Risk Return Trade off

RISK RETURN TRADE OFF

When the going gets tough, the wise get out until it is calm, says research.

The risk-return exchange off is the rule that potential return ascends with an expansion in chance. Low levels of vulnerability or risk are related to low potential returns, while abnormal amounts of vulnerability or risk are related with high potential returns.

[pic 1]

“If you can keep your head when all others are losing theirs, it’s just possible that you haven’t grasped the situation .” That was how the American satirist Jean Kerr updated Rudyard Kipling’s poem, and new the financial research suggested that she was up to something.

As per the risk-return trade off, contributed cash can render higher benefits just if the financial specialist will acknowledge the likelihood of misfortunes. 
 
The suitable risk-return exchange off relies on an assortment of elements including risk resilience, years to retirement and the possibility to supplant lost assets. Time can likewise assume a basic part in deciding a portfolio with the highly suitable levels of risk and reward.

[pic 2]

It also adds to the growing supply of data suggesting we should re-examine the traditional financial view that investment is about trading off risk and return, with greater risk ultimately rewarded with greater return.

According to new research by Alan Moreira and Tyler Muir, two academics at Yale University’s School of Management, the correct response to an increase in volatility — and with it, risk — is to exit the market. The time to re-enter is only when the volatility has already started to subside.

This means not buying until the market has bottomed and started to recover, and also implies selling when the market has already started to fall down. But over time, it still beats the returns from simply buying the market and holding it which doesn’t make sense. And it also rather worryingly contradicts the widespread belief, based on much research, that higher volatility creates a great opportunity for a brave person who opposes or rejects this popular opinion to buy at the bottom.

Their research involved a strategy which on average is 100 per cent exposed to the stock market. According to the volatility experienced in that month, it then adjusts the amount it holds in the market at the end of each month. As volatility increases compared to its average, it leaves stocks and goes into cash. In periods of very low volatility it can borrow to invest. The same exercise was performed for the different factors which have always beaten the market over time like value stocks, smaller companies and stocks with positive momentum and it was also applied to the “carry trade” strategy in foreign exchange.

In all the cases, using timing to exit the market as volatility increases turned out to raise long-term returns as compared to a straight and simple “buy and hold” strategy. Further, the advantage widened when the academics looked at risk-adjusted returns. Using the Sharpe ratio — the standard measure for judging returns compared to the amount the returns vary — volatility-timing improved returns in all the US factors the academics examined.

Do these findings mean the complete reversal of our notion of the risk-return trade-off?