GIPS (simple questions) 2000, understood, possible, required

Viceroy

Hi Brave Ones,
Just 2 simple questions around GIPS… thought I had understood both right but now I need your inputs.
1) If fund inception was more than 10 years ago (but after 1/Jan/2000), then the firm is required to present a performance record of 10 years?
2) If fund inception was, let’s say 7 years ago (but after 1/Jan/2000), then the firm is required to present a performance record of 7 years?
3) I thought that a minimum of 5 compliant years, and then add up until 10 years. Is it possible for a fund with inception at 2003 but the firm only show performance of 2006,07,08,09,10,11?
3) just read in one answer that the presentation of composite net-of-fees returns is required? I thought firms could opt to present either gross or net, given that they clearly identify it (even that they are recommended to present gross).
—
4) just read in one answer that a covered call provides some downside protection…are they referring to the call option premium received that offsets some of the possible losses of the underlying?
Many thanks one again to ALL of you AFers
best of luck,

Iginla2010

I don’t know why. I can only read GIPS questions in multiple choice format. I want to keep them in memory for 3 more days. I only vaguely remember I posted for this q.

former

janakisri wrote:
On Q1, you have to qualify the answer a bit. Are the presentations available GIPS compliant or no? If you have 10 years or more  at least of compliant history , they have to show 10 years.
Again on Q2 , ditto. If less compliant is available then as many compliant years as available . Once compliant , they cannot uncompliant themselves. But once they started getting compliant they cannot then show less than since-inception-and-also-compliant history.
On Q3 , certainly , if they became compliant only in 2006 , then show 2007-‘11
Gross preferred but net   accepted. Disclose which one.
Q4 , the answer is obvious , why else would you take the risk of writing an option ? To cover some of the loss on your underlying position
Janakisri et al,
Q4 not so obvious.
Just finished CFAI Mock 2012 and Q43 says “covered calls do NOT provide downside protection”…
so one more to mix things up… some providers say it provides protection with premium earned and CFAI says no protection whatsoever, that was precisely my idea before I saw another point of view during other exams…

former

starting to get a bit more clear…I also mixed the firm compliance and a firm’s composite compliance… even though I like GIPS
thank you all

bpdulog

In the first year of GIPS compliance, the firm usually should provide at least 5 years of performance records. If the firm or the composite was created less than 5 years ago, all the performance records should be provided.
10-year requirements are for the firms that have been in compliance for a while(at least 5 years). Of course, the firm can always present more than 5 years of records in its first year of compliance.
In an extreme case, the firm presented 10 years of records in its first year of compliance. It can not change its mind in later, and presents only 6 years of records in the second year.

siavosh

Actually , now that I think about it , I don’t really understand it very well. In my mind , the words mean that you cannot “link” returns that are not created strictly according to GIPs standards ( applicable at that time? ) . That probably does not mean that you can get away with not showing the performance at all. In other words , if you are not compliant don’t geometrically link the return and then create a linked return number , but cannot avoid showing it for whatever it was .
In other words link 2007 to 2011 and create a number for overall. Also show the 2003 to 2006 separately unlinked to anything.
What do you guys think?

Londonrocks

I will try to put it more clear, hopefully:
1) If fund inception was more than 10 years ago (but after 1/Jan/2000), then the firm is required to present a performance record of 10 years?
What I am asking is if the firm wants to claim compliance with GIPS (imagine they have only this fund), then it needs to show the 10 yrs?
If you answer yes, then can I assume that any firm, to claim compliance, will have to go always to the inception of the fund, no matter it started in 2000, 2003, 2009,…?
2) On Q3 , certainly , if they became compliant only in 2006 , then show 2007-‘11
Maybe I am mixing concepts but if the fund inception was in 2003, and in 2006 they decide to claim compliance, can they not present the 2003-2005 years and only present 2007-2011?
So CP says that they will have to go back to 2003 but janakisri says that they can start in 2006.
This was exactly what I tried to ask initially (sorry guys for any non-clear part)

ogoluwa

On Sri’s comment above: On Q3 , certainly , if they became compliant only in 2006 , then show 2007-‘11
Per tigas -  Is it possible for a fund with inception at 2003 …
There are various things at play here…
At least five years of performance (or for the period since the FIRM’S inception or the COMPOSITE INCEPTION DATE if the FIRM or the COMPOSITE has been in existence less than five years) that meets the REQUIREMENTS of the GIPS standards.
[If this is for a particular composite - and that composite’s inception is 2006 - then yes.]
If they are showing GIPS compliant presentation for the firm - then they need to show from 2003 onwards - no choice about that. and given the firm’s inception was after 2000 - they cannot show some years that are non-GIPS compliant - can they?

skycfa

On Q1, you have to qualify the answer a bit. Are the presentations available GIPS compliant or no? If you have 10 years or more  at least of compliant history , they have to show 10 years.
Again on Q2 , ditto. If less compliant is available then as many compliant years as available . Once compliant , they cannot uncompliant themselves. But once they started getting compliant they cannot then show less than since-inception-and-also-compliant history.
On Q3 , certainly , if they became compliant only in 2006 , then show 2007-‘11
Gross preferred but net   accepted. Disclose which one.
Q4 , the answer is obvious , why else would you take the risk of writing an option ? To cover some of the loss on your underlying position