Abstract

Expected geometric return is routinely reported as a summary measure of the prospective performance of asset classes and investment portfolios. It has intuitive appeal because its historical counterpart, the geometric average, provides a useful annualised measure of the proportional change in wealth that actually occurred over a past time series, as if there had been no volatility in return. However, as a prospective measure, expected geometric return has limited value and often the expected annual arithmetic return is a more relevant statistic for modelling and analysis. Despite this, the distinction between expected annual arithmetic return and expected geometric return is not well understood, both in respect of individual asset classes and in respect of portfolios. This confusion persists even though it is explained routinely in finance textbooks and other reference sources. Even the supposedly straightforward calculation of weighted average portfolio return becomes somewhat complicated, and can produce counterintuitive results, if the focus of future-orientated reporting is expected geometric return. This paper explains these issues and applies them in the context of the calculations underlying the projections for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

Highlights

  • Professional investment practitioners routinely report expected geometric return as a summary measure of the prospective performance of asset classes and investment portfolios

  • Expected geometric return has intuitive appeal because its historical counterpart, the geometric average, provides an annualised measure of the proportional change in wealth that occurred over a past time series, as if there had been no volatility in return

  • Expected geometric return is routinely reported as a summary measure of the prospective performance of asset classes and investment portfolios

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Professional investment practitioners routinely report expected geometric return as a summary measure of the prospective performance of asset classes and investment portfolios. The distinction between expected arithmetic return and expected geometric return is not well understood, both in respect of individual asset classes and in respect of portfolios.1 This confusion persists even though it is explained routinely in finance textbooks and other reference sources. The purpose here is not to defend these assumptions and not all of them are necessary to derive most of the results presented here They are clearly not entirely descriptive of reality: expectations change, volatility can vary over time, and some serial dependence can be detected in some returns series. These are standard assumptions that are adopted in financial analysis and they produce rigorous results. These assumptions can be relaxed without changing the general tenor of the results presented in this paper, but it would be at the cost of unnecessary added complexity in the calculations.

Expected geometric return and expected arithmetic return
Expected portfolio return
Expected future size of an investment fund
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.