The MOSEK Python optimizer API manual Version 7.0 (Revision 141)
Optimizer API for Python - Documentation - Mosek Optimizer API for Python - Documentation - Mosek
110 CHAPTER 8. A CASE STUDY where the function maximize µ T x subject to e T x + n∑ C j (x j − x 0 j) = w + e T x 0 , j=1 x T Σx ≤ γ 2 , x ≥ 0, (8.8) C j (x j − x 0 j) specifies the transaction costs when the holding of asset j is changed from its initial value. 8.1.5.1 Market impact costs If the initial wealth is fairly small and short selling is not allowed, then the holdings will be small. Therefore, the amount traded of each asset must also be small. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the prices of the assets is independent of the amount traded. However, if a large volume of an assert is sold or purchased it can be expected that the price change and hence the expected return also change. This effect is called market impact costs. It is common to assume that market impact costs for asset j can be modelled by m j √|x j − x 0 j | where m j is a constant that is estimated in some way. See [6][p. 452] for details. To summarize then From [7] it is known √ C j (x j − x 0 j) = m j |x j − x 0 j| |x j − x 0 j | = m j|x j − x 0 j| 3/2 . {(c, z) : c ≥ z 3/2 , z ≥ 0} = {(c, z) : [v; c; z], [z; 1/8; v] ∈ Q 3 r} where Q 3 r is the 3 dimensional rotated quadratic cone implying z j = |x j − x 0 j|, [v j ; c j ; z j ], [z j ; 1/8; v j ] ∈ Q 3 r, n∑ n∑ C j (x j − x 0 j) = c j . j=1 j=1 Unfortunately this set of constraints is nonconvex due to the constraint z j = |x j − x 0 j| (8.9) but in many cases that constraint can safely be replaced by the relaxed constraint
8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 111 z j ≥ |x j − x 0 j| (8.10) which is convex. If for instance the universe of assets contains a risk free asset with a positive return then z j > |x j − x 0 j| (8.11) cannot hold for an optimal solution because that would imply the solution is not optimal. Now assume that the optimal solution has the property that (8.11) holds then the market impact cost within the model is larger than the true market impact cost and hence money are essentially considered garbage and removed by generating transaction costs. This may happen if a portfolio with very small risk is requested because then the only way to obtain a small risk is to get rid of some of the assets by generating transaction costs. Here it is assumed this is not the case and hence the models (8.9) and (8.10) are equivalent. Formula (8.10) is replaced by constraints z j ≥ x j − x 0 j, z j ≥ − (x j − x 0 j). (8.12) Now we have The revised budget constraint maximize µ T x subject to e T x + m T c = w + e T x 0 , z j ≥ x j − x 0 j, j = 1, . . . , n, z j ≥ x 0 j − x j , j = 1, . . . , n, [γ; G T x] ∈ Q n+1 , [v j ; c j ; z j ] ∈ Q 3 r, j = 1, . . . , n, [z j ; 1/8; v j ] ∈ Q 3 r, j = 1, . . . , n, x ≥ 0. (8.13) e T x = w + e T x 0 − m T c specifies that the total investment must be equal to the initial wealth minus the transaction costs. Moreover, observe the variables v and z are some auxiliary variables that model the market impact cost. Indeed it holds and z j ≥ |x j − x 0 j| c j ≥ z 3/2 j . Before proceeding it should be mentioned that transaction costs of the form
- Page 81 and 82: 5.8. THE SOLUTION SUMMARY FOR MIXED
- Page 83 and 84: 5.9. RESPONSE HANDLING 61 Note that
- Page 85 and 86: 5.10. PROBLEM MODIFICATION AND REOP
- Page 87 and 88: 5.10. PROBLEM MODIFICATION AND REOP
- Page 89 and 90: 5.11. SOLUTION ANALYSIS 67 151 # Pu
- Page 91 and 92: 5.13. CONVENTIONS EMPLOYED IN THE A
- Page 93 and 94: 5.13. CONVENTIONS EMPLOYED IN THE A
- Page 95 and 96: 5.13. CONVENTIONS EMPLOYED IN THE A
- Page 97 and 98: 5.13. CONVENTIONS EMPLOYED IN THE A
- Page 99 and 100: Chapter 6 Nonlinear API tutorial Th
- Page 101 and 102: 6.1. SEPARABLE CONVEX (SCOPT) INTER
- Page 103 and 104: 6.1. SEPARABLE CONVEX (SCOPT) INTER
- Page 105 and 106: 6.1. SEPARABLE CONVEX (SCOPT) INTER
- Page 107 and 108: Chapter 7 Advanced API tutorial Thi
- Page 109 and 110: 7.1. THE PROGRESS CALL-BACK 87 71 p
- Page 111 and 112: 7.2. SOLVING LINEAR SYSTEMS INVOLVI
- Page 113 and 114: 7.2. SOLVING LINEAR SYSTEMS INVOLVI
- Page 115 and 116: 7.2. SOLVING LINEAR SYSTEMS INVOLVI
- Page 117 and 118: 7.2. SOLVING LINEAR SYSTEMS INVOLVI
- Page 119 and 120: Chapter 8 A case study 8.1 Portfoli
- Page 121 and 122: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 99 e T
- Page 123 and 124: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 101 is
- Page 125 and 126: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 103 15
- Page 127 and 128: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 105 63
- Page 129 and 130: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 107 8.1
- Page 131: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 109 110
- Page 135 and 136: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 113 Var
- Page 137 and 138: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 115 56
- Page 139 and 140: 8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 117 172
- Page 141 and 142: Chapter 9 Usage guidelines The purp
- Page 143 and 144: 9.3. WRITING TASK DATA TO A FILE 12
- Page 145 and 146: Chapter 10 Problem formulation and
- Page 147 and 148: 10.1. LINEAR OPTIMIZATION 125 be a
- Page 149 and 150: 10.2. CONIC QUADRATIC OPTIMIZATION
- Page 151 and 152: 10.2. CONIC QUADRATIC OPTIMIZATION
- Page 153 and 154: 10.3. SEMIDEFINITE OPTIMIZATION 131
- Page 155 and 156: 10.4. QUADRATIC AND QUADRATICALLY C
- Page 157 and 158: Chapter 11 The optimizers for conti
- Page 159 and 160: 11.1. HOW AN OPTIMIZER WORKS 137 11
- Page 161 and 162: 11.2. LINEAR OPTIMIZATION 139 11.2.
- Page 163 and 164: 11.2. LINEAR OPTIMIZATION 141 Whene
- Page 165 and 166: 11.2. LINEAR OPTIMIZATION 143 11.2.
- Page 167 and 168: 11.2. LINEAR OPTIMIZATION 145 • R
- Page 169 and 170: 11.5. NONLINEAR CONVEX OPTIMIZATION
- Page 171 and 172: 11.6. SOLVING PROBLEMS IN PARALLEL
- Page 173 and 174: 11.6. SOLVING PROBLEMS IN PARALLEL
- Page 175 and 176: 11.6. SOLVING PROBLEMS IN PARALLEL
- Page 177 and 178: Chapter 12 The optimizers for mixed
- Page 179 and 180: 12.3. THE MIXED-INTEGER CONIC OPTIM
- Page 181 and 182: 12.5. TERMINATION CRITERION 159 •
8.1. PORTFOLIO OPTIMIZATION 111<br />
z j ≥ |x j − x 0 j| (8.10)<br />
which is convex. If for instance the universe of assets contains a risk free asset with a positive return<br />
then<br />
z j > |x j − x 0 j| (8.11)<br />
cannot hold for an optimal solution because that would imply the solution is not optimal.<br />
Now assume that the optimal solution has the property that (8.11) holds then the market impact cost<br />
within the model is larger than the true market impact cost and hence money are essentially considered<br />
garbage and removed by generating transaction costs. This may happen if a portfolio with very small<br />
risk is requested because then the only way to obtain a small risk is to get rid of some of the assets by<br />
generating transaction costs. Here it is assumed this is not the case and hence the models (8.9) and<br />
(8.10) are equivalent.<br />
Formula (8.10) is replaced by constraints<br />
z j ≥ x j − x 0 j,<br />
z j ≥ − (x j − x 0 j).<br />
(8.12)<br />
Now we have<br />
<strong>The</strong> revised budget constraint<br />
maximize µ T x<br />
subject to e T x + m T c = w + e T x 0 ,<br />
z j ≥ x j − x 0 j, j = 1, . . . , n,<br />
z j ≥ x 0 j − x j , j = 1, . . . , n,<br />
[γ; G T x] ∈ Q n+1 ,<br />
[v j ; c j ; z j ] ∈ Q 3 r, j = 1, . . . , n,<br />
[z j ; 1/8; v j ] ∈ Q 3 r, j = 1, . . . , n,<br />
x ≥ 0.<br />
(8.13)<br />
e T x = w + e T x 0 − m T c<br />
specifies that the total investment must be equal to the initial wealth minus the transaction costs.<br />
Moreover, observe the variables v and z are some auxiliary variables that model the market impact<br />
cost. Indeed it holds<br />
and<br />
z j ≥ |x j − x 0 j|<br />
c j ≥ z 3/2<br />
j .<br />
Before proceeding it should be mentioned that transaction costs of the form