Investments and Risk Reward Ratio

It is always interesting that there are so many different types of investments around us, ranging from regulated investments such as bonds and stocks, all the way to unregulated investment vehicles such as collectibles, antiques and many others. In this post, I’m slightly more inclined to talk about some common investments, mainly money markets, bonds, stocks and derivatives as well as their risk-reward relationships. To illustrate this, let’s start with a picture.

I do hope that the picture is pretty clearcut. Basically, it says that the higher the return, the higher the risk. Note that in the picture, derivatives has lower return, but higher risk and I will explain why it is so in the picture. I am actually taking into account expected rewards, which is different from potential rewards. Potential rewards mean the high end spectrum of what is achievable, whereas expected rewards basically mean the aggregate returns of all investors who participate in the investing of the instrument.

Now, after having explained my definition, let’s look at the investments and their risk rewards ratio. It is seen from the diagram that for taking more risk, the expected rewards is greater, with the exception of derivatives. The explanation is that derivatives are theoretically zero sum games, which means that when someone makes money, another has to lose it. After commissions, spreads and other charges, they are practically negative sum games.

I have friends who said that stock markets are negative sum games too, because the same principle applies. However, they missed an important point, which is the fact that wealth is created through the stock market and the evidence is in the issuance of dividends. For example, I bought a stock at $10 and sell it for $9.50. I may seem to have lost money, but what if I got a dividend payout of $1.00 while holding the stock? From this example, we can see that the purchase of stocks is not a zero sum game and that the general direction of the stock market in the long run is an uptrend. Of course, I am assuming that there is no large scale war or natural disaster that will destroy a significant amount of wealth. Even if there is though, wealth will be recreated as long as humans survived.

Just like stocks, bonds and money markets are also both not zero sum games, since there is an effective yield that you can get. While some of them may default their payments, we are looking at the aggregate of all investments in the instrument, which makes it a positive sum game.

For derivatives though, it is a clear cut zero sum game, because there is absolutely no payouts linked to the instrument. You don’t get dividends for holding options or futures. However, I would like to argue from another standpoint that perhaps it is not really that much of a zero sum game. The reason I would like to input this perspective is the prevalence of people who like to hedge their investments. Therefore, they may have holdings of stocks and buying options to offset the downside. Hedging in such a way often gives them an effective yield almost equilvalent to the risk-free rate. Therefore, they may not care if their derivative products lose money, since their overall portfolio gives them the desired return that they want.

This seems to get quite complicated, but I am suggesting that if there are really quite a number of hedgers out there in the financial world, it is possible that they are all holding the derivatives that lose money. Consequently, this may mean that it may be slightly easier to profit from derivatives than a strict zero sum game, since some people participate in the game without the intention of winning. Of course, if we aggregate all the positions, we are still back to a strict zero sum game. 

However, my purpose in this post is only to bring about another perspective that perhaps not everybody wants to make money from every market. Some people may participate in some markets and lose constantly but still persist because they satisfy them in some other way. Therefore, it may mean that for those who are serious about making money in the markets, the chances are slightly higher. After all, it is easier to win in a race against leisure runners than national runners who are committed to getting that next medal.

Of course, with everything said, it’s just my hypothesis and it may or may not be right. 

http://www.firstmillionchallenge.com/investments-and-risk-reward-ratio/


This article was first posted on 24.11.2011.

Investments and Risk Reward Ratio

It is always interesting that there are so many different types of investments around us, ranging from regulated investments such as bonds and stocks, all the way to unregulated investment vehicles such as collectibles, antiques and many others. In this post, I’m slightly more inclined to talk about some common investments, mainly money markets, bonds, stocks and derivatives as well as their risk-reward relationships. To illustrate this, let’s start with a picture.

I do hope that the picture is pretty clearcut. Basically, it says that the higher the return, the higher the risk. Note that in the picture, derivatives has lower return, but higher risk and I will explain why it is so in the picture. I am actually taking into account expected rewards, which is different from potential rewards. Potential rewards mean the high end spectrum of what is achievable, whereas expected rewards basically mean the aggregate returns of all investors who participate in the investing of the instrument.

Now, after having explained my definition, let’s look at the investments and their risk rewards ratio. It is seen from the diagram that for taking more risk, the expected rewards is greater, with the exception of derivatives. The explanation is that derivatives are theoretically zero sum games, which means that when someone makes money, another has to lose it. After commissions, spreads and other charges, they are practically negative sum games.

I have friends who said that stock markets are negative sum games too, because the same principle applies. 

However, they missed an important point, which is the fact that wealth is created through the stock market and the evidence is in the issuance of dividends. For example, I bought a stock at $10 and sell it for $9.50. I may seem to have lost money, but what if I got a dividend payout of $1.00 while holding the stock? From this example, we can see that the purchase of stocks is not a zero sum game and that the general direction of the stock market in the long run is an uptrend. Of course, I am assuming that there is no large scale war or natural disaster that will destroy a significant amount of wealth. Even if there is though, wealth will be recreated as long as humans survived.

Just like stocks, bonds and money markets are also both not zero sum games, since there is an effective yield that you can get. While some of them may default their payments, we are looking at the aggregate of all investments in the instrument, which makes it a positive sum game.

For derivatives though, it is a clear cut zero sum game, because there is absolutely no payouts linked to the instrument. You don’t get dividends for holding options or futures. However, I would like to argue from another standpoint that perhaps it is not really that much of a zero sum game. The reason I would like to input this perspective is the prevalence of people who like to hedge their investments. Therefore, they may have holdings of stocks and buying options to offset the downside. Hedging in such a way often gives them an effective yield almost equilvalent to the risk-free rate. Therefore, they may not care if their derivative products lose money, since their overall portfolio gives them the desired return that they want.

This seems to get quite complicated, but I am suggesting that if there are really quite a number of hedgers out there in the financial world, it is possible that they are all holding the derivatives that lose money. Consequently, this may mean that it may be slightly easier to profit from derivatives than a strict zero sum game, since some people participate in the game without the intention of winning. Of course, if we aggregate all the positions, we are still back to a strict zero sum game. 

However, my purpose in this post is only to bring about another perspective that perhaps not everybody wants to make money from every market. Some people may participate in some markets and lose constantly but still persist because they satisfy them in some other way. Therefore, it may mean that for those who are serious about making money in the markets, the chances are slightly higher. After all, it is easier to win in a race against leisure runners than national runners who are committed to getting that next medal.

Of course, with everything said, it’s just my hypothesis and it may or may not be right. 

http://www.firstmillionchallenge.com/investments-and-risk-reward-ratio/

Games people play

Essentially, there are 3 types of games people can play. These are:

1. Positive sum games
2. Negative sum games
3. Zero sum games

In positive sum games, the odds of winning are high and there are many winners.

In negative sum games, the odds of losing are high and there are many losers.

In zero sum games, the odds of winning equal those of losing, the winners are at the expense of the losers.

It is important to choose the games one wishes to play. It is very important to know the types of games one chooses to play in.

To win, choose the one in the category of the positive sum game.

Avoid playing in those negative sum games. For those wishing to "win" (try their luck or gamble) in negative sum games, their best chance of coming out the "winner" is probably just to place ONE bet with the amount they can afford to risk and hope for a lucky win. To be engaged in such a negative sum game over many bets will surely mean ending the loser.

What about zero sum games? How to be the winner here? Often, the player with the most capital wins in the long run. This is because the player maybe struck with a string of bad luck and the player with the least capital may be out of capital earlier than the player with more capital.

To be a winner, choose the games one wishes to play in carefully. Investing is likewise not dissimilar. One need to have the investing knowledge before "playing this game" intelligently, lest one ends up not winning but losing.