zwjy

So the reason you multiply the first years attribute return by the portfolio return is because it was the year in which the "Active" investment decision was made. And in the second year, the strategy didn't change... thus you multiply it by the benchmark return instead of the portfolio return? Right?

What i don't get is why the years are flipped?

Am i totally off base in my understanding of the logic behind what the equation is doing up until my confusion with the years??

---

I understand the need for an equation like this for the reasons you've said about linking returns. However, I'm having trouble visualizing how/why this particular equation works to solve that problem :/