I'm sure you're probably thinking that the difference between a 14.85 % portfolio volatility and a 14.71 % volatility is negligible, especially considering that the higher
volatility portfolio actually outperformed on a pre-dividend basis.
Not exact matches
«Folks may have an inclination to do drastic things in
portfolios to insulate themselves from higher
volatility when in fact we think the backdrop would
actually portend the exact opposite,» Mills told CNBC's «Futures Now» in a recent interview.
The long - run return from foreign - exchange hedging before costs arguably is zero, so a disciplined
portfolio that rebalances can
actually benefit from that greater
volatility.
This can
actually lower the total
portfolio's
volatility.
As pension funds, hedge funds and mutual funds recovered from the crisis, traders,
portfolio managers and treasurers said in interviews with Global Finance that their exposure to derivatives is
actually increasing as a means of hedging against further
volatility in the markets.
«We pay no heed to the day - to - day
volatility of our
portfolio, and
actually prefer the prices of our stocks drop and drop until our
portfolios are full up.»
While tracking error
volatility makes sense and is easy to calculate, it only infers what the manager is doing in the
portfolio and does not
actually look at the underlying holdings.
It is invested primarily in the credit market, not so much in government bonds because government bond yields are so low, but we're looking for absolute returns even if interest rates go up, so some of the
portfolio, a significant piece of it
actually, is floating rate, so if interest rates go up, you just get higher cash flows, which will support higher returns, and the rest of the
portfolio is in relatively short maturity bonds, which will have some price
volatility and if there's bad market conditions, will have temporary losses, so the goal is to offer something that is absolute returns.
It may look like you beat the market, but if the
volatility of your
portfolio was double that of the market, the market
actually beat you.
It is highly questionable whether further stock
portfolio refinements will
actually ever yield better future results in term of either lower
volatility or higher returns.
In fact, there's evidence that adding currency diversification
actually lowers the
volatility of a
portfolio — at least for Canadian investors.
Bonds prices fluctuate less than currency movements, so if you don't use hedging you will
actually increase the
volatility of your
portfolio without increasing your expected return.
Whether you're simply being prudent by doing some advance planning or you're concerned that the recent market
volatility is a prelude to an imminent crash, you're right to start thinking about how to transition your
portfolio to a more conservative stance well before you
actually retire.
Unfortunately, it wasn't'til late - 2016 / early - 2017 I finished off building / averaging in to most of these new holdings, so only recently have I finally been able to express this overall
portfolio thesis in terms of individual stock write - ups — my rash of posts re Applegreen (APGN: ID), Record (REC: LN)(which was
actually the new
Volatility allocation I mentioned in this Aug - 2016 post), and Alphabet (GOOGL: US)(Company D in this Jan - 2016 post) are good examples.
Similar to high school chemistry, this piece discusses the concept of combining two risky asset classes, commodities and equities, to
actually reduce overall
portfolio volatility.
The somewhat surprising part is that adding a most volatile asset class like commodities to a lower
volatility equities
portfolio can
actually reduce the equity
portfolio's
volatility.
As a result, it's really not so clear how the Alpha & Beta
portfolios actually stack up in terms of respective
volatility / return.