500 Managers (1992-2001)           Two Managers   Four Managers     AR (bps) TE(bps) IR AR (bps) TE (bps) IR Structured Managers             Bottom quartile -54 178 -0.26 -29 141 -0.21 Median 61 234 0.21 49 176 0.24 Top quartile 155 297 0.66 123 217 0.63 Traditional Managers             Bottom quartile -247 430 -0.51 -180 366 -0.46 Median -23 572 -0.09 -14 461 -0.12 Top quartile 240 784 0.37 170 589 0.28 AR-Active return. TE-Tracking error. IR-Information ratio. TABLE 14.3 Results of Growth/Value Traditional Active Managers (1992-2001;       Two Managers   Four Managers     AR (bps) TE(bps) IR AR (bps) TE (bps) IR Traditional Growdi             Managers             Bottom quartile 39 635 -0.05 82 639 0.02 Median 246 800 0.22 253 775 0.24 Top quartile 481 1,010 0.50 438 932 0.44 Traditional Value             Managers             Bottom quartile -200 512 -0.36 -163 486 -0.29 Median -32 605 -0.05 -50 567 -0.05 Top quartile 121 714 0.25 64 647 0.18 AR-Active return. TE-Tracking error. IR-Information ratio. Clearly, taking style into account makes a difference: The median information ratio for a portfolio of traditional growth managers is slightly higher than that for the portfolio of structured managers, while the relation is reversed for traditional value managers. We believe, however, that this result is time period dependent: Growth managers did quite well, on average, over the latter part of the 1990s. Thus, we are still left with a puzzle: Why did structured managers perform so well (on a risk-adjusted basis) relative to their traditional counterparts? To answer this question, we must dig deeper into the underlying investment methodologies of structured and traditional managers.