Are the financial services external complaints resolution schemes subject to judicial review?

In Australia seven schemes (apart from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) provide alternative dispute resolution services for complaints brought by consumers against financial services industry members. Recently the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the decisions of one scheme were amenable to judicial review at the suit of a financial services provider member and the Supreme Court of Victoria has since taken a similar approach. This article examines the juristic basis for such a challenge and contends that judicial review is not available, either at common law or under statutory provisions. This is particularly the case since Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 229; 60 ACSR 372 decided that the jurisdiction of a scheme is derived from a contract made with its members. The article goes on to contend that the schemes are required to give procedural fairness and that equitable remedies are available if that duty is breached.

The efficacy of the Sortino ratio and other benchmarked performance measures under skewed return distributions

This paper will investigate the suitability of existing performance measures under the assumption of a clearly defined benchmark. A range of measures are examined including the Sortino Ratio, the Sharpe Selection ratio (SSR), the Student’s t-test and a decay rate measure. A simulation study is used to assess the power and bias of these measures based on variations in sample size and mean performance of two simulated funds. The Sortino Ratio is found to be the superior performance measure exhibiting more power and less bias than the SSR when the distribution of excess returns are skewed.