Risk and return revisited
24 Nov. 2017
Author
Roberto Plaja
A brief, mostly pictorial, history of the last ten years in the markets
A brief, mostly pictorial, history of the last ten years in the markets
A brief, mostly pictorial, history of the last ten years in the markets
“Though shalt always earn a return on your money” is written nowhere. Yet due to the continuing success of who has gone “risk on”, forgotten the switch and remained invested for the last few years, any intimation of prudence has fallen on deaf ears.
Once upon a time (ten or so years ago, but it feels much earlier than that) there was a normal “risk curve.” All assets were lined up along the horizontal axis, in order of increasing level of risk, with their corresponding expected returns shown on the vertical axis. For example, cash paid a nominal positive return, bonds would yield somewhat higher than cash and equities higher still. Life in the markets looked like this:
Once upon a time (ten or so years ago, but it feels much earlier than that) there was a normal “risk curve.” All assets were lined up along the horizontal axis, in order of increasing level of risk, with their corresponding expected returns shown on the vertical axis. For example, cash paid a nominal positive return, bonds would yield somewhat higher than cash and equities higher still. Life in the markets looked like this:
“Though shalt always earn a return on your money” is written nowhere. Yet due to the continuing success of who has gone “risk on”, forgotten the switch and remained invested for the last few years, any intimation of prudence has fallen on deaf ears.
Once upon a time (ten or so years ago, but it feels much earlier than that) there was a normal “risk curve.” All assets were lined up along the horizontal axis, in order of increasing level of risk, with their corresponding expected returns shown on the vertical axis. For example, cash paid a nominal positive return, bonds would yield somewhat higher than cash and equities higher still. Life in the markets looked like this:
Once upon a time (ten or so years ago, but it feels much earlier than that) there was a normal “risk curve.” All assets were lined up along the horizontal axis, in order of increasing level of risk, with their corresponding expected returns shown on the vertical axis. For example, cash paid a nominal positive return, bonds would yield somewhat higher than cash and equities higher still. Life in the markets looked like this:
Figure 1
Figure 1
Investors were more or less happily set with their objectives and distributed their assets accordingly (with a few clueless ones hobbling along):
Investors were more or less happily set with their objectives and distributed their assets accordingly (with a few clueless ones hobbling along):
Figure 2
Figure 2
Then came the financial crisis and the Fed decided to protect the “system” by aggressively lowering interest rates (green arrow) and keeping them there for a long time. The risk curve slowly but surely moved like this:
Then came the financial crisis and the Fed decided to protect the “system” by aggressively lowering interest rates (green arrow) and keeping them there for a long time. The risk curve slowly but surely moved like this:
Figure 3
Figure 3
The move in the risk curve was also the result of investors who, realizing the semi-permanent nature of the Fed’s policy (and coining the term “new normal” as they went along), decided to deviate from their objectives and went on to bid up asset prices across the risk curve. They began migrating en masse towards riskier assets and portfolios (the clueless, still hobbling, were now joined by a few mad ones because some investors are always mad):
The move in the risk curve was also the result of investors who, realizing the semi-permanent nature of the Fed’s policy (and coining the term “new normal” as they went along), decided to deviate from their objectives and went on to bid up asset prices across the risk curve. They began migrating en masse towards riskier assets and portfolios (the clueless, still hobbling, were now joined by a few mad ones because some investors are always mad):
Figure 4
Figure 4
In the rush to avoid low or negative cash rates (like the plague), most investors felt essentially “forced” to seek higher risks and forgot that they still had to face the same level – or higher – of potential drawdowns in the future:
In the rush to avoid low or negative cash rates (like the plague), most investors felt essentially “forced” to seek higher risks and forgot that they still had to face the same level – or higher – of potential drawdowns in the future:
Figure 5
Figure 5
In summary, we went from:
In summary, we went from:
Figure 6
Figure 6
to:
to:
Figure 7
Figure 7
and in the process, some investors became very rich.
But now we all know this phenomenon is unlikely to repeat itself over the next 7-10 years, especially because interest rates are still very low. The “new normal”, in other words, is likely to return abnormal again. Investors are starting to feel a bit like in Figure 8 (all clueless and still the same mad ones):
and in the process, some investors became very rich.
But now we all know this phenomenon is unlikely to repeat itself over the next 7-10 years, especially because interest rates are still very low. The “new normal”, in other words, is likely to return abnormal again. Investors are starting to feel a bit like in Figure 8 (all clueless and still the same mad ones):
But now we all know this phenomenon is unlikely to repeat itself over the next 7-10 years, especially because interest rates are still very low. The “new normal”, in other words, is likely to return abnormal again. Investors are starting to feel a bit like in Figure 8 (all clueless and still the same mad ones):
Figure 8
Figure 8
This is why prudence may not be such a bad idea: lower-risk assets yield less but are safer. To put it another way, if asset prices are high, and prospective asset returns are low (as the current risk curve indicates), why keep positions unchanged? Why not buy some “insurance” by favoring a more prudent investment strategy?
Unless of course you are one of those rare earthlings with extraterrestrial abilities, capable of getting in and out of the markets at exactly the right time. Even then, it pays to remember: just because you got away with it does not mean you didn’t take any risk.
Find that “risk off” switch. Now.
Unless of course you are one of those rare earthlings with extraterrestrial abilities, capable of getting in and out of the markets at exactly the right time. Even then, it pays to remember: just because you got away with it does not mean you didn’t take any risk.
Find that “risk off” switch. Now.
This is why prudence may not be such a bad idea: lower-risk assets yield less but are safer. To put it another way, if asset prices are high, and prospective asset returns are low (as the current risk curve indicates), why keep positions unchanged? Why not buy some “insurance” by favoring a more prudent investment strategy?
Unless of course you are one of those rare earthlings with extraterrestrial abilities, capable of getting in and out of the markets at exactly the right time. Even then, it pays to remember: just because you got away with it does not mean you didn’t take any risk.
Find that “risk off” switch. Now.
Unless of course you are one of those rare earthlings with extraterrestrial abilities, capable of getting in and out of the markets at exactly the right time. Even then, it pays to remember: just because you got away with it does not mean you didn’t take any risk.
Find that “risk off” switch. Now.
This is why prudence may not be such a bad idea: lower-risk assets yield less but are safer. To put it another way, if asset prices are high, and prospective asset returns are low (as the current risk curve indicates), why keep positions unchanged? Why not buy some “insurance” by favoring a more prudent investment strategy?
Unless of course you are one of those rare earthlings with extraterrestrial abilities, capable of getting in and out of the markets at exactly the right time. Even then, it pays to remember: just because you got away with it does not mean you didn’t take any risk.
Find that “risk off” switch. Now.
Unless of course you are one of those rare earthlings with extraterrestrial abilities, capable of getting in and out of the markets at exactly the right time. Even then, it pays to remember: just because you got away with it does not mean you didn’t take any risk.
Find that “risk off” switch. Now.
This is why prudence may not be such a bad idea: lower-risk assets yield less but are safer. To put it another way, if asset prices are high, and prospective asset returns are low (as the current risk curve indicates), why keep positions unchanged? Why not buy some “insurance” by favoring a more prudent investment strategy?
Unless of course you are one of those rare earthlings with extraterrestrial abilities, capable of getting in and out of the markets at exactly the right time. Even then, it pays to remember: just because you got away with it does not mean you didn’t take any risk.
Find that “risk off” switch. Now.
Unless of course you are one of those rare earthlings with extraterrestrial abilities, capable of getting in and out of the markets at exactly the right time. Even then, it pays to remember: just because you got away with it does not mean you didn’t take any risk.
Find that “risk off” switch. Now.
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
See all Insights →
Autorisation
Social Media
Navigation
Documents
Language
© SIMPLEWEALTH AG 2015 — 2022.
MADE WITH ❤️ IN BEAUTIFUL
MADE WITH ❤️ IN BEAUTIFUL
Investing implies your capital is at risk. The value of your account depends on market movements and you may get back less than you invest.
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Unless otherwise specified, all return figures shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not actual customer or model returns. Actual returns will vary greatly and depend on personal and market conditions.
Simplewealth AG is a Swiss-based advisory service, designed to assist clients in achieving discrete financial goals. We are not intended to provide comprehensive tax advice or financial planning with respect to every aspect of a client's financial situation and do not incorporate specific investments that clients hold elsewhere.
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charges and expenses.
Client securities accounts at Interactive Brokers LLC are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") for a maximum coverage of $500,000 (with a cash sublimit of $250,000) and under Interactive Brokers LLC's excess SIPC policy with certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London 1 for up to an additional $30 million (with a cash sublimit of $900,000) subject to an aggregate limit of $150 million. Futures and options on futures are not covered. As with all securities firms, this coverage provides protection against failure of a broker-dealer, not against loss of market value of securities. For the purpose of determining an Interactive Brokers LLC client account, accounts with like names and titles (e.g. John and Jane Smith and Jane and John Smith) are combined, but accounts with different titles are not (e.g. Individual/John Smith and IRA/John Smith). SIPC is a non-profit, membership corporation funded by broker-dealers that are members of SIPC.
All your investments are insured. Up to USD 500k
2
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charge sand expenses.
How your assets can grow?
1