MYTH: Time Reduces Risk
MYTH: Time Reduces Risk
MYTH: Time Reduces Risk
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
>
>
>
As this decade has progressed and the current credit crisis has
continued to unfold, it is becoming apparent that the science we refer
to as finance, and which is built on Modern Portfolio Theory, has its
shortcomings. Volatility is not a good proxy for risk. Accidents happen.
Things can go wrong and volatility has very little to do with it.
>
>
Virtus Investment Partners has engaged Ineichen Research & Management (IR&M) in the preparation of this material. It is provided for general
information purposes and is not intended as investment advice. IR&M is not affiliated with Virtus Investment Partners and the opinions and views
expressed herein are those of IR&M. Certain content reflects material previously published by IR&M.
November 2014
Time diversification
Over the past 20 years or so there has been a debatesometimes referred to
as the time diversification controversyas to whether time reduces or
diversifies risk, or whether risk is amplified when the investment horizon is
lengthened. There are essentially two camps. One school of thought is that
time reduces risk; the other argues that time increases risk. Conventional
wisdom suggests that over long horizons, above-average returns tend to offset
below-average returns. In addition, volatility decreases with time and the
probability of (end-of-period) loss also falls with time. However, if the
magnitude of potential loss defines risk, then risk increases with time. The
probability, for example, of San Francisco being wiped out by a large
earthquake over the next 200 years is much larger than over the next 200
days. The bottom line is, as Mark Kritzman, a senior lecturer and investor
and an authority on the subject, put it in 2000:
The truth is that risk has no universal definition; rather like beauty, it is
in the eyes of the beholder.
We believe the consensus on the topic is the former, i.e., the idea that time
indeed diversifies risk. The premise of investing in a long-only buy-and-hold
fashion is that short-term volatility is ironed out over the long run. This is true
if risk is defined as volatility (annualized standard deviation of returns). If
one has an investment horizon of 25 years or longer, one has the time to sit
it out and recover from large dislocations in the market. In addition, equities
have a higher probability of outperforming government bonds over 25 years
than over one year. Many institutional investors have the financial stability
and liquidity to handle a downturn in the market, even with a large allocation
to long-only equities. For these plans, any amount not invested in equities
may simply reduce the long-term growth of assets with no offsetting benefit.
We think time diversification is a myth. Time amplifies risk. It is true that the
annual average rate of return has a smaller standard deviation for a longer
time horizon. However, it is also true that the uncertainty compounds over a
greater number of years. Unfortunately, this effect dominates in the sense
that the total return becomes more uncertain the longer the investment
horizon. After all, the long term is nothing more than many short-term
periods joined together.
Page 2
November 2014
As this decade has progressed and the current credit crisis has continued
to unfold (overall debt-to-GDP ratios have risen since the financial crisis,
not fallen), it is becoming apparent that the science we refer to as finance,
and which is built on Modern Portfolio Theory, has its shortcomings.
Volatility is not a good proxy for risk. As the British economist Lord Bauer
put it: A safe investment is an investment whose dangers are not at that
moment apparent. Accidents happen. Things can go wrong and volatility
has very little to do with it. Uncertainty begets risk. Risk, however, can be
actively managed.
100
2019
80
60
40
20
2000
2005
Equities (long-only)
2010
Equities (long-short)
2015
2020
Page 3
November 2014
Equities are expected to rise in the long run; time is supposed to diversify/reduce
risk. However, from January 1990 to August 2014, the Topix Index compounded
at an annual rate of -0.5%. (We have chosen Japan to demonstrate that equity
markets can fall materially and not recover, even in modern times.) The trajectory
in Figure 1 shows the Index assuming compounding continues at a rate of 4%
per year. In theory, mean reversion is one of the most powerful concepts in
finance as dead cats nearly always bounce. However, it doesnt always seem to
work. Or it might take too long to be a practical concept on which to bet. There is
uncertainty regarding the reversion to the mean. Sometimes the cat dies and
thats just the end of the story.
Empirical research suggests that equities go up in the long term, and in the
long term, equities outperform bonds. This is true, especially when ignoring
hyperinflation and gaps in the data. However, the practical issue with the
long term, as British economist John Maynard Keynes so famously put it, is
that you might not live long enough to experience the long term. The
empirical research might be true, but it is of little practical relevance for
most investors. To illustrate this point, Figure 2 shows a selection of
historical equity market peaks (each set to 100), two years prior to peak, and
20 years after the peak.
A long-term investment is a
short-term investment that has
failed.
Saying
The S&P 500 Index reached a peak in 2007 and recovered swiftly. This is
the exception to the rule. It was only possible with unprecedented
intervention from government authorities. The other extremes are the S&P
500 after its 1929 peak and the Nikkei 225 after its 1989 peak: 20 years
after their peaks, the indexes still were underwater by 52% and 73%,
respectively. The Nasdaq Composite, at the time of writing, had not yet
recovered its peak from 14 years ago.
Page 4
November 2014
What is true for equities is true for bonds too. Figure 3 shows another
drawdown chart, in this case U.S. equities and bonds in real terms (adjusted
for inflation), since 1990.
Figure 3: Underwater perspective of U.S. equities and bonds (January 1900 August 2014)
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
While equities can spend a long time underwater, bonds can compound at
a negative rate for a long time too. U.S. bonds started to produce losses
around December 1940 and had not recovered, in real terms, until October
1988, roughly 48 years later. So much for time diversifying risk.
The time diversification controversy is not the only debate with regard to
losses and risk management that has been revisited in the post-2008
financial crisis era. The financial crisis has shown that not everything that
matters can be measured. The idea that time diversifies risk rests on the
assumption that risk can be measuredit cannot, or at least not perfectly. As
practitioners, it makes sense to distinguish between risk and uncertainty.
Page 5
November 2014
The front cover of Risk by John Adams (the U.K. geographer, not the U.S.
president) depicts a black area, with a small square in the lower left and an
even smaller square in the upper right. Adams refers to a 1983 report from
the National Research Council in the U.S. which noted that about five million
different chemical substances are known to exist and that their safety is
theoretically under regulatory jurisdiction. Of these, about 7,000 have been
tested for causing cancer (larger white square in the lower left), while fewer
than 30 have been definitively linked to cancer in humans (small white
square in the upper right identified by the white arrow). The proportion of
each white square and dot to the black space is the same as the proportion of
7,000 tested substances and 30 discovered carcinogenic substances to the
five million chemical substances. Adams calls the dark space darkness of
ignorance. We just do not know the carcinogenic effects of most substances.
Our knowledge is limited. The same is true in finance. We dont know much
about the future. There is an extreme asymmetry between the little we do
know and what we dont. There is uncertainty. If you think about it this way,
equating risk with volatility of traded securities becomes a rather silly
endeavor. This suggests that the theory on which the idea of time
diversification rests is either false or not applicable for most investors.
One important aspect of risk management is the term unknown unknowns.
In finance, we tend to distinguish between risk and uncertainty, also
known as Knightian Uncertainty, named after American economist Frank
Knight (1885-1972). When discussing matters related to risk, we assume we
know the distribution from which destiny will pick future events (quite often
a normal distribution is assumed). This is the reason why financial textbooks
always discuss coin flipping games or examples with dice or roulette tables.
In these instances, the probabilities can be calculated exactly. Uncertainty is
not the same as risk though. It is a term used in subtly different ways in a
number of fields, including philosophy, statistics, economics, finance,
insurance, psychology, engineering, and science. It applies to predictions of
future events, to physical measurements already made, or to the unknown.
Page 6
November 2014
Concluding remarks
It goes without saying that, for practical purposes, it is uncertainty that
matters, not risk. We can apply rigorous quantitative analysis to matters
related to risk, but not to uncertainty. Many practitioners have moved away
from normal distributions and pretentious mathematical precision, strongly
influenced by Nassim Talebs work and the learning by doing experience
that was the financial crisis. To deal with uncertainty requires thought and,
most likely, common sense. Frank Knight argued that profits should be
defined as the reward for bearing uncertainty.
The diversification ideato many the only free lunch in financeis based on
the premise that we dont know the future. If we knew that wind farms would
yield the best 10-year point return, there would be no need to care about risk
or time diversification. Diversification is for those who know what they dont
know. All other investors either dont know what they dont know or bought
into a potentially false doctrine from which the only cure is substantial
losses. Learning by doing is an important adage in risk management and
experience a cruel and expensive teacher.
Page 7
November 2014
Page 8