Sample Report PERFORMANCE REPORT I YOUR FUND

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Sample Report PERFORMANCE REPORT I YOUR FUND"

Wendy Helena Rich
5 years ago
Views:

1 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 PERFORMANCE REPORT I 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page of 5

2 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 2 PROFILE... 3 Company Information... 3 Legal/Regulatory... 3 Product Information... 3 ANALYSIS... 4 Benchmark Selection & Style Analysis... 4 Return Analysis vs. Benchmark... 5 Wealth Analysis and Risk vs. Benchmark... 6 Sharpe Ratio & Risk/Return Analysis... 7 Alpha Analysis... 8 Alternative Risk Measures... 9 Performance vs. Peer Group... Performance vs. Emerging Manager Peer Group... 2 DISCLAIMER... 4 Appendix - Data East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 2 of 5

3 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 PROFILE Company Information 29 N Main St Primary Contact Secondary Contact Suite Mr. Manager, CFA Ms. Operator New York, NY 66 President and COO Senior Administrator (22) (t) (22) (22) (22) (f) Legal/Regulatory Litigation against this firm in the last five years: No Sanctions/disciplinary action against this firm in the last five years: No Legal set up: S Corp Year Founded: 99 Registered Investment Advisor: Yes Product Information Name: Core Equity Manager Selected Risk/Return Benchmark: Analyzed Best Fit Benchmark: Russell 2 Growth Firm AUM ($) 64,32,23 Number of Products Product AUM ($) 64,32,23 Number of Holdings 4 Audited Performance: Yes Auditing Firm: KPMG LLP 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 3 of 5

4 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 ANALYSIS Benchmark Selection & Style Analysis ) Correlation Matrix January 2 - June 28 (). 2).78 (2). (3) You have selected the S&P5 as the appropriate benchmark for this product. Our analysis shows that the product has a higher correlation to the Russell 2 Growth. We have therefore conducted an analysis against both the Russell 2 Growth Index and the S&P5 Index. We also conducted a style analysis of, and the style analysis indicates that has style characteristics that are smaller than the the S&P5 and that also has more Growth characteristics than the S&P5. 3) Russell 2 Growth Manager Style Single Computation January 2 - June 28 Large Russell Value Russell Growth - Russell 2 Value Russell 2 Growth Manager Style 3-Month Moving Windows, Computed Monthly January 2 - June 28 Large Russell Value Russell Growth Russell Generic Corners - Russell 2 Value Russell 2 Growth Small Small Value - Growth Value - Growth Performance Attribution January 2 - June 28 Asset Allocation Single Computation January 2 - June 28 6.% Russell Value 54.4% Russell Generic Corners 7.% 99.7% Russell Growth 25.3% 45.%.% Russell 2 Value.% 3.%.3% Russell 2 Growth.% 58.6% Residual R-Squared to Style Benchmar Single Computation.% Citigroup 3-month T-bill.6% % 2% 4% 6% 8% % 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 4 of 5

5 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 Return Analysis vs. Benchmark Manager vs Benchmark: Return through June 28 has outperformed both benchmarks, and Russell 2 Growth, over the past, 3 and 5 year period. This return is primarily due to outstanding returns in 23, 24 and 27. The first six months of 28 have seen excellent performance as well. You are outperforming both benchmarks so far this year, and have produced positive returns. Return 4% 3% 2% % % -% Manager vs Benchmark: Return through June 28 3 year s Russell 2 Growth 5 year s 8% 6% 4% 2% % -2% -4% Russell 2 Growth Calendar Year Return Calendar Year Return 6.76% -.9% -8.93% Russell 2 Growth % -3.2% -.83% 32.% 27.87% 4.4% 7.58% 6.8%.37% 6.8% 7.9% 4.% 5.8% 24.2% 68.% -26.9% -2.9% -.9% 5.5% 5.8% 4.9%.9% 28.7% -22.% -.9% Russell 2 Growth -8.9% 7.% 3.3% 4.2% 4.3% 48.5% -3.3% -9.2% 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 5 of 5

6 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 Wealth Analysis and Risk vs. Benchmark Manager Performance January 2 - June Dec 2 Dec 2 Dec 22 Dec 23 Dec 24 Dec 25 Dec 26 Jun 28 Performance Table January 2 - June 28. Single Computation Russell 2 Growth Over time, s excellent performance has meant a significantly higher level of wealth for your clients. The alpha has a significance level of over 98%, and your client would have an ending wealth of $29,42 for every $, invested. They would have $,57 for every $, invested in the S&P5. Ann u alized Retu rn (%) 5.46 Portfolio Performance Cumu lative Retu rn (%) 94.2 Std Dev (%) 2.7 On the risk side, has a much higher risk than the, although its risk does not seem as extreme when compared to the risk of the Russell 2 Growth which we consider to be a better fit for this product. While experienced risk has being reasonable, it is important to note that the portfolio, with 7 holdings, is extremely concentrated. The portfolio concentration would lead us to believe that the expected risk going forward could be significantly higher than the risk experienced so far. Therefore, we believe that this product can only be considered for use as part of a multimanager portfolio. An n ualized Excess Retu rn (%) 2.59 Cu mu lative Excess Retu rn (%) 7.32 vs. Russell 2 Growth Info Ratio. Sig n ificance L evel (%) Standard Deviation 25% 2% 5% % 5% % 98.7 Exp lain ed Varian ce (%) T racking Error (%) 2.43 Manager vs Benchmark: Standard Deviation through June 28 Manager vs Benchmark: Standard Deviation through June % 3.83%. 3 year s 7.78%.24% Russell 2 Growth 5 year s 7.% 9.46% Russell 2 Growth 7.86% 5.4% 5.74% 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 6 of 5

7 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 Sharpe Ratio & Risk/Return Analysis The returns are high enough to compensate for the additional risk, resulting in a very good Sharpe ratio over the past, 3 and. The risk/return profile while highlighting the good returns, also provides added confirmation of our decision to compare to the Russell 2 Growth index. Return 6% 4% 2% % 8% 6% 4% 2% Manager Risk/Return January 2 - June 28 % % 5% % 5% 2% Standard Deviation Return (%) Risk-Return Table January 2 - June 28: Annualized Summary Statistics Std Dev (%) Beta Sharpe Ratio Russell 2 Growth Alpha R-Squared Manager vs Benchmark: Sharpe Ratio through June 28 Manager vs Benchmark: Sharpe Ratio through June 28 Sharpe Ratio Market Benchmark: Russell 2 Growth Tracking Error Observs Russell 2 Growth Russell 2 Growth East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 7 of 5

8 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 Alpha Analysis Manager vs Benchmark: Alpha through June 28 Alpha 5% 4% 3% 2% % s alpha is outstanding over the past, 3 and. While this is the highest your trailing 3 year alpha has been, s alpha has consistently been positive over the product s history % -% Russell 2 Growth Manager vs Benchmark: Alpha through June % -6.93%.% Excess Return vs. Russell 2 Growth 3% 2% % % -% 3 year s 25.7% -.88%.% 5 year s 7.7%.79%.% Excess Return vs. Market Benchmark/Time 3-Month Moving Windows, Computed Monthly January 2 - June 28 Jun 23 Dec 23 Dec 24 Dec 25 Dec 26 Dec 27 Jun 28 Time Std Dev of Excess Return vs. Market Benchmark/Time 3-Month Moving Windows, Computed Monthly January 2 - June 28 Std Dev of Excess Return vs. Russell 2 Gro 6% 4% 2% % 8% 6% 4% 2% % Jun 23 Dec 23 Dec 24 Dec 25 Dec 26 Dec 27 Jun 28 Time 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 8 of 5

9 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 Alternative Risk Measures has good upside and downside capture ratios when compared to the Russell 2 Growth. Your excess return and batting average are also very good. The magnitude of the best and worst month and year again cause us to compare to the Russell 2 Growth rather than the. The max drawdown is comparable in length and magnitude to the Russell benchmark. Upside% Upside Downside January 2 - June Downside% Single Computation Russell 2 Growth Excess Return vs. Russell 2 Growth Excess Return vs. Market Benchmark/Batting Average vs. Market Benchmark 4% 2% % 8% 6% 4% 2% % -2% Up/Down Table January 2 - June 28. Single Computation January 2 - June 28-4% % % 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Batting Average vs. Russell 2 Growth Manager Performance January 2 - June 28 5 Dec 2 Dec 2 Dec 22 Dec 23 Dec 24 Dec 25 Dec 26 Jun 28 % -% -2% -3% -4% Drawdown Up # of Months Average Return (%) Month (%) -Year (%) Market Benchmark (%) Down Up Down Russell 2 Grow Russell 2 Grow Best Worst Best Worst Up Capture Down Capture Russell 2 Growth R-Squared % Dec 2 Dec 2 Dec 22 Dec 23 Dec 24 Dec 25 Dec 26 Jun 28 Max Drawdown Drawdown Table January 2 - June 28: Summary Statistics Max Drawdown Begin Date Max Drawdown End Date Max Drawdown Length Max Drawdown Recovery Date Pain Index High Water Mark Date To High Water Mark % Feb 2 Sep 22 2 Dec 23.25% Jun 28.% % Feb 2 Sep 22 2 Jan % Oct % Russell 2 Growth % Feb 2 Sep 22 2 Jul % Oct % 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 9 of 5

10 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 Performance vs. Peer Group Finally, we compare to its peers. We choose the Large Core Universe due to the benchmark you have chosen to compare yourself with. As can be seen below, the fund has done very well compared to its peers, and is at the top of the percentile rankings for every time period we can measure it against. We also note that while the risk is high vs. the peer group, it is not abnormal vs. the Russell 2 Growth benchmark, and the Sharpe ratio is at the top of the charts indicating that the return more than compensates for the higher risk. Note that the peer group in this section is comprised of large separately managed accounts, and is produced by Zephyr. The Zephyr universe is comprised of products in the top one third of the style boxes in terms of size, and the middle third of the style boxes in terms of style. Return 4% 3% 2% % % -% -2% Russell 2 Growth Russell 2 Growth Manager vs Universe: Return through June 28 Zephyr Large Core Universe (Monthly) quarter y ear 3 y ears 5 y ears Manager vs Universe: Return Rank through June 28 quarter 49 mng 82 2 quarter 7.55% -2.73% 4.47% 49 mng mng Manager vs Benchmark: Return through June % -.9% -8.93% % -3.2% -.83% 442 mng % 4.4% 6.8% Russell 2 Growth 5th to 25th Percentile 25th Percentile to Median Median to 75th Percentile 75th to 95th Percentile 356 mng % 7.58%.37% 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page of 5

11 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 25% Manager vs Universe: Standard Deviation through June 28 Zephyr Large Core Universe (Monthly) Standard Deviation 2% 5% % 5% Russell 2 Growth 5th to 25th Percentile 25th Percentile to Media Median to 75th Percentil 75th to 95th Percentile % Manager vs Universe: Standard Deviation Rank through June 28 Russell 2 Growth Russell 2 Growth Sharpe Ratio mng mng mng Manager vs Benchmark: Standard Deviation through June %.97% 4.65% 23.8% 3.83% 7.86% %.24% 5.4% Manager vs Universe: Sharpe Ratio through June 28 Zephyr Large Core Universe (Monthly) Manager vs Universe: Sharpe Ratio Rank through June mng 356 mng 67 7.% 9.46% 5.74% Russell 2 Growth 5th to 25th Percentile 25th Percentile to Median Median to 75th Percentile 75th to 95th Percentile 483 mng 442 mng 356 mng Russell 2 Growth Manager vs Benchmark: Sharpe Ratio through June Russell 2 Growth East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page of 5

12 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 Performance vs. Emerging Manager Peer Group Finally, we compare to its peers in the Altura Emerging Manager Database. We created a Large Core Universe due to the benchmark you have chosen to compare yourself with. As can be seen below, the fund has done very well compared to its peers, and is at the top of the percentile rankings for every time period we can measure it against. We also note that while the risk is high vs. the peer group, it is not abnormal vs. the Russell 2 Growth benchmark, and the Sharpe ratio is at the top of the charts indicating that the return more than compensates for the higher risk. Note that the peer group in this section is comprised of products that have the following characteristics: Size: On a scale of + to -, where + is large and - is absolute small, the products have a size factor greater than or equal to.5. Growth & Value: On a scale of + to -, where + is absolute growth and - is absolute value, the products have a growth-value factor of between -.5 and +.5. Membership: Products are part of the Altura database, and have information that is current. Return 4% 3% 2% % % -% -2% Russell 2 Growth Manager vs Universe: Return through June 28 Altura Large Cap Core quarter Manager vs Universe: Return Rank through June 28 quarter 85 mng mng mng mng Manager vs Benchmark: Return through June Russell 2 Growth 5th to 25th Percentile 25th Percentile to Median Median to 75th Percentile 75th to 95th Percentile 59 mng quarter 7.55% 6.76% 35.95% 32.% 27.87% -2.73% -.9% -3.2% 4.4% 7.58% Russell 2 Growth 4.47% -8.93% -.83% 6.8%.37% 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 2 of 5

13 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 25% Manager vs Universe: Standard Deviation through June 28 Altura Large Cap Core Standard Deviation 2% 5% % 5% Russell 2 Growth 5th to 25th Percentile 25th Percentile to Media Median to 75th Percentil 75th to 95th Percentile % Manager vs Universe: Standard Deviation Rank through June 28 Russell 2 Growth Russell 2 Growth Sharpe Ratio mng 5 9 Manager vs Universe: Sharpe Ratio through June 28 Altura Large Cap Core Manager vs Universe: Sharpe Ratio Rank through June mng 79 mng 6 79 mng 7 mng Manager vs Benchmark: Standard Deviation through June %.97% 4.65% 23.8% 3.83% 7.86% %.24% 5.4% 7 mng 59 mng Russell 2 Growth 5th to 25th Percentile 25th Percentile to Median Median to 75th Percentile 7 7.% 9.46% 5.74% 75th to 95th Percentile 59 mng Russell 2 Growth Manager vs Benchmark: Sharpe Ratio through June Russell 2 Growth East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 3 of 5

14 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 DISCLAIMER Nothing contained in this material is intended to constitute legal, tax, securities, or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment, nor a solicitation of any type. The general information contained in this publication should not be acted upon without obtaining specific legal, tax, and investment advice from a licensed professional. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Forecasts may not be attained. Investments that are allocated across multiple types of securities may be exposed to a variety of risks based on the asset classes, investment styles, market sectors and size of companies and funds preferred by advisors. Investors should consider how the combined risks impact their total investment portfolio and understand that different risks can lead to varying financial consequences, including loss of principal. Diversification and strategic asset allocation do not assure profit or protect against loss in declining markets. Please remember that all investments carry some level of risk, including the potential loss of principal invested. They do not typically grow at an even rate of return and may experience negative growth. As with any type of portfolio structuring, attempting to reduce risk and increase return could, at certain times, unintentionally reduce returns. Universe Criteria: Altura uses the Zephyr universes of separate account managers if they are available for your product. If not, then Altura uses universes that are created by Altura using the information collected through the Altura Information Platform database and use only gross of fee returns for separate account managers. For Hedge Funds, Altura uses universes that it creates using only net of fee returns. Products must have of returns and must have size and style characteristics that match or exceed Altura criteria to be included in the universe. This content is only intended for use by qualified investment professionals. All information has been voluntarily provided by the participating firms and compiled both electronically and manually by Altura Capital. Technical or human error is possible by the firm or by Altura Capital. Altura Capital makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy and reliability of the data, as such has not been verified by Altura. Any Institutional Investor interested in any of these firms should conduct its own verification. Firms may have posted inaccurate data and Altura Capital makes no representation of having reviewed or validated such data. The inclusion or omission of any firm or service herein shall not be deemed a recommendation by Altura Capital or any of its affiliates for or against the service thereof. This report is not intended to be an offer, solicitation, encouragement, or recommendation to in any way use or hire any firm or purchase any security. Reference to a particular company in the Report does not constitute a preference, an appraisal, audit or endorsement as to the operating or financial condition of that firm. Neither Altura Capital nor any affiliate thereof shall be liable for any claim, demand, suit, action, judgment, cost, charge or expense, including court costs and attorney s fees, or damages of any nature whatsoever, incurred by user arising out of the use the report, even if advised of the possibility of such. For further information please visit us at Copyright Altura Capital Group, LLC 29. All rights reserved. The material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred or distributed in any form without prior written permission from Altura Capital. It is delivered on an as is basis without warranty. Altura Capital is not in the business of providing legal or tax advice. 5 East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 4 of 5

15 Produced on //28 Data as of 6/3/28 Appendix - Data This analysis is based entirely on the returns you have provided us. Please check these returns below and notify us immediately if you see any errors, as they affect all the charts and tables produced. Periodic Returns Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Russell 2 Growth East 57 th Street, Floor, New York, NY 22 Tel (22) Fax (646) Seventh Avenue, Suite 2, Seattle, WA 98 Tel (26) Fax (26) Page 5 of 5

Beginning Date: January 2016 End Date: June Managers in Zephyr: Benchmark: Morningstar Short-Term Bond

Beginning Date: January 2016 End Date: June 2018 Managers in Zephyr: Benchmark: Manager Performance January 2016 - June 2018 (Single Computation) 11200 11000 10800 10600 10400 10200 10000 9800 Dec 2015