Does active management add any value?

The question as to whether active management adds any value above that of the funds investment policy is one of continual interest to investors. In order to investigate this issue in the UK real estate market we examine a number of related questions. First, how much return variability is explained by investment policy? Second, how similar are the policies across funds? Third, how much of a fund’s return is determined by investment policy? Finally, how was this added value achieved? Using data for 19 real estate funds we find that investment policy explains less than half of the variability in returns over time, nothing of the variation across funds and that more than 100% of a level of return is attributed to investment policy. The results also show UK real estate fund focus exclusively on trying to pick winners to add value and that in pursuit of active return fund mangers incur high tracking error risk, consequently, successful active management is very difficult to achieve. In addition, the results are dependent on the benchmark used to represent the investment policy of the fund. Nonetheless, active management can indeed add value to a real estate funds performance. This is the good news. The bad news is adding value is much more difficult to achieve than is generally accepted.

The effect of asymmetries on stock index return value-at-risk estimates

It is widely accepted that equity return volatility increases more following negative shocks rather than positive shocks. However, much of value-at-risk (VaR) analysis relies on the assumption that returns are normally distributed (a symmetric distribution). This article considers the effect of asymmetries on the evaluation and accuracy of VaR by comparing estimates based on various models.

A value chain approach to animal diseases risk management: technical foundations and practical framework for field application

Classical risk assessment approaches for animal diseases are influenced by the probability of release, exposure and consequences of a hazard affecting a livestock population. Once a pathogen enters into domestic livestock, potential risks of exposure and infection both to animals and people extend through a chain of economic activities related to producing, buying and selling of animals and products. Therefore, in order to understand economic drivers of animal diseases in different ecosystems and to come up with effective and efficient measures to manage disease risks from a country or region, the entire value chain and related markets for animal and product needs to be analysed to come out with practical and cost effective risk management options agreed by actors and players on those value chains. Value chain analysis enriches disease risk assessment providing a framework for interdisciplinary collaboration, which seems to be in increasing demand for problems concerning infectious livestock diseases. The best way to achieve this is to ensure that veterinary epidemiologists and social scientists work together throughout the process at all levels.

Options for enhancing the biodiversity value of intensive livestock farms: experience from the English agri-environment schemes

Permanent grassland makes up a greater proportion of the agricultural area in the UK and Ireland than in any other EU country, representing 60% and 72% of UAA respectively (Eurostat 2007). Of the permanent grassland in the UK, approximately half (about 6 million hectares) comprises improved grassland on moist or free-draining neutral soils typical of lowland livestock farms. These swards tend to have low plant species richness and are typically dominated by perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). The aim of this paper is to review the ways in which biodiversity of such farmland can be enhanced, focussing on the evidence behind management options in English agri-environment schemes (AES) at a range of scales and utilising a range of mechanisms.

Spectacle and value in classical Hollywood cinema

This is a primarily meta-critical essay and is in direct dialogue with the argument presented in my essay on Gone with the Wind (published in 'Screen'). Here, however, the emphasis is much more on the challenge my definition of spectacle represents for important traditions of film analysis, particularly ‘mise-en-scène criticism’. I argue for the possibility of spectacle to form part of the ‘organic’ whole of a film’s texture and form, while noting the challenge the concept represents (by dint of certain ideological associations and its taint of commercialism) with ‘organicist’ traditions of interpretative film analysis.