Asset allocation theory and optimizer usage — MPT / Black-Litterman / risk budgeting / all-weather strategy, including guides for 5 optimizers and rebalancing rules.
62
73%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./agent/src/skills/asset-allocation/SKILL.mdFrom asset allocation theory to practical implementation, this skill covers classical frameworks (MPT, BL, risk budgeting, all-weather) and the usage of the four optimizers built into this system. The output can be written directly into config.json.
Core idea: maximize expected return for a given level of risk (the efficient frontier).
Optimization problem:
min w'Σw (portfolio variance)
s.t. w'μ = target_return
Σw = 1
w ≥ 0 (no shorting)| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Mathematically rigorous | Extremely sensitive to inputs (garbage in, garbage out) |
| Efficient frontier is visualizable | Concentrated-allocation problem (often produces extreme weights) |
| Foundational framework | Assumes normality and ignores fat tails |
Practical advice: do not use raw MPT directly. Add constraints (upper/lower bounds, sector limits) or use a regularized version.
Core idea: start from market equilibrium and incorporate investor views.
Steps:
1. Reverse-imply market equilibrium returns: π = δΣw_mkt
2. Build the view matrices: P (selection matrix), Q (view returns), Ω (view uncertainty)
3. Blend the posterior: μ_BL = [(τΣ)^-1 + P'Ω^-1 P]^-1 [(τΣ)^-1 π + P'Ω^-1 Q]
4. Run Markowitz optimization using posterior μ_BLExample views:
P=[1,0,0], Q=[0.10]P=[1,-1,0], Q=[0.05]Parameter guidance:
τ (uncertainty scaling): 0.025-0.05Ω: set according to view confidence, where higher confidence = smaller varianceCore idea: allocate by risk contribution rather than by capital share.
Risk contribution: RC_i = w_i × (Σw)_i / σ_p
Target: RC_i / σ_p = budget_i (for all i)| Strategy | Risk Budget | Best Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| Equal risk contribution | Each asset 1/N | When you do not know which asset is best |
| Equity-tilted risk budget | Stocks 60%, bonds 30%, commodities 10% | When you want equities to contribute more risk |
| Dynamic risk budget | Adjust dynamically by signal strength | When you have market-timing ability |
Bridgewater framework: allocate risk equally across economic environments.
Economic environment Asset allocation
───────── ─────────
Growth rising Equities + commodities + corporate bonds
Growth falling Government bonds + inflation-protected bonds
Inflation rising Commodities + inflation-protected bonds + EM debt
Inflation falling Equities + government bonds
Simplified allocation example for China-focused portfolios:
- 30% CSI 300 / CSI 500
- 40% government bonds / credit bonds
- 15% gold
- 15% commodities / REITsConfigure them in config.json through optimizer and optimizer_params:
| optimizer | Display Name | Core Idea | Best Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|
equal_volatility | Equal Volatility | Allocate weights by inverse volatility | Simple and effective baseline |
risk_parity | Risk Parity | Equalize risk contribution while accounting for correlation | Long-term robust allocation |
mean_variance | Mean-Variance | Maximize Sharpe ratio or minimize variance | When return forecasts are available |
max_diversification | Maximum Diversification | Maximize the diversification ratio | When pursuing a low-correlation portfolio |
turnover_aware | Turnover-Aware | Mean-variance utility with an L1 penalty on weight changes vs the previous rebalance | When trading costs matter; tune turnover_penalty to your data frequency |
equal_volatility{
"optimizer": "equal_volatility",
"optimizer_params": {
"lookback": 60
}
}Principle: w_i = (1/σ_i) / Σ(1/σ_j)
| Parameter | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
| lookback | 60 | Volatility calculation window (trading days) |
Advantages: simple and fast, no return forecast required, no correlation matrix required.
Disadvantages: ignores cross-asset correlation.
risk_parity{
"optimizer": "risk_parity",
"optimizer_params": {
"lookback": 60
}
}Principle: solve for weights such that each asset contributes the same amount of risk.
| Parameter | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
| lookback | 60 | Covariance-matrix estimation window |
Advantages: accounts for correlation, spreads risk more evenly, and is robust over long horizons.
Disadvantages: requires iterative solving and is sensitive to covariance estimates.
mean_variance{
"optimizer": "mean_variance",
"optimizer_params": {
"lookback": 60,
"risk_free": 0.0
}
}Principle: Markowitz optimization that maximizes the Sharpe ratio.
| Parameter | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
| lookback | 60 | Window for estimating means and covariances |
| risk_free | 0.0 | Risk-free rate (annualized) |
Advantages: theoretically optimal (if inputs are accurate).
Disadvantages: extremely sensitive to inputs, prone to extreme weights, and often performs poorly out of sample.
Recommendation: do not make lookback too short (<30 easily overfits), and add upper/lower weight constraints.
max_diversification{
"optimizer": "max_diversification",
"optimizer_params": {
"lookback": 60
}
}Principle: maximize DR = (w'σ) / σ_p (the diversification ratio).
| Parameter | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
| lookback | 60 | Calculation window |
Advantages: does not require return forecasts and seeks true diversification.
Disadvantages: effectiveness is limited in highly correlated environments.
turnover_aware{
"optimizer": "turnover_aware",
"optimizer_params": {
"lookback": 60,
"risk_aversion": 1.0,
"turnover_penalty": 0.5
}
}Principle: minimize -w'μ + λ·w'Σw + γ·||w - w_prev||₁ subject to long-only, fully-invested weights — mean-variance utility with an L1 penalty on weight changes versus the previous rebalance, so the optimizer only trades when the expected improvement outweighs the (implicit) cost.
| Parameter | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
| lookback | 60 | Calculation window |
| risk_aversion | 1.0 | Weight on the variance term (λ) |
| turnover_penalty | 0.0 | Weight on the L1 turnover term (γ); 0 reduces to the mean-variance baseline |
Advantages: dampens rebalancing churn, which usually dominates realized costs; the first rebalance is unpenalized so the cold start is undistorted.
Disadvantages: turnover_penalty is scale-sensitive to the return frequency of the input window — for daily returns even γ ≈ 0.5 strongly prefers holding still, so tune it per data frequency.
Do you have return forecasts?
├── Yes → Do trading costs / churn matter?
│ ├── Yes → turnover_aware (tune turnover_penalty to data frequency)
│ └── No → mean_variance (remember to add constraints)
└── No → Do you need to account for correlation?
├── Yes → risk_parity (recommended default)
└── No → Are volatility differences across assets large?
├── Yes → equal_volatility
└── No → max_diversification| Method | Trigger Condition | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Periodic rebalancing | Fixed monthly / quarterly date | Simple, predictable trading cost | May miss or delay adjustments |
| Threshold trigger | Deviation from target weight > X% | Trades only when needed | Frequent trading in high-volatility markets |
| Volatility trigger | VIX / volatility breaks a threshold | Adapts to market regime | Parameter selection is difficult |
| Asset Class | Suggested Frequency | Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Equity portfolio | Monthly | ±5% |
| Stock-bond mix | Quarterly | ±10% |
| Global macro | Quarterly / semiannual | ±10% |
| Cryptocurrency | Weekly / biweekly | ±15% (high volatility) |
Implement rebalancing logic in signal_engine.py:
# Periodic rebalancing example (every 20 trading days)
if bar_count % rebalance_freq == 0:
# Recompute weights
new_weights = calculate_target_weights(data_map)
for code, weight in new_weights.items():
signals[code].iloc[i] = weight| CSI 300 | CSI 500 | Government Bonds | Gold | BTC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSI 300 | 1.00 | 0.85 | -0.15 | 0.05 | 0.10 |
| CSI 500 | 0.85 | 1.00 | -0.10 | 0.03 | 0.12 |
| Government Bonds | -0.15 | -0.10 | 1.00 | 0.20 | -0.05 |
| Gold | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.20 | 1.00 | 0.15 |
| BTC | 0.10 | 0.12 | -0.05 | 0.15 | 1.00 |
Key patterns:
0.85), so diversification benefits are limited## Asset Allocation Recommendation
### Allocation Plan
| Asset | Weight | Risk Contribution | Expected Return (Annualized) |
|------|------|---------|--------------|
| CSI 300 | 30% | 45% | 8% |
| Government Bond ETF | 40% | 15% | 3% |
| Gold | 15% | 20% | 5% |
| BTC | 15% | 20% | 15% |
### Optimizer Configuration
```json
{
"optimizer": "risk_parity",
"optimizer_params": {"lookback": 60}
}| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Expected annualized return | 7.2% |
| Expected annualized volatility | 8.5% |
| Expected Sharpe | 0.85 |
| Expected maximum drawdown | -12% |
## Notes
1. **The optimizer needs enough instruments**: at least 3 instruments are needed for meaningful optimization; with 2 instruments, `equal_volatility` is usually enough
2. **`lookback` window**: too short (`<20`) is noisy, too long (`>120`) reacts slowly, and 60 is a reasonable default
3. **`mean_variance` trap**: it is the easiest to overfit, and out-of-sample Sharpe is often cut by half or more
4. **Rebalancing cost**: frequent rebalancing eats into returns; for China A-share portfolios, stamp duty of 0.05% plus commissions is material
5. **Cross-market allocation**: use `"source": "auto"` in `config.json`, and let `codes` mix instruments from different markets
6. **Leverage constraint**: the sum of weights must be ≤ 1.0, and leverage is not allowed unless explicitly specified
7. **Survivorship bias**: historical correlations may be distorted by delistings and new listings8643fcd
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.