Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Construct a Lower Risk FOF Based on Correlation Network? The Method of Principal Component Risk Parity Asset Allocation

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to build a low-risk Fund of Funds (FOF), from the perspective of correlation, the principal component factor is used to improve the traditional risk parity model. Principal component analysis is used to decompose the underlying assets and generate unrelated principal component factors, and then the authors can construct a principal component risk parity portfolio. The proposed empirical results based on China’s mutual fund market show that the performance of principal component risk parity portfolio (PCRPP) is better than that of equal weight portfolio (EWP) and traditional risk parity portfolio (RPP). That is to say, not only the PCRPP in this paper has much lower risk than EWP and RPP, but also slightly better than EWP and RPP in terms of average return. Moreover, the study of dividing the underlying assets shows that the PCRPP in this paper is not sensitive to the underlying assets. The PCRPP in this paper is better than EWP and RPP for both the better performing funds and the worse performing funds. In addition, the empirical results on dynamic portfolio adjustments show that it is not appropriate to adjust asset allocation too frequently when the expected rate of return is calculated using the arithmetic mean.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lohre H, Opfer H, and Orszag G, Diversifying risk parity, Journal of Risk, 2014, 16: 53–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Qian E, Risk parity portfolios: Efficient portfolios through true diversification, Boston, Panagora Asset Management, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deguest R, Martellini L, and Meucci A, Risk parity and beyond-from asset allocation to risk allocation decisions, 2013, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2355778.

  4. Erling M and Mllenhoff S, Factor risk parity with portfolio weight constraints, 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2615695.

  5. Partovi M H and Caputo M, Principal portfolios: Recasting the efficient frontier, Economics Bulletin, 2004, 7: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Markowitz H, Portfolio selection, Journal of Finance, 1952, 7: 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mao J C, Models of capital budgeting, E-V vs E-S, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1970, 4: 657–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clarke R G, De Silva H, and Thorley S, Minimum-variance portfolios in the U.S. equity market, The Journal of Portfolio Management, 2006, 33: 10–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Qin N and Wang Y, Does portfolio concentration affect performance? Evidence from corporate bond mutual funds, Journal of Banking & Finance, 2021, 123: 106033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Roman D and Mitra G, Portfolio selection models: A review and new directions, Journal of Innovative Quantitative Finance Research, 2009, 1: 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Avramov D and Zhou G, Bayesian portfolio analysis, Annual Review of Financial Economics, 2010, 2: 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Evans J L and Archer S H, Diversification and the reduction of dispersion: An empirical analysis, The Journal of Finance, 1968, 23: 761–767.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Choueifaty Y and Coignard Y, Toward maximum diversification, The Journal of Portfolio Management, 2008, 35: 40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Li H L, Huang Q, and Wu B Y, Improving the naive diversification: An enhanced indexation approach, Finance Research Letters, 2021, 39: 101661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bera A K and Park S Y, Optimal portfolio diversification using the maximum entropy principle, Econometric Reviews, 2008, 27: 484–512.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Pola G, On entropy and portfolio diversification, Journal of Asset Management, 2016, 17: 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yue W and Wang Y P, A new fuzzy multi-objective higher order moment portfolio selection model for diversified portfolios, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2017, 465: 124–140.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Desmoulins-Lebeault F and Kharoubi-Rakotomalala C, Non-Gaussian diversification: When size matters, Journal of Banking & Finance, 2012, 36(7): 1987–1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brandtner M, Conditional value-at-risk, spectral risk measures and (non-)diversification in portfolio selection problems — A comparison with mean-variance analysis, Journal of Banking & Finance, 2013, 37(12): 5526–5537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eom C, Kaizoji T, Livan G, et al., Limitations of portfolio diversification through fat tails of the return distributions: Some empirical evidence, The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 2021, 56: 101358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Maillard S, Roncalli T, Teïletche J, The properties of equally weighted risk contribution portfolios, The Journal of Portfolio Management, 2010, 36(4): 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Qian E, Risk parity and diversification, The Journal of Investing, 2011, 20: 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhansali V, Davis J, Rennison G, et al., The risk in risk parity: A factor-based analysis of asset-based risk parity, The Journal of Investing, 2012, 21: 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Boudt K and Peeters B, Asset allocation with risk factors, Quantitative Finance, 2013, 1: 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaucic M, Equity portfolio management with cardinality constraints and risk parity control using multi-objective particle swarm optimization, Computers & Operations Research, 2019, 109: 300–316.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Shimizu H and Shiohama T, Constructing inverse factor volatility portfolios: A risk-based asset allocation for factor investing, International Review of Financial Analysis, 2020, 68: 101438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu L L, Feng Y Y, and Palomar D P, General sparse risk parity portfolio design via successive convex optimization, Signal Processing, 2020, 170: 107433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bellini F, Cesarone F, Colombo C, et al., Risk parity with expectiles, European Journal of Operational Research, 2021, 291(3): 1149–1163.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Ang A and Chen J, Symmetric correlations of equity portfolios, Journal of Financial Economics, 2002, 63(3): 443–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Varga-Haszonits I and Kondor I, Noise sensitivity of portfolio selection in constant conditional correlation GARCH models, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2007, 385(1): 307–318.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Aslanidis N and Casas I, Nonparametric correlation models for portfolio allocation, Journal of Banking & Finance, 2013, 37(7): 2268–2283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sun X L and Liu Z X, Optimal portfolio strategy with cross-correlation matrix composed by DCCA coefficients: Evidence from the Chinese stock market, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2016, 444: 667–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Eom C and Park J W, Effects of common factors on stock correlation networks and portfolio diversification, International Review of Financial Analysis, 2017, 49: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Eom C and Park J W, A new method for better portfolio investment: A case of the Korean stock market, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 2018, 49: 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gokmenoglu K K and Hadood AAA, Impact of US unconventional monetary policy on dynamic stock-bond correlations: Portfolio rebalancing and signalling channel effects, Finance Research Letters, 2020, 33: 101185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Joo Y C and Park S Y, Optimal portfolio selection using a simple double-shrinkage selection rule, Finance Research Letters, 2021, 43: 102019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Li J, Wu X, Zhang L L, et al., Research on the portfolio model based on mean-MF-DCCA under multifractal feature constraint, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 2021, 386: 113264.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Takano Y and Gotoh J, Multi-period portfolio selection using kernel-based control policy with dimensionality reduction, Expert Systems with Applications, 2014, 41(8): 3901–3914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tayali H A and Tolun S, Dimension reduction in mean-variance portfolio optimization, Expert Systems with Applications, 2018, 92: 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nobre J and Neves R F, Combining principal component analysis, discrete wavelet transform and XGBoost to trade in the financial markets, Expert Systems with Applications, 2019, 125: 181–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Paolella M S, Polak P, and Walker P S, A non-elliptical orthogonal GARCH model for portfolio selection under transaction costs, Journal of Banking & Finance, 2021, 125: 106046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nakano M and Takahashi A, A new investment method with AutoEncoder: Applications to crypto currencies, Expert Systems with Applications, 2020, 162: 113730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lassance N and Vrins F, Portfolio selection with parsimonious higher comoments estimation, Journal of Banking & Finance, 2021, 126: 106115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Roncalli T and Weisang G, Risk parity portfolios with risk factors, Quantitative Finance, 2016, 16: 377–388.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Meucci A, Santangelo A, and Deguest R, Risk budgeting and diversification based on optimized uncorrelated factors, 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2276632.

  46. Bai X, Scheinberg K, and Tutuncu R, Least-squares approach to risk parity in portfolio selection, Quantitative Finance, 2016, 16(3): 357–376.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Bruder B and Roncalli T, Managing risk exposures using the risk budgeting approach, 2012, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2009778.

  48. Baitinger E, Dragosch A, and Topalova A, Extending the risk parity approach to higher moments: Is there any value added? The Journal of Portfolio Management, 2017, 43: 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Cesarone F and Tardella F, Equal risk bounding is better than risk parity for portfolio selection, Journal of Global Optimization, 2017, 68: 439–461.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  50. Blocher J, Haslag P, and Zhang C, Short trading and short investing, Journal of Empirical Finance, 2020, 59: 154–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ghosh P, Neufeld A, and Sahoo J K, Forecasting directional movements of stock prices for intraday trading using LSTM and random forests, 2022, 46: 102280.

  52. Sermpinis G, Laws J, and Dunis C L, Modelling and trading the realised volatility of the FTSE100 futures with higher order neural networks, The European Journal of Finance, 2013, 19(3): 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Brzeszczyáski J, Gajdka J, and Schabek T, The role of stock size and trading intensity in the magnitude of the “interval effect” in beta estimation: Empirical evidence from the polish capital market, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 2011, 47(1): 28–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chaves D, Hsu J, Li F, et al., Risk parity portfolio vs. other asset allocation heuristic portfolios, The Journal of Investing, 2011, 20: 108–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China

    Wei Bai, Junting Zhang & Haifei Liu

  2. Postdoctoral Workstation of Bank of Jiangsu Co., Ltd, Nanjing, 210006, China

    Wei Bai

  3. College of Finance, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China

    Wei Bai

  4. University of Prince Edward Island, 550 University Ave, Charlottetown, PE C1A4P3, Canada

    Kai Liu

Authors
  1. Wei Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junting Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haifei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kai Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei Bai, Junting Zhang, Haifei Liu or Kai Liu.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This research was supported by the Chinese National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. U1811462, 71771116, the Ministry of Education, Late-stage Subsidy Project for Philosophical and Social Sciences Research Foundation under Grant No. 18JHQ058.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bai, W., Zhang, J., Liu, H. et al. How to Construct a Lower Risk FOF Based on Correlation Network? The Method of Principal Component Risk Parity Asset Allocation. J Syst Sci Complex 37, 1052–1079 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-023-2296-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-023-2296-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation