论Black-Litterman模型:学会做得更好

Ren‐Raw Chen, S. Yeh, Xiaohu Zhang
{"title":"论Black-Litterman模型:学会做得更好","authors":"Ren‐Raw Chen, S. Yeh, Xiaohu Zhang","doi":"10.3905/jfds.2022.1.096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the authors study the performance of the Black–Litterman model (BLM) and compare it to the traditional mean–variance theory (MVT) of Markowitz (1952) and Sharpe (1964). They begin with the standard Bayesian learning on which the BLM is based (but the existing literature does not follow). Then, they perform a series of tests of the BLM using machine learning tools and view specifications consistent with the existing literature. Their empirical evidence (which uses 30 years of monthly data from January 1991 till December 2020) suggests that the BLM is highly sensitive to the specification of the view. Given that the view is arbitrary (even though in our article, they are rule based), it is quite a challenge to use the BLM in an actual situation. A great amount of caution must be exercised in specifying the view and its corresponding required return. This validates the previous result that BLM specification of views is very important and there is no consistent manner how one can specify a winning portfolio.","PeriodicalId":199045,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Financial Data Science","volume":"134 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Black–Litterman Model: Learning to Do Better\",\"authors\":\"Ren‐Raw Chen, S. Yeh, Xiaohu Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.3905/jfds.2022.1.096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, the authors study the performance of the Black–Litterman model (BLM) and compare it to the traditional mean–variance theory (MVT) of Markowitz (1952) and Sharpe (1964). They begin with the standard Bayesian learning on which the BLM is based (but the existing literature does not follow). Then, they perform a series of tests of the BLM using machine learning tools and view specifications consistent with the existing literature. Their empirical evidence (which uses 30 years of monthly data from January 1991 till December 2020) suggests that the BLM is highly sensitive to the specification of the view. Given that the view is arbitrary (even though in our article, they are rule based), it is quite a challenge to use the BLM in an actual situation. A great amount of caution must be exercised in specifying the view and its corresponding required return. This validates the previous result that BLM specification of views is very important and there is no consistent manner how one can specify a winning portfolio.\",\"PeriodicalId\":199045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Financial Data Science\",\"volume\":\"134 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Financial Data Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3905/jfds.2022.1.096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Financial Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jfds.2022.1.096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文研究了Black-Litterman模型(BLM)的性能,并将其与Markowitz(1952)和Sharpe(1964)的传统均值-方差理论(MVT)进行了比较。他们从BLM所基于的标准贝叶斯学习开始(但现有文献没有遵循)。然后,他们使用机器学习工具对BLM进行一系列测试,并查看与现有文献一致的规范。他们的经验证据(使用了从1991年1月到2020年12月的30年月度数据)表明,BLM对观点的具体化高度敏感。假设视图是任意的(尽管在我们的文章中,它们是基于规则的),那么在实际情况中使用BLM是一个相当大的挑战。在指定视图及其相应的所需返回时,必须非常谨慎。这验证了之前的结果,即BLM的观点规范非常重要,并且没有一致的方式可以指定一个获胜的投资组合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Black–Litterman Model: Learning to Do Better
In this article, the authors study the performance of the Black–Litterman model (BLM) and compare it to the traditional mean–variance theory (MVT) of Markowitz (1952) and Sharpe (1964). They begin with the standard Bayesian learning on which the BLM is based (but the existing literature does not follow). Then, they perform a series of tests of the BLM using machine learning tools and view specifications consistent with the existing literature. Their empirical evidence (which uses 30 years of monthly data from January 1991 till December 2020) suggests that the BLM is highly sensitive to the specification of the view. Given that the view is arbitrary (even though in our article, they are rule based), it is quite a challenge to use the BLM in an actual situation. A great amount of caution must be exercised in specifying the view and its corresponding required return. This validates the previous result that BLM specification of views is very important and there is no consistent manner how one can specify a winning portfolio.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Managing Editor’s Letter Explainable Machine Learning Models of Consumer Credit Risk Predicting Returns with Machine Learning across Horizons, Firm Size, and Time Deep Calibration with Artificial Neural Network: A Performance Comparison on Option-Pricing Models RIFT: Pretraining and Applications for Representations of Interrelated Financial Time Series
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1