Transparency

Last week was extremely hectic, with travel and The Spaulding Group's fourth annual PMAR (Performance Measurement, Attribution & Risk) Europe conference in London (which was a HUGE success, by the way (thanks for asking!)). The event itself provided me with material, but I found it difficult to put the time aside. Well, here's a start and resumption.

Stefan Illmer, PhD returned to PMAR once again, this time to do "double duty," as he spoke about holdings-based risk attribution as well as updated us on the new CFA Institute client reporting standards principles. Stefan is fully aware of my own "hang ups," concerns, and objections to what's going on, but was kind enough to visit us. We think it's important for our attendees to be kept appraised of what's occurring, and he does an excellent job for us. (Carl Hennessy, CIPM provided a similar update at PMAR North America last month).

Just a brief word for now: the document speaks of transparency, which is a good thing (I think, for example, we're quite transparent regarding our thoughts and opinions, as well as the sharing of information).

Is it not therefore a bit ironic that

the committee's makeup is a secret?

Review their first report: nowhere are the names mentioned? Contrast this with the GIPS(R) (Global Investment Performance Standards) standards, where the Executive Committee members are always listed. Look on the website: can you find the list of names? We've asked for them, but for some reason they won't be published or made available. We're assured that the members are all highly qualified, which I have no doubt they are; but who are they? Where's the transparency into this group's makeup, plans, etc.?

How can you promote transparency without being transparent?

Seems kind of strange, doesn't it?