Die Performance-Darstellung von Wertschriften-Portfolios

  • Menichetti Marco J. 
Conference paper


Big asset management funds have an incentive to identify portfolio managers who show ex post investment results maximizing the fund utility. This analysis cannot be restricted on rate of returns as they do not take into account different levels of return volatility. Therefore performance is a much better measure than a return rate. Performance is a measure describing the relation between return and risk of an asset. Asset management reports in Germany and the Principality of Liechtenstein show that portfolio reporting gives information on rates of return, but no information on portfolio risk and performance ratios.

In the following we give an overview on traditional performance ratios and show the use of performance ratios in asset management. Using different ratios can lead to different rankings of portfolios. But which portfolio is the best from the investor’s viewpoint? We propose that this question can be answered looking at the portfolio situation of the investor. If a bank has a perfect overview on all assets of a client, the bank is in a position to identify the performance ratio leading to the optimal ranking decision of the client. In order to offer this valuable service the bank needs a very deep information of the clients personal wealth situation, which offers the bank an important competitive advantage in relation to other banks.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AIMR Association for Investment Management and Research (1999). Global Investment Performance StandardsGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodie, Z., Kane, A., Marcus, A.J. (2002). Investments, 5. Aufl., BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Copeland, T.E., Weston, J.F. (1988). Financial Theory and Corporate Policy, 3. Aufl., ReadingGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferguson, R. (1986). The Trouble with Performance Measurement, in: Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 12, pp. 4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer (2000). zitiert in Steiner/Bruns 2002Google Scholar
  6. Franke, G., Hax, H. (1999). Finanzwirtschaft des Unternehmens und Kapitalmarkt, 4. Aufl., BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerke, W., Bank, M. (1998). Finanzierung, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  8. Henriksson, R.D., Merton, R.C. (1981). On Market Timing and Investment Performance. II. Statistical Procedures for Evaluating Forecast Skills, in: Journal of Business, Vol. 54Google Scholar
  9. Schiereck, D., Viebahn, M. (2003). Vermögensreporting — Informationsbereitstellung durch das Berichtswesen von Vermögensverwaltungen, European Business School, Department of Finance, Working Paper Series, No. 15Google Scholar
  10. Sharpe, W.F. (1992). Asset Allocation: Management Style and Performance Measurement, in: Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 19, Winter, pp. 7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Spremann, K. (2003). Portfoliomanagement, 2. Aufl., München und WienGoogle Scholar
  12. Steiner, M., Bruns, C. (2002). Wertpapiermanagement, 8. Aufl., StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  13. Treynor, J.L., Mazuy, K. (1966). Can Mutual Funds Can Outguess the Market? in: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43Google Scholar
  14. Wilkens, M., Scholz, H. (1999). Von der Treynor-Ratio zur Market Risk-Adjusted Performance, in: Finanz Betrieb, 1. Jg., pp. 308–313Google Scholar
  15. Wittrock, C. (2000). Messung und Analyse der Performance von Wertschriftenportfolios, 3. Aufl., Bad SodenGoogle Scholar
  16. Zimmermann, H. (1992). Performance-Messung im Asset-Management, in: Controlling, hrsg. von K. Spremann und E. Zur, Wiesbaden, pp. 49–109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Menichetti Marco J. 
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen, Fachhochschule LiechtensteinLiechtenstein

Personalised recommendations