© All Rights Reserved

365 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Week 3 - Assignment #1
- Nba Cse
- Hp 49g+ User's Guide English
- csis3syll
- Important Probability Distributions
- Sectorbrief Uitbesteding Vermogensbeheer Engels_tcm51-227343
- Project Risk Management Process Construction Projects
- 4.1 Probability Distributions
- Sets and Functions Worksheet
- CONCOR Term Paper
- Bus005Week3 HO (1)
- Analysis of Various Distributions
- Craftmanship Alpha - AQR
- Probability
- Equity Piks
- Ratios.docx
- Application 9
- Lec Notes 01
- Module01.pdf
- cumulative distr

You are on page 1of 8

creates alpha

Alpha doesn't always have to come from security selection - as today's guest contributor points out.

somewhat philosophical. Although many hedge fund managers profess to

deliver uncorrelated “absolute” returns – not relative returns – a large

portion of them compare their results to equity markets. Why? Not

because they manage to that bogey, but because hedge fund allocations

are often made by diverting capital from equity allocations. In other

words, equities are the most likely alternative. Today’s guest contributor

says that the choice of benchmark can make or break a “horse-switching” manager.

Special to AllAboutAlpha.com by: Eric Stanhope Hirschberg, Orion Investment Management (with

programming assistance from Hamaad Shah)

“Process is the one aspect of investing that I can control. Yet all too often I focus on outcomes

rather than process. Yet ironically, the best way of getting good outcomes is to follow a sound

process. The research shows that holding people accountable for outcomes tends to lead to suboptimal

performance, generally because they spend all their time worrying about the things they can’t control. I’d

advise a far better approach to assess people on the criteria of adherence to process.” — James Montier

While it’s tempting to say “absolutely nothing”, benchmarks have a meaningful role in the allocation

process. How relevant a benchmark is to the investor really comes down to the context in which the

benchmark is derived.

this way the “goodness” of a choice can be measured against the alternative of not choosing, or for that

matter making any alternative choice. This is a local perspective, in so much as one’s choices and risk

tolerances are not uniform to an entire investment population. For that, I need to accept the nearest

correlating passive and investable asset as the benchmark. And while this approach is fine for a strategy that

maintains a significant correlation to a passive investable benchmark, how should I view the myriad of

strategies in which the Manager / Asset Allocator tells us his expertise is to opportunistically invest?

Consider the manager who is actively making choices to allocate or de-allocate between a number of

possible strategies or benchmarks, based on some criterion which he holds as his proprietary domain. I shall

demonstrate a methodology that allows one to break down this Manager / Asset Allocator’s strategy into a

series of choice components, with a corresponding framework for valuing the various choices made over the

investment horizon.

Measurement as a Function of Rational Choice

Firstly, since I cannot know what goes on inside the head of our Manager / Asset Allocator, let us derive a

set of assumptions and move on from there.

Assumption 1: The Manager / Asset Allocator chooses the best risk adjusted return he can get us.

While he could just roll the dice on the riskiest assets, his return is maximized by staying in the game, and as

the risk adjusted return accounts for the risk of ruin and other shades of undesirable outcomes, it maximizes

the chance of success. His success is a function of his ability to forecast his risk adjusted return. His failure to

do this Ill does not warrant our discarding the assumption that he is trying.

Assumption 2: The Manager / Asset Allocator actively chooses between assets as opposed to

assets held mutating from one exposure to another.

There have certainly been times in the history of finance where a Manager / Asset Allocator maintaining a

“static” strategy, experiences a huge style or exposure shift as a result of an exogenous factor he wasn’t

aware he was choosing. A short portfolio of Canadian junior mining assets, overnight became a portfolio of

internet start ups, as bankers realized buying worthless shells and converting them was cheaper than the

opportunity cost of waiting for the public issuance backlog in 2000. I will limit our discussion to the normal

case of active allocation by the Manager / Asset Allocator.

Assumption 3: The Manager / Asset Allocator can choose to invest in the passive benchmark or

actively replicate it.

The Manager / Asset Allocator uses assumption 1 to choose portfolio A’ with respect to A. If he can’t find

anything better than a, he will simply invest in A (provided that he believes the risk adjusted return of A is

greater than that of B). This is often the case with CTA’s, many of whom simply choose the ETF or Futures

contract over some optimized portfolio.

Assumption 4: The Manager / Asset Allocator’s portfolio constituents and their respective weights

are transparent to us.

To calculate the Manager / Asset Allocator’s tracking error (A’-A) I need to know the constituents of the

Manager / Asset Allocator’s portfolio.

Analysis of the Two Benchmark Case

• A strategy that allocates between 2 available benchmarks (A, B). To be clear, while it is easier to

know which benchmarks should be used a priori, it is not a necessity, as there are effective ways in

which I can discover the benchmarks through data analysis.

• The Manager / Asset Allocator invests in or replicate a benchmark A at some particular time, using

strategy portfolio A‘. I will assume some unknown difference, but A’=A would still work.

At T=0, the Manager / Asset Allocator Chooses To invest in A (and not B) and does so by construction of

replicant A’.

1. Corr (A’, A). I want to understand the portfolios active versus passive allocation component. In other

words, was there any value created in the replication process?

2. Ret (A’) – Ret (A). I want to understand the value of active versus passive allocation. What was the

value of replication?

3. Ret (A)-Ret (B) .I want to understand the value of switching.

4. Information Ratio* A’/A= Ret (A’-A)/ Stdev (A’-A). I want a measure of the risk adjusted return of the

active allocation.

5. Information Ratio* A/B = Ret (A-B)/Stdev (A-B). I want a measure of the risk adjusted return of

switching.

* The information ratio used is based upon geometric returns and adjusted for leverage effects.At T=100, the

Manager / Asset Allocator Switches from Benchmark A to Benchmark

Piece-wise Analysis: Period 2

1. Corr(B’,B)

2. Ret(B’-B)

3. Ret(B-A)

4. Information Ratio B’/B = Ret(B’-B)/Stdev(B’-B)

5. Information Ratio B/A = Ret(B-A)/ Stdev(B-A)

At T=200, the Manager / Asset Allocator Switches from Benchmark B back to Benchmark A

1. Corr(A’,A)

2. Ret(A’-A)

3. Ret(A-B)

4. Information Ratio A’/A = Ret(A’-A)/Stdev(A’-A)

5. Information Ratio A/B = Ret(A-B)/ Stdev(A-B)

Adding it all up

Taking the prior example, a tactical allocator made 3 allocation decisions in a 300 day period. The total

return is as follows:

• First, did the Manager / Asset Allocator add any value over the piecewise benchmarks using

replicants, i.e. was tRet’ > tRet ? What was the weighted sum of the information ratios?

• Secondly, did the Manager / Asset Allocator add any value over a simulated tactical switching model

with the same benchmark universe and an equal number of randomly timed switches?

• Thirdly, how did the Manager / Asset Allocator’s allocation compare to all convex combinations of

the two benchmark assets held passively over the same period?

Example: Three Allocation Decisions

To illustrate an example, I use SP500 index and US Treasury Index Data for a two and one half year interval

(2005-2007).

I create a fictitious Manager / Asset Allocator who makes three allocation decisions over this interval. For

simplicities sake, I have chosen a Manager / Asset Allocator who is limited to investment in the benchmarks

themselves (A’ equal to A). The identical analysis can be performed on the portfolios where, the Manager /

Asset Allocator chooses as a replacement for the simple benchmark (A’ not equal to A).

• No transaction costs are considered as there are a total of six transactions (in liquid securities) over

the entire period.

• I do not consider corr(A’,A) as it remains constant 1 in this example due to Manager / Asset

Allocator investment limitations.

• No leverage is used in this example. That said, one can easily adjust for the effects of leverage by

normalizing using the beta coefficients (M) of A’= MA +b and B’=MB + c for each interval chosen.

In practice, this normalization should always be undertaken when considering quality of returns.

The Return Distribution for the Three Allocation Simulation

By plotting the Manager / Asset Allocator’s return as a function of switching versus the boot-strapped

distribution of outcomes, I can ascertain a probability of skill for the Manager / Asset Allocator’s ability to

time benchmark exposure. By comparing the replicant returns as a function of deviation, I can formulate a

statement about the Manager / Asset Allocator’s ability to create additional value given a benchmark

exposure. The following chart shows the outcome from randomly sampling 2000 sets of three switches ABA

or BAB from the previously mentioned data. The red dot marks our Manager / Asset Allocator’s return in this

distribution.

As the Manager / Asset Allocator is claiming his skill comes from his ability to time switches, our analysis

now allows us to make an objective assessment of his claim. Our Manager / Asset Allocator’s resultant IC is

shown as a red point on the chart below. In this case, it is clear that he should be compensated beyond the

cost of active replication as replacing him with a random switching algorithm would likely produce an

inferior result. Had the Manager / Asset Allocator’s IC been less than the mean of the distribution, the

expected value from employing a switching algorith would have been greater, and it would be economically

beneficial to replace him.

Reduce Manager

Compensation

or Replicate

Mapping the Three Allocation Simulation Over All Convex Combinations of the Two Benchmark Buy and

Hold

Now let us compare the Manager / Asset Allocator’s total return and deviation with both simulated switches

and all possible passive benchmark mixes. These mixes take the form Total Return (cA+dB) and standard

deviation of returns (cA+dB) where c=0 to 1 and d=1-c. The lower left endpoint of the line represents a 100%

allocation to the Bond Index while the upper right endpoint represents a 100% allocation to the equity index.

Note that our Manager / Asset Allocator has performed quite Ill. He beats a significant majority of our

simulated switches, and his active return could not be passively replicated without a significant increase in

risk. In this case the Manager / Asset Allocator’s compensation for actively switching is Ill deserved.

Conclusion

I have endeavoured to formulate a framework for evaluating a Manager / Asset Allocator who actively

moves between two investments. A simple example of equities and bonds was illustrated for an initial

selection plus two additional switches. I could have as easily used two styles (growth and value, or large cap

and small cap) as benchmark assets. Under this regime, the Manager / Asset Allocator can switch between

benchmarks tactically, opportunistically or even unknowingly, it really does not affect our ability to measure

the Manager / Asset Allocator’s utility in doing what he/she does.

The methodology presented in this paper forms the basis for evaluating a Manager / Asset Allocator that

moves, in part or in whole, between multiple benchmarks. My work on this expanded problem will

presented at a later date.

I note that there is a school of thought that believes that one way to measure a Manager / Asset Allocator’s

addition of active value is to take his initial portfolio and hold it passively as the benchmark “inertia

benchmark”. This notion, while creative, is flawed in a number of respects.

Firstly, as open funds can receive allocations from investors somewhat continuously (depending on

addition/redemption terms); the benchmark could vary dramatically by date.

Secondly, just because an investor starts off in a particular portfolio by means of subscription, that does not

imply that the portfolio would have been purchased by the manager had he been required to hold it for

some fixed period. Based on my experience transacting institutional portfolio rebalances for a number of

years, I would say that individual component durations are far from uniform.

Lastly, one utility of a benchmark is that it allows the investor access to an alternative allocation. If the

investor has to rely upon the Manager to present the initial portfolio, it is unlikely that the investor would be

able to construct the aforementioned portfolio without the assistance of the Manager, thereby invalidating

the concept of the benchmark as a means of alternative allocation.

Authors Note: If you would like to learn more about implementing my risk and performance measurements

for your organization, feel free to contact me via Eric@KapitalMarks.com or contact me via LinkedIn. Any

comments or criticisms are most appreciated.

- Week 3 - Assignment #1Uploaded byPriya Prasad
- Nba CseUploaded bybasualok@rediffmail.com
- Hp 49g+ User's Guide EnglishUploaded byKalon DeLuise
- csis3syllUploaded bymanjulakinnal
- Important Probability DistributionsUploaded bySanjay Kumar C K
- Sectorbrief Uitbesteding Vermogensbeheer Engels_tcm51-227343Uploaded bygrobbebol
- Project Risk Management Process Construction ProjectsUploaded byPrateek Vyas
- 4.1 Probability DistributionsUploaded bytruongvinhlan19895148
- Sets and Functions WorksheetUploaded bytutorciecle123
- CONCOR Term PaperUploaded byKomal Sharma
- Bus005Week3 HO (1)Uploaded bysanjajevremovic
- Analysis of Various DistributionsUploaded byrudypatil
- Craftmanship Alpha - AQRUploaded byClement Tan
- ProbabilityUploaded bybenitogaldos19gmail.com
- Equity PiksUploaded bySankalp Akash Singh
- Ratios.docxUploaded byVASANTADA SRIKANTH (PGP 2016-18)
- Application 9Uploaded byDr. Ir. R. Didin Kusdian, MT.
- Lec Notes 01Uploaded byراجہ دانیال ارشد جنجوعہ
- Module01.pdfUploaded byEmman Joshua Busto
- cumulative distrUploaded byVinayKumarSingh
- Tutsheet3Uploaded byvishnu
- Pertemuan3_statprobUploaded byBrigitta Angelina
- Probabilities Concise Version 4Uploaded byTiona Morgan
- Probability R,VUploaded byYehya Mesalam
- S2 Discrete Distributions - BinomialUploaded byIshy Here
- extended inquiry finalUploaded byapi-273153964
- Session 9Uploaded byNikhil Gandhi
- SAPM AssignmentUploaded byvinay agarwal
- v7_n4_article1Uploaded byfandiezzati
- DISC 203-Probability & Statistics-Muhammad AsimUploaded bySarmad

- 2010 10 Safe Harbor Treasury Enhancement FinalUploaded byEric S Hirschberg
- 2010 Orion GOM CAT ProgramUploaded byEric S Hirschberg
- Orion Interview - Bottom Line Magazine, Roger Crombie May-June 2010Uploaded byEric S Hirschberg
- A Systematic Alternative Asset Allocation MethodologyUploaded byEric S Hirschberg
- Measuring Performance in Active Allocation Amongst Multiple BenchmarksUploaded byEric S Hirschberg

- Ab InitioFAQ3Uploaded bySravya Reddy
- 03-00-MBD_StudyGuide_Book_Januar2015.pdfUploaded byAmaro Calderon Eduardo
- new - CopyUploaded bySatish
- Gas text_3Uploaded byBob
- Introduction to SeismologyUploaded byAsad ALi
- Multicode Techniques in 4GUploaded byseventhsensegroup
- ExceptionUploaded bySalai Sukumar
- Vba Crash CourseUploaded byBerrisford Kevin Thomas
- ISO-2768-1.pdfUploaded byHung
- Peer REVIEW Material for ReferenceUploaded byTony Davis
- Chapter 5 - OptimizationUploaded byArief Budi Silogisme
- WQU_FundamentalsofStochasticFinance_m1Uploaded byShravan Venkataraman
- CS301 Engineering Mathematics IIIUploaded byashwath k a
- SN003b-secure.pdfUploaded bykd99136182
- SDOF and HarmonicUploaded byAMN zd
- Pore pressure and Fracture gradient from well log - RotimiUploaded bySebastianChinome
- brain mriUploaded byashokkumar
- Clarke Transform - Open Electrical-1.pdfUploaded byb33law
- Background Noise Measurement in Different VendorsUploaded byajaykkaushik
- 5430 Saeed 10 Study SheetUploaded byAnonymous WyTCUDyW
- Strategic ManagementUploaded bysureh_mite_nitkyahoo
- 1. a Short Overview of Spectral DecompositionUploaded bySaleem Asghar
- Customised LaTEX Page Layout With LuaTEXUploaded byRolando Mamani
- Wordiness and Gobbledygook ExercisesUploaded byhoanghoangsangsang
- 17. Ijhss - State Institutional Characteristics and Teacher Qualities Effects on Curriculum Adaptation in Mathematics Teacher EducationUploaded byiaset123
- LambdaReference.pre-release.pdfUploaded bywirajcom
- graphs and situations practiceUploaded byapi-373030976
- Accumulators in BoostUploaded bysj314
- Solving Linear Systems Using Interval Arithmetic ApproachUploaded byInternational Journal of Science and Engineering Investigations
- SOME QUESTIONS ON MANAGING RANDOMNESS BY MUSICAL PERFORMER: ABOUT “INDETERMINACY” (MAYBE: “UNCERTAINTY”) AND “KNOTS”Uploaded byStefano A E Leoni