Minimize Your Risk Without Lowering Overall Returns
Published:
March 6, 2008
As much as we would like the market to steadily increase and make us rich in the process, we know that this can't always be the case. Every once in awhile the market goes through a period of increased volatility. Marked with uncertainty, these times are filled with sudden twists and turns that are enough to make even the most hardened market observers a little dizzy.
When the waters become increasingly choppy, you might be wondering if there's anything you can do to keep your portfolio on an even keel, short of stuffing money under the mattress. After all, risk and reward always go hand in hand. Yet, that doesn't mean that you can't take steps right now to help keep that risk to a minimum — while leaving your expected rewards unchanged.
The Road Less Traveled
Most of us naturally gravitate toward funds that have produced superior historical returns. However, not everyone stops to evaluate just how much risk shareholders were subjected to in order to achieve those returns.
For the sake of illustration, consider a fund that delivered stable returns of +8% in 2005, +8% in 2006, and +8% again in 2007. Now, imagine another fund that posted a gain of +6% in 2005, a loss of -2% in 2006, and then a gain of +21% in 2007.
Both would have turned a $10,000 investment into nearly $12,600 over the three-year period, for a cumulative gain of +26%. However, which of the two would you rather own? Most likely you would take the first, because it provided a much smoother path to the exact same destination.
Of course, in the real world it's unrealistic to expect to encounter such a choice. But the underlying premise remains the same. If two funds with similar fees and portfolio composition provided the same returns, but one took a more direct route and experienced narrower price swings along the way, then it is probably your best bet.
Reading the Fine Print
While it only makes sense to avoid overly volatile funds, in practice many investors don't even bother to conduct more than a cursory background check — looking up historical returns is easy; evaluating risk metrics can be trickier. However, it only takes a few minutes to get a grasp on the basics — which are explained in plain English below.
When attempting to mitigate the impact of a volatile market, carefully consider each of the following:
Beta — Beta is a useful way to gauge volatility and determine whether or not a fund moves in tandem with an underlying benchmark. A beta of 1.0 means a fund marches perfectly in lock-step with the benchmark index, while anything above or below 1.0 implies the fund typically moves faster or slower. For example, a fund with a beta of 0.5 against the S&P 500 is generally half as volatile as the index and can reasonably be expected to drop just -2% in a period when the market loses -4%.
Keep in mind, a properly diversified portfolio has little to do with the number of funds inside it, but rather the way those funds work together. Whenever one group of securities is moving down, there should be another somewhere else that is moving sideways, or even up. Evaluating fund betas and holding a variety of different asset classes with low correlation can be a great way to smooth out the inevitable bumps in the market.
Standard Deviation — Standard deviation is another widely used measure of volatility. Essentially, standard deviation tells us how widely a security's returns are scattered around its average return. Clearly, a fund that is up +40% one year and down -22% the next is more volatile (and thus has a higher standard deviation) than one that gains +12% one year and loses just -6% the next.
But remember, different asset classes will have different standard deviation ranges, so it's important to compare figures from within the same category. As a rule of thumb, standard deviations for small-cap stocks, large-cap stocks and bonds have averaged roughly 16%, 12%, and 4%, respectively, over the past five years.
Sharpe Ratio — The Sharpe ratio is calculated by determining a fund's excess returns over the risk-free rate (usually the rate U.S. Treasuries are paying) and then dividing by its standard deviation.
Any fund can outperform the risk-free rate, but all must take on a certain degree of risk to do so. By factoring standard deviation into the equation, we get an idea of not only a fund's raw returns, but also how the manager has done on a risk-adjusted basis — the higher the Sharpe, the more impressive the performance.
For example, assume that a fund with annualized returns of +14% over the past three years has a standard deviation of 9%. If the risk-free rate over this time frame was +3%, then the fund would have a Sharpe ratio of 1.22. Written out, that calculation would be: ((14%-3%)/9%).
Generally speaking, any Sharpe ratio above 1.0 is considered good and anything greater than 2.0 is exceptional.
Alpha — Alpha is considered by many to be the Holy Grail for professional money managers and the best barometer of whether or not they earn their keep. The actual calculation can be somewhat complex. But in simple terms, alpha captures the excess risk-adjusted returns that a fund earns above that implied by its beta.
In other words, alpha gives us an idea of how much of a fund's returns can be explained by savvy investment decisions, beyond those that come from just drifting with the overall flow of the market.
Alpha and beta work hand in hand. As a simplified example, if a fund's beta is 1.2 relative to the S&P 500 and the index posts an annual return of +10%, then we can expect the fund to have delivered a gain of +12%. However, if the actual return was higher, say +15%, then the manager clearly added value — and alpha measures that value.
Think of alpha as a way of measuring "bang for the buck", the higher the figure, the more value a manager brings to the table for fundholders. The Big Picture
Like other financial metrics, risk and volatility measures such as beta and standard deviation have their flaws and shouldn't be used in isolation. However, when taken together, these data points can present an accurate depiction of whether or not a fund's shareholders are being adequately rewarded for the risk they have assumed.
While it can be seem complicated at first, risk analysis is a vital part of the investment process utilized by all successful investors. And in a recent issue of The ETF Authority, editor Nathan Slaughter scoured the investment universe for securities that provide some of the biggest payouts for the least amount of risk. In the process, Nathan found a fund that has returned +1,395% over the last two decades and another that doubled the S&P's performance over the last five years — with roughly the same amount of risk. To learn more about The ETF Authority, including how to access Nathan's profiles of these funds, please visit this link.
As much as we would like the market to steadily increase and make us rich in the process, we know that this can't always be the case. Every once in awhile the market goes through a period of increased volatility. Marked with uncertainty, these times are filled with sudden twists and turns that are enough to make even the most hardened market observers a little dizzy.
When the waters become increasingly choppy, you might be wondering if there's anything you can do to keep your portfolio on an even keel, short of stuffing money under the mattress. After all, risk and reward always go hand in hand. Yet, that doesn't mean that you can't take steps right now to help keep that risk to a minimum — while leaving your expected rewards unchanged.
The Road Less Traveled
Most of us naturally gravitate toward funds that have produced superior historical returns. However, not everyone stops to evaluate just how much risk shareholders were subjected to in order to achieve those returns.
For the sake of illustration, consider a fund that delivered stable returns of +8% in 2005, +8% in 2006, and +8% again in 2007. Now, imagine another fund that posted a gain of +6% in 2005, a loss of -2% in 2006, and then a gain of +21% in 2007.
Both would have turned a $10,000 investment into nearly $12,600 over the three-year period, for a cumulative gain of +26%. However, which of the two would you rather own? Most likely you would take the first, because it provided a much smoother path to the exact same destination.
Of course, in the real world it's unrealistic to expect to encounter such a choice. But the underlying premise remains the same. If two funds with similar fees and portfolio composition provided the same returns, but one took a more direct route and experienced narrower price swings along the way, then it is probably your best bet.
Reading the Fine Print
While it only makes sense to avoid overly volatile funds, in practice many investors don't even bother to conduct more than a cursory background check — looking up historical returns is easy; evaluating risk metrics can be trickier. However, it only takes a few minutes to get a grasp on the basics — which are explained in plain English below.
When attempting to mitigate the impact of a volatile market, carefully consider each of the following:
Beta — Beta is a useful way to gauge volatility and determine whether or not a fund moves in tandem with an underlying benchmark. A beta of 1.0 means a fund marches perfectly in lock-step with the benchmark index, while anything above or below 1.0 implies the fund typically moves faster or slower. For example, a fund with a beta of 0.5 against the S&P 500 is generally half as volatile as the index and can reasonably be expected to drop just -2% in a period when the market loses -4%.
Keep in mind, a properly diversified portfolio has little to do with the number of funds inside it, but rather the way those funds work together. Whenever one group of securities is moving down, there should be another somewhere else that is moving sideways, or even up. Evaluating fund betas and holding a variety of different asset classes with low correlation can be a great way to smooth out the inevitable bumps in the market.
Standard Deviation — Standard deviation is another widely used measure of volatility. Essentially, standard deviation tells us how widely a security's returns are scattered around its average return. Clearly, a fund that is up +40% one year and down -22% the next is more volatile (and thus has a higher standard deviation) than one that gains +12% one year and loses just -6% the next.
But remember, different asset classes will have different standard deviation ranges, so it's important to compare figures from within the same category. As a rule of thumb, standard deviations for small-cap stocks, large-cap stocks and bonds have averaged roughly 16%, 12%, and 4%, respectively, over the past five years.
Sharpe Ratio — The Sharpe ratio is calculated by determining a fund's excess returns over the risk-free rate (usually the rate U.S. Treasuries are paying) and then dividing by its standard deviation.
Any fund can outperform the risk-free rate, but all must take on a certain degree of risk to do so. By factoring standard deviation into the equation, we get an idea of not only a fund's raw returns, but also how the manager has done on a risk-adjusted basis — the higher the Sharpe, the more impressive the performance.
For example, assume that a fund with annualized returns of +14% over the past three years has a standard deviation of 9%. If the risk-free rate over this time frame was +3%, then the fund would have a Sharpe ratio of 1.22. Written out, that calculation would be: ((14%-3%)/9%).
Generally speaking, any Sharpe ratio above 1.0 is considered good and anything greater than 2.0 is exceptional.
Alpha — Alpha is considered by many to be the Holy Grail for professional money managers and the best barometer of whether or not they earn their keep. The actual calculation can be somewhat complex. But in simple terms, alpha captures the excess risk-adjusted returns that a fund earns above that implied by its beta.
In other words, alpha gives us an idea of how much of a fund's returns can be explained by savvy investment decisions, beyond those that come from just drifting with the overall flow of the market.
Alpha and beta work hand in hand. As a simplified example, if a fund's beta is 1.2 relative to the S&P 500 and the index posts an annual return of +10%, then we can expect the fund to have delivered a gain of +12%. However, if the actual return was higher, say +15%, then the manager clearly added value — and alpha measures that value.
Think of alpha as a way of measuring "bang for the buck", the higher the figure, the more value a manager brings to the table for fundholders. The Big Picture
Like other financial metrics, risk and volatility measures such as beta and standard deviation have their flaws and shouldn't be used in isolation. However, when taken together, these data points can present an accurate depiction of whether or not a fund's shareholders are being adequately rewarded for the risk they have assumed.
While it can be seem complicated at first, risk analysis is a vital part of the investment process utilized by all successful investors. And in a recent issue of The ETF Authority, editor Nathan Slaughter scoured the investment universe for securities that provide some of the biggest payouts for the least amount of risk. In the process, Nathan found a fund that has returned +1,395% over the last two decades and another that doubled the S&P's performance over the last five years — with roughly the same amount of risk. To learn more about The ETF Authority, including how to access Nathan's profiles of these funds, please visit this link.
If you're looking for both high yields and enormous capital gains, then you need to learn more about our "Income Security of the Month" for February 2008. This stable, diversified fund has a long track record of paying some of the biggest dividends in Wall Street history. In fact, the fund has paid an average dividend of 22.1% per year over the past five years — nearly 12X greater than the yield delivered by the S&P!
This fund invests exclusively in one of the fastest-growing and most undervalued foreign markets on the planet. Thanks in large part to its international strategy, the fund has posted total returns of +281.7% over the past five years, and it ranks in the top 12% of its category over the past decade.Undervalued
Stock of the Month
Our favorite value stock for December 2007 has pulled back -51% from
its highs. As a result, bargain hunters now have a rare opportunity to
pick up one of the world's most dominant companies with a "Price
Appreciation Potential" of +91%.
Top Ten Stocks for 2008
StreetAuthority.com
founder Paul Tracy and our research staff just put the finishing
touches on an in-depth 25-page special report entitled
"StreetAuthority's Top Ten Stocks for 2008." After hundreds of hours of
research, due diligence and healthy intra-company debate, we've managed
to narrow the vast investing universe down to just ten stocks that we
think are poised to deliver above-average returns not only throughout
the 2007 calendar year, but also in the years that follow.
Why You're Not Hearing About 93% of the World's Highest-Yielding Stocks...
Income
Investors: Think back to the most generous yield of any stock you've
ever had the good fortune to own. Now triple it. That just hints at
the kind of cash flow you can pocket right now from the special stocks,
bonds and funds you'll find in the brand-new investment service I want
to tell you about today.
Comments