Had bubbled all three choices before finally settling on 2 high and 2 low. Any fair method is ok, and 2 high and 2 low is basically in between hi/low and interquartile. Dispersion method must be annual, not since composite inception (standard deviation) Performance vis-a-vis a benchmark does not represent dispersion.
McLeod81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The answer for standard deviation was time-series > standard deviation of total composite returns, > which is NOT acceptable. > > The correct answer was the range (diff between 2 > highest and 2 lowest returns here). +1
i didn’t even remember it saying internal dispersion. i’ll give this one up.
Smarshy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > McLeod81 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The answer for standard deviation was > time-series > > standard deviation of total composite returns, > > which is NOT acceptable. > > > > The correct answer was the range (diff between > 2 > > highest and 2 lowest returns here). > > > +1 ++1
iforgot what i put, but standard deviation © is not correct
the key to the question was that the standard deviation answer didn’t have the word “annual” in it. That was the give away.
On my paper (Asia) he chose Mean Absolute deviation. the choices were A) He’s correct B) I can’t remember this choice C) stv dev across TIME which is definitely wrong. I went with A
Yes. The answer is definitely the average of the high and the average of the low. I have a client that does this and is GIPS verified. The dispersion measure is for the returns of the constituent accounts, not the composite returns.
two were external, and only the top 2 bottom 2 thingy was “internal” which is the gips requirement, so I put that.