I want to know if there are some standardized measures to evaluate how irrationally human a portfolio manager is. Are there any performance measures or scorings for behavioral finance effects? How "human" is the manager of a portfolio?
What kind of ratios are there and which data do we need to compute them? (do we only need portfolio and benchmark or the P+L of each single position for example)
Possible effects I can think of right now are:
-) In a benchmarked mandate: Tracking Error is larger if portfolio underperforms (gambling on the losses) than when it outperforms (securing the profits).
-) Volatility decreases when fund ytd performance close to zero (out-)performance (afraid of the "sign effect" because for the average investor it will make less a difference if performance decreases from +0.03% to +0.01% than from +0.01% to -0.01%
Are there any measures of (these) behavioral effects you can think of? How would you measure things like that? Any standard works on this topics I am missing here?
Please note that I dont want to know which effects there are but how to measure them objectively and to secure comparability of the measure to some extent.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/subjects/finance/faculty1/mark_s/sentiment.pdf. More herding = more human. Also maybe you should look at the fundamentalists and chartists literature? – user2921 Oct 2 '12 at 9:47