arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.03022

Interpretable Allocation and Model-Predictive Rebalancing of Equity Portfolios, Tested on Real and Synthetic Markets

Jeffrey D. Varner
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A live equity portfolio poses three problems: which stocks to hold, when to trade, and whether the strategy holds up beyond the observed market. We built one system for all three and tested it on 373 US equities, calibrated on 2014-2024 and traded from January 2025 to September 2026. A selection rule chose stocks by score, by a bandit, or at random, and one of seven weighting rules, four consumer-theory utilities, and three standard portfolios, set share counts under limits on budget, single-stock weight, portfolio volatility, and turnover, with each stock's preference weight a bounded score of its trend, market beta, and the market's recent direction. A model-predictive controller forecasts portfolio value with a multi-asset geometric Brownian motion and re-planned at its horizon, when the value left its forecast band, or at a drawdown stop. To probe deeper declines than the real window held, we also ran the system on simulated markets from per-asset hidden Markov generators with jumps, linked by market and sector factors. On real prices, the stocks chosen mattered more to terminal wealth than the weighting rule, and the early re-plans shrank the worst drawdown in most rule combinations against a fixed calendar without consistently raising wealth. In the deepest simulated declines, every combination, random picks included, ended above simulated SPY and the equal-weight universe in the median, even without early re-plans, so the margin came from shared parts of the system, not from stock selection or re-plan timing. A market hedge that tightened a beta cap as the market weakened cost wealth on real prices but paid off in the most sustained simulated declines, and the generator's persistent trends favored score-based selection more than the real market did, which suggests a synthetic test judges stock selection fairly only if its generator does not build in that persistence.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.PMcs.CEq-fin.RM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeffrey D. Varner. 2026-11-02. Interpretable Allocation and Model-Predictive Rebalancing of Equity Portfolios, Tested on Real and Synthetic Markets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.03022

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Breaking the Trend: How to Avoid Cherry-Picked Signals

Our empirical results show an excellent fit with the theoretical Sharpe formula of a trend-following strategy depending on the parameter of the signal, which was derived by by Grebenkov and Serror (2014). That empirical fit convinces us that a mean-reversion process with only one time scale is enough to model, in a precise way, the reality of the trend-following mechanism at the average scale of CTAs and as a consequence, using only one simple EMA, appears optimal to capture the trend. As a consequence, using a complex basket of different sophisticated indicators as signal, does not seem to be so rational or optimal and exposes to the risk of cherry-picking.

q-fin.PM↗
arXiv2026

Mitigating Return Drag and Regime Whipsaws in Sector Rotation: An Asymmetric Downside-Aware Nested Clustered Optimization Framework

Hierarchical clustering and Nested Clustered Optimization (NCO) mitigate the mathematical ill-conditioning of classical Markowitz covariance matrices. However, two structural vulnerabilities persist in equity markets: (1) symmetric variance penalizes upside and downside return dispersion identically, inducing acute return drag against soaring momentum sectors; and (2) unconstrained Hidden Markov Models (HMM) exhibit hyper-active regime switching (whipsaw instability), incurring excessive turnover and transaction drag. We propose Asymmetric Downside-Risk Nested Clustered Optimization with Sticky Regime Dynamics (Asym-Sticky-NCO) for tactical sector rotation across all 11 S&P 500 GICS sectors. The framework substitutes symmetric covariance with the Bawa-Lindenberg downside semi-covariance matrix across both hierarchical tree clustering and two-stage allocation. Furthermore, we introduce a Sticky Gaussian HMM incorporating a diagonal self-transition persistence prior (\k{appa}) and confidence-adaptive boundaries (δ) to enforce macroeconomic persistence. Strictly non-anticipative walk-forward backtesting across 65 out-of-sample months (August 2020 to December 2025) demonstrates that the architecture elevates CAGR from 10.65% (Plain NCO) to 13.41% (+276 bps/year), delivers a 97.74% total return versus 72.99%, suppresses maximum drawdown to 14.22% (versus 23.93% for the S&P 500), and achieves a Calmar ratio of 0.94 (+38.2% over S&P 500; +84.3% over Baseline Regime-NCO). Crucially, sticky dynamics cut regime whipsaws by 75.0% (from 16 to 4 switches) and reduce monthly turnover from 60.78% to 30.48%, addressing core limitations of machine learning asset allocation.

q-fin.PM↗
arXiv2026

Penalize the Common Trade: A Collision-Aware Layer for Learned Portfolios

Different learning systems can make nearly the same trade when they share data, objectives, or representations. The market then sees decision concentration even if the models look diverse. We call exposure to this shared direction a signal collision. A linear-impact game shows the basic externality: each allocator chooses too much common exposure because it does not bear the full price effect imposed on others. An overlap-dependent toll recovers the social choice, and a feedback model gives the exact gain at which return-responsive allocation becomes unstable. We also state the restrictive spectral conditions under which a leading eigenportfolio can reveal the collision direction. These results motivate a simple post-model layer: subtract a penalty for loading on the recent common return mode before forming the portfolio. In a frozen panel of ten liquid cross-asset ETFs, 760 completed weeks from January 2012 through July 2026, and exact self-financing costs of 10 basis points per dollar traded, this layer changes maximum drawdown from 23.6% to 14.1%, volatility from 12.6% to 10.7%, and excess-return Sharpe from 0.664 to 0.667. A volatility-matched momentum diagnostic still draws down 19.9%. Paired stationary-bootstrap uncertainty is wide: the 95% interval for drawdown improvement is $[-3.3,18.4]$ percentage points and includes zero. The result establishes a reproducible risk-control association and specifies the holdings-and-flow validation needed to attribute the common direction to AI crowding. AI-use disclosure. Generative AI tools, including OpenAI Codex, assisted manuscript preparation. For this preprint version, Codex assisted with LaTeX editing, author and venue metadata, compilation, and layout checks.

q-fin.PM↗