Individual ASSESSMENT

Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................2

1.1 Overview..........................................................................................................................2

1.2 Part 2: Investment Policy Statement (IPS).......................................................................2

2. Method...................................................................................................................................6

3. Results..................................................................................................................................10

3.1 Part 1: Performance Measurement.................................................................................10

3.2 Part 3: Asset Allocation.................................................................................................13

3.3 Part 4: Performance Measurement.................................................................................15

4. Conclusion............................................................................................................................17

References................................................................................................................................18

Appendix..................................................................................................................................19
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
This report will present the construction as well as evaluation of an investment portfolio
which is comprised of 7 stocks, from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and 4 from
the FTSE-100 index design, which are for three clients, who are Siddhartha, Amrita, and
Benjamin. Moreover, the structure of this portfolio will be in context to each of the client’s
Investment Policy Statements (IPS), which acts as the guide to making relevant decisions.

1.2 Part 2: Investment Policy Statement (IPS)

Client 1: Siddhartha

Life-Cycle View

Siddhartha, who is a 53-year-old electrical engineer, is currently in the maintenance stage of

his financial life he has, while his main objective is to include proper maintenance of his
lifestyle and assisting his son with the current student loan repayment as well as mortgage
payments. As he reaches close to retirement, his goal shifts from wealth accumulation to
wealth preservation (Broihanne [Link] 2022).

Model Applied: Life-Cycle Model (Maintenance Stage)

Siddhartha is in the maintenance phase, which focuses on financial security in contrast to

high-risk, as well as high-reward investments. Moreover, a need to gain a stable portfolio
which has a major focus on the generation of income as well as growth is important for him.
His wealth-building phase is over now and his approach should be focused on investment in
assets which can generate income while being less risky.

Investment Strategy

A Growth and Income strategy is appropriate which can balance income generation by
focusing on fixed-income investments like bonds and moderate growth (via large-cap
equities). Furthermore, this strategy will help maintain a consistent income along with the
provision of capital appreciation to focus on inflation conditions (Ellison [Link] 2023).

IPS for Siddhartha

 Objective: Maintain lifestyle, support son’s education and mortgage, and ensure
modest portfolio growth.
  Time Horizon: 5-10 years.

 Risk Tolerance: Moderate, seeks stable returns with limited risk.

 Asset Allocation: 60% income-generating assets (high-quality bonds, Treasury Bills),

40% growth assets (blue-chip stocks, large-cap equities).

 Investment Constraints: Avoid speculative investments; ensure sufficient liquidity for

educational expenses and emergencies.

Client 2: Amrita

Life-Cycle View

Amrita, who is currently a 30-year-old investment professional, reached the accumulation

phase in her financial lifestyle even though it is early, while building her wealth is currently
her main focus, through the usage of high-return investments. Her financial objectives
include accumulating wealth for ventures and other long-term goals (Fernandes [Link] 2024).

Model Applied: Risk Capacity Model

Amrita is under the high-risk capacity and her strong financial position as well as lack of
immediate obligations, equip her with the ability to take on risks in the share market, as she
can do so. Also, she has a long investment horizon which gives her the ability to handle such
risks as and when they arise while the risk capacity model indicates that she should focus on
growth in her asses.

Investment Strategy

A Growth strategy is suitable for Amrita, as it focuses on emphasizing equities as well as

higher-risk assets such as small-cap stocks, along with alternative investments which could
relate to real estate and private equity) (Poulsen [Link] 2022). These assets provide good
potential even though they do come with high-risk possibilities, however, they align with her
financial goals and ability to manage volatile conditions.

IPS for Amrita

 Objective: Maximize wealth accumulation through high-return investments.

 Time Horizon: 10 years, with flexibility to adjust as career or family needs evolve.

 Risk Tolerance: High, ready to bear significant risk for higher returns.
  Asset Allocation: 90% growth assets (small-cap stocks, growth stocks, alternative
investments), 10% risk-free assets (bonds, cash).

 Investment Constraints: Avoid not liquid or low-growth investments; focus on high-

growth potential.

Client 3: Benjamin

Life-Cycle View

Benjamin, who is a 49-year-old lawyer, has his focus on the maintenance of his financial life
as well as the expansion of this family’s retail business. He is in the wealth-building phase
and has the aim to grow his wealth while also focusing on financial security for his family
while having moderate risk tolerance. Furthermore, Benjamin has a concentration on both
income generation and capital appreciation to successfully support the needs of his family
business.

Model Applied: Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT)

MPT indicates that a portfolio being diverse means that there will be high returns and less
risk while for Benjamin, this means that there will be a balance between the assets for income
generation along with investments for growth such as equities and family business shares.
This approach will aid in achieving a good and stable return along with the provision of
income and growth opportunities (Turkmen [Link] 2022).

Investment Strategy

A Total Return Strategy is best for Benjamin and this strategy has combined income
generation (from dividends and interest) along with its growth (through equities and small-
cap stocks). This will lead to the development of a more balanced portfolio while Benjamin
has a focus on family wealth and expansion of business (Ellison [Link] 2023).

IPS for Benjamin

 Objective: Maintain financial independence, grow family wealth, and support family
business expansion.

 Time Horizon: 5-10 years, with flexibility to adjust based on business needs.

 Risk Tolerance: Moderate, balancing income and growth.

 Asset Allocation: 50% income-generating assets (bonds, large-cap stocks), 50%
growth assets (equities, family business shares).

 Investment Constraints: Maintain liquidity to support family business; avoid

speculative investments.
2. Method
Step 1

To ensure the diversification of the portfolio and to align it with the analysis goals, the
following companies have been selected based on the following reasons:

Dow Jones Companies:

Apple Inc. (AAPL): Apple, is a significant image of the technology industry, and its inclusion
in one’s portfolio is justified by its substantial market influence, high brand value, and track
record of growth. Further, its presence in the portfolio guarantees exposure to assets with
strong growth and innovation.

IBM (IBM US Equity): This Company provides exposure to IT services and corporate
technology industries. The portfolio is balanced by the company’s established business model
and emphasis on AI and cloud computing innovation, which balances Apple's growth-
oriented approach with a steadier, dividend-paying profile (Leow [Link] 2021).

Google (GOOGL): Google (Alphabet Inc.) emphasizes advertising, cloud services, and AI
innovation to diversify the IT industry. The risk-return trade-off of the portfolio is improved
by its market dominance in advertising and search engine services.

FTSE-100 Companies:

Vodafone (VOD): The Company is included in the portfolio since it offers exposure to the
telecom industry while guaranteeing sectoral and geographic variety. It acts as a cautious
asset during volatile times because of its position in developing countries and Europe.

Barclays (BARC): This Company represents the financial service industry, and its presence
gives the portfolio a cyclical balance on account that financial equities frequently react to
macroeconomic events differently than tech or telecom industries.

Lloyds Bank (LLOY): Lloyds Bank enhances Barclays, by providing exposure to both retail
and business banking. Further, it offers stability and dividend potential by focusing on
domestic banking activities in the UK in a turbulent market (Leow [Link] 2021).

British Petroleum (BP): BP represents the energy industry, which is crucial for diversifying
one's portfolio. Technology-heavy portfolios tend to be counterbalanced by BP's exposure to
commodities and energy price fluctuations as a large global oil and gas business.
Step 2

The expected annual return, the standard deviation of returns for each share (annualized
standard deviation), and the correlation coefficient of the companies included in the portfolio
are required to be calculated (Zhang [Link] 2022).

Step 3

Three scenarios are examined for portfolio optimization:

 Scenario a: Short selling is allowed, and a risk-free asset is included.

 Scenario b: Short selling is allowed, but no risk-free asset is considered.

 Scenario c: Short selling is not allowed.

Step 4

CAPM:

The advantages and disadvantages of the method chosen have been provided below:

Advantages:

 It is easy to compute since its calculation is based on systematic risk i.e. beta;

 By separating market risk from firm-specific risk, this method helps investors focus
on risks that cannot be diversified away;

Disadvantages:

 Input estimations such as beta and market returns have a significant impact on the
model's accuracy and can change over time, thus resulting in inaccurate findings.

 In addition to the above, empirical data indicates that CAPM projections often fall
short, with high-beta stocks lagging expectations and low-beta stocks exceeding them.

Market Model:

Advantages:

The market model is more flexible than the CAPM as it is not predicated on presumptions
such as risk-free borrowing, investor behaviour, or market efficiency.
The methodology is data-driven which enables empirical analysis based on past returns and
may be customized to certain assets or periods (Karim [Link] 2023).

Disadvantages:

The model's assumption that the return of an asset and the market return is precisely linear
may not hold, in situations like volatile or non-linear market conditions’

Additional return-generating variables like sector-specific risks, macroeconomic variables, or

anomalies like momentum and size effects have been ignored by this method and solely take
market risk into account.

Step 5 (Part 4)

Sharpe Ratio – The ratio helps to calculate the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. It is
computed by dividing the return on the portfolio less the risk-free rate of return by the
standard deviation of the portfolio which indicates the overall risk.

Treynor Ratio – The Treynor ratio is also used to measure the risk-adjusted performance of
the portfolio but it uses beta instead of total risk as used in the Sharpe ratio. Since it computes
the return obtained per unit of market risk, it is perfect for diversified portfolios.

Jensen’s Alpha - Based on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Jensen's Alpha
quantifies a portfolio's excess return over its expected return. After controlling for risk, a
positive alpha denotes outperformance in comparison to the market (Zhang [Link] 2022).

Merton-Henriksson attribution analysis

The ability of a portfolio manager to time the market can be evaluated using this analysis. It
also assesses the manager's ability to modify the portfolio's exposure to systematic risk (beta)
based on market circumstances.

Rp−Rf=α+βm(Rm−Rf)+γmax(0,Rm−Rf)+ϵ

Where:

Rp: Portfolio return

Rf: Risk-free rate

Rm: Market return

α: Security selection ability

βm: Market sensitivity (beta)

γ: Market timing coefficient

ϵ: Error term
3. Results
(Refer to Excel)

3.1 Part 1: Performance Measurement

The expected annual return, the standard deviation, and the correlation coefficient of the
companies have been tabulated as below:

IBM
Barclay Lloyds British
Particulars Apple US Google Vodafone
s Bank Petroleum
Equity

Monthly
2.24% 0.63% 1.54% 0.67% 0.14% -0.17% -0.46%
Return

Annualised
13.72% 3.89% 9.46% 4.10% 0.85% -1.01% -2.82%
Return

Risk 7.30% 6.42% 6.83% 11% 10% 7% 8%

Annualized 26.82% 7.60% 18.49% 8.02% 1.66% -1.98% -5.50%

Beta 0.54 0.51 0.50 2.14 1.98 0.85 1.27

Rf 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80%

Theoretical
1.97% 1.96% 1.96% 2.49% 2.43% 2.07% 2.21%
Return

Annualized returns were calculated based on historical prices from 2018 to 2024.

IBM US Vodafon Lloyds British

Apple Google Barclays
Equity e Bank Petroleum

7.74% 2.19% 5.34% 2.31% 0.48% -0.57% -1.59%

Risk-Free Rate
The UK 12-month T-bill rate is estimated at 1.8%, serving as the benchmark for CAPM
calculations.

Model Return Variance SD Rf SR

Model a1 17.97% 0.27% 17.83% 2.50% 86.75%

Model a2 931897.744 63275569565.380 871382.141 0.025 1.069

Model b1 0.165 0.002 0.162 0.000 1.015

Model b2 931897.744 63275569565.380 871382.141 0.000 1.069

Model c1 0.187 0.005 0.233 0.025 0.695

Model c2 0.149 0.002 0.161 0.025 0.773

Efficient Frontier Building

1. Scenario a: Short Selling Allowed with Risk-Free Rate

Model a1 is a highly optimized portfolio that exhibits remarkable efficiency in risk-adjusted

returns, as seen by its extraordinary Sharpe Ratio of 86.75%. As the portfolio is constructed
using the concepts of market equilibrium, this is in line with CAPM assumptions (Karim [Link]
2023).

On the other hand, although Model 1b displays a high portfolio return, the large standard
deviation indicates a huge amount of variation. Even though it is less than that of Model 1a in
comparison, its Sharpe Ratio i.e. 1.069 still shows good performance.

2. Scenario b: Short Selling Allowed without Risk-Free Rate

Model b1 displays a low variance of 0.002, a small return of 0.165 and a Sharpe Ratio of
1.015. It has the advantages of flexibility in short-selling as well as reduced risk.

Like model b1 and model b2 demonstrate excessive values for both return as well as variance
thereby indicating scaling and issues with data input.

3. Scenario c: Short Selling Not Allowed

Since Model c1 has the lowest Sharpe ratio 0f 0.695, it can be inferred that it would not
function effectively in situations where short sales are not permitted.
All weights were limited to positive values when using the CAPM, which limited
optimization and reduced flexibility.

On the other hand, in the case of the Market Model, diversification is maintained without
depending on short selling by allowing weights to be distributed across all companies.

Market Model vs. CAPM:

Because of their presumptions about market efficiency, CAPM-based models (1a, 1b, 2a, and
2b) are more volatile but often produce greater returns and SR.

The more cautious Market Model portfolios i.e. 3a and 3b have lower returns and SR, which
may more accurately represent the limitations of the actual market (Azadegan [Link] 2021).

Portfolio Comparison

The optimized portfolios for all scenarios and models were compared as follows:

Risk-
Portfoli Short Expected Std. Dev. Sharpe
Model Free
o Selling Return (%) (%) Ratio
Rate

a1 CAPM Allowed Yes 17.97% 17.83% 86.75%

b1 CAPM Allowed No 0.165 16.2% 1.02

Not
c1 CAPM Yes 0.149 0.160 0.772
Allowed

Market
a2 Allowed Yes 931897.744 871382.141 1.069
Model

Market
b2 Allowed No 931897.744 871382.141 1.069
Model

Market Not
c2 Yes 0.187 0.233 0.695
Model Allowed

3.2 Part 3: Asset Allocation

Amount
 Invested

British 12 Month 12 Month

BAT Total
Petroleum T bill T bill

30-09-
2024 391.7 95.7 399.7 292.3 692.0

Rebalance
d 438.16 292.11 730.27

30-08-
2024 429.4 95.65 435.0 310.2 745.2

Rebalance
d 464.79 309.86 774.65

31-07-
2024 458.85 95.54 467.9 322.5 790.5

Rebalance
d 484.60 323.07 807.67

28-06-
2024 475.2 95.7 489.1 335.1 824.2

Rebalance
d 502.38 334.92 837.31

31-05-
2024 488.15 95.65 499.4 355.0 854.4

Rebalance
d 532.41 354.94 887.35

30-04-
2024 520.4 95.64 553.4 352.1 905.5

Rebalance
d 527.10 351.40 878.50

29-03- 495.7 95.45 554.0 342.4 896.4

 2024

Rebalance
d 514.92 343.28 858.20

29-02-
2024 460.7 95.7 524.7 351.1 875.7

Rebalance
d 526.65 351.10 877.75

31-01-
2024 462.45 95.71 535.6 360.0 895.7

Rebalance
d 539.90 359.93 899.83

29-12-
2023 466.15 95.68 544.6 373.6 918.2

30-11- Rebalance
2023 d 559.74 373.16 932.89

30-11-
2023 479.1 95.57 560.5 391.4 951.9

31-10-
2023 502.6 95.71 588 392 980

Total Loss 30.80%

Below is a breakdown of the patterns and results:

Allocating and Rebalancing Investments

Every month, the portfolio was rebalanced to ensure that the assets were strategically
distributed.

Rebalancing stabilizes exposure to risk and possible returns by ensuring the portfolio is in
line with the intended weights.
As a prudent measure to reduce the danger of stock market losses, money gradually moved
into 12-month T-bills.

Growth and Trends of the Portfolio

With rebalancing efforts, the overall value of the portfolio showed consistent growth, rising
from $692.0 on September 30, 2023, to $980.0 on October 31, 2024.

Particularly, in the first few months of 2024, the volatility in BP and BAT was reflected in
the considerable variations that took place between months (Al Janabi [Link] 2021).

3.3 Part 4: Performance Measurement

The Sharpe ratio of 0.0107 signifies that, given the total risk, the portfolio's performance is
slightly higher than the risk-free return, thereby indicating poor risk-reward efficiency.

The Treynor ratio of 0.0019 is less suitable since it only takes systematic risk into account
and ignores unsystematic risk.

With a Jenson alpha of zero, it can be concluded that the portfolio has not exceeded its
benchmark.

Thus, it can be inferred that the Sharpe ratio is the most accurate way to evaluate the success
as well as the performance of the portfolio.

Merton-Henriksson attribution analysis

Although the 2.05% of portfolio return indicates moderate growth, it must be weighed against
both market returns and risk.

Further, the high beta of the portfolio i.e. 1.297, demonstrates that it is highly susceptible to
market swings and will follow the efficient frontier without producing excessive profits
through the route of active management (Leow [Link] 2021).

Market
0.18%
Return

Beta 1.297175

SD 23.51%

Return 2.05%

SR 0.0107
 Treynor Ratio 0.001931

Alpha 0.00

The performance summary of the portfolio is as follows:

 A return of 2.05% indicates a moderate rate of growth.

 Market Return of 0.18% shows that the portfolio has outperformed the market.

 Beta shows that the portfolio is highly sensitive to market fluctuations.

 With an SD of 23.51%, the portfolio exhibits notable volatility.

 Sharpe Ratio (SR) of 0.0107 indicates poor risk-reward efficiency.

 Treynor ratio indicates poor performance.

 Alpha indicates that there is no return above the benchmark level.

4. Conclusion
The portfolio is in line with the goals and risk profiles of the clients while it also provides the
basis for strategies and diversification of assets. While CAPM aids decision-making, its
limitations require cautious application, this structured approach makes it a goal-oriented
portfolio designed to meet each client’s financial objectives and achieve long-term stability.
References
Broihanne, M. H. (2022). Banks retail clients' profiles and the gender gap in subjective
financial literacy of spouses. Financial Planning Review, 5(2-3), e1149.

Ellison, M. L., Reeder, K. E., Stone, R., Hayes, M., Swanson, S. J., and Bond, G. R. (2023).
Individual placement and support (IPS) for high school aged youth: Provider perspective and
practice. Community Mental Health Journal, 59(3), 471-476.

Fernandes, V. A. P. R. (2024). Investment policy statement: Mr. Carlos Ribeiro (Doctoral

dissertation, Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão).

Poulsen, C. H., Christensen, T. N., Madsen, T., Nordentoft, M., and Eplov, L. F. (2022).
Trajectories of vocational recovery among persons with severe mental illness participating in
a randomized three-group superiority trial of individual placement and support (IPS) in
Denmark. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, [Link], M. (2023). The Need
for an Investment Policy Statement.

Türkmen, A., and Kılıç, Y. (2022). What matters for pension planning in Turkey: financial
literacy or perceived consumer risks. International Journal of Social Economics, 49(1), 138-
151.

Leow, E. K. W., Nguyen, B. P., & Chua, M. C. H. (2021). Robo-advisor using genetic
algorithm and BERT sentiments from tweets for hybrid portfolio optimisation. Expert
Systems with Applications, 179, 115060.

Al Janabi, M. A. (2021). Multivariate portfolio optimization under illiquid market prospects:

a review of theoretical algorithms and practical techniques for liquidity risk
management. Journal of Modelling in Management, 16(1), 288-309.

Azadegan, A., Modi, S., & Lucianetti, L. (2021). Surprising supply chain disruptions:
Mitigation effects of operational slack and supply redundancy. International journal of
production economics, 240, 108218.

Karim, S., Lucey, B. M., Naeem, M. A., & Vigne, S. A. (2023). The dark side of Bitcoin: do
Emerging Asian Islamic markets help subdue the ethical risk?. Emerging Markets
Review, 54, 100921.
Zhang, M., Tang, Y., Liu, L., & Zhou, D. (2022). Optimal investment portfolio strategies for
power enterprises under multi-policy scenarios of renewable energy. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 154, 111879.
Appendix
Dataset
Start Date 30-09-2019
End Date 30-09-2024
APPLE IBM US Equity VODAFONE BARCLAYS LLOYDS BANK BRITISH AMERICAN BRITISH
TOBACCO
PETROLEUM
BAE SYSTEMS GOOGLE COCA COLA
AAPL US Equity IBM US Equity VOD LN Equity BARC LN Equity LLOY LN Equity BATS LN Equity BP/ LN Equity BA/ LN Equity GOOG US Equity KO US Equity GBP Curncy UKX Index
Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price Last Price
Dates PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST PX_LAST
30-09-2024 233 221.08 75.04 224.55 58.8 2724 391.7 1237.5 167.19 71.86 1.3375 8236.95
30-08-2024 229 202.13 74.42 228.4 58.5 2836 429.4 1363 165.11 72.47 1.3127 8376.63
31-07-2024 222.08 192.14 72.44 233.8 59.58 2745 458.85 1297 173.15 66.74 1.2856 8367.98
28-06-2024 210.62 172.95 69.76 208.9 54.74 2430 475.2 1320 183.42 63.65 1.2645 8164.12
31-05-2024 192.25 166.85 75.62 220 55.52 2415 488.15 1392 173.96 62.93 1.2742 8275.38
30-04-2024 170.33 166.2 67.66 202.7 51.9 2351 520.4 1333 164.64 61.77 1.2492 8144.13
29-03-2024 171.48 190.96 70.46 183.2 51.76 2406 495.7 1349.5 152.26 61.18 1.2623 7952.62
29-02-2024 180.75 185.03 69.12 164.46 46.57 2345 460.7 1242 139.78 60.02 1.2625 7630.02
31-01-2024 184.4 183.66 67.32 148.42 42.535 2338.5 462.45 1177 141.8 59.49 1.2688 7630.57
29-12-2023 192.53 163.55 68.56 153.78 47.71 2295.5 466.15 1110.5 140.93 58.93 1.2731 7733.24
30-11-2023 189.95 158.56 71.33 141.04 43.47 2512 479.1 1050 133.92 58.44 1.2624 7453.75
31-10-2023 170.77 144.64 75.7 131.6 39.94 2454 502.6 1104 125.3 56.49 1.2153 7321.72
29-09-2023 171.21 140.3 76.82 158.94 44.37 2577 531.4 997.8 131.85 55.98 1.2199 7608.08
31-08-2023 187.87 146.83 73.21 147.36 42.355 2622.5 487.5 1007.5 137.35 59.83 1.2673 7439.13
31-07-2023 196.45 144.18 74.43 154.96 44.935 2615.5 483 931.4 133.11 61.93 1.2835 7699.41
30-06-2023 193.97 133.81 73.97 153.38 43.59 2608 458.35 927 120.97 60.22 1.2703 7531.53
31-05-2023 177.25 128.59 76.37 151.34 44.17 2554.5 453.3 928.2 123.37 59.66 1.2441 7446.14
28-04-2023 169.68 126.41 95.9 159.88 48.2 2927 534.4 1014 108.22 64.15 1.2567 7870.57
31-03-2023 164.9 131.09 89.3 145.8 47.675 2840.5 510.8 982.6 104 62.03 1.2337 7631.74
28-02-2023 147.41 129.3 99.78 174.64 52.62 3143.5 550.5 898 90.3 59.51 1.2022 7876.28
31-01-2023 144.29 134.73 93.12 185.84 52.58 3096 488.85 856.8 99.87 61.32 1.232 7771.7
30-12-2022 129.93 140.89 84.24 158.52 45.41 3281.5 474.9 856 88.73 63.61 1.2083 7451.74
30-11-2022 148.03 148.9 91.84 161.24 46.905 3391 497.5 822.6 101.45 63.61 1.2058 7573.05
31-10-2022 153.34 138.29 101.64 147.76 42.02 3433.5 479.8 814.4 94.66 59.85 1.1469 7094.53
30-09-2022 138.2 118.81 101.12 144.3 41.39 3226.5 433.1 789.8 96.15 56.02 1.117 6893.81
31-08-2022 157.22 128.45 115.68 164.5 43.88 3451.5 441.5 776.2 109.15 61.71 1.1622 7284.15
29-07-2022 162.51 130.79 120.8 157.18 45.245 3220.5 400 770 116.64 64.17 1.2171 7423.43
30-06-2022 136.72 141.19 126.66 153.12 42.31 3519.5 388.3 830.2 109.372 62.91 1.2178 7169.28
31-05-2022 148.84 138.84 130.58 169.06 44.89 3502 434.25 756 114.039 63.38 1.2602 7607.66
29-04-2022 157.65 132.21 121.54 148.2 45.88 3352 391.55 740 114.967 64.61 1.2574 7544.55
31-03-2022 174.61 130.02 124.84 148.3 47.055 3194.5 375.35 717.4 139.65 62 1.3138 7515.68
28-02-2022 165.12 122.51 131.44 182.88 48.435 3261.5 363.55 719.6 134.891 62.24 1.342 7458.25
31-01-2022 174.78 133.57 130.02 197.22 51.05 3163.5 382.8 577.2 135.699 61.01 1.3447 7464.37
31-12-2021 177.57 133.66 112.26 187 47.8 2733.5 330.5 549.8 144.68 59.21 1.3532 7384.54
30-11-2021 165.3 117.1 109.34 184.22 46.8 2530 325.45 548.2 142.452 52.45 1.3299 7059.45
29-10-2021 149.8 119.491 108.04 202.25 50.22 2546.5 350.2 551.8 148.271 56.37 1.3682 7237.57
30-09-2021 141.5 132.7009 113.3 189.6 46.57 2604 340.3 565.2 133.266 52.47 1.3474 7086.42
31-08-2021 151.83 134.0477 121.96 184.9 43.775 2729 296.95 568.4 145.462 56.31 1.3755 7119.7
30-07-2021 145.86 134.6399 116.18 174.5 45.635 2680.5 289.2 576 135.221 57.03 1.3904 7032.3
30-06-2021 136.96 140.0175 121.34 171.12 46.69 2800 315 522 125.316 54.11 1.3831 7037.47
31-05-2021 124.61 137.2953 128.3 183.1 49.89 2713 306.15 526.6 120.578 55.29 1.4212 7022.61
30-04-2021 131.46 135.5187 136.8 175.5 45.435 2682 303 506.2 120.506 53.98 1.3822 6969.81
31-03-2021 122.15 127.2852 131.88 185.92 42.535 2774 294.65 505 103.432 52.71 1.3783 6713.63
26-02-2021 121.26 113.5977 122.02 159.6 39 2485.5 291.75 483.9 101.843 48.99 1.3933 6483.43
29-01-2021 131.96 113.7696 124.84 133.54 33 2657.5 271.5 462.1 91.787 48.15 1.3708 6407.46
31-12-2020 132.69 120.236 120.94 146.68 36.44 2708 254.8 488.8 87.594 54.84 1.367 6460.52
30-11-2020 119.05 117.9819 123.68 134.56 35.62 2639.5 247.65 504 88.037 51.6 1.3323 6266.19
30-10-2020 108.86 106.6536 103 106.56 28.025 2448 196.6 397 81.051 48.06 1.2947 5577.27
30-09-2020 115.81 116.2148 102.68 97.61 26.355 2777.5 225.2 482 73.48 49.37 1.292 5866.1
31-08-2020 129.04 117.7813 111.44 111.96 28.35 2532.5 264.2 519.6 81.709 49.53 1.337 5963.57
31-07-2020 106.26 117.4279 115.56 100.56 26.285 2524.5 275.15 490.2 74.148 47.24 1.3085 5897.76
30-06-2020 91.2 115.3552 128.86 114.42 31.175 3104.5 307.2 483.4 70.681 44.68 1.2401 6169.74
29-05-2020 79.485 119.3 133.02 115.24 29.87 3189.5 305.75 496.2 71.446 46.68 1.2343 6076.6
30-04-2020 73.45 119.9304 112.14 105.9 32.24 3080.5 313.1 508.4 67.433 45.89 1.2594 5901.21
31-03-2020 63.573 105.9563 113 94.11 32 2759 344.2 521.8 58.14 44.25 1.242 5671.96
28-02-2020 68.34 124.3146 134.36 148.74 50.2 3062.5 396.15 608.4 66.967 53.49 1.2823 6580.61
31-01-2020 77.378 137.2857 149.3 168 56.79 3357.5 456.7 631.4 71.712 58.4 1.3206 7286.01
31-12-2019 73.413 128.0302 146.76 179.64 62.5 3231.5 471.6 564.8 66.851 55.35 1.3257 7542.44
29-11-2019 66.813 128.4218 153.36 171.54 61.15 3060 480.2 573.4 65.248 53.4 1.2925 7346.53
31-10-2019 62.19 127.7341 157.4 167.8 56.8 2702 489.3 576.2 63.006 54.43 1.2942 7248.38
30-09-2019 55.993 138.8999 162 150.4 54.12 3007.5 515.8 570 60.95 54.44 1.2289 7408.21
Solver Application