Alternative Viewpoints: Using the Modified Sharpe & Information Ratios
| Sep 2nd, 2009 | Filed under: CAIA Alternative Viewpoints Columns, Guest Posts, Today's Post | By: Guest |
|
Special to AllAboutAlpha.com by: By Neil Kotecha, CAIA, Vice President, Senior Research Analyst, BNY Mellon Wealth Management
Using risk-adjusted return ratios is a necessary yet difficult task to do when analyzing investment managers. Ranjan Bhaduri points out the weaknesses of the Sharpe ratio in analyzing managed futures products in this July post at AllAboutAlpha.com. However, there are times when market anomalies make using the Sharpe and information ratios difficult even on traditional products. During these times, investors should not use the standard version of these ratios, for they can be misleading and result in ill-informed investment decisions.
Between 1970 and the end of 2008 there have been few periods of extreme losses among US and international equities. The S&P 500 Index’s rolling three-year returns have been positive in all but three periods (1972 – 1975, 1999 – 2003 & 2006 – 2008). Similarly, the MSCI EAFE Index has only had three-year declines in 1972 – 1975, 1989 – 1992, 1999 – 2003 & 2006 – 2008. During these periods, many formulas broke down.
Each of the aforementioned ratios is calculated by dividing a type of excess return by a measurement of risk. As a reminder, the Sharpe ratio uses investment returns in excess of the risk-free rate of return as its numerator, then divides that by the standard deviation of the product (its risk). Similarly, the information ratio uses investment returns in excess of the return of an assigned benchmark as its numerator and then divides that by the tracking error of the product to its benchmark (its risk).
When the investment returns are sufficiently low in both instances, the numerators become negative and the ratios break down. Consider the following examples for the Sharpe ratio, which also apply to the information ratio.
The Sharpe ratio holds when it is positive. Investment A has twice the return and the same volatility so it is preferred over Investment B. …RATIO HOLDS More…
To continue reading this article please login (at the right) or click here to learn more about accessing our archives.
Related Posts
- Alternative Viewpoints: Due to funds’ lack of persistence, the Sharpe ratio has no validity as an investment decision tool
- Researchers to hedge fund investors: Don’t throw away Sharpe ratios just yet
- Debate over value of Sharpe Ratio in HF analysis continues in new academic study
- Alternative Viewpoints: Sustainable Hedge Fund Performance
- Alternative Viewpoints: Commodities not about “buy and hold”
Neil, nice article on Sharpe. You may want to mention the variability/stability in variance over time and the role inflation (risk free) rate assumptions could play in future performance analysis. If we are in for inflation or deflation the rules of the game from an allocators perspective could change as some S&P benchmark gets kicked out or adjusted relative to a real vs. nominal return.
Yes useful metric, but I think the more common use of the term ‘Modified’ Sharpe (at least in Hedge Fund land) applies to the the use of the Cornish Fisher modified VaR metric as the denominator as in:
http://www.edhec-risk.com/site_edhecrisk/public/research_news/choice/RISKReview1086931259500349198
http://www.andreassteiner.net/performanceanalysis/?External_Performance_Analysis:Risk-Adjusted_Performance_Measures:Modified_Sharpe_Ratio
Not only in Hedge Funds. We are traditional managers and we also look at modified Sharpe Ratios and modified Information Ratios calculated from a VaR instead of a volatility. I believe it is now pretty standard in the industry to do so.