; wermersoutline
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

wermersoutline

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 9

  • pg 1
									                          Performance Evaluation and Attribution
                             Theory and Practical Application
                                         The University of Vienna
                                                    October 2002




Professor Russ Wermers                                                                           October 25, 2011
 2002 R. Wermers                                                                              Subject to revisions




Course Objectives:

1. To provide an in-depth introduction to different approaches to performance evaluation and attribution, with
   an emphasis on currently used state-of-the-art methods

2. To provide insight into the relation between asset pricing research and performance evaluation and
attribution
    research

3. To emphasize equity portfolio manager ranking and selection methods, with coverage of global equity
   portfolio techniques, as well as to introduce fixed-income portfolio and alternative investment portfolio
   performance evaluation techniques

4. To provide research skills, at the doctoral level, that are useful for accessing the current literature in
   performance evaluation and attribution

5. To provide practical skills that can be applied to actual security portfolios of interest




Course Content:

 Basics of Performance Evaluation: How to choose the performance measurement model. How to choose
the proper benchmark. How to interpret measured performance with an arbitrary benchmark or model. How to
interpret measured performance in light of the current controversy over asset pricing models. Biases that are
introduced to a dataset when we “snoop” it beforehand, and how to adjust for these biases.

 Technical Issues in Computing Performance: Potential biases with different return averaging methods, and
how to avoid these biases. The effect of the bid-ask spread on return computations. The effect of non-synchronous
trading on return computations. Potential biases with long-horizon abnormal return computations, and how to
adjust for these biases.

 Basic Performance Evaluation Models: The Jensen alpha. The Sharpe ratio. Tracking error. The Treynor
ratio. The Treynor-Black appraisal ratio. An APT-based performance measure. The Treynor-Mazuy model of
timing. The pros and cons of each of these methods. Lab exercise.


                                                           1
 Advanced (Recent) Performance Evaluation Models: Unconditional models of performance: the Carhart
model and the Daniel, Grinblatt, Titman, and Wermers model. Conditional models of performance: the Ferson
and Schadt model and the Christopherson, Ferson, and Glassman model. Other recent models. The pros and
cons of each of these methods, and how to interpret the results. Lab exercise.

 Measuring Performance When You Have No Idea of the Proper Benchmark or Model: Using out-of-
sample returns or portfolio weights as the benchmark. Other bootstrapping techniques.

 Measuring Market Timing: Problems with models that do not explicitly recognize market timing. Models
that separate market timing from selectivity.

 Style-Based Return Attribution and Decomposing Mutual Fund Returns (The Wermers method):
Style investing, and the attribution of style-based returns. Stock-picking talents in excess of style-based returns.
Transaction-cost estimation.

 Evaluating the Performance of Fixed-Income Portfolios and Derivatives Portfolios: Factor models for
fixed-income performance evaluation. Attribution methods used by professional evaluation services, including
a discussion of Yieldbook, a widely used Salomon Brothers fixed-income evaluation product. Latest theories on
performance evaluation of derivatives portfolios.

 Evaluating Global Portfolios with Currency Risk: A general approach.



Course Prerequisites:

Course participants should have a basic knowledge of portfolio theory and statistics, as well as an introductory
level background in regression analysis and matrix algebra. Since the course uses Excel-based applications to
illustrate several techniques, participants should be familiar with Excel.




Explanatory Note:
Papers in boldface are those that are central to a given discussion, and are included in the course packet. Other
(non-boldface) papers are listed as well (but not included in the packet), for extended reading for the interested
participant.




                                                         2
Detailed Course Plan:

1    Welcome and Introduction to the Course

          Overview of course
          Why is performance evaluation and attribution important?
          What are the basic issues of performance evaluation and attribution (luck vs. skill, benchmark
           selection, model selection, market efficiency, etc.)


     Readings:

     1. Bernstein, Peter, “Measuring the Performance of Performance Measurement,” 1995, in
        Performance Evaluation, Benchmarks, and Attribution Analysis, Association for Investment
        Management and Research (AIMR).
     2. Bailey, Jeffery, “Manager Universes: The Solution or the Problem?” 1995, in
        Performance Evaluation, Benchmarks, and Attribution Analysis, Association for Investment
        Management and Research (AIMR).



2    Asset Pricing Theory and Empirics

         The current state of asset pricing theory and empirical work in the U.S. and elsewhere, and how
          this impacts performance evaluation (a quick overview)—for both equity and fixed-income
          markets


     Readings:

     1. “Dimensional Fund Advisors (1993)” (Addendum I only), Harvard Case.
     2. Fama, Eugene, and Kenneth French, 1993, “Common Risk Factors In The Returns On Stocks
        and Bonds,” Journal of Financial Economics, 33, pp. 3-56.
     3. Gruber, Martin, Edwin Elton, Deepak Agrawal, and Christopher Mann, 2001, “Explaining
        the Rate Spread on Corporate Bonds,” Journal of Finance, 56, pp. 247-277.
     4. Elton, Edwin, Martin Gruber, and Christopher Blake, 1995, “Fundamental Economic
        Variables, Expected Returns, and Bond Fund Performance,” Journal of Finance, 50, pp. 1229-
        1256.
     5. Schiereck, Dirk, Werner De Bondt, and Martin Weber, 1999, “Contrarian and Momentum
        Strategies in Germany,” Financial Analysts Journal, pp. 104-116.
     6. Griffin, John, “Are the Fama and French Factors Global or Country-Specific?” Review of
        Financial Studies, forthcoming.
     7. Heston, Steven L. and K. Geert Rouwenhorst, 1994, “Does Industrial Structure Explain The
        Benefits of International Diversification?” Journal of Financial Economics, 36, pp. 3-27.
     8. Cavaglia, Stefano, Christopher Brightman, and Michael Aked, 2000, “The Increasing Importance of
        Industry Factors,” Financial Analysts Journal, September/October.
     9. Roll, Richard, 1992, “Industrial Structure And The Comparative Behavior Of International Stock
        Market Indexes,” Journal of Finance, 47, pp. 3-42.




                                                    3
3   Basic Performance Evaluation Models

       Non-regression-based approaches: Tracking error, Sharpe ratio
       Regression-based approaches: Treynor ratio, Treynor-Black Information Ratio
       Regression models: Jensen model, Carhart model, Treynor-Mazuy model, etc.
       Computer Exercise: Computing and comparing some basic performance evaluation models


    Readings:

    1. Grinblatt, Mark and Sheridan Titman, 1995, “Performance Evaluation,” in Handbooks in
       Operations Research and Management Science, Chapter 19 (Finance), edited by R.A. Jarrow,
       V. Maksimovic, and W.T. Ziemba.
    2. Dietz, Peter and Jeannette Kirschman, 1990, “Evaluating Portfolio Performance,” in
       Managing Investment Portfolios (Chapter 14), AIMR publication.



4   Tracking-Error and Information Ratio Approaches to Performance Evaluation


     What is wrong with tracking-error approaches to performance evaluation?

    Readings:

    1. Roll, Richard, 1992, “A Mean/Variance Analysis of Tracking Error,” Journal of Portfolio
        Management, 18, pp. 13-23.
    2. Blitz, David C. and Andiouke Hottinga, 2001, “Tracking Error Allocation,” Journal of Portfolio
       Management, 27, pp. 19-26.
    3. Goodwin, Thomas, 1998, “The Information Ratio,” Financial Analysts Journal, July/August 1998,
       pp. 35-43.
    4. Pope, Peter F. and Pradeep K. Yadav, 1994, “Discovering Errors In Tracking Error,” Journal of
       Portfolio Management, 20, pp. 27-32.
    5. Ammann, Manuel, and Heinz Zimmermann, 2001, “Tracking Error and Tactical Asset Allocation,”
       Financial Analysts Journal, March/April, pp. 32-43.




5   Measuring Market-Timing Ability—Various Approaches
                                                  4
    Readings:

    1. Treynor, Jack and K. Mazuy, 1966, “Can mutual funds outguess the market?” Harvard Business
       Review, 44, pp. 131-36.
    2. Daniel, Naveen, 2002, “Do Specification Errors Affect Inferences on Portfolio Performance?
       Evidence from Monte Carlo Simulations,” Working Paper.
    3. Becker, Connie, Wayne Ferson, David H. Myers and Michael J. Schill, 1999, “Conditional Market
       Timing With Benchmark Investors,” Journal of Financial Economics, 52, pp. 119-148.
    4. Jagannathan, Ravi and Robert A. Korajczyk, 1986, “Assessing The Market Timing Performance Of
       Managed Portfolios,” Journal of Business, 59, pp. 217-236.
    5. Bauer, Richard and Julie Dahlquist, 2001, “Market Timing and Roulette Wheels,” Financial Analysts
       Journal, January/February, pp. 28-40.
    6. Blake, David, Bruce Lehmann, and Allan Timmermann, 1999, “Asset Allocation Dynamics and
       Pension Fund Performance,” Journal of Business, 72, pp. 429-461.
    7. Henriksson, Roy D. and Robert C. Merton, 1981, “On Market Timing And Investment Performance. II.
       Statistical Procedures For Evaluating Forecasting Skills,” Journal of Business, 54, pp. 513-534.



6   Potential Problems With Computing Returns and Abnormal Returns, and How to Avoid Them

            Different methods of computing “average” returns, and what can go wrong
            Potential problems with long-term benchmarks


    Readings:

    1. Blume, Marshall and Robert Stambaugh, 1983, “Biases In Computed Returns: An Application
        To The Size Effect,” Journal of Financial Economics, 12, 387-404.
    2. Roll, Richard, 1983, “On Computing Mean Returns And The Small Firm Premium,” Journal of
        Financial Economics, 12, 371-386.
    3. Barber, Brad and John Lyon, 1996, “Detecting Long-Run Abnormal Stock Returns: The
        Empirical Power and Specification of Test Statistics,” Journal of Financial Economics 43, 341-
        372.
    4. Lyon, John D., Brad M. Barber and Chih-Ling Tsai, 1999, "Improved Methods For Tests Of
        Long-Run Abnormal Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, 54, 165-201.
    5. Roll, Richard, 1983, “Vas Ist Das?,” Journal of Portfolio Management, 9, 18-28.
    6. Shumway, Tyler, 1997, “The Delisting Bias in CRSP Data,” Journal of Finance, 52, 327-
        340.
    7. Scholes, Myron and Joseph Williams, 1977, “Estimating Betas From Nonsynchronous Data,” Journal
        of Financial Economics, 5, 309-327.
    8. Cheng, Pao and M. King Deets, 1971, “Statistical Biases And Security Rates Of Return,” Journal
        of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 6, 977-994.
    9 Kothari, S. P., and Gerald Warner, 1996, “Measuring Long-Horizon Security Price Performance,”
        Journal of Financial Economics 43, 301-339.
    10. Barber, Brad and John Lyon, 1996, “How Can Long-Run Abnormal Stock Returns be Both
        Positively and Negatively Biased?” UC-Davis Working Paper.



7   Deeper Philosophies of Performance Evaluation

                                                 5
            Roll’s “ambiguity paper”
            Mayer’s and Rice reply to Roll
            Roll’s reply to Mayer’s and Rice’s reply
            Cornell’s thoughts


    Readings:

    1. Roll, Richard, 1978, “Ambiguity When Performance is Measured by the Securities Market
       Line,” Journal of Finance, 33, pp. 1051-1069.
    2. Mayers, David and Edward Rice, 1979, “Measuring Portfolio Performance and the Empirical
       Content of Asset Pricing Models,” Journal of Financial Economics, 7, pp. 3-29.
    3. Roll, Richard, 1979, “A Reply to Mayers and Rice,” Journal of Financial Economics, 7,
       pp. 391-400.
    4. Cornell, Bradford, 1979, “Asymmetric Information and Portfolio Performance
       Measurement,” Journal of Financial Economics, 7, pp. 381-390.
    5. Lo, Andrew and Craig MacKinlay, 1990, “Data-Snooping Biases In Tests Of Financial Asset
       Pricing Models,” Review of Financial Studies, 3, pp. 431-468.



8   Recent Performance Evaluation and Attribution Techniques for Stock Selectivity, Style
    Timing, and Trading Costs

               Measuring selectivity with only returns information (the Fama-French and Carhart
                methods)
               Measuring selectivity with portfolio holdings information (the Daniel, Grinblatt,
                Titman, and Wermers method)
               Attribution analysis with the Wermers (2000) method


    Readings:

    1.    Wermers, Russ, 2000, “Mutual Fund Performance: An Empirical Decomposition into Stock-
          Picking Talent, Style, Transactions Costs, and Expenses,” The Journal of Finance, 55, pp. 1655-
          1695.
    2.    Carhart, Mark, 1997, “On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance,” Journal of Finance, 52,
          pp. 57-82.
    3.    Kothari, S.P., and Jerold Warner, 2001, “Evaluating Mutual Fund Performance,” The Journal
          of Finance, 56, pp. 1985-2010.
    4.    Daniel, Kent, Mark Grinblatt, Sheridan Titman, and Russ Wermers, 1997, “Measuring Mutual
          Fund Performance with Characteristic-Based Benchmarks,” Journal of Finance, 52, pp. 1035-
          1058.
    5.    Keim, Donald, and Ananth Madhavan, 1998, “The Cost of Institutional Equity Trades,” Financial
          Analysts Journal, July/August.
    5.   Wermers, Russ, 2001, “Style Drift,” Working Paper.
    6.   DeRoon, Frans, Theo Nijman, and Jenke TerHorst, 2000, “Evaluating Style Analysis,”
         Working Paper.



9   The Positive-Period Weighting Measure as a Class of Performance Measures

    Readings:
                                                        6
     1. Grinblatt, Mark, and Sheridan Titman, 1989, “Portfolio Performance Evaluation: Old Issues
        And New Insights,” Review of Financial Studies, 2, pp. 393-422.



10   What To Do When You Have No Idea of the Proper Model or Benchmark (Or, the Model
     and Benchmark are Not Available): Performance Evaluation Using Bootstrapped
     Benchmarks (Weights vs. Returns)

             The Copeland and Mayers technique
             The Grinblatt and Titman technique


     Readings:

     1. Copeland, Thomas E. and David Mayers, 1982, “The ValueLine Enigma (1965-1978): A Case
        Study of Performance Evaluation Issues,” Journal of Financial Economics, 10, 289-322.
     2. Grinblatt, Mark, and Sheridan Titman (1993), “Performance Measurement without
        Benchmarks: An Examination of Mutual Fund Returns,” Journal of Business, 66, 47-68.
     3. Cornell, Bradford, 1979, “Asymmetric Information and Portfolio Performance
        Measurement,” Journal of Financial Economics, 7, 381-390.



11   Recent Conditional vs. Unconditional Models of Performance (And Why It Makes a Difference!)

             Conditional alpha models, conditional alpha and beta models


     Readings:

     1. Ferson, Wayne, Jon Christopherson, and Andrew Turner, 1999, “Performance Evaluation
        Using Conditional Alphas and Betas,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Fall.




12   Measuring Alternative Investment Performance: Options, Futures, Hedge Fund Performance,
     and Other Non-Normal Return Portfolios—Various Approaches

             Dealing with non-normal asset returns as well as dynamic strategies
                                                  7
     Readings:

     1. Leland, Hayne, 1999, “Beyond Mean-Variance: Performance Measurement in a
        Nonsymmetrical World,” Financial Analysts Journal, January/February.
     2. Rubenstein, Mark, 2001, “Derivatives Performance Attribution,” Journal of Financial and
        Quantitative Analysis, March.
     3. Brown, Stephen, and William N. Goetzmann, 2001, “Hedge Funds with Style,” Working
        Paper.
     4. Agarwal, Vikas, and Narayan Naik, 2000, “Performance Evaluation of Hedge Funds with
        Option-Based and Buy-and-Hold Strategies,” Working Paper.
     5. Fung, William, and David Hsieh, 2000, “Performance Characteristics of Hedge Funds and Commodity
        Funds: Natural vs. Spurious Biases,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, September.
     6. Kraus, Alan, and Robert Litzenberger, 1976, “Skewness Preference and the Valuation of Risky
        Assets,”Journal of Finance 31, 1085-1100.



13   Factor-Based Regression Models of Fixed-Income Portfolio Performance


             Factors that tend to be important in explaining the cross-section of bond returns
             Results with U.S. bond funds.
             Computer Exercise: Computing and comparing some basic performance evaluation
               models for fixed-income portfolios

     Readings:

     1. Blake, Christopher R., Edwin J. Elton and Martin J. Gruber, “The Performance Of Bond
          Mutual Funds,” Journal of Business, 1993, 66, pp. 371-403.
     2. Elton, Edwin, Martin Gruber, and Christopher Blake, 1995, “Fundamental Economic
          Variables, Expected Returns, and Bond Fund Performance,” Journal of Finance, 50, pp. 1229-
          1256 (see Session 1.2 for this paper).
     3. Kahn, Ronald N. "Bond Performance Analysis: A Multi-Factor Approach," Journal of
          Portfolio Management, 1991, v18(1), 40-47.
     4. Cornell, Bradford and Kevin Green. "The Investment Performance Of Low-Grade Bond
          Funds," Journal of Finance, 1991, v46(1), 29-48.
     5. Gruber, Martin, Edwin Elton, Deepak Agrawal, and Christopher Mann, 2001, “Explaining
          the Rate Spread on Corporate Bonds,” Journal of Finance, 56, pp. 247-277 (see Session 1.2 for
          this paper).
     6. Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French, 1993, “Common Risk Factors In The Returns On
          Stocks And Bonds,” Journal of Financial Economics, 33, pp. 3-56 (see Session 1.2 for this
          paper).
     7. Detzler, Miranda Lam. "The Performance Of Global Bond Mutual Funds," Journal of Banking and
          Finance, 1999, 23, pp. 1195-1217.
     8. Dietz, Peter O., H. Russell Fogler and Anthony U. Rivers. "Duration, Nonlinearity, And Bond
          Portfolio Performance," Journal of Portfolio Management, 1981, 7, pp. 37-41.
     9. Gudikunst, Arthur and Joseph McCarthy. "High-Yield Bond Mutual Funds: Performance, January
          Effects, And Other Surprises," Journal of Fixed Income, 1997, 7, pp. 35-46.
14   Fixed-income performance attribution: the YIELDBOOK approach of Salomon Brothers
     (if time permits)


     Readings:
                                                  8
     1. Technical article by Salomon Brothers.



15   Global Portfolio Performance Evaluation and Attribution


     Readings:

     1. Karnosky, Denis and Brian Singer, 1994, Global Asset Management and Performance Attribution,
        AIMR Monograph.
     2. Fischer, Berdt, 2002 (Performance Evaluation Textbook Manuscript, Chapter 4)




                                                 9

								
To top