Assessing Benchmark Misfit Risk | CFA Institute Entrepreneurial Investor

The Journal of Performance Measurement.

overview

Investment management is a three-part process:

1. Set risk and return goals
2. Select investments
3. Evaluate the outcomes

These activities are sometimes carried out in isolation by different, unrelated groups and might result in disappointment if expectations will not be met. The portfolio construction process is probably the most common explanation for disappointment. Why? Because the number of funds chosen for asset allocation ultimately determines the asset allocation. This creates a series of market risks for the shopper that deviate from his expectations. This is a problem that receives little attention.

Here we outline a process for identifying and assessing this benchmark misfit risk using a portfolio of funds in a diversified global asset allocation.

Asset Allocation: The First Step

Our case study begins with a globally diversified strategy that features publicly traded assets: stocks, bonds and alternatives, as shown within the chart below.

Asset division

Portfolio construction: Converting the plan right into a portfolio

An asset allocation becomes an investment portfolio when specific funds are chosen. Each fund is predicted to behave like its benchmark and have a comparable return pattern and level of risk. Hopefully it can provide a better return after taking risk and charges into consideration. We assess lively risk, or tracking error, by measuring how closely each fund’s return pattern matches its benchmark using the fund’s correlation with that benchmark. But that is the more useful statistic. It answers the crucial query: What percentage of every fund’s return is decided by aspects in its benchmark?

Many investors assume that investment selection is the one consider tracking error. This is a mistake. Unfortunately, much of the portfolio’s tracking error is usually determined by various market risks, with the source of this mismatch risk being inside the funds. We must separate the consequences of those structural differences. Only then can we calculate the actual investment selection effect.

Presentation of the funds within the portfolio

Our asset allocation includes 14 segments. These are organized by asset class (global equities, global bonds and alternatives); asset segment (US stocks vs. non-US stocks); and magnificence (value vs. growth). In this evaluation, we used returns net of fees for the funds.

Portfolio funds: performance over five years

Determine the effective exposures of every fund

Our first step was to derive the values ​​for every fund within the portfolio. We conducted regression evaluation to find out the weights of every portfolio segment in order that that segment’s return had the best correlation to every fund.

We then created a table of our results and expressed each fund using its effective market segment weights. We applied these weights to the allocation for every fund; The result shows each fund’s contribution to the segment weights for the general portfolio. By summing these contributions from all funds, we determine the portfolio’s effective exposure to every market segment.

Effective exposures for funds and for the general portfolio

These results show how each fund is, not what it’s. By subtracting the entire portfolio exposures from the asset allocation goal weights, we determine the portfolio exposures. These create a long-term allocation effect that’s reflected within the performance attribution evaluation of the portfolio. These lively weights are a big consider the portfolio’s tracking error.

Active weights

Traditional performance evaluation

The portfolio outperformed its benchmark on each an absolute and risk-adjusted basis with a low tracking error relative to its excess return. Its information ratio of 1.7 is high enough to supply statistical confidence on this group of funds and was greater than 3 times that of its funds.

Performance Results: A excellent story

Relative performance with Misfit Benchmark
Drivers of portfolio performance

Without the insights from the portfolio’s effective exposures, we might assume that the funds’ investment selection process produced significant excess returns with little increase in risk.

Performance with effective exposures (Misfit Benchmark)

Including benchmark misfits by way of performance changes every little thing! Instead of issue selection resulting in a slight increase in risk and due to this fact an enormous increase in return, Misfit reduced volatility by having selection significantly increase risk but only barely increase return.

Allocation of total return and total risk

Incorporating misfit risk into lively return attribution evaluation

We apply the identical principles to the portfolio’s returns, starting with the surplus return and tracking error for every component.

Active results

Attribution of lively return

According to our data, Misfit contributes only 25 basis points (18%) of its own tracking error to the portfolio, while Selection contributes 100 basis points (almost 60%) of its own tracking error. These results were determined by their respective correlations to the surplus return of the portfolio. A critical point: From the attitude of the general portfolio manager. It is reassuring to know that this doesn’t dominate the lively performance results of the portfolio.

A fast have a look at the funds

We separated each fund’s lively contributions to the portfolio’s overall mismatch risk and selection outcomes. This is expressed as a percentage of the entire, with efficiency measured by equal contributions to risk and return. This clearly shows that the conscious investment selection process was more efficient than the unintended consequence of the benchmark misfit effect.

Misfit and selection contributions by fund

Conclusions

Contrary to popular belief, a portfolio’s funds usually tend to undermine its asset allocation than to supply that allocation in the shape of actively managed investments. A choice-based view of the investment process shows that benchmark misalignment is the results of actions by the portfolio’s underlying fund managers, who often seek excess returns by deviating from their very own benchmarks and sometimes investing outside their mandates. This return-oriented focus is usually at odds with a portfolio’s primary source of return: its asset allocation. Responsibility for controlling benchmark mismatches lies with the manager of the multi-asset portfolio.

The fund selection process should shift its focus from choosing individual funds to choosing individual funds whose overall exposures are as close as possible to the portfolio benchmark. This risk-aware approach tends to lead to portfolios that minimize tracking error by reducing benchmark mismatch and increasing their excess return.

The result must be much like our case study: a portfolio information ratio that could be a multiple of its funds’ values. This results in a better level of confidence within the forecasts and expectations of excess returns from the .

This framework results in a more coherent and holistic investment process.

If you enjoyed this post, remember to subscribe.

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/MANUEL FIL ORDIERES GARCIA