Let me know if you guys agree with my ranting:
Q50: Are you freaking kidding me? How am I supposed to know Hawk is not an active manager? Hawk’s active return is 1.7% and active risk is 2.0%. Schweser Book 3 Page 157 has a problem where the manager has 1.7% active return and 2.8% active risk and is considered an active manager. Is there any set rule on how low of a tracking risk is too low?
Q53: How the hell are you supposed to know Hawk is undergoing style drift if you are not shown multi period analysis? Just because they say their benchmark is 500 value and the analysis shows them to be exposed to LCV and MCG does not prove style drift (which is change in style OVER TIME).
Q54: Answer tries to argue that Russell 1000 can still be used despite misft active risk which will result from the non large cap exposures from Eagle and Hawk. Yet in Q52, the answer said that the benchmark to be used is a custom one that aligns to Osprey’s exposures (despite Osprey being 47.2% exposed to LCG, that % is essentially not high enough). So I would similarly argue that the answer to Q54 should be B–the two managers have decently large non-large cap holdings, and the benchmark has to change for a more normal, customized one.