130/30 Indices: True indices or like playing chess against a computer?
Jan 7th, 2008 | Filed under: 130/30During the final months of 2007, Credit Suisse and S&P both launched what they called “130/30 indexes”. CS didn’t say much about their methodology at the time, but S&P published the entire index construction approach online. After reading that approach on November 20, we wrote the following:
“…here’s the thing we don’t quite get: why would you want to benchmark yourself to another active manager? There is no common risk factor underlying these funds that can serve as a benchmark. There is no 130/30 beta. In fact, all a 1X0/X0 program aims to accomplish is to lever pre-existing alpha for greater returns if alpha is already positive or greater losses if alpha is negative. As IPE reports, a speaker at a recent conference referred to 130/30 as just a prescriptive technique. How do you index a ‘prescriptive technique’?”
Clearly anticipating such a line of questions, the developer of the Credit Suisse index, AllAboutAlpha Hall-of-Famer Andrew Lo of MIT, addressed this question head-on in his December 11 paper on 130/30 indexation (“130/30: The New Long-Only”). The paper has generated quite a bit of chatter recently (the subject of this Pensions & Investments story today and a column in the Economist this week.)
Say Lo and co-author Pankaj Patel:
To continue reading this article please login (at the right) or click here to learn more about accessing our archives.
[...] Is it really possible to create an unbiased 130/30 index? (All About Alpha) [...]
[...] Like 130/30 indices (see related posting), it’s often difficult to differentiate between attempts at hedge fund “replication” and attempts to actually run a quant hedge fund. So at the end of the day, it may come down to marketing more than anything – leaving investors guessing about whether this new offering is a fund of hedge funds, a managed futures fund, a hedge fund clone, or a quant hedge fund. [...]