© All Rights Reserved

2 tayangan

sortino-a-sharper-ratio.pdf

© All Rights Reserved

- The Origins and Severity of the Public Pension Crisis
- AIQ - SFA Score Article
- Polaris Capital
- AQR Portfolio Rebalancing Part 1 Strategic Asset Allocation
- impact of stock split to stock return
- SMChap001
- Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2018 En
- Betting Against Beta (Frazzini + Pedersen, 2014).pdf
- Awareness Regarding Equity Products Amongst Corporate Employees
- 51064_21199
- afganistan rosi.ppt
- Calculation
- Topic 9
- 52 - 10 Different Ways to Follow the Trend
- marmmath
- Rate of return
- 72324390
- Stock Valuation Les
- مسرد بالمصطلحات المستخدمة في امتحان شھادة المحاسب الإداري المعتم1
- Demo_Introduction to Investment and Portfolio Management

Anda di halaman 1dari 6

A ‘Sharper’ Ratio

Thomas N. Rollinger

Scott T. Hoffman

www.RedRockCapital.com

Sortino: A ‘Sharper’ Ratio | By Thomas N. Rollinger & Scott T. Hoffman | Red Rock Capital

Many traders and investment managers have the desire to measure and compare CTA

managers and / or trading systems. We believe risk-adjusted returns are one of the most

important measures to consider since, given the inherent / free leverage of the futures

markets, more return can always be earned by taking more risk. The most popular measure

of risk-adjusted performance is the Sharpe ratio. While the Sharpe ratio is definitely the most

widely used, it is not without its issues and limitations. We believe the Sortino ratio improves

on the Sharpe ratio in a few areas. The purpose of this article, however, is not necessarily to

extol the virtues of the Sortino ratio, but rather to review its definition and present how to

properly calculate it since we have often seen its calculation done incorrectly.

Sharpe Ratio

The Sharpe ratio is a metric which aims to

mean mean

measure the desirability of a risky investment

strategy or instrument by dividing the average typical CTA trend typical options

following program seller program

period return in excess of the risk-free rate by

the standard deviation of the return generating

process. Devised in 1966 as a measure of per-

formance for mutual funds, it undoubtedly has

some value as a measue of strategy “quality”, but Positive Skew Negative Skew

it also has a few limitations (see Sharpe 1994 for

GRAPH 2

a recent restatement and review of its principles).

Same Sharpe, much different risk.

The Sharpe ratio does not distinguish between

upside and downside volatility (graph 1a). In fact,

high outlier returns have the effect of increasing ical trend following CTA strategy, the Sharpe

the value of the denominator (standard deviation) ratio can be increased by removing the largest

more than the value of the numerator, thereby positive returns. This is nonsensical since inves-

lowering the value of the ratio. For a positively tors generally welcome large positive returns.

skewed return distribution such as that of a typ- To the extent that the distribution of returns

is non-normal, the Sharpe ratio falls short. It is

a particularly poor performance metric when

mean desired comparing positively skewed strategies like

a b target

return trend following to negatively skewed strategies

like option selling (graph 2). In fact, for posi-

tively skewed return distributions, performance

is actually achieved with less risk than the Sharpe

ratio suggests. Conversely, standard deviation

downside upside downside understates risk for negatively skewed return

volatility volatility volatility distributions, i.e. the strategy is actually more

GRAPH 1 risky than the Sharpe ratio suggests.

1 980 N. Michigan Ave | Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60611

Sortino: A ‘Sharper’ Ratio | By Thomas N. Rollinger & Scott T. Hoffman | Red Rock Capital

In many ways, the Sortino ratio is a better The Sortino Ratio, S is defined as:

choice, especially when measuring and compar- (R – T)

ing the performance of managers whose programs S=

TDD

exhibit skew in their return distributions. The Where:

Sortino ratio is a modification of the Sharpe R = the average period return

ratio but uses downside deviation rather than T = the target or required rate of return for

standard deviation as the measure of risk—i.e. the investment strategy under consideration. In

only those returns falling below a user-specified Sortino’s early work, T was originally known as

target (See “desired target return,” graph 1b), or the minimum acceptable return, or MAR. In his

required rate of return are considered risky. more recent work, MAR is now referred to as

the Desired Target Returntm.

It is interesting to note that even Nobel laureate

TDD = the target downside deviation. The

Harry Markowitz, when he developed Modern

target downside deviation is defined as the root-

Portfolio Theory in 1959, recognized that since

mean-square, or RMS, of the deviations of the

only downside deviation is relevant to investors,

realized return’s underperformance from the

using downside deviation to measure risk would

target return where all returns above the target

be more appropriate than using standard devi-

return are treated as underperformance of 0.

ation. However, he used variance (the square

Mathematically:

of standard deviation) in his MPT work since

optimizations using downside deviation were Target Downside Deviation =

computationally impractical at the time.

In the early 1980s, Dr. Frank Sortino had un-

dertaken research to come up with an improved

measure for risk-adjusted returns. According to Where:

Sortino, it was Brian Rom’s idea at Investment Xi = ith return

Technologies to call the new measure the Sorti- N = total number of returns

no ratio. The first reference to the ratio was in T = target return

Financial Executive Magazine (August, 1980) and

the first calculation was published in a series of The equation for TDD is very similar

articles in the Journal of Risk Management (Sep- to the definition of standard deviation:

tember, 1981). Standard Deviation =

SORTINO RATIO

(R – T)

S= Where:

TDD

Xi = ith return

N = total number of returns

u = average of all Xi returns.

2 980 N. Michigan Ave | Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60611

Sortino: A ‘Sharper’ Ratio | By Thomas N. Rollinger & Scott T. Hoffman | Red Rock Capital

The differences are: First, calculate the numerator of the Sortino ratio,

the average period return minus the target return:

1. In the Target Downside Deviation calcula-

tion, the deviations of Xi from the user select- Average Annual Return - Target Return:

able target return are measured, whereas in the (17% + 15% + 23% - 5% + 12% + 9% + 13% - 4%)

Standard Deviation calculation, the deviations ÷ 8 – 0% = 10%

of Xi from the average of all Xi is measured. Next, calculate the Target Downside Deviation:

2. In the Target Downside Deviation calcu- 1. For each data point, calculate the difference

lation, all Xi above the target return are set to between that data point and the target level. For

zero, but these zeros are still included in the summa- data points above the target level, set the differ-

tion. The calculation for Standard Deviation has ence to 0%. The result of this step is the under-

no Min() function. performance data set.

Standard deviation is a measure of dispersion 17% - 0% = 0%

of data around its mean, both above and below. 15% - 0% = 0%

Target Downside Deviation is a measure of dis- 23% - 0% = 0%

persion of data below some user selectable target -5% - 0% = -5%

return with all above target returns treated as 12% - 0% = 0%

underperformance of zero. Big difference. 9% - 0% = 0%

13% - 0% = 0%

Example Sortino -4% - 0% = -4%

Ratio Calculation 2. Next, calculate the square of each value in

the underperformance data set determined in

In this example, we will calculate the annual Sor- the first step. Note that percentages need to be

tino ratio for the following set of annual returns: expressed as decimal values before squaring, i.e.

Annual Returns: 5% = 0.05.

17%, 15%, 23%, -5%, 12%, 9%, 13%, -4% 0%^2= 0%

Target Return: 0% 0%^2 = 0%

Although in this example we use a target return 0%^2 = 0%

of 0%, any value may be selected, depending -5%^2 = 0.25%

on the application, i.e. a futures trading system 0%^2 = 0%

developer comparing different trading systems 0%^2 = 0%

vs. a pension fund manager with a mandate to 0%^2 = 0%

achieve 8% annual returns. Of course using a -4%^2 = 0.16%

different target return will result in a different

3. Then, calculate the average of all squared

value for the Target Downside Deviation. If you

differences determined in Step 2. Notice that

are using the Sortino ratio to compare managers

we do not “throw away” the 0% values.

or trading systems, you should be consistent in

using the same target return value. Average: (0% + 0% + 0% + 0.25% +

0% + 0% + 0% + 0.16%) ÷ 8 = 0.0513%

3 980 N. Michigan Ave | Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60611

Sortino: A ‘Sharper’ Ratio | By Thomas N. Rollinger & Scott T. Hoffman | Red Rock Capital

4. Then, take the square root of the average Winton Red Blue S&P Newedge Man Graham Dunn

determined in Step 3. This is the Target Rock Trend 500 CTA AHL

Downside Deviation used in denominator of 1.82 1.45 1.41 0.81 0.76 0.53 0.42 0.41

the Sortino Ratio. Again, percentages need

to be expressed as decimal values before COMPARISON OF SORTINO RATIOS

performing the square root function. Examples of Sortino ratios for a popular CTA index, the S&P 500 Total

Returns Index, and a handful of well-known CTAs since Red Rock’s inception

Target Downside Deviation: (September 2003 – July 2013).

Square root of √0.0513% = 2.264% Notes: Graham K4D-15V, Dunn WMA, BlueTrend is since April 2004.

Source: BarclayHedge

Finally, we calculate the Sortino ratio: Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance.

10%

= 4.417 Sortino Ratio

2.264%

Conclusion

The main reason we wrote this article is because in both magnitude of below target returns. Throwing away

literature and trading software packages, we have seen the zero underperformance data points removes

the Sortino ratio, and in particular the target downside the ratio’s sensitivity to frequency of underperfor-

deviation, calculated incorrectly more often than not. mance. Consider the following underperformance

Most often, we see the target downside deviation cal- return streams: [0, 0, 0, -10] and [-10, -10, -10, -10].

culated by “throwing away all the positive returns and Throwing away the zero underperformance data

take the standard deviation of negative returns”. We points results in the same target downside deviation

hope that by reading this article, you can see how this is for both return streams, but clearly the first return

incorrect. Specifically: stream has much less downside risk than the second.

• In Step 1 above, the difference with respect to the In this paper we presented the definition of the Sor-

target level is calculated, unlike the standard devi- tino ratio and the correct way to calculate it. While

ation calculation where the difference is calculated the Sortino ratio addresses and corrects some of the

with respect to the mean of all data points. If every weaknesses of the Sharpe ratio, neither statistic mea-

data point equals the mean, then the standard devi- sures ongoing and future risks; they both measure the

ation is zero, no matter what the mean is. Consider past “goodness” of a manager’s or investment’s return

the following return stream: [-10, -10, -10, -10]. stream.

The standard deviation is 0, while the target down-

side deviation is 10 (assuming target return is 0).

• In Step 3 above, all above target returns are includ-

ed in the averaging calculation. The above target Special Note : The Omega Ratio has recently received a fair

amount of positive press in the institutional space. Is the Omega

returns set to 0% in step 1 are kept.

Ratio as good as everyone is purporting? Or does it have a

• The Sortino ratio takes into account both the fatal flaw? We will do a detailed analysis on this topic in a

frequency of below target returns as well as the future article—stay tuned.

4 980 N. Michigan Ave | Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60611

Sortino: A ‘Sharper’ Ratio | By Thomas N. Rollinger & Scott T. Hoffman | Red Rock Capital

Managing Partner, Chief Investment Officer Partner, Chief Technology Officer

A 16-year industry veteran, Mr. Rollinger pre- Mr. Hoffman graduated Cum Laude with a

viously co-developed and co-managed a syste- Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engi-

matic futures trading strategy with Edward O. neering from Brigham Young University in

Thorp, the MIT professor who devised black- April 1987. In the 1990s, Mr. Hoffman began

jack “card counting” and went on to become a applying his engineering domain expertise in

quantitative hedge fund legend (their venture the areas of statistics, mathematics, and model

together was mentioned in two recent, best- development to the financial markets. In April

selling books). Considered a thought leader in 2003, after several years of successful propri-

the futures industry, Mr. Rollinger published etary trading, Mr. Hoffman founded Red Rock

the highly acclaimed 37-page white paper Revis- Capital Management, Inc., a quantitative CTA /

iting Kat in 2012 and co-authored Sortino Ratio: CPO. Early in his trading career, Mr. Hoffman

A Better Measure of Risk in early 2013. He was participated in a CTA Star Search Challenge,

a consultant to two top CTAs and inspired the earning a $1M allocation as a result of his top

creation of an industry-leading trading system performance. Since then, Red Rock Capital’s

design software package. Earlier in his career, outstanding performance has earned the firm

Mr. Rollinger founded and operated a systemat- multiple awards from BarclayHedge. Mr. Hoff-

ic trend following fund and worked for original man is active in the research areas of risk and

“Turtle” Tom Shanks of Hawksbill Capital Man- investment performance measurement as well

agement. After graduating college in Michigan, as trading model development. His publications

Mr. Rollinger served as a Lieutenant in the U.S. include Sortino Ratio: A Better Measure of Risk

Marine Corps. He holds a finance degree with which he co-authored with Mr. Rollinger.

a minor in economics.

located on Chicago’s Magnificent Mile. For further inquiries visit

www.RedRockCapital.com.

5 980 N. Michigan Ave | Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60611

- The Origins and Severity of the Public Pension CrisisDiunggah olehCenter for Economic and Policy Research
- AIQ - SFA Score ArticleDiunggah olehPeter Urbani
- Polaris CapitalDiunggah olehBurj Capital
- AQR Portfolio Rebalancing Part 1 Strategic Asset AllocationDiunggah olehlaozi222
- impact of stock split to stock returnDiunggah olehafina_fajri
- SMChap001Diunggah olehJames R Burkholder
- Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2018 EnDiunggah olehbayarearad
- Betting Against Beta (Frazzini + Pedersen, 2014).pdfDiunggah olehRKR
- Awareness Regarding Equity Products Amongst Corporate EmployeesDiunggah olehashvinkoladara
- 51064_21199Diunggah olehRifka Mustafida
- afganistan rosi.pptDiunggah olehAna Dobreva
- CalculationDiunggah olehzahid_497
- Topic 9Diunggah olehtheatresonic
- 52 - 10 Different Ways to Follow the TrendDiunggah olehedi
- marmmathDiunggah olehMazen Albshara
- Rate of returnDiunggah olehaini_rudin
- 72324390Diunggah olehPriyanka Velamuri
- Stock Valuation LesDiunggah olehÂke Noor
- مسرد بالمصطلحات المستخدمة في امتحان شھادة المحاسب الإداري المعتم1Diunggah olehSayed Mohamed
- Demo_Introduction to Investment and Portfolio ManagementDiunggah olehJennifer Dela Rosa
- ROI and Its ApplicationDiunggah olehbhavesh patel
- IPE-2010-2011Diunggah olehSatyajit Mojumder
- Kuliah 6 - Ratio AnalysisDiunggah olehGembel Couvlac Elit
- RashyDiunggah olehKristhel Tabones
- Ratio AnalizDiunggah olehMahfuzur Rahman
- 4.pdfDiunggah olehAlexandra Ax
- Final Project f.m 2Diunggah olehGarima Sharma
- ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL HEALTH: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO SELECTED PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS OF BANGLADESHDiunggah olehSharif Minhaj
- People vs Vicente MenilDiunggah olehMarco Arpon
- NKNC_En_110525Diunggah olehtennerty

- Migrating Web DynproDiunggah olehfreemindxx600
- Complete Workflow SAPDiunggah olehJonathan Rengifo
- AttachmentDiunggah olehChayMick Atigan Kongdum
- risk_and_return_of_different_asset_allocationsDiunggah olehJonathan Rengifo
- [123doc.vn] Yield to Maturity PptDiunggah olehTsusn Bsis Lses
- Discussion Note 2-16 Risk and Return of Different Asset AllocationsDiunggah olehJonathan Rengifo

- He LibroDiunggah olehAbraham Imam Muttaqin
- Carbon Nanotube Super CapacitorsDiunggah olehKowsalya Palanisamy
- lesson plan 6 and reflectionDiunggah olehapi-287604931
- Be Careful to Analyze KrishnaDiunggah olehapi-3764407
- BI ADABDiunggah olehSiti Ummul Warda
- Adi Innercity RedevelopmentDiunggah olehBereket K
- Soal Us Ganjil Smk XiiDiunggah olehmie2ardiani
- Entrepreneurship_-_Born__Made_and_Educated.pdfDiunggah olehAlexandra Botezatu
- Power Quality Issues of Electric Arc Furnace and their Mitigations -A ReviewDiunggah olehIJAERS JOURNAL
- Watson Metal Products_ Threaded rods to Grade 5Diunggah olehameensderaj
- 1Gud One International Business Environment Full SyllabusDiunggah olehprincesssneha128281
- sanitary_pumps.pdfDiunggah olehAnto AG
- 1 - 2 - L1.2. the ABC of Emotional Processes (6-11)Diunggah olehtani2
- Qrc Extraction DsDiunggah olehLakshman Yandapalli
- predictors-of-wellbeing.pdfDiunggah olehMariaP12
- Chapter 3 - Methods of AnalysisDiunggah olehSarah Azlina
- ETHYLHEXANOL PFD.docxDiunggah olehGellene Garcia
- DRAKON.pdfDiunggah olehMatias Oyola
- 1D Models for Thermal and Air Quality Prediction in UndergroundDiunggah olehtidy4567
- Pelco CM9760-MGR System Management Software ManualDiunggah olehkinny1974
- CS42L42_DS1083A2Diunggah olehjoseph zhang
- IT1451-QBDiunggah olehSelva Ganesh
- Electrical Double Layer and ElectrocapillaryDiunggah olehadriand13
- Accounting Unit 1Diunggah olehHuzaifa Abdullah
- 48-People vs Garcia(1997)Diunggah olehLexter Cruz
- r-school-self-evaluation-2013.pdfDiunggah olehIngy Hassan
- Patently Apple - Thomas Ross vs. AppleDiunggah olehJack Purcher
- Cristalo Graf i ADiunggah olehWillian Carvalho
- 03.Phuong Thuc Truyen Dan Viba(Viet)Diunggah olehQuang Văn
- Effective Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing i to 13Diunggah olehSugeng Pambudi