Stock Market Trading Via Stochastic Network Optimization Michael J. Neely (University of Southern California) Proc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IEOR 4004: Introduction to Operations Research Deterministic Models January 22, 2014.
Advertisements

Optimal Pricing in a Free Market Wireless Network Michael J. Neely University of Southern California *Sponsored in part.
Chapter 19 – Linear Programming
1 University of Southern California Keep the Adversary Guessing: Agent Security by Policy Randomization Praveen Paruchuri University of Southern California.
Network Utility Maximization over Partially Observable Markov Channels 1 1 Channel State 1 = ? Channel State 2 = ? Channel State 3 = ? Restless.
A Game Theoretic Approach to Robust Option Pricing Peter DeMarzo, Stanford Ilan Kremer, Stanford Yishay Mansour, TAU.
1 Learning with continuous experts using Drifting Games work with Robert E. Schapire Princeton University work with Robert E. Schapire Princeton University.
Stochastic optimization for power-aware distributed scheduling Michael J. Neely University of Southern California t ω(t)
Chunyang Tong Sriram Dasu Information & Operations Management Marshall School of Business University of Southern California Los Angeles CA Dynamic.
1 Dynamic portfolio optimization with stochastic programming TIØ4317, H2009.
Delay Reduction via Lagrange Multipliers in Stochastic Network Optimization Longbo Huang Michael J. Neely WiOpt *Sponsored in part by NSF.
DYNAMIC POWER ALLOCATION AND ROUTING FOR TIME-VARYING WIRELESS NETWORKS Michael J. Neely, Eytan Modiano and Charles E.Rohrs Presented by Ruogu Li Department.
Heterogeneous Delay Tolerant Task Scheduling and Energy Management in the Smart Grid with Renewable Energy Shengbo Chen Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Stochastic Network Optimization with Non-Convex Utilities and Costs Michael J. Neely University of Southern California
Introduction to Linear and Integer Programming
Intelligent Packet Dropping for Optimal Energy-Delay Tradeoffs for Wireless Michael J. Neely University of Southern California
Dynamic Product Assembly and Inventory Control for Maximum Profit Michael J. Neely, Longbo Huang (University of Southern California) Proc. IEEE Conf. on.
Dynamic Index Coding Broadcast Station N N Michael J. Neely, Arash Saber Tehrani, Zhen Zhang University of Southern California Paper available.
Universal Scheduling for Networks with Arbitrary Traffic, Channels, and Mobility Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California Proc. IEEE Conf. on.
Efficient Algorithms for Renewable Energy Allocation to Delay Tolerant Consumers Michael J. Neely, Arash Saber Tehrani, Alexandros G. Dimakis University.
Utility Optimization for Dynamic Peer-to-Peer Networks with Tit-for-Tat Constraints Michael J. Neely, Leana Golubchik University of Southern California.
Delay-Based Network Utility Maximization Michael J. Neely University of Southern California IEEE INFOCOM, San Diego, March.
Dynamic Optimization and Learning for Renewal Systems Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and.
Dynamic Index Coding User set N Packet set P Broadcast Station N N p p p Michael J. Neely, Arash Saber Tehrani, Zhen Zhang University.
Dynamic Optimization and Learning for Renewal Systems -- With applications to Wireless Networks and Peer-to-Peer Networks Michael J. Neely, University.
Max Weight Learning Algorithms with Application to Scheduling in Unknown Environments Michael J. Neely University of Southern California
Dynamic Data Compression for Wireless Transmission over a Fading Channel Michael J. Neely University of Southern California CISS 2008 *Sponsored in part.
*Sponsored in part by the DARPA IT-MANET Program, NSF OCE Opportunistic Scheduling with Reliability Guarantees in Cognitive Radio Networks Rahul.
Multi-Hop Networking with Hard Delay Constraints Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California DARPA IT-MANET Presentation, January 2011 PDF of paper.
Cross Layer Adaptive Control for Wireless Mesh Networks (and a theory of instantaneous capacity regions) Michael J. Neely, Rahul Urgaonkar University of.
CISS Princeton, March Optimization via Communication Networks Matthew Andrews Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs.
Nonlinear Filtering of Stochastic Volatility Aleksandar Zatezalo, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Philosophy in Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
Optimal Rebalancing Strategy for Pension Plans Optimal Rebalancing Strategy for Pension Plans A Presentation to State Street Associates Financial.
Short Selling A basic look at this Confusing, yet simple Investment strategy Bulls4Bears.
Understanding Investments. If you could have $100 right now or $150 in one year, which one would you choose? Why?
Optimal Energy and Delay Tradeoffs for Multi-User Wireless Downlinks Michael J. Neely University of Southern California
A Lyapunov Optimization Approach to Repeated Stochastic Games Michael J. Neely University of Southern California Proc.
1 Capacity Planning under Uncertainty Capacity Planning under Uncertainty CHE: 5480 Economic Decision Making in the Process Industry Prof. Miguel Bagajewicz.
Resource Allocation for E-healthcare Applications
Computational Stochastic Optimization: Bridging communities October 25, 2012 Warren Powell CASTLE Laboratory Princeton University
Costs--Where S(P) comes from © 1998,2007 by Peter Berck.
Lorenzo Coviello and Petros Mol
Delay Analysis for Maximal Scheduling in Wireless Networks with Bursty Traffic Michael J. Neely University of Southern California INFOCOM 2008, Phoenix,
By Avinash Sridrahan, Scott Moeller and Bhaskar Krishnamachari.
7/2/2013Copyright R. Douglas Martin1 5. TRANSACTION COSTS AND MIP 5.1 Transaction costs constraints in MVO 5.2 Transaction costs penalty in quadratic utility.
ECES 741: Stochastic Decision & Control Processes – Chapter 1: The DP Algorithm 31 Alternative System Description If all w k are given initially as Then,
Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California CISS, Princeton University, March 2012 Wireless Peer-to-Peer Scheduling.
1 A Simple Asymptotically Optimal Energy Allocation and Routing Scheme in Rechargeable Sensor Networks Shengbo Chen, Prasun Sinha, Ness Shroff, Changhee.
Stochastic Multicast with Network Coding Ajay Gopinathan, Zongpeng Li Department of Computer Science University of Calgary ICDCS 2009, June , Montreal.
Michael J. Neely, University of Southern California CISS, Princeton University, March 2012 Asynchronous Scheduling for.
Finite-Horizon Energy Allocation and Routing Scheme in Rechargeable Sensor Networks Shengbo Chen, Prasun Sinha, Ness Shroff, Changhee Joo Electrical and.
Energy-Aware Wireless Scheduling with Near Optimal Backlog and Convergence Time Tradeoffs Michael J. Neely University of Southern California INFOCOM 2015,
Super-Fast Delay Tradeoffs for Utility Optimal Scheduling in Wireless Networks Michael J. Neely University of Southern California
ITMANET PI Meeting September 2009 ITMANET Nequ-IT Focus Talk (PI Neely): Reducing Delay in MANETS via Queue Engineering.
1 - CS7701 – Fall 2004 Review of: Detecting Network Intrusions via Sampling: A Game Theoretic Approach Paper by: – Murali Kodialam (Bell Labs) – T.V. Lakshman.
Fairness and Optimal Stochastic Control for Heterogeneous Networks Time-Varying Channels     U n (c) (t) R n (c) (t) n (c) sensor.
Order Optimal Delay for Opportunistic Scheduling In Multi-User Wireless Uplinks and Downlinks Michael J. Neely University of Southern California
Stochastic Optimization for Markov Modulated Networks with Application to Delay Constrained Wireless Scheduling Michael J. Neely University of Southern.
Delay Analysis for Max Weight Opportunistic Scheduling in Wireless Systems Michael J. Neely --- University of Southern California
Energy Optimal Control for Time Varying Wireless Networks Michael J. Neely University of Southern California
Asynchronous Control for Coupled Markov Decision Systems Michael J. Neely University of Southern California Information Theory Workshop (ITW) Lausanne,
Towards Robust Revenue Management: Capacity Control Using Limited Demand Information Michael Ball, Huina Gao, Yingjie Lan & Itir Karaesmen Robert H Smith.
Online Fractional Programming for Markov Decision Systems
Scheduling Algorithms for Multi-Carrier Wireless Data Systems
University of Southern California
IEEE Student Paper Contest
energy requests a(t) renewable source s(t) non-renewable source x(t)
Throughput-Optimal Broadcast in Dynamic Wireless Networks
Utility Optimization with “Super-Fast”
Presentation transcript:

Stock Market Trading Via Stochastic Network Optimization Michael J. Neely (University of Southern California) Proc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC), Atlanta, GA, Dec PDF of paper at: Sponsored in part by the NSF Career CCF Current price: p 1 (t) = $5.10 Current price: p 2 (t) = $2.48 Buy ! Sell !

Problem Setting: N stocks. Slotted time t = {0, 1, 2, …}. Prices p(t) = (p 1 (t), …, p N (t)). Stock shares Q(t) = (Q 1 (t), …, Q N (t)) Current price: p 1 (t) = $5.10 Current price: p 2 (t) = $1.57 Current price: p 3 (t) = $2.03 Buy ! Sell !

Goal: Make money over time while limiting the investment risk! Limit risk by: Bounding the max allowable stock level Q n max. Bounding the amount buy/sell on a slot. Decision Variables for Buying: A n (t) = Num. shares of stock n bought on slot t. b n (A) = Buying transaction fee (function of A). Current price = p n (t) Buy ! Expense n (t) = A n (t)p n (t) + b n (A n (t))

Goal: Make money over time while limiting the investment risk! Limit risk by: Bounding the max allowable stock level Q n max. Bounding the amount buy/sell on a slot. Decision Variables for Selling: μ n (t) = Num. shares of stock n sold on slot t. s n (μ) = Selling transaction fee (function of μ). Current price = p n (t) Revenue n (t) = μ n (t)p n (t) - s n (μ n (t)) Sell !

Control Constraints and Decision Structure: Buying Constraints: A n (t) in {0, 1, 2, …, μ n max } for all n, t. ∑ n A n (t)p n (t) ≤ x max for all t. Selling Constraints: μ n (t) in {0, 1, 2, …, μ n max } for all n, t. μ n (t) ≤ Q n (t) for all n, t. Every slot t, observe prices p(t) = (p 1 (t), …, p N (t)). Make buying/selling decisions. Profit(t) = ∑ n Revenue n (t) – ∑ n Expenses n (t). Want to maximize time average profit subject to the above constraints.

Talk Outline: 1)Design optimal strategy under (simplistic) assumption that price vectors p(t) are i.i.d. over slots. 2)Use same strategy for arbitrary price vectors (assuming only that 0 ≤ p n (t) ≤ p n max for all t). 3)For arbitrary prices, show the strategy yields profit arbitrarily close to that of an “ideal” algorithm with perfect knowledge of future prices over T-slot frames (for any integer T). “T-slot lookahead metric”

Comparison to Related Work: 1)“Portfolio Optimization” (Known or approximate price distributions) [Markowitz 1952][Sharpe 1963][Samuelson 1969] [Rudoy, Rohrs 2008] (Dynamic Programming) 2) “Universal Portfolios” (Arbitrary price sample paths) [Cover 1991][Cover, Ordentlich 1996][Ordentlich, Cover 1998] [Merhav, Feder 1993]

Comparison to Related Work: Different Structure for Prior “Universal Portfolio” work: Optimize “growth exponent.” No cap on queue size (more aggressive, but more risk!) Integer constraints relaxed to real numbers. No Transaction fees. Based on “Universal Data Compression.” Solution complexity grows with time. Comparison to ours: Our cap on buy/sell and queue size limits risk, but also limits to only linear growth (*not exponential). Based on “Stochastic Network Optimization.” Simple “max-weight” solution with complexity that is the same for all time. *simple modifications can get back exponential growth. time $$

Solution Strategy: Dynamic Queue Control Q n (t) θnθn Want to keep queue size high enough to take advantage of good prices that come along. Don’t want queues too high (too risky). Lyapunov Function: L(Q(t)) = ∑ n (Q n (t) – θ n ) 2

Control Design: Q n (t) Lyapunov Function L(Q(t)) Lyapunov Drift Δ(t) = L(Q(t+1)) – L(Q(t)) Every slot t, observe Q(t), p(t), and minimize the drift-plus-penalty*: θnθn *from stochastic network optimization theory [Georgiadis, Neely, Tassiulas 2006][Neely 2010] Δ(t) + V[Expenses(t) – Revenue(t)] Results in the following algorithm: (Selling) Choose μ n (t) to solve: Minimize: [θ n – Q n (t) – Vp n (t)]μ n (t) + Vs n (μ n (t)) Subject to: μ n (t) in {0, 1, 2, …, min[Q n (t), μ n max ]}

Control Design: Q n (t) Lyapunov Function L(Q(t)) Lyapunov Drift Δ(t) = L(Q(t+1)) – L(Q(t)) Every slot t, observe Q(t), p(t), and minimize the drift-plus-penalty*: θnθn *from stochastic network optimization theory [Georgiadis, Neely, Tassiulas 2006][Neely 2010] Δ(t) + V[Expenses(t) – Revenue(t)] Results in the following algorithm: (Buying) Choose A n (t) to solve: (“knapsack-like” problem) Minimize: ∑ n [Q n (t)-θ n +Vp n (t)]A n (t) + V∑ n b n (Α n (t)) Subject to: (already stated) constraints on (A n (t)).

Theorem (iid case): Q n (t) θnθn Choose θ n = V p n max + 2μ n max. Then: (a)μ n max ≤ Q n (t) ≤ Vp n max + 3μ n max (for all t) (b)For all t: E{Time avg. Profit up to t} ≥ Profit opt – B L(Q(0)) V Vt – “Startup Cost” (c) As t  infinity, we have with prob. 1: lim t  infinity [Time avg profit] ≥ Profit opt – B/V “Profit Gap”

Now for arbitrary (possibly non-ergodic) prices: Compare to an “ideal” T-slot lookahead metric. Ψ T [r] = Optimal Profit over frame r, assuming future stock prices over the frame are known. Frame 0 Frame 1 Frame 2

Now for arbitrary (possibly non-ergodic) prices: Compare to an “ideal” T-slot lookahead metric. Ψ T [r] = Optimal Profit over frame r, assuming future stock prices over the frame are known. Frame 0 Frame 1 Frame 2 Metric even allows “selling short”

Theorem (General Bounded Prices): Under same algorithm as before: (a)μ n max ≤ Q n (t) ≤ Vp n max + 3μ n max (for all t) (b)For all frame sizes T>0, all integers R>0: Time average profit over RT slots ≥ R-1 ∑ r=0 Ψ Τ [r] 1 RT CT V L(Q(0)) RTV --

Simulations for BlockBuster Stock (BBI): Aug. 11, 1999 – Sept. 11, 2009 Avg Profit = Avg Profit on Trades - (1/t) x Startup Cost + (1/t) x Profit when sell all at end

Simulations for BlockBuster Stock (BBI): Aug. 11, 1999 – Sept. 11, 2009 Avg Profit = Avg Profit on Trades - (1/t) x Startup Cost + (1/t) x Profit when sell all at end “Asymptotically Negligible” as t  infinity (But very significant for finite t !!!) Parameters: μ max = 20, p max = 30, V=1000 Compare bound For T=10 (2 weeks), T=100 (20 weeks) : Avg. Profit on trades ≥ “2-week ideal” – $2.0 Avg. Profit on trades ≥ “20-week ideal” - $20.0

Simulations for BlockBuster Stock (BBI): Stock Prices (Forward Time) Cumulative Trade Profit (Forward Time) Average Profit Per Transaction = Cum. Trade Profit/t = $81.52 Average Profit Per Transaction = Cum. Trade Profit/t = $95.81 Stock Prices (Backward Time) Cumulative Trade Profit (Backward Time) (2-week ideal profit no more than $30.00, 20-week idea profit no more than $60.00)

What about total profit (including startup costs)? Forward Time: Trade Profit = $206, Startup Cost = $449, End Reward = $33, Total Profit = -$208, Reverse Time: Trade Profit = $242, Startup Cost = $35, End Reward = $239, Total Profit = $446,864.60

What about total profit (including startup costs)? Forward Time: Trade Profit = $206, Startup Cost = $449, End Reward = $33, Total Profit = -$208, Reverse Time: Trade Profit = $242, Startup Cost = $35, End Reward = $239, Total Profit = $446,864.60

What about total profit (including startup costs)? Forward Time: Trade Profit = $206, Startup Cost = $449, End Reward = $33, Total Profit = -$208, Reverse Time: Trade Profit = $242, Startup Cost = $35, End Reward = $239, Total Profit = $446,864.60

Conclusion: Provide a Lyapunov Optimization (“max-weight”) approach to stock market trading. Can quantify risk and profit guarantees compared to T-Slot Lookahead: R-1 ∑ r=0 Ψ Τ [r] 1 RT CT V L(Q(0)) RTV -- Time average profit over RT slots ≥ Startup Cost is high and thus there is inherent risk, but optimizing the trading profits mitigates this risk. Open question: Can other algorithms provide provably better tradeoffs?