You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Table 3: Summary of portfolio performance across multiple periods*Portfolios (December 1987 – December 2001) Return Volatility Inf. RatioPortfolio with unhedged EM 9.65% 7.19% 1.342Portfolio with 100% FX 11.59% 7.17% 1.61550% FX hedged + 50% gold overlay 10.18% 7.15% 1.462Portfolios (January 2002 – October 2012) Return Volatility Inf. RatioPortfolio with unhedged EM 6.80% 8.84% 0.769Portfolio with 100% FX 6.33% 8.30% 0.76250% FX hedged + 50% gold overlay 7.39% 8.88% 0.833Portfolios (December 1987 – October 2012) Return Volatility Inf. RatioPortfolio with unhedged EM 8.40% 7.95% 1.058Portfolio with 100% FX 9.29% 7.71% 1.20650% FX hedged + 50% gold overlay 8.96% 7.95% 1.128*The portfolios used for comparison are similar in all respects except for the EM asset – which changes from unhedged to currency-hedged to a 50/50 mixbetween currency hedging and a gold overlay. The returns for the 50/50 hedged EM asset are computed by weighing a 50% unhedged EM index with a 50%currency hedged EM index and a 50% overlay to gold. Assuming there is a 10% allocation to emerging market equities, the 50% gold overlay would result ina 5% cash borrowing to arrive at a 5% allocation to gold, creating a 105% long, -5% cash portfolio. Unhedged EM is represented by a gross TR index whilethe FX hedged EM is represented by a net TR index which has a slight difference in return.Source: Barclays, Bloomberg, World <strong>Gold</strong> Council32_33