FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Portfolio Performance Evaluation
A manager reports an active return of 3% against the benchmark with tracking error of 4%. Which statement about the information ratio is correct?
The information ratio is 0.75, equal to the 3% active return divided by the 4% tracking error. It measures active return per unit of active risk relative to the benchmark, unlike the Sharpe ratio, which uses the risk-free rate and total volatility.
- AIt equals 0.75, measuring active return per unit of active riskCorrect
- BIt equals 0.75, measuring excess return over the risk-free rate per unit of total risk
- CIt equals 1.33, measuring tracking error per unit of active return
- DIt equals 7.0, being the sum of active return and tracking error
Explanation
Information ratio = active return / tracking error = 3% / 4% = 0.75. The option that describes risk-free excess return over total risk describes the Sharpe ratio. The 1.33 option inverts the ratio.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Portfolio Performance Evaluation shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Portfolio Performance Evaluation questions
- A risk officer sees that a fund's realized tracking error is 1.0%, far below the 4.0% limit, yet the fund holds a large overweight to one se…
- A manager's portfolio has monthly active returns with a standard deviation of 0.75%. Assuming independent monthly active returns, what is th…
- A portfolio manager earns an annual active return of 1.8% over her benchmark. The standard deviation of the portfolio's active returns (trac…
- A fund returned 12% in a year in which the risk-free rate was 3%. The fund's standard deviation was 18%, its beta versus the benchmark was 1…
- Manager A earned 9% with a volatility of 12%. Manager B earned 7% with a volatility of 6%. The risk-free rate is 3%. Which conclusion based …
- A portfolio returned 14% in a year. Its benchmark returned 11%, the risk-free rate was 3%, and the portfolio beta to the benchmark was 1.2. …