I have developed the habit of simply stating that a 21% return compared to a 10% benchmark return means that the outperformance was 10% (not 11%). So, treating the whole thing in a multiplicative way, as opposed to taking the differences.

Also, when I use standard deviations, I take them from the log returns. And then just have the result of that be the volatility of the investment/portfolio (without clarifying that it is the standard deviation of the log returns).

Together this gives me (variants of) Sharpe/information ratios. However, this is not how, say, Wikipedia defines such ratios (going off regular returns).

Is this an unconventional habit and/or am I doing it right?


The Sharpe ratio is typically computed on relative returns, not log returns. The reason is that you get a bigger number! (This is salesmanship for fund managers.) Consider the equation linking relative returns to log returns: $$ l = \log(1 + r). $$ For valid values of relative return ($r > -1$) it is simple to prove that $l \le r$. Thus log returns have a lower mean than relative returns.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.