The CAMRADATA Independent Quantitative (IQ) scores is a ranking reflecting five statistical factors measured over a three year period. Each factor generates a statistic which is shown as a percentage or a number in the table. To rank products, the percentile ranking of each factor is determined and an overall master score is calculated. This is a simple average of all percentile rankings for each product across all five factors. Investment products which share the same value for a factor are assigned the same percentile rank within that factor. The highest scoring products appear at the top of the table. For presentational purposes we apply a ‘unique sort’ to pick out only the best product for each manager. The five statistical factors that make up the CAMRADATA IQ score are:
A measure of overall added value. The underlying factor is the annualised excess return over the benchmark.
A measure of efficiency. The Information Ratio is the return added by the asset manager for each one per cent of risk being taken over the benchmark. Therefore the higher the Information Ratio the more return being added for the one percent of risk being taken. The underlying factor is calculated by taking the excess return and dividing it by the excess risk.
A measure of the bet structure which a manager is taking. The underlying factor is calculated by taking the average positive relative returns away from the average negative relative returns. Investors use this to identify managers with a low frequency of winning but with a high payoff when a product beats the benchmark. Investors want to see that wins (positive returns) are greater than losses (negative returns); even if the wins are infrequent.
A measure of consistency. The underlying factor is the percentage of times the manager beats the benchmark. Generally you should expect a manager with strong consistency of beating the benchmark to have a probability of beating it greater than 50%.
A measure of downside management. This measures a product’s worst observed 12 month risk adjusted relative return. It is in effect analysing the worst Information Ratio for each product in any 12 month period during the three years being measured. More credit is given to asset managers who have had positive 12 month risk adjusted relative returns and who took less risk to achieve it. Whilst during a 12mth period of negative returns, more credit is given to those asset managers who took more risk showing they were actively managing their products rather than being passive during these times.