Hi Enrico, Indeed I had a bug in defining gradient. I attach the corrected script. But nloptr still needs resampling:
Say when I use the initial condition x0<-rep(1/n, n), I get
XLY XLF XLV Std.Dev Exp.Return sharpe
0.4957209 0 0.5042791 0.007334353 0.001318627 0.1797878
For x0<-c(0,1,0), I get
XLY XLF XLV Std.Dev Exp.Return sharpe
0.4352796 0 0.5647204 0.007322604 0.001316634 0.1798041
For x0<-c(1,0,0), I get
XLY XLF XLV Std.Dev Exp.Return sharpe
0.594686 0 0.405314 0.007378273 0.001321891 0.1791599
And finally for x0<-c(0,0,1), the nloptr result
XLY XLF XLV Std.Dev Exp.Return sharpe
0.4752062 3.665469e-19 0.5247938 0.007329077 0.001317951 0.1798249
practically coincides with that for solve.QP (with default initial condition)
with max Sharpe value:
XLY XLF XLV Std.Dev Exp.Return sharpe
0.4752112 4.308351e-18 0.5247888 0.007329079 0.001317951 0.1798249
For other data samples (say for 2011-2013), x0<-rep(1/n, n) may give the same
result as solve.qp.
I wonder what is default initial condiiton in solve.qp and if nloptr
sensitivity to initial conditions was ever discussed.
Best, Alec
________________________________________
From: Enrico Schumann <e...@enricoschumann.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 4:14 PM
To: Alec Schmidt
Cc: R-SIG-Finance@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-SIG-Finance] comparing solve.pq and nloptr for min variance
portfolio
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Alec Schmidt <aschm...@stevens.edu> writes:
> Enrico,
> Here we're. I attach two scripts: one for solve.pq, another for
> nloptr. Both run with the same input file and print output on the
> screen.
>
> Thanks again, Alec
Hi Alec,
but these are still long programmes, which makes it hard to
figure out what exactly is wrong. For a start, I would not
compute the whole frontier, but concentrate on one point.
I computed the minimum-variance portfolio (without short
sales) with an alternative method, and it matches your
output for 'solve.QP'. So, one thing to check is your
implementation of the objective function for 'nloptr'.
Kind regards (and good luck)
Enrico
> ________________________________________
> From: Enrico Schumann <e...@enricoschumann.net>
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:08 AM
> To: Alec Schmidt
> Cc: R-SIG-Finance@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R-SIG-Finance] comparing solve.pq and nloptr for min variance
> portfolio
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Alec Schmidt <aschm...@stevens.edu> writes:
>
>> Hi Enrico,
>> Many thanks for your interest. I attach my script and input file with
>> asset tickers. Sorry for lots of unrelated stuff - it's a working
>> draft.
>>
>> Alec
>
> Thanks for sending the script, Alec. But you will need to
> simplify it if people are to help you. [My bad: I should have
> said _minimal_ reproducible example:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5963269/how-to-make-a-great-r-reproducible-example
> ]
>
>
>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Enrico Schumann <e...@enricoschumann.net>
>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 10:25 AM
>> To: Alec Schmidt
>> Cc: R-SIG-Finance@r-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [R-SIG-Finance] comparing solve.pq and nloptr for min variance
>> portfolio
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Alec Schmidt <aschm...@stevens.edu> writes:
>>
>>> I'm puzzled that I cannot reproduce results for asset weights using
>>> solve.pq and nloptr even in the case of just three assets. E.g. if I
>>> use NLOPT_LD_SLSQP and start with initial weights of 1/3, I may obtain
>>> (0.47, 0, 0.53) vs (0.52, 0, 0.47). If I start with (0.52, 0, 0.47),
>>> I do get (0.52, 0, 0.47)...
>>>
>>> When I use NLOPT_GN_ISRES or other nloptr solvers that permit equality
>>> constraint sum(weights)=1 with initial weights of 1/3, I obtain
>>> (almost) the same initial weights after 20000 iterations with
>>> xtol_rel=1.0e-8...
>>>
>>> I remember from my MC simulations of protein structures (20 years ago)
>>> that sampling is key due to multiple local minimums but is it so bad
>>> for a simple portfolio?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll greatly appreciate relevant comments.
>>>
>>> Alec
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Unless your covariance matrix is 'broken' in some way, a
>> minimum-variance portfolio with only a budget constraint should be
>> fairly easy to compute (no multiple local minima, smooth objective
>> function, ...). Please provide a reproducible example.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Enrico
--
Enrico Schumann
Lucerne, Switzerland
http://enricoschumann.net
nloptr_portfolio.R
Description: nloptr_portfolio.R
SPYETF3.csv
Description: SPYETF3.csv
_______________________________________________ R-SIG-Finance@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-finance -- Subscriber-posting only. If you want to post, subscribe first. -- Also note that this is not the r-help list where general R questions should go.
