14.4 Risk parity: Euler contributions and equal risk contribution
Motivation
If expected returns cannot be estimated, allocate by risk, which can. "Risk parity" asks that each asset or strategy contribute the same share of portfolio risk. To make that precise you need a decomposition of portfolio volatility into parts that add up.
14.4.1Euler risk contributions#
Proposition 14.7Euler decomposition
Portfolio volatility is positively homogeneous of degree one, and
Proof
, so for , . Differentiate both sides in and set : (Euler's theorem for homogeneous functions). Directly, , so .∎
is the risk contribution of asset ; is its percentage contribution. The decomposition is not unique as an accounting device, but it is the one consistent with marginal analysis: is the change in portfolio risk from a small increase in position . The same Euler argument applies to any homogeneous risk measure, including VaR and expected shortfall (M02 · 2.8).
14.4.2Equal risk contribution#
Equal risk contribution (ERC) Long-only weights with for all . More generally, a risk budget asks for .
Proposition 14.8Existence, uniqueness and computation of ERC
For positive-definite and budgets , the function
is strictly convex and has a unique minimiser . The weights are the unique long-only portfolio with .
Proof
is the sum of a strictly convex quadratic and the convex function , so it is strictly convex. It tends to as any (the log term) and as (the quadratic dominates the logarithm), so it attains a minimum on the open orthant, which is unique by strict convexity. The first-order condition gives . Then and , so and . Risk shares are invariant to scaling , so has the same shares. Conversely, any long-only with shares satisfies ; then satisfies the FOC, so is the normalised unique minimiser.∎
The code solves this by damped Newton's method (gradient , Hessian , which is positive definite). This formulation is from Spinu (2013); the properties of ERC portfolios are in Maillard, Roncalli & Teiletche ("The Properties of Equally Weighted Risk Contribution Portfolios", Journal of Portfolio Management 36(4), 2010), who also show that ERC volatility lies between those of the GMV and portfolios.
Proposition 14.9When inverse volatility equals ERC
Inverse-volatility weights have equal risk contributions if and only if every row of the correlation matrix has the same sum. In particular this holds for any two assets, and for any number of assets with a common pairwise correlation.
Proof
With , , so . These are equal across iff the row sums are equal. For two assets both row sums are .∎
14.4.3Comparing the four portfolios#
Worked example
(the 14.1 assets):
| Portfolio | Weights (Nifty, gold, G-sec, trend) | σ | Sharpe | Risk shares |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal weight | 0.25 each | 8.50% | 0.500 | 31%, 20%, 3.5%, 45% |
| Inverse vol | 0.163, 0.186, 0.521, 0.130 | 5.94% | 0.459 | 27%, 23%, 23%, 27% |
| ERC | 0.153, 0.191, 0.533, 0.123 | 5.82% | 0.451 | 25% each |
| GMV | 0.045, 0.076, 0.840, 0.039 | 4.68% | 0.253 | 4.5%, 7.6%, 84%, 3.9% |
Three observations. First, "equal weight" in rupees is very unequal in risk: the G-sec fund is a quarter of the capital and 3.5% of the risk, while the trend strategy is 45% of the risk. Second, inverse volatility is close to ERC because the correlations here are low and similar. Third, at the GMV portfolio risk shares equal weights, because ; GMV concentrates in the lowest-volatility asset.
Volatilities are ordered as Maillard–Roncalli–Teiletche predict: GMV 4.68% ≤ ERC 5.82% ≤ 8.50%. ERC has a low expected return in absolute terms (9.1%) because it holds a lot of the low-volatility bond. Institutional risk-parity funds lever the ERC portfolio to a target volatility, which turns a portfolio-construction rule into a leverage decision (14.5).
Practitioner notes
Risk parity is not "no forecast": it implicitly assumes Sharpe ratios are roughly equal across assets (if they are, and correlations are equal, ERC is the tangency portfolio). It also depends heavily on the covariance estimate; bonds' low volatility in calm periods can turn into large losses when correlations shift (2022 in global markets, when stocks and bonds fell together).