Diversification versus Risk

by
Frank Shostak
My articles My booksMy videos
Follow on:

It is widely held that financial asset prices fully reflect all available and relevant information, and that adjustments to new information is virtually instantaneous. This way of thinking which is known as the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is closely linked with the modern portfolio theory (MPT), which postulates that market participants are at least as good at price forecasting as any model that a financial market scholar can come up with, given the available information.1

It is held that asset prices respond only to the unexpected part of any information, since the expected part is already embedded in prices. According to MPT, the individual investor cannot outsmart the market by trading based on the available information since the available information is already contained in asset prices.

This means that methods, which attempt to extract information from historical data, such as fundamental or technical analysis, are of little help. For whatever an analyst will uncover in the data is already known to the market and hence will not assist in “making money.” Changes in asset prices occur because of news, which cannot be predicted in any systematic manner.

The proponents of the MPT argue that if past data contains no information for the prediction of future prices, then it follows that there is no point in paying attention to fundamental analysis. A simple policy of random buying and holding will do the trick as asserted by one of the pioneers of the MPT, Burton G. Malkiel, in his famous book A Random Walk Down Wall Street.

Malkiel also suggests that “A blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a newspaper’s financial pages could select a portfolio that would do just as well as one carefully selected by the expert.”2

MPT Indicates Diversification Reduces Investment Risk

A security whose returns are not expected to deviate significantly from its historical average is termed by MPT as low risk. A security whose returns are volatile from year to year is regarded as risky. MPT assumes that investors are risk averse and they want high guaranteed returns. To comply with this assumption the MPT instructs investors how to combine stocks in their portfolios to give them the least possible risk consistent with the return they seek. MPT shows that if an investor wants to reduce investment risk, he should practice diversification.

The basic idea of MPT is that a portfolio of volatile stocks (i.e. risky stocks) can be combined together and this in turn will lead to a reduction in overall risk. The guiding principle for combining stocks is that each stock represents activities that are affected by given factors differently. Once combined, these differences will cancel each other out, thereby reducing the total risk.

The theory indicates that risk can be broken into two parts. The first part is associated with the tendency of returns on a stock to move in the same direction as the general market. The other part of the risk results from factors peculiar to a particular company. The first part of the risk is labeled systematic risk, the second part, unsystematic. According to MPT, through diversification only unsystematic risk is eliminated. Systematic risk cannot be removed through diversification. Consequently, it is held that the return on any stock or portfolio will be always related to the systematic risk, i.e. the higher the systematic risk the higher the return.

The systematic risk of stocks captures the reaction of individual stocks to general market movements. Some stocks tend to be more sensitive to market movements while other stocks display less sensitivity. The relative sensitivity to market moves is estimated by means of statistical methods and is known as beta. (Beta is the numerical description of systematic risk). If a stock has a beta of 2 it means that on average it swings twice as much as the market. If the market goes up 10% the stock tends to rise 20%. If however, the stock has a beta of 0.5 then it tends to be more stable than the market.

Does the MPT Framework Make Sense?

The major problem with the MPT is that it assumes that all market participants arrive at a rational expectations forecast. This, however, means that all market participants have the same expectations about future securities returns. Yet, if participants are alike in the sense of having similar expectations, then why should there be trade? After all, trade implies the existence of different expectations. This is what bulls and bears are all about. A buyer expects a rise in the asset price while the seller expects a fall in the price.

Even if we were to accept that modern technology enables all market participants equal access to news, there is still the issue of news interpretation. The MPT framework implies that market participants have the same knowledge. Forecasts of asset prices by market participants are clustered around the true value, with deviations from the true value randomly distributed, implying that profits or losses are random phenomena.

It also means that since, on average, everybody knows the true underlying value then no one will need to learn from past errors since these errors are random and therefore any learning will be futile. Yet, if every individual has different knowledge, then this difference will have an effect on his forecast. A success or a failure in predicting asset prices will not be completely random, as the MPT suggests, but must also be attributed to each individual’s knowledge. In the words of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “If everyone’s knowledge were identical to everyone else’s, no one would have to communicate at all. That men do communicate demonstrates that they must assume that their knowledge is not identical.”3

The Stock Market Does Not Have a Life of its Own

The MPT framework gives the impression that the stock market can exist separately from the real world. However, the stock market does not have a life of its own. That is why an investment in stocks should be regarded as an investment in a business as such, and not just as an investment in stocks. On this Rothbard says in “America’s Great Depression” p.79 “that the stock market tends to reflect the “real” developments in the business world.”

By becoming an investor in a business, an individual has engaged in an entrepreneurial activity. He has committed his capital with a view to supply the most urgent needs of consumers. For an entrepreneur the ultimate criteria for investing his capital is to employ it in those activities which will produce goods and services that are on the highest priority list of consumers. It is this striving to satisfy the most urgent needs of consumers that produces profits, and it is this alone that guides entrepreneurs.4

Is it valid to argue that past information is completely embedded in prices and therefore of no consequence? It is questionable whether the market participants can discount the duration and the strength of effects of various causes.

For instance, a market-anticipated lowering of interest rates by the central bank, while being regarded as old news and therefore not supposed to have real effects, will in fact set in motion the process of the boom-bust cycle. In addition, various causes once set in motion, initially only affect some individuals’ real income. As time goes by however, the effect of these causes spreads across a wider spectrum of individuals.

Obviously, these changes in the real incomes of individuals will lead to changes in the relative prices of assets. To suggest, then, that somehow the market will quickly incorporate all future changes of various present causes without telling us how it is done is questionable.

It has to be realized that markets are comprised of individual investors who require time to understand the implications of various causes and their implications for the prices of financial assets.

Even if a particular cause was anticipated by the market that does not mean it was understood correctly and therefore discounted. It is hard to imagine that the effect of a particular cause, which begins with a few individuals and then spreads over time across many individuals, can be assessed and understood instantaneously.

For this to be so, it would mean that market participants could immediately assess future consumers’ responses and counter responses to a given cause. This, of course, must mean that market participants not only must know consumers’ preferences but also how these preferences are going to change. Note though, consumer preferences cannot be revealed before consumers have acted.

Are Profits Random Phenomena?

The proponents of the MPT claim that the main message of their framework is that excessive profits cannot be secured out of public information. They maintain that any successful method of making profits must ultimately be self-defeating.

Now, it is true that profits as such can never be a sustainable phenomenon. However, the reasons for this are not those presented by the MPT. Profit emerges once an entrepreneur discovers that the prices of certain factors are undervalued relative to the potential value of the products that these factors, once employed, could produce. By recognizing the discrepancy and doing something about it, an entrepreneur removes the discrepancy, i.e., eliminates the potential for a further profit. According to Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State:

Every entrepreneur, therefore, invests in a process because he expects to make a profit, i.e., because he believes that the market has under-priced and undercapitalized the factors in relation to their future rents.

The recognition of the existence of potential profits means that an entrepreneur had particular knowledge that other people did not have.

This unique knowledge means that profits are not the outcome of random events, as the MPT suggests. For an entrepreneur to make profits, he must engage in planning and anticipate consumer preferences. Consequently, those entrepreneurs who excel in their forecasting of consumers’ future preferences will make profits.

Profits, not Risk, Drive Entrepreneurs

In the words of Ludwig von Mises,

A capitalist never chooses that investment in which, according to his understanding of the future, the danger of losing his input is smallest. He chooses that investment in which he expects to make the highest possible profits.5

In an attempt to minimize risk, practitioners of MPT tend to institute a high degree of diversification. However, having a large number of stocks in a portfolio might leave little time to analyze the stocks and understand their fundamentals. This could raise the likelihood of putting too much money in bad investments. This way of conducting business would not be an entrepreneurial investment but rather gambling.

Note again that the guiding principle of MPT for combining stocks is that each stock represents activities that are affected by given factors differently. Once combined, these differences will cancel each other out, thereby reducing risk. However, it does not necessary always works this way. During a large financial crisis, various asset prices that normally have an inverse correlation with each other become positively correlated and fall together.

Also, Keynes had misgivings about diversification as such to reduce risk. On August 15, 1934, Keynes wrote to Francis Scott, the Provincial Insurance chairman,

As time goes on, I get more and more convinced that the right method in investment is to put fairly large sums into enterprises which one thinks one knows something about and in the management of which one thoroughly believes. It is a mistake to think that one limits one’s risk by spreading too much between enterprises about which one knows little.

The Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) gives the impression that there is a difference between investing in the stock market and investing in a business. However, the stock market does not have a life of its own. The success or failure of investing in stocks depends ultimately on the same factors that determine success or failure of any business. Proponents of the MPT argue that diversification is the key to the creation of the best possible consistent returns. In truth, the key should be profitability of various investments and not the diversification as such. Also, following MPT, if one wants to secure higher profit one needs to take a greater risk. But the size of an entrepreneur’s return on his investment is determined not by how much risk he assumes, but rather whether he complies with consumers’ wishes. Investors, in order to be successful, are required to ascertain what is going on in a given business environment (i.e. to be active in their investment decisions). Failing to do so could be very costly.

• 1. Horace W Brock and Jeffrey A. Frankel, “Review of the Efficient Market Hypothesis,” Strategic Economic Decision (November 1991).
• 2. Ibid.
• 3. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “On Certainty and Uncertainty, or: How Rational Can Our Expectations Be?” Review of Austrian Economics 1O, no. 1 (1997): 49-78.
• 4. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1963), p.520.
• 5. Mises, Human Action, pp. 809-10.

You Might Also Like

Money Supply Growth Climbs to 37-Month High

The money supply growth rate rose again in February, climbing to a 37-month high. The last time the growth rate was higher was during February of 2017, when the growth rate was 7.9 percent. During February 2020, year-over-year (YOY) growth in the money supply was at 7.49 percent. That’s up from January’s rate of 6.32 percent, and up from February 2019’s rate of 3.20 percent.

Government Is No Match for the Coronavirus

The coronavirus is reminding everyone that you cannot rely on government and that ultimately it is the private sector that will provide the solutions. Many nonmedical government officials and members of the media are predicting massive cases of COVID-19 and death, when in fact no one can predict the outcome.

Financialization: Why the Financial Sector Now Rules the Global Economy

To read or watch the news in today’s world is to be confronted with a wide array of stories about financial organization and financial institutions. News about central banks, interest rates, and debt appear to be everywhere.

No, Technology Shocks Aren’t Behind Recurring Business Cycles

Economic fluctuations, also known as business cycles, are seen as being driven by mysterious forces that are difficult to identify. Finn Kydland and Edward C. Prescott (KP), the 2004 Nobel laureates in economics, decided to attempt to find out what these forces were.1 They hypothesized that technology shocks are a major factor behind economic fluctuations and demonstrated that a technology-induced shock can explain 70 percent of the fluctuations in the postwar US data.

In Spain You Can’t Use Your Own Back Yard. Police Make Sure of It.

The last days and weeks of the coronavirus epidemic give an interesting insight into the human psyche. Elementary liberties are restricted all over the world, such as the freedom of movement or private property. Yet most people accept these restrictions without blinking, as the state declares their indispensability.

The European Central Bank Is Being Stretched to Its Breaking Point in Italy

When Mario Draghi’s tenure was approaching its end, I argued for a sterner governor for the European Central Bank (ECB); hence, I was not even slightly enthusiastic when Draghi’s successor turned out to be Christine Lagarde—a patent dove, as can be inferred from her ideological proximity to a famous Keynesian like Olivier Blanchard.

Central Bankers Are Running Out of Options

Corona fears have shifted the world’s central banks into hyperdrive. Talk more, do more, lend more—and buy everything that moves. One after the other, the major central banks took to the barricades, manned the canons, fired their bazookas, and every other military metaphor you can think of.

Diseases Are Bad. Government-Forced Shutdowns Are Often Worse.

However high the death rate of the COVID-19 coronavirus becomes, the governmental response to the threat will be even more dangerous. If the current blockade of economic life continues, more people will die from the countermeasures than from the virus itself. In a short time, the basic supply of everyday goods will be at risk. By interrupting the global transport and supply chains, important medicines will be missing and food supplies will be insufficient.