Quantcast
Channel: Investment Performance Guy
Viewing all 144 articles
Browse latest View live

Is it time for risk certification?

$
0
0
The question above might cause you to respond, "we already have certification programs for risk," and you would, of course, be correct. However, they're for a much broader view of risk than I have in mind. For example, the "FRM" covers much more than risk that those involved in investment management typically see.

During last month's Performance Measurement Forum meeting in Boston, I asked our members if having a certification for risk would be a good idea, and got very good response. The certification would cover:
  • risk measures (e.g., standard deviation, beta, downside deviation, tracking error)
  • risk-adjusted measures (e.g., Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio, Information ratio, and Modigliani-Modigliani)
  • risk-attribution (e.g., the work that Jose Menchero and Philippe Gregoirehave done).
While the CIPM program includes risk, it doesn't to the extent that I'm suggesting.

Two names for the program have already been suggested: CRP (Certified Risk Professional) and CIRP (Certified Investment Risk Professional); others, perhaps more worthy, can be considered.

At this point we're merely floating the idea, to see what folks think.

There's no doubt that risk measurement's role has increased significantly. Many questions continue to surface as to what measures to use, how to calculate them, and how the risk team should be "married to" or "integrated with" the performance folks (or, for that matter, if they should BE the same folks).

Feel free to offer your thoughts.

Does the order matter?

$
0
0
In mathematics we are occasionally confronted with the questionable applicability of the commutative law. You'll recall that it basically states that you can move (as in commuting or moving about) values around in a mathematical expression without causing the result to change; e.g., A x B = B x A (just as A + B = B + A). This law doesn't always work, right? For example, with limited exceptions A - B ≠ B - A nor will A/B typically equal B/A.

Since the commutative law applies to multiplication, there's often an assumption that it always applies; but it doesn't. For example, some folks discover problems when using percentages; or, more correctly, when NOT using them when they should! We often see firms remove the percentage sign (%) from their reports (e.g., show 3.03 rather than 3.03%), which is fine, but knowing how the number is stored is important when attempting calculations. If you multiply percentages together AS percentages you'll get different results than if you multiply the values as if they weren't percentages (e.g., 3.03% x 2.14% ≠ 3.02 x 2.14). Whether multiplying or dividing, we can get problems (usually addition and subtraction are okay). For example, the Sharpe ratio, which involves division, will be a problem if you don't treat the values as percentages.

We occasionally discover other issues. I recently conducted a GIPS(R) (Global Investment Performance Standards) verification for a client who often uses blended benchmarks (that is, their benchmarks are made up of two or more indices). They chose to link the monthly returns of the individual indexes and then take the ratios, as defined for the benchmark allocation. However, this is incorrect. That is, the commutative law does not apply.

We can look at the math from two perspectives:

1) Link, THEN take the ratios
2) Take the ratios, THEN link.

We will get differences, and they can be material. You can try this yourself or wait until this month's newsletter, when I'll have more to say on this matter. The issue is partly attributable to the challenges we often face with compounding, which deserves a fair amount of treatment itself, which I hope to provide in the coming months.

PMAR North America 2013 is NEXT WEEK!

$
0
0
I don't recall being as excited in the past for a conference as I am for this year's Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk Conferences (PMAR), the first being next week in Philadelphia. The Superheroes are all ready to meet at the Ritz Carlton, and I wanted to share with you the welcome sign that will greet the attendees:
 
 
Now, can you see why I'm excited?

We're expecting around 200 folks to join us. If you haven't yet signed up, there's still time. And, of course there's always the 4th European event that will be in London in June.

Lots to celebrate!

$
0
0
Last night The Spaulding Group held a dinner, at which we celebrated anniversaries, accomplishments, and an announcement.

Chris Spaulding, my older son and our firm's EVP (Strategy & Business Development) has been with our firm for 10 years (as of last December; we're a bit tardy on recognizing this event); Douglas Spaulding, my younger son and a firm VP and Editor of The Journal of Performance Measurement(r) reached his 10 year mark this month; and Patrick Fowler, our firm's COO, will mark 15 years next month! 

As for accomplishments, Doug was recognized for earning his MFA in Creative Writing and Jessica Laffey, a Production Assistant, earned her Bachelors Degree. A surprise acknowledgement (for me) was that I was recognized for my earning my doctorate, which I will do in August (I "walk" tomorrow!).

Patrick, Chris and Jaime Puerschner (a company VP and our Event Coordinator) were recognized for the great job they've done in preparing for this year's PMAR Conferences, which will have record attendances. And Jaime was also recognized for coming up with the creative theme for next year's conferences ("Casino Royale").

Finally, the big news of the night was the elevation of Patrick Fowler to the position of President. As noted above, Patrick has been with our firm for 15 years. He was promoted to Chief Operating Officer two years ago. He has accomplished a great deal for our firm, is a huge contributor to our success, and is a dedicated member of our team; this promotion is well deserved. A press release will go out later today.

PMAR Day 1

$
0
0
Yesterday was the first day of the 11th annual Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk Conference at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Philadelphia. As expected, we had great speakers who provided a wealth of information and insights.

The session kicked off with our omnipresent Stephen Campisi, CFA, who continues to push us into thinking of better ways to provide information to our clients.

For me, the highlight of the day was Brian Singer, CFA, this year's recipient of The Journal of Performance Measurement's(R) annual Dietz Award, which is given to the top article of the year, as judged by the journal's advisory board. A well regarded industry veteran of roughly three decades, much of it with the legendary Gary Brinson, Brian shared not only key points from his article, but also his insights into how macro economics affects our capitalistic world, and thus our investments. His delivery, like Steve's, is one that not only keeps the attendees' attention, but also provides well timed levity.

We introduced, for the first time, Performance Jeopardy. Our contestants (Larry Campbell, Richard Mitchell, and Kathleen Seagle) competed for fame and fortune, and Richard, the former ball room dancing instructor, was victorious. It was a great way to end an exciting day and lead us to the awaiting cocktails.

PMAR Day 2

$
0
0
I'm a little late in posting, as PMAR Day 2 was last Friday, but I've been recovering from a busy and exciting event. I think there was little doubt that this year's program was the best, yet! It makes it difficult to continue our goal of always getting better, but we'll try.

This year's conference was held on a Thursday and Friday; in the past, it's been on a Wednesday and Thursday. The shift was done for me, as I "walked" at the Pace graduate-level degree class commencement at Radio City Music Hall (in NYC) Wednesday evening. While I haven't yet earned my doctorate, I was permitted to "walk," given that I anticipate defending my dissertation shortly and earning the degree in August. I had never participated in a college commencement before, even though I have three degrees (a bachelor's and two master's), so wanted to participate in the experience. Next year's PMAR will again be on a Wednesday and Thursday.

Now, back to PMAR. I will briefly comment on just a few of Friday's great speakers and topics.

Friday began with two professors from Rutgers University (New Jersey's state university): John Longo, PhD, CFA and Ben Sopranzetti, PhD. This was John's fourth appearance and Ben's second; both did an exceptional job.
 











Jose Menchero, PhD, CFA of Barra also joined us once again, to deliver a great talk dealing with risk and return attribution.
We announced the theme for 2014:

It will be labeled as "Casino Royale," and thus have a "James Bond" feel to it (black tie optional).

The feedback has been tremendous and we are very pleased with how everything turned out. Now, we are doing the final prep work for PMAR in London! Please join us if you can!

 

Two things I learned at PMAR XI that I’m not happy about…

$
0
0
I recently shared some details about this year's PMAR XI. I touched on a fraction of our speakers and topics. Today, I want to candidly share with you two things I didn't like.

First, we learned that there will not be a GIPS 2015. I previously mentioned that I had heard a rumor to this effect, it was confirmed. I am very disappointed, as I firmly believe that a new edition is warranted and necessary.

Second, we learned that the reporting standards we've been hearing about these past couple years would soon be available on the CFA Institute's website.  Well, a colleague pointed out the location, so you can have a look yourself. They're titled Principles for Investment Reporting (first edition).

You'll quickly discover that it isn't a draft, as we've come to expect; rather, it's a final version. If you're like me, you'll have thoughts and opinions about this document. Please feel free to send them to me. I'll share them in our newsletter (just let me know if I can use your name).

In addition, we would like to hear whether you think there is a need for a GIPS 2015 edition. We will soon launch a short poll for you to express your opinion; we'll share these results in our newsletter.

GIPS 2015 ... Not! BUT, what do YOU think?

$
0
0
Last week I mentioned that there will not be a 2015 edition of the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS(R)).

We're curious what you think about this. And so, please respond to our survey to share your thoughts. It is VERY brief:


Please join in. We'll publish the results in our newsletter, as well as in this blog.

If you'd like to send me comments, feel free; just let me know if (a) I can use them and (b) if I can cite you as the author; thanks!

Using past statistics to predict the future ...

$
0
0
Major League Baseball does this every year, one way or another.

That is, each year, based on a batter's great start in pounding out home runs, a pitcher's strikeout prowess, or another player's extraordinary early season feats, someone decides to annualize (or should I say, seasonalize) the partial period's results to predict the future; that is, how the player will do for the full season.

I recall a few years back when Alex Rodriguez (aka, A-Rod) belted out a lot of homeruns in April: someone figured out that if he maintained this pace he'd hit (as I recall) over 80 (he didn't!).

Well, last year's Triple Crown Winner, Miguel Cabrera, is being celebrated in a similar, though more extensive, way. Someone figured that he's on pace for a .388 batting average (last year he hit .330), will hit 49 home runs (vs. last year's 44), and be responsible for 201 runs batted in (vs. last year's 139).

Well, we'll see about this!

We will pick this up again at the end of the season, and see how well his season does turn out. We do, of course, hope that Miguel has a great season, and if he's able to match the predictions, that'd be phenomenal. But, (as they say) only time will tell. Perhaps the writer should be obligated to include "past performance is no indication of future results," though this would diminish from the story, so we'll skip this disclosure.

Performance Holidays

$
0
0
A subject that has come up occasionally, but that has gotten little attention (and none formal), is the idea of "performance holidays."

These arise at times when a client makes a significant contribution to their portfolio, knowing that because of the nature of the strategy, asset class or market, it may take time to get the money invested, and the portfolio back to the point that it's representative of the strategy. Even though time-weighted returns eliminate (or reduce) the impact of cash flows, the cash that's sitting around waiting to be invested can still influence the portfolio's return. The "Performance Holiday" is a way to eliminate this problem.

Questions arise as to what the firm should do, and even perhaps, what is "best practice" to handle them?

First, I think it's important that the firm have a policy in place as to how they wish to handle performance holidays. Second, it's important (make that, necessary) that the client agree with the process. Third, make sure you document whenever performance holidays occur (when, what was done, who authorized it, etc.). And fourth, as with many things we do, consistency is important, so as to avoid the appearance of gaming situations to their advantage.

Performance Holidays & the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS(R))

Whatever holiday arrangement a manager has with his/her client has no effect on what they do with the portfolio's respective GIPS composite. If the firm has a significant cash flow policy and the portfolio's flow applies, it gets pulled for the predefined length of time. If not, it stays.

Options

As for the portfolio itself, there are a few options firms can consider.
 
The benchmark as a surrogate
 
First, use a benchmark return as the surrogate for the period. If the firm and  its client agree on such a benchmark return, that's fine; it's up to the firm and client (but again, this return won't be what the firm uses for the composite; the firm must use the portfolio's return).
 
Creating a "gap" (break) in performance
 
Second, the holiday may create a "break" or "gap" in the performance track record. This means you'd have a return UP TO the point of the flow, a break, and then a return AFTER the money has been invested. You could not link across this gap.
 
Temporary Account
 
Third, the firm could use a "temporary account" for the flow: that is, you'd move the cash into this temporary account and move the investments across as the money is invested (securities purchased).
 
This is probably the ideal approach, though it means there isn't a holiday, other than for the cash, which is sitting in the temporary account. Temporary accounts can be challenging to implement, so it's important that the accounting folks are "on board with this, too.

Use a return of zero
 
Fourth, you could set the account's return to zero percent. The problem with this approach is that zero is a return value. There are times when it would be higher that the manager would have obtained had there not been a contribution (in which case the firm is unfairly rewarded) or lower than what would have been experienced (in which case the firm is unfairly penalized).
 
Therefore, I'd  recommend against this option. It would be better to use the benchmark's return.
 
Bridge the gap!
 
Fifth, you could have a gap in performance, but agree to link across it (i.e., the gap disappears!). The problem here is that's equivalent to setting the portfolio's return to zero, so I'd argue against it.

Best practice?
 
I see three options: using an agreed upon benchmark, having a break, or using a temporary account. I'm sure there are other approaches, but you and your client need to be comfortable with whatever you choose.

Some “best practices” are probably in order. I've already identified a few, but further discussion and review is in order. To summarize:
 
1) Establish a written policy
2) Get the client's approval as to how their holiday(s) will work
3) Document performance holidays
4) Be consistent in implementing performance holidays
5) Ideally use a temporary account for the cash flow. If this can't be done, the second best approach is probably the use of the benchmark's return during the period.
 
Where to next?
 
First, if you have suggestions, ideas, insights you want to share, please send me a note.
 
Second, I may expand upon this further in our newsletter.
 
Third, we may get input from the Performance Measurement Forum on this topic; if we do, I'll pass it along.

Learning to take the good with the bad

$
0
0
In the course of some research I came across a working paper by A. Basso and S. Funari (dated September 2001) titled "A generalized performance attribution technique for mutual funds."

Please don't let the title fool you: this isn't about performance attribution. Rather, it's about risk-adjusted performance. But putting that aside ...

In the article they generally describe measures such as the Sharpe and Treynor ratios as "numerical indexes ... that take into account an expected return indicator and a risk measure and synthesize them in a unique numerical value." I happen to think that this description is excellent. The notion that the returns and risk measures are synthesized into a unique numerical value. Isn't that an excellent description? Okay, so that's the good.

The "bad," in my view, is how the authors describe some of the results they obtained during their analysis. They used data from Italian mutual funds. During the period observed, "two bond funds ... exhibit a negative mean excess return; this entails that the values of the Sharpe, reward to half-variance and Treynor indexes for these funds are negative and, above all, meaningless. In fact, when the excess return is negative these indexes can be misleading, since in this case the index with the higher value is sometimes related to the worse return-to-risk ratio."

We've taken this matter up before; the realization that negative excess returns yield confusing Sharpe and Information ratios (as well as, apparently, other risk-adjusted measures). To refer to these results as "meaningless" and "misleading" is unfortunate, I believe. I'll confess my own struggles with this, but believe that my earlier explanation (see for example the January 2012 edition of The Spaulding Group's monthly newsletter) provides some insights into the value and interpretation of the results.

When things don't make sense, sometimes additional time is needed to reflect upon them. Again, I'll confess my own typical impatience with such things. But time spent on these events can prove beneficial.

Those who can, do; those who can't, teach

$
0
0
You are probably familiar with the phrase in today's post title. It's clearly a "shot" at teachers and professors, is it not?

Its presence was inspired by Steve Campisi's retort to yesterday's post. It was evident that he is, at least at times, uncomfortable with the ideas that come out of academia. I think there is some validity to his position, and perhaps it's worth some discussion.

Three individuals have been named to the inaugural class of The Performance and Risk Measurement Hall of Fame:
  • Gary Brinson
  • Peter Dietz
  • Bill Sharpe
Brinson is a practitioner who, for us in the world of performance measurement, is known for the attribution models he helped develop. Dietz worked for Frank Russell, and so can be described as a practitioner, though he did spend some time in academia, I believe. His legacy is the concept of time-weighting and the formulas he developed to measure performance. And Sharpe is known for CAPM and his risk-adjusted measures; he is clearly from the academic side.

In writing my doctoral dissertation (which will soon (hopefully) be defended), I have cited more than 100 articles. There is an expectation that most come from academic journals (e.g., the Journal of Finance). And while there are many that are included, the reality is that most come from practitioner publications (e.g., The Journal of Performance Measurement).

Many investment professionals regularly read academic journals, and probably get inspiration from them. As practitioners, should we generally dismiss their ideas or consider them? What degree of influence should they have on what we do?

If you've read Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan, you're then familiar with his total disregard for the likes of Sharpe and Markowitz. Sharpe's CAPM has not been proven (and in fact, is often criticized, even by academics), and  yet is still typically part of finance courses, MBA programs, and doctoral studies. Taleb finds great fault with Sharpe and Markowitz, and suggests that they should return their Nobel prizes. How valid are his arguments?

What should the sources of models and formulas be that the industry uses? You may recall that AIG reportedly paid a Yale academic quite a lot of money annually to develop and maintain a model for their credit default swap investments. As it apparently turned out, this model never met a CDS it didn't like. And, we're aware of some of the problems that befell AIG. Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) employed several academics, including Nobel prize winners. Roger Lowenstein (in, When Genius Failed) pointed out how these individuals did not help in making LTCM a long term company.

While this may be an academic (pardon the pun) subject, it may be worthwhile to chat about it, nonetheless.

Getting quoted

$
0
0
When I was in politics I was quoted almost weekly, about one thing or another. And I quickly learned that despite all that you may share with a reporter, you cannot and never will control what is written. Sometimes, what gets quoted is not what you had hoped, while at other times you're quite pleased with what's been shown. As my friend, Steve Campisi, put it, "As long as they spell your name right, and you have a strong and clearly worded opinion that is reasonable, then even if you come across too strong you're still the better for having been quoted." Reporters have limited space, and often seek input from multiple people. And so, while they may speak with you for 20-30 minutes, you may get a single line in the article.

I was quoted in this weekend's WSJ (page B9) about private equity valuations. Everything that was attributed to me is accurate. The reporter was kind enough to send me what he intended to include so I could have a look. Overall, I think it's an excellent piece and brings to the attention of investors some of the risks and issues of investing in less liquid assets. I will share a bit more here on this subject.

I referenced the GIPS(R) standards (Global Investment Performance Standards) as a guide for valuations. I mentioned the three levels for private equity and the broader valuation principles for other valuations. I believe these hierarchies are "best practice" to value securities; especially less liquid ones.

When dealing with illiquid assets, valuations can always be tricky; they call for good judgment. While there are guidelines and standard approaches available, the accuracy is always questionable. During the most recent financial crisis, many individuals recognized that the valuations on their MBS securities were high, but could do little about it. I recall that then Congressman Barney Frank suggested that firms who question the accuracy of prices be permitted to show two: what's quoted and what they believe is true.

I suspect that most private equity investors do a good job of pricing their assets. If anything, they may be conservative and underprice them, knowing that when the asset eventually goes public, they would prefer a higher than lower return. I used a line made famous by President Obama's former pastor, "when the chickens come home to roost," as a metaphor for the eventual sale of an asset. If the manager had underpriced it, then when the sale occurs the reality will set in. This should be incentive to avoid intentional underpricing of assets. No doubt our industry will always have its share of fraudsters, thus the suggestion that investors understand the rationale behind valuations.

Transparency

$
0
0
Last week was extremely hectic, with travel and The Spaulding Group's fourth annual PMAR (Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk) Europe conference in London (which was a HUGE success, by the way (thanks for asking!)). The event itself provided me with material, but I found it difficult to put the time aside. Well, here's a start and resumption.

Stefan Illmer, PhD returned to PMAR once again, this time to do "double duty," as he spoke about holdings-based risk attribution as well as updated us on the new CFA Institute client reporting standards principles. Stefan is fully aware of my own "hang ups," concerns, and objections to what's going on, but was kind enough to visit us. We think it's important for our attendees to be kept appraised of what's occurring, and he does an excellent job for us. (Carl Hennessy, CIPM provided a similar update at PMAR North America last month).

Just a brief word for now: the document speaks of transparency, which is a good thing (I think, for example, we're quite transparent regarding our thoughts and opinions, as well as the sharing of information).

Is it not therefore a bit ironic that
the committee's makeup is a secret?

Review their first report: nowhere are the names mentioned? Contrast this with the GIPS(R) (Global Investment Performance Standards) standards, where the Executive Committee members are always listed. Look on the website: can you find the list of names? We've asked for them, but for some reason they won't be published or made available. We're assured that the members are all highly qualified, which I have no doubt they are; but who are they? Where's the transparency into this group's makeup, plans, etc.?

How can you promote transparency without being transparent?

Seems kind of strange, doesn't it?

Hedge funds & GIPS compliance

$
0
0
I have written about this topic in the past: that is, how, in most cases, hedge funds should find compliance with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS(R)) pretty simple. However, as a result of an email conversation with The Spaulding Group's first Africa-based verification client, a few additional items were identified that make compliance straightforward.

Our client was concerned about the justification for certain policies and procedures which simply won't apply. For example, the timing of accounts going in and out of the composite. Since the composites will consist of partnerships, and since GIPS isn't concerned with partners, per se, (because it's the partnership that constitutes the portfolio, not the underlying owners; just as with mutual funds) this policy will be non applicable, other than for the timing of the partnership going into the composite.

What about significant cash flows? First, there is no need for a policy, since this is an option. But it's highly unlikely that the hedge fund would adopt such a policy, so it's simply "n/a."

How about rules for declaring accounts  non-discretionary? Since the partnerships are constructed by the firm, they would all be discretionary. Granted, there may be cases when a hedge fund creates a separate portfolio for a large client, who wishes to be managed in a manner similar to the partnership, but without being in the partnership; or, if they want a "twist" on the strategy, and so rules may, at some point, apply. But initially it's fine for the firm to simply state that they have no restrictions.

Because of the inherent complexities of hedge funds, there often seems to be the belief that compliance with GIPS will be quite a challenge; we believe that it shouldn't be, and recently ran an advertisement addressing this:

More on "best practice"

$
0
0
The EMEA chapter of the Performance Measurement Forum held its Spring meeting in Brussels this week, and as usual, it was fun and informative. Because of the frequent use of the term "best practice," I asked the members to offer their definitions of this expression. Not surprisingly, we got a variety of responses.

In my view, the term SHOULD MEAN the best approach among the options available. The question is, WHO DECIDES what this is? Further, are they open to:
  • feedback
  • criticism
  • insights
  • ideas
  • other thoughts
  • opposition
  • objections
  • approval
  • etc.?
The CFA Institute's client reporting committee is promulgating  "best practices," but is clearly not open to any of this, which is unfortunate. And while the GIPS(r) (Global Investment Performance Standards) Executive Committee (EC) is open to feedback, there is no requirement or expectation that they will adjust their ideas based upon what they learn.

Take for example the idea of sending clients the presentation(s) for the composite(s) they're in on an annual basis. When the idea was introduced, there was extensive opposition; but, it is included as a recommendation. And, since by definition "recommendations" are "best practice" (see the Standards' glossary), it is BEST PRACTICE for you to do this (if you're compliant, of course). Personally, I think the idea is ludicrous, as do many others. But, someone decided it's best practice.

When we use the term, just as when we use other terms that have multiple meanings or interpretations, we should be prepared to explain what we mean. In the case of GIPS and the reporting standards (principles, sorry), "best practice" means what a group of folks think is best. Groups, by the way, which we neither elected nor, in at least one case, know the complete identities of.

While you might grow tiresome of my occasional harping on this matter, given the constant, continuous, and frequent use of the term (especially without qualification), I believe it's important that folks know and appreciate what's occurring and what's meant.

Most of our clients strive to adopt the best practices, which is, I believe, "best practice." But, knowing what these are (e.g., the above cited recommendation) allows the firm to decide whether they agree with all that are put forward. They, like me, may question someone else's judgment and beliefs. Given the paucity of firms that do send their clients their respective composite presentations annually, it's evident that most folks disagree with the GIPS EC, at least on this matter.

It would be interesting, would it not, to find out if the members of the EC (current and past) have adopted all of the recommendations themselves (including the annual report distribution) or if they're a verifier or consultant, strongly encourage their clients to do so.

Risk-adjusted attribution

$
0
0
Ernie Ankrim's March-April '92 FAJ "Risk-Adjusted Performance Attribution" article is one that I came across in my doctoral research. So far it's the only one I've found that addresses this topic (I reached out to Ernie in the hopes he'll pen one for The Journal of Performance Measurement(R)).

The fundamental question: should attribution be measured against risk-adjusted returns?

Traditional attribution models (e.g., Brinson Fachler) assume that the portfolio and benchmark have the same risk, and attribute the excess return to three effects (allocation, selection, and interaction). But what if the risks are different? Then, the excess return may be partly attributable to the risk delta. Ankrim's idea is that by looking at the risk-adjusted returns, we've eliminated the risk differences and look solely at the contributions from the manager's decisions.

This article is more than 21 years old. But who does risk-adjusted attribution? Should we rethink our approaches?

In The Spaulding Group'sattribution class I sometimes make reference to this idea, and was pleased to see Ernie's article. Perhaps this is a topic worthy of more discussion; what do you think?

p.s., I was reminded that Andrew Kophamel wrote an article titled "Risk Adjusted Performance Attribution: A New Paradigm for Performance Analysis" for The Journal of Performance Measurement(R). I will have to re-read it!

Who's on zero?

$
0
0
In this month's soon-to-be-published Spaulding Group newsletter, I comment a bit about the decision not to have a 2015 edition of the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS(R)), and provide the results (meager as they may be) from a mini (talk about an accurate term!) survey we conducted. I also cite comments from two colleagues, one who remained nameless and the other, who we'll call Carl, because, well, that's his name! (Carl Bacon)

In last month's issue, I commented how one change I'd make would be to renumber the sections; today we have a section zero. Carl acknowledged that this numbering idea was his (recall that he also favors geometric attribution, opposes money-weighting, and insists on driving on the wrong side of the road), and defended by referencing the presence of "Floor 0" in some hotels (in London, of course; n'er in the US of A) and how a stop was added on the King's Cross station, which was numbered zero.

I decided that I would comment a bit here, and thought about Abbott & Costello's famous "Who's on First" skit or routine:


The number zero has a very clear meaning which is nothing. That is, it means nothing (now I'm sounding like Abbott!). Of course it has a different meaning when paired with other numbers (e.g., buying a car that sells for $50,000); clearly the zeroes here don't mean "nothing" (well, technically they do, of course, if we were to do the math this way: 0×1 + 0×10 + 0×100 + 0×1,000 + 5×10,000).

There's a simple reason why first base in baseball is called "first base." Because it's first.

If you visit Carl's home (which I understand is quite historic and almost as old as our friend Steve Campisi), I doubt that he would say, upon entering, "this is our floor zero." No; he'll tell you "this is our first floor."

I'm at the Marriott in Stamford, CT this week, conducting (coincidentally) a GIPS verification, and will admit that their first floor is not technically the first floor; they use this (as they do in England) to represent the first floor that rooms are on. BUT, do they call the first floor (that you enter when you walk into the hotel, which is not numbered "1") floor zero? No, it's the "lobby level."

When a baby is born, do we say that they've begun their 0-th year? No, it's the start of their first year. Do children begin school in grade zero? No, in the first grade; which, in many cases, is preceded by Kindergarten and pre-K.

In the U.S. we occasionally see exit numbers changed on highways, which can be confusing to many who have grown used to the numbers (New Jersey is well known for us residents referring to the NJ Turnpike or Garden State Parkway exit our home is near). However, in time we get used to the new numbering, and may forget that there was anything that was done previously.

When merely introducing a new exit, where the exits it's going between are numbered sequentially (e.g., 8 and 9), it's common to add a letter to the new exit, with one of the ordinal numbers (e.g., 8A, which, for example, is the case on the New Jersey Turnpike). If New Jersey decided to add an exit between the start of the turnpike and exit one, I suspect they'd have to scramble to come up with a number (perhaps they'd make it 1A), but I doubt very strongly that we'd see Exit 0.

The differences between the USA and UK, at times, seem to grow. There are certain things we all know about (the differences in the side of the road we are on, the fact that we have an accent and they don't, the differences in how certain words are spelled (e.g., "color" vs. "colour"), the different ways we pronounce certain words (often we use a long vowel and they use a short, or vice versa), the different words we use for certain things (my car has a trunk, while Carl's has a boot), and no doubt much more). The use of the number zero for a multitude of ways is yet another.

The number zero has a fascinating history, and there are books that discuss it (in case you're interested and are looking for a "summer" book to read).


Extending GIPS to asset owners

$
0
0
I wrote an article for Pension & Investments regarding the expansion of the GIPS(R) standards (Global Investment Performance Standards) to plan sponsors. It was recently published and appears in the June 10 edition.

I am very excited that it got published; not just because I enjoy writing and am glad they felt it worthy, but also because it adds further support to compliance, which I think is a good thing.

Get ready for a bump in 5-year return numbers

$
0
0
When I was mayor of the Township of North Brunswick (NJ: 2000-2003), I commented how I could envision the huge potential benefits that would accrue in 2010, when the town's debt obligations would drop significantly (the idea of offering a sizable tax decrease to the residents was exciting to me). Sadly, that didn't occur, as new debt was raised to replace the old (plus, I was long out of office, and had no influence on the budgeting).

Next year many asset managers will, as they've done for years, report their five year cumulative and annualized rates of return. The good news: 2008 won't be included! For many managers, 2008 was a disaster. But come 2014, the five-year numbers will include 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The 2008 negative returns will, of course, appear in the 7- and 10-year returns (which many show), but drop off the 5-year statistics.

Many will see HUGE changes to these 5-year numbers. For example, one of our clients had returns in one of their strategies that were approximately 19% (2012), -11% (2011), 30% (2010), 10% (2009), and -46% (2008). The 5-year cumulative return is -18.22%. If this year's return is 0.00%, their 5-year return (with 2013 and without 2008) will jump to 51.45%; a swing (from negative to positive) of almost 70 percent!

What impact will this have on investors? Will investments in riskier assets grow, as ex ante measures forget about that prior history, and only look at the most recent and more buoyant times?

We're already witnessing an increased appetite for risk; in some cases, it's because individuals and institutions want to regain some of the money they lost; in other cases, it's probably the sheer desire to see the return of sizable double-digit returns. Regardless, seeing the hugely revised 5-year returns come 2014 will probably increase this interest. It'll be interesting, no doubt.
Viewing all 144 articles
Browse latest View live