In brief the comment makes no attempt to assess an individuals Capacity for loss.
The U.K. regulator the FCA defines capacity for loss as;
” a client's
ability to absorb falls in the value of their investment
. If any loss of capital would have a
detrimental effect on their standard of living, this should be taken into account when assessing the risk the client is able to take.”
There is no one size fits all solution when it comes to determining a suitable and appropriate portfolio which is consistent with a client’s risk profile and capacity for loss.
When constructing investment portfolios, it is essential that we understand exactly what we mean by “
Investment Risk”.
Many, if not most, investors see risk though a myopic lens of short-term volatility, that is to say the rapid changes in price of say the Stock market compared to, say, a bank account.
Whilst it is true in the short-term that a bank account “
seems” safer than an investment in the market, when looked at over the longer term, historically at least, the bank account has struggled to keep pace with inflation and savers have “lost out” to the additional wealth created by global capital markets.
Are you a saver or investor?
The first step when thinking about any investment decision is to establish if you intend to
consume all of the cash under consideration over a term of 5 years or less?
By
consume we mean that they are saving up for a specific
purchase which will use the cash such as the purchase of a car or a house. These are not investment decisions, and the correct advice is to save in a traditional bank account/State Savings. However, if you do not intend to consume all the capital in the short-term, then, you are, by definition an
investor.
Investment objectives
So, we do not say that our objective is say that are
“saving for our retirement” we are “
investing for our retirement” and short-term volatility should not be a relevant consideration for anyone with a sufficiently long-time horizon.
Time horizon
Over the long term, the risk of investing in capital markets is reduced and returns will move toward long-term historical averages. The longer the time horizon, the greater the capacity for risk as the short-term volatility of the markets loses its significance.
The blue line shows the average expected return, in this case around 3%pa over inflation. The orange and red lines indicated the range of returns around this average with a 50% and 95% probability respectively over 1 to 10 years.
The “slice through” graph illustrates the range of expected returns over a one-year time horizon.
We can see that although we expect the return to average about 5%pa there is considerable short-term uncertainty as the returns are expected to lie between -12% and plus 23% in any given year.
Whereas over 10 years the expected range of returns for the same portfolio looks like this
The distribution of expected returns is now much closer to the annual average return ranging from around -2.5% to +10%pa on a rolling 10-year investment term.
Net Worth
Example - Differences in capacity to tolerate risk.
Let's consider the fate of three investors who each see a 50% drop in the value of their portfolios.
C. Montgomery Burns - Mr. Burns is over 100 years old and has made billions as a captain of industry. According to Forbes Magazine his estimated net worth is $16.8 billion.
Homer Simpson - Homer is in his late-50s and works as a safety inspector in Mr. Burns' nuclear plant. He has a family to support and is slowly nearing retirement. We'll be generous and give him a retirement portfolio of $100,000.
Bart Simpson - At age 10, Bart is just beginning his investment career. His current net worth is $500.
A loss of 50% would drop Mr. Burns down to a paltry $8.4 billion. While Burns would no doubt be incensed at the loss, $8.4 billion should still be sufficient for his needs given his age. Bart, too, has the capacity to absorb a financial hit of 50%. He has many years to continue saving and investing before he needs to think about retirement.
Homer, however, does not have the financial capacity to tolerate risk, even though he might be more than willing to gamble it all away on some ill-conceived risky investment. He has a family to support and less than a decade left until retirement. A 50% drop in the value of his portfolio would be potentially crippling. |
Those with
high income and high wealth can make higher risk investments because they have money coming in regardless of the market conditions.
A higher net worth allows an investor to be able to bear more risk in their portfolio. However, this does not necessarily mean that they need to take more risk. For many High-Net-Worth investors, wealth preservation is more important than increasing their wealth.
Risk tolerance or willingness to take risk
When making investment decisions, clients will be asked to complete a risk profile questionnaire. You may have considered your tolerance to risk in the past, and may have thought of this in terms of a scale of 1 to 10. Many people would say they fall somewhere between 3 and 5, but what does that actually mean and how can this information be used effectively when constructing an investment portfolio?
On average we are all average so without thinking about it, most people should be in the middle of a risk tolerance distribution. Even at that, Risk is subjective, and an individual’s attitude to risk can vary depending on how well their investments are performing. When investments are performing well there is a tendency to downplay the risks and when they are performing poorly, to assume them to be much greater than they actually are.
We believe that picking an investment based on the result of a risk profile questionnaire is a flawed approach and is the financial services equivalent of “painting by numbers”
For most investors, the importance of risk is an understanding of how much they are
prepared to lose. In reality, investors need to distinguish between short-term volatility and the risk of a permanent loss of capital.
For example, a saver with more than €100,000 in an Irish Bank has a risk of a permanent loss of capital of everything above the bank guarantee. What’s more, this is an uncompensated risk. They are not being paid a premium interest rate to reflect the small but highly damaging possibility of the potential for a permanent capital loss.
Likewise, an employee with a position in their employer’s Stock is also taking a high risk of a permanent loss of capital and this would be a catastrophe as they would also most likely lose their job at the same time as their investment.
Enron was a classic example of this.
So, when considering risk, we need to consider both probability (how likely something is to happen) AND impact (what is the most likely result of the event)
| Bank account with more than €100k | Globally diversified stock portfolio |
Probability of loss | Very small | 2.5% chance of a 40% decline occurring in any one year |
Impact of loss | Catastrophic – loss is uninsured and uncompensated | Temporary. Markets often recover these losses over subsequent years |
We can see that the probability of a loss in the stock market is higher, but the impact is lower
Marc Westlake CFP, TEP, APFS, QFA, EFP
Chartered, Certified and European Financial Planner
Registered Trust & Estate Practitioner
Everlake