 |
AT
THE INTERSECTION OF INVESTMENT PROCESS, DATA AND TECHNOLOGY
|
|
|
MATERIALS
|
|
|
|
|
"A Case for Arithmetic Attribution"
, abstract of a paper published in the Winter, 2012/2013 issue of the Journal of Performance Measurement.
|
|
|
|
In the ongoing debate over the use of Arithmetic versus Geometric attribution methods, Mark David believes that short shrift has been given to the
Arithmetic view. Separating the concept of Management Effect from that of a full performance attribution methodology, he conducts a thorough, point-by-point
evaluation of both in light of recent contributions to the discussion. He finds, with regard to Management Effect, that both methods are useful and answer
different, meaningful questions about the performance of the manager. Yet, after demonstrating an attribution method that excels under all evaluation criteria –
including proportionality - he concludes without hesitation that arithmetic attribution is a more precise and powerful tool for measuring the effectiveness
of the manager’s investment process.
Download the associated spreadsheet.
|
|
|
|
"Bespoke Attribution: Illustrating the Manager's Story"
, abstract of a paper published in the Winter, 2009/2010 issue of the Journal of Performance Measurement.
|
|
|
|
It is a commonplace in discussions of performance attribution that the methodology should reflect the investment process it
purports to measure. Yet, in practice, we find managers have far more often implemented widely available “standard” methodologies
than not. The resultant attribution reveals a palpable and frustrating gap between the investment story that the manager is trying
to tell and the measures being used to illustrate it. In this paper, we explore recently implemented, real-world attribution
methods that demonstrate exceptions to this observation. We conclude by walking through a case study that illustrates techniques
for crafting an attribution methodology tailored to a specific investment process.
|
|
|
|
"Analyzing Performance of Global Portfolios"
, summary of an article published in the May/June 2010 issue of the Investments & Wealth Monitor, by the Investment Management Consultants Association.
|
|
|
|
Portfolio performance analysis – comprising both performance measurement and attribution – is an indispensable tool for the investment
manager. Appropriate performance analytics give the manager direct insight into and an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of
their investment process. Perhaps more importantly, they also provide a concise illustration to the client that explains what the
manager did to add value.
Managers of US-only portfolios who accept these basic tenets are very likely already to have in place a methodology and system for
analyzing performance. The question we address in this article is: Given a robust and operational platform for US-only performance
analysis, what is required to extend that platform to global portfolios, maintaining an equivalent level of analytic effectiveness?
|
|
|
|
"Practical Pointers for Implementing Transaction-based Performance Measurement"
, a
presentation delivered at the "Symposium on Measuring Performance & Risk" , hosted
by Financial
Research Associates , April 23-24, 2009.
|
|
|
|
Transaction-based performance measurement
is the ne plus ultra for accuracy in performance analytics. As many have observed, however,
its implementation is rarely straightforward or trouble-free. We highlight the pitfalls
that may befall the unwary, and present a framework for maximizing feasibility and minimizing
risk of a transaction-based performance initiative.
- Defining a simple and intuitive methodology
- Generalizing a model for all security types
- Segmentation (drill-down) and aggregation
- Dealing with accounting data idiosycracies
- Output data design
- Prototyping and testing for accuracy
- Preparing for attribution
|
|
|
|
"Alternate Attribution"
, a
presentation delivered at the "Crash
Course in Attribution" conference, hosted
by Financial
Research Associates , September 19-20, 2007.
|
|
|
|
Brinson & Fachler introduced their
framework over 20 years ago; it has since become
the single most implemented methodology for
performance attribution. More recently,
managers' efforts to differentiate their
investment products and processes from the pack
have motivated them to take advantage of
sophisticated models and tools. This evolution
has resulted in a large and diverse zoo of
proprietary investment processes that frequently
bear no resemblance whatsoever to "Sector
Allocation" and "Stock
Selection".
Attribution effects should measure the
effectiveness of individual elements of the
investment process. In this presentation, we
examine opportunities and challenges associated
with matching attribution to reflect proprietary
investment processes, including:
- Factor-based
attribution
- Risk-adjusted
attribution
- Liability-driven
benchmarks and attribution
- Strategy-based
attribution
- Decision-based
attribution
- Tailoring
an attribution methodology
|
|
|
|
"Transaction-based
Performance: A Framework for Evaluating
Measurement and Attribution Methodologies"
|
|
Published in the
Journal
of Performance Measurement
Spring, 2007; Volume 11, Number 3
|
|
|
|
In this paper, we lay out a set of
criteria for comparing and evaluating the
spectrum of performance methodologies from
“Monthly holdings-based” to “Capture 100%
of transaction activity”. In addition to
specifying the components that a complete
methodology should address, we offer a standard
of comparison in the form of a feasible
transaction-based methodology. By doing so, we
explicitly attempt to raise expectations of the
value and feasibility of transaction-based
performance.
|
|
|
Download the
spreadsheet
associated with this paper.
|
|
|
Download a
presentation
of this paper given at the World
Research Group's 2007 Performance
Attribution conference.
|
|
|
Download another
presentation,
this time with a Fixed Income slant and case
study, given at the World
Research Group's 2007 Fixed Income
Performance Attribution Forum.
|
|
|
|
"Sector-level Attribution
Effects with Compounded Notional Portfolios"
|
|
Published in the Journal
of Performance Measurement
Spring, 2006; Volume 10, Number 3
|
|
|
|
One of the drawbacks most commonly
cited in criticism of the arithmetic,
multi-period attribution linking method known as
“compounded notional portfolios” (CNP) or
“exact multi-period Brinson” is its lack of
allowance for linking attribution effects at the
sector level. This paper details an extension to
the CNP method for deriving and linking
sector-level effects that is simple, intuitive,
consistent with common industry practice and
precisely additive to the total level effects
over any range of time periods. It then proceeds
to evaluate this extension in the light of
criteria which have previously been applied to
the CNP and other linking methods.
|
|
|
Download the spreadsheet
associated with this paper.
|
|
|
Download a presentation
of the findings of this paper, delivered at
the 2006 Northfield
Information Services client conference.
|
|
|
|
"Why
Are We Still Building Investment Performance
Systems?"
|
|
White Paper, January 2006
|
|
|
|
In this paper, we discuss recent
developments in the theory and utilization of
investment performance measurement and
attribution, and why these continue to push the
requirements for technological solutions beyond
what vendor-supplied, off-the-shelf systems can
deliver.
Major shifts in Performance requirements on
several fronts are covered, including:
|
|
the growth of swaps and other derivatives markets
|
|
increasing sophistication of and investment in fixed income
methodologies
|
|
the explosive influence of the hedge fund industry
|
|
the introduction and appeal of strategy-based attribution
|
We detail the technological pressures that these
factors are placing on existing investment
systems, and why investment firms continue to be
compelled to implement custom solutions for
their performance measurement and attribution
needs.
|
|
|
|
"Implementing
a Fixed Income Attribution Model in a Business
and Technology Environment: Practical Choices
and Their Implications"
|
|
Presented at World
Research Group Conference - Leveraging
Performance Attribution Analysis for Fixed
Income Investments;
April 28th, 2005
|
|
|
|
The team charged with implementing
fixed income attribution in the context of an
existing business and technology environment
must choose from a large number of functional
and design options. Each of these choices can
dramatically affect not only the size and risk
of the effort, but the ultimate usability and
operability of the attribution system. We
present a comprehensive framework to address and
resolve these choices as an input to
implementation planning and design and comment
upon their implications from the points of view
of both the business client and the systems
implementer. Focus on:
|
|
|
The various enterprise clients for
attribution and their differing requirements
|
|
Data sources, including holdings, benchmark and analytic
|
|
Sources of returns & contributions
|
|
Flexible drill-down in an online environment
|
|
Periodicity and linking
|
|
Pre-calc vs. re-calc strategies
|
|
|
|
|
|