ITA Wealth Management

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Guest Registration
  • Lifetime Member
  • Forum
  • Reset Password
  • Contact Me
  • About Me
You are here: Home / Critical Material / How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective

May 11, 2021 By HedgeHunter

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective 1

Winter in Ontario

Last week, Lowell posted a blog asking the question “How Risky is Your Portfolio?”  and reminded us that portfolio returns are a function of the expected returns from the assets in our “quiver” and the risk associated with these assets as represented by their volatility.

I thought I would try to provide another perspective on this topic by trying to illustrate (without quantifying) the complexity of this dilemma by providing some visualizations.

Let’s start by taking a look at the performance of the US equity markets since 2003 through the eyes of the SPY ETF:

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective 2

From the above figure we can see that SPY has increased in value from a dividend-adjusted price of ~ $64 on 02 January 2003 to ~$422 today. This calculates to a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.4%. But, as we can see, this comes at the expense of high volatility at times – the annualized volatility of SPY over this period calculates to 19%. Note that this is close to Lowell’s 18.5% value for the most recent 5-year period.

Of course, history is interesting but, as investors, we would like to be able to predict where we might go in the next couple of years.

From an academic point of view we can try to simulate “expected” performance by taking the historical data (10.4% CAGR : 19% Volatility) and using this to generate a Gaussian distribution (Bell Curve) of daily returns with a mean of 10.4%/252 (adjusted for daily sampling) and with a Standard Deviation of 19%/sqrt(252):

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective 3

This is shown (blue curve) in the above figure.  Although it is difficult to see in the above figure, the positive expected returns are reflected by the fact that the mean (peak of the curve) is located slightly to the right of the zero line.  The +/– 1 Standard Deviation returns are marked by the blue dashed vertical lines.

From this we can generate simulated stock behaviour by selecting random returns from the above distribution curves and assuming Geometrical Brownian Motion (GBM).

Let’s see what this looks like. But first, let’s look at the actual behavior of SPY over the past 2 years:

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective 4

This period includes the Covid-19 pullback in 2020 but price has increased from ~$275 to ~$425 (average 27% annual return) over this 2-year period – returns that far out-perform the longer term average (10.4%).

So let’s see what simulated charts might have looked like. These simulations start with price at ~$275 (actual price) 2 years ago and simulate possible price paths over a 2-year period based on the assumptions of Geometric Brownian Motion (GBM):

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective 5

The above plot shows 50 possible paths based on the historical return distributions for SPY.  As we can see, there is significant variance – including paths with losing returns. Due to the fact that actual performance of SPY over the past 2 years has exceeded  historical performance, only 5 (10%) of the above paths result in better performance.

Although these simulations can be criticized because they assume a normal Gaussian distribution of returns (do not include a skew that exists in “the real world” and include “fat tails”) and the simple model does not include impulse effects (flash crashes) and assumes that volatility is constant (that it certainly is not)  – even without adjustments for these effects it should be obvious that variance is extremely large.

At the end of the day, actual performance does fall within this envelope – but the envelope is large.

Let’s now take a look at Bonds – as represented by AGG:

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective 6

Actual prices from 2003 to present show a 4.2% CAGR with a volatility of 4.98%.  This volatility is higher than Lowell’s number for the past 5 years (3.15%) but does represent average performance over ~18+ years.

This distribution is reflected by the yellow/orange curve in figure 2.  Obviously the 1 SD limits (dashed vertical lines) are much narrower than for SPY, reflective of the lower volatility.

Looking at the actual performance of AGG over the past 2 years:

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective 7

We see a smoother curve (with the exception of the March 2020 Covid-19 meltdown – note that correlations broke down and Bonds did not provide a hedge for equities) with an average annual return of ~5% (cf 4.2% CAGR).

If we generate simulated GBM paths over this 2 year period we get the following picture:

How Risky is Your Portfolio? – Another Perspective 8

again enveloping the actual path that falls close to the center of the envelope.

The two GBM graphs provide a visual re-enforcement of what we already know – that although assets with lower volatility, such as bonds, come with less risk ((narrower envelope) than assets with higher volatility, this comes at the expense of lower returns.

So, what does all this mean? – not too much except to demonstrate the degree of uncertainty that we face when we invest.

Diversity between assets can help reduce portfolio risk – but even this fails when historical correlations (e.g. inverse equity/bond correlations) break down – and these usually do so in periods of severe meltdown/distress (Covid-19 shock).

The only message that comes out of this is that investment is hard and having long term staying power to weather the storms is essential in order to get through it.  Diversification and position sizing can help reduce volatility (risk) so these aspects of investment should not be ignored.  These simulated plots also show why timing/review date luck can play a significant role in determining portfolio performance – especially in the short term.

I hope this post provides readers with an interesting “visual” perspective of market behavior.

David

 

 

(Visited 44 times, 1 visits today)
facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet
FollowFollow us
PinterestSave

Filed Under: Critical Material, Risk Management Tagged With: Critical Material, Risk Management

Popular Posts

  • 2022 Guidelines for Relative Strength Portfolios
  • Hindsight is 2021 – A Year-End Retrospective and…
  • Protected: Modified Kipling Workbook with Risk Ratios
  • Preparing Investments for 2022
  • The True Cost of Management Fees
  • Response to Comments made by ITA member (John Shelton)
  • Using Volatility as a Diversifier and a Portfolio Hedge
  • Investment Policy Statement: February 2022
  • Hawking Portfolio Review – 1 April 2022
  • Dual Momentum Investing by Gary Antonacci

General Investment News

Portfolios coming up for review are:  Kepler, Bohr, and Franklin.  Non-scheduled portfolios may be reviewed.  If you are a new user, check the posts you missed. Links to Random Posts are found in the lower right-hand footer or just to the right of what you are now reading.  Most popular posts are found in the lower left-hand footer.

Check the Forum for more detailed information.  If you wish to begin a financial discussion, use the Forum.

Contact me at itawealth@comcast.net if interested in a Lifetime Membership.  Long-time Platinum members are now Lifetime members and this blog is free to all who signup as a Guest.  A few blogs are reserved for Lifetime members.

Random Posts

  • Huygens Portfolio Review: 20 May 2021
  • Bohr Interim Update: 25 January 2022
  • Schrodinger Portfolio Update: 8 November 2021
  • Debunking Dividend Fallacies
  • Huygens Portfolio: Interim Examination In Early July 2021
  • Schrodinger Portfolio Review: 27 September 2021
  • Kahneman-Tversky Portfolio Review: 1 April 2022
  • Huygens Portfolio Review: 25 June 2021
  • Darwin Portfolio Review – 26 October 2021
  • Response to Comments made by ITA member (John Shelton)
  • Millikan Portfolio Review: 11 May 2021

Log in | Website Design by BOING