First, the Sharpe Ratio (Sharpe ratio) Its calculation formula is (rate of return-risk-free rate of return)/volatility. Rate of return refers to the net growth rate. Risk-free rate of return refers to the bank interest rate in the same period. The difference between the two, that is, the excess money earned, divided by the volatility (the greater the volatility, the greater the risk) Sharp ratio in the process of net value growth, indicates how much excess income can be expected per unit risk. When the excess return is greater and the risk is smaller, the Sharp ratio is greater. Take chestnuts for example. There are two funds, both of which have a yield of 20% a year, but the volatility of fund B is much greater than that of fund A. So the Sharp ratio of fund B is less than that of fund A. Do you want stable happiness or roller coaster happiness? It should be noted that the sharpness is only meaningful when compared with the same kind. Assuming that the volatility of bond funds is only 0.5%, the risk-free rate of return is 5%, and its Sharp ratio is 10, which is horribly high, but compared with stock funds, it is definitely not profitable. The sharp ratio is also closely related to the time period. Funds that opened higher many years ago have fallen a lot since. Every day in the fund, you can check the sharp rate in the past year, Morningstar. Com, the sharp rate in recent years, and so on, the historical sharp rate. Sharp ratio measures the "cost-effectiveness" of the fund.

Second, the Treynor Index (Treynor index) Its calculation formula is (rate of return-risk-free rate of return)/beta coefficient. The numerator of this result, like the Sharp rate, is the beta coefficient, which refers to the systemic risk of the fund. The investment direction of the foundation is different, and the risk difference is also different. Generally speaking, these differences will spread the risk of this fund. The better the dispersion, the lower the system risk and the smaller the beta coefficient. The following is a comparison of the risks of the two funds, with ICBC as the top and E Fund as the small and medium-sized fund. The beta coefficient of ICBC style is lower than that of E Fund. E Fund's small and medium-sized mix is Zhang Kun's masterpiece, with heavy liquor consumption, while ICBC-style positions are scattered, so the system risk of ICBC-style is small. Since the beginning of the year (nearly March), the performance of the former is indeed better than that of the latter. The Treynor ratio also indicates the expected excess return per unit risk. However, this risk is the risk of portfolio and the evaluation of fund managers.

Third, the Zhan Sen index (Zhan Sen index) return-risk-free return = α+β * (market return-risk-free return), where α is the Zhan Sen index, which is more complicated than the above two, and is also used to evaluate fund managers, and the parameter of market return is introduced. It is a measure of how much portfolio income comes from the excess income provided by fund managers above the market level (it is not a skill that pigs can take off when a bull market comes). The greater this value, the stronger the fund manager's ability to obtain excess returns. Comparing the two CSI 500 index funds, the beta coefficient is close. Looking at the above two indicators together, the performance on the right side is better than that on the left. _ _ All the above indicators are calculated based on historical data. History can predict the future, but it does not represent the future.