SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Fen Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1

Sharpe Ratio and Treynor Index Performance Mesaurents Based A Genetic Algorithm Approach

Sharpe Oranı ve Treynor Endeksi Performans Ölçülerine Dayalı Genetik Algoritma Yaklaşımı

Azize Zehra ÇELENLİ BAŞARAN
Pages
17–34
Publication Date
2021-05-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the analysis, it was observed that the genetic algorithm method reached the optimum result according to both portfolio performance measures. treynor index has been determined to form a portfolio with a higher performance measure ratio compared to the sharpe ratio.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The investor always wants to create a portfolio that will benefit him with the highest benefit.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the portfolio optimization problem, quadratic programming and genetic algorithm methods were compared in terms of portfolio performance measures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis, it was observed that the genetic algorithm method reached the optimum result according to both portfolio performance measures. treynor index has been determined to form a portfolio with a higher performance measure ratio compared to the sharpe ratio.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Portföy Optimizasyonu · Genetik Algoritma · Sharpe Oranı

Abstract

The investor always wants to create a portfolio that will benefit him with the highest benefit. This situation presents the portfolio problem that needs to be optimized. In the literature, quadratic programming method, which is one of the classical optimization methods, is used to solve the portfolio optimization problem. In recent years, it has been observed that artificial intelligence methods give better results. In this study, genetic algorithm method was used for portfolio optimization problem. For the portfolio optimization problem, quadratic programming and genetic algorithm methods were compared in terms of portfolio performance measures. The stocks listed in the BIST-30 index of 2019 were used for comparison. Sharpe ratio and treynor index performance measures were used to evaluate portfolio performance. The goal in both optimization methods; It is the determination of the portfolio with the highest performance measure ratio. As a result of the analysis, it was observed that the genetic algorithm method reached the optimum result according to both portfolio performance measures. treynor index has been determined to form a portfolio with a higher performance measure ratio compared to the sharpe ratio.

Özet

Yatırımcı her zaman kendisine en yüksek faydayı sağlayacak olan portföyü oluşturmak istemektedir. Bu durum optimize edilmesi gereken portföy problemini ortaya çıkartır. Literatürde portföy optimizasyon problemi çözümünde genellikle bir klasik optimizasyon yöntemlerinden biri olan karesel programlama yöntemi kullanılmaktadır. Son yıllarda yapılan çalışmalar incelendiğinde yapay zeka algoritmalarının optimizasyon problemlerinde gösterdiği başarılardan yola çıkarak bu çalışmada genetik algoritma yaklaşımının portföy optimizasyon problemindeki başarısı ölçülmek istenmektedir. Portföy optimizasyon problemi için karesel programlama ile genetik algoritma yöntemleri portföy performans ölçüleri açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Karşılaştırmada 2019 yılına ait BIST-30 endeksinde işlem gören hisse senetleri kullanılmıştır. Portföy performansını değerlendirmek için sharpe oranı ile treynor endeksi performans ölçüleri iki optimizasyon yönteminde de amaç fonksiyonu olarak kullanılmıştır. İki optimizasyon yönteminde de amaç; en yüksek performans ölçüsü oranına sahip portföyün belirlenmesidir. Yapılan analiz sonucunda genetik algoritma yönteminin her iki portföy performans ölçüsüne göre de optimum sonuca ulaştığı gözlemlenmiş ve treynor endeksinin sharpe oranına göre daha yüksek performans ölçüsü oranına sahip bir portföy oluşturduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAŞARAN, A. Z. Ç. (2021). Sharpe Ratio and Treynor Index Performance Mesaurents Based A Genetic Algorithm Approach. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Fen Dergisi, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1, 17–34. https://ajindex.com/articles/260784

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. C. Shenoy and K.C. McCarthy, Applied Portfolio Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, 28-29, 1988
  2. F. K. Reilly and K. C. Brown, Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management, 2002
  3. H. Markowitz, “Portfolio selection,” J. Finance, 7, 77-91, 1952
  4. S. Canbaş, and H. Doğukanlı, Finansal Pazarlar, Adana, Karahan Kitabevi, 2007
  5. J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Application to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975
  6. A. Diyar, T. Çetinyokuş, and M. Dağdeviren, “Portföy seçimi problemi için kds/ga yaklaşımı, ” Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(4), 2002
  7. K.J. Oh, T.Y. Kim, and S. Min, “Using genetic algorithm to support portfolio optimization for index fund management, ” Expert Syst. Appl., 28(2), 371-379, 2005
  8. D. Lin, X. Li, and M. Li., “A genetic algorithm for solving portfolio optimization problems with transaction costs and minimum transacton lots,” International Conference on Natural Computation, (3612), 808–811, 2005
  9. K. K. Lai, L. Yu, S. Wang, and C. Zhou, “A double-stage genetic optimization algorithm for portfolio selection,” Neural Information Processing, LNCS, 4234, 928–937, 2014
  10. C. M. Lin, and M. Gen, “An effective decision-based genetic algorithm approach to multiobjective portfolio optimization problem,” Appl Math. Sci., 1(5), 201-210, 2007
  11. S. Skolpadungket, K. Dahal, and N. Harnpornchai, “Portfolio optimization using multi-objective genetic algorithms,” in Proc. IEEE Congr. Evol. Comput. (CEC), sep., 516–523, 2007
  12. C.C. Lin and Y. T. Liu, “Genetic algorithms for portfolio selection problems with minimum transaction lot,” Eur. J. Ope. Res., 185(1), 393-404, 2008
  13. T. J. Chang, S.C. Yang and K. J. Chang, “Portfolio optimization problems in different risk measures using genetic algorithm, ” Expert Syst. Appl., 36(7), 10529-10537, 2009
  14. H. Soleimani, H.R. Golmakani, and M.H. Salimi, “Markowitz-based portfolio selection with minimum transaction lots, cardinality constraints and regarding sector capitalization using genetic algorithm, ” Expert Syst. Appl., 36(3/1), 5058-5063, 2009
  15. J. F. Chang, T.C. Wang and Y. T. Min, “Using Genetic Algorithms to construct a low-risk fund portfolio based on the Taiwan 50 Indein, ” Computational Aspects of Social Networks (CASoN), 2010 International Conference on, IEEE, 2010
  16. A.R. Pandari, A. Azar, and