替代Beta:参考点-重要吗?

Daniel Leveau, P. Gander, Thomas J. Pfiffner
{"title":"替代Beta:参考点-重要吗?","authors":"Daniel Leveau, P. Gander, Thomas J. Pfiffner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2087377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the fact that within the indexing space relative risk characteristics such as tracking error or beta are in theory of little relevance – each index is a passive beta source in its own right – comparing these risk measures may nonetheless prove insightful. Crucially however, the conclusions one can draw from such a relative analysis are strongly dependent on the chosen point of reference. A slavish adherence to a market capitalization-weighted index as the only viable point of reference leads to one set of conclusions that raises a number of questions. For instance, does it really make sense that an equal weighted index – that could be considered to be the true passive approach as no information whatsoever enters the index construction process – exhibits certain style biases such as value? We recommend that all investors scrutinize the so called point of reference when judging the characteristics of an index. Taking economic intuition and its “clean slate” index construction process into consideration, we conclude for ourselves that it would make sense to use an equal - weighted index rather than a market capitalization-weighted index as a point of reference when conducting various style and relative risk assessments of various indexing methods.","PeriodicalId":249249,"journal":{"name":"POL: Other Strategy & Macroeconomic Policy (Topic)","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alternative Beta: Point of Reference - Does it Matter?\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Leveau, P. Gander, Thomas J. Pfiffner\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2087377\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the fact that within the indexing space relative risk characteristics such as tracking error or beta are in theory of little relevance – each index is a passive beta source in its own right – comparing these risk measures may nonetheless prove insightful. Crucially however, the conclusions one can draw from such a relative analysis are strongly dependent on the chosen point of reference. A slavish adherence to a market capitalization-weighted index as the only viable point of reference leads to one set of conclusions that raises a number of questions. For instance, does it really make sense that an equal weighted index – that could be considered to be the true passive approach as no information whatsoever enters the index construction process – exhibits certain style biases such as value? We recommend that all investors scrutinize the so called point of reference when judging the characteristics of an index. Taking economic intuition and its “clean slate” index construction process into consideration, we conclude for ourselves that it would make sense to use an equal - weighted index rather than a market capitalization-weighted index as a point of reference when conducting various style and relative risk assessments of various indexing methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":249249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"POL: Other Strategy & Macroeconomic Policy (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"114 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"POL: Other Strategy & Macroeconomic Policy (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2087377\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"POL: Other Strategy & Macroeconomic Policy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2087377","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管在指数空间中,跟踪误差或贝塔等相对风险特征在理论上无关紧要——每个指数本身都是被动的贝塔来源——但比较这些风险指标可能证明是有见地的。然而,至关重要的是,从这种相对分析中得出的结论强烈依赖于所选择的参考点。盲目地将市值加权指数作为唯一可行的参考点,会得出一系列结论,从而引发一系列问题。例如,一个等加权指数——可以被认为是真正的被动方法,因为没有任何信息进入指数构建过程——表现出某些风格偏差,比如价值,这真的有意义吗?我们建议所有投资者在判断一个指数的特征时仔细审查所谓的参考点。考虑到经济直觉及其“从零开始”的指数构建过程,我们自己得出结论,在对各种指数方法进行各种风格和相对风险评估时,使用等权指数而不是市值加权指数作为参考点是有意义的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Alternative Beta: Point of Reference - Does it Matter?
Despite the fact that within the indexing space relative risk characteristics such as tracking error or beta are in theory of little relevance – each index is a passive beta source in its own right – comparing these risk measures may nonetheless prove insightful. Crucially however, the conclusions one can draw from such a relative analysis are strongly dependent on the chosen point of reference. A slavish adherence to a market capitalization-weighted index as the only viable point of reference leads to one set of conclusions that raises a number of questions. For instance, does it really make sense that an equal weighted index – that could be considered to be the true passive approach as no information whatsoever enters the index construction process – exhibits certain style biases such as value? We recommend that all investors scrutinize the so called point of reference when judging the characteristics of an index. Taking economic intuition and its “clean slate” index construction process into consideration, we conclude for ourselves that it would make sense to use an equal - weighted index rather than a market capitalization-weighted index as a point of reference when conducting various style and relative risk assessments of various indexing methods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信