Benchmarks, reinvented

8 Apr. 2017
Author
Roberto Plaja

If you can’t beat the natural benchmark, just invent another one

If you can’t beat the natural benchmark, just invent another one

If you can’t beat the natural benchmark, just invent another one

Let’s say you only have oranges and you want to participate in a contest for best apple; what do you do? Simple: you trick the judges into believing oranges are apples.

Case in point: a few days ago a client and I were trying to evaluate the past performance of a portfolio manager; we asked for some long-term data and obtained a 12-year record of the relevant composite. (Before I go any further, I should mention the manager in question is no fly-by-night outfit with a single desk, a telephone and an internet connection like me, but one of the major international, awe-inspiring, globally distributed, multilingual institutions “dedicated” to helping investors like my client.) The data we received was gross of management fees, a strange idea given clients don’t get gross returns, and was compared to a benchmark which oddly included alternative investments.

I say oddly because if you target a certain risk level – for example, a 40% equity/60% bond allocation – you should compare yourself to a 40/60 benchmark, especially when you can get that today with two ETFs. Why then include alternatives in the benchmark? A quick look at the results and the reason pops in your face: the composite, when compared to the manager’s benchmark, is about even, or roughly -0.5% per annum with estimated management fees; the same composite, when compared to the two ETFs and net of estimated fees, is -1.6% per annum, or a compounded -17.6% over the 12-year period. As I said: you got oranges in an apples contest? Get everybody to think oranges are apples. Simple.

But debunking this stuff isn’t that simple. In fact, I wonder how regulators allow such a mishmash to be unabashedly presented to clients who are not truly “professional”. Or even how anyone who wants to help clients in understanding and in managing their money can possibly feel ethically comfortable in putting forth such garbage. But there you go: it happens, it is common and few will help you with any of it.

At a follow-up meeting with the manager the performance question was glided over as if, after all, it was just a detail. (Ever found yourself in a room surrounded by “experts” as if in a medieval siege, each of them with a different weapon but, importantly, none of them with anything of use to you?) For certain institutions managing client money is not only a business in which pricing is a matter of perspective but, even more worrying, an occasion to show off faulty analysis in order to bring you to their side.

Fascinating business, really.
Let’s say you only have oranges and you want to participate in a contest for best apple; what do you do? Simple: you trick the judges into believing oranges are apples.

Case in point: a few days ago a client and I were trying to evaluate the past performance of a portfolio manager; we asked for some long-term data and obtained a 12-year record of the relevant composite. (Before I go any further, I should mention the manager in question is no fly-by-night outfit with a single desk, a telephone and an internet connection like me, but one of the major international, awe-inspiring, globally distributed, multilingual institutions “dedicated” to helping investors like my client.) The data we received was gross of management fees, a strange idea given clients don’t get gross returns, and was compared to a benchmark which oddly included alternative investments.

I say oddly because if you target a certain risk level – for example, a 40% equity/60% bond allocation – you should compare yourself to a 40/60 benchmark, especially when you can get that today with two ETFs. Why then include alternatives in the benchmark? A quick look at the results and the reason pops in your face: the composite, when compared to the manager’s benchmark, is about even, or roughly -0.5% per annum with estimated management fees; the same composite, when compared to the two ETFs and net of estimated fees, is -1.6% per annum, or a compounded -17.6% over the 12-year period. As I said: you got oranges in an apples contest? Get everybody to think oranges are apples. Simple.

But debunking this stuff isn’t that simple. In fact, I wonder how regulators allow such a mishmash to be unabashedly presented to clients who are not truly “professional”. Or even how anyone who wants to help clients in understanding and in managing their money can possibly feel ethically comfortable in putting forth such garbage. But there you go: it happens, it is common and few will help you with any of it.

At a follow-up meeting with the manager the performance question was glided over as if, after all, it was just a detail. (Ever found yourself in a room surrounded by “experts” as if in a medieval siege, each of them with a different weapon but, importantly, none of them with anything of use to you?) For certain institutions managing client money is not only a business in which pricing is a matter of perspective but, even more worrying, an occasion to show off faulty analysis in order to bring you to their side.

Fascinating business, really.

May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
Autorisation
Switzerland
Investing implies your capital is at risk. The value of your account depends on market movements and you may get back less than you invest.
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Unless otherwise specified, all return figures shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not actual customer or model returns. Actual returns will vary greatly and depend on personal and market conditions.
Simplewealth AG is a Swiss-based advisory service, designed to assist clients in achieving discrete financial goals. We are not intended to provide comprehensive tax advice or financial planning with respect to every aspect of a client's financial situation and do not incorporate specific investments that clients hold elsewhere.
© SIMPLEWEALTH AG 2015 — 2022.
MADE WITH ❤️ IN BEAUTIFUL
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charges and expenses.
FAQ
Navigation
Language
Documents
Social Media
1
2
How your assets can grow?
All your investments are insured. Up to USD 500k
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charge sand expenses.
Client securities accounts at Interactive Brokers LLC are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") for a maximum coverage of $500,000 (with a cash sublimit of $250,000) and under Interactive Brokers LLC's excess SIPC policy with certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London 1 for up to an additional $30 million (with a cash sublimit of $900,000) subject to an aggregate limit of $150 million. Futures and options on futures are not covered. As with all securities firms, this coverage provides protection against failure of a broker-dealer, not against loss of market value of securities. For the purpose of determining an Interactive Brokers LLC client account, accounts with like names and titles (e.g. John and Jane Smith and Jane and John Smith) are combined, but accounts with different titles are not (e.g. Individual/John Smith and IRA/John Smith). SIPC is a non-profit, membership corporation funded by broker-dealers that are members of SIPC.