The Edhec Risk and Asset Management Research Centre releases research that is critical of the existing ratings systems:
In 2002, EuroPerformance, which is the leading French firm for the dissemination of mutual fund data, approached the Edhec research centre to consider the implementation of a value-added offering in the area of external analysis of the performance and risks of European investment funds.
The method followed to implement the design of these new ratings was to carry out a thorough study of the insufficiencies of the existing rating methods in order to correct them by relying on the state-of-the-art in portfolio risk and performance measurement in a business context.
The Rating the Ratings document constitutes a detailed summary of the critical study and puts into perspective the responses given to the inadequacies of the existing ratings by the EuroPerformance-Edhec Style Ratings.
The ratings compare funds that are not comparable.
The analysis of the main existing ratings carried out by Edhec shows that for numerous categories, notably the categories corresponding to equity funds invested in large-cap stocks and internationally diversified funds, the rankings contain a mix of investment vehicles that present totally different risks and as such are not comparable. The style exposure averages in the equities category are not representative, since the mean dispersion (standard deviation) of the weights of each style is often greater than their average.
The performance-related ranking methods based on the Information Ratio implemented by Lipper and S&P exacerbate the fragility of the ratings linked to the poor definition of categories, because the ranking is extremely sensitive to the choice of index, which is included in the calculation of both outperformance and relative volatility (tracking error).
More globally, all of the ratings are based on rankings that are related to categories, which makes them particularly fragile and not very robust, since they depend on the prior definition of the categories. The stars attributed in each category are not comparable and do not have the same value. Depending on the breadth of the category to which they belong, the same funds can find themselves being attributed different levels of stars.
The style of the funds is not genuinely taken into account
Even though academic research work has shown that the choice of style (Growth, Value, Small Cap or Large Cap) was a determining factor in a portfolio��s risk and performance over a long period, this notion is either poorly taken into account or not taken into account in the ratings.
As a result, none of the major international rating agencies are capable of distinguishing clearly between value funds and growth funds in the European market. Moreover, when an agency attempts to do this, the integration of the style is not based on any serious analysis. Almost 70% of the funds ranked as Large Cap in the Morningstar Global Equity or Equity Euroland Large Cap categories actually have a majority exposure to the Small Cap style.
Alphas missing from performance measurement and scores that depend on the chance of financial markets
Furthermore, these approaches do not lead to each fund being attributed a benchmark that is representative of the risks taken. The fund’s ranking is not therefore produced on the basis of its real outperformance (alpha), but depends on the overall performance which itself is conditioned strongly by whether the prevailing situation is favourable for the styles to which the mutual funds are exposed. With the exception of the scores attributed by Aptimum, the authors of the study estimate that, for the vast majority of rating categories, the scores attributed do not depend on either the manager’s stock picking or tactical allocation capability, but on their exposure over a long period to one or more styles, without it being possible to say whether this selection of risks over the long period is due to skill or luck.
This inability to distinguish between performance and outperformance makes any use of ratings as a tool for selecting managers or funds illusory. For the most part, the best scores obtained come from the evolution of the risk premiums of the styles to which the funds are exposed. Financial theory postulates that these follow a random walk or, at least, cannot be determined by only observing past values.
Potential extreme loss not taken into account; the lessons from the stock market crashes have still not been learned.
The study also shows that the calculation of the extreme loss potential (VaR) to which the funds are exposed is either not performed (Morningstar, S&P and Aptimum) or not taken into account (Lipper) in the fund��s overall score, even though funds are increasingly turning to derivative instruments, and are invested in assets that present non-normal distributions, which makes the use of volatility as the only risk measure illusory.
Performance persistence measurement is inadequate
Finally, performance persistence measurement is not given enough attention. Most rating agencies do not provide a satisfactory solution, either because of a lack or inadequacy of the measure (S&P, Morningstar and Aptimum), or because it is not integrated into the overall score (Lipper).
New ratings to respond to the inadequacies of the current ratings
On the basis of the critiques and the solutions proposed by modern portfolio theory, EuroPerformance and Edhec have proposed a method that breaks free from the criticism described above:
�{ It is an absolute rating that only allows a fund-specific benchmark to be calculated for each of the funds. The attribution of stars no longer depends on a category.
�{ The outperformance (alpha) is the principal criterion for attributing stars and alpha is a magnitude that does not depend on the prevailing situation and thus on the chance of the financial markets, but only on the managers skill, the persistence of which can be measured.
�{ The fund��s extreme loss potential (VaR) is measured and integrated into the overall rating process. �{ The measurement of the persistence of outperformance is subjected to a thorough quantitative analysis and is also integrated into the overall rating process.
The complete version of the study is available on request from Carolyn Essid (contact details below).
Contact: For further information, please contact: Carolyn Essid �V Tel.: +33 (0)4 93 18 78 24 �V E-mail: carolyn.essid@edhec-risk.com or visit our web site: www.edhec-risk.com
About Edhec
Founded in 1906, Edhec Business School is a top-ranking, full range business school with campuses in Lille and Nice, France. One of the few institutions worldwide to have earned the “triple crown” of international accreditations (AACSB, EQUIS, AMBA), Edhec Business School boasts the largest selection of English taught management programs in France. Ranked in the top 5 of the French “Grandes Ecoles”, the school offers a leading Masters in Management program, six specialized M.Sc. courses, and the Theseus MBA. Edhec Business School’s alumni are active in 70 countries worldwide.
Edhec Business School is recognized as a centre of excellence for asset management and alternative investment research and several of its professors are regarded as international experts in the fields of asset management, fixed income securities, alternative investments and risk management. The Edhec Risk and Asset Management Research Centre’s team of 28 researchers implements six industry-sponsored programs focusing on asset allocation and risk management in the traditional and alternative investment universes. Adopted by managers and investors, the Edhec Alternative Indexes are superior measures of performance of the various hedge fund styles.
The research centre maintains a website devoted to asset management research for the business community, www.edhec-risk.com, and has given rise to Edhec-Risk Advisory, Edhec Alternative Investment Education and Edhec Investment Research.
Edhec-Risk Advisory is a consultancy advising institutional investors on risk management issues and offering a wide range of support services to fund managers.
Edhec Alternative Investment Education helps investment professionals to upgrade their skills with hedge fund training and preparatory courses for the CAIA examinations, the alternative investment industry’s global educational standard.
Edhec Investment Research supports institutional investors and asset managers in implementing the results of the Edhec Risk and Asset Management Research Centre’s research. It proposes asset allocation services in the context of a “core-satellite” approach encompassing alternative investments.
