- UID
- 222259
- 帖子
- 238
- 主题
- 60
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-2
- 最后登录
- 2014-6-29
|
1.)I did a quiz today that said alpha/beta separation is best for efficient markets. I thought active management thrived on inefficient markets, otherwise you would just index?
Technically wouldn't this need both efficient and inefficient markets? Inefficient for the alpha portion and efficient for the indexed portion?
2.)Also.... "portfolio managers should be aware, however, that some institutions may not be able to use an alpha-beta separation approach because of institutional constraints"
This ^^^ was correct.... which I know bc they are limited on shorts so i put "correct" (bc i thought its what they wanted), but i also was thinking in the back of my head "yah but there are ways around that"...
and the answer even goes on to explicitly state: "these investors, however, could create similar exposure as the alpha and beta separation approach if they can trade equity futures. For example, suppose the investor wanted a beta from large-cap US stocks and alpha from European equities. The investor could take a long position in the S^P 500 index and invest with a European equity manager to generate the alpha. To become market neutral in the European equity market, the investor would then short a futures contract based on European Equities"
So my question is, how can they label the statement correct if the fkng answer says that it can be worked around? |
|