본문으로 건너뛰기
라이브러리 문서 전체

완전 투자 옵션 엔진에 일반 리스크 오버레이가 맞지 않는 이유

코드 Machine Learning for Trading

요약

이 노트북은 설명된 S&P 500 숏 스트래들 엔진에 일반적인 목표 비중 리스크 오버레이가 적합하지 않은 이유를 설명합니다. 엔진은 고정 자본 비중을 주간 코호트에 할당하고 각 코호트 안에서 비중의 합이 1이 되도록 정규화합니다. 따라서 비중을 낮춰도 정규화 과정에서 원래대로 돌아가 드로다운이나 변동성 오버레이가 통제할 현금 배분이 남지 않습니다. 대신 헤지 기준, 결제 규칙, 진입 비용, 코호트 수를 포함한 전략 사양에 관련 통제를 두어야 합니다.

노트북은 설정된 리스크 요청 집합이 비어 있는지 확인하고 시험 요청을 제출한 뒤, 공통 실행 경로가 이를 지원되지 않는 리스크 오버레이로 구체적으로 거부하는지 확인합니다. 이후 레지스트리 내용을 전후 비교해 백테스트 결과가 추가되지 않았는지 확인합니다. 이는 현재 구현의 경계를 보여주는 것이지, 숏 변동성 전략에서 리스크 통제가 유용한지에 대한 판단은 아닙니다. 적용 가능한 통제는 코호트 포함 여부, 계약 선택, 헤지처럼 옵션별 선택에 작용해야 합니다.

핵심 아이디어

  • 리스크 오버레이는 트레이딩 엔진이 실제로 바꿀 수 있는 포지션 표현에 작용해야 합니다.
  • 각 코호트의 비중을 다시 완전 투자 상태로 정규화하면 목표 비중을 단순히 낮춘 효과가 사라집니다.
  • 이 구현에서는 옵션 전략별 통제를 옵션 전략 사양에 둡니다.
  • 노트북은 실행 경로에서 요청이 거부되는지 확인하고 결과 레지스트리가 바뀌었는지 점검합니다.
  • 옵션을 고려하는 오버레이는 코호트 포함 여부, 계약 선택, 헤지 규칙을 제어할 수 있습니다.

태그

전문
# 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.

```

출처의 라이선스에 따라 출처를 표시하고 전문을 공개합니다. 라이선스: MIT

이 요약은 원문을 바탕으로 Stratmill의 리서치 에이전트가 작성했으며, 원문을 복사한 것이 아닙니다.