Ryan Poirier

Senior Analyst, Global Research & Design
S&P Dow Jones Indices
Biography

Ryan Poirier is Senior Analyst, Global Research & Design, at S&P Dow Jones Indices. Ryan is responsible for conceptualization, research, and design covering global strategy, factor-based, alternative beta, thematic equity, and derivative-based indices and strategies.

Ryan is a level-three candidate in the CFA program and has passed both levels of the FRM program. He graduated magna cum laude from SUNY Plattsburgh with his bachelor’s degree, where he triple majored in mathematics, finance, and economics. Ryan also holds a master’s degree in financial engineering from New York University.

Author Archives: Ryan Poirier

Active Management’s Dynamic Exposures to Size and Value Style Factors

In prior blogs,[i] we discussed the return contribution of mega-cap securities in 2017, as well as the impact of style classifications that may give small-cap active managers more autonomy to invest in significantly different risk exposures. In this blog, we look at active factor risks taken by active managers across three market-cap ranges against the Read more […]

The Impact of Style Classification on Active Management Performance in 2017: Part 2

In our previous blog, we highlighted the contribution to domestic equity market returns by mega-cap stocks in 2017 and the implications for active management. In this blog, we focus our discussion on investment style classification. Specifically, we analyze the impact of the style classification scheme on managers’ performance analysis, such as in the SPIVA® U.S. Read more […]

The Impact of Size on Active Management Performance in 2017: Part 1

U.S. equity markets finished 2017 on a strong note, with the S&P 500® returning 21.83% during the one-year period ending on Dec. 31, 2017. This was followed by the S&P MidCap 400® and S&P SmallCap 600® returning 16.24% and 13.23%, respectively. Despite market-cap weighting being a dominant form of indexing, equal weighting has outperformed on Read more […]

Lack of Performance Persistence Continues for Actively Managed U.S. Equity Funds

The results are in for the latest S&P Persistence Scorecard. Based on data as of Sept. 30, 2017, the results again highlight the lack of performance persistence among actively managed equity funds. Produced semiannually, the S&P Persistence Scorecard highlights the degree of difficulty faced by active managers to stay at the top of their peer Read more […]

Impact of Allocation and Security Selection Decisions on Active Fund Performance: Evidence from the U.S. SPIVA Scorecard

The release of the SPIVA U.S. Mid-Year 2017 Scorecard provided a welcoming dose of optimism for proponents of active management.  One statistic, which was picked up heavily by financial media (Financial Times Article) and market participants, is that 52.49% of All Domestic Funds managed to beat the S&P Composite 1500® (the designated benchmark).  The conversation Read more […]

Retail Fee Premium and its Impact on Fund’s Performance: Observations From SPIVA® Institutional Year-End 2016 Scorecard

The impact of fees on managers’ performance continues to make headlines.  With the most recent round of actively managed fee reductions[1] taking place in February 2017, market participants can benefit from lower fees as managers compete for capital.  In the recently issued “SPIVA Institutional Scorecard – How Much Do Fees Affect the Active Versus Passive Read more […]

Tips and Tricks in Reading the Persistence Scorecard

Much has been written about the persistence of manager performance.  The S&P Persistence Scorecard attempts to track the status of top quartile and top half managers over specified subsequent periods.  Over the years, we have received a fair amount of inquiries from our readers regarding the computation, methodology, and interpretation of results.  This blog attempts Read more […]

Three Takeaways From the SPIVA U.S. Year-End 2016 Scorecard

S&P Dow Jones has been reporting the SPIVA® U.S. Scorecard for 15 years now.  Over the years, it has helped contribute to the active versus passive debate in a systematic and objective manner.  While some market segments or styles of active management can be cyclical in their ability to outperform, the secular trends in reported Read more […]