In Black-Litterman we get a new vector of expected returns of the form: \begin{align} \Pi_{BL} = \Pi + \underbrace{\tau \Sigma P^T[P\tau\Sigma P^T+\Omega]^{-1}}_{\text{correction}}[Q-P\Pi] \end{align} where $P$ is the pick matrix and we mix the prior $\Pi$ with the expected value of the views $Q$. $\Sigma$ is the historical covariance matrix and $\Omega$ is the covariance matrix of the views.

Let us assume that $P$ is just the identity matrix and look at the choice $\Omega = \tau\Sigma$, then we see that $$ \Pi_{BL} = \frac12 \Pi + \frac12 Q, $$ thus we have a 50:50 mix and the covariance of the matrix does not affect the posterior at all - it is just a trivial mixture. This is against my intuition. Furthermore optimal weights using this $\Pi_{BL}$ will differ relatively much from optimal weights of the prior (of course depending on $Q$).

If we assume $\Omega = \text{diag}(\tau \Sigma)$ then I can not find a closed form for $\Pi_{BL}$ but appearantly the posterior is more compatible with the prior and the optimal weights are more similar than in the other setting.

My question: how can I choose $\Omega$ best in order to get results that do not deviate too much from my prior? I know that in the literature there are theories (e.g. here The Black-Litterman Model In Detail) but I can't see through. What is used in practice?


2 Answers 2


In practice, $\Omega$ (the covariance of the investor views) often 'inherits' the market covariance $\Sigma$. A convenient choice is

$ \Omega = \left( 1/c -1 \right) P \Sigma P^T$

where $c$ is a confidence parameter: the case $c \rightarrow 1$ corresponds to a strongly peaked distribution of views (the investor views dominate the market), while $c \rightarrow 0$ gives an infinitely disperse distribution where investor views have no influence. Tuning $c$ allows you to deviate smoothly from the prior $\Pi$.

This choice for $\Omega$ is proposed in Attilio Meucci's Risk and Asset Allocation, chapter 9.2.

Edit: In the example you give ($P$ is the identity matrix and $\Omega = \tau \Sigma$), the investor provides views on each asset with the same uncertainty as the market. In that case, the posterior return $\Pi_{BL}$ is just the average of market prior $\Pi$ and investor expectation $Q$. This seems plausible by symmetry: if you switch market and investor, $\Pi_{BL}$ stays the same.

  • $\begingroup$ But you have to agree that setting $1/c-1 = \tau$ leads to what I write above ... I will play with your $c$ factor - thanks for your answer. $\endgroup$
    – Richi Wa
    Jan 20, 2015 at 15:49
  • $\begingroup$ Or where does $\tau$ enter? do we have 2 factors: $(1/c-1) \tau$? Then one would see things quite clearly in the correction term above ... $\endgroup$
    – Richi Wa
    Jan 20, 2015 at 16:15
  • $\begingroup$ yes. I would deviate from this choice only if you can assign different confidences to your individual views (which is a fairly common situation in practice). $\endgroup$
    – Felix
    Jan 20, 2015 at 16:24
  • $\begingroup$ You might also refer to Equations 21-23 in papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1213325 $\endgroup$
    – John
    Jan 20, 2015 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ no, it is $(1/c-1)$. $\tau \Sigma$ is the covariance of the posterior, assumed to be a normal distribution in the Black Litterman framework. $\endgroup$
    – Felix
    Jan 20, 2015 at 16:41

When I implemented a BL model, I chose to do the omega optimization using the technique Idzorek proposed here:


It's a numerical procedure though.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the link to the full publication - I have already read summaries of it ... $\endgroup$
    – Richi Wa
    Jan 26, 2015 at 7:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.