Applied Intelligence

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 210–225 | Cite as

Automated asset management based on partially cooperative agents for a world of risks

  • Paulo André Lima de Castro
  • Jaime Simão Sichman
Article

Abstract

Despite the fact any investor prefers lower risk and higher return, investors may have different preferences about what would be an acceptable risk or a minimal return. For instance, some investors prefer to have a lower bound risk rather than gaining a higher return. In portfolio theory, it is commonly assumed the existence of one risk free asset that offers a positive return. This theoretical risk free asset combined with a risky portfolio creates a new portfolio that presents a linear relation between risk and return as the risk free asset weight (wf) changes. Hence, any level of risk or of return is easy to achieve separately, just by changing wf. However, in a world without any risk free assets, the combination between assets creates nonlinear portfolios. Achieving a specific level of risk or return is not a trivial task. In this paper, we assume a risky world rather than the existence of a risk free asset, in order to model an automated asset management system. Furthermore, some automated asset managers give very different results when evolving in different contexts: hence, a very profitable manager can have very bad results in other market situations. This paper presents a multiagent architecture, aiming to tackle these problems. The architecture, named COAST (COmpetitive Agent SocieTy), is based on competitive agents that act autonomously on behalf of an investor in financial asset management. It allows the simultaneous and competitive use of several asset analysis techniques currently applied in the finance field. Some dedicated agents, called advisors, apply a particular technique to a single asset. The results provided by these advisors are then submitted to and analyzed by a special agent called coach, who evaluates its advisors’ performance and defines an expectation about the future price of one specific asset. Within COAST, several coaches negotiate to define the best money allocation among different assets, by using a negotiation protocol defined in this paper. We also propose an investor description model that is able to represent different investors’ preferences with defined acceptable limits of risk and/or return. The COAST architecture was designed to operate adequately with any possible investor’s preference. It was implemented using a financial market simulator called AgEx and tested using real data from the Nasdaq stock exchange. The test results show that the architecture performed well when compared to an adjusted market index.

Keywords

Multiagent systems Multiagent architectures Automated asset management Automated trading 

References

  1. 1.
    Aldridge I (2009) High-frequency trading: a practical guide to algorithmic strategies and trading systems. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Araujo CHD, Castro PAL (2010) Towards automated trading based on fundamentalist and technical data. In: Proceedings of 20th SBIA, São Bernado do Campo, Brazil. LNAI. Springer, Berlin, pp 704–715 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cañete A, Constanzo J, Salinas L (2008) Kernel price pattern trading. Appl Intell 29:152–156. doi:10.1007/s10489-007-0054-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castro PA, Sichman JS (2007) Towards cooperation among competitive trader agents. In: Proceedings of 9th ICEIS, Funchal, Portugal, pp 138–143 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castro PA, Sichman JS (2009) Agex: a financial market simulation tool for software agents. In: Aalst W, Mylopoulos J, Sadeh NM, Shaw MJ, Szyperski C, Filipe J, Cordeiro J (eds) LNBIP, vol 24. Springer, Berlin, pp 704–715 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decker K, Pannu A, Sycara K, Williamson M (1997) Designing behaviors for information agents. In: Johnson WL, Hayes-Roth B (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents (Agents’97). ACM, New York, pp 404–412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dougherty ER (1990) Probability and statistics for the engineering, computing, and physical sciences. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durbin M (2010) All about high-frequency trading. McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fabio Bellifemine GC, Greenwood D (2007) Developing multi-agent systems with JADE. Wiley, Chichester CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farmer JD, Foley D (2009) The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature 460:685–686 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feng X, Jo C-H (2003) Agent-based stock trading. In: Proceedings of the ISCA CATA-2003, Honolulu, USA Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Francis JC (1983) Management of investments. McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcia MEF, Marin EA, Garcia RQ (2010) Improving return using risk-return adjustment and incremental training in technical trading rules with gaps. Appl Intell 33(2):93–106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kearns M, Ortiz L (2003) The Penn-Lehman automated trading project. IEEE Intell Syst 18(6):22–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kendall G, Su Y (2003) Co-evolution of successful trading strategies in a simulated stock market. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on machine learning and applications (ICMLA’03), Los Angeles, pp 200–206 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kendall G, Su Y (2005) A particle swarm optimisation approach in the construction of optimal risky portfolios. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IASTED international multi-conference artificial intelligence and applications, Innsbruck, Austria, pp 140–145 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee S, Ahn J, Oh K, Kim T (2010) Using rough set to support investment strategies of real-time trading in futures market. Appl Intell 32:364–377. doi:10.1007/s10489-008-0150-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. J Finance 7(1):77–91 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mochón A, Quintana D, Sáez Y, Isasi P (2008) Soft computing techniques applied to finance. Appl Intell 29:111–115. doi:10.1007/s10489-007-0051-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedrycz W, Gomide F (1998) An introduction to fuzzy sets: analysis and design. MIT Press, Cambridge MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenschein JS, Zlotkin G (1994) Rules of encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. MIT Press, Boston Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Russell S, Norvig P (2003) Artificial intelligence. A modern approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sharpe WF (1994) The Sharpe ratio. J Portf Manag 13(3):227–286 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sherstov A, Stone P (2004) Three automated stock-trading agents: a comparative study. In: Proceedings of the agent mediated electronic commerce (AMEC) workshop—AAMAS 2004, New York Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shoham Y, Leyton-Brown K (2009) Multiagent systems: algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith RG (1980) The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Trans Comput 29(12):1104–1113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sortino F A, Forsey HJ (1996) On the use and misuse of downside risk. J Portf Manag 22(1):35–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tan A, Quek C, Yow K (2008) Maximizing winning trades using a novel rspop fuzzy neural network intelligent stock trading system. Appl Intell 29:116–128. doi:10.1007/s10489-007-0055-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weiss G (1999) Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wooldridge M (2002) An introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley, London Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yuan Luo KL, Davis DN (2002) A multi-agent decision support system for stock trading. IEEE Netw 16(1):20–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo André Lima de Castro
    • 1
  • Jaime Simão Sichman
    • 2
  1. 1.Technological Institute of Aeronautics-ITASão José dos CamposBrazil
  2. 2.Intelligent Techniques LaboratoryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations