Anyone else think this question was worded terribly? Essentially if you rephrase the statement #1 it says:
“Being GIPS compliant … allows us …. to improve the quality of information availible to our investement decision makers.” (pg366)
While I agree that there is a possibility that new technology as mentioned earlier in the reading is a valid case of improved quality of information I don’t see any such situation clearly identified in the vignette.
While its likely something to get upset after June 2nd I just thought I’d see if anyone else read this and thought, did that person just say that becoming GIPS compliant gave their investment staff previously unavailible, but yet valuable information? Not sure I want my $$ at a firm that needs a performance standard requirment to be the reason there PM’s start getting better info.作者: gjcxc 时间: 2013-4-22 06:25
Not really surprised, it’s not saying “our PMs now have access to real-time stock data”….
it’s saying “we are up on our shit and know what’s going on and what to do”作者: Finalnub 时间: 2013-4-22 06:26
understanding the quality of your own results is vastly under-estimated. i know many hedge fund managers who fundamentally do not know to what extent they are really successful in their investment process. and as a consequence they allocate the wrong resources internally. they will invest in expanding XYZ sector group or ABC strategy because, they “feel” this guy is performing or will perform.作者: pacmandefense 时间: 2013-4-22 06:26
