The Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS) are complicated and often confusing. 1. Using the asset-weighted version of the standard deviation for dispersion. The asset-weighted standard deviation was initially launched with the AIMR-PPS and falls under that wide category of things that made sense at that time (like, for example, the brake light that U.S.
I think it’s great when Carl Bacon, CIPM, and I agree on anything, and we both agree that this approach is flawed. Unlike the equal-weighted (i.e., universally standard) solution to derive the standard deviation, the asset-weighted result is not interpretable. We always advise that our verification clients replace the asset-weighted version with equal-weighted.
- Restated Balance Sheet
- Temporary money (cash) extra
- 45% shares and 55% L-Bonds
- Industry Leader
- Public relations firms who are helping their clients with the listing
- The exact contrary stated investment strategies as you another
You’ll remember that GIPS, unlike the AIMR-PPS, does not encourage it, and we reject it. When using it isn’t non-compliant, it isn’t a good approach. 2. Saying too much. By this After all having disclosures that simply aren’t needed. For instance, “negative disclosures.” For instance, while GIPS requires firms to disclose the use, level, etc. of leverage, derivatives, and shorts, if you don’t use them you don’t need to say anything.
Some companies may have the viewpoint that the more you disclose, the not as likely the chance will read, but that’s an exception, I really believe. Easier to drop some of these unnecessary claims and enlarge the font …