IP Library Granted Patent US 7,337,137
Granted Patent B2
US 7,337,137 · App. 10/640,630 · Granted Feb 26, 2008

Investment portfolio optimization system, method and computer program product

View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 7,337,137
App. No.
10/640,630
Granted
Feb 26, 2008
Kind
B2
Abstract

The preferred embodiments provide improved systems, methods and products for the optimization of a portfolio and/or multi-portfolios of assets, such as stocks. In some preferred embodiments, new methodology can be employed wherein a confidence region for a mean-varience efficiency set is utilized. In some preferred embodiments, new methodology can be employed for improved computation of a reward-to-variability ratio or Sharpe Ratio. In some preferred embodiments, new methodology can be employed for multiportfolio optimization. In some preferred embodiments, a portfolio optimization engine or module can be adapted to implement one or more of these new methodologies, along with any other desired methodologies.

Claims (246)

1. A method for optimizing a portfolio of assets, comprising:

a) inputting portfolio data into an optimization engine, said optimization engine having a confidence region module;

b) having said optimization engine generate optimization results via said confidence region module and outputting said results, wherein said confidence region module defines a confidence region for a mean-variance efficient set for a portfolio P o on an efficient frontier that corresponds to a risk aversion γ; and

c) rebalancing a portfolio based on said optimization results; wherein the region includes all portfolios P, such that: c low *Risk(P 0 )<Risk(P)<c high *Risk(P 0 ) and Ret(P)>c*Ret(P opt ), where P opt is a portfolio on the efficient frontier such that Risk(P opt )=Risk(P) and c low , c high and c are relative average deviations of decrease in risk, increase in risk and expected return of optimal portfolios that correspond to the risk aversion γ and different vectors of returns.

2. The method of claim 1 , further including having a user set a specific confidence level by setting different values for constants c low , c high and c.

3. The method of claim 1 , further including using standard efficient frontier portfolios, wherein the standard efficient frontier portfolios involve portfolios with maximum expected return for a fixed value of risk.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein when R up is an expected relative increase in risk, R down is an expected relative decrease in risk, t is a tradeoff coefficient and d is a standard deviation, said confidence region module defines a confidence region for a mean-variance efficient set based on the equation:

Ω

(

t

,

d

)

=

{

(

x

,

y

)

x

x

*

(

1

+

R

Up

(

t

,

d

)

)

,

y

Return

(

x

*

(

1

-

R

Down

(

t

,

d

)

)

)

*

(

1

-

δ

(

t

,

d

)

)

,

y

Return

(

x

)

*

(

1

-

δ

(

t

,

d

)

)

.

5. A method for optimizing a portfolio of assets, comprising:

a) inputting portfolio data into an optimization engine, said optimization engine having a compute Sharpe Ratio module that provides an ex-ante optimization of a portfolio of assets based on Sharpe Ratio;

b) having said optimization engine generate optimization results and outputting said results; and

c) rebalancing a portfolio based on said optimization results;

wherein said compute a Sharpe Ratio module computes a Sharpe Ratio using 1) a find bounds algorithm which starts with a maximum value of adiusted return, the adjusted return is decreased by a factor at steps of the algorithm, and the algorithm terminates when a best value of Sharpe Ratio, that corresponds to a current level of the adjusted return, is lower than a Sharpe Ratio at a previous iteration and using 2) a find Sharpe Ratio algorithm in which at iterations a guess of the maximum Sharpe Ratio value S is updated;

wherein to said compute Sharpe Ratio module maximizes the reward-to-return ratio S of a potential investment portfolio h∈Q

S

(

h

)

=

A

(

h

)

Risk

(

h

)

.

6. The method of claim 5 , wherein S 2 is maximized and A 2 is replaced with its piece-wise linear approximation, and further including finding a lower and an upper bounds on A, such that a value of A, that maximizes S, lies between these bounds.

7. A method for multi-portfolio optimization, comprising:

a) inputting multi-portfolio data into an optimization engine, said optimization engine having a multi-portfolio optimization module;

b) having said optimization engine generate optimization results via said multi-portfolio optimization module and outputting said results, wherein said multi-portfolio optimization module performs an algorithm for multi-portfolio optimization that computes an optimal set of portfolios h 1 , . . . , h K , that minimizes a value of a maximum relative or absolute distance of the value of a function Ω k (h k ) from a value Ω k (h k Opt ), where maximum is taken over all portfolios h 1 , . . . , h K , and wherein the set also satisfies a constraint on a total portfolio Σ k=1,K h k ; and

c) rebalancing a portfolio based on said optimization results; wherein said multi-portfolio module performs the steps of: i) finding an optimal portfolio h k Opt ∈Q k for every k, k=1, . . . , K; and ii) distinguishing between two cases:

a) relative measure: maximize value of scalar variable x under the following constraints

Ω

k

(

h

k

)

Ω

k

(

h

k

Opt

)

*

x

,

k

{

1

,

,

K

}

,

h

k

Q

k

,

k

{

1

,

,

K

}

,

k

=

1

K

h

k

Q

;

b) absolute measure: minimize value of scalar variable y under the following constraints

Ω

k

(

h

k

)

+

y

Ω

k

(

h

k

Opt

)

,

k

{

1

,

,

K

}

,

h

k

Q

k

,

k

{

1

,

,

K

}

,

k

=

1

K

h

k

Q

.

8. The method of claim 7 , wherein an optimal solution for the first step is the optimal solution for the second step when the constraint on the portfolio is relaxed, and further including first calculating a dual solution for a relaxed problem and then using that solution as initial feasible solution to solve the problem dual to the problem in the second step.

Assignments (8)
SECURITY AGREEMENT Recorded Jan 13, 2022
From: SERVICES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC; VIRTU ITG SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LLC
To: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
Reel/Frame 058746/0699 →
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jan 13, 2022
From: JEFFERIES FINANCE LLC
To: VIRTU ITG SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LLC
Reel/Frame 058746/0799 →
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Oct 10, 2019
From: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
To: VIRTU ITG SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LLC
Reel/Frame 050707/0015 →
CHANGE OF NAME Recorded Aug 21, 2019
From: ITG SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC
To: VIRTU ITG SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LLC
Reel/Frame 050128/0708 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Mar 4, 2019
From: VIRTU ITG SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LLC
To: JEFFERIES FINANCE LLC, AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
Reel/Frame 048490/0359 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Mar 4, 2019
From: VIRTU ITG SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LLC
To: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Reel/Frame 048498/0602 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jul 19, 2004
From: ITG , INC.
To: ITG SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Reel/Frame 014892/0214 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 14, 2003
From: ZOSIN, LEONID A.; MADHAVAN, ANANTH
To: ITG, INC.
Reel/Frame 014405/0314 →