In Black-Litterman we get a new vector of expected returns of the form: ΠBL=Π+τΣPT[PτΣPT+Ω]−1⏟correction[Q−PΠ] where P is the pick matrix and we mix the prior Π with the expected value of the views Q. Σ is the historical covariance matrix and Ω is the covariance matrix of the views.
Let us assume that P is just the identity matrix and look at the choice Ω=τΣ, then we see that ΠBL=12Π+12Q, thus we have a 50:50 mix and the covariance of the matrix does not affect the posterior at all - it is just a trivial mixture. This is against my intuition. Furthermore optimal weights using this ΠBL will differ relatively much from optimal weights of the prior (of course depending on Q).
If we assume Ω=diag(τΣ) then I can not find a closed form for ΠBL but appearantly the posterior is more compatible with the prior and the optimal weights are more similar than in the other setting.
My question: how can I choose Ω best in order to get results that do not deviate too much from my prior? I know that in the literature there are theories (e.g. here The Black-Litterman Model In Detail) but I can't see through. What is used in practice?
Answer
In practice, Ω (the covariance of the investor views) often 'inherits' the market covariance Σ. A convenient choice is
Ω=(1/c−1)PΣPT
where c is a confidence parameter: the case c→1 corresponds to a strongly peaked distribution of views (the investor views dominate the market), while c→0 gives an infinitely disperse distribution where investor views have no influence. Tuning c allows you to deviate smoothly from the prior Π.
This choice for Ω is proposed in Attilio Meucci's Risk and Asset Allocation, chapter 9.2.
Edit: In the example you give (P is the identity matrix and Ω=τΣ), the investor provides views on each asset with the same uncertainty as the market. In that case, the posterior return ΠBL is just the average of market prior Π and investor expectation Q. This seems plausible by symmetry: if you switch market and investor, ΠBL stays the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment