Risk adjusted performance measures

What Is Risk-Adjusted Performance Measures?

Risk-adjusted performance measures are analytical tools used to evaluate the return of an investment or portfolio in relation to the risk taken to achieve that return. Unlike simple return metrics, these measures provide a more holistic view of investment performance by accounting for the level of volatility or other forms of risk inherent in an investment strategy. They are a fundamental component of portfolio management and fall under the broader category of Portfolio Theory. By adjusting returns for risk, investors and financial professionals can make more informed decisions, comparing diverse investment opportunities on a more equitable basis. These measures help ascertain whether higher returns are merely a result of taking on excessive risk or if they truly stem from skilled management and effective diversification.

History and Origin

The concept of risk-adjusted performance measures gained significant traction with the advent of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) in the mid-20th century. Harry Markowitz's seminal work in 1952 laid the groundwork by emphasizing the importance of considering portfolios as a whole, rather than individual assets, and quantifying the trade-off between risk and return. Building upon this, William F. Sharpe introduced one of the most widely recognized risk-adjusted performance measures, the Sharpe Ratio, in 1966. Sharpe's work, which also contributed to the development of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), provided a practical framework for evaluating investment performance relative to the risk assumed. He initially referred to it as the "reward-to-variability ratio," a term he later refined in a 1994 paper.⁶

Key Takeaways

• Risk-adjusted performance measures evaluate investment returns in relation to the amount of risk undertaken.
• They provide a more comprehensive view of investment performance than raw returns.
• Common measures include the Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio, and Jensen's Alpha.
• These measures are crucial for comparing investments with different risk profiles.
• A higher risk-adjusted performance measure generally indicates a more efficient return for the risk taken.

Formula and Calculation

Several key risk-adjusted performance measures utilize specific formulas:

1. Sharpe Ratio (SR): Measures excess return per unit of Standard Deviation (total risk).
$SR = \frac{R_p - R_f}{\sigma_p}$
Where:

• (R_p) = Portfolio Return
• (R_f) = Risk-free Rate
• (\sigma_p) = Standard Deviation of the portfolio's excess return (or total return, depending on convention)

2. Treynor Ratio (TR): Measures excess return per unit of Beta (systematic risk).
$TR = \frac{R_p - R_f}{\beta_p}$
Where:

• (R_p) = Portfolio Return
• (R_f) = Risk-free Rate
• (\beta_p) = Portfolio Beta

3. Jensen's Alpha (α): Measures a portfolio's return above or below the return predicted by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).
$\alpha = R_p - [R_f + \beta_p (R_m - R_f)]$
Where:

• (R_p) = Portfolio Return
• (R_f) = Risk-free Rate
• (\beta_p) = Portfolio Beta
• (R_m) = Benchmark market return

Interpreting Risk-Adjusted Performance Measures

Interpreting risk-adjusted performance measures involves comparing the calculated values. Generally, a higher value for measures like the Sharpe Ratio or Treynor Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance. For example, if Portfolio A has a Sharpe Ratio of 1.2 and Portfolio B has a Sharpe Ratio of 0.8, Portfolio A is considered to have generated more return for each unit of risk it undertook.

Jensen's Alpha, on the other hand, measures a manager's ability to generate Alpha, or excess returns beyond what would be expected given the portfolio's systematic risk. A positive alpha suggests superior performance relative to the benchmark and the risk taken, while a negative alpha indicates underperformance. These measures help differentiate between returns generated purely by market exposure and those attributable to manager skill.

Hypothetical Example

Consider two hypothetical portfolios, Fund X and Fund Y, over a one-year period. The risk-free rate is 2%.

Fund X:

• Annual Return ((R_p)): 12%
• Standard Deviation ((\sigma_p)): 10%

Fund Y:

• Annual Return ((R_p)): 15%
• Standard Deviation ((\sigma_p)): 18%

Let's calculate the Sharpe Ratio for both:

Fund X Sharpe Ratio:
$SR_X = \frac{0.12 - 0.02}{0.10} = \frac{0.10}{0.10} = 1.00$

Fund Y Sharpe Ratio:
$SR_Y = \frac{0.15 - 0.02}{0.18} = \frac{0.13}{0.18} \approx 0.72$

While Fund Y delivered a higher absolute return (15% vs. 12%), Fund X achieved a better risk-adjusted performance with a Sharpe Ratio of 1.00 compared to Fund Y's 0.72. This indicates that Fund X generated more return per unit of volatility, making it the more efficient investment from a risk-adjusted perspective. This example highlights why evaluating raw returns alone can be misleading and how risk-adjusted performance measures provide a more nuanced understanding of an investment's quality.

Practical Applications

Risk-adjusted performance measures are extensively used across the financial industry. Portfolio Management teams utilize them to construct and rebalance portfolios, aiming to maximize risk-adjusted returns for their clients. Institutional investors, such as pension funds and endowments, rely on these measures to evaluate the performance of external money managers and allocate capital effectively. For individual investors, understanding these measures can aid in selecting mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or other investment products that align with their risk tolerance and financial goals.

Furthermore, industry standards and regulatory bodies also incorporate these concepts. The Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS), developed by the CFA Institute, provide a widely accepted framework for calculating and presenting investment performance with the aim of promoting full disclosure and fair representation. ⁵Similarly, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has rules, such as Rule 206(4)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, that govern how investment advisers advertise performance, often requiring certain disclosures related to risk and returns to ensure transparency and prevent misleading statements.
⁴

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite their widespread use, risk-adjusted performance measures, particularly the Sharpe Ratio, have limitations. One significant criticism is their reliance on Standard Deviation as the sole measure of risk. Standard deviation treats both upside and downside volatility equally, but many investors are primarily concerned with downside risk (losses). ³Therefore, measures like the Sortino Ratio, which focuses only on downside deviation, have emerged as alternatives.

Another common critique is the assumption that investment returns follow a normal distribution. In reality, financial market returns often exhibit skewness (asymmetry) and kurtosis (fat tails), meaning extreme events occur more frequently than a normal distribution would predict. In such cases, the Sharpe Ratio may not accurately reflect the true risk-adjusted performance. ²Furthermore, these measures are backward-looking, relying on historical data, which may not be indicative of future performance. Manipulation by portfolio managers through practices like "cherry-picking" favorable time periods or altering measurement intervals can also distort the perceived risk-adjusted returns.
¹

Risk-Adjusted Performance Measures vs. Absolute Return

Risk-adjusted performance measures differ fundamentally from Absolute Return. Absolute return refers to the total gain or loss of an investment over a specific period, expressed as a percentage. It does not consider the risk taken to achieve that return, nor does it compare performance against a benchmark or a risk-free rate. For example, an investment yielding a 10% absolute return might seem appealing, but if it required taking on extremely high volatility or leverage, its risk-adjusted performance could be poor.

Conversely, risk-adjusted performance measures explicitly factor in the risk component. They help answer not just "what was the return?" but "what was the return for the risk taken?" An investment with a lower absolute return but significantly lower risk could have a superior risk-adjusted performance compared to one with a higher absolute return but disproportionately high risk. This distinction is crucial for investors who prioritize capital preservation and seek efficient returns, rather than just the highest possible gains regardless of the associated risk.

FAQs

Q: What is a "good" risk-adjusted performance measure value?
A: A "good" value depends on the specific measure and the context. For the Sharpe Ratio, generally, a value above 1.0 is considered good, above 2.0 is very good, and above 3.0 is excellent. However, it's most effective when comparing an investment's value against its peers or a benchmark in the same asset class.

Q: Why can't I just look at the highest return?
A: Looking only at the highest return can be misleading because it doesn't account for the risk taken. An investment might have delivered high returns due to excessive risk-taking, which could lead to significant losses in different market conditions. Risk-adjusted performance measures provide a more balanced view of investment performance.

Q: Do all risk-adjusted performance measures use the same definition of risk?
A: No. While many use Standard Deviation (total volatility) like the Sharpe Ratio, others use different risk metrics. For instance, the Treynor Ratio focuses on Beta (systematic risk), and the Sortino Ratio specifically looks at downside risk. The choice of measure often depends on the type of risk an investor is most concerned about.

Q: Are risk-adjusted performance measures applicable to all types of investments?
A: They are widely applicable to traditional assets like stocks and bonds. However, for alternative investments such as hedge funds or private equity, which may have non-normal return distributions or illiquid assets, traditional measures might have limitations, and specialized risk metrics or qualitative analysis may be needed.

Q: How does the risk-free rate affect these calculations?
A: The risk-free rate serves as a baseline for returns. It represents the return an investor could expect from an investment with virtually no risk, such as a short-term U.S. Treasury bill. By subtracting the risk-free rate, risk-adjusted performance measures focus on the "excess return" generated above this baseline, providing a clearer picture of the premium earned for taking on risk.