ポートフォリオのリスク計算における単純リターンと対数リターン
記事 Quant Q&A · 著者: Grunez32
サマリー
単純リターンと対数リターンのどちらを使うかは、計算の目的によって異なると説明しています。一定期間にわたって資産のウェイトが固定されたポートフォリオでは、ポートフォリオの単純リターンは各資産の単純リターンの加重和です。この関係は、ポートフォリオリスクの一般的な分散・共分散計算を支えます。対数リターンは資産間で同じ線形関係に従って集計されないため、加重リターンの式に代入すると意味が変わります。
対数リターンには時間に関する別の利点があります。連続する期間の対数リターンは加算されますが、単純リターンは複利的に乗算されます。また、対数リターンには下限がなく、価格が対数正規分布に従うという仮定の下では便利な場合がありますが、実際にはその仮定が成り立たないこともあります。一方の回答は統計的な入力値の計算に対数リターンを推奨し、別の回答はポートフォリオの集計式には単純リターンが適すると強調しています。シミュレーションでは、対数リターンを生成し、単純リターンに変換してからポートフォリオのウェイトを適用する方法を提案しています。このやり取りは概念的な指針であり、実証的な比較や普遍的な慣例を示すものではありません。
主なアイデア
- 期間中にウェイトが適用される場合、ポートフォリオの単純リターンは構成資産の単純リターンの加重和です。
- 対数リターンは、単純リターンと同じ線形関係で資産間の集計ができません。
- 対数リターンは時間に沿って加算され、単純リターンは複利で積み上がります。
- 適切なリターン指標は、ポートフォリオ集計、統計モデル、シミュレーションのどれを行うかによって異なります。
- 価格が対数正規分布に従うという仮定は対数リターンを使う根拠になり得ますが、すべての資産系列に当てはまるとは限りません。
タグ
全文
# Calculating portfolio risk
# Calculating portfolio risk
I want to calculate the risk of a portfolio with the following.
In order to calculate the following formula:
However, I am not sure if I have to use log returns or simple returns to calculate the assets returns. I need the asset returns to calculate the standard deviation as well as the variance-covariance of the assets included in the portfolio.
## Answer by MattR (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/21575
The logarithmic method of calculating returns is frequently preferred to the obvious alternative of using the return calculated on the basis of simple interest over the period in question which, of course, is the monetary return which would actually be achieved by an investment over that period. In some cases this is due to the assumptions that prices are distributed log normally (which, in practice, may or may not be true for any given price series), then log(1 + r_i) is conveniently normally distributed.
Why Log Returns Benefits and Downsides
A Comparison between Logarithmic and Simple Returns Calculating and Comparing Security Returns
## Answer by nbbo2 (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/21577
In Markowitz's famous paper he writes that the return on the portfolio is a weighted average of the returns on the individual assets. For the two asset case: $R_p = w r_1 + (1-w) r_2$. From this we can derive the equation you gave above, using a theorem in Statistics for the standard deviation of a weighted average. This formula for $R$ makes sense only if the returns being used are simple returns, not logarithmic returns. So that is what I would use.
## Answer by Richi Wa (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/21583
Severals thoughts: First: this topic is already covered here - mabye you have to collect parts. YOu can start here. A very good overview is given here too.
Let us define the following notions. Let $P_t^1$ and $P_t^2$ denote the prices of zwo assets at time $t$. Then $$ r_t = \frac{P_t^1-P_{t-1}^1}{P_{t-1}^1} = \frac{P_t^1}{P_{t-1}^1} -1 $$ denotes the simple return whereas $$ r_t^l = \log\left(\frac{P_t^1}{P_{t-1}^1} \right), $$ where $\log$ is the natural logarithm, denotes the log-return. Note that $r_t \in [-1,\infty)$ and $r_t^l \in (-\infty,\infty).$
Then for a portfolio where we have $q^i$ pieces of each stock we have $$ w_i = \frac{q^i P^i_t}{q^1 P^1_t+q^2 P^2_t}, $$ the fraction of asset $i$. Then the portfolio returns is given by $$ \frac{P_{t+1}}{P_t}-1 = \frac{q^1 P^1_{t+1} + q^2 P^2_{t+1}}{q^1 P^1_t+q^2 P^2_t}-1, $$ which equals $$ w_1 r^1_t + (1-w_1) r^2_t. $$ Thus the portfolio returns is the a linear combination of the asset returns. This is not true for log returns (take the log-returns and you see that the above expansion of terms does not work).
The aggregation of (portfolio) returns over time is easier: $$ \begin{eqnarray} \log(P_T/P_0) &=& \log(P_T/P_1 \cdot P_1/P_0) \\ &=& \log(P_T/P_{T-1}\cdot P_{T-1}/P_{T-2} \cdots P_1/P_0)\\ &=& \log(P_T/P_{T-1}) + \cdots + \log(P_1/P_0)\\ &=& \sum_{t=1}^T r_t^l \end{eqnarray} $$ where $r_t^l$ denotes the log-return over one period.
This is much more complicated for simple returns: For simple returns we get $$ \begin{eqnarray} \frac{P_T}{P_0}-1 &=& \frac{P_T}{P_{T-1}} \cdot \frac{P_{T-1}}{P_{T-2}} \cdots \frac{P_1}{P_{0}} - 1\\ &=& \prod_{t=1}^T (1+r_t) - 1. \end{eqnarray} $$
## Answer by Kiwiakos (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/21585
I would say that one should differenciate between what the formula means, how the inputs are calculated, and how one would use it.
What is means: As noob2 points out it makes sense for simple returns' aggregation. For log returns it only holds at the limit where the time step is zero.
How to calculate input variances/covariances: I would take logs before calculating statistics, because only under this transformation my series become homogeneous in time and additive through time. Ponder on the fact that simple returns are bounded by -1 to understand how it works.
How to use: If I were to simulate, I would first draw log returns, then convert them to simple returns, and then apply the weighting as noob2 highlights.出典を明記したうえで、ライセンスに従って全文を掲載しています。 ライセンス: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
この要約は原文をもとにStratmillのリサーチエージェントが作成したもので、出典の複製ではありません。