• Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Best Of
Amateur Asset Allocator

Do Stocks Get Less Risky With Time?

2008 June 26
by Kyle
from → Investing And Investments, Portfolio

Do stocks get less risky with time?  That’s actually an interesting question and the answer, as with most things, is “it depends.”  For most of our investing lives, it’s been beat into our head by the more responsible financial gurus that stocks are for the long term.  That is, if you value your wealth you don’t buy a stock hoping it will go up tomorrow.  Rather, you buy a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks and hold them for years if not decades.  Over 20 years, we’re told, the stock market has never lost value.  This is true.  But does that necessarily mean stocks become less risky with time?

Not According To Modern Portfolio Theory

It is absolutely true that stocks become less risky in an absolute sense.  That is, you probably aren’t going to lose money in the market over a 20 year period in nominal terms.  Your account balance will at least be larger than it was at the start.  That’s a good thing and for most people, that’s probably good enough.  They, quite rationally, look at risk as the chance of permanent loss. 

But modern portfolio theory measures risk differently.  To the portfolio manager, risk is simply the degree to which returns differ at the end of any given period i.e. risk is volatility of returns.  In portfolio theory parlance, this is measured by standard deviation.  If returns are more or less normally distributed, there is approximately a 66% chance that next year’s result will fall within one standard deviation of the average return (arithmetic mean, in this case) and a 95% chance it will fall within two standard deviations of the average. 

For a real world example, take Vanguard’s Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX).  Over the past few years, it’s had a mean return of 8.6 %and a standard deviation of 9.15% which means there is about a 66% chance next year’s return will be between -0.55% and 17.75% and a 95% chance next year’s return will be between -9.7% and 26.9%.  Not bad odds.  What this means for long-term investors, though, is that due to the long-term affects of compounded returns, the variability of outcomes can be monumental.  Over 40 years, $10,000 will turn into $361,100 at 9% per year but over $537,000 at 10% per year, a difference of almost 49%!  And that’s only a 1% per year difference.  Run the numbers with 2 or 3% and the differences are truly mind-boggling.  From a portfolio perspective, the volatility and thus risk of these returns are very high so in a very real way, time actually INCREASES the risks of the stock market.  The real-world takeaway from all this is that investment costs matter!  Even differences of as little as 0.5% per year can have a dramatic impact on the value of your portfolio at retirement.  If you don’t believe me, run the numbers yourself.

  • Share this on PFBuzz
  • Share this on Tipd
  • Share this on del.icio.us
  • Digg this!
  • Share this on Reddit
  • Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
  • Share this on Facebook
  • Tweet This!
  • Add this to Google Bookmarks
  • Share this on Technorati
  • Share this on Mixx
  • Share this on Tumblr
  • Email this to a friend?
Blog Traffic Exchange Related Posts
  • Mutual Fund Companies Often Make Better Investments Than The Funds They Manage
  • Risk Avoidance vs Risk Tolerance
  • Target Retirement Funds Future Expectations: Vanguard vs Fidelity vs T Rowe Price
  • Forecasting Stock Returns Using Macroeconomic Growth Factors
  • The Four Best Mutual Funds For Your IRA
Blog Traffic Exchange Related Websites
  • What Is Loan Modification?
  • Ask The Expert with Larry Swedroe, January 2008 Issue
  • I want my 401(k) back!
  • The Marketplace Survey for April -- More and Better Listing Volume
  • Weekend Reads and the Stock Market Retesting the Lows?
4 Responses leave one →
  1. 2008 July 1
    Rob Bennett permalink

    My view is that the riskiness of stocks always depends on the valuation level that applies on the day the stocks are purchased. So stocks bought today (when prices are sky-high) are a lot more risky than the number above (which do not include an adjustment for today’s valuations) suggest.

    However, the historical data indicates that that risk does diminish over time. Stocks purchased at today’s prices may well provide a poor return for 10 years or even 20 years. After 30 years, however, even stocks purchased at high prices should provide good returns.

    Rob

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Investment Costs Matter | Amateur Asset Allocator
  2. Credit Card Brains » Carnival of Personal Finance #161: The “Feeling Renewed” Edition
  3. Profiting from Stats Class: Reversion to the Mean - Amateur Asset Allocator
Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Get Free Updates

Get the latest and the greatest news delivered for free to your reader or your inbox:

RSS Feed Email Updates Twitter
  • Popular Articles

    • Tradeking Review
    • Top 5 Budget Date Ideas
    • 11 Things To Do Immediately When You Get Laid Off
    • The Four Best Mutual Funds For Your IRA
    • Top 4 Money Wasters In Your 20's
    • The 8 Levels Of Passive Income
    • Pros And Cons Of Variable Annuities
    • Annualcreditreport.com Is The ONLY Official Site To Get Your Free Credit Report
    • Which Mutual Fund Company Is Best For Your IRA?
    • How To Use Variable Annuities The Right Way
    • Is Your Safety Deposit Box Really Safe?
  • Recent Articles

    • Warren Buffett’s Record Is Not Evidence The Efficient Market Hypothesis Is Wrong
    • Four Important Metrics To Compare Index Funds
    • An Infinite Return On Investment Is Impossible, Even In Real Estate
    • Weekend Link Love: Confederation Cup Edition
    • Detroit Gaining On Japan In Auto Quality Rankings
    • REITS Vs Rental Properties
    • My Home Lost 18.6% Of Its Value In 2008
    • 4 Quick Money “Fixes” That Will Put You In The Poor House
    • Money Market Vs High Yield Savings Account
    • 120 Minus Your Age In Stocks: The New Asset Allocation Rule Of Thumb
    • A Government “Pay Czar?” Come On, Obama
    • 24kg (53lbs) Kettlebell: Best $100 I Ever Spent
    • Weekend Link Love
    • Vanguard Star Fund (VGSTX): The Ultimate Fund For Beginners?
    • Case Study: Building A Niche Mini Site
  • Sponsored Links

  • Recommended

    • Unconventional Success review
    • The Millionaire Mind review
    • The Intelligent Asset Allocator review
    • All About Asset Allocation review
  • Archives

    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • About
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
  • Categories

    • 401k/IRA
    • Annuities
    • Asset Allocation
    • Asset Classes
    • Book Reviews
    • Business
    • Career and Jobs
    • Charity
    • Commentary
    • Credit Cards And Reporting
    • Economy
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Frugality
    • General
    • Index Funds
    • Insurance
    • Investing And Investments
    • Mutual Funds
    • News
    • passive income
    • Personal finance
    • Portfolio
    • real estate
    • Retirement
    • Taxes
    • Travel
  • Blogroll

    • Consumerism Commentary
    • Five Cent Nickel
    • Free Money Finance
    • pfblogs.org
    • PFBuzz
    • Punny Money
    • Quest For Four Pillars
    • The Dividend Guy
    • The Personal Financier
  • finance blog network

    • Passive Family Income
    • Penny Jobs
    • Rich Credit Debt Loan
    • Saving To Invest
  • Other Links

    • Learn Spanish On Your Own
    • Learn Spanish On Your Own - My Spanish Blog

Copyright 2009 Amateur Asset Allocator

Vigilance Theme by Jestro