Accepting high volatility for high long-term returns
"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it.  By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions.  But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution.  I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things ""average out"" over time.  If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical.  Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return.  You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion.  When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks?  In many cases, less risks.  This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills).  When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk.  Buying risky securities adds to that risk.  When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky.  You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so.  But I can't be sure." Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence.  However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing.  If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one.   However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably.  If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals.  This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings.  This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat:  Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'.  It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner. "Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets.  This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve.  As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them.  This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return.  Sooner or later, ""the trade"" becomes ""crowded"".  Eventually, large amounts of money try to ""exit the trade"" (into cash or the next discovered asset).  And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:"
When volatility is higher, the option is more likely to end up in-the-money. Moreover, when it ends up in-the-money, it is likely to be over the strike price by a greater amount. Consider a call option. With high volatility, moves in the stock price are big - both up moves and down moves. If the stock moves up by a lot, the call option holder will benefit greatly. On the other hand, when the stock moves down, below a certain point the option holder does not care how big a down move the stock has. His downside is limited. Hence, the value of the option is increased by high volatility. I know everyone who searches this is looking for this answer. Bump so people are able to get this concept instead of looking all over the web for it. "Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes.  However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing.  People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive ""rent"" as ""dividend"") or live in it (foregoing dividends).  Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves.  For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale.  Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved.  A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain.  For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for ""speculative"" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis.  Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale).  It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria." No I get that.  But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds.  Long term an S&amp;P Index has very low risk.  On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had.  I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&amp;P Indexes after fees.  Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s. Since near-term at-the-money (ATM) options are generally the most liquid, the listed implied vol for a stock is usually pretty close to the nearest ATM volatility, but there's not a set convention that I'm aware of.  Also note that for most stocks, vol skew (the difference in vol between away-from-the-money and at-the-money options) is relatively small,  correct me if I'm wrong, IV is the markets assessment that the stock is about 70% likely (1 Standard Deviation) to move (in either direction) by that percent over the next year. Not exactly.  It's an annualized standard deviation of the anticipated movements over the time period of the option that it's implied from.  Implied vol for near-term options can be higher or lower than longer-term options, depending on if the market believes that there will be more uncertainty in the short-term.  Also, it's the bounds of the expected movement in that time period. so if a stock is at $100 with an implied vol of 30% for 1-year term options, then the market thinks that the stock will be somewhere between $70 and $130 after 1 year.  If you look at the implied vol for a 6-month term option, half of that vol is the range of expected movement in 6 months. "You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments.  Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you ""buy low, sell high""." Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed   Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund   delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping   this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically.  The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of   owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a   superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their   shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains   distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be   forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no   disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than   in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock.  However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here. Can't totally agree with that. Volatility trading is just one trading type of many. In my opinion it doesn't depend on whether you are a professional trader or not.  As you might have heard, retail traders are said to create 'noise' on the market, mainly due to the fact that they aren't professional in their majority. So, I would assume, if an average retail trader decided to trade volatility he would create as much noise as if would have been betting on stock directions. Basically, most types of trading would require a considerable amount of effort spent on fundamental analysis of the underlying be it volatility or directional trading. Arbitrage trading would be an exception here, I guess. However, volatility trading relies more on trader's subjective expectations about future deviations, whereas trading stock directions requires deeper research of the underlying. Is it a drawback or an advantage? I.d.k. On the other hand-side volatility trading strategies cover both upward and downward movements, but you can set similar hedging strategies when going short or long on stocks, isn't it? To summarise, I think it is a matter of preference. Imagine yourself going long on S&P500 since 2009. Do you think there are many volatility traders who have outperformed that? Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example?   Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x.  Additionally, say daily return covar is:  * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02%   Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future.  Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda  * TLT  $126.04  $126.00  $4.35  0.50  14.5 * SPY  $134.91  $134.00  $6.26  0.55  11.8  ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off.   I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here.    I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T. I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky. I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.)  It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.)   This is what I was thinking:  * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage.  I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money.  By the way, thanks for your time. For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham:  An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted.  The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows.  After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities. This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today.  The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob "If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever ""long term"" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones.  Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence ""momentum"" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of ""daily rebalancing"" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad.  If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a ""real world"" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing." If you are going to be a long term investor you are only going to buy and hold. You will not sell. Thus future price is not relevant. Only dividend payout is relevant. Divide the dividend by the price you paid to get the yeald.  Edit:  once again the sitesite will not allow me to add a comment, so I have to edit a previous post...  What you call 'active investor' is not really investing, it is speculating. When you try to 'buy low, sell high' you have, at best, a 50-50 chance of picking the low. You then pay a commission on that buy. After you buy then you have a 50-50 chance, at best, of picking the high. You also have to pay the commission on the sell. 50% times 50% is 25%.So you have, at best a 25% chance of buying low and selling high. You are churning your account which makes money for the broker whether you make money or not. If, instead, you buy and hold a dividend paying security then the going price is irrelevant. You paid for the security once and do not have to pay for it again. Meanwhile the dividends roll in forever. 'Buy low, sell high' is a fools game. Warren Buffet does not do it, he buys and holds. With the netural position delta strategy under high IV returns short vega,there is a possibility to profit from a decline in IV. Of course, if volatility rises higher, the position will lose money. It is therefore best to establish short vega delta-neutral positions when implied volatility is at levels that are in the 90th percentile ranking.