英国论文代写：会计
英国论文代写：会计
夏普比率：这两只基金分别有10家企业；然而，计算表明，伦理基金和腐败资金夏普比为1.7和1.5相应。而伦理基金是由较高的单位表示，腐败的基金是每单位风险稍低。因此这意味着一个潜在的股东肯定会认为这比考虑是否投资于伦理基金。
Treynor比率：不法资金特雷诺的比例比伦理基金大约两倍。肆无忌惮的基金也因此由一个比率为0.04685，而伦理基金比0.109692的指定。隐式，肆无忌惮的基金往往有一个顶级的产量超过收益无风险利率比每单位的市场不确定性的伦理基金。如果在一个投资者使用该基准选择基金，一个是可能选择不法资金。
延森比率：这两只基金有一个积极的α-这意味着更好的证券选择能力的基金经理。在这种情况下，伦理基金为代表的0.04个α0.08代表不法资金比较α。只因不法的资金是由更大的比为代表的文学表示，业绩较好的基金
结论
最终，延森指数的基础上，双方的道德和不道德的基金有一个积极的α，这是由于良好的证券选择能力的基金经理
英国论文代写：会计
Sharpe Ratio: These two funds have 10 companies respectively; however, the computation indicates that the Sharpe ratio of ethical funds and corrupt funds is 1.7 and 1.5 correspondingly. Whereas the ethical funds are represented by a higher unit, the corrupt funds are slightly lower for every unit of risk. This therefore means that an potential shareholder will definitely consider this ratio to consider whether or not to invest in ethical funds.
The Treynor ratio: The Treynor proportion of unscrupulous funds is approximately two times higher than ethical funds. Unscrupulous funds are therefore represented by a ratio of 0.04685 while ethical funds are designated by a ratio of 0.109692. Implicitly, unscrupulous funds tend to have a top-rated yield over the risk-free rate of earnings than the ethical funds for each unit of market uncertainties. In the event that an investor uses this benchmark to choose funds, one is likely to opt for unscrupulous funds.
The Jensen ratio: These two funds have a positive alpha which implies that better securities picking skills of a fund manager. In this case, ethical funds have an alpha represented by 0.04 in comparison to an alpha of 0.08 that represents unscrupulous funds. Just because the unscrupulous funds are represented by a bigger ratio, literary denotes better fund performance.
Conclusion
Ultimately, based on the Jensen index, both ethical and unethical funds have a positive alpha, which are as a result of good securities picking skills of a fund manager.
