Saltar al contenido
Todos los documentos de la biblioteca

Por qué los controles de riesgo genéricos no encajan en un motor de opciones totalmente invertido

Código Machine Learning for Trading

Resumen

Este cuaderno explica por qué un control de riesgo genérico basado en pesos objetivo no es adecuado para el motor de short straddle del S&P 500 descrito. El motor asigna participaciones fijas del capital a cohortes semanales y normaliza los pesos de cada cohorte para que sumen uno. Por tanto, la normalización anularía una reducción de esos pesos y no dejaría efectivo para que un control de drawdown o volatilidad pudiera gestionarlo. Los controles pertinentes deben formar parte de la especificación de la estrategia e incluir umbrales de cobertura, convenciones de liquidación, costes de entrada y número de cohortes.

El cuaderno verifica que el conjunto de solicitudes de riesgo configurado esté vacío, envía una solicitud de prueba y comprueba que la ruta de ejecución compartida la rechaza específicamente por tratarse de un control de riesgo no compatible. Después compara el contenido del registro antes y después para confirmar que no se añadió ningún resultado de backtest. Esto establece un límite de la implementación actual; no juzga si los controles de riesgo son valiosos para las estrategias de volatilidad corta. Un control aplicable tendría que operar sobre decisiones específicas de opciones, como la composición de cohortes, la selección de contratos o la cobertura.

Ideas clave

  • Un control de riesgo debe actuar sobre una representación de posiciones que el motor de trading pueda modificar.
  • Volver a normalizar cada cohorte para que quede totalmente invertida anula una simple reducción de los pesos objetivo.
  • En esta implementación, los controles específicos de la estrategia deben formar parte de la especificación de la estrategia de opciones.
  • El cuaderno valida el rechazo a través de la ruta de ejecución y comprueba si cambia el registro de resultados.
  • Un control adaptado a opciones podría regular la composición de cohortes, la selección de contratos o las reglas de cobertura.

Etiquetas

Texto completo
# 14_risk_management.py


```py
# ---
# jupyter:
#   jupytext:
#     cell_metadata_filter: tags,-all
#     text_representation:
#       extension: .py
#       format_name: percent
#       format_version: '1.3'
#       jupytext_version: 1.19.3
#   kernelspec:
#     display_name: Python 3 (ipykernel)
#     language: python
#     name: python3
# ---

# %% [markdown]
# # S&P 500 Options: The Risk-Overlay Boundary
#
# In the other case studies this stage adds a risk overlay: a rule sitting on top of the
# allocator's weights that caps a position, scales the book down after a drawdown, or targets a
# volatility. The overlay is expressed as a target-weight transformation, which works because in
# those case studies a position is a quantity of one instrument and its risk moves with that
# quantity.
#
# A short straddle does not have that shape here. Scaling the number of contracts would in fact
# scale the legs, the hedge, the costs and the dollar Greeks together, so the objection is not that
# option risk is independent of quantity. It is that the option engine never sees a quantity. It
# holds five weekly cohorts at a fixed fifth of capital each and normalizes the weights inside a
# cohort to sum to one, so an overlay that scales those weights down is renormalized straight back
# up: there is no cash position for the book to move into. The execution path therefore refuses a
# risk block rather than accept one it would silently discard. The controls that do govern this
# strategy - the delta-hedge threshold, the settlement convention, the entry cost model, how many
# weekly cohorts run at once - are fields of the strategy specification itself, fixed in
# `12_backtest`; `15_costs` afterwards varies one of them to measure what the result depends on.
#
# So this case study declares no risk-overlay variants, and this notebook is where that is
# checked rather than assumed. It resolves the candidate set that came out of
# `13_portfolio_management`, shows that the configured risk request set is empty, demonstrates that
# a risk request would be refused if one were configured, and confirms it wrote nothing.
#
# This is the third of the four backtest stages, and the last one that could add a run to the
# candidate pool. It registers none, so the pool `15_costs` prices and `18_strategy_analysis`
# reports is the one `13_portfolio_management` left. Costs runs after this notebook rather than
# beside it so that the last stage to select is the last stage to run.
#
# **Learning objectives**
#
# - Recognise when a generic portfolio control cannot be applied to an instrument, and say what
#   about the instrument makes it inapplicable.
# - Read a stage that deliberately produces no results, and check that claim against the registry
#   rather than against the notebook's own narration.
#
# **Book reference**: Chapter 19
#
# **Prerequisites**: the finalized candidate set published by
# [`13_portfolio_management`](13_portfolio_management.ipynb), and through it
# [`12_backtest`](12_backtest.ipynb).

# %%
"""Validate the empty S&P 500 options risk-overlay request boundary."""

import polars as pl

from case_studies.research import CandidateSet, Result
from case_studies.sp500_options.research_workflow import (
    open_study,
    run_official_backtest_requests,
    strategy_request_frame,
)
from case_studies.utils.sweep_config import (
    get_portfolio_risk_controls,
    get_position_risk_controls,
)

CASE_STUDY = "sp500_options"
STRATEGY_CANDIDATES = "sp500-options-strategy-candidates-v1"

# %% tags=["parameters"]
EXECUTION_TIER = "canonical"
WORKSPACE: str = ""

# %% [markdown]
# ## The candidate set that passes through
#
# Every member is required to be a complete backtest before the set is allowed to move on, so a
# partial result cannot reach selection by being carried through a stage that does nothing.

# %%
if EXECUTION_TIER != "canonical":
    raise ValueError("risk-boundary validation requires the canonical candidate set")
study = open_study(execution_tier=EXECUTION_TIER, workspace=WORKSPACE or None)
candidates = CandidateSet.one(study, name=STRATEGY_CANDIDATES)
if candidates.member_kind != "backtest":
    raise TypeError("the finalized strategy candidate set must contain backtests")
backtests_before = study.backtests.table()
members = backtests_before.filter(pl.col("backtest_hash").is_in(candidates.members))
if members.height != len(candidates.members) or members.filter(~pl.col("complete")).height:
    raise RuntimeError("the finalized strategy candidate set is incomplete")

# %% tags=["results"]
pl.DataFrame(
    {
        "candidate_set": [candidates.name],
        "candidate_set_hash": [candidates.hash],
        "member_count": [len(candidates.members)],
        "stages": [", ".join(sorted(members.get_column("stage").unique().to_list()))],
    }
)

# %% [markdown]
# ## The configured risk requests
#
# Position-scope controls act on one holding, portfolio-scope controls act on the book. Both lists
# come from `config/setup.yaml`, and both are empty for this case study. Reading them rather than
# writing the emptiness into the notebook is what makes this a check: adding a control to the
# configuration makes the cell below raise instead of quietly running an overlay the option path
# cannot represent.

# %%
risk_rows = [
    {"scope": "position", **request} for request in get_position_risk_controls(CASE_STUDY)
] + [{"scope": "portfolio", **request} for request in get_portfolio_risk_controls(CASE_STUDY)]
risk_requests = (
    pl.DataFrame(risk_rows)
    if risk_rows
    else pl.DataFrame(schema={"scope": pl.String, "name": pl.String, "method": pl.String})
)
if not risk_requests.is_empty():
    raise RuntimeError("risk variants require an implemented typed options path before execution")
risk_requests

# %% [markdown]
# ## What happens to a risk request that is submitted anyway
#
# The refusal lives in the execution path, not in this notebook, so it holds for a reader who
# writes their own request as well. The cell below builds one against the highest-Sharpe candidate
# and confirms it is rejected before anything is fitted or written.
#
# The probe opens that candidate and copies its strategy verbatim, so the risk block is the only
# thing about the request that is new. Substituting a signal of the notebook's own would make the
# refusal a statement about that substitute rather than about a candidate the pipeline produced.

# %%
probe_member = members.sort("sharpe", "backtest_hash", descending=[True, False]).row(0, named=True)
probe_strategy = Result.open(study, probe_member["backtest_hash"]).spec()["strategy"]
probe = strategy_request_frame(
    [
        {
            "request_name": "risk-overlay-probe",
            "prediction_hash": probe_member["prediction_hash"],
            "label": probe_member["label"],
            "signal": probe_strategy["signal"],
            "allocation": probe_strategy.get("allocation"),
            "risk": {"name": "position_cap", "method": "max_weight", "max_weight": 0.1},
            "costs": probe_strategy.get("costs"),
            "chapter": "ch19",
        }
    ]
)
try:
    run_official_backtest_requests(study, probe, population_name=None)
except ValueError as refusal:
    # The refusal has to name the risk overlay. The request also carries the candidate's costs
    # block, which this path refuses separately, so accepting any ValueError would let a refusal
    # about costs be reported as the risk boundary holding.
    if "risk overlay" not in str(refusal):
        raise RuntimeError(
            f"the request was refused for something other than risk: {refusal}"
        ) from refusal
    print(f"risk request refused: {refusal}")
else:
    raise RuntimeError("the option execution path accepted a risk overlay it cannot represent")

# %% [markdown]
# ## Nothing was written
#
# The registry is read back and compared against the snapshot taken before the probe. This is the
# claim the stage makes, so it is checked against the store rather than against a counter this
# notebook keeps.

# %% tags=["results"]
backtests_after = study.backtests.table()
if backtests_after.height != backtests_before.height:
    raise RuntimeError("the empty risk boundary wrote a backtest result")
if set(backtests_after.get_column("backtest_hash")) != set(
    backtests_before.get_column("backtest_hash")
):
    raise RuntimeError("the empty risk boundary changed the published backtest set")
pl.DataFrame(
    {
        "check": ["configured risk requests", "backtests before", "backtests after"],
        "value": [
            str(risk_requests.height),
            str(backtests_before.height),
            str(backtests_after.height),
        ],
    }
)

# %% [markdown]
# ## Key takeaways
#
# - A portfolio control is defined against a representation of a position. When the engine holds a
#   fully invested book of normalized cohort weights, there is no quantity for a target-weight
#   overlay to act on, whatever the instrument.
# - A stage that produces nothing still has to prove it, and the proof is the store's contents
#   before and after, not a statement in the notebook.
# - Refusing an unsupported request in the shared execution path, rather than in the notebook, is
#   what makes the boundary hold for a reader's own requests too.
#
# **Known limitations**: this says nothing about whether risk controls on a short-volatility book
# are a good idea, only that the generic target-weight form cannot express them here. Implementing
# them would mean an option-aware overlay acting on cohort membership, contract selection or the
# hedge rule, and that is a change to the strategy specification rather than a stage on top of it.

```

Se muestra íntegramente con atribución según la licencia de la fuente. Licencia: MIT

Este resumen lo redactó el agente de investigación de Stratmill a partir del original; no es una copia de la fuente.