-
Recursive Overbetting of a Satellite Investment Account
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
This paper builds a core-satellite model of semi-static Kelly betting and log-optimal investment. We study the problem of a saver whose core portfolio consists in unlevered (1x) retirement plans with no access to margin debt. However, the agent has a satellite investment account with recourse to significant, but not unlimited, leverage; accordingly, we study optimal controllers for the satellite g…
▽ More
This paper builds a core-satellite model of semi-static Kelly betting and log-optimal investment. We study the problem of a saver whose core portfolio consists in unlevered (1x) retirement plans with no access to margin debt. However, the agent has a satellite investment account with recourse to significant, but not unlimited, leverage; accordingly, we study optimal controllers for the satellite gearing ratio. On a very short time horizon, the best policy is to overbet the satellite, whereby the overriding objective is to raise the aggregate beta toward a growth-optimal level. On an infinite horizon, by contrast, the correct behavior is to blithely ignore the core and optimize the exponential growth rate of the satellite, which will anyways come to dominate the entire bankroll in the limit. For time horizons strictly between zero and infinity, the optimal strategy is not so simple: there is a key trade-off between the instantaneous growth rate of the composite bankroll, and that of the satellite itself, which suffers ongoing volatility drag from the overbetting. Thus, a very perspicacious policy is called for, since any losses in the satellite will constrain the agent's access to leverage in the continuation problem. We characterize the optimal feedback controller, and compute it in earnest by solving the corresponding HJB equation recursively and backward in time. This solution is then compared to the best open-loop controller, which, in spite of its relative simplicity, is expected to perform similarly in practical situations.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 22 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Waiting to Borrow From a 457(b) Plan
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
This paper formulates and solves the optimal stop** problem for a loan made to one's self from a tax-advantaged retirement account such as a 401(k), 403(b), or 457(b) plan. If the plan participant has access to an external asset with a higher expected rate of return than the investment funds and indices that are available within the retirement account, then he must decide how long to wait before…
▽ More
This paper formulates and solves the optimal stop** problem for a loan made to one's self from a tax-advantaged retirement account such as a 401(k), 403(b), or 457(b) plan. If the plan participant has access to an external asset with a higher expected rate of return than the investment funds and indices that are available within the retirement account, then he must decide how long to wait before exercising the loan option. On the one hand, taking the loan quickly will result in many years of exponential capital growth at the higher (external) rate; on the other hand, if we wait to accumulate more funds in the 457(b), then we can make a larger deposit into the external asset (albeit for a shorter period of time). I derive a variety of cutoff rules for optimal loan control; in general, the investor must wait until he accumulates a certain amount of money (measured in contribution-years) that depends on the disparate yields, the loan parameters, and the date certain at which he will liquidate the retirement account. Letting the horizon tend to infinity, the optimal (horizon-free) policy gains in elegance, simplicity, and practical robustness to different life outcomes. When asset prices and returns are stochastic, the (continuous time) cutoff rule turns into a "wait region," whereby the mean of terminal wealth is rising and the variance of terminal wealth is falling. After his sojourn through the wait region is over, the participant finds himself on the mean-variance frontier, at which point his subsequent behavior is a matter of personal risk preference.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 9 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Rational Pricing of Leveraged ETF Expense Ratios
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
This paper studies the general relationship between the gearing ratio of a Leveraged ETF and its corresponding expense ratio, viz., the investment management fees that are charged for the provision of this levered financial service. It must not be possible for an investor to combine two or more LETFs in such a way that his (continuously-rebalanced) LETF portfolio can match the gearing ratio of a g…
▽ More
This paper studies the general relationship between the gearing ratio of a Leveraged ETF and its corresponding expense ratio, viz., the investment management fees that are charged for the provision of this levered financial service. It must not be possible for an investor to combine two or more LETFs in such a way that his (continuously-rebalanced) LETF portfolio can match the gearing ratio of a given, professionally managed product and, at the same time, enjoy lower weighted-average expenses than the existing LETF. Given a finite set of LETFs that exist in the marketplace, I give necessary and sufficient conditions for these products to be undominated in the price-gearing plane. In a beautiful application of the duality theorem of linear programming, I prove a kind of two-fund theorem for LETFs: given a target gearing ratio for the investor, the cheapest way to achieve it is to combine (uniquely) the two nearest undominated LETF products that bracket it on the leverage axis. This also happens to be the implementation that has the lowest annual turnover. For the writer's enjoyment, we supply a second proof of the Main Theorem on LETFs that is based on Carathéodory's theorem in convex geometry. Thus, say, a triple-leveraged ("UltraPro") exchange-traded product should never be mixed with cash, if the investor is able to trade in the underlying index. In terms of financial innovation, our two-fund theorem for LETFs implies that the introduction of new, undominated 2.5x products would increase the welfare of all investors whose preferred gearing ratios lie between 2x ("Ultra") and 3x ("UltraPro"). Similarly for a 1.5x product.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 28 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
Universal Risk Budgeting
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
I juxtapose Cover's vaunted universal portfolio selection algorithm (Cover 1991) with the modern representation (Qian 2016; Roncalli 2013) of a portfolio as a certain allocation of risk among the available assets, rather than a mere allocation of capital. Thus, I define a Universal Risk Budgeting scheme that weights each risk budget (instead of each capital budget) by its historical performance re…
▽ More
I juxtapose Cover's vaunted universal portfolio selection algorithm (Cover 1991) with the modern representation (Qian 2016; Roncalli 2013) of a portfolio as a certain allocation of risk among the available assets, rather than a mere allocation of capital. Thus, I define a Universal Risk Budgeting scheme that weights each risk budget (instead of each capital budget) by its historical performance record (a la Cover). I prove that my scheme is mathematically equivalent to a novel type of Cover and Ordentlich 1996 universal portfolio that uses a new family of prior densities that have hitherto not appeared in the literature on universal portfolio theory. I argue that my universal risk budget, so-defined, is a potentially more perspicuous and flexible type of universal portfolio; it allows the algorithmic trader to incorporate, with advantage, his prior knowledge (or beliefs) about the particular covariance structure of instantaneous asset returns. Say, if there is some dispersion in the volatilities of the available assets, then the uniform (or Dirichlet) priors that are standard in the literature will generate a dangerously lopsided prior distribution over the possible risk budgets. In the author's opinion, the proposed "Garivaltis prior" makes for a nice improvement on Cover's timeless expert system (Cover 1991), that is properly agnostic and open (from the very get-go) to different risk budgets. Inspired by Jamshidian 1992, the universal risk budget is formulated as a new kind of exotic option in the continuous time Black and Scholes 1973 market, with all the pleasure, elegance, and convenience that that entails.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 18 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
A Note on Universal Bilinear Portfolios
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
This note provides a neat and enjoyable expansion and application of the magnificent Ordentlich-Cover theory of "universal portfolios." I generalize Cover's benchmark of the best constant-rebalanced portfolio (or 1-linear trading strategy) in hindsight by considering the best bilinear trading strategy determined in hindsight for the realized sequence of asset prices. A bilinear trading strategy is…
▽ More
This note provides a neat and enjoyable expansion and application of the magnificent Ordentlich-Cover theory of "universal portfolios." I generalize Cover's benchmark of the best constant-rebalanced portfolio (or 1-linear trading strategy) in hindsight by considering the best bilinear trading strategy determined in hindsight for the realized sequence of asset prices. A bilinear trading strategy is a mini two-period active strategy whose final capital growth factor is linear separately in each period's gross return vector for the asset market. I apply Cover's ingenious (1991) performance-weighted averaging technique to construct a universal bilinear portfolio that is guaranteed (uniformly for all possible market behavior) to compound its money at the same asymptotic rate as the best bilinear trading strategy in hindsight. Thus, the universal bilinear portfolio asymptotically dominates the original (1-linear) universal portfolio in the same technical sense that Cover's universal portfolios asymptotically dominate all constant-rebalanced portfolios and all buy-and-hold strategies. In fact, like so many Russian dolls, one can get carried away and use these ideas to construct an endless hierarchy of ever more dominant $H$-linear universal portfolios.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 23 July, 2019;
originally announced July 2019.
-
Long Run Feedback in the Broker Call Money Market
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
I unravel the basic long run dynamics of the broker call money market, which is the pile of cash that funds margin loans to retail clients (read: continuous time Kelly gamblers). Call money is assumed to supply itself perfectly inelastically, and to continuously reinvest all principal and interest. I show that the relative size of the money market (that is, relative to the Kelly bankroll) is a mar…
▽ More
I unravel the basic long run dynamics of the broker call money market, which is the pile of cash that funds margin loans to retail clients (read: continuous time Kelly gamblers). Call money is assumed to supply itself perfectly inelastically, and to continuously reinvest all principal and interest. I show that the relative size of the money market (that is, relative to the Kelly bankroll) is a martingale that nonetheless converges in probability to zero. The margin loan interest rate is a submartingale that converges in mean square to the choke price $r_\infty:=ν-σ^2/2$, where $ν$ is the asymptotic compound growth rate of the stock market and $σ$ is its annual volatility. In this environment, the gambler no longer beats the market asymptotically a.s. by an exponential factor (as he would under perfectly elastic supply). Rather, he beats the market asymptotically with very high probability (think 98%) by a factor (say 1.87, or 87% more final wealth) whose mean cannot exceed what the leverage ratio was at the start of the model (say, $2:1$). Although the ratio of the gambler's wealth to that of an equivalent buy-and-hold investor is a submartingale (always expected to increase), his realized compound growth rate converges in mean square to $ν$. This happens because the equilibrium leverage ratio converges to $1:1$ in lockstep with the gradual rise of margin loan interest rates.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 24 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Game-Theoretic Optimal Portfolios in Continuous Time
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
We consider a two-person trading game in continuous time whereby each player chooses a constant rebalancing rule $b$ that he must adhere to over $[0,t]$. If $V_t(b)$ denotes the final wealth of the rebalancing rule $b$, then Player 1 (the `numerator player') picks $b$ so as to maximize $\mathbb{E}[V_t(b)/V_t(c)]$, while Player 2 (the `denominator player') picks $c$ so as to minimize it. In the uni…
▽ More
We consider a two-person trading game in continuous time whereby each player chooses a constant rebalancing rule $b$ that he must adhere to over $[0,t]$. If $V_t(b)$ denotes the final wealth of the rebalancing rule $b$, then Player 1 (the `numerator player') picks $b$ so as to maximize $\mathbb{E}[V_t(b)/V_t(c)]$, while Player 2 (the `denominator player') picks $c$ so as to minimize it. In the unique Nash equilibrium, both players use the continuous-time Kelly rule $b^*=c^*=Σ^{-1}(μ-r\textbf{1})$, where $Σ$ is the covariance of instantaneous returns per unit time, $μ$ is the drift vector of the stock market, and $\textbf{1}$ is a vector of ones. Thus, even over very short intervals of time $[0,t]$, the desire to perform well relative to other traders leads one to adopt the Kelly rule, which is ordinarily derived by maximizing the asymptotic exponential growth rate of wealth. Hence, we find agreement with Bell and Cover's (1988) result in discrete time.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 5 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Two Resolutions of the Margin Loan Pricing Puzzle
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
This paper supplies two possible resolutions of Fortune's (2000) margin-loan pricing puzzle. Fortune (2000) noted that the margin loan interest rates charged by stock brokers are very high in relation to the actual (low) credit risk and the cost of funds. If we live in the Black-Scholes world, the brokers are presumably making arbitrage profits by shorting dynamically precise amounts of their clie…
▽ More
This paper supplies two possible resolutions of Fortune's (2000) margin-loan pricing puzzle. Fortune (2000) noted that the margin loan interest rates charged by stock brokers are very high in relation to the actual (low) credit risk and the cost of funds. If we live in the Black-Scholes world, the brokers are presumably making arbitrage profits by shorting dynamically precise amounts of their clients' portfolios. First, we extend Fortune's (2000) application of Merton's (1974) no-arbitrage approach to allow for brokers that can only revise their hedges finitely many times during the term of the loan. We show that extremely small differences in the revision frequency can easily explain the observed variation in margin loan pricing. In fact, four additional revisions per three-day period serve to explain all of the currently observed heterogeneity. Second, we study monopolistic (or oligopolistic) margin loan pricing by brokers whose clients are continuous-time Kelly gamblers. The broker solves a general stochastic control problem that yields simple and pleasant formulas for the optimal interest rate and the net interest margin. If the author owned a brokerage, he would charge an interest rate of $(r+ν)/2-σ^2/4$, where $r$ is the cost of funds, $ν$ is the compound-annual growth rate of the S&P 500 index, and $σ$ is the volatility.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 3 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
The Laws of Motion of the Broker Call Rate in the United States
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
In this paper, which is the third installment of the author's trilogy on margin loan pricing, we analyze $1,367$ monthly observations of the U.S. broker call money rate, which is the interest rate at which stock brokers can borrow to fund their margin loans to retail clients. We describe the basic features and mean-reverting behavior of this series and juxtapose the empirically-derived laws of mot…
▽ More
In this paper, which is the third installment of the author's trilogy on margin loan pricing, we analyze $1,367$ monthly observations of the U.S. broker call money rate, which is the interest rate at which stock brokers can borrow to fund their margin loans to retail clients. We describe the basic features and mean-reverting behavior of this series and juxtapose the empirically-derived laws of motion with the author's prior theories of margin loan pricing (Garivaltis 2019a-b). This allows us to derive stochastic differential equations that govern the evolution of the margin loan interest rate and the leverage ratios of sophisticated brokerage clients (namely, continuous time Kelly gamblers). Finally, we apply Merton's (1974) arbitrage theory of corporate liability pricing to study theoretical constraints on the risk premia that could be generated in the market for call money. Apparently, if there is no arbitrage in the U.S. financial markets, the implication is that the total volume of call loans must constitute north of $70\%$ of the value of all leveraged portfolios.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 3 June, 2019;
originally announced June 2019.
-
Nash Bargaining Over Margin Loans to Kelly Gamblers
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
I derive practical formulas for optimal arrangements between sophisticated stock market investors (namely, continuous-time Kelly gamblers or, more generally, CRRA investors) and the brokers who lend them cash for leveraged bets on a high Sharpe asset (i.e. the market portfolio). Rather than, say, the broker posting a monopoly price for margin loans, the gambler agrees to use a greater quantity of…
▽ More
I derive practical formulas for optimal arrangements between sophisticated stock market investors (namely, continuous-time Kelly gamblers or, more generally, CRRA investors) and the brokers who lend them cash for leveraged bets on a high Sharpe asset (i.e. the market portfolio). Rather than, say, the broker posting a monopoly price for margin loans, the gambler agrees to use a greater quantity of margin debt than he otherwise would in exchange for an interest rate that is lower than the broker would otherwise post. The gambler thereby attains a higher asymptotic capital growth rate and the broker enjoys a greater rate of intermediation profit than would obtain under non-cooperation. If the threat point represents a vicious breakdown of negotiations (resulting in zero margin loans), then we get an elegant rule of thumb: $r_L^*=(3/4)r+(1/4)(ν-σ^2/2)$, where $r$ is the broker's cost of funds, $ν$ is the compound-annual growth rate of the market index, and $σ$ is the annual volatility. We show that, regardless of the particular threat point, the gambler will negotiate to size his bets as if he himself could borrow at the broker's call rate.
△ Less
Submitted 30 August, 2019; v1 submitted 14 April, 2019;
originally announced April 2019.
-
Cover's Rebalancing Option With Discrete Hindsight Optimization
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
We study T. Cover's rebalancing option (Ordentlich and Cover 1998) under discrete hindsight optimization in continuous time. The payoff in question is equal to the final wealth that would have accrued to a $\$1…
▽ More
We study T. Cover's rebalancing option (Ordentlich and Cover 1998) under discrete hindsight optimization in continuous time. The payoff in question is equal to the final wealth that would have accrued to a $\$1$ deposit into the best of some finite set of (perhaps levered) rebalancing rules determined in hindsight. A rebalancing rule (or fixed-fraction betting scheme) amounts to fixing an asset allocation (i.e. $200\%$ stocks and $-100\%$ bonds) and then continuously executing rebalancing trades to counteract allocation drift. Restricting the hindsight optimization to a small number of rebalancing rules (i.e. 2) has some advantages over the pioneering approach taken by Cover $\&$ Company in their brilliant theory of universal portfolios (1986, 1991, 1996, 1998), where one's on-line trading performance is benchmarked relative to the final wealth of the best unlevered rebalancing rule of any kind in hindsight. Our approach lets practitioners express an a priori view that one of the favored asset allocations ("bets") $b\in\{b_1,...,b_n\}$ will turn out to have performed spectacularly well in hindsight. In limiting our robustness to some discrete set of asset allocations (rather than all possible asset allocations) we reduce the price of the rebalancing option and guarantee to achieve a correspondingly higher percentage of the hindsight-optimized wealth at the end of the planning period. A practitioner who lives to delta-hedge this variant of Cover's rebalancing option through several decades is guaranteed to see the day that his realized compound-annual capital growth rate is very close to that of the best $b_i$ in hindsight. Hence the point of the rock-bottom option price.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 2 March, 2019;
originally announced March 2019.
-
Game-Theoretic Optimal Portfolios for Jump Diffusions
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
This paper studies a two-person trading game in continuous time that generalizes Garivaltis (2018) to allow for stock prices that both jump and diffuse. Analogous to Bell and Cover (1988) in discrete time, the players start by choosing fair randomizations of the initial dollar, by exchanging it for a random wealth whose mean is at most 1. Each player then deposits the resulting capital into some c…
▽ More
This paper studies a two-person trading game in continuous time that generalizes Garivaltis (2018) to allow for stock prices that both jump and diffuse. Analogous to Bell and Cover (1988) in discrete time, the players start by choosing fair randomizations of the initial dollar, by exchanging it for a random wealth whose mean is at most 1. Each player then deposits the resulting capital into some continuously-rebalanced portfolio that must be adhered to over $[0,t]$. We solve the corresponding `investment $φ$-game,' namely the zero-sum game with payoff kernel $\mathbb{E}[φ\{\textbf{W}_1V_t(b)/(\textbf{W}_2V_t(c))\}]$, where $\textbf{W}_i$ is player $i$'s fair randomization, $V_t(b)$ is the final wealth that accrues to a one dollar deposit into the rebalancing rule $b$, and $φ(\bullet)$ is any increasing function meant to measure relative performance. We show that the unique saddle point is for both players to use the (leveraged) Kelly rule for jump diffusions, which is ordinarily defined by maximizing the asymptotic almost-sure continuously-compounded capital growth rate. Thus, the Kelly rule for jump diffusions is the correct behavior for practically anybody who wants to outperform other traders (on any time frame) with respect to practically any measure of relative performance.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 11 December, 2018;
originally announced December 2018.
-
Exact Replication of the Best Rebalancing Rule in Hindsight
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
This paper prices and replicates the financial derivative whose payoff at $T$ is the wealth that would have accrued to a $\$1$ deposit into the best continuously-rebalanced portfolio (or fixed-fraction betting scheme) determined in hindsight. For the single-stock Black-Scholes market, Ordentlich and Cover (1998) only priced this derivative at time-0, giving $C_0=1+σ\sqrt{T/(2π)}…
▽ More
This paper prices and replicates the financial derivative whose payoff at $T$ is the wealth that would have accrued to a $\$1$ deposit into the best continuously-rebalanced portfolio (or fixed-fraction betting scheme) determined in hindsight. For the single-stock Black-Scholes market, Ordentlich and Cover (1998) only priced this derivative at time-0, giving $C_0=1+σ\sqrt{T/(2π)}$. Of course, the general time-$t$ price is not equal to $1+σ\sqrt{(T-t)/(2π)}$. I complete the Ordentlich-Cover (1998) analysis by deriving the price at any time $t$. By contrast, I also study the more natural case of the best levered rebalancing rule in hindsight. This yields $C(S,t)=\sqrt{T/t}\cdot\,\exp\{rt+σ^2b(S,t)^2\cdot t/2\}$, where $b(S,t)$ is the best rebalancing rule in hindsight over the observed history $[0,t]$. I show that the replicating strategy amounts to betting the fraction $b(S,t)$ of wealth on the stock over the interval $[t,t+dt].$ This fact holds for the general market with $n$ correlated stocks in geometric Brownian motion: we get $C(S,t)=(T/t)^{n/2}\exp(rt+b'Σb\cdot t/2)$, where $Σ$ is the covariance of instantaneous returns per unit time. This result matches the $\mathcal{O}(T^{n/2})$ "cost of universality" derived by Cover in his "universal portfolio theory" (1986, 1991, 1996, 1998), which super-replicates the same derivative in discrete-time. The replicating strategy compounds its money at the same asymptotic rate as the best levered rebalancing rule in hindsight, thereby beating the market asymptotically. Naturally enough, we find that the American-style version of Cover's Derivative is never exercised early in equilibrium.
△ Less
Submitted 14 March, 2019; v1 submitted 4 October, 2018;
originally announced October 2018.
-
Multilinear Superhedging of Lookback Options
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
In a pathbreaking paper, Cover and Ordentlich (1998) solved a max-min portfolio game between a trader (who picks an entire trading algorithm, $θ(\cdot)$) and "nature," who picks the matrix $X$ of gross-returns of all stocks in all periods. Their (zero-sum) game has the payoff kernel $W_θ(X)/D(X)$, where $W_θ(X)$ is the trader's final wealth and $D(X)$ is the final wealth that would have accrued to…
▽ More
In a pathbreaking paper, Cover and Ordentlich (1998) solved a max-min portfolio game between a trader (who picks an entire trading algorithm, $θ(\cdot)$) and "nature," who picks the matrix $X$ of gross-returns of all stocks in all periods. Their (zero-sum) game has the payoff kernel $W_θ(X)/D(X)$, where $W_θ(X)$ is the trader's final wealth and $D(X)$ is the final wealth that would have accrued to a $\$1$ deposit into the best constant-rebalanced portfolio (or fixed-fraction betting scheme) determined in hindsight. The resulting "universal portfolio" compounds its money at the same asymptotic rate as the best rebalancing rule in hindsight, thereby beating the market asymptotically under extremely general conditions. Smitten with this (1998) result, the present paper solves the most general tractable version of Cover and Ordentlich's (1998) max-min game. This obtains for performance benchmarks (read: derivatives) that are separately convex and homogeneous in each period's gross-return vector. For completely arbitrary (even non-measurable) performance benchmarks, we show how the axiom of choice can be used to "find" an exact maximin strategy for the trader.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 4 October, 2018;
originally announced October 2018.
-
Super-Replication of the Best Pairs Trade in Hindsight
Authors:
Alex Garivaltis
Abstract:
This paper derives a robust on-line equity trading algorithm that achieves the greatest possible percentage of the final wealth of the best pairs rebalancing rule in hindsight. A pairs rebalancing rule chooses some pair of stocks in the market and then perpetually executes rebalancing trades so as to maintain a target fraction of wealth in each of the two. After each discrete market fluctuation, a…
▽ More
This paper derives a robust on-line equity trading algorithm that achieves the greatest possible percentage of the final wealth of the best pairs rebalancing rule in hindsight. A pairs rebalancing rule chooses some pair of stocks in the market and then perpetually executes rebalancing trades so as to maintain a target fraction of wealth in each of the two. After each discrete market fluctuation, a pairs rebalancing rule will sell a precise amount of the outperforming stock and put the proceeds into the underperforming stock. Under typical conditions, in hindsight one can find pairs rebalancing rules that would have spectacularly beaten the market. Our trading strategy, which extends Ordentlich and Cover's (1998) "max-min universal portfolio," guarantees to achieve an acceptable percentage of the hindsight-optimized wealth, a percentage which tends to zero at a slow (polynomial) rate. This means that on a long enough investment horizon, the trader can enforce a compound-annual growth rate that is arbitrarily close to that of the best pairs rebalancing rule in hindsight. The strategy will "beat the market asymptotically" if there turns out to exist a pairs rebalancing rule that grows capital at a higher asymptotic rate than the market index. The advantages of our algorithm over the Ordentlich and Cover (1998) strategy are twofold. First, their strategy is impossible to compute in practice. Second, in considering the more modest benchmark (instead of the best all-stock rebalancing rule in hindsight), we reduce the "cost of universality" and achieve a higher learning rate.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2022; v1 submitted 4 October, 2018;
originally announced October 2018.
