IBBC CAPITAL ACADEMY / 2027
Active equity: turn a thesis into a falsifiable process
Independent IBBC Capital draft content for self-study. Not affiliated with or endorsed by CFA Institute. New lessons await subject-matter review. No CFA designation or official PSM credit is awarded.
Learning goals
- Diagnose the case using the stated constraints and quantitative evidence.
- Defend a conditional decision and identify what further evidence could reverse it.
Draft · approximately 65 minutes, excluding further revision.
Decision case · fictional facts
Manager Cedar proposes a quality-value strategy. It buys 40 companies, limits each position to 5%, and uses only financial information available on each rebalance date. A backtest shows 8% gross excess return but estimated trading and fees total 3%. An activist alternative would require board engagement and concentrated illiquid positions.
Connect the alpha mechanism to evidence
Fundamental research tests company cash flows, valuation and catalysts; quantitative research formalizes signals, universe, risk and trading rules. Bottom-up selection begins with issuers; top-down allocates across macro, sector or country views. Factor strategies can overlap either approach. Specify why mispricing persists and what observation would invalidate the thesis.
Build point-in-time tests
A quant process needs clean point-in-time data, holdout validation, realistic trading assumptions and controls for overfitting, survivorship and look-ahead bias. A fundamental process needs an explicit valuation range, catalyst, risk and review rule. Style labels such as value, growth or quality are summaries, not guarantees of stable exposures; test holdings and factor sensitivities.
Distinguish activism and short-horizon arbitrage
Activism seeks change in governance, capital or operations and faces engagement, legal, concentration and exit risks. Statistical arbitrage relies on modeled relative-price behavior and execution; microstructure strategies exploit trading mechanics but face crowding, latency and adverse selection. A strategy suitable for one organization’s expertise and capacity may fail in another.
A top-down allocation is a distinct research decision
Cedar’s company-quality model does not itself justify an emerging-market overweight. A top-down allocation first links macro, policy or sector conditions to relative earnings and valuations, then checks how country, currency and factor risks enter the total portfolio. A macro view can be implemented through broad vehicles or issuer selection, but a convincing narrative without a valuation and timing mechanism is not a complete strategy.
Relative-price strategies need a breakdown scenario
Statistical-arbitrage models can trade temporary relative-price deviations in portfolios designed to limit common exposures. The assumed relation may break, borrow can disappear and crowded exits can create losses. Microstructure strategies depend on order flow, spread, cancellation and execution mechanics; their capacity and technology requirements differ from Cedar’s slow company-quality signals.
Construct a fundamental thesis that can be reviewed
For a Cedar candidate, write the economic mechanism, forecast cash flows, valuation range, expected catalyst and contrary evidence before trading. State a review horizon and sell conditions that distinguish a thesis failure from normal volatility. Sourcing an idea is not equivalent to completing diligence; interviews, filings and industry data should challenge one another.
Style classifications need holdings and return evidence
Holdings-based style analysis examines valuation, growth, quality, size and other security attributes; returns-based analysis infers sensitivities from realized returns. Both depend on definitions and observation windows. A manager can drift or combine styles; an unchanged quality-value label does not demonstrate unchanged economic exposure.
Formula and assumptions
Illustrative net alpha=gross alpha−incremental costs
Compare with the model response after drafting
- Illustrative expected net excess=8%−3%=5%, not an established forecast. Test whether fees and impact are already included before subtraction.
- Retain Cedar only if live out-of-sample results, capacity and controls support the mechanism. Treat activism as a separate capability decision rather than a style-label swap.
Errors to catch
- Accepting optimized backtest output as achievable alpha.
Write, compare, then self-assess
Your writing stays in this page’s memory and is lost on reload. Export includes self-assessment totals only.
Original knowledge check
Answer every question before checking. Review explanations after submitting; retry starts a new attempt.
Sources and coverage status
These original lessons are drafts. Public outlines are used to check scope; the official learning-outcome text and proprietary question banks are not reproduced here. Follow the source for exam-year requirements and updates.