Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 70

Making sense of performance statistics

Whether finance or sport, people love talking statistics. Where cricketers talk batting averages and run rates, fund managers talk information ratios, hedge fund managers talk Sharpes and the academics talk t-statistics. What do all these statistics mean, can we reconcile them and are they useful?

The starting point for performance comparisons is often alpha, which for this article I define simply as performance relative to the market. Alpha can be positive or negative. Comparing the alpha of two fund managers may not be a fair comparison as they make take different levels of active risk and so they are not evenly matched.

Manager skill is better assessed using risk-adjusted return statistics, but different parts of the industry use different statistics to describe their performance. This is where our information ratios, Sharpe ratios and t-stats need some defining.

Information ratio

This ratio compares annualised realised alpha against the volatility of that alpha (known as tracking error or active risk). This statistic is most relevant for traditional fund managers who manage against an index. It addresses the question: what is the manager’s ratio for converting active risk into active return in a benchmarked fund?

Sharpe ratio

This ratio, designed by Nobel laureate William Sharpe, focuses on the total excess return (return in excess of a risk-free return, typically cash returns) against the total volatility of returns. This statistic is most commonly used by hedge fund managers. Hedge fund managers are not benchmarked and have greater flexibility and so are assumed to ‘own’ all the risk that they take. It is considered appropriate to compare their total excess return versus the total volatility of fund returns.

t-statistics

t-statistics are statistical scores used for testing the significance of a result found in an empirical (data-based) analysis. t-statistics are similar to the better known z-scores associated with normal distributions. The t distribution is considered more appropriate than the normal distribution when it comes to sample data. If a result is significant, meaning that it is unlikely to have occurred by chance, then the t-statistic would be high.

Bringing statistics together

Unfortunately most statistics have shortcomings. I always recommend the use of multiple statistics and a qualitative overlay by an experienced professional is a superior approach when analysing funds. On one hand, the information ratio and the Sharpe ratio do not distinguish between skill and luck. The t-statistic indicates the chance of the return-for-risk observation occurring randomly but doesn’t focus on the scale of the outcome. Academics may find a statistically significant result but it may be one that generates only a small level of active returns which does not even offset fees – hardly a significant finding in a real world environment.

In a broad way, we can bring this all together. First note that the information ratio (IR) and Sharpe ratio (SR) are based on annualised data and we can think of them both as excess return-for-risk statistics. If they are used in their appropriate contexts then we can compare the two against each other. From here I will show how we can use the t-statistic to assess the probability of these results, allowing us to assess the potential of whether a result was simply random luck experienced by a manager with no skill.

The key relationship is that the t-statistic is equal to the return-for-risk statistic multiplied by the square root of time. We then use this statistic to determine the probability of this return-for-risk outcome over this time period. I do not detail this calculation to keep things simple; it is the findings which I think are more important.

The chart below demonstrates the probability of different return-for-risk outcomes over varying time periods to be generated by a manager with no skill.

It is easier to understand the above chart using an example. Consider a fund manager with an information ratio of 1. If their track record is only one year in length then there is a 17% chance that this is just a random outcome generated by a manager with no skill. If the track record length is two years then the probability is around 9%, the five year probability number is less than 2%. If the track record is 10 years, the chance of generating a long term information ratio of 1 is very close to zero.

We can see the importance of the length of track record: for instance it is more likely that a manager with a 0.5 information ratio over five years has skill than a manager with a higher information ratio of 1 generated over one year.

We can also see how information ratios and Sharpe ratios of 3 are highly unlikely. In such cases you should dig deeper to understand why the return-for-risk ratio is so high.

Focus on length of track record

One important take-out is that comparing the information ratio or Sharpe ratio of fund managers with different track record lengths is a flawed approach unless you make a time adjustment. My rule of thumb has always been that a long term (greater than 10 years) information or Sharpe ratio of 0.5 is worthy of respect.

While interesting and useful this should be just one part of your analysis toolkit. I encourage caution when it comes to the use of performance statistics. For instance, these statistics assume that excess returns are (broadly) normally distributed, that they are not taking any binary bets in their portfolios (such as a hugely concentrated single stock or sector bet), and that the same teams, styles and processes have remained in place during the fund’s existence.

After all, batting averages generated in different eras against different bowling attacks on different pitches are not perfectly comparable.

 

During a 12 year amateur cricket career David Bell averaged substantially less than 10 with the bat. In mid-July 2014, David will become the Chief Investment Officer at AUSCOAL Super. He is also working towards a PhD at University of NSW.

 

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

A tonic for turbulent times: my nine tips for investing

Investing is often portrayed as unapproachably complex. Can it be distilled into nine tips? An economist with 35 years of experience through numerous market cycles and events has given it a shot.

Rival standard for savings and incomes in retirement

A new standard argues the majority of Australians will never achieve the ASFA 'comfortable' level of retirement savings and it amounts to 'fearmongering' by vested interests. If comfortable is aspirational, so be it.

Dalio v Marks is common sense v uncommon sense

Billionaire fund manager standoff: Ray Dalio thinks investing is common sense and markets are simple, while Howard Marks says complex and convoluted 'second-level' thinking is needed for superior returns.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 467

Fund manager reports for last financial year are drifting into client mailboxes, and many of the results are disappointing. With some funds giving back their 2021 gains, why did they not reduce their exposure to hot stocks when faced with rising inflation and rates?

  • 21 July 2022

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 466 with weekend update

Heard the word, cakeism? As in, 'having your cake and eating it too'. The Reserve Bank wants to simultaneously fight inflation by taking away spending power, while not driving the economy into a recession. If you want to help, stop buying stuff.

  • 14 July 2022

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 465 with weekend update

Many thanks for the thousands of revealing comments in our survey on retirement experiences. We discuss the full results. And with the ASX200 down 10%, the US S&P500 off 20% and bond prices tanking, each investor faces the new financial year deciding whether to sit, sell or invest more.

  • 7 July 2022

Latest Updates

Financial planning

Five charts show predicaments facing financial advice

The number of financial advisers in Australia has almost halved at a time of greater need than ever. What has happened to the industry and its clients as yet another Quality of Advice Review takes place?

Property

House price doomsayers: Could housing prices really fall by 20%?

Why do house prices move in an up-and-flat pattern rather than up-and-down like shares? When house prices start to fall, supply reduces to create a new equilibrium, rather than needing even more price reductions.

Latest from Morningstar

Why I’m not ready for an SMSF

SMSFs are increasing in popularity among younger investors, drawn by the investment control and fixed costs. But until a sufficient balance is achieved, it may be better to stay with a large fund.

Investment strategies

Six ways to take a ‘private equity’ approach in listed markets

By taking a private equity approach to investing in the public equity markets in this difficult market, investors can harness the 'best of both worlds' and still make superior returns over the long term.

Investment strategies

How to avoid being a bad investor

It's tough to become the 'best' investor in the world, but we can certainly avoid being the 'worst'. Here are graphical examples of some long-term principles to adopt, including the difficulty of timing the market.

Financial planning

The case for closing the financial gender gap

While the gender pay gap is slowly improving in the workplace, ATO data shows Australian men aged 55-59 average $50,000 more in super than women of the same age. Financial advisers have a role to play.

Property

Three opportunities in property in Australia and APAC

Rising interest rates and occupancy threats have reduced the share prices of many property companies and trusts, but the selling underestimates the strong pockets of demand and robust earnings from good tenants.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.