Quantum computing approach to realistic ESG-friendly stock portfolios (2404.02582v1)
Abstract: Finding an optimal balance between risk and returns in investment portfolios is a central challenge in quantitative finance, often addressed through Markowitz portfolio theory (MPT). While traditional portfolio optimization is carried out in a continuous fashion, as if stocks could be bought in fractional increments, practical implementations often resort to approximations, as fractional stocks are typically not tradeable. While these approximations are effective for large investment budgets, they deteriorate as budgets decrease. To alleviate this issue, a discrete Markowitz portfolio theory (DMPT) with finite budgets and integer stock weights can be formulated, but results in a non-polynomial (NP)-hard problem. Recent progress in quantum processing units (QPUs), including quantum annealers, makes solving DMPT problems feasible. Our study explores portfolio optimization on quantum annealers, establishing a mapping between continuous and discrete Markowitz portfolio theories. We find that correctly normalized discrete portfolios converge to continuous solutions as budgets increase. Our DMPT implementation provides efficient frontier solutions, outperforming traditional rounding methods, even for moderate budgets. Responding to the demand for environmentally and socially responsible investments, we enhance our discrete portfolio optimization with ESG (environmental, social, governance) ratings for EURO STOXX 50 index stocks. We introduce a utility function incorporating ESG ratings to balance risk, return, and ESG-friendliness, and discuss implications for ESG-aware investors.
- H. Markowitz, The Journal of Finance 7, 77 (1952).
- M. R. Young, Management science 44, 673 (1998).
- R. Mansini and M. G. Speranza, European Journal of Operational Research 114, 219 (1999).
- P. Bonami and M. A. Lejeune, Operations research 57, 650 (2009).
- H.-L. Li and J.-F. Tsai, European Journal of Operational Research 186, 882 (2008).
- D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3992 (1998).
- C. Zheng, Scientific Reports 11, 3960 (2021).
- F. Phillipson and H. S. Bhatia, in International Conference on Computational Science (Springer, 2021) pp. 45–59.
- M. Bruno and V. Lagasio, Sustainability 13 (2021), 10.3390/su132212641.
- J. López Prol and K. Kim, Finance Research Letters 50, 103312 (2022).
- D. F. Larcker, L. Pomorski, B. Tayan, and E. Watts, “Esg ratings: A compass without direction,” (2022), rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4179647.
- F. Alessandrini and E. Jondeau, The Journal of Portfolio Management 47, 114 (2021).
- T. Shushi, Operations Research Letters 50, 513 (2022).
- A. Varmaz, C. Fieberg, and T. Poddig, “Portfolio optimization for sustainable investments,” (2022), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3859616 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3859616.
- S. Diamond and S. Boyd, Journal of Machine Learning Research 17, 1 (2016).
- A. Lucas, Frontiers in Physics 2 (2014), 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005.
- https://ocean.dwavesys.com/ (accessed on 21 March 2024).
- D-Wave Systems Inc., Hybrid Solver for Constrained Quadratic Models, Tech. Rep. 14-1055A-A (2021).
- C. Maree and C. W. Omlin, in 2022 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Financial Engineering and Economics (CIFEr) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 1–8.
- M. Branda, Omega 52, 65 (2015).
- C. Villani, Topics in Optimal Transportation, Graduate studies in mathematics (American Mathematical Society, 2003).
- B. R. Auer and F. Schuhmacher, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 59, 51 (2016).
- A. Breedt, S. Ciliberti, S. Gualdi, and P. Seager, “Is esg an equity factor or just an investment guide?” (2018), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3207372 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3207372.
- J. Nofsinger and A. Varma, Journal of Banking & Finance 48, 180 (2014).
- D. Venturelli and A. Kondratyev, Quantum Machine Intelligence 1, 17 (2019).