You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hey @jomeswang. I found it more natural to define fees as this. In the paper they probably use "roundtrip" fees which is more common and includes both buy & sell fees. If you use fee = gamma / 2 then you get identical results.
Hello, I have a question about the transaction cost in this codebase. In the code writing here (https://github.com/Marigold/universal-portfolios/blob/b99bbd3d52361bd4e4c2bec68b53924176ca56d0/universal/result.py#L110), the transaction cost only calculated by the rebalancing portfolio(self.to_rebalance().abs()) and transaction cost rate(self.fee) , it didn't divided by 2.
But in the paper Borodin A, El-Yaniv R, Gogan V. Can we learn to beat the best stock[J]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2003, 16. and the paper Huang D, Zhou J, Li B, et al. Robust median reversion strategy for online portfolio selection[J]. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2016, 28(9): 2480-2493. both indicate a transaction cost formulation like :
In the above formulation, we can see that it has a process of dividing by 2, which is doesn't match the code. So I wonder what article the transaction cost code came from.
That's all my question, I will appreciate it if you can reply me.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: