DOCSLIB.ORG

CAIA Level II Workbook September 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAIA Level II Workbook September 2019 ® ® CAIA Level II Workbook September 2019 Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association® CAIA Level II Workbook, September 2019 Contents: Preface Section one: Review Questions & Answers Section Two: Glossary of Keywords 1 CAIA Level II Workbook, September 2019 Preface Congratulations on your successful completion of Level I and welcome to Level II of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst (CAIA) program. The CAIA program, organized by the CAIA Association and co-founded by the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) and the Center for International Securities and Derivatives Markets (CISDM), is the only globally recognized professional designation in the area of alternative investments, the fastest growing segment of the investment industry. The following is a set of materials designed to help you prepare for the CAIA Level II exam. Workbook The exercises are provided to help candidates enhance their understanding of the reading materials. The questions that will appear on the actual Level II exam will not be of the same format as these exercises. In addition, the exercises presented here have various levels of difficulty, and, therefore, candidates should not use them to assess their level of preparedness for the actual examination. September 2019 Level II Study Guide It is critical that each candidate should carefully review the study guide. It contains information about topics to be studied as well as a list of equations that the candidate MAY see on the exam. The study guide can be found on the CAIA website, on the Curriculum page. Errata Sheet Correction notes appear in the study guide to address known errors existing in the assigned readings that are viewed as being substantive. Occasionally, additional errors in the readings and learning objectives are brought to our attention after publication. At those points, we will then post the errata directly to a separate errata sheet on the Curriculum and Study Materials section of the CAIA website. It is the responsibility of the candidate to review these errata prior to taking the examination. Please report suspected errata to [email protected]. The Level II Examination and Completion of the Program All CAIA candidates must pass the Level I examination before sitting for the Level II examination. Separate Study Guides are available for each level. As with the Level I examination, the CAIA Association administers the Level II examination twice annually. Upon successful completion of the Level II examination, and assuming that the candidate has met all the Association’s membership requirements, the CAIA Association will confer the CAIA Charter upon the candidate. Candidates should refer to the CAIA website, www.caia.org, for information about examination dates and membership requirements. 2 CAIA Level II Workbook, September 2019 Reading: Alternative Investments: CAIA Level II, 3rd edition, Wiley, 2016. Chapter 1: Asset Allocation Processes and the Mean-Variance Model Exercises 1. Mike Jennings is an assistant at XYZ, an investing consulting firm based in London. He is trying to measure the actual performance of a group of pension funds and the performance that would have been attained had the funds invested their capital in passively managed market indices, and according to the weights set forth in their investment policy statements. To this end, Mr. Jennings regressed the quarterly rates of return reported by a group of U.K. pension funds against passively managed benchmarks that were created using the weights proposed by the investment policy statements of the funds. The average r-squared of these regressions exceeded 85%, and this led Mr. Jennings to conclude that more than 85% of the average returns of these pension funds can be explained by the asset allocation decision described in their investment policy statements. Is the conclusion by Mike Jennings correct? 2. Suppose that an investor’s utility is the following function of wealth (W): ( ) = An investor currently has $150 and is considering √ whether to speculate on an investment with a 70% chance of earning 20%, and a 30% chance of losing 30%. Find the current and expected utility of the investor. Should the investor take the speculation rather than hold the cash? 3. Continuing with the previous exercise (#2), suppose instead that the investor’s utility is the following function of wealth (W): ( ) = W 0.005W 2 Should the investor take the speculation rather− than hold the cash? (Suppose once again that the investor currently has $150 and is considering whether to speculate on an investment with a 70% chance of earning 20%, and a 30% chance of losing 30%). 4. Suppose that an investor’s expected utility, E[U(W)], from an investment can be expressed as: 3 CAIA Level II Workbook, September 2019 [ ( )] = × 2 λ 2 − where W is wealth, μ is the expected rate of return on the investment, σ2 is the variance of the rate of return, and λ is a constant that represents the asset owner’s degree of risk aversion. Use the expected utility of an investor with λ = 0.7 to determine which of the following investments is more attractive: Investment X: μ = 0.05 and σ2 = 0.03 Investment Y: μ = 0.07 and σ2 = 0.10 5. In the previous exercise, suppose now that the investor is risk neutral. Would the answer change? 6. Briefly explain the major internal and external investment policy constraints. 7. An investor’s optimal portfolio has an expected return of 9%, which is 6% higher than the riskless rate. If the variance of the portfolio is 0.02, what is the investor’s degree of risk aversion, λ? 8. Suppose that an investor is using mean-variance optimization with one risky asset and a riskless asset. Suppose that the riskless rate is 2%, and that the expected rate of return on the risky asset is 7% per year. The standard deviation of the index is estimated to be 10% per year. What is the optimal investment in the risky asset for an investor with a risk aversion degree of 8? 9. Consider the case of mean-variance optimization and suppose that the expected annual rate of return of an optimal portfolio is 12%, and the riskless rate is 3% per year. What is the hurdle rate for a new asset that has a beta of 1.2 with respect to the optimal portfolio? What if the new asset has a beta of –0.5? 10. What are the three components of the expected return on all asset classes? Solutions 1. The conclusion by Mike Jennings is incorrect because the average r-squared of these regressions can be interpreted as implying that more than 85% of the return volatility (and not the average return, as Mr. Jennings claimed) of the portfolio through time can be explained by the asset allocation decision described in the investment policy. (Section 1.1) 4 CAIA Level II Workbook, September 2019 2. The current utility of holding the cash is 12.25, which can be found as (rounded): ( ) = 150 = 12.25 The expected utility of taking the speculation √ is found as (rounded): [ ( )] = (0.70 × 180 + 0.30 × 105) = 12.47 Where: 180 = 150 x 1.20; and 105 = √150 x 0.7. Because√ the investor has an expected utility of taking the speculation of 12.47, the investor would prefer to take the speculation as opposed to holding the cash, which has a utility of only 12.25. (Section 1.5.2) 3. With this utility function, the current utility of holding the cash is 37.50: ( ) = 0.005 = 150 0.005 × 150 = 37.50 2 2 In this case, the investor has − an expected utility of− taking the speculation of 27.56, found as (rounded): [ ( )] = 0.70 × (180 0.005 × 180 ) + 0.30 × (105 0.005 × 105 ) = 27.56 2 2 − − In this case, the investor would prefer to hold the cash. (Section 1.5.2) 4. The expected utility of the investments are found as: . Investment X: [ ( )] = 0.05 × 0.03 = 0.0395 0 7 − 2. Investment Y: [ ( )] = 0.07 × 0.10 = 0.0350 0 7 − 2 Investment X is more attractive because the investor’s expected utility of holding X is higher. (Section 1.5.4) 5. In the case of a risk neutral investor, λ=0. This means that: [ ( )] = . Therefore, Investment Y is more attractive than Investment X for a risk neutral investor, because: [ ( )] = 0.07 > [ ( )] = 0.05 (Section 1.5.4) 5 CAIA Level II Workbook, September 2019 6. Internal investment policy constraints are those that are imposed by the asset owner. The three main internal constraints are: a. Liquidity- the asset owner may have specific liquidity requirements that must be clearly acknowledged b. Time horizon- the investment horizon of the asset owner can affect its liquidity needs. Also, investors with a short time investment horizon should take less risk, as there is not enough time to recover from a potential large drawdown c. Sector and country limits- an asset owner may wish to impose constraints on allocations to specific countries or sectors. External investment policy constraints are driven by factors that are not directly under the control of the asset owner. The two main external constraints are: a. Tax status- most institutional investors are tax exempt, and for that reason allocations to tax-exempt investment vehicles are not as attractive to institutional investors as they are for taxable investors b. Regulations- some institutional investors are subject to rules and regulations regarding their investment strategies. (Section 1.6) 7. Using Equation 1.9, the degree of risk aversion (λ) can be obtained as follows: E R R = (1.9) p f � � − λ 2 σE R R 0.06 = = = 3 p f 0.02 � � − λ 2 (Section 1.5.8) σ 8.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Value-Added of Investable Hedge Fund Indices
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Heidorn, Thomas; Kaiser, Dieter G.; Voinea, Andre Working Paper The value-added of investable hedge fund indices Frankfurt School - Working Paper Series, No. 141 Provided in Cooperation with: Frankfurt School of Finance and Management Suggested Citation: Heidorn, Thomas; Kaiser, Dieter G.; Voinea, Andre (2010) : The value- added of investable hedge fund indices, Frankfurt School - Working Paper Series, No. 141, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt a. M. This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/36695 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Frankfurt School – Working Paper Series No. 141 The Value-Added of Investable Hedge Fund Indices by Thomas Heidorn, Dieter G.
    [Show full text]
  • Artisan Thematic Strategy
    Q2 2020 Artisan Thematic Strategy This material is intended to provide an overview of the Thematic team's investment philosophy and process. Investment in any vehicle managed by the team is subject to further documentation contained in the vehicle's offering materials. This material is not for use by retail investors and may not be reproduced or distributed without Artisan Partners' permission. This material does not constitute an offer or solicitation where such actions are not authorized or lawful. Further limitations on the availability of products or services described herein may be imposed. This material is only intended for investors which meet qualifications as institutional investors as defined in the applicable jurisdiction where this material is received, which includes only Professional Clients or Eligible Counterparties as defined by the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) where this material is issued by APUK or AP Europe. This material is not for use by retail or professional clients and may not be reproduced or distributed without Artisan Partners’ permission. For US institutional investors and MiFID Eligible Counterparties Only—Not for Onward Distribution GIPS Composite Report included in appendix Artisan Partners Important Disclosures These materials are provided solely for use in a private meeting and are intended for informational and discussion purposes only. Investment is subject to further documentation. This document is not a prospectus. Unless expressly stated, it has not otherwise been registered with, or approved by, any regulatory authority in any jurisdiction. This material is for informational purposes only and shall not be construed as investment or tax advice. Prospective investors should consult their financial and tax adviser before making investments in order to determine whether investment will be suitable for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Investment Edge® Variable Annuity
    Investment Edge® Variable Annuity May 1, 2017 Variable Annuities: • Are Not a Deposit of Any Bank • Are Not FDIC Insured • Are Not Insured by Any Federal Government Agency • Are Not Guaranteed by Any Bank or Savings Association • May Go Down in Value Issued by AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. Table of Contents Variable Product Prospectus Page Investment Edge® 15.0 1 Summary Prospectuses Page Label Page Label AXA Premier VIP Trust EQ/PIMCO Global Real Return EQPGRR 1-5 AXA Aggressive Allocation AAA 1-5 EQ/PIMCO Ultra Short Bond EQPUS 1-5 AXA Moderate Allocation AMA 1-5 EQ/Small Company Index EQSCI 1-3 AXA Moderate-Plus Allocation AMPA 1-5 EQ/T. Rowe Price Growth Stock EQTGS 1-4 CharterSM Aggressive Growth CAGR 1-6 Multimanager Technology MMT 1-5 CharterSM Conservative CCON 1-6 CharterSM Growth CGR 1-6 CharterSM Moderate CMOD 1-6 CharterSM Moderate Growth CMGR 1-6 CharterSM Small Cap Growth CSCG 1-5 CharterSM Small Cap Value CSCV 1-5 EQ Advisors Trust 1290 VT Convertible Securities VTCS 1-5 1290 VT DoubleLine Opportunistic Bond VTDO 1-6 1290 VT Energy VTE 1-5 1290 VT Equity Income VTEI 1-4 1290 VT GAMCO Mergers & Acquisitions VTGM 1-5 1290 VT GAMCO Small Company Value VTGSC 1-3 1290 VT High Yield Bond VTHY 1-6 1290 VT Low Volatility Global Equity VTLG 1-4 1290 VT Natural Resources VTNR 1-4 1290 VT Real Estate VTRE 1-5 1290 VT SmartBeta Equity VTSB 1-4 1290 VT Socially Responsible VTSR 1-5 All Asset Growth-Alt 20 EQAA 1-7 AXA/AB Dynamic Moderate Growth AABDMG 1-7 AXA/AB Short Duration Government Bond AABSDGB 1-5 AXA/AB Small Cap Growth
    [Show full text]
  • Università Degli Studi Di Padova Padua Research Archive
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Archivio istituzionale della ricerca - Università di Padova Università degli Studi di Padova Padua Research Archive - Institutional Repository On the (Ab)use of Omega? Original Citation: Availability: This version is available at: 11577/3255567 since: 2020-01-04T17:03:43Z Publisher: Elsevier B.V. Published version: DOI: 10.1016/j.jempfin.2017.11.007 Terms of use: Open Access This article is made available under terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Guidelines, as described at http://www.unipd.it/download/file/fid/55401 (Italian only) (Article begins on next page) \On the (Ab)Use of Omega?" Massimiliano Caporina,∗, Michele Costolab, Gregory Janninc, Bertrand Mailletd aUniversity of Padova, Department of Statistical Sciences bSAFE, Goethe University Frankfurt cJMC Asset Management LLC dEMLyon Business School and Variances Abstract Several recent finance articles use the Omega measure (Keating and Shadwick, 2002), defined as a ratio of potential gains out of possible losses, for gauging the performance of funds or active strategies, in substitution of the traditional Sharpe ratio, with the arguments that return distributions are not Gaussian and volatility is not always the rel- evant risk metric. Other authors also use Omega for optimizing (non-linear) portfolios with important downside risk. However, we question in this article the relevance of such approaches. First, we show through a basic illustration that the Omega ratio is incon- sistent with the Second-order Stochastic Dominance criterion. Furthermore, we observe that the trade-off between return and risk corresponding to the Omega measure, may be essentially influenced by the mean return.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Ω‐Ratio
    On the Ω‐Ratio Robert J. Frey Applied Mathematics and Statistics Stony Brook University 29 January 2009 15 April 2009 (Rev. 05) Applied Mathematics & Statistics [email protected] On the Ω‐Ratio Robert J. Frey Applied Mathematics and Statistics Stony Brook University 29 January 2009 15 April 2009 (Rev. 05) ABSTRACT Despite the fact that the Ω­ratio captures the complete shape of the underlying return distribution, selecting a portfolio by maximizing the value of the Ω­ratio at a given return threshold does not necessarily produce a portfolio that can be considered optimal over a reasonable range of investor preferences. Specifically, this selection criterion tends to select a feasible portfolio that maximizes available leverage (whether explicitly applied by the investor or realized internally by the capital structure of the investment itself) and, therefore, does not trade off risk and reward in a manner that most investors would find acceptable. 2 Table of Contents 1. The Ω­Ratio.................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................5 1.2 The Ω Leverage Bias............................................................................................................................7 1.3. A Simple Example of the ΩLB ..........................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Monte Carlo As a Hedge Fund Risk Forecasting Tool
    F eat UR E Monte Carlo as a Hedge Fund Risk Forecasting Tool By Kenneth S. Phillips edge funds have gained The notion of uncorrelated, absolute popularity over the past “retur ns encompassing a broad range of asset Hseveral years, especially among institutional investors. Assets allocated classes and distinct strategies has enjoyed to alternative investment strategies, distinct from private equity or venture great acceptance among conservative inves- capital, have grown by several hundred tors seeking more predictable and consistent percent since the dot-com bubble burst in 2000 and now top US$2.5 trillion. retur ns with less volatility. The notion of uncorrelated, absolute returns encompassing a broad range ” of asset classes and distinct strategies has enjoyed great acceptance among conservative investors seeking more level of qualitative due diligence, may management objectives resulted in the predictable and consistent returns with or may not have provided warnings evaporation of nearly US$6.5 billion of less volatility. As a result, the industry and/or given investors adequate time to investor equity, virtually overnight. has begun to mature and investors now redeem their capital. Although the ar- Global Equity Market Neutral range from risk-averse fiduciaries to ag- ticle implicitly considers different forms (GEMN). Since 2003, GEMN had gressive high-net-worth individuals. of investment risk such as leverage managed a globally diversified, equity As the number of hedge funds and and derivatives, it focuses primarily on market neutral hedge fund. Employ- complex strategies has grown, so too quantitative return-based data that was ing various amounts of leverage while have the frequency and severity of publicly available rather than strategy- attracting several billion dollars of negative events—what statisticians refer or security-specific risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Fund of Hedge Funds Portfolio Optimization Using the Omega Ratio
    risk management / compliance LE Fund of Hedge Funds Portfolio IC T R Optimization Using the Omega Ratio A D E ® BY STEVE TOGHER, CAIA , clearly demonstrate how Omega quantitative measure should be an UR AND TambE BARsbaY captures these higher moments. It is end-all solution. an equation that adds to mean and Our objective here is to present a EAT variance, captures all of the higher method of “optimizing” a portfolio F t is interesting to ponder moment information in the return of hedge funds using the Omega how new and radical distribution, incorporates sensitivity ratio. For the purposes of our discus- theories and equations to return levels, and is intuitive and sion we will focus on a portfolio of Iin financial analysis become widely relatively easy to calculate. alternative investment managers accepted. It most likely is a function The body of literature about con- with nonnormal returns but, of of simplicity, elegance of design, structing and optimizing portfolios course, the underlying investments and ease of application. But it is of hedge funds continues to grow can be anything. We put optimizing even more interesting to observe and the alternatives are varied. In in quotes because our analysis is not how, once widely accepted, such most cases a comparison is made the sole input in determining the concepts can be misapplied. Perhaps to MVO, which suffers from similar optimized portfolio. two of the most common examples drawbacks as Sharpe when applied are the application of the Sharpe to hedge fund returns. DeSouza and Understanding the Omega Ratio ratio and mean variance optimiza- Gokcan (2004) defined an approach We believe that using the Omega tion (MVO) to hedge fund portfolio that is modeled on asset allocation ratio for this purpose is a rather intu- analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Understanding the Complex Universe of Private Debt Assets
    Alternative credit and its asset classes A guide to understanding the complex universe of private debt assets First edition, May 2017 For professionals Important disclosure: The opinions expressed and conclusions reached by the authors in this publication are their own and do not represent an official position. The publication has been prepared solely for the purpose of information and knowledge-sharing. Neither NN Investment Partners B.V., NN Investment Partners Holdings N.V. nor any other company or unit belonging to NN Group make no guarantee, warranty or representation, express or implied, to the accuracy, correctness or completeness thereof. Readers should obtain professional advice before making any decision or taking any action that may affect their finances or business or tax position. This publication and its elements may contain information obtained from third parties, including ratings from credit rating agencies. Reproduction and distribution of (parts of) this publication, logos, and third party content in any form is prohibited, except with the prior written permission of NN Investment Partners B.V. or NN Investment Partners Holdings N.V. or the third party concerned. © 2017 NN Investment Partners is part of NN Group N.V. NN Group N.V. is a publicly traded corporation, and it and its subsidiaries are currently using trademarks including the “NN” name and associated trademarks of NN Group under license. All rights reserved. Alternative credit and its asset classes A guide to understanding the complex universe of private debt assets Table of contents Preface ...............................................................................................................................................................6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8 2. The history and rise of alternative credit .....................................................................11 2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedge Fund Performance Evaluation
    International Business & Economics Research Journal – May/June 2014 Volume 13, Number 3 Hedge Fund Performance Evaluation Using The Sharpe And Omega Ratios Francois van Dyk, UNISA, South Africa Gary van Vuuren, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa André Heymans, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa ABSTRACT The Sharpe ratio is widely used as a performance evaluation measure for traditional (i.e., long only) investment funds as well as less-conventional funds such as hedge funds. Based on mean- variance theory, the Sharpe ratio only considers the first two moments of return distributions, so hedge funds – characterised by asymmetric, highly-skewed returns with non-negligible higher moments – may be misdiagnosed in terms of performance. The Sharpe ratio is also susceptible to manipulation and estimation error. These drawbacks have demonstrated the need for augmented measures, or, in some cases, replacement fund performance metrics. Over the period January 2000 to December 2011 the monthly returns of 184 international long/short (equity) hedge funds with geographical investment mandates spanning North America, Europe, and Asia were examined. This study compares results obtained using the Sharpe ratio (in which returns are assumed to be serially uncorrelated) with those obtained using a technique which does account for serial return correlation. Standard techniques for annualising Sharpe ratios, based on monthly estimators, do not account for this effect. In addition, this study assesses whether the Omega ratio supplements the Sharpe Ratio in the evaluation of hedge fund risk and thus in the investment decision-making process. The Omega and Sharpe ratios were estimated on a rolling basis to ascertain whether the Omega ratio does indeed provide useful additional information to investors to that provided by the Sharpe ratio alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Well by Doing Good UBS Portfolio Management Sustainable Investing
    UBS Swiss Financial Advisers For marketing purposes Doing well by doing good UBS Portfolio Management Sustainable Investing Investment Objective The UBS Portfolio Management Sustainable Investing (UBS-PM SI) is a managed discretionary program which provides exposure to sustainable investment opportunities by investing in equites, bonds and liquidity mainly through mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs). Flexible adherence to the principles of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing is fundamental. The UBS commitment UBS is committed to creating long-term positive impact for our clients, employees, investors and society. We aim to be: – a leader in sustainable investing (SI) for private and institutional clients – a recognized innovator and thought leader in philanthropy – an industry leader in sustainability. What portfolios are available with UBS-SFA? Portfolios are available in different ranges of investment risk What’s in it for you? categories, which will be the foundation for your strategic – Make a positive impact on the environment and society asset allocation plan (see page 2). Each available portfolio while achieving similar returns to traditional investments. is designed to approximate a specific range of risk and return – Benefit from UBS insights and investment expertise expectations, while allowing the portfolio managers flexibility including over 15 years of experience in Sustainable to pursue investment opportunities through tactical shifts. Investing. UBS has more than 200 investment analysts, including the team of dedicated sustainable investing practitioners. Key facts – Alignment with integrated ESG practices. A dedicated Launch date September 1, 2020 100% sustainable investing approach that makes the best of our global expertise, and works with leading Reference currency USD institutions and ESG investment managers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sectoral Portfolio Optimization by Judicious Selection of Financial
    Sectoral portfolio optimization by judicious selection of financial ratios via PCA Vrinda Dhingra1, Amita Sharma2, Shiv K. Gupta1* Abstract Embedding value investment in portfolio optimization models has always been a challenge. In this paper, we attempt to incorporate it by first employing principal com- ponent analysis sector wise to filter out dominant financial ratios from each sector and thereafter, use the portfolio optimization model incorporating second order stochastic dominance criteria to derive the final optimal investment. We consider a total of 11 well known financial ratios corresponding to each sector representing four categories of ratios, namely Liquidity, Solvency, Profitability, and Valuation. PCA is then ap- plied sector wise over a period of 10 years from April 2004 to March 2014 to extract dominant ratios from each sector in two ways, one from the component solution and other from each category on the basis of their communalities. The two step Sectoral Portfolio Optimization (SPO) model integrating the SSD criteria in constraints is then utilized to build an optimal portfolio. The strategy formed using the former extracted ratios is termed as PCA-SPO(A) and the latter one as PCA-SPO(B). The results obtained from the proposed strategies are compared with the SPO model and one step nominal SSD model, with and without financial ratios for computational study. Empirical performance of proposed strategies is assessed over the period of 6 years from April 2014 to March 2020 using a rolling window scheme with varying out- of-sample time line of 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24 months for S&P BSE 500 market.
    [Show full text]
  • IE00B405ZR41 B405ZR4 LGHQIUA ID Fund Size $34.35M
    Lazard June 2020 Global Fixed Income Fund Fact Sheet A Acc USD Share Class A sub-fund of Lazard Global Active Funds PLC, a Dublin-based OEIC Performance Data (Annualised Return* in USD % p.a.) Periods ended 30 June 2020 12 Months ended 30 June 1M 3M YTD 1Y 3Y 5Y S.I. 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Lazard Global Fixed Income Fund 1.3 4.3 2.9 4.0 3.1 2.5 1.5 4.0 5.5 -0.2 -1.1 4.6 Quartile 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 MStar Global Bond 1.2 4.7 1.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.3 2.2 3.8 0.1 0.3 3.7 Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index 0.9 3.3 3.0 4.2 3.8 3.6 2.3 4.2 5.8 1.4 -2.2 8.9 Source: Morningstar, NAV to NAV Price, Net Income Reinvested, Net of Fees. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. *Performance data for periods less than 1 year is illustrated on a cumulative growth basis. UK investors may be liable to taxation on the income from the fund, depending upon their personal circumstances. The effect of taxation would have been to reduce the returns stated. The name of the fund changed from Lazard Global High Quality Bond Fund on 01/01/2012. S.I. - since inception 11/04/2011. $100 Invested Over Five Years 130 120 110 100 90 Jun 2015 Jun 2016 Jun 2017 Jun 2018 Jun 2019 Jun 2020 Lazard Global Fixed Income Fund (13.28%) Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index (19.09%) MStar Global Bond (10.45%) Source: Morningstar, Cumulative Growth, NAV to NAV Price, Net of fees, Net Income Reinvested to 30 June 2020 in USD.
    [Show full text]