Subscribe
Featured Image

How “Skill” is Missing From Performance Discussions

Risk, Performance, and Reporting

By Michael A. Ervolini  |  April 7, 2022

Institutional and retail investors allocate vast sums to actively managed equities seeking alpha and additional diversification. However, identifying managers likely to outperform going forward remains a challenging endeavor for these investors. Today, these allocation decisions are exceptionally difficult in that they are made without the benefit of a clear understanding of the skills and investment processes each manager possesses.

The Need for Clarity

Investors prefer to allocate to skilled managers—but exactly what is “skill”? And who has it? Answers to basic questions like these are not readily available. Conventional analytics such as attribution, information ratio, tracking error, and upside/downside capture help explain how portfolio results were generated, but they do not quantify skill. Consider a fundamental equity portfolio that has generated a positive relative return for the past several years. Attribution analysis indicates positive stock selection for the portfolio, which may lead some to infer that the manager is skilled at buying stocks. As intuitively tempting as this conclusion appears, it can be painfully wrong. Let’s consider how.

Assume that this portfolio holds positions for 36 months on average. Further, assume that the age of the positions held in the portfolio is evenly distributed such that the average age across all positions is approximately 18 months.

Additional analysis exposes that the manager’s ability to identify new stocks likely to outperform is moderate to weak—with only one in four new purchases generating alpha. Given this paltry success rate in buying new stocks, is it possible then for this manager’s portfolio to reflect a strong stock selection? Indeed, it is—and here is how.

When Selling Drives Selection

Suppose the manager is able to identify within a few months of purchase which of their new buys is unlikely to generate excess return and sells off these laggards promptly such that weak buys stay in the portfolio only a few months while strong buys might be held for multiple years. The resulting portfolio would be populated more heavily by older winning stocks. Attribution applied to this portfolio would show a strong return from stock selection—driven by skilled selling, not skilled buying.

This presents two related issues for the capital owner:

  1. The manager may be perceived as possessing a strong buy skill which is incorrect
  2. Should the sell skill weaken, portfolio results would drop, with neither the manager nor asset owner understanding why

Quantifying “Skill”

Skill is found in the actions taken by the manager. Within this framework, actions are defined as changes in position weights from one day to the next that cannot be explained by price movement alone. Such actions clearly identify buys, sells, adds, and trims. Each type of action can then be aggregated and investigated as a unique skill.

Skill is found in the actions taken by the manager.

Computing the buy skill starts with the creation of an alternative or counterfactual portfolio. The counterfactual initiates new buys on the same day they show up in the actual portfolio. These new stocks are then sized and sold passively. The result is a portfolio that reflects only the manager’s active buy decisions and none of their sizing or selling decisions. The relative return computed for this counterfactual portfolio quantifies the manager’s buy skill.

The Tiebreaker

Asset owners commonly face a choice between managers that are virtually identical based on conventional metrics. Consider two equity managers whose portfolios have generated similar returns, have the same style, hold a similar number of positions, reflect similar active share, and are evenly matched when it comes to information ratio, tracking error, attribution, and upside/downside capture. Choosing between these managers is frequently motivated more by gutfeel than analytic insight.

Now, add further analyses into the mix from Cabot, a FactSet company, that shows one of the managers has a consistently positive buy skill and their portfolio history indicates a very consistent buy process, while the second manager has a buy skill that goes negative from time to time and their buy process is much more varied or suggestive of an opportunistic approach to sourcing new stocks. Asset owners armed with this additional information may prefer the manager with consistently strong buy skill and buy process. The thinking is that repeatable decisions are likely to result in repeatable results—all other things being equal.

Strong buy skill together with a consistent buy process are increasingly being seen as valuable metrics for assessing active equity managers.

Identification and Allocation

Active equities remain a desirable asset class to retail and institutional investors. This enthusiasm is frequently met with the challenge of identifying which manager to whom the allocation should be directed using less than sufficient information. Traditional analytics offer useful insights into portfolio performance. They are far less helpful in enabling investors to understand manager skill or in supporting allocation decisions. Strong buy skill together with a consistent buy process are increasingly being seen as valuable metrics for assessing active equity managers. Fortunately, rigorous measures of skill and process are becoming more widespread.

This article was original published by the Financial Times.

This blog post is for informational purposes only. The information contained in this blog post is not legal, tax, or investment advice. FactSet does not endorse or recommend any investments and assumes no liability for any consequence relating directly or indirectly to any action or inaction taken based on the information contained in this article.

New call-to-action

Michael A. Ervolini

Director of Strategy, Core Analytics

Mr. Michael A. Ervolini is a Director of Strategy, Core Analytics at FactSet. In this role, he is responsible for thought leadership across active management and working directly with our strategic accounts and is a prolific writer and commentator on industry-shaping topics such as behavioral finance, decision making under uncertainty, and new metrics for identifying and quantifying manager skills. Prior, he was a co-founder of Cabot, founder and CEO of Charter Research Corporation, a Portfolio Manager and Chief Information Officer with AEW Capital Management, and a Vice President with Legg Mason Real Estate Institutional Advisors. Mr. Ervolini earned a bachelor's degree in economics from Rutgers University and an M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania.

Comments

The information contained in this article is not investment advice. FactSet does not endorse or recommend any investments and assumes no liability for any consequence relating directly or indirectly to any action or inaction taken based on the information contained in this article.