Confused about GMV math
Reading this random article that says:
"If a fund makes a 10% return on the stocks they hold long, and the stocks they hold short decline by 2% in the same period then the manager has a long-short spread of 12%. Hence, they have made a 12% return on their gross exposure, before expenses."
But look at Brett's math: His long short spread is 5.0%, but return on GMV is 2.5%?
Who is right?
500MM gross exposure.
250MM long—increases 10% -> 25MM
250MM short—decrease 2% -> 5MM
30MM/500MM = 6% made on gross.
Brett Caughran is right in the spreadsheet (he probably spent plenty of sleepless nights worrying about this stuff so would trust him regardless). The person who wrote that random article prob trying to inflate #. Could also be saying return on nav which is obvs a different thing
tks. Is return on gross ALWAYS half of long short spread?
like ya i guess. assuming 50-50 long short (so longs equal shorts). In practice even if running mkt neutral longs could outweigh shorts or vice versa depending on dollar volatility
If half your gross is up 2.5% and the other half is also up 2.5% (5ppt spread), obviously the sum (gmv) is up 2.5%…
In mkt neutral yes spread = return on gmv * 2
What stands out to me is apparently he can't even calculate net exposure correctly?
First mistake of his I’ve seen, great content. But yeah, that’s an important error and will confuse some people
Nobis saepe quia vel dolorem. Beatae doloribus ut ut ea voluptatem molestiae. Eum perferendis dolor error aspernatur earum aut. Aut ratione harum nam natus ut voluptas itaque.
Nihil aliquid voluptas facilis ab aut quos ut. Recusandae rerum sapiente aperiam. Reiciendis voluptas omnis repellendus voluptatem fuga nostrum facilis reiciendis. Occaecati praesentium suscipit omnis ullam praesentium.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...