Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management

Portfolio Management and Investment Analysis: A

Comprehensive Study

Student:

Aayush Abraham | N502 | 80012400807

Faculty Mentor:
Dr. Bharath Supra

Introduction
Investment analysis and portfolio management form the cornerstone of modern financial theory,
providing systematic approaches to optimize risk-adjusted returns in capital markets. The discipline
combines quantitative methodologies with strategic decision-making to construct portfolios that align
with investor objectives while managing inherent market risks.

Portfolio management involves the art and science of making investment decisions about investment
mix and policy, matching investments to objectives, and balancing risk against performance.

Contemporary portfolio management incorporates multiple asset classes, alternative investments, and
sophisticated risk management techniques. Factor investing and multi-factor models like the Fama-
French framework consider additional risk factors beyond market beta, including size, value,
profitability, and investment patterns.

These developments provide more nuanced approaches to portfolio construction and performance
attribution.

Segment 1: Portfolio Construction using Risk & Return Analysis

This analysis focuses on constructing optimal portfolios using 10 carefully selected Indian
equities from diverse sectors, complemented by risk-free assets and market benchmarks. The selection
encompasses companies from critical sectors of the Indian economy, ensuring broad market
representation and diversification benefits.

Asset Selection and Diversification Strategy

The portfolio construction utilized 10 assets strategically chosen to represent different risk-return
profiles and sector exposures. The selection includes:

Equity Holdings (8 stocks):

 Automobile Sector: Tata Motors, Eicher Motors, Mahindra & Mahindra

 Financial Services: Axis Bank

 Consumer Goods: Hindustan Unilever

 Metals & Mining: Tata Steel, JSW Steel

 Telecommunications: Bharti Airtel

  Pharmaceuticals: Sun Pharma

 Power: Adani Green

Risk-Free and Market Assets:

 91-Day Treasury Bills (represented by Nifty Government Securities)

 Market Benchmark (BSE index representation, ICICI ETF)

This diversified approach ensures exposure to both cyclical and defensive sectors, providing natural
hedging against economic cycles. The automobile sector concentration reflects India's automotive
boom, while financial services exposure captures the benefits of India's growing financial inclusion
and digitalization trends.

Risk Profiling and Investor Classification

The analysis employed a comprehensive 7-question risk assessment survey to determine investor risk
tolerance. The questionnaire evaluated behavioural responses to market volatility, investment
horizons, and risk appetite across different scenarios.

Risk Assessment Results:

 Total Score: 23 points

  Classification: Aggressive Investor (Risk Lover)

 Risk Tolerance: High (score range 22-27 points)

 Investment Horizon: Long-term focused with ability to withstand short-term volatility

This aggressive risk profile justifies higher equity allocations and pursuit of growth-oriented
strategies. The investor demonstrates willingness to accept higher volatility in exchange for superior
long-term returns, aligning with the portfolio construction approach that emphasizes growth stocks
and emerging market opportunities.

Portfolio Construction Analysis and Results - Individual Asset Performance Assessment

The individual asset analysis reveals significant return dispersion and risk characteristics across the
selected securities:
Top Performers by Annualized Returns:
1. Tata Motors: 55.20% return, 37.02% volatility (Sharpe ratio: 1.341)
2. Mahindra & Mahindra: 46.61% return, 29.46% volatility (Sharpe ratio: 1.394)
3. Sun Pharma: 32.13% return, 22.46% volatility (Sharpe ratio: 1.184)
4. Bharti Airtel: 31.49% return, 24.44% volatility (Sharpe ratio: 1.062)
5. Eicher Motors: 25.74% return, 27.05% volatility (Sharpe ratio: 0.747)
Risk Management Perspective:
 The government securities (5.54% return, 4.30% risk) provide the risk-free benchmark,
while ICICI ETF (14.46% return, 12.66% risk) and BSE index (17.95% return, 14.55% risk)
offer diversified market exposure with moderate risk levels.
 Tata Steel exhibits the highest volatility (52.62%) relative to its returns (19.35%),
indicating elevated sector-specific risks in the metals and mining industry. This highlights the
importance of position sizing and correlation management in portfolio construction.
Minimum Variance Portfolio (MVP) Construction
The Minimum Variance Portfolio construction employed three different asset selection criteria to
identify optimal low-risk combinations:
Debt-to-Equity Based MVP:
 Expected Return: 7.12% annually
 Portfolio Risk: 4.00% (standard deviation)
 Dominant Holdings: 83.94% in Government Securities, 8.52% in ICICI ETF
 Equity Allocation: Minimal exposure to HUL (1.52%) and Sun Pharma (1.29%)
ROE-Based MVP:
 Expected Return: 6.91% annually
 Portfolio Risk: 4.01% (standard deviation)
 Conservative Allocation: 84.34% Government Securities, 8.58% ICICI ETF
 Quality Focus: Small allocation to HUL (1.58%) based on superior ROE metrics
Moat Score-Based MVP:
 Expected Return: 7.12% annually
 Portfolio Risk: 4.00% (standard deviation)
 Similar Structure: Heavy government securities weighting with minimal equity exposure
The consistent results across methodologies demonstrate that minimum variance
optimization naturally gravitates toward low-risk assets regardless of the screening criteria. The 4.00-
4.01% risk level represents the minimum achievable portfolio volatility given the asset universe and
correlation structure.
Mean-Variance Optimal Portfolios
The Mean-Variance optimization seeks to maximize risk-adjusted returns by optimizing the Sharpe
ratio:
Debt-to-Equity Based Mean-Variance Portfolio:
 Expected Return: 28.03% annually
 Portfolio Risk: 13.32%
 Sharpe Ratio: 1.6887
 Key Holdings: Sun Pharma (30.11%), TATA Motors (20.35%), ICICI ETF (42.30%), Eicher
Motors (7.24%)
ROE-Based Mean-Variance Portfolio:
 Expected Return: 27.89% annually
 Portfolio Risk: 13.78%
 Sharpe Ratio: 1.6223
 Composition: ICICI ETF (45.92%), Bharti Airtel (24.84%), TATA Motors (23.28%), Eicher
Motors (5.97%)
Moat Score-Based Mean-Variance Portfolio (Optimal):
 Expected Return: 28.16% annually
 Portfolio Risk: 12.78%
 Sharpe Ratio: 1.7700 (highest)
 Strategic Allocation: ICICI ETF (38.29%), Sun Pharma (24.29%), Bharti Airtel (17.05%),
TATA Motors (16.82%), Eicher Motors (3.55%)
Efficient Frontier and Capital Allocation Line Analysis

The efficient frontier analysis using a two-asset portfolio (Tata Motors and Sun Pharma) demonstrates
the fundamental risk-return trade-off principles:
 Minimum Risk Portfolio: 21.29% risk, 36.74% return
 Maximum Return Portfolio: 37.02% risk, 55.20% return
 Optimal Sharpe Ratio: Achieved at approximately 40% Tata Motors, 60% Sun Pharma
allocation
The correlation coefficient of 0.284 between Tata Motors and Sun Pharma provides moderate
diversification benefits, enabling risk reduction through portfolio combination. The efficient frontier
curve demonstrates increasing marginal risk for additional return beyond the optimal allocation.
Key Insights and Strategic Implications
Portfolio Construction Effectiveness
The analysis reveals several critical insights for portfolio management:
Screening Methodology Impact: The Moat Score-based approach yielded the highest Sharpe ratio
(1.77), suggesting that qualitative competitive advantages translate into superior risk-adjusted returns.
Companies with strong economic moats demonstrate more predictable cash flows and lower downside
risk.
Sector Concentration Benefits: The automobile sector's strong performance (TATA Motors, Mahindra
& Mahindra) reflects India's economic recovery and infrastructure development. However, the high
correlation within the sector necessitates careful position sizing.
Risk-Return Optimization: The Mean-Variance portfolios achieved superior performance (27-28%
returns) compared to MVP approaches (7% returns), validating the risk-return trade-off for aggressive
investors. The 12-14% portfolio risk levels align with the investor's risk tolerance profile.
Asset Allocation Insights
Equity vs Fixed Income Balance: The optimal portfolios demonstrate 60-70% equity allocation,
consistent with aggressive investment strategies. The government securities component (30-40%)
provides portfolio stability and downside protection during market stress.
Quality vs Growth Orientation: High-ROE companies (Bharti Airtel 22.76%, TATA Motors 23.22%)
feature prominently in optimal allocations, supporting quality-focused investment approaches. The PE
ratio analysis indicates preference for reasonably valued growth stocks over expensive momentum
plays.
Risk Management Framework
The variance-covariance matrix analysis reveals low cross-correlations between sectors, validating
the diversification strategy. Government securities show near-zero correlations with equities,
confirming their portfolio insurance characteristics.
Portfolio beta calculations indicate moderate systematic risk exposure (beta approximately 0.65-1.0),
suggesting market-neutral to slightly aggressive positioning appropriate for the investor profile.
The Segment 1 analysis establishes a robust foundation for systematic portfolio management.
The multi-criteria optimization approach demonstrates that different screening methodologies can
yield varying optimal allocations, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive analysis in
investment decision-making.
The aggressive investor profile supports the growth-oriented portfolio construction, with mean-
variance optimization providing superior risk-adjusted returns compared to conservative minimum
variance approaches. The 28% expected returns with 13-14% risk levels represent attractive risk-
reward propositions for long-term wealth creation.
Future enhancements will incorporate factor-based models (CAPM, APT, Fama-French) for return
predictions, systematic investment strategies for market timing, and comprehensive performance
attribution for strategy validation. This foundation enables dynamic portfolio
 rebalancing and strategic asset allocation adjustments based on evolving market
conditions and investment objectives.

Segment 2 Equity Valuation Deep-Dive

Purpose of the Segment
This section translates quantitative asset-pricing theory into practical portfolio decisions. You use
three bottom-up modelling families—CAPM, APT and the Fama–French/Carhart factor suite—to
answer four questions:
1. What is each stock’s model-implied expected return?
2. Is that return higher or lower than the realised return over the sample?
3. Does the gap imply mis-pricing (over- or under-valuation)?
4. Given the mis-pricing signals, how should you rebalance to raise risk-adjusted performance?

Model-by-Model Findings
CAPM
 Collected daily total returns for ten NSE-listed large-caps.
 Estimated each stock’s β against the NIFTY 50 (proxy for the market) over the same window.
 Used the 3-month T-bill yield as rf (5.54%) and the market’s annualised mean return
(17.95%).
 Plugged into E[Ri] = rf+βi(Rm−rf).

Stock Actual Return CAPM Return Alpha Signal

Tata Steel 19.35% 18.70% +0.66% Under-valued

Axis Bank 23.49% 20.14% +3.35% Under-valued

Adani Green 44.97% 17.90% +27.1% Under-valued

HUL 4.35% 11.56% –7.21% Over-valued

Stock Actual Return CAPM Return Alpha Signal

Tata Motors 55.20% 22.35% +32.85% Under-valued

Key Inference
1. Eight of ten names deliver positive alpha, flagging systematic under-pricing relative to single-
factor risk.
2. HUL’s negative alpha (−7.2%) shows investors pay a defensive premium for its low β (0.48).
3. High-beta cyclicals (Tata Motors, JSW Steel) more than compensate for their risk.

APT (4-factor macro model)

What you did
 Chose four priced macro factors: INR/USD changes, 3-month yield shocks, Brent crude
returns, India VIX moves.
 Ran daily cross-sectional regressions for each stock:

 Converted the factor risk premiums into an “Expected Daily Return”, then annualised.
Insert screenshot of regression statistics block (Multiple R, R², ANOVA) here ➜ after factor
explanation.

Stock APT Return Actual Return Gap Signal

Tata Steel 10.01% 19.35% +9.3% Under-valued

HUL 4.99% 4.35% –0.6% Over-valued

Axis Bank 6.60% 23.49% +16.9% Under-valued

Stock APT Return Actual Return Gap Signal

Adani Green 7.69% 44.97% +37.3% Under-valued

Inference
1. Factor betas are economically intuitive:
 Steel producers load negatively on INR depreciation (imported coal, FX debt).
 Banks respond positively to yield steepening (higher NIM).
 VIX carries a pervasive negative beta.
2. R² values cluster below 25%—APT captures multiple macro risks but leaves idiosyncratic
alpha that active managers can harvest.

Fama–French 3, Carhart 4 & 5-Factor Models

What you did
 Pulled daily Indian factor series (Rm-Rf, SMB, HML, MOM, RMW, CMA) from the India
FF library.
 Estimated rolling regressions for each specification.
 Computed expected return using long-run average factor premiums.

Highlights
1. Market beta remains dominant (0.77 – 1.30) but size (SMB) turns significantly positive for
Axis Bank and Eicher Motors—confirming their “mid-cap” behaviour despite index
membership.
 2. HUL holds a negative value beta (rejects HML), explaining over-pricing under value-driven
models.
3. Momentum (Carhart) is strongly positive for Adani Green (β_MOM = 1.29, t ≈ 9),
rationalising its explosive price path.
4. Profitability (RMW) and investment (CMA) betas from the 5-factor model add little
incremental explanatory power—adjusted R² rises by < 1 pp on average.
Comparative mis-pricing (averaging across 3/4/5-factor outputs):
 Persistent over-valuation: HUL, Sun Pharma.
 Consistent under-valuation: Adani Green, Tata Motors, JSW Steel, Mahindra & Mahindra.

Cumulative Insights
1. Model consensus - Stocks flagged “under-priced” by all three frameworks—Tata Motors,
Adani Green, JSW Steel—are high-conviction longs. HUL is the lone name scored “over-
priced” everywhere—prime candidate for pruning or short overlay.
2. Alpha sources differ - CAPM alpha springs from single-factor risk. APT alpha decomposes
into macro sensitivities—FX and VIX are chief drivers. FF/Carhart alpha reflects style tilts
(size, value, momentum). Combining signals diversifies alpha and raises information ratio.
3. Factor exposures inform hedging
 Over-weight to steels and autos loads the portfolio positively on market and
momentum but negatively on VIX and value—tail risk if volatility spikes.
 A small tactical HUL short hedges defensive demand shocks and lowers net market
beta.
4. Statistical vs economic significance - High R² in CAPM (e.g., 19% Tata Steel) is ample for
practical use; APT regressions show low R² but economically large alphas, warning against
over-reliance on goodness-of-fit.

Rebalancing Blueprint
1. Drop inefficient assets
 Sell HUL and Sun Pharma (negative alpha, low upside).
 Trim Bharti Airtel (alpha modest, momentum fading).
2. Reallocate to alpha-rich names
 Double-weight Tata Motors, Adani Green, JSW Steel.
 Increase Mahindra & Mahindra and Axis Bank to maintain sector spread.
3. Target risk-adjusted return
Back-testing the new weights lifts the ex-ante Sharpe ratio from 0.82 to 1.09 and cuts
tracking-error volatility by 60 bp (details in Excel “Rebalanced” tab—screenshot after this
section).
 4. Ongoing monitoring
 Refresh betas quarterly.
 Set sell discipline: close a position if alpha shrinks below ±1%.
 Hedge event risk with NIFTY put spreads when VIX < 14.

Segment 3: Applying Systematic Investment Strategies

This section examines the Excel dataset through the lens of six systematic investment strategies. Each
subsection applies one strategy to the suite of assets - Bharti Airtel, HUL, Mahindra & Mahindra, Sun
Pharma, Axis Bank, BSE, ICICI ETF, Nifty GS 10 Yr - and assesses how the strategy affects portfolio
composition, performance, and risk.
Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) Analysis
Under the Efficient Market Hypothesis, security prices fully reflect all available information—public,
private, and historical—and thus no strategy can systematically outperform the market on a risk-
adjusted basis.
The following deep-dive leverages the Excel dataset’s return, variance, covariance and beta estimates
to rigorously test EMH for eight Indian assets: Bharti Airtel, HUL, Mahindra & Mahindra, Sun
Pharma, Axis Bank, BSE, ICICI ETF and the Nifty GS 10 Yr index.
CAPM-Implied vs. Realized Returns
Where Rf is the risk-free rate (proxied by Nifty GS 10 Yr yield), β from Excel’s covariance with the
market portfolio, and E[Rm] is the benchmark’s annual return.
Computation
 Excel betas (annualized) range between –0.02 (ICICI ETF) and 1.4 (Mahindra & Mahindra).
 Market excess return E[Rm]−RfE[R_m]-R_fE[Rm]−Rf ≈ 28% – 5.5% = 22.5%.
 CAPM-implied returns cluster within ±150 bps of realized: - Bharti Airtel 31.5% vs. 31.4%;
Axis Bank 23.5% vs. 23.5%; HUL 4.4% vs. 4.3%.
Alpha Calculation
 Average absolute alpha across all eight assets: 0.9 ppt.
 Standard deviation of monthly alphas: 1.2 ppt—within noise levels given sample variance.
Alpha Time Series and Persistence
 Rolling Window Analysis: Using 36-month rolling regressions, Mahindra & Mahindra and
Sun Pharma display transient positive alphas up to +250 bps in back-to-back windows during
cyclical troughs, coinciding with sector-specific catalysts (auto demand recovery and patent
approvals). Axis Bank and Bharti Airtel alphas remain bounded within ±50 bps consistently—
no evidence of persistent mispricing to exploit.
 Statistical Significance: Only 5% of rolling alphas exceed two-sigma confidence bands,
suggesting that most deviations arise from sampling error rather than genuine inefficiencies.
– Hypothesis test (t-test) on mean alpha over 120 months yields p-values >0.15 for all assets
except Sun Pharma (p=0.08); however, Sun Pharma’s alpha episodes lack consistency.
Cross-Asset Correlation and Information Diffusion
Correlation Matrix Insights: High correlation between ICICI ETF and Nifty GS 10 Yr (0.88)
indicates that fixed‐income expectations are swiftly translated between government bonds and bond
ETFs. Sector‐specific pairs, e.g., Mahindra & Mahindra vs. Tata Motors, show correlations ~0.75,
reflecting rapid co-movement.

Information Channels: Macro announcements (policy rates, GDP data) create near-simultaneous
rerating across bond and equity markets, eroding potential lags. Company news (earnings surprises,
regulatory approvals) produce short-lived drift—mean-reverting within two weeks.
Portfolio-Level Implications
Market-Cap Benchmark vs. Mean-Variance Portfolio: The simple market-cap weighted
benchmark (100% equities) explains 95% of the variance of the optimized mean-variance portfolio
(80% equities, 20% bonds) when regressed monthly. Tracking error between the two portfolios
remains below 1.5% annualized, implying negligible room for active managers after costs.
Transaction Cost Drag: Realistic turnover assumptions (quarterly rebalancing, 1% round-trip cost)
erase the modest outperformance indicated by in-sample mean alphas.Net of costs, alpha-seeking
strategies underperform passive benchmarks by 50–100 bps annually.
Implications for Strategy: EMH appears robust at the large-cap and index level in India: persistently
positive, exploitable opportunities are scarce. Short-term tactical mispricing (momentum carve-outs in
cyclical names) can yield fleeting gains but fail in risk-adjusted net returns after friction costs. Long-
only, low-turnover passive or risk-parity frameworks align best with observed efficiency.

Investment Philosophies: Value vs. Growth; Passive vs. Active

Investors must reconcile the trade-offs between Value vs. Growth and Passive vs. Active frameworks.
Using segment data from the Excel spreadsheet—price‐to‐book and dividend‐yield proxies, trailing
annualized returns, and optimized portfolio weights—this section delivers a richly detailed evaluation.
Value vs. Growth Investing
Defining the Tilt Metrics
 Value Tilt
 Price‐to‐Book Proxy: In absence of direct P/B, dividend yield inverse serves as a rough
stand‐in—higher yield suggests lower P/B.
 Stocks ranked by highest dividend yield: BSE, HUL, Bharti Airtel.
 Growth Tilt
 Trailing Annualized Return: Captures historical earnings momentum embedded in share
prices.
 Stocks ranked by highest annualized return: Mahindra & Mahindra (46.6%), Sun Pharma
(32.1%), Bharti Airtel (31.5%).
Portfolio Construction

Portfolio Constituents Weighting

Value (Equal-Weight) BSE; HUL; Bharti Airtel 33.3% each

Mahindra & Mahindra; Sun Pharma;

Growth (Equal-Weight) Bharti Airtel 33.3% each

Risk–Return Comparison

Metric Value Portfolio Growth Portfolio

Annualized Return 19.2% 27.0%

Annualized Risk (Std Dev) 15.6% 18.2%

Sharpe Ratio† 0.85 0.92

Dividend Yield Proxy 4.2% 1.8%

 The Value Portfolio delivered a 16 bps higher dividend yield, yet its Sharpe ratio trails by 7
bps due to lower return and only modest risk reduction.
 The Growth Portfolio’s superior momentum compensated for elevated volatility, driving a
slightly better risk-adjusted outcome.
Insights
1. Yield vs. Momentum Trade-Off: High dividend‐yield stocks (value) provide income buffer
but lag in capital appreciation relative to growth names.
2. Diversification Effects: Overlap - Bharti Airtel resides in both portfolios - yields low
incremental diversification; truly distinct value and growth requires broader cross-sector
selection.
 3. Factor Cyclicality: Over long horizons, value often outperforms in market troughs while
growth leads in expansions; the sample period favoured growth.

Passive vs. Active Investing

Passive: Strategy: 100% allocation to the Nifty GS 10 Yr bond index. Sample Period Performance:
 Annualized Return: 5.5%
 Annualized Risk (Std. Dev): 4.3%
 Sharpe Ratio†: 0.00 (using the index’s own yield as risk‐free baseline)
Active: Strategy: Excel “Mean Variance Portfolio” combining eight equities and bond index,
optimized for maximum Sharpe. Optimal Weights: ~37.6% bonds (Nifty GS 10 Yr) and 62.4% across
eight large‐cap stocks. Sample Period Performance:
 Annualized Return: 28.1%
 Annualized Risk (Std. Dev): 12.5%
 Sharpe Ratio: 1.77

Asset Class Passive Allocation Active Weights (%)

Nifty GS 10 Yr (Bonds) 100% 37.6%

Equities (8 large caps) 0% 62.4%

*Equities include Bharti Airtel, HUL, Mahindra & Mahindra, Sun Pharma, Axis Bank, BSE, ICICI
ETF and TATA Motors.

Metric Passive Benchmark Active Mean-Variance

Annualized Return 5.5% 28.1%

Annualized Risk 4.3% 12.5%

Sharpe Ratio† 0.00* 1.77

 Metric Passive Benchmark Active Mean-Variance

Turnover‡ 0% 40% annually

Performance Comparison

Despite generating over 22 pps higher return, the active strategy assumed 8.2 pps more risk,
translating into only a 1.77 Sharpe versus a flat Sharpe for passive. Estimated 40% annual
turnover and ~1% round-trip transaction cost could diminish net active performance by 50–80 bps,
narrowing the active-passive gap.

Insights
1. Simplicity vs. Complexity
Passive bond indexing offers low-cost, hands-off stability. Active optimization requires
regular rebalancing, model updates, and potential market‐timing risk.
2. Risk-Budget Alignment
Active’s outsized gains demand an investor tolerance for drawdowns near 12.5% annually
versus 4.3% for pure bonds. Matching portfolio volatility to client risk profiles is critical.
3. Cost Considerations
Trading frictions (commissions, bid-ask spreads, market impact) erode 50–80 bps of active
return. For many retail investors, net benefit may not justify complexity - favouring passive.
4. Behavioural and Tax Impacts
High turnover can trigger adverse tax events and behavioural biases. Passive holders avoid
timing risks and reduce taxable distributions.
5. Strategic Blends
A core–satellite approach (passive core, active satellite) can capture active upside while
maintaining stable bond exposure, blending low cost with targeted alpha potential.
This granular comparison demonstrates that while active mean-variance optimization can
substantially boost returns, the additional complexity, volatility, and costs may offset much of its
advantage—making passive bond allocation the prudent anchor for many portfolios.

Factor Investing: Size, Value, Quality

Factor investing targets persistent, systematic drivers of return by tilting away from a pure market-cap
benchmark toward economically motivated exposures. Using the model covariance and return
matrices as proxies, we define three single-factor portfolios and then blend them equally into a
composite multi-factor portfolio.
Defining the Proxies
  Size (Small-Cap) Tilt: Smaller firms tend to earn a size premium over large caps. We proxy
“small” by underweighting the largest market caps (Bharti Airtel, HUL) and overweighting
Mahindra & Mahindra and Sun Pharma.
 Value Tilt: Low price-to-book ratios historically outperform. From the covariance-matrix
segment, BSE and ICICI ETF exhibit the lowest implied P/B proxies (i.e., higher covariance
with negative alpha proxies).
 Quality Tilt: High-quality assets—characterized by stable profits and low downside volatility
—map to the lowest annualized risk. Nifty GS 10 Yr and ICICI ETF have the lowest
annualized variances and form our quality bucket.
Single-Factor Portfolio Construction
Weights within each single-factor portfolio are allocated equally between the two chosen assets, then
scaled to 100% of risk budget.

Factor Asset 1 Asset 2 Weights (%) each

Small-Cap Mahindra & Mahindra Sun Pharma 50% / 50%

Value BSE ICICI ETF 50% / 50%

Quality Nifty GS 10 Yr ICICI ETF 50% / 50%

Composite Multi-Factor Portfolio

By blending the three single-factor portfolios equally (33.3% each), we diversify idiosyncratic risk
and capture multiple premia:

Factor Component Portfolio Return Portfolio Risk Sharpe Ratio

Small-Cap Tilt ~28% ~0.27 ~1.04

Value Tilt ~18% ~0.15 ~1.20

Quality Tilt ~5.5% ~0.04 ~1.31

Multi-Factor Blend 22% 0.18 1.22

 Outperformance: The composite Sharpe (~1.22) exceeds each single‐factor by 50–100 bps,
demonstrating diversification across factor cycles.
  Downside Stability: During low-interest, growth-led rallies when value lagged, the high-
quality bond component (Nifty GS 10 Yr) cushioned drawdowns, reducing monthly max
drawdown by ~15%.
 Allocation Shifts:
 The factor overlay lowers exposure to the two largest caps—Bharti Airtel weight falls
from 15% in the pure market-cap portfolio to ≈8% in the composite blend.
 Quality tilt increases the bond index weight: Nifty GS 10 Yr rises by ~25% relative to
market cap, trimming equity volatility by ~15%.

Low‐Volatility Strategy
A low‐volatility approach invests exclusively in the three assets with the lowest annualized risk,
dramatically simplifying construction while delivering strong risk‐adjusted returns.

Asset Annualised Risk (%)

Nifty GS 10 Yr 4.30

ICICI ETF 12.66

BSE 14.55

Axis Bank 26.97

Sun Pharma 22.46

Bharti Airtel 24.44

HUL 19.81

Mahindra & Mahindra 29.46

Asset Ranking by Annualized Risk

Low‐Volatility Portfolio Weights

Allocate 100 % equally to the bottom three:

Asset Weight (%)

Nifty GS 10 Yr 33.3

ICICI ETF 33.3

BSE 33.3

Back-test Performance

Metric Low‐Volatility Broad Portfolio

Annualized Return (%) 5.7 28.1

Annualized Risk (%) 4.3 12.5

Sharpe Ratio 1.31 1.18

Drawdown Frequency (months) 2 4

Comparing the low‐volatility portfolio to the broad‐universe mean‐variance portfolio:

 Superior Sharpe: Low‐volatility delivers a Sharpe of ~1.31, beating the broad‐universe

optimized (1.18) by 13 bps.
 Reduced Drawdowns: Drawdown occurrences halved versus the broad portfolio, reflecting
the stabilizing effect of the bond index allocation.
 Return Trade-off: While annualized return (5.7 %) is modest compared to equity‐heavy
strategies, risk is one-third as high, meeting risk‐control objectives.
Strategic Considerations
 Simplicity: Construction requires only three weights, avoiding covariance estimation and
rebalancing complexity.
 Bull Market Caps: In high‐beta rallies (e.g., Tata Motors’ surge), low‐vol underperforms,
capping upside.
  Hybrid Enhancement: To regain growth exposure, a 70/30 blend of low‐volatility (70 %) with
a momentum‐tilt portfolio (30 %) can capture upside while retaining ~70 % of the risk control
—providing a “growth kicker” without sacrificing more than a fraction of volatility and
drawdown protection.

Momentum Investing
A momentum strategy systematically rotates into the assets exhibiting the strongest recent
performance, on the premise that winners tend to continue outperforming in the near term.
The annualized trailing returns provide the foundation for identifying momentum leaders and
laggards, constructing an equally weighted momentum portfolio, and assessing its historical risk-
return profile relative to a mean-variance allocation.

Ranking by Recent Returns

Over the measurement window:
 Tata Motors delivered an annualized 55.20 %, emerging as the clear momentum champion.
 Bharti Airtel followed with 31.49 %, reflecting robust subscriber growth and telecom sector
resilience.
 Eicher Motors secured third place at 25.74 %, driven by sustained demand for premium two-
wheelers.
Conversely, the weakest performers included HUL with 4.35 %, reflecting defensive-stock
underperformance, and the Nifty GS 10 Yr ETF alongside ICICI ETF, which exhibited
modest bond and broad-market exposures that trailed equity winners.
Portfolio Construction Methodology
The momentum portfolio is rebalanced at each period to allocate 33.3 % to each of the top three assets
—Tata Motors, Bharti Airtel, and Eicher Motors. This equal-weight approach ensures diversification
across leading sectors while maintaining focus on proven short-term winners. No position is held in
underperforming names during each rebalancing interval.
Realized Performance of the Momentum Strategy
Backtesting over the sample horizon yields the following annualized statistics:
 Return: Approximately 40 %, outperforming a comparably tested mean-variance portfolio
(≈28 %) by over 10 %age points.
 Risk (Volatility): Approximately 30 %, versus ~12.5 % for the mean-variance alternative.
 Sharpe Ratio: Roughly 1.33, compared to 1.18 for the mean-variance portfolio, indicating
superior risk-adjusted returns despite elevated volatility.
 Beta: A moderate market sensitivity of 0.27, reflecting sector concentration in autos and
telecom which occasionally accentuates cyclicality.
Key Insights and Strategic Considerations
 1. Return Enhancement vs. Risk Uptick
Momentum delivers outsized gains but at the cost of higher drawdowns and swings. While the
Sharpe ratio improves, absolute volatility climbs by roughly 18 %age points.
2. Sector Concentration Risk
By overweighting cyclical auto and telecom names, the strategy may experience sharp
reversals when sector leadership shifts. Incorporating a volatility or drawdown stop-loss filter
can help mitigate extreme moves.
3. Blended Portfolio Impact
Introducing a momentum sleeve (e.g., 30 % allocation) into a baseline low-volatility
framework raises the blended portfolio’s expected return by roughly 8 %age points,
increasing overall equity exposure from around 55 % to 75 %. Although volatility also rises,
the combined Sharpe ratio benefits from the strong momentum premium.
4. Implementation Nuances
 Rebalance frequency should align with data availability and turnover constraints—
monthly or quarterly is common.
 Transaction costs and taxes must be incorporated to assess net performance.
 Dynamic risk controls (e.g., volatility targeting or maximum drawdown alerts) can
prevent momentum tail-risks from eroding long-term returns.
By weaving momentum into a diversified multi-factor program, investors can capture persistent trends
that complement traditional value and volatility tilts, enhancing both returns and risk management
over market cycles.

ESG Investing
An ESG-tilted portfolio can be constructed by proxying environmental, social, and governance factors
through sector and company reputations when direct scores are unavailable. By excluding less
transparent holdings and over-weighting firms with strong governance and social initiatives, the
portfolio aims to capture the “ESG premium” while buffering downside with fixed-income exposure.
ESG Proxy Selection
 Exclude BSE and ICICI ETF, which either lack transparency or may hold non-ESG names.
 Tilt toward companies recognized for governance and social commitments: HUL (defensive
consumer staples leader), Mahindra & Mahindra (recognized for rural electrification and
community programs), and Bharti Airtel (widely lauded for digital inclusion initiatives).
Allocation Methodology
Rebalance into an equal-weight ESG sleeve representing 70 % of total assets, with each of the three
names receiving 23.33 %. The remaining 30 % is allocated to the Nifty GS 10 Yr bond index,
providing a risk buffer and reducing overall volatility. This structure ensures meaningful ESG
exposure while maintaining portfolio resilience.
Realized Performance of the ESG-Tilted Portfolio
Backtests over the sample horizon yield the following annualized statistics for the total ESG portfolio
(70 % equities, 30 % bonds):
  Return: Approximately 18 %, underperforming the pure momentum sleeve (~40 %) but
exceeding the minimum-variance strategy (~7 %).
 Risk (Volatility): Roughly 15 %, intermediate between the high-vol momentum portfolio (~30
%) and the low-risk benchmark (~4 %).
 Sharpe Ratio: Approximately 1.20, outperforming the low-volatility allocation by about 150
basis points while trailing the momentum strategy (~1.33).
 Beta: Relative to a market-cap index, the ESG tilt reduces market sensitivity by 20 %,
reflecting a defensive shift away from banking and pharmaceuticals.
Key Insights and Strategic Considerations
1. Risk-Return Trade-Off
The ESG portfolio delivers a balanced outcome: significantly higher returns and Sharpe ratio
than a pure low-volatility approach, but with lower drawdowns and volatility than a
momentum-driven allocation.
2. Controversy Mitigation
By under-exposing banks and pharmaceutical firms—sectors prone to governance and social
controversies - the ESG tilt lowers idiosyncratic tail-risks. This fosters more stable returns
during regulatory or reputational shocks.
3. Diversification and Buffering
The 30 % bond sleeve not only tempers equity volatility but also enhances liquidity and
capital preservation during drawdowns, aligning with ESG investors’ long-term horizons.
4. Implementation Nuances
 Rebalance in tandem with ESG and risk factor reviews—quarterly frequency
balances turnover and responsiveness.
 Monitor corporate ESG developments to adjust holdings if controversies emerge.
 Incorporate transaction costs and potential bond-equity correlation shifts when yield
regimes change.
By weaving a targeted ESG sleeve into a diversified portfolio, investors can achieve competitive risk-
adjusted returns while aligning capital with governance and social values, thereby harnessing both
financial performance and sustainable impact.

Influence of Strategies on Portfolio Composition and Performance

Strategy Annualized Return Annualized Risk Sharpe Ratio

Market‐Cap Benchmark 23.1% 16.3% 1.18

Mean‐Variance 28.1% 12.8% 1.77

 Strategy Annualized Return Annualized Risk Sharpe Ratio

Low Volatility 5.7% 4.3% 1.31

Momentum 40.0% 30.0% 1.33

Factor (Multi) 22.0% 18.0% 1.22

ESG 18.0% 15.0% 1.20

All strategies achieved Sharpe >1.2, but with trade‐offs: momentum and mean‐variance offered
highest returns; low‐vol and ESG delivered smoother rides; factor blend balanced both.

Strategic Model Portfolios: Textual Elaboration

By leveraging the return, risk, and covariance statistics from the Excel dataset, three distinct strategic
model portfolios can be constructed to align with varying investor objectives and risk appetites. Each
model blends systematic strategies—low‐volatility, ESG tilt, multi‐factor, momentum, mean‐variance
optimization—and fixed income to achieve target return, risk, and Sharpe profiles.
Conservative Risk-First Model
Allocation
 50 percent to the low-volatility strategy (minimum-variance sleeve)
 30 percent to the ESG-tilted portfolio
 20 percent to the Nifty GS 10 Yr bond index
Expected Metrics
 Annualized return: ~10 percent
 Annualized volatility: ~6 percent
 Sharpe ratio: ~1.50

This model prioritizes capital preservation and smooth equity exposures. The minimum-variance
sleeve dampens drawdowns and volatility, the ESG tilt adds governance and social resilience, and the
bond index provides a stable risk buffer. Together, they yield mid-single-digit returns with low risk,
ideal for risk-averse investors seeking consistent, above-cash performance.
Balanced Factor-Momentum Model
Allocation
 40 percent to a multi-factor portfolio (Fama-French/Carhart style factors)
  40 percent to the momentum strategy (pure momentum sleeve)
 20 percent to the low-volatility strategy
Expected Metrics
 Annualized return: ~28 percent
 Annualized volatility: ~18 percent
 Sharpe ratio: ~1.56

By blending factor diversification with trend-following, this balanced approach captures multiple risk
premia—value, size, quality, momentum—while anchoring volatility with the low-vol strategy. The
result is a high-return portfolio with moderate risk and an attractive Sharpe ratio, suited for investors
comfortable with equity volatility in pursuit of outsized returns.
Aggressive Active Model
Allocation
 60 percent to a mean-variance optimized portfolio (tactical weights)
 20 percent to the momentum strategy
 20 percent to the ESG-tilt sleeve
Expected Metrics
 Annualized return: ~32 percent
 Annualized volatility: ~20 percent
 Sharpe ratio: ~1.60
This high-conviction model emphasizes active optimization—allocating to equities with the best risk-
adjusted returns per the covariance matrix—complemented by momentum’s trend capture and ESG’s
defensive tilt. It targets superior returns with higher volatility, appealing to aggressive investors who
seek alpha through tactical weight adjustments and trend signals.
Systematic strategies applied to the detailed return and covariance inputs demonstrate robust risk-
adjusted outcomes across risk-return spectra. While markets generally price in common risk factors
efficiently, tactical momentum and optimization can harvest transient mispricing.
The conservative model emphasizes volatility control and sustainable ESG exposures; the balanced
model combines diversified factors with momentum; and the aggressive model leverages active
optimization and trend signals for maximum return potential.
Continuous monitoring, quarterly rebalancing, and updates to the covariance inputs in the Excel
dataset ensure alignment with evolving market conditions and strategic objectives.
Segment 4:
Portfolio Evaluation & Attribution Analysis
This analysis provides a detailed, performance-driven assessment of eight equity portfolios
constructed with varying investment strategies—including financial ratios, factors, and sectoral
themes. Using key performance metrics and attribution models, we dissect their effectiveness and
uncover value drivers, leveraging data from the attached Excel file.
Inference of Performance Metrics
Sharpe Ratio - Portfolios exhibit Sharpe Ratios ranging from 1.62 to 1.86, with Portfolio 4 (PE
Ratio) scoring the highest (1.86), indicating superior risk-adjusted performance.
A ratio above 1 is considered good, reflecting efficient reward for each risk unit taken. Among all, PE-
based (Portfolio 4) and Market Cap-based (Portfolio 6) portfolios deliver the greatest efficiency,
suggesting that these strategies effectively manage volatility while capturing returns.
Takeaway: Investors prioritizing controlled risk and steady gains might focus on strategies
emphasizing PE ratios and market capitalization, as supported by their strong Sharpe metrics.
Treynor Ratio - The Treynor Ratio measures returns earned in excess of that which could have been
earned on a riskless investment per each unit of market risk (beta).
Inference from Data:
 Ratios range: 0.39 to 0.43 across portfolios.
 Portfolio 6 (Market Cap) leads slightly (0.42), followed closely by Portfolio 4.
 Consistently high values across all indicate sound compensation for systematic market risk.
Takeaway: The portfolios achieve returns that justify their exposure to market-wide movements.
Especially, large-cap-focused portfolios are rewarded more efficiently for unit beta invested.
Jensen’s Alpha - Jensen’s Alpha calculates actual returns above the expected, based on the portfolio’s
beta and the market return.
Inference from Data:
 Notably positive for Portfolios 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, with Portfolio 5 (Automobile) posting the
highest alpha (0.33).
 Negative alpha for Portfolio 4 (-0.07) indicates underperformance versus market-adjusted
expectation.
Takeaway: Active strategies such as automobile and thematic/ROE portfolios show skillful
management or advantageous asset choice. Negative alpha in the PE-based portfolio signals that
relying on PE alone may result in missed opportunities or higher market risk not offset by returns.
Information Ratio - This ratio compares portfolio excess returns to the volatility of those returns
versus a benchmark.
Inference from Data:
 Ranges between 0.04 and 0.05.
 Portfolio 4 stands out with 0.053, almost always surpassing others.
Takeaway: While all portfolios marginally outperform the market, PE and automobile-based strategies
generate returns more consistently above benchmark, with less tracking error.
Sortino Ratio - Sortino Ratio refines the Sharpe by only considering downside risk, thus emphasizing
harmful volatility.
Inference from Data:
 Values from 0.13 to 0.15, with Portfolio 4 leading (0.15).
 Most portfolios maintain high ratios, revealing well-managed downside risk.
Takeaway: Investors wary of negative returns would prefer Portfolio 4 or 6, evidencing their resilience
in declining markets.
Up/Down Capture Ratios - Up-Capture Ratio measures portfolio performance during up-market
periods; Down-Capture Ratio, during down-market periods.
Inference from Data:
 Up Capture: 0.64 – 0.75
 Down Capture: 0.43 – 0.57
 Portfolio 5 (Automobile) reflects the best up-market capture (0.75) and competitive down-
market management (0.56).
Takeaway: Automobile-based strategies are highly sensitive to bull markets, maximizing upward
trends, though their downside capture is not the lowest, indicating moderate protection in bear phases.
Maximum Drawdown - Largest observed loss from a portfolio peak to a trough, before a new peak.
Inference from Data:
 Range: -0.10 to -0.12
 Portfolio 1 (Debt/Equity Ratio) and Portfolio 4 have the lowest drawdowns (-0.10).
 Portfolio 2 (ROE) and Portfolio 6 (Market Cap) show greater drawdowns (-0.12).
Takeaway: Strategies that control leverage or focus on PE are better at curtailing extreme losses,
indicating prudent risk management during sell-offs.
Attribution Analysis
Return Attribution: Asset Allocation vs. Security Selection
Qualitative Approach:
Using the Brinson-Fachler model:
Asset Allocation Effect
The asset allocation effect captures the benefit (or drawback) of positioning capital into sectors and
themes that outperformed the market benchmark. Here’s what the data and portfolio construction
reveal:
 Sector Concentration & Timing - Portfolios with well-timed overweight positions in high-
performing sectors saw material boosts to returns. For example:
 Portfolio 5 (Automobile Sector) had a deliberate, heavy tilt towards automobiles and ETFs
linked to major indices during a period of strong sector momentum. The auto sector benefitted
from multiple tailwinds: a post-pandemic cyclical recovery, strong passenger vehicle and two-
wheeler demand, EV launches, and favourable government policies on manufacturing.
Coupled with liquid ETFs exposure, this amplified market-aligned gains and lowered
idiosyncratic risk. The result? Annualized return of 0.31 plus highest Sharpe ratio for its
sector group.
 Portfolio 6 (Market Cap Tilt) allocated a large proportion to large-cap index constituents and
ETFs. This defensive allocation allowed participation in market rallies while cushioning
downside risk due to the stability of large-cap earnings and liquidity. The allocation decision
was arguably more critical here than individual stock picks — making allocation the primary
alpha driver.
 Thematic and Sectoral Positioning - Asset allocation was also instrumental in portfolios that
systematically tilted towards certain themes.
 Portfolio 4 (PE Ratio) took positions in sectors like financials and healthcare where valuations
were attractive based on low PE multiples. Even before selection skill was applied, this
thematic tilt put the portfolio in fundamentally resilient sectors.
Takeaway: When sector tailwinds align with portfolio overweighting, the allocation effect can be a
dominant driver of excess returns — even in cases where stock selection within those sectors is only
moderate. Portfolio 5 is the clearest example of allocation-driven success in this dataset.
Security Selection Effect
The security selection effect refers to a manager’s skill in identifying outperforming companies within
each chosen sector. This is an area where deep research, bottom-up analysis, and fundamental
judgement come into play.
 Examples of Strong Selection Skill
 Portfolio 3 (Moat Strategy): The manager focused on companies with sustainable competitive
advantages (“economic moats”) — possibly brands with strong customer loyalty, unique
products, and robust market share. This could include firms in consumer staples, pharma, or
specialty manufacturing. Even with a balanced sector allocation (not overly concentrated), the
portfolio’s high alpha and strong Sharpe performance signal that chosen companies
consistently beat their sector peers.
 Portfolio 7 (ESG Focus) & Portfolio 8 (Momentum): Both strategies benefitted heavily from
picking the right names within sectors, rather than from aggressive sector tilts.
 ESG names were chosen for governance stability, environmental leadership, and long-term
growth positioning — often attracting institutional capital flows, which supported share
prices.
  Momentum picks likely capitalized on stocks with strong price trends and earnings sentiment
in their favour.
Isolating the Selection Effect
The fact that these portfolios (3, 7, 8) showed high alpha despite diversified or near-neutral sector
allocation implies their performance was not a by-product of “being in the right sectors” but rather
“choosing the right stocks.”
Takeaway: Security selection is the hallmark of active management skill — when managers can
outperform with neutral sector weighting, they are demonstrating genuine bottom-up research success.
Portfolios 3, 7, and 8 illustrate this masterfully.
Combined Attribution and Interaction
Some portfolios were able to combine both strong asset allocation and strong security selection,
creating a powerful interaction effect:
 Portfolio 4 (PE Ratio)
 Allocation: The weighting towards value-rich, low-PE sectors like financials, telecom, and
healthcare meant that broad market valuation re-rating played in its favour.
 Selection: Inclusion of specific stocks like M&M, Bharti Airtel, Sun Pharma, and ETFs
pointing to index movements provided stability and sector representation.
 Result: Exceptional Sharpe (risk-adjusted total performance) and Sortino (risk-adjusted
downside performance) — evidence that allocation and selection worked together.
 Caveat: Slightly negative Jensen’s Alpha suggests that while the risk-adjusted metrics were
excellent, pure alpha over the market-adjusted return was not achieved — possibly due to
factor exposure explaining most returns rather than unique security choices.
 Portfolio 5 (Automobile)
 Shows a textbook positive interaction effect: Concentrated allocation to the winning sector
plus selection of the best performers within autos.
 This double-hit explains why Portfolio 5 tops the table in both raw returns and alpha.
Portfolio-by-Portfolio Attribution Takeaways

Portfolio Dominant Effect Evidence

5 – Automobile Allocation + Selection Sector overweight in autos + right stock picks; highest
(Strong Interaction) annualized return, highest alpha

6 – Market Cap Allocation Outperformance via stable large-cap weights; defensive

Tilt risk profile

3 – Moat Selection High alpha with balanced allocation; winning stock

picks across sectors

7 – ESG Selection Chosen ESG leaders outperformed peers; sector-neutral

but strong returns

8 – Momentum Selection Riding price/earnings momentum winners; sector

 Portfolio Dominant Effect Evidence

diversification but high alpha

4 – PE Ratio Allocation + moderate Best Sharpe/Sortino but negative alpha — likely factor-
Selection driven

Others Mixed Moderate contribution from both, but less decisive than
above leaders

Big Picture Insight from Attribution

 Allocation Dominance works best when a sector or style is enjoying a sustained macro or
thematic advantage. Correctly identifying and strongly overweighting such areas magnifies
returns significantly (e.g., Portfolio 5).
 Selection Dominance protects against sector cycle risks — strong stock-picking skill can
deliver alpha even when no single sector is strongly over/underweighted (e.g., Portfolios 3, 7,
8).
 Blended Success via interaction produces the rare “sweet spot” — where being in the right
place and with the right names compounds the edge.
 Weak or negative alpha with strong risk-adjusted scores (like PE ratio strategy) may indicate a
strategy that’s delivering “market factor-adjusted” returns through style exposure rather than
truly unique security insights.
In this dataset, Portfolio 5 stands out as the clearest example of allocation + selection synergy,
Portfolios 3, 7, 8 showcase pure selection skill, and Portfolio 6 demonstrates allocation stability for
low-risk compounding. The Brinson-Fachler qualitative lens makes it possible to see why each
portfolio worked, not just how much it returned.
________________________________________
Brinson-Fachler Attribution Model: Deep Conceptual & Qualitative Analysis
1. Model Overview and Framework
The Brinson-Fachler Attribution Model is one of the most widely used frameworks for portfolio
performance attribution, particularly in institutional asset management. Its primary function is to
untangle the sources of portfolio excess return by dividing them into three effects:
• Asset Allocation Effect (AAE):
This measures how much excess return can be attributed to the manager’s decision to overweight or
underweight specific sectors, asset classes, or regions relative to a benchmark. For example, choosing
to allocate more funds to technology or healthcare than the index.
• Security Selection Effect (SSE):
This quantifies the contribution to excess return from selecting securities within those sectors that
outperform the average sector return. Even if a manager matches sector weights to the benchmark
perfectly, picking stocks that beat their sector average yields SSE.
• Interaction Effect:
This captures the component of return generated when both asset allocation and security selection
work in tandem. If a manager overweights a sector and simultaneously selects the right stock within
the overweighted sector, this combined effect is reflected here.
Mathematical Representation (Conceptual):
In simplified terms, total active return versus the benchmark can be expressed as:
Total Excess Return=AAE+SSE+InteractionTotal Excess Return=AAE+SSE+Interaction
Where:
• AAE: (Portfolio Sector Weight−Benchmark Weight)×Benchmark Sector Return(Portfolio
Sector Weight−Benchmark Weight)×Benchmark Sector Return
• SSE: Portfolio Sector Weight×(Portfolio Sector Return−Benchmark Sector Return)Portfolio
Sector Weight×(Portfolio Sector Return−Benchmark Sector Return)
• Interaction: (Portfolio Sector Weight−Benchmark Weight)×(Portfolio Sector
Return−Benchmark Sector Return)(Portfolio Sector Weight−Benchmark Weight)×(Portfolio Sector
Return−Benchmark Sector Return)
2. Application to Portfolios: Insights from Excel & Data
Portfolio 5: Automobile Sector
• Asset Allocation:
This portfolio demonstrates a meaningful tilt towards the automobile sector, allocating a significantly
larger share to stocks like TATA Motors and M&M compared to the benchmark. The sector itself may
have experienced market tailwinds (consumer demand, policy shifts, new launches), amplifying
returns.
• Security Selection:
The choice of specific automobile stocks is crucial. If the portfolio picks outperformers such as Eicher
Motors or TATA Motors, SSE increases, generating return beyond what mere sector allocation would
achieve. In this case, both sector exposure and savvy picks work harmoniously.
• Interaction:
High allocation plus strong stock selection within automobiles means the interaction effect is positive,
potentially compounding the outperformance.
Portfolio 4: PE Ratio Based Allocation
• Asset Allocation:
The strategy overweights sectors/stocks with low price-to-earnings (PE) ratios, such as financials and
healthcare. This fundamental-focused allocation might be intended to capture value opportunities and
historical resilience during market downturns.
• Security Selection:
However, while allocation decisions improve risk-adjusted metrics (Sharpe, Sortino), negative
Jensen’s Alpha implies that selected securities within these sectors did not outperform their sector
averages. This sometimes happens when market conditions change or specific stocks face
idiosyncratic challenges (regulatory, earnings surprises).
• Interpretation:
This portfolio’s return is more a function of ‘where’ money was placed rather than ‘which’ stocks
were chosen within the sectors. The allocation effect dominates the selection effect.
Thematic Portfolios: Moat, ESG, Momentum (3, 7, 8)
• Asset Allocation:
These portfolios distribute assets across sectors according to broad themes—high economic moat,
strong ESG scores, or momentum factors. The allocation is diversified but may mildly overweight
sectors where thematic leaders reside.
• Security Selection:
The real value is generated by choosing companies that best fit the theme and outperform peer
averages—meaning SSE is a powerful alpha source. Improved alpha and up/down capture ratios
imply superior skill in picking within each sector.
• Synergy & Strategy:
When both allocation to promising themes and the right stock picking are present, the interaction
effect adds further value. Momentum or ESG strategies especially can yield both allocation and
selection alpha when executed adeptly.
3. Expanded Qualitative Discussion
A. Asset Allocation Effect (AAE)
• The asset allocation decision sets the broad blueprint for performance. In times when sector
rotation is prominent (such as a post-pandemic auto or pharma rally), managers who tilt portfolios
toward these winning sectors via higher weights harness the AAE.
• For example, if the benchmark holds 15% in automobiles and the manager raises that to 25%,
the difference in returns – especially if the sector surges – is attributed to allocation skill.
B. Security Selection Effect (SSE)
• Within those allocated sectors, skillful identification of outperformers amplifies SSE. This is
where research depth, analytical rigor, and conviction pay off.
• Managers who consistently identify stocks with superior earnings growth, governance, or
technical momentum, even in sectors that underperform broadly, exhibit a high SSE.
C. Interaction Effect
• While sometimes minor in magnitude, the interaction effect is essential in revealing how well
allocation and selection mesh. If a manager both finds the right sector (say, healthcare during a
pandemic) and identifies the winning companies (Sun Pharma, Divi’s Labs), the interaction can
produce exceptional results.
4. Holistic Analysis: Connecting to Portfolio Context
The effectiveness of the Brinson-Fachler model becomes clear in multi-strategy portfolios, such as
those shown in your Excel:
• Portfolios with sector tilts (Automobile, PE-based) demonstrate alpha via allocation, while
thematic portfolios deliver via selection.
• In practice, the most successful active managers often show consistently positive and
significant SSE, underlining that superior stock picking more frequently drives excess returns than
sector bets, except in cases of drastic sector-specific events.
5. Reflection on Skill Vs. Luck
By applying the attribution model over multiple periods, sustained SSE and AAE indicate skill. If
performance changes erratically, luck may be involved. In the portfolios above, strong security
selection in thematic strategies and enduring asset allocation wins in auto/PE contexts suggest skillful
management.
6. Value for Portfolio Managers and Investors
Understanding the separation of allocation and selection effects helps managers refine their strategies,
recognize core competencies, and communicate value-add to stakeholders. For investors, attribution
clarity ensures accountability and drives informed decisions regarding manager selection and portfolio
construction.
________________________________________
In summary:
The Brinson-Fachler Model provides essential transparency into the sources of portfolio return. By
dissecting the interplay between sector allocation and individual stock selection, investors and
managers can both understand past performance and refine future approaches for excess return—
whether driven by macro strategy, analytical prowess, or their synergistic interaction.
________________________________________
3. Interpretations & Insights
a. Was Alpha Due to Skill or Luck?”
Alpha, in the context of portfolio management, represents the portion of a portfolio’s return that
cannot be explained by its exposure to systematic risk factors such as market beta, sector tilts, size,
value, momentum, or macroeconomic cycles. It is often considered a pure measure of manager skill—
but only if it is sustainable and repeatable.
In your dataset, we see a divergence in alpha generation across the portfolios:
________________________________________
1. Positive Alpha Portfolios (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8)
These portfolios not only post positive Jensen’s Alpha but also demonstrate a combination of:
• High Sharpe Ratios (strong risk-adjusted returns considering total volatility)
• High Sortino Ratios (good management of downside volatility specifically)
• Positive Up-Market Capture beyond 65–75% coupled with controlled Down-Market Capture
• Acceptable or low Maximum Drawdowns in historical backtests.
Such characteristics strongly point toward sustained managerial skill because:
A. Consistency across multiple risk-adjusted metrics
When both Sharpe and Sortino are high and alpha is positive, it suggests that outperformance is not
solely due to taking on higher risk—rather, the excess returns are efficiently generated without
significant exposure to extreme downside events.
B. Factor and thematic advantage
• Portfolio 5 (Automobile):
This portfolio stands out as a clear case for skill. It posts:
• Highest alpha at 0.33
• Highest annualized return at 0.31
• Best up-capture ratio of 0.75—indicating it captures far more of the upside than the
benchmark during bull phases.
This combination suggests not just lucky timing, but an informed, research-driven allocation into a
sector poised for growth (perhaps due to cyclical recovery, government policy support, rising
consumer demand, or new EV product cycles). The selection within the sector (e.g., Tata Motors,
M&M, or other outperformers) further reinforces this as skillful, since not all auto stocks would have
delivered equally strong gains.
• Portfolios 3 (Moat), 7 (ESG), and 8 (Momentum):
These thematic strategies are designed to identify structural winners. Their maintained high alpha
implies that the manager effectively translated the chosen theme into actionable stock selection,
avoiding “theme risk” where the broad theme is correct but chosen stocks lag peers.
Evidence of skill here lies in:
1. Strong selection effect (per Brinson-Fachler analysis).
2. Stability in performance across both upward and downward market conditions.
3. Outperformance that exceeds what would be expected from factor exposure alone.
________________________________________
2. Portfolios with Neutral or Negative Alpha (e.g., Portfolio 4 – PE Ratio Based)
Portfolio 4, despite having:
• Highest Sharpe Ratio
• Highest Sortino Ratio
• Low maximum drawdown
…shows a slightly negative alpha (-0.07).
Why might this happen?
This indicates that although the portfolio managed volatility exceptionally well and provided excellent
risk-adjusted performance, it did not outperform its market-adjusted benchmark after accounting for
beta. In other words:
• Returns were largely explained by factor exposures (value tilt via low PE) which are known,
commoditised factors that can be passively replicated.
• The manager’s security selection within these low PE sectors may have underperformed
sector averages (as revealed in the attribution analysis).
• The strategy might have benefitted from a period when the “value” style outperformed the
market broadly—giving the appearance of skill when in fact the driver was a macro factor rotation.
Here, luck potentially played a larger part—specifically, the luck of factor timing—unless evidence
over multiple cycles shows repeated success.
________________________________________
3. Skill vs. Luck: The Statistical Perspective
• Short-term alpha can be random due to market noise, unexpected macro events, or one-off
earnings surprises. To conclusively attribute alpha to skill, we need:
1. Persistence across multiple periods (multi-year data).
2. Low correlation to common style factors to ensure the alpha is not just disguised factor
exposure.
3. Replicable decision-making frameworks that explain why certain stocks or sectors were
picked.
• Skill indicators in the data:
• Consistent alpha across sectors and time (seen in the thematic portfolios).
• Outperformance in both bull and bear phases without excessive risk spikes.
• High Information Ratio—indicating returns beyond benchmark are frequent, not isolated.
• Luck indicators in the data:
• Alpha only appearing in one time slice or market condition.
• High dependency on one factor (e.g., value, small caps) that happened to be in favour.
• Low Information Ratio combined with sharp bursts of performance.
________________________________________
4. Evidence-Based Verdict
Given the observed data:
• Skill likely dominates in Portfolios 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 because they show cross-metric
alignment: positive alpha, high Sharpe/Sortino, favourable capture ratios, and attribution analysis
pointing to both asset allocation and security selection effects.
• Portfolio 5 (Automobile) is the clearest case study of skill—its alpha generation appears to
come equally from sector foresight and stock-level insight.
• Portfolio 4 probably benefitted from factor tailwinds and strong risk control, but without
delivering genuine selection-driven alpha. This slips it into the “luck” or “factor-driven” category
unless repeated performance is verified over longer spans.
________________________________________
✅ Supporting Evidence Statement:
“Portfolio 5 posted the highest alpha (0.33), annualized return (0.31), and up capture (0.75)—a trifecta
that not only suggests shrewd market timing but indicates that both allocation to a growth sector and
precise stock selection were executed with skill. This is reinforced by downside containment,
implying the manager’s approach was not reckless momentum chasing but a balanced, informed
investment decision.”
b. Which Strategy Added the Most Value?
When assessing which portfolio strategy added the most value, we must distinguish between how the
value is defined:
1. Risk-adjusted value creation – Consistency of returns relative to risk (measured through
Sharpe, Sortino, Treynor ratios, maximum drawdown containment).
2. Pure return-driven value creation – Maximizing absolute returns and outperforming
benchmarks irrespective of volatility.
3. Selection-driven value creation – Outperformance arising from individual stock choices rather
than macro factor tilts.
4. Allocation-driven value creation – Gains from overweighting/underweighting the right sectors
or market capitalization segments.
5. Balanced efficiency – Combining all the above consistently over time.
By cross-referencing these definitions with the portfolio data and attribution results, we get a nuanced
view of which strategy “added the most value” in different senses.
________________________________________
1. Portfolio 4 – PE Ratio
Key Observations:
• Highest Sharpe Ratio and Highest Sortino Ratio across all portfolios.
• Low maximum drawdown and strong downside capture control.
• Evidence of consistent risk-adjusted superiority, but slightly negative Jensen’s Alpha.
Why it Added Value:
• This strategy excels at preserving capital while delivering stable incremental returns.
• The high Sharpe and Sortino indicate returns are generated efficiently per unit of both total
and downside risk, which enhances the risk budgeting efficiency of a larger portfolio.
• Even with a slightly negative alpha, the risk management discipline embedded in this
approach means it serves as a stable “anchor” strategy within a diversified set.
Possible Driver:
Its value tilt (low PE bias) captured performance from a broader “value factor” rally in the market,
suggesting factor exposure may have boosted returns, though the selection effect was less dominant.
Value Type:
• Risk-adjusted value leader → best for investors prioritizing capital efficiency and volatility
minimization.
________________________________________
2. Portfolio 5 – Automobile Sector
Key Observations:
• Highest Jensen’s Alpha (0.33) – direct evidence of active management outperformance versus
market risk profile.
• Highest annualized return (0.31) – exceptional absolute growth.
• Greatest Up-Capture Ratio (0.75) – highly responsive in bull markets with moderate
downside containment.
Why it Added Value:
• This portfolio shines where pure alpha creation is the goal. It capitalized on timing a strong
sector rebound (autos benefitting from post-pandemic demand recovery, EV adoption trends, and
policy incentives).
• Security selection within the sector was crucial – the manager identified and overweighted
outperforming auto stocks (e.g., Tata Motors, M&M), ensuring SSE (Security Selection Effect) and
AAE (Allocation Effect) reinforced each other.
Possible Driver:
A combination of sector trend foresight and deep company-level research, which allowed both higher
exposure to the winning sector and stock choices within it that exceeded sector averages.
Value Type:
• Pure return and alpha generator → best for investors seeking aggressive growth and willing to
accept moderate volatility.
________________________________________
3. Portfolio 6 – Market Capitalization
Key Observations:
• Strong Sharpe, Treynor, and Sortino Ratios.
• Low annualized risk compared to high-return portfolios.
• Positive alpha coupled with stable performance.
Why it Added Value:
• The market cap-based approach, likely leaning towards large-cap stability, demonstrated
perfect alignment between return profile and low volatility.
• Treynor’s advantage here reflects effective remuneration for systematic (market) risk –
meaning bets were made within the market trend but with an emphasis on large, stable firms.
Possible Driver:
Macro stability and investor rotation into large-cap blue chips in uncertain market phases, reducing
drawdowns while maintaining reasonable upside.
Value Type:
• Capital preservation with steady growth → best fit for core portfolio allocation aiming for
dependable compounding.
________________________________________
4. Factor / Theme Portfolios: 3 (Moat), 7 (ESG), 8 (Momentum)
Key Observations:
• High alpha and good risk-adjusted scores.
• Joint highest Up-Capture Ratios after Portfolio 5.
• Diversification across sectors but with strong stock-specific returns.
Why they Added Value:
• The alpha here is largely from security selection – managers effectively leveraged their
thematic screens (economic moat, ESG leadership, strong momentum) to pick outperformers.
• Diversification ensured sector risk was balanced, so they delivered robust returns without
being overly dependent on a single market condition.
Possible Driver:
Stock-picking discipline in line with structural investment beliefs – for example, “moat” companies
tend to compound steadily due to competitive advantages, momentum names ride short-term price
strength, ESG leaders gain from increasing institutional prioritization.
Value Type:
• Diversification + selection efficiency → attractive for improving the portfolio’s opportunity
set without significant concentration risk.
________________________________________
5. Comparative Qualitative Ranking
Portfolio Strategy Type Strength Area Key Value Added
4 PE Ratio (Value Tilt) Risk-adjusted efficiency Exceptional Sharpe & Sortino; downside
protection
5 Automobile Sector Alpha & pure returns Highest return & alpha; sector/stock timing
skill
6 Market Cap Tilt Stability & allocation Low volatility plus solid growth; core holding
candidate
3,7,8 Moat / ESG / Momentum Security selection & diversification High alpha from
picks across multiple sectors
________________________________________
6. Summary Insight
• If risk-efficiency is the goal → Portfolio 4 (PE Ratio) stands out as the most all-round
efficient performer.
• For maximum absolute returns and dynamic alpha → Portfolio 5 (Automobile) decisively
leads, with both strong allocation and selection effects.
• For core portfolio stability → Portfolio 6 (Market Cap) offers low-risk compounding.
• For broad thematic exposure with alpha from stock picking → Portfolios 3, 7, and 8 provide
selection-driven outperformance benefits.
In essence:
The PE-based strategy (Portfolio 4) is the efficiency leader, the Automobile strategy (Portfolio 5) is
the alpha powerhouse, Market Cap (Portfolio 6) is the stability anchor, and Moat/ESG/Momentum
portfolios deliver thematic breadth with selection skill. Each “added value” differently, and the best
choice depends on the investor’s objective mix between risk control, absolute return, and thematic
diversification.

Connecting Analyses to Excel Data

• The performance metrics calculated directly reflect in the “Ratios” sheet, evidencing which
strategies excel on risk, alpha, and drawdown.
• Portfolio weights, annualized returns, and risk measures connect to real market themes
observed in 2024-2025: automobile recovery, healthcare stability, and ETF proliferation.
• Attribution analysis finds much alpha in thematic selections and well-researched sector bets,
validating skilled active management.
Expert Recommendations & Final Thoughts
• Use PE ratio and Market Capitalization strategies for balanced, risk-managed portfolios.
• Automobiles and selection-driven themes offer lucrative, though potentially riskier, alpha—
best for return-maximizing investors.
• Factor-based diversifications (Moat, Momentum, ESG) are resilient, supporting sustainable,
skillful portfolio design.
• Attribution analysis illustrates meaningful separation of asset and selection effects—active
management can yield skill-based alpha when underpinned by thorough research and dynamic
allocation.
By critically evaluating these dimensions, investors and analysts gain actionable insights for
designing, evaluating, and refining high-performing portfolios suited to their objectives and risk
preferences—anchored always in data-driven, evidence-based assessment.