This board has been migrated to our new platform! Check out the new home page at discussion.fool.com or click below to go directly to the new Board on the new site.
The respected solasis says that risk is not equal to volatility, at least for the unleveraged person. I concur.So why does all the advertising and PR say "Reduce risk by diversifying among asset classes!" ? Is that just advertiser's bunk?I think that when talking about Risk, it makes more sense to define risk as the probability of a particlular event happening. (Being able to retire comfortably, where comfortably is $50,000 a year, inflation adjusted.) This makes sense for certain groups of people (middle-aged, approaching retirement). It can be simulated using a Monte Carlo method (as does www.financialengines.com) or using other statistical techniques.Solasis mentions a scenario where volatility is closely tied to risk-- my guess is that since T-bills' market values are extremely interest rate sensitive, a small change in interest rates is likely to cause a margin call, which is a risk that can determine the probability.However, it doesn't make sense for me, recently graduated from college:- I don't know my future earnings, & can't predict 'em- I don't know my expenses,- I don't know what % I'll be able to save,- I don't know how much I'll withdraw for retirement.In such a vacuum of information, I can't use the previous measure of risk. Is there a relevant one for me?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
My Fool |