Upload
kegnata
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
1/141
Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
What is Required of a Portfolio Manager (PM)?
We have two major requirements of a PM:
1. The ability to derive above average returns for a given risk class (large risk-adjusted returns);and
2. the ability to completely diversify the portfolio to eliminate all unsystematic risk.
May also desire large real (inflation-adjusted) returns, maximization of current income, highafter-tax rate of return, preservation of capital.
Requirement #1 can be achieved either through superior timing or superior security selection. APM can select high beta securities during a time when he thinks the market will perform well and
low (or negative) beta stocks at a time when he thinks the market will perform poorly.Conversely, a PM can try to select undervalued stocks or bonds for a given risk class.
Requirement #2 argues that one should be able to completely diversify away all unsystematicrisk (as you will not be compensated for it). You can measure the level of diversification bycomputing the correlation between the returns of the portfolio and the market portfolio. Acompletely diversified portfolio correlated perfectly with the completely diversified marketportfolio because both include only systematic risk.
Some portfolio evaluation techniques measure for one requirement (high risk-adjusted returns)
and not the other; some measure for complete diversification and not the other; some measure forboth, but don't distinguish between the two requirements.
Composite Equity Portfolio Performance Measures
As late as the mid 1960s investors evaluated PM performance based solely on the rate of return.They were aware of risk, but didn't know how to measure it or adjust for it. Some investigatorsdivided portfolios into similar risk classes (based upon a measure of risk such as the variance ofreturn) and then compared the returns for alternative portfolios within the same risk class.
We shall look at some measures of composite performance that combine risk and return levels
into a single value.Treynor Portfolio Performance Measure (aka: reward to volatility ratio)
This measure was developed by Jack Treynor in 1965. Treynor (helped developed CAPM)argues that, using the characteristic line, one can determine the relationship between a securityand the market. Deviations from the characteristic line (unique returns) should cancel out if youhave a fully diversified portfolio.
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
2/141
Treynor's Composite Performance Measure: He was interested in a performance measure thatwould apply to ALL investors regardless of their risk preferences. He argued that investorswould prefer a CML with a higher slope (as it would place them on a higher utility curve). Theslope of this portfolio possibility line is:
A larger Ti value indicates a larger slope and a better portfolio for ALL INVESTORSREGARDLESS OF THEIR RISK PREFERENCES. The numerator represents the risk premiumand the denominator represents the risk of the portfolio; thus the value, T, represents theportfolio's return per unit of systematic risk. All risk averse investors would want to maximizethis value.
The Treynor measure only measures systematic risk--it automatically assumes an adequatelydiversified portfolio.
You can compare the T measures for different portfolios. The higher the T value, the better theportfolio performance. For instance, the T value for the market is:
In this expression, b m = 1.
Demonstration of Comparative Treynor Measures: Assume that you are an administrator of alarge pension fund (i.e. Terry Teague of Boeing) and you are trying to decide whether to renew
your contracts with your three money managers. You must measure how they have performed.Assume you have the following results for each individual's performance:
InvestmentManager
Average Annual Rateof Return
Beta
Z 0.12 0.90
B 0.16 1.05
Y 0.18 1.2
You can calculate the T values for each investment manager:
Tm (0.14-0.08)/1.00=0.06
TZ (0.12-0.08)/0.90=0.044
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
3/141
TB (0.16-0.08)/1.05=0.076
TY (0.18-0.08)/1.20=0.083
These results show that Z did not even "beat-the-market." Y had the best performance, and both
B and Y beat the market. [To find required return, the line is: .08 + .06(Beta).
One can achieve a negative T value if you achieve very poor performance or very goodperformance with low risk. For instance, if you had a positive beta portfolio but your return wasless than that of the risk-free rate (which implies you weren't adequately diversified or that themarket performed poorly) then you would have a (-) T value. If you have a negative betaportfolio and you earn a return higher than the risk-free rate, then you would have a high T-value. Negative T values can be confusing, thus you may be better off plotting the values on theSML or using the CAPM (in this case, .08+.06(Beta)) to calculate the required return andcompare it with the actual return.
Sharpe Portfolio Performance Measure (aka: reward to variability ratio)
This measure was developed in 1966. It is as follows:
It is VERY similar to Treynor's measure, except it uses the total risk of the portfolio rather thanjust the systematic risk. The Sharpe measure calculates the risk premium earned per unit of totalrisk. In theory, the S measure compares portfolios on the CML, whereas the T measure comparesportfolios on the SML.
Demonstration of Comparative Sharpe Measures: Sample returns and SDs for four portfolios(and the calculated Sharpe Index) are given below:
Portfolio Avg. Annual RofR SD of return Sharpe measure
B 0.13 0.18 0.278
O 0.17 0.22 0.409
P 0.16 0.23 0.348
Market 0.14 0.20 0.30
Thus, portfolio O did the best, and B failed to beat the market. We could draw the CML giventhis information: CML=.08 + (0.30)SD
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
4/141
Treynor Measure vs. Sharpe Measure. The Sharpe measure evaluates the portfolio manager onthe basis of both rate of return and diversification (as it considers total portfolio risk in thedenominator). If we had a fully diversified portfolio, then both the Sharpe and Treynor measuresshould given us the same ranking. A poorly diversified portfolio could have a higher rankingunder the Treynor measure than for the Sharpe measure.
Jenson Portfolio Performance Measure (aka differential return measure)
This measure (as are all the previous measures) is based on the CAPM:
We can express the expectations formula (the above formula) in terms of realized rates of returnby adding an error term to reflect the difference between E(Rj) vs actual Rj:
By subtracting the risk free rate from both sides, we get:
Using this format, one would not expect an intercept in the regression. However, if we hadsuperior portfolio managers who were actively seeking out undervalued securities, they couldearn a higher risk-adjusted return than those implied in the model. So, if we examined returns ofsuperior portfolios, they would have a significant positive intercept. An inferior manager wouldhave a significant negative intercept. A manager that was not clearly superior or inferior wouldhave a statistically insignificant intercept. We would test the constant, or intercept, in thefollowing regression:
This constant term would tell us how much of the return is attributable to the manager's ability toderive above-average returns adjusted for risk.
Applying the Jenson Measure. This requires that you use a different risk-free rate for each timeinterval during the sample period. You must subtract the risk-free rate from the returns duringeach observation period rather than calculating the average return and average risk-free rate as inthe Sharpe and Treynor measures. Also, the Jensen measure does not evaluate the ability of theportfolio manager to diversify, as it calculates risk premiums in terms of systematic risk (beta).For evaluating diversified portfolios (such a most mutual funds) this is probably adequate. Jensen
finds that mutual fund returns are typically correlated with the market at rates above .90.
Application of Portfolio Performance Measures
Calculated Sharpe, Treynor and Jenson measures for 20 mutual funds. Using the Jenson measure,only 3 managers had superior performance (Fidelity Magellan, Templeton Growth Funds, andValue Line Special Situations Fund) while 2 managers had inferior performance (OppenheimerFund and T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund).
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
5/141
Relationship among Portfolio Performance Measures
For all three methods, if we are examining a well-diversified portfolio, the rankings should besimilar. A rank correlation measure finds that there is about a 90% correlation among all threemeasures. Reilly recommends that all three measures. [In my opinion the Jensen measure is the
most stringent. It is testing for statistical significance, whereas the other methods are not. Theother methods are also examining average returns, whereas the Jensen measure uses actualreturns during each observation period.]
Factors that Affect Use of Performance Measures
You need to judge a portfolio manager over a period of time, not just over one quarter or evenone year. You need to examine the manager's performance during both rising and fallingmarkets. There are also other problems associated with these measures:
w Measurement Problems: All of these measures are based on the CAPM. Thus, we need a real
world proxy for the theoretical market portfolio. Analysts typically use the S&P500 Index as theproxy; however, it does not constitute a true market portfolio. It only includes common stockstrading on the NYSE. Roll, in his 1980/1981 papers, calls this benchmark error.
We use the market portfolio to calculate the betas for the portfolios. Roll argues that if the proxyused for the market portfolio is inefficient, the betas calculated will be inappropriate. The trueSML may actually have a higher (or lower) slope. Thus, if we plot a security that lies above theSML it could actually plot below the "true" SML.
w Global Investing: Incorporating global investments (with their lower coefficients ofcorrelation) will surely move the efficient frontier to the left, thus providing diversification
benefits. It may also shift the efficient frontier upward (increasing returns). [However, we haveno proxy to measure global markets.]
Portfolio Performance Evaluation and Active
Portfolio Management
Chapter 17Outline
Conventional Measurement Techniques
2
Sharpe Index and M
Jensen Index
Treynor Index
Active Management
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
6/141
Market Timing
Style Analysis Conventional Performance Measurement
One of the first direct applications of Markowitzs
portfolio theory was for risk-adjusted performance
measurement
Before the 1960s, risk adjustment took the form of
asset-type classifications, which were imprecise and
not very analytical
The Three main risk-adjusted measures:
(
2
Sharpe Index (or M
Treynor Index
Jensens AlphaSharpe Index
The Sharpe measure provides
an estimate of excess return per
unit of standard deviation (or
total risk). This can then be
compared to a benchmark
portfolio.
Which is better: Portfolio 1 or
2?
0
5
10
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
7/141
15
20
25
5 10 15 20 25 30
Standard Deviation
Expected Return
p
fp
p
rR
S
=
roxy p M
1 Portfolio
2 PortfolioMeasure (Modigliani and Modigliani)
2
The M
Uses total volatility as risk measure (like Sharpe Index)
Calculate the portfolio variance 1.
Add T-Bills to the portfolio to make the risk the same as 2.
the Market:
2
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
8/141
Mkt
= P, TBills
) + 2w(1-w)
2
TBills
(
2
) + (1-w)
2
p
(
2
Solve w
2
Mkt
) =
2
p
(
2
Or just w
This adjusted portfolio P* then has returns: 3.
) + (1-w)r P
= w(r P*
r
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
9/141
f
M 4.
2
M -r P*
= rMeasure
2
The M
Measure gives
2
The M The
Sharpe the same results as the
measure, just in different form.
M - r P*
= r
2
M
Which is better: Portfolio 1 or
2?
0
5
10
15
20
25
5 10 15 20 25 30
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
10/141
Standard Deviation
Expected Return
roxy p M
1 Portfolio
2 Portfolio
+M
2
-M
2Treynor Index
The Treynor measure provides
an estimate of excess return
per unit of beta (or market
risk). Again, this can then be
compared with a benchmark
portfolio.
Which is better 1 or 2?
Statistical problems?
p
fp
p
rR
T
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
11/141
=
2 Portfolio
1 Portfolio
roxy p M
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
Beta
Expected ReturnJensen Index
The Jensen index provides an
estimate of excess return relative
to what is predicted by CAPM.
This is also the alpha of the
security characteristic line
is generated from regressions
We can also define other related
measures such as the appraisal
ratio: alpha relative to the
portfolios diversifiable risk
] [ fMpfpp
rRrR =
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
12/141
0
5
10
15
20
25
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Beta
Expected Return
y rox p M
2 Portfolio
1 Portfolio Criticisms of Measures
All performance measures nest within the mean-
variance framework of CAPM. Thus, benchmark
error is always problem
An APT-based alternative developed by Gruber
accounts for other risk factors
Changing risk measures (betas and volatilities) plague
all testsWhats ahead?
New York City Trip Signup
Vicki Rollo 307 Purnell Hall
Cost is $25
2 options
1. Midtownvisit Nasdaq, Protiviti, ITG and
JPMorgan
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
13/141
2. Wall Streetvisit the NYMEX, AMEX + ??
Homework #3 due on Thursday!!!
Test #2 next Wednesday, November 1 Grubers 4-Factor Model
captures managerial
i
Controlling for factor risk,
ability to select securities.
Actively managed mutual funds outperform by 65 basis
points (b.p.) or 0.65% per year
Expense ratios averaged 113 b.p. (or 1.13%)!
Overall, net result is that the average actively-managed
mutual fund underperforms by 48 b.p. or 0.48%
Since we can buy an S&P500 index fund for about 10-
12 b.p., we are better off, on average, by passive
indexingThe Lure of Active Management
Some portfolio managers have hot hands that appear
to be better than just lucky
Anomalies in past returns suggest that there may be
some value in finding predictable patterns in stock
returns
The potential benefits are large, if we exceed the market
averages
For 10% returns over 40 years (until retirement),
FV = 10,000*1.10
40
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
14/141
= $452,593
For 10.5% returns over the same horizon,
FV = 10,000*1.105
40
= $542,614Market Timing
The act of moving in and out of the market, based
on future expectations
Get price appreciation while
Avoiding bad periods
Enticing since potential benefits are large here too!
Example in book (p. 591) Invest $1 in 1924
1. In T-bills, get $17.56 at end of 2003
2. In SP500, get $1,992.80
3. If perfect timing, get $148,472!Actual Market Timing Results
See Wall Street Journal article on actual mutual fund
investment returns
Average investor falls victim to psychological biases
Buys more after prices run up
Doesnt sell to minimize losses
Net result is that the average investor dramatically
underperforms even the average mutual fund return
fees! Even before
Bottom Line: Market timing can be hazardous to your
wealthStyle Analysis
s to the style of assets that Process of benchmarking fund return
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
15/141
comprise the portfolio
Sharpe comes up with 12:
1. T-Bills
2. Intermediate bonds
3. Long-term bonds
4. Corporate bonds
5. Mortgages
6. Value stocks
7. Growth stocks
8. Mid-cap stocks
9. Smalll stocks
10. Foreign stocks
11. European stocks
12. Japanese StocksStyle becomes the benchmark
Compare fund returns to weighted average of the style
portfolio
Fidelity Magellan, for instance,
47% growth stocks
31% mid-cap stocks
18% small stocks
4% European stocks
Analogous to factors being other portfolio returns
Regress fund returns on these style portfolios
Residual returns signal under- or over-performance
Like the alpha in CAPM or APT models
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
16/141
Average residual = -0.074% per month! (over 636
funds)International Investing
Chapter 18Summary
Global Markets offer unique risk/return tradeoffs
Should be included in true CAPM analyses
May be quantified as unique APT factors
Home country bias
Most investors notoriously overweight home country
stocks compared to international stocks
Many investors actually hold no foreign equities
Unique Risk Factors
Exchange rate risk
Country-specific (political) riskExchange Rate Risk
International investing gives returns denominated in
foreign currencies
Even if stock returns in the foreign currency are large,
dollar-denominated returns may not be
Exchange rate can make $-denominated returns higher or
lower
Can be hedged away using derivativesusually futures
See FINC416 Derivative Securities
See FINC415 International Finance
International mutual funds offer exchange rate hedged
returnsBenefits of International Diversification
Easy to over-estimate benefits
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
17/141
Recent history of country-specific risk might suffer from
survivor bias
Unknown political risk makes recent actual
performance exceed the expected performance
Historic covariances underestimate future covariances
Past diversification benefits are over-estimated
Simple rule would be to invest in two other countries
Same benefits as 44 countries
andard deviation than the Benefits amount to 1% less st
simple U.S. index portfolioBehavioral Finance and Technical Analysis
Chapter 19Returns and Behavioral Explanations
Calendar effects
1. Seasonal flow of funds gets translated into stock
purchases (end of year bonuses, end of month
paychecks).
2. Window dressing by institutional traders each quarter
SEC requires quarterly reporting
Managers, wanting to be seen as smart, load up on
good stocks, dump bad stocks before reporting
3. Good and bad news released around calendar year turns.Technical Analysis--Overview
Using past stock prices and volume information to
predict future stock prices
The premise is that there would be predictable patterns in
returns
Charting Techniques
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
18/141
Technical Indicators
Value Lines System Charting
The Dow Theory
1. Primary trend (long-term)
Last for several months, years
2. Secondary (intermediate) trend
when prices corrected Shorter term deviations get
revert back to trend values
3. Tertiary (minor) trends
Unimportant daily fluctuationsOther Charting Techniques
Point and Figure Charts
Traces up and down movements without regard to time
See Figure 19.4, Table 19.2 in book
Buy and sell signals when prices penetrate previous highs
and lows
Candlestick Charts
Used to identify support and resistance
Used to identify rallies, trendsTechnical Indicators
Sentiment Indicators give bullish/bearish signals
Trin statistics use advances, declines and volume
Odd-lot theory assumes that individual investors miss key
market turning points
Confidence index is the ratio of 10 top-rated bond yields
to 10 intermediate-grade yields
Put/Call ratios look at options market activity
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
19/141
Mutual fund cash positions assumes that mutual fund
investors miss key market turning points Technical Indicators
Flow of Funds
Short Interest (reflects smart money)
Credit Balances in brokerage accounts (signals intent
for future purchases)
Market Structure
Moving averages
Breadth (advances minus declines cumulated over time)
Relative strength (momentum)
The Value Line system
1. Relative earnings momentum
2. Earnings surprises
3. Value index (a 3 factor model of value)
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
20/141
i
Diplomarbeit
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Magister rerum socialium oeconomicarumque
(Mag. rer. soc. oec.)
Portfolio Performance Evaluation
Institut fr Betriebswirtschaftslehre
Universitt Wien
Studienrichtung: Internationale Betriebswirtschaft
o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Josef Zechner
eingereicht von
Johann Aldrian
(Matr.nr.: 9501942)
Wien, 8. September 2000ii
Eidesstattliche Erklrung
Ich erklre hiermit an Eides statt, da ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstndig und
ohne Benutzung anderer als der angegebenen Hilfsmittel angefertigt habe. Die
aus fremden Quellen direkt oder indirekt bernommenen Gedanken sind als
solche kenntlich gemacht.
Die Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder hnlicher Form keiner anderen
Prfungsbehrde vorgelegt und auch nicht verffentlicht.
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
21/141
Wien, 8. September 2000 .iii
Portfolio
Performance
Evaluationiv
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. THE RELEVANCE OF PORTFOLIO-MANAGEMENT-EVALUATION 1
1.2. STRUCTURE OF THIS MASTER'S THESIS 2
2. TRADITIONAL MEASURES OF PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS. 4
2.1. FUNDAMENTALS 4
2.1.1. THE CONCEPT OF EFFICIENT MARKETS 4
2.1.2. RETURN AND RISK AS DETERMINANTS OF THE MARKET 6
2.2. PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT 8
2.2.1. ACTIVE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT 9
2.2.2. PASSIVE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT 12
2.2.3. WHAT INDEX TO USE 13
2.3. TRADITIONAL MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE 15
2.3.1. SECURITY-MARKET-LINE BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES 15
2.3.2. CAPITAL-MARKET-LINE BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES 18
2.4. WEAKNESSES OF TRADITIONAL MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE 21
3. ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE 24
3.1. THE FAMA AND FRENCH THREE & FIVE FACTOR APT-MODEL 24
3.2. THE GRINBLATT & TITMAN NO BENCHMARK MODEL 27
3.3. THE SHARPE APPROACH: ASSET ALLOCATION AND STYLE ANALYSIS 31
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
22/141
3.3.1. DETERMINANTS OF THE MODEL 32
3.3.2. THE PROCEDURE 35
3.3.3. CRITICISMS AND IMPROVEMENTS 37
4. APPLIED STYLE ANALYSIS 40
4.1. THE DATA 40
4.1.1. AUSTRIAN INVESTMENT FUNDS 40
4.1.2. ASSET CLASSES 45
4.1.2.1. Equity Asset Classes 45
4.1.2.2. Fixed Income Asset Classes 47
4.1.2.3. Statistical Properties of the Employed Asset Classes 48v
4.2. DETERMINING THE FUNDS STYLE AND SELECTION RETURN 50
4.2.1. THE FUNDS AVERAGE COMPOSITION 50
4.2.2. ROLLING A WINDOW 55
4.2.3. COMPARISON OF REAL AND ESTIMATED STYLE WEIGHTS 61
4.2.4. CONTRIBUTION THROUGH SELECTION 63
4.2.5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 70
4.3. SOME ADDITIONAL INSIGHT USING US MUTUAL FUNDS 71
5. CONCLUSION AND FINAL REMARKS 79
DATA APPENDIXvi
Abbreviations
Con: Constantia Privat Invest Fund
A 4: Appollo 4 Fund
Gen: Generali Mixfund
Rai: Raiffeisen Global Mix Fund
Ers: SparInvest Fund
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
23/141
Spa: Global Securities Trust Fund
EVALUE: European Value Stock Index Net Dividends Reinvested
EGROWTH: European Growth Stock Index Net Dividends Reinvested
ESTAND: European Composite Stock Index Net Dividends Reinvested
NAVALUE: North American Value Stock Index Net Dividends Reinvested
NAGROWTH: North American Growth Stock Index Net Dividends Reinvested
NASTAND: North American Composite Stock Index Net Dividends Reinvested
JPSTAND: Japanese Composite Stock Index Net Dividends Reinvested
ATX: Austrian Trading Index (Composite Stock Index)
G7GOV: Government Bond Index of the 7 Largest European Countries
API: Austrian Performance Index (Government Bond Index Interest Reinvested)1
1. Introduction
1.1. The Relevance of Portfolio-Management-Evaluation
Whenever an investor employs resources, be it in the form of hiring employees
for his company, establishing a charitable fund or investing money in an
investment fund he will want to measure the performance of his investment. In
any of the above named cases the investor will establish an evaluation system
that provides him with the feedback needed to determine whether the investment
generates the predetermined utility. In the case of the employee the investor will
demand from him the accomplishment of the agreed on work objectives. From
the manager of the charity fund he will demand evidence that the money was not
spent lavishly. Both times he will bind the executing subjects to some kind of
charta which was defined in advance. In the very same manner he will consider
the evaluation of the investment manager. The investment manager will be
bound to the investment policy and subject to a constant evaluation of his
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
24/141
achievements. His achievement will be the return on the capital the investor
provided.
At this point one will have to determine whether the achieved return was good or
poor and whether it was skill or luck?
This is the punchline investors are are always facing when entrusting their money
to an investment manager. The evaluation now boils down to two main
questions. The first question the investor will want to address is the question of
performance. What is good and what is poor performance and where is the line
in between - the benchmark - and what to take as the benchmark. Should we
employ the performance of a riskless asset e.g. a T-bond, a generic like the S&P2
500 or other portfolio manager's performance as the benchmark? Unfortunately,
these simplistic measures of performance generally do not produce the desired
degree of specification. The investor will also want to find out whether his
investment manager is skillful of fortunate through an evaluation process, which
can be applied to his manager and thereby finding what kind of constranints may
help to get the investment manager to achieve the goal set by the investor. In
answering how to destinct between a skilled and unskilled portfolio manager and
what is good and poor performance, I will address the question central to this
master's thesis. Can Sharpe's asset allocation model and resulting style analysis
be a useful tool in assessing an investment portfolio's performance and the level
of skill of its investment manager?
1.2. Structure of this master's thesis
The first chapter is devoted to the definition of the problem and its justification in
order to give the reader a general overview of this works content.
In chapter 2 CAPM implications on performance measurement are being
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
25/141
elaborated and conventional measures of performance are being discussed in a
critical context. The last part of Chapter 2 will emphasize on weaknesses and
critiques of traditional measures of performance. In Chapter 3 I will introduce
alternative measures of portfolio performance. The Fama & French Model, the
Grinblatt & Titman Model and Sharpe's Asset Allocation and Style Analysis
Model will be described. The Sharpe Model will then be explained in further
detail, as it will be the core subject of this master's thesis.
Chapter 4 will comprehend a regression analysis according to Sharpe's Model. It
will be performed on 6 Austrian investment funds. The investment funds will be:
Raiffeisen Global Mix Fund
Appollo 4 Fund3
SparInvest Fund
Generali Mixfund
Global Securities Trust Fund
Constantia Privat Invest Fund
Through constrained quadratic programming the composition of the specific
funds will be determined and the performance of each of them evaluated. In the
end of this chapter the findings will be compared to traditional measures of
performance and its influence on rankings illustrated.
In Chapter 5 I will conclude the findings of this work and critically evaluate the
initially addressed question, whether Sharpe's portfolio evaluation model is a
good and useful model in assessing a portfolio's performance based on evidence
from Austrian and US investment funds.4
2. Traditional measures of portfolio performance
evaluation and its implications.
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
26/141
2.1. Fundamentals
The traditional evaluation of investment management is based on a few key
concepts. In many cases the framework therefore is provided by the CAPM. In
some other cases it is the risk return relationship of an individual portfolio, its total
risk, that provides the environment for portfolio performance evaluation. On this
basis the essential concepts will be explained in this chapter, as they will be
indirectly relevant in applying and explaining some investment management
evaluation tools.
2.1.1. The Concept of Efficient Markets
The efficient market concept assumes that all investors have free access to
currently available information about the future. All investors are capable of
processing the information as well as adjusting their holdings according to the
information appropriately.
1
This concept guarantees that security prices fully
reflect the investment value of the security. This further implies that there exists
no possibility to generate abnormal return - in a systematic way - with generally
available information. Eugene Fama
2
classified the efficient market hypothesis
into 3 forms:
The weak form of market efficiency is defined by Fama as reflecting all
historical prices in the value of a security. According to this definition it should be
impossible for a technical analyst to systematically make profits by looking at
past prices.
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
27/141
1
SHARPE, ALEXANDER, BAILEY (1998), p. 93
2
FAMA (1970), p. 383 - 4175
The semi-strong form of market efficiency is defined as incorporating all
publicly available information. This is the form currently assumed to hold,
although there is a discussion if maybe only the weak form of market efficiency
may hold.
The strong form of market efficiency is defined as including all publicly and
privately available information. If this form of market efficiency held true one
could in no circumstances make abnormal profits by using either of the three
above mentioned sources of information.
Market efficiency is of importance to CAPM, because one of its underlying
assumptions is the competitive investor. This means that prices of securities are
in equilibrium and the expected security return tomorrow based on the
information today will be zero. Security price changes are assumed to follow a
random walk, as positive "surprises" are assumed to be as likely as negative
"surprises". If a pattern can be found to detect mispriced securities on a
systematic basis, it would mean that returns are not random walk any more and
that CAPM would not hold and therefore evaluation measures based on CAPM
would be inaccurate.
The paradox that arises with the efficient markets hypothesis is that if there aren't
investors that do not believe in the efficient market hypothesis, efficient markets
can not exist. If information is free for all participants in the market than none of
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
28/141
the participants has an incentive to gather information. But if no one gathers
information, the market price can not reflect the information. This problem can be
overcome if the cost of gathering information (supporting a squad of analysts) is
the same as the excess return generated through their analysis.
3
The short
discussion above indicated the importance of efficient markets on portfolio
management and in the same way on its evaluation.
3
SHARPE, ALEXANDER, BAILEY (1998), p. 966
2.1.2. Return and Risk as Determinants of the Market
Return can be defined as the rate of change in the value of an asset in a defined
time interval. The mean return, which is interesting if one looks at the prices of an
investment at the beginning and the end of the investment horizon, covers
several time periods and can be measured geometrically or arithmetically. Using
geometric mean calculation is preferable when the "calculation basis" is changing
and has the additional advantage of being additive in every case. Arithmetic
mean calculation is useful when the "calculation basis" remains constant during
the observation period. Arithmetic mean computation returns the average
increase in wealth of a constant investment and does not regard reinvestments of
its proceeds. When analyzing financial time series the basis often varies and
proceeds are reinvested and thus making geometrical mean calculation more
suitable.
Risk is the uncertainty in what a security price - and in consequence the return -
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
29/141
will be at a certain point in the future. Another term would be volatility. Volatility is
equal to the statistical measure of standard deviation. Generally one uses
historical volatility when introducing risk into a financial model. There is also an
alternative way to determine volatility - calculating it implicitly by using the BlackScholesFormula.
4
The Chicago board of trade provides several implied volatility
indexes for different commodity futures and options. This should help market
participants formulating their trading strategies.
The entire CAPM universe is described by risk and return where risk ischaracterized through variance. Through different combinations of risk and
return, the combination of securities with different risk - return characteristics, an
investor can reach every point on the security market line.
5
These two
determinants are positively correlated in the CAPM-world. The more risk one
takes the more "reward" he should expect. The linear relationship between
systematic risk and return is at the core of the CAPM. The graph on the next
4
HULL (1997), p. 246
5
REILLY, BROWN (1997), p. 247
page shows the relationship between risk-return and the derivation of the security
market line. The formula for the CAPM is:
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
30/141
j f
[ M
] f j
E(r ) = r + E(r ) r
E(rj
) = Average expected return of security (j)
r(f) = Average risk free rate (f)
E(rM) = Average return of the market (m)
(j ) = Sensitivity of the expected return of security (j) to changes in the expected
return of the market (m)
Figure 1: Capital Market Line, Security Market Line and the linear risk return relationship
8
The relationship between beta and the expected return is known as the SML.
The slope of the line is given by (Rm-Rf), in other words the units of return over
the risk-free rate per unit of systematic risk.
This linear relationship shows that an investor can increase his expected return
by increasing the risk as according to CAPM securities with higher risk must have
a higher return in order to compensate the investor for the risk. This goes along
with the risk aversion assumption put forth in the CAPM. The question of utility
functions of investors will not be treated here but it should be mentioned that
investors are assumed to have convex indifference curves. This means that for
the more risk they take they demand an even higher return.
6
(The marginal rate
of substitution, return for risk, increases as risk increases.)
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
31/141
Another important outcome of CAPM for the risk return relationship is that the
risk for which the investor can demand to be rewarded is the systematic risk of a
security as the unsystematic risk can be diversified away. This systematic risk is
reflected in a securities beta i.e. a securities co-movements with the market. The
beta reflects the systematic risk for which the investor can expected to be
rewarded for through return. Questions concerning the validity and the testability
of CAPM shall not be addressed in this work as they are of minor importance to
the central object of this work - the evaluation of portfolio management through
Sharpes' asset allocation and style analysis framework.
2.2. Portfolio Management
Portfolio management or in other words investment management is the process
by which money is managed.
7
The way portfolios are managed has severely
changed over the last 100 years. Traditionally portfolio management was strongly
based on fundamental analysis of securities or assets which were to be included
6
FISCHER (1996), p. 40 - 43
7
SHARPE, ALEXANDER, BAILEY (1998), p. 7929
in the portfolio.
8
Fundamental analysis researches the capabilities of a company
to generate future cash flows. This system was by far not as elaborate in terms of
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
32/141
mathematical analysis as it is performed in modern portfolio management. Also
the belief in the possibility of "beating the market" had more acceptance than
today. With the tremendous rise in the US equity market in the nineties the issue
of beating the index (e.g. S&P 500) has become more and more difficult.
9
The
controversy over the possibility to outperform the market through active portfolio
management has been reinforced.
2.2.1. Active Portfolio Management
Active portfolio management aims to beat an index by detecting securities that
are under-priced. Securities are under-priced to a certain investor who takes an
active position because his view about the future, his forecast of the securities
price in the future, differs from that of the market. This in turn implies that an
investor or portfolio manager of this sort disregards the conclusion of CAPM that
securities are priced accurately. Active portfolio management is only worthwhile if
the additional return realized through active management is higher than the cost
of maintaining the necessary staff. Costs incurred through active management
are manager fees, analyst reimbursement and higher turnover of securities held
in the portfolio. Manager fees are typically in a range from 0.2 - 1.5 % of the
assets under management.
10
Another cost an active fund is more prone of is the
potentially higher turnover of investment managers who, if not reaching their
predetermined returns, are fired quickly. Different styles and beliefs of different
managers will cause (conditioned by high "manager turnover) additional turnover
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
33/141
cost. The cost of turnover depends on the size of the trade and the liquidity of a
title.
8
comp. GRAHAM (1949)
9
SORENSON, MILLER, SAMAK (1998), p. 18
10
SORENSON, MILLER, SAMAK (1998), p 1810
Size of Trade
Number of $100 $300 $500
Portfolio Universe Stocks Million MillionMillion
Salornon Smith Barney large-cap /growth 50 36 bps 53 bps 64 bps
Salomon Smith Barney large-cap/value 50 26 37 44
Salomon Smith Barney small-cap /growth 50 131 196 246
Salomon Smith Barney small-cap /value 50 113 183 239
S&P large-cap /growth 162 27 38 45
S&P large-cap/value 338 27 34 44
S&P small-cap /growth 234 136 187 226
S&P small-cap /value 366 132 189 234
Note: Costs estimated at a point in time using Salomon Smith Barney's impact-cost model.
Figure 2: Typical turnover cost for different trade sizes and different asset classes
Active managers can be categorized in three groups: market timers, sector
selectors and security selectors.
Market timers change the beta of their portfolio according to their forecast on how
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
34/141
the market will do.
11
Market timers will increase the beta on their portfolio above
the beta of the market portfolio if their forecast is bullish. Securities with a higher
beta than the market will result in the higher appreciation of the specific security
than the appreciation of the market. The reverse will be true if their forecast is
bearish. There were multiple tests on market timing ability. Treynor and Mazuy
conducted the first study on market timing.
12
They found that the management of
mutual funds did not exhibit any market timing ability.
11
ELTON, GRUBER (1992), p. 708
12
TREYNOR , MAZUY (1966), p. 131 - 13611
Figure 3: Characteristic line for a mutual fund that has outguessed the market.
Mutual fund managers with market timing ability show above than average
performance through detecting when the market will be bullish and when it will be
bearish. This is essentially what the graph above shows.
Further studies on market timing abilities of mutual fund managers were
conducted, showing little evidence of successful market timing.
13
Sector Selectors increase their exposure to a certain sector when they believe it
will perform above average in the future and decrease their exposure to a sector
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
35/141
when their belief is that it will under-perform. Sectors can be classified by
industries, products, or particular perceived characteristics like size, cyclical,
growth etc. The sector selection idea is very prominent in the investment
industry. Investment managers often specialize in sectors. The investor in turn
can choose from different "specialists" and from a portfolio of managers that he
13
IPPOLITO, (1993), p. 4612
considers most appropriate for his investment strategy. Sector selection
additionally exerts influence on the later on of discussed style analysis.
The third type of active manager is the security selector. Security selection is the
most traditional form of active portfolio management. By security selection the
investment manager tries to identify securities with higher expected returns than
suggested by the market. By identifying and getting exposure to them the active
manager will realize a higher than market performance if his judgment was right.
Security selection, like all active strategies, neglects the concept of equilibrium
prices on CAPM. There are numerous tests on the ability of active managers to
detect mispriced securities and through that generating excess returns. Excess
return is the return realized above the one with the same risk predicted by
CAPM. An early and notable study on the performance of mutual funds was
conducted by William Sharpe.
14
He concluded that mutual funds did not show
better performance than the Dow Jones Industrial Index and that corollary mutual
fund managers did not have stock picking ability. Jensen
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
36/141
15
also conducted a
study on mutual fund performance and confirmed the findings of Sharpe. There
was positive evidence found in favor of stock picking by Grinblatt & Titman.
16
After all it remains still an open issue if stock-picking ability exists.
2.2.2. Passive Portfolio Management
Index funds have seen a remarkable rise in the past five to seven years.
17
Elton
& Gruber also aknowledged: "One of the major companies evaluating manager
performance estimated in 1989 that during the past 20 years the S&P 500 has
outperformed more than 80 % of active managers."
18
Portfolio managers who try to replicate the return pattern of a predetermined
index are said to pursue passive portfolio management. The simplest way to
14
SHARPE, (1966), p. 119 - 138
15
JENSEN, (1968), p. 389 - 416
16
GRINBLATT, TITMAN (1989), p. 393 - 416
17
SORENSON, MILLER, SAMAK (1998), p. 18
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
37/141
18
ELTON, GRUBER (1992), p. 70513
follow passive portfolio management is to exactly replicate the index or
benchmark. Replicating an index can be very tricky and expensive. Replicating
the S&P 500 may still be feasible without incurring excessive cost but replicating
a Russell 3000 may almost be unfeasible due to excessive turnover cost and
little liquidity in small stocks. This highlights the tradeoff between accuracy and
turnover cost in duplicating an index for a passively managed portfolio.
There are two alternative ways to reproduce an index. By finding a
predetermined number of stock which best tracked the index historically or by
finding a set of stocks that represents all the industry segments in the portfolio in
the same portion as present in the index. A mixture of the three approaches may
very well be found as well as the benefits of the different methods can be
realized. The main benefit of exactly replicating the index is that the tracking error
will be relatively low compared to the other measures. In that sense an index
fund may hold exactly the same weight of large stocks in its fund as represented
in the index. Applying one of the alternative measures presented above,
therefore realizing the benefit of lower transaction cost can solve the problem
with small and illiquid stocks. Cash holdings caused by dividend payments and
cash inflows from investors will also make it harder to track an index due to the
different risk-return characteristics of cash compared to the index.
2.2.3. What Index to use
Portfolio performance evaluation traditionally involves the application of a
benchmark or index to which the portfolios return is compared. If indices are
used as benchmarks the method used to measure the market return needs to be
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
38/141
considered. Friend, Blume and Crockett found in their study that the average
performance of an equally weighted NYSE index differed from the one obtained
when applying a value weighted NYSE index by 2.5 %. The equal weighed
NYSE index yielded 12.4 % whereas the value weighed index yielded only 9.9 %
on average.
19
The difference may be attributed to the size effect. The size effect
19
FRIEND, BLUME, CROCKETT (1970) in IPPOLITO (1993), p. 4414
or small firm effect states that small firms stocks tend to have higher returns than
large firms.
There are three commonly used weighting methods in computing a market index
the price weighting method, the value weighting method and the equal weighting
method.
A price-weighted index is computed by summing up the prices of the securities
that are included in the index and dividing them by a constant. This returns the
average price of the securities at time t and when divided by the average price at
time 0 and added to the base of the index, it will return the value of the index at
time t. In the case of stock splits, the constant is adjusted in order to reflect the
price changes due to the stock split. The prestigious Dow Jones Industrial
Average is a price weighted index.
The value weighting method is the most common. Indices like the S&P 500,
Russell 1000, Russell 3000 and the ATX are value weighted. In calculating the
index one simply takes the market value of the securities included in the index at
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
39/141
time t and divides it by the market value of the securities at time 0 and adds the
value to the index base at time 0.
An equal-weighted index is calculated by multiplying the level of the index at time
t-1 with the price relatives at time t. The price relatives are calculated by dividing
the price of every single security in the index at time t by its price at t-1 and then
dividing the sum these price relatives by the number of securities included
herein. An example for an equal weighted index would be the Value Line
Composite Index.
When evaluating the performance of a portfolio and applying an index as the
benchmark one has to make sure that the return measurement method for the
index is the same as for the portfolio under evaluation. Using general market
indices as benchmarks has been criticized as being to general and not
representative for a manager's "habitat" or his style. More elaborate and15
specialized measurements of portfolio performance have been developed. They
will be introduced in the following chapters.
2.3. Traditional Measures of Performance
The foundation of these performance measures is that the return of a portfolio is
adjusted for the risk it bore over the time period under consideration. Traditionally
the adjustment was either based on the security-market-line or on the capital
market line. The security market line based performance measures are Jensen's
Alpha and the Treynor Index. Traditional capital market line based measures of
portfolio performance are the Sharpe Ratio and the RAP (Risk-Adjusted
Performance) Ratio proposed by Modigliani. Morningstar's RAR (Risk-Adjusted
Rating) falls also into this category.
2.3.1. Security-Market-Line based performance measures
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
40/141
In 1965 Jack L. Treynor
20
introduced a risk-adjusted measure to rank mutual fund
performance. As a measure of risk he used the beta. Beta reflects the nondiversifiable portion ofa securities total risk and can be calculated from CAPM.
The equation is the following:
( )
( ) ( )
( )
pR p R f
TR p
=
R(p) = Average return of portfolio (p)
R(f) = Average risk free rate (f)
(p) = Sensitivity of portfolio (p) to market return changes
20
TREYNOR (1965), p. 63 - 7516
The Treynor Ratio gives the slope of the security market line. The higher the TR
the better a portfolio will rank. That can be seen if one introduces indifference
curves of a risk-averse investor. Through a greater TR higher indifference curves
of a risk-averse investor can be reached and the greater will be his utility.
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
41/141
Beta
Return
r2
r1
2 1
SML1
SML2
rf
Beta
Return
r2
r1
2 1
SML1
SML2
rf
Indifference Curves
Figure 4: Relationship between TR and an investors' utility.
The second measure that uses the CAPM as the underlying concept is Jensen's
Alpha.
21
Jensen's Alpha measures the positive or negative abnormal return
relatively to the return predicted by the CAPM. With the subsequent formula the
value for Alpha can be calculated.
( p) = R( p) R( f ) + R(m) [ ] ( ) R( f ) ( p)
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
42/141
R(p) = Average return of portfolio (p)
R(f) = Average risk free rate (f)
R(m) = Average return of the market (m)
(p) = Sensitivity of portfolio (p) to market return changes
21
JENSEN (1968), p. 389 - 41617
Alpha represents the return differential between the return of the portfolio and the
return predicted by the CAPM adjusted for the systematic risk of portfolio (p). The
following table shows the popularity of Jensen's Alpha.
1971-75 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 Total
Sharpe 54 63 38 36 191
Jensen 51 81 36 52 220
Total 105 144 74 88 411
Treynor-Mazuy 6 10 8 10 34
Friend II 37 31 7 5 80
Contradictory Studies* 0 11 11 21 43
Grossman-Stiglitz 0 0 78 117 195
Source: Institute for Scientific Informaion, Social Science Citation Index , annual.
*Studies by McDonald (1974), Mains (1977), Kon and Jen (1979) and Shawky (1982)
Figure 5: Citations for the SR and the Jensen Alpha and some additional studies.
The Treynor Ratio and Jensen's Alpha are related to the systematic risk
component implied by the Sharpe-Lintner Model. There are 2 problems with the
application of these two performance measures:
1) Is the systematic risk the appropriate risk measure for an investor?
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
43/141
2) Does the Sharpe-Lintner Model regard all relevant information in predicting a
securities or portfolios expected return?
The answer to question 1 will depend on whether the investor holds a single
security or a portfolio of securities. In the case that he holds a portfolio of
securities the systematic risk may well be the relevant measure of risk. In the
case of holding a single security the total risk of the specific security will be the
just measure of risk.
22
The second question will be addressed in point 2.4.
22
SARPE, ALEXANDER, BAILEY (1998), p. 83518
2.3.2. Capital-market-line based performance measures
When risk-adjusted portfolio performance measures are grounded on the capitalmarket-line, therisk adjustment is accomplished by using the total risk of a
portfolio or security. The main difference to security-market-line based
performance measures is, that a capital asset pricing model is not required and
thus alleviating the problem of making assumptions concerning a certain model.
The sole measure of risk is total risk which is equivalent to the statistical measure
of standard deviation or . The two traditional measures based thereon are the
Sharpe Ratio and the RAP (Risk-Adjusted Performance) measure.
Another popular measure to rank investment funds in the United States is
Morningstar's RAR (Risk-Adjusted Rating) and as it is also based on a portfolios
total risk adjustment although using a special procedure to adjust for it, it will be
briefly described too.
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
44/141
The Sharpe Ratio
23
essentially measures a portfolios average performance over
the risk-free rate per unit of total risk of the portfolio.
( )
( ) ( )
( )
p
R p R f
SR p
=
R(p) = Average return of portfolio (p)
R(f) = Average risk free rate (f)
(p) = Ex post standard deviation of portfolio (p)
The Sharpe Ratio's simplicity may be of major appeal to ranking agencies. Even
the Austrian periodical "trendINVEST"
24
reports the SR although the funds are
not ranked according to it. Modigliani & Modigliani mention it to be "probably the
23
SHARPE (1966), p. 119 - 138
24
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
45/141
trendINVEST (2000), p. 56 - 9019
most popular measure of risk-risk adjusted return"
25
Following SR the portfolio .
with the highest SR can be considered to be performing best.
Franco Modigliani and Leah Modigliani
26
propose a modified version of Sharpe's
measurement approach. They call the ratio they calculate RAP but it is also
referred to as M. In opposite to Sharpe who ranks funds according to the slope
of the capital market line, they lever or un-lever, depending if the sigma of the
portfolio is higher or lower than that of the market, the portfolios risk to equal the
market risk and present the resulting risk-adjusted return as the ranking variable.
This procedure produces the exact same ranking as obtained by applying the
Sharpe Ratio. They justify their approach with the argument that the average
investor who is not familiar with advanced finance techniques can easier
understand RAP. Analytically their approach is the following:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) *
( )
( )
( ) R p R f R f
p
m
RAP p = +
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
46/141
R(p) = Average return of portfolio (p)
R(f) = Average return of the risk-free rate (f)
(m) = Ex post standard deviation of market (m)
(p) = Ex post standard deviation of portfolio (p)
The relationship between SR and RAP can be shown to be the following:
RAP( p) = SR( p) * (m) + R( f )
The benefit of RAP is that it can be readily compared to the market index yield.
The portfolio with the highest value of RAP is corollary the best performing one.
25
MODIGLIANI, MODIGLIANI (1997), p. 51
26
MODIGLIANI, MODIGLIANI (1997), p. 45 - 5420
Morningstar's risk-adjusted rating (RAR) is one of the most popular ratings in the
United States.
27
In 1995 90 % of new money invested in stock funds went into
four-star or five-star ratings awarded by Morningstar. I will not pursue the exact
procedure and its implications on traditional concepts in this project as it is very
complex and lengthy and therefore may be the subject of another work. Rather I
would like to mention the paper
28
in which Sharpe analyzed RAR and summarize
his findings.
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
47/141
Sharpe compared the ranking of mutual funds calculated on the basis of RAR to
the ranking obtained through calculating the excess return sharpe ratio. The
excess return sharpe ratio takes the return of a portfolio over the risk free rate
and divides it by the standard deviation differential between the risk-free rate's
standard deviation and the portfolio's standard deviation. Sharpe finds that if
funds have good average historical returns the excess return sharpe ratio ERSR
and RAR are closely related with a correlation coefficient of 0.985.
Figure 6: Correlation between Morningstar's RAR and Excess Return Sharpe Ratio (ERSR).
27
SHARPE (1998), p. 21
28
SHARPE (1998), p. 21 - 3321
He further concludes that RAR should be view as an attempt to determine a best
single fund and assumes that the investor holds only one single fund. The
findings lay out that also in the case of poor overall market performance RAR is
appropriate in determining which fund is best performing assuming an investor
holds only one fund. The weakness Sharpe specifies is that RAR fails to capture
an important property of investors preferences - the desire for portfolios that are
neither the least nor most risky available. He finally concludes that if the only
choice for a measure by which to select funds is between RAR and ERSR, the
evidence favors selecting the ERSR but he acknowledges also that a more
appropriate choice would be to use either a different measure or none at all.
2.4. Weaknesses of Traditional Measures of Performance
The main problem with traditional performance measures is the usage of a
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
48/141
benchmark, especially in estimating the security market line. Whenever the
security market line is incorrectly estimated that means the market index is
inefficient, it can have severe impacts on the outcomes of the Treynor Index and
Jensen's Alpha. The incorrect positioning of the security market line can have
two reasons, neither of which is related to statistical variation:
29
1) The true risk free return is different from the risk-free return used in the
model. This problem can be caused by the circumstance that the investor
under consideration can not borrow at the assumed risk-free rate used in the
model. This problem is not only limited to the Treynor Index and Jensen
Alpha as will be explained later on.
29
ROLL (1980), p. 5 - 1222
2) A non-optimized market index has been employed that means an index
whose expected return differs from the expected return of the optimized index
appropriate for the true risk-free return.
These factors cause the security market line to be positioned incorrectly as
shown below.
Figure 7: Possible performance measurement errors due to mis-specification of the benchmark.
On the basis of these evaluations it can be seen that the Teynor Ratio and
Jensen's Alpha rate funds take on more risk relatively better compared to the
market. Lehmann and Modest
30
concluded further that the application of a
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
49/141
specific factor model has major implication on the performance measures yielded
by benchmarks thus fueling the discussion over what is a proper model to
describe return characteristics of securities. At this point it becomes clear that the
relevant problem in determining performance of mutual funds is finding and
providing the correct input measures for the model and assumptions in models
about risk reflection parameters may often not be as clear cut as seeming.
The problem of defining the appropriate risk-free rate has also implications on the
Sharpe Ratio and therefore on RAP. The Sharpe ratio assesses performance in
assuming a linear relationship between total risk and excess return over the risk-
30
LEHMANN, MODEST (1987), p. 233 - 26523
free rate. If an investor has to pay higher interest rates the higher the presumed
level of risk than that will also lead to a misclassification of funds as his
investment universe compared to the benchmark differs.24
3. Alternative Measures of Portfolio Performance
Traditional measures have shown several points of concern when applied in
performance evaluation. In this chapter I will introduce alternative approaches to
determine a portfolios required return.
3.1. The Fama and French three & five Factor APT-Model
The Fama and French
31
model is built on the Arbitrage Pricing Theory Model
developed by Ross in 1976.
32
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
50/141
It states that in an equilibrium market the arbitrage
portfolio must be zero or in other words an arbitrage portfolio can not exist. If this
condition did not hold market participants would sell assets whose expected
return is lower than implied by the detected common risk factors of the market
and buy assets whose expected return is higher than implied by the risk factors.
This process of arbitrage ensures equilibrium market as market participants
engage in it until there is no further possibility in making a riskless profit through
trading one security for another.
On this basis Fama and French tried to define the factors which are relevant in
predicting a securities expected return. The equation to measure a security's
expected return is given below:
i ik k
R(i) = 0
+ 1
F1
+ ... + F
R(i) = Return on security (i)
(0) = The risk-free rate or zero beta portfolio
(ik ) = Factor sensitivity of security (i) to factor (k)
F(1-k) = Factors that explain a security's return
31
FAMA, FRENCH (1993), p. 3 - 56
32
ROSS (1976), p. 341 - 36025
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
51/141
Through regression analysis the factors responsible for a security's variation can
be detected. One setback of APT-model is that the model does not specify the
specific risk factors. Fama and French detected three risk factors for stock
portfolios and two risk factors for bond portfolios. The factors for stock portfolios
are
The excess return of the market over the risk free rate
The size of the firm
The book-to-market equity ratio
and for bond portfolios they are
The time to maturity
The default risk premium
Fama and French propose their findings as being useful for portfolio performance
evaluation but did not pursue it per se.
Lehmann and Modest
33
conducted an extensive study on different benchmarks.
They use the CRSP
34
equally weighted and value weighted returns to construct
the different benchmarks. The number of securities they used in the construction
of their benchmarks was 750. The fund returns were taken from 130 mutual
funds over the period of 15 years that is from January 1968 to December 1982.
They compared the Sharpe-Lintner Model's excess return predictions with the
APT-Model's excess return predictions over the above mentioned time period.
They found that the Sharpe-Lintner model produces alphas that are less negative
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
52/141
and less statistically significant than the APT-Models alpha predictions. See table
below.
33
LEHMANN MODEST (1987), p. 233 - 265
34
University of Chicago Center for Research in Security Prices (It's files contain complete data onNYSE
listed stocks since July 1962)26
Values in % except for t-value(absolute)
APT-M Alpha S-L-M
Alpha
Difference APT - SLM Alpha
VWER EWAR VWER
Jan. 1968 to Dec. 1972 -4,85 -1,41 -0,15 -3,44
(Standard deviation) 3,86 4,37 4,23
(t-value) 14,33 3,68 0,40
Jan. 1973 to Dec. 1977 -5,45 -0,79 -6,32 -4,66
(Standard deviation) 3,6 4,54 4,91
(t-value) 17,26 1,98 14,68
Jan. 1978 to Dec. 1982 -3,85 1,4 -3,19 -5,25
(Standard deviation) 3,3 3,98 3,27
(t-value) 13,30 4,01 11,12
Figure 8: S-L-M is the Sharpe-Lintner-Model. VWER denotes the excess return when using the
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
53/141
value weighted CRSP and EWAR denotes the excess return when using the equally weighted
CRSP as the benchmark. I calculated the t-value the following: (i)/((i)/130). 130 is the
number of funds they used in their study.
They found that the Sharpe-Lintner model and APT benchmarks "differ more
than they agree on the Treynor-Black benchmarks over all three periods"
35
(they
split the 15 year period in three 5-year periods). On the application of Jensen's
Alpha on the Sharpe-Lintner model benchmark they conclude that this is more
similar to no risk-adjustment at all than it is to the application on the APT
benchmark. The typical rank difference between the APT based Jensen Alpha
and no risk-adjustment was twenty two, nineteen and forty seven positions for
the three 5-year periods. In contrast, the typical rank difference between the
Sharpe-Lintner model based Jensen Alpha and no risk-adjustment are seven,
seven and twelve positions for the three 5-year periods. They conclude that
inferences about mutual fund performance are dramatically affected by the
choice between an APT model benchmark and a Sharpe-Lintner model
benchmark.
Their tests do not say anything about the basic validity of the Sharpe-Lintner
model and the APT mode. The explanation they give for the significant negative
abnormal returns is that their benchmarks, the Sharpe-Lintner model benchmark
35
LEHMANN, MODEST (1987), p. 26027
and the APT model benchmark, are possibly not mean-variance efficient. They
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
54/141
further acknowledge that the APT model could explain anomalies involving
dividend yield and own variance but could not account for size-effect.
Beyond that they tested different numbers of factors in the APT-Model and found,
that between five, ten and fifteen factors the result-changes were very small. This
can be considered as support for the Fama-French APT approach using five
factors to represent market risk.
Kothari and Warner
36
conducted another study that shows the difference in
Jensen Alphas when applying the Sharpe-Lintner model and APT-Model in
defining the benchmark. Kothari and Warner built a 50 stock portfolio through
randomly drawing from the population of the NYSE/AMEX securities. They
repeated this procedure at the beginning of every month over 336 month that is
from January 1964 to December 1991. The portfolio's returns were than tracked
for 36 months. This formed the basis for their benchmark. They found that when
they compared the performance of their randomly selected stock portfolios to a
Sharpe-Lintner model benchmark their random portfolios showed a Jensen Alpha
of over 3 %. The Fama-French APT model performed better as setting a
benchmark by which it only had a Jensen Alpha of -1.2 %. These empirical
results are very similar to the ones found in Lehmann and Modest as their
average performance difference was (3.44% + 4.66% + 5.25%)/3 that is -4.45 %
(APT-M minus SL-M). They conclude that standard mutual fund performance
measures are unreliable and mis-specified.
3.2. The Grinblatt & Titman no Benchmark Model
The encountered problems with benchmarks have led to alternative approaches
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
55/141
to determine a portfolio's performance. Grinblatt and Titman
37
pursued one
36
KOTHARI, WARNER (1997), p. 1 - 44
37
GRINBLATT, TITMAN (1993), p. 47 - 6828
where no benchmark is needed and thus alleviating several problems associated
with the use of a benchmark. Their analysis in turn is only applicable if the
evaluator has knowledge about the exact composition of the portfolio under
evaluation. This is in strong contrast to the portfolio performance measures
introduced earlier since they allowed portfolio performance evaluation without
apprehending a portfolio's composition.
The underlying concept of their measure, they call it the "Portfolio Change
Measure"
38
, is that an informed investor will hold securities that will have a higher
return when they are included in the portfolio than when they are not included.
Further, an informed investor will tilt his portfolio weights towards assets with
expected returns higher than average and away from assets with expected
returns lower than average. This will cause a positive covariance between
portfolio weights and the return of a security for an informed investor whereas it
should not be any covariance between portfolio weights and the return of an
asset for the uninformed investor. The way Grinblatt and Titman propose to
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
56/141
measure this covariance is the following:
PCM [R w( ) w ] T
N
j
T
t
jt jt j t k
/
1 1
,
= =
=
PCM = Portfolio Change Measure
R(jt) = Return of security (j) at time (t)
w(jt) = Weight of security (j) at time (t)
w(j,t-k) = Weight of security (j) at time (t - k)
T = Number of time periods under consideration
38
GRINBLATT, TITMAN (1993), p. 5129
Under the null hypothesis of no superior information, both current and past
weights are uncorrelated with current returns and thus the PCM measure should
be indistinguishable from zero.
Potential problems with this measure can arise from the violation of the key
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
57/141
assumption to this concept namely that mean returns of assets are constant over
the sample period. Portfolios that specialize in takeover targets or bankrupt
stocks will realize positive performance with this measure because they include
assets whose expected returns are higher than usual. The same holds true for
managers who are exploiting serial correlation in stock returns. One must also
keep in mind that this measure can only be applied if the evaluator knows the
exact composition of the portfolio over time, which may be the cause for its
sparse use.
Despite that the PCM approach overcomes the problems of measuring the SML
as described in 2.4.
Grinblatt and Titman applied the PCM measure on 155 mutual funds over a 10-
year time period from December 31
st
1974 to December 31
st
1984 on quarterly
holdings. On this basis they formed two portfolios, the first lagged one quarter
and the second lagged 4 quarters. These differenced weights where then
multiplied by CRSP monthly stock returns where the weights were held constant
over 3 months and therefore a time series of monthly portfolio returns was
created for the one quarter and four quarter lagged PCM. For example with the
one quarter lag, the April, May and June returns were multiplied by the difference
between the portfolio weights held on March 31
st
1975 and the weights held on
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
58/141
December 31
st
1974 and so forth.
They found that for the one quarter lagged PCM measure the value was
statistically indistinguishable from zero which indicates that informed investors
can not realize the benefits of their information in one quarter. The 4 quarters
lagged PCM showed statistically significant abnormal returns indicating that
investors do have superior information and that it is revealed with a one-year lag.30
The average abnormal returns of the entire sample are about 2% per year. The
table below shows the abnormal returns for different mutual fund categories and
its level of significance.
Performance Measure
Lagged 1 Quarter Lagged 4 Quarters
No. of Mean Wilcoxon Mean Wilcoxon
Funds Performance t-statistic
a
Probability
b
Performance t_statistic
a
Probability
b
Total sample 155.37 1.47 .233 2.04 3.16* .004
Aggressive growth funds 45 . 39 .98 .475 3.40 3.55* .004
Balanced funds 10 -.48 -1.87 .057 .01 .03 .902
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
59/141
Growth funds 44 .66 2.01* .017 2.41 2.94* .009
Growth-income funds 37 .14 .61 .095 .83 1.75 .107
Income funds 13 .54 1.54 .475 1.33 2.64* .002
Special purpose funds 3 -.10 -.16 .233 .21 .19 .711
Venture capital/special
situation funds 3 1.26 1.07 .812 2.661.43 .035
Fl-statistic (Abnormal performance in every category = 0)
F = 3.1438*
Prob > F = .0028c
F2-statistic (Abnormal performance across categories is equal)
F ~ 3.6590*
Prob > F = .0014
c
a) The mean over all months divided by the standard error of mean.
b) The probability that the absolute value of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank z-statistic isgreater than the absolute value of the
observed z-statistic under the null.
c) The probability of the F-statistic being greater than the outcome shown, tinder the nullhypothesis (Type 1 error).
*) Type I error < .05.
Figure 9: Performance estimates for 155 surviving mutual funds grouped by investment objective
categories (Return in % per year).
Grinblatt and Titman report that the PCM measure results in smaller standard
errors than approaches that use the security market line. They attribute the
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
60/141
increased estimation precision to the higher correlation between their
"benchmark" (the current returns of a funds historical portfolio) and the returns of
the current portfolio than any traditional benchmark portfolio.31
Their final conclusion was that mutual funds on average achieved positive
abnormal performance during the 10-year period under estimation but that after
considering transaction cost and fund expenses the net abnormal average
performance is close to zero. They further conclude that traditional measures of
performance add noise to true performance and thus bias the measure towards
finding no performance. This is because outside evaluators are not measuring
the true performance of a fund but only the performance of some hypothetical
portfolio that is correlated with the fund instead of evaluating holdings that
correspond to each transaction. Consequently they found that managers who
performed well in one period were likely to do so in a following period thus
inferring manager skill.
3.3. The Sharpe Approach: Asset Allocation and Style
Analysis
The portfolio evaluation models described in this master's thesis does not require
the knowledge of the exact composition of the portfolio except for the Grinblatt
and Titman model described in 3.2. For an outside evaluator this is of practical
importance as it is the condition for making portfolio evaluation feasible. The
inconvenience is that the resulting portfolio measures are of general nature. In
light of that Sharpe
39
developed an "evaluation system" that reflects a higher
degree of specification and regards an investment manager's universe also
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
61/141
labeled his specific "investment style". He argued that it would be more adequate
to measure an investment manager by the asset class returns he invested in
instead of comparing his return to a universal benchmark. This idea of "grouping"
funds was put forth first time by LeClair
40
Brinson, Hood and Beebower .
41
found
in their study in 1986 that the staggering part of the portfolio performance of 91
pension plans came from asset allocation. In 1988 Sharpe introduced a method
39
SHARPE (1992), p. 7 - 19
40
LeCLAIR (1974), p. 220 - 224
41
BRINSON, HOOD, BEEBOWER (1986), p. 39 - 4432
to determine a funds "effective asset mix"
42
through constrained regression
analysis and thereon he grounded his renowned paper of 1992 titled "Asset
Allocation: Management Style and Performance Measurement".
3.3.1. Determinants of the Model
The main input in Sharpe's asset class factor model is the single asset classes.
Sharpe defined certain standards that an asset class should meet in order to
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
62/141
assure the usefulness of the model. This is not found to be strictly necessary, but
it is desirable for the usefulness of the model. The qualitative exigencies on an
asset class are
1. Mutually exclusive
2. Exhaustive
3. Have returns that differ
The asset class should represent a capitalization-weighted portfolio of securities
in order to mimic return variation created by different weights of asset classes in
the returns of the portfolio under evaluation. Sharpe pointed out further that asset
class returns should either have low correlations with one another or, in cases
where correlations are high, different standard deviations.
43
If independent
variables are highly correlated, as two indexes representing different approaches
to investing with the same asset class, the reliability of the estimated coefficients
in meaningfully describing the underlying relationship is very much in doubt.
44
The problem of multicollinearity can reduce the explanatory power of a model
and therefore the asset classes should show low correlation, possibly none,
following Sharpe's qualification mentioned above.
The number of asset classes Sharpe uses in his proposed model is twelve. Each
of the twelve indexes is supposed to represent a strategy that could be followed
42
SHARPE (1988), p. 59 - 69
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
63/141
43
SHARPE (1992), p. 8
43
LOBOSCO, DiBARTOLOMEO (1997), p. 8033
passively and at low cost using an index fund. The possibility of investing in the
index at low cost is of importance as this is the alternative the manager is
measured against. If the benchmark we apply is not a feasible investment
alternative it will be a biased measure. The twelve classes he uses are
1. T-Bills Cash equivalents with less than 3 months to maturity. Index: Salomon
Brothers' 90-day Treasury Bill Index.
2. Intermediate-Term Government Bonds Government bonds with less than
10 years to maturity. Index: Lehman Brothers' Intermediate-Term Government
Bond Index
3. Long-Term Government Bonds Government bonds with more than 10
years to maturity. Index: Lehman Brothers' Long-Term Government Bond
Index
4. Corporate Bonds Corporate bonds with ratings at least Baa by Moody's or
BBB by Standard & Poor's. Index: Lehman Brothers' Corporate Bond Index
5. Mortgage Related Securities Mortgage-backed and related securities.
Index: Lehman Brothers' Mortgage-Backed Securities Index
6. Large-Capitalization Value Stocks Stocks in S&P 500 stock index with high
book-to-price ratios (50% of the stocks in the S&P 500 index). Index:
Sharpe/BARRA Value Stock Index
7. Large-Capitalization Growth Stocks Stocks in the S&P 500 stock index with
low book-to-price ratios (remaining 50% of the stocks in the S&P 500 index).
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
64/141
Index: Sharpe/BARRA Growth Stock Index
8. Medium-Capitalization Stocks Stocks in the top 80% of capitalization in the
US equity universe after the exclusion of stocks in the S&P 500 stock index.
Index: Sharpe/BARRA Medium Capitalization Stock Index
34
9. Small-Capitalization Stocks Stocks in the bottom 20% of capitalization in
the US equity universe after the exclusion of stocks in the S&P 500 stock
index. Index: Sharpe/BARRA Small Capitalization Stock Index
10. Non-US Bonds Bonds outside the US and Canada.
Index: Salomon Brothers' Non-US Government Bond Index
11. European Stocks European and non-Japanese Pacific Basin stocks.
Index: FTA Euro-Pacific Ex Japan Index
12. Japanese Stocks Index: FTA Japan Index
Every six months the equity categories are reclassified. The S&P 500 stocks are
reviewed and if the change in book-to-price ratios implies a change in the
classification, for example a stock that falls from the top 50% (relatively high
book-to-price ratio) into the bottom 50% (relatively low book-to-price ratio) than
the stock is regrouped. Non-S&P stocks, stocks in the medium-cap and smallcap class, areclassified in order that 80% of these stocks are in the medium-cap
class and 20% in the small-cap class. To avoid excessive turnover in the
composition of these indexes of relatively illiquid stocks and an associated high
cost for index tracking, any stock that has "recently crossed over the line"
45
a
relatively small distance is allowed to remain in its former index. A relatively small
8/22/2019 46610934 Evaluation of Portfolio Performance
65/141
distance is defined with 20% within the boundary value. The remaining eight
asset classes are self-explanatory all together the twelve asset classes were
constructed to cover the investment universe from which portfolio managers
chose their assets.
The explained variables will be the individual fund returns, which can be
observed in newspapers or bought from specialized research companies.
45
SHARPE (1992), p. 935
3.3.2. The Procedure
After asset classes have been defined and the desir