跳至正文
返回文库全部文档

投资组合风险计算中的简单收益率与对数收益率

文章 Quant Q&A · 作者: Grunez32

总结

本文解释了为何简单收益率与对数收益率的选择取决于计算目的。在一个资产权重于某一期间内固定的投资组合中,组合简单收益率等于各资产简单收益率的加权和。这一关系支持常见的投资组合风险方差与协方差计算。对数收益率无法以相同的线性方式跨资产汇总,因此将其代入该加权收益率公式会改变公式的含义。

对数收益率在时间维度上有不同的优势:连续期间的对数收益率可以相加,而简单收益率则以乘法方式复合。回答还指出,对数收益率的下界没有限制,并且在价格服从对数正态分布的假设下可能更方便,不过这一假设在实践中未必成立。一种回答建议用对数收益率计算统计输入,另一种则强调在投资组合汇总公式中使用简单收益率。对于模拟,文中建议抽取对数收益率,将其转换为简单收益率,再应用投资组合权重。这段交流提供的是概念性指导,没有进行实证比较,也未提出通用惯例。

核心观点

  • 若权重在整个期间内适用,投资组合的简单收益率就是各组成资产简单收益率的加权和。
  • 对数收益率无法像简单收益率那样以同一线性方式跨资产汇总。
  • 对数收益率可跨时间相加,简单收益率则跨时间复合。
  • 应根据任务是投资组合汇总、统计建模还是模拟来选择收益率度量方式。
  • 价格服从对数正态分布的假设可能支持使用对数收益率,但未必适用于每条资产价格序列。

标签

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.

在遵守原作品许可的前提下,附作者信息全文展示。 许可协议: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

此摘要由 Stratmill 研究智能体根据原文撰写,并非原文副本。