MX2008010524A

MX2008010524A - System and method configured for facilitating financial analysis.

Info

Publication number: MX2008010524A
Application number: MX2008010524A
Authority: MX
Inventors: Eric S Smith; Joseph S Simko
Original assignee: Consulting Services Support Co
Priority date: 2006-02-16
Filing date: 2006-02-16
Publication date: 2008-10-20
Also published as: JP5061127B2; WO2007106060A3; CA2640068A1; JP2009527051A; CN101379525A; EP1984884A2; AU2006340071B2; AU2006340071A1; WO2007106060A2; EP1984884A4; BRPI0621212A2

Abstract

A method comprises determining a plurality of investment performance scores, determining a plurality of investment index performance scores and assessing each one of the investment performance scores dependent upon a respective one of the investment index. Each one of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment of an investment portfolio. Each one of the investment index performance scores corresponds to a respective investment index. The respective investment index corresponds to a respective one of the investment performance scores. The method may comprise determining a collection of indices that each corresponds to a respective investment of the investment portfolio of the client, determining a composite investment index performance score dependent upon the indices, and assessing the investment portfolio dependent upon the composite investment index performance score.

Description

SYSTEM AND METHOD CONFIGURED TO FACILITATE THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS CROSS REFERENCE FOR RELATED APPLICATIONS Non-provisional patent applications of United States entitled "DECISION-MAKING ASSISTANCE PLATFORM CONFIGURED TO FACILITATE FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES" that has the serial number "modify to include the serial number after the serial number is assigned" and "METHOD CONFIGURED TO FACILITATE SERVICES OF FINANCIAL ADVISORY "having the serial number" modify to include the serial number after the serial number is assigned ", which have a common applicant with this and are presented the same day with this, are incorporated in the present for reference.

FIELD OF DESCRIPTION The descriptions made in this document generally refer to financial advisory methodologies and, in particular, to systems and methods configured to provide financial advisory services.

BACKGROUND Many experts and financial investors they would agree that there has been a considerable increase in the investor's lack of confidence in the traditional financial services industry. The circumstances responsible for this lack of trust include poor advice from financial advisers, advice based on faulty or inaccurate information, abusive sales tactics and corrupt financial organization. The circumstances that have led to this lack of confidence have contributed to a general market downturn (ie, value of funds and number of people making investments), which is a very damaging circumstance for equity markets and for the ability of companies to increase their capital (as well as detrimental to industries based on operations and sales of products - traditional financial industries). Product suppliers and their paid sales staff usually control and often limit access to product information. Suppliers typically do not want consumers to have a practical way to objectively evaluate their products compared to others. Such ability to objectively compare (ie, evaluate by comparison) the products that are offered could, in effect, make financial products tangible and could adversely affect large budgets. advertising and marketing of these large product suppliers. Avoiding the risk of industrial products, such as collective investment funds, becoming raw materials, was listed as one of the main challenges faced by the affiliation of the Investment Business Institute, as indicated in the Planning Journal Financial No. 200 of June 20, from the Office of National Affairs. Financial intermediaries and other sellers of products from the traditional financial services industry are continuously directed to prospective and active private investors (ie, consumers) to ask the consumer to buy their financial products. In general, these financial intermediaries and sellers address consumers not necessarily because their financial products are needed or requested, but because that is their job. They have been hired to sell the financial products of a particular organization to anyone they can. During the last 15 years or more there has been a general trend in the financial services market away from individual advice and oriented towards product sales. This can be glimpsed into what can be described as a buyer-client sequence in which, on one side of the sequence (ie, the buyer), a person is treated as a buyer who is going to be sold and, on the other hand (that is, the customer side), the person is treated as a client to whom advice is going to be provided. This trend towards the buyer side of the sequence is leaving an increasingly larger space on the client side of the stream. In an environment with increasing amounts of financial products (for example, around 13,000 collective investment funds and thousands of insurance products), consumers have no practical procedure to obtain information about all these options and no practical procedure to compare them (for example, to see what would be best for them) even if they could obtain the necessary information. The traditional financial services industry often takes advantage of this lack of knowledge. Because trusted consumer advisors (eg, attorneys and Certified Public Accountants) do not have sufficient knowledge and information about this large number of financial products, even these trusted advisors are often limited in what they can do. to protect its customers against abuse due to this lack of knowledge of the product. This limitation is often met, even if they can obtain such information, due to the impressive amount of such information.

Yet another limitation of such conventional financial products and services is that the related conventional processes used to select and recommend financial managers are substantially "opaque." Such processes are typically not disclosed and, often, the fiduciaries of such products and services do not request a description or explanation of the means by which these financial managers are selected and / or recommended. Since this process is substantially opaque, any amount of abuse can occur, with limited means to detect them easily. Most consumers of financial products prefer the option of having a trusted advisor, such as their lawyer or CPC (that is, someone without a product sales agenda) provide them with advice related to investment decisions and move away from commercial pressures inherent in the traditional financial services industry. Therefore, methods and equipment configured to facilitate financial advisory services can be useful through trusted advisors who are not necessarily professionals in the traditional financial services industry.

COMPENDIUM OF THE INVENTION According to one embodiment of the descriptions made herein, one method comprises determining a collection of indices, determining a composite score of the investment index performance that depends on the indices, and evaluating the investment portfolio that depends on the composite score of investment index performance. Each of the indices corresponds to a respective investment of an investment portfolio. According to another embodiment of the descriptions made herein, one method comprises determining a plurality of investment performance scores, determining a plurality of investment index performance scores and evaluating each of the investment returns. Each of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment in an investment portfolio and with a respective investment index. The respective investment index corresponds to a respective one of the investment performance scores. According to another embodiment of the descriptions made herein, one method comprises determining an asset class that corresponds to an allocated investment of an investment portfolio and performing a comparative performance evaluation between the allocated investment and a plurality of unallocated investments, represented by the asset class. Likewise, it is a principal objective of the inventive descriptions made herein to provide a solution that overcomes the limitations and drawbacks associated with conventional procedures to facilitate financial services to customers. In particular, the methods described herein allow the facilitation of financial advisory services through a trusted advisor of the client, but not necessarily a professional in the traditional financial services industry. In addition, such methods produce query information (for example, investment options) that is quantified objectively. Accordingly, the modalities of the methods according to the inventive descriptions made in the present allow a client to make decisions in an objective and impartial manner. Turning now to the specific embodiments of the inventive descriptions embodied herein, in at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein the determination of a composite score of the investment index includes combining the investment indices that depend on the criteria used to design an investment portfolio.

In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, the determination of a composite performance score of the investment index includes combining the investment indices that depend on the allocations of existing funds in an investment portfolio. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, a composite investment performance score is determined and the evaluation of an investment portfolio includes evaluating the composite investment performance score that depends on a composite performance score of the investment. investment index. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, a plurality of investment performance scores are determined and each of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment of the investment portfolio. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, a plurality of investment index performance scores are determined. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, each of a plurality of investment performance scores that depend on a respective one of a plurality of investment index performance scores. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions carried out herein, the determination of a composite score of the investment index includes combining investment indices that depend on the criteria used to design an investment portfolio. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions carried out herein, the determination of a composite performance score of the investment index includes combining the investment indices that depend on the allocations of existing funds in an investment portfolio. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions carried out herein, the performance of a comparative performance evaluation includes evaluating an investment portfolio that depends on a composite score of investment index yield. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions embodied herein, performing a comparative performance evaluation includes determining a plurality of investment performance scores, determining a plurality of investment index performance scores and evaluating each of them. the scores of Investment returns that depend on a respective investment index performance scores. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions carried out herein, performing a comparative performance evaluation includes determining a composite investment performance score, determining a compound score of investment index performance, and evaluating the composite performance score. of the portfolio that depends on the composite performance score of the investment index. These and other objects and embodiments of the inventive descriptions made herein will readily become apparent from the following revision.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATED FIGURES FIGURE 1 represents an information flow scheme according to a modality of the descriptions made herein. FIGURES 2A and 2B represent a method for facilitating financial advisory services in accordance with the modalities of the descriptions herein and in view of the information flow scheme depicted in FIGURE 1. FIGURE 3 represents a modality of the operation to determine the investment options represented in FIGURE 2. FIGURE 4 represents a modality of the operation to allow the evaluation of comparative performance of the investment portfolio represented in FIGURE 2. FIGURE 5 is a diagram representing a representation graph of the performance scores according to a modality of the descriptions made in the present. FIGURES 6A and 6B together represent an alternate embodiment for presenting the information represented in the diagram of FIGURE 5. FIGURE 7 represents a table having a plurality of multi-segment bars that graphically represent the corresponding composite scores. FIGURE 8A represents a mode of a weighting method configured to facilitate a performance evaluation in accordance with the inventive descriptions made herein. FIGURES 8B and 8C represent a modality of a structure of hierarchical weights according to the descriptions made herein. FIGURE 9 represents a network system configured to facilitate the functionality of financial advisory services in accordance with the modalities of the descriptions made herein.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATED FIGURES In FIGURE 1 an embodiment of an information flow scheme 100 is represented according to the descriptions made herein. The entities in the information flow scheme include a financial services client 102, a trusted advisor 104 (ie, a trusted advisor), a financial services consultant 106 and a decision support platform 108 (ie, a system). The communication of the information (for example, basic customer information and / or query information for specific customer) is carried out between the financial services client 102 and the trusted advisor 104. Similarly, the communication of the information (for example, basic customer information and / or query information for specific customer) is carried out between the trusted advisor 104, the financial services consultant 106 and the assistance platform 108. for decision making. In the embodiment of the information flow scheme 100 depicted in FIGURE 1, the trusted advisor 104 is a person / entity separate from the consultant 106 of financial services and avoids the direct interaction of the client 102 of financial services with the consultant 106 of financial services and the platform 108 of assistance for decision making. In another modality (not shown specifically), the trusted advisor 104 and the financial services consultant are the same person (for example, a lawyer, CPC or family member), so that same person avoids interaction direct and / or thorough of the client 102 of financial services with the platform 108 of assistance for decision making. In yet another modality (not shown specifically), the trusted advisor 104 and the financial services consultant are different persons acting on behalf of the client 102 of financial services from a common organization (for example, a lawyer and CPCs hired by a common local, national or international consulting firm), whereby the common organization avoids the direct and / or meticulous interaction of the client 102 of financial services with the platform 108 of assistance for decision making. In yet another embodiment (not shown specifically), the financial services client 102 acts as its own trusted advisor and financial services consultant, whereby the financial services client 102 interacts directly with the support platform 108 of decisions. It is described in the present that the interaction and communication between the financial services customer 102, the trusted advisor 104 (ie, a trusted advisor), the financial services consultant 106 and / or the decision support platform 108 can be carried out through computer systems connected in network. For example, through the network system 400 represented in FIGURE 9, such interaction and communication can be facilitated through the networked computer system. The Internet is a form of such a computer system connected in a network. Thus, it is described herein that a website can be provided to allow such interaction and communication. Specific examples of such interaction and communication include information acquisition functionality (for example, receiving basic customer information), service payment functionality (receiving payment for services electronically), distributed processing functionality (for example, in the cases in which several assistive functions are made for decision making in a distributed form), functionality of sending query information (for example, providing query information for specific client, such as investment options quantified objectively and specific reports from the client, the client and / or trusted advisor), etc. The assistance platform 108 for taking decisions have access to and / or information is provided, for example, about the client (for example, the client's living conditions, investment preferences, financial situation, financial objectives, risk tolerances, etc.), information on the basis of decisions (including, without limitation, asset allocation technology and set of standards), investment performance information (both with respect to all available product options and historical performance information for specific customer) and template information of document format to perform the assistance functionality for decision making. In one embodiment, the information used in carrying out the assistance functionality for decision making as described herein (for example, manually and / or through a decision support platform) is stored and maintained. access to it from one or more databases. Examples of decision support assistance functionality, as discussed in more detail in the following, include entering, gathering and / or determining information that is comprised of a specific customer template, and determining customer-specific inquiry information (eg, determine investment options for specific clients) that depend, at least in part, on the information on the basis of the decisions. Examples of such information on the basis of the decisions include information related to established decision making rules, information related to the selection of investment effect and information related to investment opportunities correlated to the needs, desires and / or financial objectives of the client. . Examples of investment performance information include information associated with the return on investments, information associated with a risk of an investment, information associated with other performance and structural characteristics of an investment (for example, holding period, circulation rate, internal structures of rights / costs, etc.) and information associated with the meeting of comparative analysis of performance or structural data. Examples of document format information include information associated with established formatting documents, content included in the established documents and information associated with output information related to the realization of investment options (for example, creating a printed document that includes such information and / or show such information). Information on the basis of decisions, investment performance information and document format information are examples of query information for specific customer in view of a particular customer and assistance functionality to facilitate decision making in accordance with the inventive descriptions made herein. In accordance with at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions embodied herein, the decision support assistance function described herein is carried out by means of a decision-making assistance platform comprising a first decision processor ( for example, an expert system based on standards) and a second decision processor (for example, an investment selection optimization system). The decision processor facilitates the creation of a specific customer template that represents a specific customer profile that comprises various information (for example, standards, data sets, processing instructions, performance criteria, etc.). Examples of such information comprised by the specific customer template include weights and performance factors (for example, parameters that correspond to the investment effects desired by the customer), defined data and / or data sets, conditional logic filters to designate the manipulation (for example, debugging / reduction of data sets) of data sets and processing instructions. The processing instructions represent information that it allows tasks to be facilitated, such as the appropriate use of factors, weights and filters, which allows the document assembly functionality to be facilitated (for example, automatic generation of reports) and information related to the repetitive analysis / evaluation of the investment information. The second decision processor uses the information comprised by the specific client template to facilitate the scoring and classification processes to optimize the investment selection (that is, generate investment options) in a manner consistent with the individual needs, objectives and wishes. of a client. Such instructions include information related to an appropriate percentage allocation of investments between classes of available assets (ie, the allocation of assets), with an appropriate combination of performance factors and / or with an appropriate weighting of such factors. The scoring and classification processes include allowing the evaluation of investment options in a way oriented to help a client identify which capital management teams have a historical performance that matches more with the investment experiences that the client wishes (it is say, what investment effect the client wants). It is described here that a person can perform, in a manual way, certain assistance functionality for decision making described herein as being facilitated by the decision-making assistance platform instead of such functionality being carried out through the decision-making assistance platform. In one example, the functionality described herein as being provided by the first decision processor of the decision support platform is facilitated, at least in part, by a person manually and the resulting information is then put to provision of the decision support platform to enable the functionality of the decision support assistance platform to be facilitated (for example, functionality facilitated by the second decision processor of the decision support platform) . In a specific example, the template information for a specific customer is generated manually, at least in part, rather than by a decision processor of the decision support platform. FIGURES 2A and 2B represent a method 200 for facilitating financial advisory services according to the modalities of the descriptions herein and in view of the information flow scheme 100 shown in FIGURE 1. An operation 202 is performed to obtain basic customer information, such as in response to a meeting with the financial services client. After obtaining the basic client information, an operation 204 is performed to enter basic information of relevant and / or required client into a platform of assistance for decision making. The entry of such information is a modality to allow access to such information. In response to the income of the client's financial objectives, the decision support platform performs an operation 206 to determine investment options (for example, an adequate allocation of assets) that correspond to the client's financial objectives. After determining the investment options (for example, asset allocation), the decision support platform performs an operation 208 to determine an objective classification (ie, objective quantification) of the calculated investment options (ie , an operation that gives a score and classifies in an objective manner, specifically for that client, all the available investment options within the various asset classes of the investment options calculated in operation 206), thus producing options of investment classified objectively. In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, determining the objective classification includes determining in an objective manner and Customer-specific performance score (discussed in more detail in the following) for each of the investment options and classify investment options that depend on information derived from customer-specific performance scores. In one modality, determining the investment options includes applying a conditional logic filter to at least one of potentially many structural and performance factors expressed as numerical information, alphanumeric information and / or date information. For example, such a conditional filter is used to omit funds that are closed (that is, that do not accept investments from new investors), or that have other structural or situational characteristics (ie, factors) that are not desired or adequate (eg, example, the amount of investment exceeds an amount of investment established) for a client. In one modality, determining investment options includes determining the investment options that depend on information derived from different aspects of the template for a specific client (that is, different template information for a specific client). Such a determination is made, at least in one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, by a first decision processor of the decision support platform, by the which the resulting information gathered by the first decision processor is then provided to the second decision processor of the decision processor platform, thereby allowing the second decision processor to perform a scoring and classification process. In one embodiment, the specific customer template includes one or more of potentially many filters and weights, with one or more of the filters and weights being applied to the performance factor information, customer information, investment opportunity information and / or investment performance information. After determining the classification of the objectives, the decision support platform performs an operation 210 to provide query information for a specific customer (for example, investment options, objective quantification thereof, etc.). In one embodiment, such a provision of query information for a specific customer includes preparing and producing an investment report for a specific customer by means of a document assembly processor of the decision support platform. In one embodiment, such provision of query information for a specific client includes presenting such information in visual form. In yet another modality, such provision includes making the information for related operations (not required or specifically displayed) of method 200. Accordingly, it is hereby described that the decision support platform of preference is configured for the preparation and production of information as printed and / or electronic documents (that is, reports that are configured to be printed and / or displayed electronically). An investment report for a specific client that is described herein documents information for specific customer consultation, such as investment options classified objectively. Such consultation information for a specific client (for example, investment options classified objectively) is preferably presented in view of multiple variables that depend on the information derived from the client's financial objectives. For example, various investment scenarios may be presented that depend on the information derived from a plurality of desired investment effects and calculated, related performance scores. Such investment effects depend on the information derived from performance criteria. In general, the performance criteria, in accordance with the inventive descriptions made herein, include criteria related to profitability, risk, asset classes established by industry, associates, investment effects standards and investment opportunities correlated to customer expectations. The following Table 1 shows specific examples of performance criteria and their related performance factors. The detailed information defining such performance criteria and their related performance factors are not discussed in detail, but may be understood by a person skilled in the related art (e.g., financial systems and methodologies).

TABLE 1 - Performance criteria and related performance factors In at least one modality of the investment report for a specific client, the investment report for a specific client includes diagrams and tables that represent the allocation of investment among various asset classes, statistical / historical performance of the investment options in various kinds of investment. assets, distribution of composite performance scores for investment options and scoring and classification for specific client investment options. In at least one modality, the investment report for a specific client includes a specific client evaluation of the available investment alternatives that depend on the information derived from an evaluation of the available investment alternatives. After reviewing the query information for specific client, the trusted advisor and / or the financial services consultant (in collaboration with the client) can facilitate an operation 212 to review the decision-making criteria on which the objective classification of the investment options is based. Such reviews include reviews for performance criteria (for example, selections and factor weights) and modify / clarify information associated with the client's financial objectives. In response to the review of any of the criteria for decision making by the A trusted advisor and / or financial services consultant, the method returns to operation 206 to determine investment options for an objective classification (ie, operation 208) that depend on the information derived from the revised criteria. In response to an unrealized review of any of the decision-making criteria neither by the trusted advisor nor by the financial services consultant, the method passes to operation 214 to facilitate the delivery of the query information for specific client ( for example, in the form of an investment report for a specific client) to the financial services customer (for example, when the trusted advisor initiates the electronic submission of information through the decision-making assistance platform or when the trusted advisor facilitates, in person, the presentation of the information). After the financial services customer selects one or more of the investment options whose funds have not been allocated (for example, after consultation with the trusted advisor), a 216 operation is performed (for example, by the financial adviser). trust or financial services client) to enter the investment options selected in the decision support platform. Once the funds are allocated, the selected investment options represent an investment portfolio of the financial services customer. Periodically (for example, on a quarterly basis), an operation 218 is carried out through the decision support platform to facilitate an evaluation of the comparative performance of the investment portfolio, thereby generating periodic performance information ( that is, decision information for specific client). As discussed in more detail in the following, the comparative performance evaluation provides information to evaluate qualitatively and objectively selected investment options. After facilitating the comparative performance evaluation of the investment portfolio, the decision support platform performs an operation 220 to provide such decision information for specific customer for subsequent operations. An example in which such subsequent operations are allowed includes the production of a periodic performance report comprising such periodic performance information at the request of the trusted advisor. In one modality, the periodic performance report is prepared and produced by a document assembly processor from the decision support platform. After performing operation 220 to provide such decision information for a specific customer, the trusted advisor performs an operation 222 to facilitate the provision of such information for the financial services client to review. Preferably, a decision support platform, as described herein, plays no role between the trusted advisor and the financial services customer. However, in other modalities, a decision support platform, as described herein, does play a role between the trusted advisor and the financial services client. For example, the decision support platform can facilitate the gathering of information directly from the financial services customer or can provide investment option information directly to the financial services customer. FIGURE 3 represents an embodiment of operation 206 for determining investment options. An operation 230 is performed by a decision processor (ie, a first decision processor) of performance criteria of the decision support platform to access the basic customer information and an operation 232 is performed by the processor of performance criteria decisions to access information on the basis of decisions. In one mode, the performance criteria decision processor has access to the basic customer information and to information on the basis of decisions from one or more databases. In response to access to basic customer information and information on the basis of decisions, an operation 234 is performed through the performance criteria decision processor to determine corresponding performance criteria (for example, parameters for investment purposes). ). Examples of the corresponding parameters for investment purposes include parameters associated with the risk of an investment, parameters associated with the profitability of an investment, parameters associated with other structural and performance aspects of an investment, various rules of investment allocation and associated parameters with investment opportunities correlated to the client's financial expectations. In at least one modality, the parameter category for investment purposes includes investment allocation parameters. The performance criteria decision processor performs an operation 236 to determine performance / weighting factors that depend on the information derived from the parameters for investment purposes in response to the determination of the parameters for investment purposes. For example, a weighting of the yield factor of .80 and .20 can be used to calculate and apply performance factors for minimizing risks and maximizing profitability, respectively. The weighting ratio of the yield factor of .80 and .20 may correspond to a situation in which the client's financial objectives indicate that the client is much more concerned with minimizing risks than maximizing profitability. After determining the weights of the performance factor, an investment option decision processor (ie, a second decision processor) of the decision support platform performs an operation 238 to access the investment performance information. (for example, risk, profitability, and other performance and structural information), followed by step 240 that the investment option decision maker performs to determine investment options that depend on individual investment needs, wants, and / or objectives the client's. Preferably, the respective decision processors facilitate the determination of the selection and weighting factors of the performance, the determination of the parameters for investment purposes and the determination of an objective score and classification of the available investment options without human intervention during the respective computer operations.

It is described herein that the functionality (eg, operations) provided by the performance criteria decision processor (ie, a first decision processor) of the decision support platform may, in an alternate manner, be facilitated in manually by a person, rather than by the performance criteria decision processor. In such an embodiment, the information resulting from the functionality provided in a manual manner is then made available to the investment option decision processor to enable the functionality of the investment option decision processor to be provided. FIGURE 4 represents a modality of operation 218 to perform the comparative performance evaluation of the investment portfolio. An operation 260 is performed to determine the investments of the portfolio (that is, the investment options that the client's portfolio comprises at that moment). In response to the determination of portfolio investments, an operation 262 is performed to determine a corresponding investment performance score for each of the individual investments in the portfolio and an operation 264 is performed to determine a composite performance score. corresponding investment. The composite score of investment return is a score compound that represents a general performance of all the individual investments in the portfolio. After the investments in the portfolio are determined, an operation 266 is performed to determine the comparison investment indices that correspond to each of the portfolio's investments. The comparison investment indexes are those indexes that correspond adequately with each of the investments in the portfolio (for example, in a corresponding asset class that exhibits corresponding performance factors, etc.). In response to the determination of the comparison investment indices, an operation 268 is performed to determine a performance score of the corresponding investment index for each of the comparison investment indices and an operation 270 is performed to determine a composite score. performance of the corresponding investment index. The compound score of investment index performance is a composite score that represents a general performance of all individual investment indices. These individual and composite benchmarks of investment index performance are calculated in the same way (that is, by using the same performance factors and the same weightings of the performance factors) that are used in operations 262 and 264 described in what previous. After determining the various performance scores, operation 220 is performed (FIGURE 2B) to provide such information for associated operations (for example, to print and / or display such periodic performance information). It is contemplated that the determination of the composite score of return on the investment index may include the combination of the indices of the respective investment index that depends on the information derived from actual allocations of funds in the corresponding investment portfolio and / or at minus one of the criteria related to risk and criteria related to profitability. Similarly, it is contemplated that the determination of the composite investment yield score may include the combination of the respective investments of the portfolio that depend on the information derived from actual allocations of funds in the corresponding investment portfolio and / or by at least one of the criteria related to risk and criteria related to profitability. In addition, it is described herein that a decision processor system of the decision support platform and / or a document assembly processor of the decision support platform can perform the functionality of the operation stages. of 218 to perform the evaluation of comparative performance of the investment portfolio. Therefore, the scoring and classification of all available investment options in each of the asset classes in the client's portfolio is performed. Scoring and ranking is done using the same performance parameters and parameter weights used in the original scoring and classification analysis used by the client to select the client's investment options. The various related investment indices are given a score and classified in exactly the same way as the investment options in the asset class for which a particular index is relevant. The scoring process produces a composite numerical score for each of the client's investment options, for all other available investment options (not yet chosen) and for the relevant indices. These numerical scores, when used to rank scoring results (for example, from the highest composite score to the lowest composite score), compare effectively and quantitatively all the investment options with each asset class (both those chosen as the non-elected), as well as with the relevant indexes. The highest score and, therefore, the highest ranking of the options are those whose combined composite score (that is, the score resulting from the combination of all the individually weighted performance factors used in the scoring process) indicates those options in which the historical performance corresponds more to the desired return on investment the client for a particular asset class that is evaluated (that is, the desired return of that asset class that was the reason for the incorporation of that asset class in the portfolio). We describe here that the investment indices may correspond to asset classes that correspond to the individual investments of the portfolio. In such a case, it is contemplated that the performance of the comparative performance evaluation is performed between the allocated investment (ie, those selected investment options that are consolidated) and a plurality of unallocated investments represented by the asset class (ie say, all or a part of the investment options that were not selected to be consolidated). FIGURE 5 is a diagram 300 representing a graphical representation of the performance scores that are represented in view of the corresponding asset classes 301. In one example, diagram 300 is comprised of a periodic performance report. The score 302 Performance composite for each of the asset classes 303 in the portfolio is represented by a first graphic symbol configuration (eg, a corresponding horizontal bar of a first color). Represented along with administrators and / or individual 304 funds is a composite 305 score. The performance score 306 of each of the investment indexes 308 is represented by a second graphic symbol configuration (eg, a discrete symbol of a first color) superimposed on the first graphic symbol configuration. The composite score 310 of the investment yield is represented by a third graphic symbol configuration (eg, a corresponding vertical bar of a second color). The score 312 composed of the index is represented by a fourth graphic symbol configuration (eg, a triangle) superimposed on the third graphic symbol configuration. In this way, the investment options selected from the financial services client are compared in graphic form with appropriate benchmarks. The diagram 300 of FIGURE 5 is configured to provide a summary of portfolio performance, using bar graphs to represent scores resulting from an evaluation of the individual funds comprising the portfolio, as well as the portfolio In its whole. Diagram 300 provides a means to measure the overall performance of the portfolio by comparing the score of the "Composite Portfolio" (ie, the bar adjacent to the term "Composite") with the score of the "Composite Index" (ie, the triangle superimposed on the bar adjacent to the term Compound). As depicted, the composite portfolio bar extends beyond the location of the composite index triangle. The positive spread indicated that the Composite Portfolio exceeds the Composite Index in meeting the established performance objectives. Diagram 300 represents, in a similar way, the performance of the individual investments of the portfolio in relation to the components of the individual composite index. The graphical representation of the composite index score 310 is proportional to a combined score (that is, discussed in greater detail in the next paragraph) of the portfolio and is placed along a performance scale 311, so that its The score can be compared to the 312 score of the composite index of the investment portfolio in its entirety. The performance scale 311 acts as a means to measure performance (eg, scores) based on the relative position of the graphical representations that represent such scores. The graphic representation of each score 302 of asset class performance is proportional to the composite score of the individual fund (or administrator) and is placed on the performance scale 311, such that each score 302 of its performance can be compared with the score 306 of the relevant index of your fund. The graphical representation of the score 306 of the relevant composite score index of a fund represents the performance of the respective fund. The composite 302 performance scores for each individual fund and related asset class 303 provide a summary of the performance evaluation performed on each of the asset classes in the portfolios. Additionally, the combination of the performance scores of the individual funds held is used in determining the 310 composite score of the investment return. The scores of the relevant indexes 308 are combined in a similar way and used when determining the 312 score composed of the index. In one embodiment, such combination is carried out by using the current market value of the individual portfolio values of the manager and the proportional percentage of those securities in the portfolio with respect to the total value of the portfolio. For example, in an example where the value of the securities in the manager's portfolio was $ 5,000,000 and the total value of the portfolio was $ 100,000,000, 5% of the score 302 composed of the portfolio would be attributed to that administrator's composite investment score. In addition, the same 5% ratio would apply to the relevant index score of the administrator and the combination determination of the composite score of the index. The performance of a fund and its manager typically is considered within the context of a specific performance factor. For example, an average return of 5 years can be classified to find out which administrator had the highest profitability in a period of five years. However, when multiple performance factors are used (ie, performance criteria used for decision making purposes) simultaneously to evaluate the performance of an administrator, the combination of the performance of each factor is performed in a way that produces a composite score that can be used to evaluate the overall performance of the fund manager. Once multiple performance criteria are selected (which are used functionally as decision-making criteria), individual weights can be assigned to each of the performance criteria so that the overall performance of the administrator can be defined. specific performance and decision requirements (eg, needs, objectives, risk tolerances, etc.) of the investor (that is, the financial services customer). Having a visual representation of how weighted performance criteria affect composite scores is useful for quickly identifying which criteria for decision making are having the greatest impact on composite scores. The diagram 314 of FIGURE 6A and the table 316 of FIGURE 6B together represent an alternate modality for presenting the information represented in diagram 300 of FIGURE 5. Although essentially the same information is presented in FIGURE 5 as represented as a whole in FIGURES 6A and 6B, the representation, according to the diagram of FIGURE 5, is advantageous because it allows to represent a larger volume of information in a given amount of space (ie, with respect to the presentation procedure of FIGURES 6A) and 6B). In the present it is described that the diagrams represented in FIGURES 5, 6A and 6B are examples of information configured to allow the objective and comparative evaluation of the investment options that an investor / client of financial services will perform. It is also described herein that the operations and / or methods for generating all or part of the information comprised by the diagrams represented in FIGURES 5, 6A and 6B are examples for evaluating such information and / or allow the comparative evaluation of such information. FIGURE 7 represents a table 325 having a plurality of bars 327 of multiple segments (e.g., bars with segments of different colors) each representing, in graphic form, a corresponding composite score. The lengths of each bar 327 of multiple segments are proportional to their corresponding composite score 329 and, for comparison purposes, relative to all composite scores shown. The various segments 330 of each bar 327 represent the relative performance of the corresponding weighted performance criteria. The length of each segment 330 represents a weighted performance of the performance criteria compared to a group of its colleagues in the same asset class. The longer segments represent, proportionally, a greater impact on the composite score. The order of the segments of each bar corresponds to the order of presentation of the names 331 of performance criteria (for example, 5-year profitability) in the header section of table 325. However, in certain cases, it does not will represent a particular segment of a particular bar, representing that data from an administrator are required for the corresponding performance criteria or that a combination of minimum weighting and / or low performance has caused the Performance criteria have little or no impact on the corresponding composite score. The relative performance of the performance criteria (ie, criteria used to make investment decisions), according to the inventive descriptions made herein, can be evaluated in relation to one or more reference points. The relative performance of the decision-making criteria against all colleagues is a first point of reference. For example, comparing the length of the 5-year Average Profitability segments in Table 325 of FIGURE 7 broadly indicates a difference in length of 35% that favors the highest classification manager, which translates in the same difference in performance as it relates to his group of colleagues. The performance in regard to the group of colleagues is calculated through the use of a scale of values of Average Return of 5 years. All colleagues in the performance criteria define this scale and each performance score is applied to that scale to find its relative ranking within the group. Because the graphical representation of performance takes into account the scale of the criteria for each performance, it is useful to quickly compare the performance of the performance criteria scores. In this way, the big differences in Performance among administrators can be easily identified. The relative performance of the performance criteria in terms of the composite performance score is a second benchmark. The weightings of the performance criteria are not mentioned when evaluating the relative performance of the performance criteria in relation to all downward speculations. This is because the weight assigned to each performance criterion applies equally to the group of colleagues. However, the weights assigned to each performance criterion directly influence the determination of the composite score. For example, the comparison of the length of all the segments for the senior manager shows that a large part of the weighting has been placed on the 5-year Profitability and the 5-Year Standard Deviation. For this example, 80% of the weighting is placed on the combination of these two performance criteria, which means that on a composite score scale of 0 to 10, these two performance criteria can add up to 8 points to the score. compound Unlike the 5-year performance criteria, the combined weights of the 3-year Profitability and the 3-Year Standard Deviation are only weighted at 17.5%, which can add up to 1.75 points to the composite score The weighting assigned to each performance criterion acts as a multiplier that defines the maximum impact that the performance criteria can have on the composite score and also on the maximum length of the corresponding segment of the bar in Table 2. The effect of the weighting It can be easily observed by comparing the sizes of the 5-year performance criteria with the 3-year performance criteria. FIGURE 8A depicts one embodiment of a weighting method 335 to facilitate a performance evaluation in accordance with the inventive descriptions made herein. The weighting procedure 335 represents a way in which an evaluation of the performance of the administrators in each of the asset classes is performed and shows a relationship of the performance characteristics and performance criteria that have been used. The multi-segment vertical bar 337 represents a grouping of performance criteria 339 used in the evaluation and the degree of influence (i.e., weighting) assigned to each. Each of the performance criteria 339 of the vertical bar 337 has one or more sub-performance factors 341 associated therewith. Performance factors 341 that refer to common performance criteria 339 are subtracted from those performance criteria 339 particular, thus producing clusters of performance factors in some cases. The weights are assigned individually to the performance factors 341 and indicate how much influence each of the 341 performance factors has on your group. The increase in the weighting of any of the performance factors in a group results in a corresponding decrease in the weighting assigned to one or some other performance factors in the group. In effect, the sum of all the weightings of the performance factor in a group must always add up to 100%. The same is true for the sum of all the weights applied to performance criteria 339 from which all performance factors 341 are subclassed. The weighting of the various performance criteria 339 and performance factors 341 influences the performance scores reported herein. In particular, each grouping of performance scores has a direct effect on a performance score. Because a weight of 50% has been applied to one of the performance criteria 339, that performance criterion will control 50% of a performance scale (for example, 5 points on the 10 point scale). The individual performance factors 341 that are sub-divided from each performance criterion 339 have an indirect effect on the performance score The indirect effect is determined by multiplying the weighting assigned to that performance factor 341 and the weighting of performance criterion 339 from which it is subtended. FIGURES 8B and 8C represent a modality of a hierarchical weight structure representing a method for using the weights to determine performance scores. In effect, the weighting structure shown in FIGS. 8B and 8C and the weighting procedure 330 shown in FIGURE 8A achieve the same objective and produce the same type of information. The difference is only a matter of presentation. The hierarchical structure includes a tree structure 350 in which the nodes 352 of the tree structure 350 are either classes or performance factors (represented as (factor 'in FIGURES 8B and 8C). The tree structure 350 serves to assign weightings to the performance factors The weights assigned to the performance factors define the potential impact that a performance factor can have on the score and classification made during an evaluation (for example, the evaluation of comparative performance discussed in the above) of the information The performance factors are the 'sheets' of the tree and correspond directly with the performance data recorded in a corresponding data set (ie information on investment performance). The performance factors are always an end node 354 of any branch in the tree 350. As represented in FIGURE 8B, the 'Class 1A' is a parent class node for the 'Factor 2' (i.e. child class for 'Class 1A'), is itself a child class node for 'Class 1' (that is, the parent class node of 'Class 1A') and is a sister class node for the 'class 1A' Factor 1 'and' Class IB '(that is, the class brothers nodes of' Class 1A '.} Classes are a group of performance factors or some combination of factors and performance classes. Classes can be not only parent class nodes, but can also be class nodes, children, or sibling class nodes, factors can never be parent class nodes, and can only be class nodes, children, or sibling class nodes. nodes in the same hierarchical level that are assigned to the same parent class node will be added up to 100%, or, if they are not added up to 100%, it will be They are reduced to add up to 100% while maintaining the weighting relationship between the factors and the assigned performance classes. The performance factors that are assigned to the classes are typically similar or share a common theme. The purpose of the classes is have a way of influencing the relative weights of all classes and subtended performance factors that have a relationship with a parent class. All nodes 352 in the tree 350 have an assigned and / or calculated weight. These weights can be assigned through a template, manually or through some type of decision-making process (for example, the performance criteria decision processor described here). It is necessary to normalize the weights of all nodes 352 to 100% so that their weights are related to the subtended parents class nodes. Once normalized in a relative weighting, an actual weighting can be calculated for each of the class nodes. As shown in FIGURE 8C, the actual weights are calculated based on the relative weights of the nodes 352 in the weighting hierarchy. The actual weights influence the score and classification that takes place during an evaluation of the investment information. The relative weighting of each of the nodes is multiplied by the actual weighting of their parent node, which produces the actual weighting of each of the nodes 352. The hierarchy is processed from the highest node in the 350 tree to the nodes. lower nodes in the tree because it is required that the actual weighting of the parent class nodes calculates the actual weighting of their children (that is, child class nodes). The actual weights are then applied to the investment performance data to generate a corresponding factor performance score. These individual factor performance scores are then combined to generate a composite performance score. The use of a hierarchical weighting structure has advantages because it allows the effect of different weighting scales to be combined. The combination of such scales by the use of weighting allows the evaluation of the values of the performance factor by the use of various scoring methods. For example, such a combination can calculate the combined performance scores of the investment index and a combined composite score of investment index yield. As shown in FIGURE 8C, the combined fragments 355 of the tree represent a plurality of weightings of performance factors that are added to the weighting of a respective parent node 356. FIGURE 9 depicts a network system 400 (i.e., a data processing system) configured to facilitate the functionality of financial advisory services in accordance with the modalities of the inventive descriptions made herein. He system 400 includes a decision support platform 402, a network interface device 404 coupled to the decision support platform 402, and a network system 406 coupled to the network interface device 404. The decision support platform 402 comprises a database structure 407 which is accessed via the decision support platform 402. Accordingly, communication of information between the decision support platform 402 and other entities (for example, a customer's computer, a financial services consultant's computer, a computer capable of downloading performance information) is permitted. investment, etc.) and the accessibility of the information required to carry out such functionality of financial advisory services is permitted (for example, through access to a website from which access to such functionality is available). The decision support platform 402 includes a performance criteria decision processor 408 (ie, a first decision processor), an investment option decision processor 410 (ie, a second decision processor) and a document assembly processor 412. The 408 performance criteria decision processor is an example of a means for carrying out the calculation functionality of the performance weighting factor as described herein. Such calculation of the performance weighting factors may include information that is comprised of the specific customer template (eg, conditional logic filters and / or processing instructions). In at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, the first decision processor is configured to facilitate the initial assignment functionality (eg, to provide suitable assignments for specific investment client and investment effect parameters). The investment option decision processor 410 is an example of a means for carrying out the comparative scoring and ranking (i.e., quantification) of the investment option calculation functionality described herein. Hereby, a decision processor system of a decision support platform is defined as comprising the performance criteria decision processor and the investment option decision processor. The document assembly processor 412 is an example of a means for carrying out the document preparation / production functionality described herein. It is contemplated that the various processors can be represented in physical form as modules of software / hardware separated or fully integrated. The database structure 407 includes a database of decision information (which may include a set of standards) 414, a database 416 of information on investment performance and a database 418 of customer information and document outline information. In at least one other mode, separate databases of customer information and document outline information are provided. The information (for example standards) on which the decision support platform 402 for carrying out the performance criteria decisions functionality described herein is maintained in the decision information database 414 . The information on which the decision support platform 402 for carrying out the scoring and classification calculation functionality (i.e., investment options) described herein is maintained in the database 416 of investment performance information. The information on which the decision support platform 402 depends to carry out the document preparation / production functionality described herein is kept in the information database 418 of the document and information schema. client.

It is disclosed herein that, in at least one embodiment of the inventive descriptions embodied herein, the decision support platform 402 is not a physically distinct apparatus or system. In contrast, in at least one embodiment, the decision support platform 402j is a functional platform that is comprised of the functionality imparted through a plurality of systems or system components (e.g., functional blocks). discrete linked through a network system). Accordingly, it is described herein that elements of the system configured to impart such functionality may or may not be located in a common location and may or may not reside in a common computer. It is disclosed herein that, at least in one embodiment of the inventive descriptions made herein, the decision support platform 402 comprises a simple decision processor (eg, a simple data processing program) configured to facilitate all or part of the functionality of the 408, a decision processor 410 of investment options and a processor 412 of document assembly. In one example, a simple decision processor program running in an appropriate data processing system facilitates all or part of the functionality of the 408, a decision processor 410 of investment options and a processor 412 of document assembly through a simple data processing program. In another example, a simple decision processor is adapted to include various functional modules that interact to facilitate all or part of the functionality of the 408, an investment option decision processor 410 and a document assembly processor 412. Referring now to the computer readable medium, in accordance with the embodiments of the inventive descriptions embodied herein, the methods described herein are represented in tangible form by a computer-readable medium having instructions therein to carry out such methods. In a specific example, the instructions are provided to carry out the various operations of method 100 represented in FIGURES 2A and 2B to facilitate financial advisory services. The instructions can be accessed through the help platform for decision making from a memory device of the decision support platform (for example, RAM, ROM, virtual memory, hard disk memory, etc.), from a legible device by means of a disk unit of the decision support platform (for example, a diskette, a compact disc, a cassette, etc.) or both. Examples of computer readable media include a compact disk or a hard disk, which represents therein a computer program to carry out the functionality of financial advisory services in accordance with the modalities of the inventive descriptions made herein. Although the discussion of the methods and systems, according to the modalities of the inventive descriptions made herein, has been presented so far in view of the financial utility for the investors, it is contemplated that such methods and systems may be specifically configured to provide Usefulness in the areas of commercial and housing loans, venture capital financing and investment banking services. In addition, it is contemplated that such methods and systems may be configured to provide utility beyond financial services. In particular, the modalities of the decision support platform functionality described herein can be applied in applications other than financial services. Retail electronic commerce applications, market research applications, human resources applications, term services and raw material purchases are examples of such applications where an objective and impartial evaluation of the score and classification of all of them is useful. the functionalities of available options (ie, in any universe of options, the differences between them that can be quantified), consistent with the needs, objectives and / or desires of a client (or a consumer), provided through the functionality of a platform for assistance in decision-making . The inventive descriptions made herein refer to the provision of financial advisory services. The methods and equipment according to the modalities of the inventive descriptions made herein are configured to allow trusted advisers (eg, attorneys-in-fact, attorneys, siblings, local bankers and the like) who are not necessarily professionals in the banking industry. Traditional financial services offer clients investment options classified in quantitative form. In this way, the trusted advisor has the knowledge to coordinate all financial services needs of its clients, not as a seller of products, but in its traditional role as independent consultants. By doing so, the client is given a higher level of confidence regarding the financial information that is provided and with the person providing the financial information. The methods according to the embodiments of the inventive descriptions made herein and the system configured to carry out such methods they provide trusted advisors who have access to such methods (ie, trusted advisors affiliates) with an owner support provision that includes a decision support platform. The proprietary decision-making support platform allows affiliated trusted advisors to advise their clients and coordinate solutions to their needs, outsourcing the responsibility of product study, benchmarking, implementation and acquisition. This unique outsourcing structure creates important returns and allows affiliated trusted advisers to spend a great deal of time meeting with and advising their clients, which is the best use of their time and the most important one. This eliminates the need to refer clients to financial intermediaries, insurance agents and other product sellers, allowing the trusted advisor to retain a large part of the income traditionally remitted to such financial intermediaries, agents and sellers. In addition, the methods and systems according to the modalities of the inventive descriptions made herein are designed to meet a series of increasingly important and problematic trends that both consumers and professional consulting firms face. The increasing complexity and variety of The options available are creating uncertainty and stress among clients and their advisors (ie, those who try to help them make informed decisions regarding the selection of a product) and the need for reliable and impartial advice is increasing. Since the variety of available options continues to grow and since the amount and complexity of information about them continues to grow, many investors simply do not have time to inform themselves about what their options are, much less have the time and ability to choose with confidence from among them. In essence, many investors no longer have the time or individual capacity to discern what is actually "best" for them and their families in relation to investment options. With access that extends rapidly to a growing diversity of financial products and service options, as well as increasingly complex and voluminous information about such options, consumers increasingly need help to analyze objectively the universe of available investment options in order to feel confident that they have done "the best" for themselves and their families. The embodiments of the inventive descriptions made herein provide a solution to the large increasing needs for reliable and objective advice. The importance of this solution will continue to grow along with the growth and development of the economy and electronic commerce based on information. With appropriate methodologies, training, technological tools and support, the affiliated trusted advisors that already have the highest degree of client confidence will be able to successfully satisfy this growing need of the client for objective advice, of greater scope, with respect to financial products. . In the above detailed description, reference has been made to the accompanying drawings that form a part thereof and in which specific embodiments in which the invention can be practiced are shown by way of illustration. These embodiments, and certain variants thereof, have been described in sufficient detail to allow those skilled in the art to put the invention into practice. It should be understood that other suitable modalities can be used and that logical, mechanical and electrical changes can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. For example, the functional blocks shown in the figures may be further combined or divided in any way without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. To avoid unnecessary details, the description omits certain information known by those with experience in the technique. Therefore, the foregoing detailed description is not intended to be limited to the specific forms set forth herein, but, on the contrary, is intended to encompass such alternatives, modifications and equivalents as may be reasonably included within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. .

Claims

CLAIMS 1. A method, comprising: determining a collection of indices, where each of the indices corresponds to a respective investment of an investment portfolio; determine a composite performance score of the investment index that depends on the indices; and evaluate the investment portfolio that depends on the composite performance score of the investment index. The method of claim 1, wherein the determination of the composite score of the investment index includes combining the indices that depend on criteria used to design the investment portfolio. The method of claim 1, wherein the determination of the compound score of the investment index yield includes combining the indices that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment portfolio. 4. The method of claim 1 further comprising: determining a composite investment performance score, wherein the evaluation of the investment portfolio includes evaluating the composite score of investment return that depends on the composite score of the investment index yield . 5. The method of claim 1 further comprises: determining a plurality of investment performance scores, wherein each of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment of the investment portfolio; determining a plurality of investment index performance scores, wherein each of the investment index performance scores corresponds to a respective investment index and wherein the respective investment index corresponds to a respective one of the performance scores of the investment index. investment; and evaluate each of the investment performance scores that depend on a respective one of the investment index performance scores. 6. A method, comprising: determining a plurality of investment performance scores, wherein each of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment of an investment portfolio; determining a plurality of investment index performance scores, wherein each of the investment index performance scores corresponds to a respective investment index and wherein the respective investment index corresponds to a respective of investment performance scores; and evaluate each of the investment performance scores that depend on a respective one of the investment index. The method of claim 6, further comprising: determining a composite score of investment yield; determine a composite performance score of the investment index; and evaluate the composite score of the investment return that depends on the composite score of return on the investment index. The method of claim 7, wherein the determination of the compound score of investment index performance includes combining the indexes of the respective investment index that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment portfolio. The method of claim 6, wherein the determination of the investment scores of the portfolio includes combining the indices that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment portfolio. 10. A method, which includes: determining a class of assets that corresponds to an assigned investment of an investment portfolio; Y perform a comparative performance evaluation between the assigned investment and a plurality of unallocated investments, represented by the asset class. The method of claim 10, comprising: the classes of determining assets depend on at least one of the performance criteria, weights, investment information of the defined data set, filters configured to debug information from the investment data set and process instructions. The method of claim 11, wherein the performance of the comparative performance assessment includes: determining a collection of indices, wherein each of the indices corresponds to a respective assigned investment of an investment portfolio, determining a composite score of the yield of the investment index that depends on the indices. The method of claim 12, wherein performing the comparative performance evaluation includes evaluating the investment portfolio that depends on the composite performance score of the investment index. The method of claim 12, wherein the determination of the composite index of investment index performance includes combining the indices that depend of actual allocations of funds in the investment portfolio. The method of claim 12, wherein performing the comparative performance assessment includes: determining a composite investment yield score; and evaluate the composite score of investment performance that depends on the composite score of investment index performance. The method of claim 10, wherein performing the benchmarking performance includes: determining a plurality of investment performance scores, wherein each of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment of the portfolio of investments; determining a plurality of investment index performance scores, wherein each of the investment index performance scores corresponds to a respective investment index and wherein the respective investment index corresponds to a respective one of the performance scores of the investment index. wallet; and evaluate each of the performance scores of investment that depend on a respective of the investment index performance scores. The method of claim 10, wherein performing the comparative performance assessment includes: determining a composite investment yield score; determine a composite performance score of the investment index; and evaluate the composite performance score of the portfolio that depends on the composite performance score of the investment index. 18. The method of claim 17, wherein: determining the compound score of the investment index yield includes combining the indexes of the respective investment index that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment. 19. A system, comprising: at least one data processing device; instructions that can be processed by at least one data processing device; and an apparatus from which the instructions can be accessed by at least one data processing device; wherein the instructions are configured to allow at least one data processing device to facilitate: determining a collection of indices, wherein each of the indices corresponds to a respective investment of the investment portfolio; determine a composite performance score of the investment index that depends on the indices; and evaluate the investment portfolio that depends on the composite performance score of the investment index. The system of claim 19, wherein the determination of the composite score of the investment index includes combining the indices that depend on criteria used to design the investment portfolio. The system of claim 19, wherein the determination of the composite performance score of the investment index includes combining indices that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment portfolio. The system of claim 19, wherein the instructions are further configured to allow at least one data processing device to facilitate determining a composite investment performance score, wherein the evaluation of the investment portfolio includes evaluating the composite score of Investment return that depends on the composite score of investment index yield. The system of claim 19, wherein the instructions are configured to allow at least one data processing device to facilitate: determining a plurality of investment performance scores, wherein each of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment of the investment portfolio; determining a plurality of investment index performance scores, wherein each of the investment index performance scores corresponds to a respective investment index and wherein the respective investment index corresponds to a respective one of the performance scores of the investment index. investment; and evaluate each of the investment performance scores that depend on a respective one of the investment index performance scores. 24. A system, comprising: at least one data processing device; instructions that can be processed by at least one data processing device; and an apparatus from which the instructions can be accessed by at least one device data processing; wherein the instructions are configured to allow at least one data processing device to facilitate: determining a plurality of investment performance scores, wherein each of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment of a portfolio of investments; determining a plurality of investment index performance scores, wherein each of the investment index performance scores corresponds to a respective investment index and wherein the respective investment index corresponds to a respective one of the performance scores of the investment index. investment; and evaluate each of the investment performance scores that depend on a respective one of the investment index. The system of claim 24, wherein the instructions are configured to allow at least one data processing device to facilitate: determining a composite score of return on investment; determine a composite performance score of the investment index; and evaluate the composite performance score of investment that depends on the composite performance score of the investment index. 26. The system of claim 25, wherein the determination of the composite index score of the investment index includes combining the indices of the respective investment index that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment portfolio. 27. The system of claim 24, wherein the determination of portfolio investment scores includes combining indices that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment portfolio. 28. A system, comprising: at least one data processing device; instructions that can be processed by at least one data processing device; and an apparatus from which the instructions can be accessed by at least one data processing device; wherein the instructions are configured to allow at least one data processing device to facilitate: determining an asset class that corresponds to an allocated investment of an investment portfolio; and perform a comparative performance evaluation between the assigned investment and a plurality of unallocated investments represented by the asset class. 29. The system of claim 18, wherein: the classes of determining assets depend on at least one of the performance criteria, weights, investment information of the defined data set, filters configured to debug information from the data set of investment and process instructions. 30. The system of claim 29, wherein performing the comparative performance assessment includes: determining a collection of indices, wherein each of the indices corresponds to a respective assigned investment of the investment portfolio; determine a composite performance score of the investment index that depends on the indices. The system of claim 30, wherein the performance of the comparative performance evaluation includes evaluating the investment portfolio that depends on the composite performance score of the investment index. 32. The system of claim 30, wherein the determination of the compound score of investment index performance includes combining indices that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment portfolio. 33. The system of claim 30, wherein the performance of the comparative performance assessment includes: determining a composite score of investment yield; and evaluate the composite score of investment performance that depends on the composite score of investment index performance. 34. The system of claim 28, wherein performing the assessment of comparative performance includes: determining a plurality of investment performance scores, wherein each of the investment performance scores corresponds to a respective investment portfolio of investments; determining a plurality of investment index performance scores, wherein each of the investment index performance scores corresponds to a respective investment index and wherein the respective investment index corresponds to a respective one of the performance scores of the investment index. wallet; and evaluate each of the investment performance scores that depend on a respective one of the investment index performance scores. 35. The system of claim 28, wherein the performance of the comparative performance assessment includes: determining a composite score of investment yield; determine a composite performance score of the investment index; and evaluate the composite performance score of the portfolio that depends on the composite performance score of the investment index. 36. The system of claim 35, wherein: determining the composite performance score of the investment index includes combining the indexes of the respective investment index that depend on actual allocations of funds in the investment.