Skip to main content
PGIM LogoPGIM Logo
    • Megatrends
    • Annual Best Ideas
    • Quarterly Market Outlooks
    • Market Events
    • Thought Leadership
    • Events & Webinars
    • ESG Investing
    • Investing in Alternatives
    • Opportunities in EM
    • Risk Management
    • Clients We Serve
    • Defined Contribution
    • Financial Advisors
    • Institutional Relationships
    • Institutional Advisory & Solutions
    • Global Locations
    • Contact Us
    • Overview
    • Leadership
    • History
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Global Locations
    • Jennison Associates
    • PGIM Fixed Income
    • PGIM Private Capital
    • PGIM Real Estate
    • PGIM Quantitative Solutions
    • PGIM Portfolio Advisory
    • PGIM Investments
    • Montana Capital Partners
    • PGIM DC Solutions
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Request for Information
    • Careers at PGIM
    • Job Opportunities
    • All News
    • Press Releases
    • In the News
    • Facts & Figures
    • Media Contacts
Active Risk
Manager Allocation & Selection

Equity Portfolio Manager Active Risk and Information RatioEquityPortfolioManagerActiveRiskandInformationRatio

By Wenbo Zhang — Nov 25, 2020

10 mins

Share
  • Mail
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Copy URL
Download white paper

Share

How Does the Reward Vary with Active Risk?

Institutional investors not only care about the final investment result, but also its path. A bumpy route implies some painful moments, making it challenging to “stay the course.” This concern also applies to active equity management. Active managers deviate from the benchmark (i.e., take active risk) to outperform, raising the possibility of occasional unfavorable results. Is the realized active return “worth” the pain of tracking error risk? Using the information ratio (IR) as a measure of “risk-adjusted performance,” do high active risk (AR) equity portfolio managers realize a higher (or lower) IR compared to low AR managers?

We examine three equity investment mandates: Large-cap (US), developed markets excluding North America (EAFE) and emerging markets (EM). We use the Russell 1000, MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM indices, respectively, as benchmarks for the three mandates. From the eVestment database, we collect information of 515 US, 258 EAFE and 474 EM managers who reported performance any time between January 1999 and December 2019 and with a continuous performance reporting length of at least 5y. We record each manager’s mandate, investment approach (fundamental or quantitative) and monthly performance (gross of fees).   

We estimate a manager’s ex ante active risk, which is not observable, by their realized portfolio tracking error volatility (TEV) versus the benchmark. Although the ex ante AR and ex post TEV are unlikely to be equal due to estimation error and unexpected shocks, we expect them to be closely related. In other words, a manager budgeting higher active risk tends to realize higher TEV relative to peers with lower active risk. Consequently, we estimate and identify a manager’s ex ante active risk level (which we argue is an intrinsic characteristic) based on their long-term realized TEV rank relative to peers.  

To accommodate CIOs who may or may not separate managers with different investment approaches, we consider two scenarios: Cross-approach,where the CIO does not control for investment approach when selecting managers, and within-approach, in which case the CIO first classifies managers by investment approach and then identifies the High/Low AR groups. In each scenario, we simulate many paths of investment performance by assuming the CIO randomly chooses managers from the identified group.  

The results from the cross-approach show that there is no universal relationship between manager AR and IR.  High AR managers generated higher IR in developed markets (especially EAFE) but did not do as well as Low AR managers in EM, although High AR managers achieved higher alpha across all three mandates.  We argue that the negative relationship between IR and AR arises from the volatility uncertainty of EM measured by the difference between the ex ante forecasting volatility and ex post realized volatility (Figure 1).  It is most difficult to forecast the EM volatility.  Periods of unexpectedly high volatility produces unexpectedly high TEV which drags down the IR of High AR managers.  Consequently, setting an aggressive active risk target in EM is a challenging endeavor though there might be better alpha opportunities for such managers. 

The within-approach, where the CIO first selects the investment approach and then groups managers by AR, offers another perspective. A CIO hiring a US fundamental manager would have been better hiring a High AR manager; but if the CIO wanted to hire a US quantitative manager, it would have been better to hire a Low AR manager.  For EAFE, the High AR fundamental portfolio outperformed the High AR quantitative manager, while the results were reversed for EM where the Low AR quantitative manager outperformed the Low AR fundamental manager.  We suspect, though open to other explanations, that since risk in EAFE can be estimated reasonably well, the High AR fundamental manager is able to exercise skill aggressively with a low chance of an unexpected (high) TEV outcome, thus generating both a higher IR and alpha.  In contrast, risk in EM is difficult to forecast, so even a skillful fundamental manager ends up, at times, being penalized in IR terms for targeting an ambitious active risk level despite having a considerably higher alpha.  US managers, quantitative and fundamental, find themselves somewhere in between with a good ability to forecast risk but limited alpha opportunities.

This study suggests the CIO should think structurally when evaluating the AR-IR relationship.  Certain types of managers may be more suitable to the CIO’s investment goal, and comparing managers with different investment approaches, even in the same mandate, may be misleading.  Instead, comparing managers with a similar investment approach can help the CIO focus on manager idiosyncratic security-selection skills and avoid, if any, systematic bias. Some “unexpected” results (e.g., EM High AR fundamental managers having higher alpha but lower IR compared to Low AR peers, and EM Low AR quantitative managers having lower alpha but higher IR compared to High AR peers) imply an opportunity for the CIO to assemble a portfolio of managers with distinct strategies to improve portfolio IR while meeting their active return target. We offer a more comprehensive discussion of this issue in an earlier research report: What is the Optimal Number of Equity Managers? A CIO Toolkit for Manager Allocation.

Download white paper
Learn More
Institutional Advisory & Solutions

The IAS team conducts bespoke, quantitative client research that focuses on asset allocation and portfolio analysis.

Learn More

  • By Wenbo ZhangSenior Associate, PGIM Quantitative Solutions

You may also like

Measuring the Value of LP Fund-Selection Skill: A Fair Comparison Framework
Manager Allocation & Selection

Measuring the Value of LP Fund-Selection Skill: A Fair Comparison Framework

Apr 6, 2020

Using the IAS fair comparison framework, this publication explores the impact of choices an investor in private markets must make.

What is the Optimal Number of Equity Managers?
Manager Allocation & Selection

What is the Optimal Number of Equity Managers?

Feb 3, 2020

Introducing the Manager Allocation Programming (MAP) tool to help CIOs efficiently combine managers of different strategies.

Anchor to Windward: Aligning Absolute Return Objectives
Manager Allocation & Selection

Anchor to Windward: Aligning Absolute Return Objectives

Apr 23, 2018

The Anchor ratio helps identify absolute return strategies and funds with more consistent and sustained performance.

  • Insights

    • Megatrends
    • Annual Best Ideas
    • Quarterly Market Outlooks
    • Market Events
    • Thought Leadership
    • Events & Webinars
  • Investment Themes

    • ESG Investing
    • Investing in Alternatives
    • Investing in Emerging Markets
  • Clients

    • Clients We Serve
    • Defined Contribution
    • Financial Advisors
    • Institutional Relationships
    • Advisory Solutions
  • About

    • Overview
    • Leadership
    • History
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Global Locations
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Request for Information
  • Careers

    • Careers at PGIM
    • Job Opportunities
  • Newsroom

    • All News
    • Press Releases
    • In The News
    • Facts & Figures
    • Media Contacts
PGIM Logo
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Center
  • Accessibility Help
  • UK Regulatory Disclosures
  • Netherlands Regulatory Disclosures
  • Cookie Preference Center

For Professional Investors only. All investments involve risk, including the possible loss of capital.

This material is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or an offer or solicitation in respect of any products or services to any persons who are prohibited from receiving such information under the laws applicable to their place of citizenship, domicile or residence. PGIM is the principal asset management business of Prudential Financial, Inc. and a trading name of PGIM, Inc. and its global subsidiaries. PGIM, Inc. is a registered investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Registration with the SEC does not imply a certain level of skill or training.

The information on this website is not intended as investment advice and is not a recommendation about managing or investing your retirement savings. In making the information available on this website, PGIM, Inc. and its affiliates are not acting as your fiduciary.    

In the United Kingdom, information is issued by PGIM Limited with registered office: Grand Buildings, 1-3 Strand, Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5HR. PGIM Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) of the United Kingdom (Firm Reference Number 193418). In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), information is issued by PGIM Netherlands B.V. with registered office: Gustav Mahlerlaan 1212, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PGIM Netherlands B.V. is, authorised by the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (“AFM”) in the Netherlands (Registration number 15003620) and operating on the basis of a European passport. In certain EEA countries, information is, where permitted, presented by PGIM Limited in reliance of provisions, exemptions or licenses available to PGIM Limited under temporary permission arrangements following the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union. These materials are issued by PGIM Limited and/or PGIM Netherlands B.V. to persons who are professional clients as defined under the rules of the FCA and/or to persons who are professional clients as defined in the relevant local implementation of Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II). In Italy, information is provided by PGIM Limited authorized to operate in Italy by Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB). 

In Japan, information is provided by PGIM Japan Co., Ltd. (“PGIM Japan”) and/or PGIM Real Estate (Japan) Ltd. (“PGIMREJ”).  PGIM Japan, a registered Financial Instruments Business Operator with the Financial Services Agency of Japan offers various investment management services in Japan.  PGIMREJ is a Japanese real estate asset manager that is registered with the Kanto Local Finance Bureau of Japan.

In Hong Kong, information is provided by PGIM (Hong Kong) Limited, a regulated entity with the Securities & Futures Commission in Hong Kong to professional investors as defined in Section 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571). In Singapore, information is issued by PGIM (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (“PGIM Singapore”), a regulated entity with the Monetary Authority of Singapore under a Capital Markets Services License to conduct fund management and an exempt financial adviser. This material is issued by PGIM Singapore for the general information of “institutional investors” pursuant to Section 304 of the Securities and Futures Act 2001 of Singapore (the “SFA”) and “accredited investors” and other relevant persons in accordance with the conditions specified in Section 305 of the SFA. In South Korea, information is issued by PGIM, Inc., which is licensed to provide discretionary investment management services directly to South Korean qualified institutional investors on a cross-border basis.   

Prudential Financial, Inc. (“PFI”) of the United States is not affiliated in any manner with Prudential plc, incorporated in the United Kingdom or with Prudential Assurance Company, a subsidiary of M&G plc, incorporated in the United Kingdom. 

You are viewing this page in preview mode.

Edit Page