The SEC has very explicit rules about advertising performance which make it almost impossible to post it on the internet, but here is a characterization:
When a regression is done between our monthly equity returns versus the market's, it shows that in normal stock market years (say 8-12%) we do as well as the market or slightly better. In wildly optimistic environments we underperform and in poor years we also don't keep up by not falling as much as the market. This relationship seems to hold in any given year, month and even individual days. This makes sense in that when people are madly throwing money at the market they don't buy the things we own, and when they are more sober they behave somewhat rationally and drive up the prices of what we already own. As a macro example of this: during the internet/telecom bubble, our performance was miserable in comparison with the high flyer-dominated market, and since the bubble burst our outperformance has been impressive.
The beta (a measure of volatility or risk) of the equity portfolio for the past 5 years has been 0.6 and the alpha (also called value added) has been +10%/year.
For complete return information please contact the firm.