What Is Attribution Analysis?

Attribution analysis is a sophisticated method for evaluating the performance of a portfolio or fund manager. Also known as “return attribution” or “performance attribution,” it attempts to quantitatively analyze aspects of an active fund manager’s investment selections and decisions—and to identify sources of excess returns, especially as compared to an index or other benchmark.

For portfolio managers and investment firms, attribution analysis can be an effective tool to assess strategies. For investors, attribution analysis works as a way to assess the performance of fund or money managers.

How Attribution Analysis Works

Attribution analysis focuses on three factors: the manager’s investment picks and asset allocation, their investment style, and the market timing of their decisions and trades.

The method begins by identifying the asset class in which a fund manager chooses to invest. An asset class generally describes the type of investments that a manager chooses; within that, it can also get more specific, describing a geographical marketplace in which they originate and/or an industry sector. European fixed income debt or U.S. technology equities could both be examples.

Then, there is the allocation of the different assets—that is, what percentage of the portfolio is weighted to specific segments, sectors, or industries. 

Specifying the type of assets will help identify a general benchmark for the comparison of performance. Often, this benchmark will take the form of a market index, a basket of comparable assets.

Analyzing Investment Style

The next step in attribution analysis is to determine the manager’s investment style. Like the class identification discussed above, a style will provide a benchmark against which to gauge the manager’s performance.

The first method of style analysis concentrates on the nature of the manager’s holdings. If they are equities, for example, are they the stocks of large-cap or small-cap companies? Value- or growth-oriented?

American economist Bill Sharpe introduced the second type of style analysis in 1988. Returns-based style analysis (RBSA) charts a fund’s returns and seeks an index with comparable performance history. Sharpe refined this method with a technique that he called quadratic optimization, which allowed him to assign a blend of indices that correlated most closely to a manager’s returns.

Explaining Alpha

Once an attribution analyst identifies that blend, they can formulate a customized benchmark of returns against which they can evaluate the manager’s performance. Such an analysis should shine a light on the excess returns, or alpha, that the manager enjoys over those benchmarks.

The next step in attribution analysis attempts to explain that alpha. Is it due to the manager’s stock picks, selection of sectors, or market timing? To determine the alpha generated by their stock picks, an analyst must identify and subtract the portion of the alpha attributable to sector and timing. Again, this can be done by developing customize benchmarks based on the manager’s selected blend of sectors and the timing of their trades. If the alpha of the fund is 13%, it is possible to assign a certain slice of that 13% to sector selection and timing of entry and exit from those sectors. The remainder will be stock selection alpha.

Market Timing and Attribution Analysis

Though some managers employ a buy-and-hold strategy, most are constantly trading, making buy and sell decisions throughout a given period. Segmenting returns by activity can be useful, telling you if a manager’s decisions to add or subtract positions from the portfolio helped or hurt the final return—vis-à-vis a more passive buy-and-hold approach.

Enter market timing, the third big factor that goes into attribution analysis. A fair amount of debate exists on its importance, though.

Certainly, this is the most difficult part of attribute analysis to put into quantitative terms. To the extent that market timing can be measured, scholars point out the importance of gauging a manager’s returns against benchmarks reflective of upturns and downturns. Ideally, the fund will go up in bullish times and will decline less than the market in bearish periods.

Even so, some scholars note that a significant portion of a manager’s performance with respect to timing is random, or luck. As a result, in general, most analysts attribute less significance to market timing than asset selection and investment style.

What Is Administrative Services Only (ASO)?

Administrative services only (ASO) refers to an agreement that companies use when they fund their employee benefit plan but hire an outside vendor to administer it. For example, an organization may hire an insurance company to evaluate and process claims under its employee health plan while maintaining the responsibility of paying the claims itself. An ASO arrangement contrasts with a company that purchases health insurance for its employees from an external provider.

Understanding Administrative Services Only (ASO)

Plan specifics for administrative services only (ASO) vary depending on the agreement a company establishes with insurance companies and third-party administrators (TPA). In ASO arrangements, the insurance company provides little to no insurance protection, which is in contrast to a fully insured plan sold to the employer.

As such, an ASO plan is a type of self-insured or self-funded plan. The employer takes full responsibility for claims made to the plan. For this reason, many employers using ASO plans also establish aggregate stop-loss policies in which the insurance company takes responsibility for paying claims that exceed a certain level—for example, $10,000 per insured person in exchange for a premium.

ASO insurance plans typically cover short-term disability, health, and dental benefits. Occasionally, they cover long-term disability for larger employers. ASO services are gaining popularity as many employers, particularly larger ones, explore the potential financial advantages that this type of plan can provide. An ASO may allow an employer to take greater control of benefit costs to meet the organization’s needs. However, ASO arrangements may not be suitable for all companies, and they come with certain risks. 

Traditional Administrator vs. Administrative Services Only (ASO)

A traditional administrator agreement is an arrangement whereby an insurance company fully administers claims. The insurance company is responsible for the services to maintain and manage plans, including making decisions on and covering the costs of claims.

Alternatively, under the ASO, the insurance company only provides administrative services for plans. The insurer serves as a third-party administrator to the employer, who assumes the duty to cover claim costs.

Under the traditional administrator agreement, premiums are fixed and reviewed annually. This arrangement makes it difficult for employers to know the impact of claims until premiums are assessed for the next year. With ASO arrangements, employers can, in real-time, keep track of fluctuating costs and plan accordingly.

Considering costs, when they exceed what was expected, premiums increase the following year with the traditional administrator. If costs are less than expected, the surplus remains with the insurance company. On the other hand, with an ASO agreement, the surplus is reinvested with the employer.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Administrative Services Only (ASO)

The costs for fully insured plans depend on an insurer’s evaluation of anticipated claims for a given year. For an ASO, however, annual funding levels are based on actual paid claims. If there are fewer claims than anticipated, then employers keep the surplus and reinvest the reserves. The surplus can translate into employers offering additional benefits, many of which would not be ordinarily covered by conventional health plans.

The total costs for an ASO are typically lower than those for a traditional administrator as the employer pays a negotiated fee to the third party rather than salaries and benefits to dedicated staff. These cost savings can offset rises in claims and be used to help the company grow. Alternatively, if claims consistently exceed forecasts, the cost for ASO may exceed that of a traditional administrator plan.

On the other hand, employers would be responsible for any deficit if claims exceed budgeted amounts. Catastrophic claims or sudden and unexpected events are of particular concern as they can exceed projected budgets and erode profits. Employers often invest in a stop-loss insurance policy to provide an additional level of protection in the event of these cases.

In some cases, an ASO arrangement may not be suitable for life insurance and extended healthcare benefits. Employers need to weigh the risks and benefits of how different ASO arrangements might affect their organizations.

Administrative Services Only FAQs

What Is a Recommended Stop Loss Level for an ASO Plan?

A common stop loss level for an ASO plan is $10,000 per eligible employee.

Is Self-Funded Healthcare the Same as Administrative Services Only?

Self-funded healthcare and administrative services only (ASO) are the same. These terms indicate an insurance arrangement in which the employer or organization assumes full responsibility for the cost of covered claims.

Who Keeps the Profits in Fully Insured Coverage?

Under a fully insured plan, the insurance company retains profits.

What Is an Asset-Liability Committee?

An asset-liability committee (ALCO), also known as surplus management, is a supervisory group that coordinates the management of assets and liabilities with a goal of earning adequate returns. By managing a company’s assets and liabilities, executives are able to influence net earnings, which may translate into increased stock prices.

Understanding Asset-Liability Committees (ALCO)

An ALCO at the board or management level provides important management information systems (MIS) and oversight for effectively evaluating on- and off-balance-sheet risk for an institution. Members incorporate interest rate risk and liquidity consideration into a bank’s operating model.

One of the ALCO’s goals is ensuring adequate liquidity while managing the bank’s spread between the interest income and interest expense. Members also consider investments and operational risk.

ALCO meetings should be conducted at least quarterly. Member responsibilities typically include managing market risk tolerances, establishing appropriate MIS, and reviewing and approving the bank’s liquidity and funds management policy at least annually.

Members also develop and maintain a contingency funding plan, review immediate funding needs and sources, and determine liquidity risk exposures to adverse scenarios with varying probability and severity.

Special Considerations

An ALCO’s strategies, policies, and procedures should relate to the board’s goals, objectives, and risk tolerances for operating standards. Strategies should articulate liquidity risk tolerances and address the extent to which central elements of funds management are centralized or delegated in the institution.

Strategies should also communicate how much emphasis is placed on using asset liquidity, liabilities, and operating cash flows for meeting daily and contingent funding needs.

Example of an Asset-Liability Committee

Alfa Bank’s ALCO is appointed by a resolution of the bank’s executive board and includes seven or more members with the right to vote for a one-year period. The ALCO is headed by the ALCO chair appointed by the bank’s executive board. ALCO members without the right to vote are appointed upon presentation to the ALCO chair by order of the bank executive board from among bank specialists and managers for a one-year period.

The bank’s ALCO meetings are typically held every two weeks. Additional meetings may be scheduled as needed. The ALCO has the authority to resolve matters submitted for consideration if more than half of the members with the right to vote are present at the committee meeting. A resolution is passed when more than half the members with the right to vote are present and vote in favor of the resolution. ALCO’s resolutions are binding on all bank employees.

What is Accretive?

In both finance and in general lexicon, the term “accretive” is the adjective form of the word “accretion”, which refers to gradual or incremental growth. For example, an acquisition deal may be deemed accretive for the absorbing company, if that deal contributes to an increase in earnings per share.

By definition, in corporate finance, accretive acquisitions of assets or businesses must ultimately add more value to a company, than the expenditures associated with the acquisition. This can be due to the fact that the newly-acquired assets in question are purchased at a discount to their perceived current market value, or if the assets are expected to grow, as a direct result of the transaction.

Key Takeaways
–The term “accretive” is an adjective that refers to business deals that result in gradual or incremental growth in value for a company.
–In corporate finance, accretive acquisitions of assets must add more value to a company, than the costs of acquiring the target entity,
–Accretive deals can occur if acquired assets are purchased at a discount to their perceived current market value.
–In general finance, accretive investments refer to any security that is purchased at a discount. 

Breaking Down Accretive

In general finance, accretion refers to the change in the price of a bond or security. In fixed-income investments, the word accretive may be used to describe the increase in value attributable to interest accrued but not paid. For example, discounted bonds earn interest through accretion, until they reach maturity. In such cases, acquired bonds are acquired at a discount when compared to the current face value of the bond, also known as the par. As the bond matures, the value increases, based on the interest rate that was in effect at the time of issuance.

Determining the Rate of Accretion

The rate of accretion is determined by dividing the discount by the number of years in the term. In the case of zero coupon bonds, the interest acquired is not compounded. While the value of the bond increases based on the agreed-upon interest rate, it must be held for the agreed-upon term, before it can be cashed out.

Examples of Accretion

If a person purchases a bond with a value of $1,000, for the discounted price of $750, with the understanding that it will be held for 10 years, the deal is considered accretive, because the bond pays out the initial investment, plus interest. Depending on the type of bond purchased, interest may be paid out at regular intervals (annually, semi-annually, etc.), or it may be paid in lump sum, upon maturity.

With zero coupon bonds, there is no interest accrual. Instead, it is purchased at a discount, such as the initial $750 investment for a bond with a face value of $1,000. The bond pays the original face value, also known as the accreted value, of $1,000, in a lump sum upon maturity.

In corporate finance acquisition deals are often accretive. First, let’s assume that the earnings per share of Corporation X is listed as $100, and earnings per share of Corporation Y is listed as $50. When Corporation X acquires Corporation Y, Corporations X’s earnings per share increase to $150–rendering this a 50% accretive deal.

[Important: The antonym to “accretive” is “dilutive”, which describes any deal which causes a corporation’s earnings per share value to drop.]