Equal Risk Contributions under Constant Correlation
Summary
The document examines a result for equal risk contribution portfolios when every pair of assets has the same correlation. Under that assumption, equal contributions imply that each asset’s weight multiplied by its volatility is equal across assets. The post starts from an expression for the difference between two assets’ contributions, which factors into a weight-volatility difference and a second term whose positivity must be established.
The proposed proof rewrites that second term using the combined weighted volatilities and invokes the lower bound on constant correlation for a portfolio with a given number of assets. It argues by contradiction that the weighted volatility of any pair cannot be too small relative to the total, concluding that the second term is positive and the equal-weighted-volatility condition follows. This is an algebraic argument rather than an empirical result. Its scope depends on the stated constant-correlation setup and the positivity assumptions on portfolio weights and asset volatilities; the post does not discuss how the result changes outside those conditions.
Key ideas
- With constant pairwise correlation, equal risk contributions require equal products of portfolio weights and asset volatilities.
- The proof reduces the result to showing a factor in a pairwise difference expression is positive.
- The lower bound on constant correlation is used to support a contradiction argument.
- The result relies on the assumptions of the constant-correlation model and positive weighted volatilities.
Tags
Full text
# Deriving Theoretical Result - ERC portfolio
# Deriving Theoretical Result - ERC portfolio
In the article "On the properties of equally-weighted risk contributions portfolios" of Maillard, Roncalli and Teiletche, some general results are derived.
One of them states that, if correlation $\rho$ is constant for each couple of variable, the weights $x_i$ of the ERC portfolio need to satisfy the condition $ \sigma_i(x) = \sigma_j(x)$ and with the hypothesis made just above, it is equivalent to have $x_i \sigma_i = x_j \sigma_j$. Where $ \sigma_i(x) = x_i \sigma_i( (1 - \rho)x_i \sigma_i + \rho \sum_k x_k \sigma_k ) / \sigma(x) $ and $\sigma_i$ the vol of the asset i and $\sigma(x)$ the vol of the portfolio.
I did not manage to prove the result.
I have shown that it is equivalent to have : $(x_i\sigma_i - x_j\sigma_j)( (1-\rho )(x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j) + \rho\sum_k x_k \sigma_k) = 0$
The idea would be to show that the second parenthesis is different from 0, but I did not success.
One indication of the authors is " We use the fact that constant correlation verifies $\rho \geq - \frac{1}{n-1}$".
Thank you for you help.
## Answer by JeanGuillaume (score 3)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/46883
Ok, I found a solution !
So, we are starting from $(x_i\sigma_i - x_j\sigma_j)((x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j)(1 - \rho) + \rho\sum_k x_k \sigma_k) = 0 $ and we will show that the elements in the second parenthesis is greater than $0$. We have:
$(x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j)(1 - \rho) + \rho\sum_k x_k \sigma_k = (x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j) + \rho(\sum_k x_k \sigma_k - x_i\sigma_i - x_j\sigma_j ) $
Note that $a = x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j$ and $ b = \sum_k x_k \sigma_k - x_i\sigma_i - x_j\sigma_j $ are positive, so the line defined by $ y = a + bx$ is increasing and crosses the horizontal axis for a negative $x$ (as $a$ is positive). We will denote this $x$ by $x^*$.
So $a + bx^* = 0 \iff x^* = \frac{-a}{b} \iff x^* = \frac{- (x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j)}{\sum_k x_k \sigma_k - x_i\sigma_i - x_j\sigma_j} \iff x^* = \frac{-1}{\frac{\sum_k x_k \sigma_k - x_i\sigma_i - x_j\sigma_j}{x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j}}$
Recall, that as we suppose constant correlation, we necessarily have $\rho \geq - \frac{1}{n-1}$
So, to get our result, we need to show that $x^* < - \frac{1}{n-1} \iff \frac{\sum_k x_k \sigma_k - x_i\sigma_i - x_j\sigma_j}{x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j} < n-1 $.
We have:
$\frac{\sum_k x_k \sigma_x - x_i\sigma_i - x_j\sigma_j}{x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j} = \frac{\sum_k x_k\sigma_k }{x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j} - 1$
Suppose that $\frac{\sum_k x_k\sigma_k}{x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j} \geq n $,
$\iff \frac{x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j} {\sum_k x_k\sigma_k} \leq \frac{1}{n} \iff \frac{x_i\sigma_i} {\sum_k x_k\sigma_k} + \frac{ x_j\sigma_j} {\sum_k x_k\sigma_k} \leq \frac{1}{n} $
As it is true for all $i$, I got that:
$\frac{x_1\sigma_1 + x_2\sigma_2 + ..+x_n\sigma_n } {\sum_k x_k\sigma_k} + \frac{ nx_j\sigma_j} {\sum_k x_k\sigma_k} \leq n\frac{1}{n} \iff 1 +\frac{ nx_j\sigma_j} {\sum_k x_k\sigma_k} \leq 1 $
It implies that $\frac{ nx_j\sigma_j} {\sum_k x_k\sigma_k} \leq 0$ which is false.
Thus, $\frac{\sum_k x_k\sigma_k }{x_i\sigma_i + x_j\sigma_j} - 1 < n - 1$
And so, the second term in the parenthesis is strictly greater than $0$ and we got the result $x_i\sigma_i = x_j \sigma_j$Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.