the comparison of diversification ratio of Equally-Weighted portfolio and Naïve Risk-Parity portfolio.

In the following table, we compare the risk metrics of Equally-Weighted portfolio and Naïve Risk-Parity portfolio.

 14Y CAR
p.a.
14Y Volatility
p.a.
SRMax DD95% DDCAR/
max DD
CAR/
95% DD
Equally-Weighted
Portfolio
7.73%11.52%0.67-29.58%-14.70%0.260.53
Naive Risk-Parity
Portfolio
7.16%7.33%0.98-19.04%-8.10%0.380.88
Difference-0.57%-4.19%0.3110.54%6.60%0.110.36

The following figure shows the Cumulative Performance of Naïve Risk-Parity Portfolio.

Stay tuned for the next installment to learn about Equal Risk Contribution.

Visit Quantpedia for additional insight on this topic: https://quantpedia.com/risk-parity-asset-allocation/.

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Disclosure: Interactive Brokers

Information posted on IBKR Traders’ Insight that is provided by third-parties and not by Interactive Brokers does NOT constitute a recommendation by Interactive Brokers that you should contract for the services of that third party. Third-party participants who contribute to IBKR Traders’ Insight are independent of Interactive Brokers and Interactive Brokers does not make any representations or warranties concerning the services offered, their past or future performance, or the accuracy of the information provided by the third party. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

This material is from Quantpedia and is being posted with permission from Quantpedia. The views expressed in this material are solely those of the author and/or Quantpedia and IBKR is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the material. This material is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

trading top