Question from a reader: risk premium, volatility and returns
JP asked me: "When investing money, we are always asked about our risk profile (low, medium or high) as an investor. Are the higher risk investment portfolios truly more volatile than low and medium? On the long run, statistically, will higher risk truly pay more? By how much? Is there data/analysis to support this?"
Excellent question. I did see a research that showed two portfolios, one high risk, one conservative and both had the same return on the long run. I can't remember where I've seen that, but the returns where around 10% which looks like the TSX average over a longer term.
The reason I don't want to dig too much into that aspect of this, is that even if in some cases, higher risks would pay more, my investing philosophy and what I want readers to get out of this blog is:
- lower fees (ETFs, direct low fee brokers) is better
- lower volatility is better (you sleep better at night)
- diversification is safer (especially if you achieve diversification in less correlated investments)
- trying to beat the market (indexes) is very hard
- buy low, sellh high (obvious, but basically, buy when everything just crashed and sell when everybody is excited and buys Nortel at 120$ or buys energy stocks at a time like now)
A column in MarketWatch summarizes very well what I'm talking about. (I was happy to find this because otherwise I would have had no proof of my philosophy!.) Their title: