Stingy Investor Contact - Subscribe - Login
  Home | Articles | Screens | Links | SNW | Rothery Report
 
The merry-go-round beats the roller coaster

I have fond summer memories of rushing through the gates of my local amusement park and riding the roller coasters all day long. Up and down, round and round. It was grand fun. Alas, advancing decrepitude makes riding the metal monsters an exercise in nausea these days. They're almost as bad as the stock markets which are currently providing a wild enough ride of their own. If you're also turning a little green, I've some good news. You can hold placid lower-risk stocks and still achieve market-topping returns.

The notion that low-risk stocks outperform runs in direct contradiction to much of 20th century academic thinking on the markets. After all, you've probably heard that you have to take on more risk to earn higher returns.

Problem is, it's only partially true. Better expressed, you should avoid extremes and opt for moderation. At the low risk end you effectively pay a high price for guarantees. For instance, short-term government bonds provide parsimonious yields in exchange for some certainty. At the other end of the risk spectrum lottery tickets tend to be rather poor bets except in a few very rare circumstances.

When it comes to stocks, high risk often yields poor returns. For proof, let's take a little diversion into risk measurement. I'll use beta as my risk measure due to its popularity. Beta puts a number on the tendency of stocks to move in sync with the markets. It is related to a combination of how volatile a stock is and how closely it is correlated with the market as a whole. Both factors are important.

Roughly speaking, stocks with a beta of 1 tend to move in sync with the market. Those with a beta of 0 tend to move independently of the market, while stocks with high betas tend to fluctuate more than average. Low beta stocks are deemed to be safer while high beta stocks are thought to be riskier.

If theory holds true, high-beta stocks should carry a risk premium and you should be rewarded for taking the risk of holding them. Problem is, investors haven't been paid this premium according to Eric Falkenstein which he explains in Finding Alpha: The Search for Alpha When Risk and Return Break Down. In the book he explores risk and reward in many fields from private equity, currencies, and corporate bonds to more unusual areas such as movie development and sports betting. He shows that taking really big risks is a poor bet across a wide spectrum of human endeavour. You might hear about the few winners, but the numerous losers rarely make a peep.

Let's look at his data on stocks. Falkenstein tracks five stock portfolios based on beta from 1962 to 2010 and compares the returns to those of the S&P500. The first stock portfolio is formed by picking 100 stocks with the highest betas and the second contains 100 stocks with the lowest betas. The remaining portfolios focus on the 100 stocks with betas closest to 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 respectively. The portfolio were rebalanced every six months and the long-term results shown in the accompanying graph.

Return vs Beta Graph

A few things should jump out at you. First, high beta stocks were very bad bets over the long-term. While the S&P500 posted average annual returns of 8.3% over the whole period, the high beta group only gained 0.6% a year. They underperformed by a whopping 7.7 percentage points annually. Second, you'd have beaten the market by about 2 percentage points annually by simply opting for moderate-to-low beta stocks.

What's going on here? Why aren't investors compensated for holding risky stocks? I tend to favour a behavioural explanation. Simply put, people love playing the lotto even though it is a losers game. When they enter the stock market they tend to opt for riskier stocks, push prices far too high, and thereby reduce future returns. While I'm not convinced this is a complete explanation, it goes a long way.

Practically speaking, the lesson is to stick to lower risk stocks. As it happens, some new exchange traded funds (ETFs) aim to do the heavy lifting for you.

Russell recently launched a pack of 'factor' ETFs that track both high and low beta stocks. They come in two flavours. One set tracks stocks in the large-cap Russell 1000 index and the other follows small stocks in the Russell 2000. In addition, if beta isn't your thing, you can also buy volatility-based ETFs instead. Details for each ETF are shown in the accompanying table. Just be warned, these ETFs are new offerings, tend to trade infrequently, and may have wide bid-ask spreads. So, be sure to do your due diligence and be careful when trading. They aren't for everyone.

Even if the new fangled ETFs aren't for you, it's a good idea to stick to dull and boring stocks which, rather remarkably, seem to have the tendency to outperform over the long haul. Even better, the ride isn't nearly so gut wrenching.

Factor ETFs for managing portfolio risk
Exchange Traded FundSymbolNet ExpensesBeta
Russell 1000 High Beta ETFHBTA0.49%1.3
Russell 1000 Low Beta ETFLBTA0.49%0.6
Russell 1000 High Volatility ETFHVOL0.49%1.2
Russell 1000 Low Volatility ETFLVOL0.49%0.9
Russell 2000 High Beta ETFSHBT0.69%1.9
Russell 2000 Low Beta ETFSLBT0.69%0.8
Russell 2000 High Volatility ETFSHVY0.69%1.5
Russell 2000 Low Volatility ETFSLVY0.69%1.1
Source: Russelletfs.com, Beta calculated vs Russell 3000 as of June 30, 2011


First published in the Globe and Mail, August 2011.

  MoneySense Articles
 Cdn Top 200 2016
 US Top 500 2016
 Retirement 100: 2015
 Cdn Top 200 2015
 US Top 500 2015
 Retirement 100: 2014
 Cdn Top 200 2014
 US Top 500 2014
 Retirement 100: 2013
 Cdn Top 200 2013
 US Top 500 2013
 Retirement 100: 2012
 Buffett Buys
 FB IPO
 Stocks that pay
 Value in the S&P500
 Cdn Top 200 2012
 US Top 500 2012
 Retirement 100: 2011
 Where to invest $100k
 Where to invest $10k
 Summer Simple Way
 A crystal ball for stocks?
 Cheap & safe
 Risky business
 Cdn Top 200 2011
 US Top 500 2011
 Retirement 100
 Dividend investing
 Value investing
 Momentum investing
 Low P/E P/B
 Dividends
 Dividend growers
 Cdn Top 200 2010
 US Top 500 2010
 Graham's prescription
 Income 100: 2009
 The case for optimism
 Cdn Top 200 2009
 U.S. Top 500 2009
 Wicked investments
 Simply spectacular
 Income 2008
 Small stocks, big profits
 Cdn Top 200 2008
 US Top 500 2008
 Value that sizzles
 So simple it works
 Income 100
 No assembly required
 Investing by the book
 Cdn Top 200 2007
 US Top 500 2007
 Invest like the masters
 A simple way to get rich
 Top Trusts 2006
 Stocks for cannibals
 Car bites dogs
 Cdn Top 200 2006
 US Top 1000 2006
 So easy, so profitable
 Top Trusts 2005
 Dogs of the Dow
 Top 200 2005
 Money for nothing
 Yield of dreams
 Return of the master

MoneySaver Articles
 2 Graham Stocks for 2017
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2016
 5 Graham Stocks for 2016
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2015
 3 Graham Stocks for 2015
 3 Stingy Stocks for 2014
 4 Graham Stocks for 2014
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2013
 6 Graham Stocks for 2013
 9 Stingy Stocks for 2012
 8 Graham Stocks for 2012
 Simple Way 2011
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2011
 7 Graham Stocks for 2011
 Simple Way 2010
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2010
 8 Graham Stocks for 2010
 Simple Way 2009
 Timing Temptation
 19 Stingy Stocks for 2009
 4 Graham Stocks for 2009
 Simple Way 2008
 Active at Passive Prices
 Unbundling ETFs 2008
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2008
 5 Graham Stocks for 2008
 Is your index too active?
 Graham's Simple Way
 Canadian Graham Stocks
 5 Stingy Stocks for 2007
 8 Graham Stocks for 2007
 Top SPPs
 The Simple Way
 A hole in your IPO?
 Monkey Business
 8 Stingy Stocks for 2006
 Graham Stock Gainers
 Blue-Chip Blues
 Are Dividends Safe?
 SPPs for 2005
 Graham's Simplest Way
 Selling Graham Stocks
 RRSP Money Market Funds
 Stingy Stocks for 2005
 High Performance Graham
 Intelligent Indexing
 Unbundling Canadian ETFs
 A history of yield
 A Dynamic Duo
 Canadian Graham Stock
 Dividends at Risk
 Thrifty Value Stocks
 Stocks in Short Supply
 The New Dividend
 Hunting Goodwill
 SPPs for 2003
 RRSP: don't panic
 Desirable Dividends
 Stingy Selections 2003
 10 Graham Picks
 Growth Eh?
 Timing Disaster
 Dangerous Diversification
 The Coffee Can Portfolio
 Down with the dogs
 Stingy Selections
 Frugal Funds
 Graham Revisited
 Just Spend It
 Ticker Temptation
 Stock Mortality
 Focus on Fees
 SPPs for the Long Term
 Seeking Solid Stocks
 Relative Strength
 The VR Approach
 The Irrational Investor
 Value Investing

Globe & Mail Articles
 Indexing advice
 Media-shy stocks
 Curse of size
 Market uncertainty
 Be even lazier
 Scary beats safe
 Small, illiquid, value
 Use the numbers
 What value is good value?
 Sculpt for value
 Value vs CAPE
 Graham Rules
 CAPE vs PeakE
 Top value ratio
 Low Beta
 Value and dividends
 Walter Schloss
 Try unloved AIG
 Why I'm a value investor
 New world of ETFs
 Low P/Es possible
 10 yielders
 Be happier
 Long-Short
 Dividend Downside
 Shiller's P/E
 Copycat investing
 Cashing in on class
 Index roulette
 Theory collides
 Diving too deep
 3 retirement villains
 Scourge of inflation
 Economic omens
 Analyst Expectations
 Value stock scarcity
 It's all in the index
 How to pick good funds
 Low Beta Wins
 Hunt for dividend stocks
 Think garage sale

Advisor's Edge Articles
 Passive Rebundling
 Doing the math

Norm Speaks
Flip Books

Tools:
 Asset Mixer
 Periodic Table
 ETF Fee Calculator



 
About Us | Legal | Contact Us
Disclaimers: Consult with a qualified investment adviser before trading. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, financial advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. More...