ITA Wealth Management

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lifetime Membership
  • Portfolios
    • Bethe Portfolio
    • Bohr Portfolio
    • Carson Portfolios
    • Dirac Portfolio
    • Einstein Portfolio
    • Franklin Portfolio
    • Galileo Portfolio
    • Gauss Portfolio
    • Huygens Portfolio
    • Kahneman-Tversky Portfolio
    • Kepler Portfolio
    • McClintock Portfolio
    • Millikan Portfolio
    • Pauling Portfolio
    • Rutherford Portfolio
    • Schrodinger Portfolio
  • Forum
  • Reset Password
  • Contact Me
  • ITA Feedback
  • About Me
You are here: Home / Portfolio Management / Risk Management / Risk Parity: A 60/40 Stock/Bond Portfolio Is Not Conservative

Risk Parity: A 60/40 Stock/Bond Portfolio Is Not Conservative

January 17, 2014 By Lowell Herr

This blog will make a lot more sense if you are able to capture and read Edward Qian’s article, Risk Parity Allocation.  This blog post is a brief description of how risk is calculated.  This not for the mathematically squeamish, but the concept is not difficult if one can get past one step in the logic.  I should mention that I am somewhat skeptical of Risk Parity as a portfolio construction model and the reason is that this model worked very well so long as interest rates were dropping and bonds continued to appreciate in value as a result.  That trend is not going to continue so it is unlikely Risk Parity will have a future to match past performance.  Nevertheless, it is an interesting concept and one worth examining.  Here at ITA we are risk aware and use several triggers to prevent huge losses as a result of bear markets.

A standard portfolio breakdown between stocks and bonds is 60%/40%.  Most investors will argue this is a well-diversified and somewhat conservative portfolio.  It is certainly more conservative than most of the ITA Wealth Management portfolios.  But is the 60/40 mix a conservative portfolio?  I just checked my data sources and found that the standard deviation (SD) of stocks over the past five years is +/-16% and the SD for bonds is +/-3%.  However, when one takes variance into account, we must square each number so the 16% has a variance of 256 and for bonds it is 3 x 3 or 9.  In terms of variance, stocks are (256/9 = 28.4) or 28 when rounded) times riskier than bonds.  That is a huge difference.  Even if stocks carried a standard deviation of 15% and bonds 5%, in terms of variance, stocks are nine times riskier than bonds.

To borrow an analogy from Edward Qian, if we go back to the 60/40 stock to bond split, we have six stock eggs and four bond eggs.  To calculate the true risk of stocks we find we have 172 (28 x 6 + 4) eggs in total.  One hundred sixty eight (28 x 6 = 168) out of 172 is approximately 98%.  Very close to 100% of the 60/40 portfolio of risk is carried by the stock portion of the portfolio.

It is important to think how a portfolio is put together and ITA readers would do well to pay attention.  The 70/30 or even 80/20 mix is fine when stocks are in the ascendency.  But let another bear market strike, and the high stock to bond portfolios are in for another two to three sigma shakedown.  That is exactly what we want to avoid.  If we were to build a conservative portfolio around the concept of Risk Parity, we would need a 10/90 stock/bond ratio and to do so would cripple the portfolio return.  This is why we use SHY as a cutoff ETF and also factor in the price of the ETF with respect to its 195-Day EMA.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Risk Management Tagged With: Risk Management

Meta Data

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Search

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

  • Kepler Portfolio Update: 16 April 2021 April 16, 2021
  • Aristotle Portfolio Review: 15 April 2021 April 14, 2021
  • Over-Valued Market Update: Four Critical Indicators – April 2021 April 13, 2021
  • Gauss Portfolio Review: 13 April 2021 April 13, 2021
  • Portfolio Performance With Same Starting Date: 31 July 2019 April 11, 2021
  • Rutherford Portfolio Review (Tranche 4) – 9 April 2021 April 10, 2021
  • Bullish Percent Indicators: 9 April 2021 April 10, 2021

Recent Comments

  • Phil Coleman on Rutherford Portfolio Review (Tranche 4) – 9 April 2021
  • Lowell Herr on Kepler Portfolio Update: 16 April 2021
  • HedgeHunter on Kepler Portfolio Update: 16 April 2021
  • Lowell Herr on Kepler Portfolio Update: 16 April 2021
  • Steven Lefley on Kepler Portfolio Update: 16 April 2021
  • Lowell Herr on Kepler Portfolio Update: 16 April 2021
  • HedgeHunter on Gauss Portfolio Review: 13 April 2021
  • Stellaluna on Gauss Portfolio Review: 13 April 2021
  • Stellaluna on Gauss Portfolio Review: 13 April 2021
  • HedgeHunter on Gauss Portfolio Review: 13 April 2021

Users Online

4 Users Online
Users: Scott Fritchie, 1 Guest, 2 Bots

Popular Posts

  • Over-Valued Market Update: Four Critical Indicators – April 2021 53 views | 2 comments
  • Relative Portfolio Performance: 8 April 2021 50 views | 2 comments
  • Modified Kipling Workbook with Risk Ratios 46 views | 0 comments
  • Rutherford Portfolio Review (Tranche 3) – 1 April 2021 40 views | 2 comments
  • Rutherford Portfolio Review (Tranche 4) – 9 April 2021 34 views | 1 comment
  • Gauss Portfolio Review: 13 April 2021 33 views | 6 comments
  • Quick Look At Kepler: 3 April 2021 32 views | 2 comments

General Investment News

Portfolios coming up for review are:  Franklin, Huygens and Schrodinger.  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.

Contact me at itawealth@comcast.net if interested in a Lifetime Membership.  Current Platinum members will be grandfathered into a Lifetime Membership before the end of 2021.

Random Posts

  • What Is On The Other Side Of The 3 x 5 Card?
  • Orpheus Chamber Orchestra Featuring Albinoni, Purcell, Bach, Corelli, Handel and Vivaldi
  • Is There an Advantage in Splitting a Portfolio into Tranches? – Part 4: Combining Momentum with Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA)
  • Copernicus Portfolio Review: A Passive Model
  • The Feynman Study: Part 6-2
  • Are We Missing Something As DJI Hits New High?
  • The Importance of Algorithms
  • The Feynman Study: Part 6-1
  • Ring of Fire Rendition: A Music Interlude
  • The Feynman Study: Part 6-5

Log in | Website Design by BOING