There is only one way to think about risk – and that is in absolute terms
Here on The Value Perspective we often talk about banks in the context of earning from them, but what about the potential for learning from them? After all, these are organisations that have to think about the financial ramifications of their actions every bit as much as investors so you would imagine we could pick up a few pointers– not least with regard to how they think about risk.
Different people have different perceptions of what constitutes risk in an investment. Some, for example, think in relative terms. This is how far their portfolio’s construction or performance diverges from a particular stockmarket index, respectively known as ‘benchmark risk’ and ‘tracking error’. Others fret about volatility, which is essentially how much the price of an asset or market fluctuates.
We view none of those as true risk, and neither do banks, nor their regulators. When banks consider lending money, they do not think about volatility and they certainly do not think in relative terms. Your bank doesn’t worry about whether Borrower A is slightly more or slightly less able to pay them back than Borrower B. The key risk-oriented questions occupying their minds are: what is the probability this borrower will default on our loan? And if they do default, how much do we lose? That is also the lens through which the banking regulator looks at financial risks to ensure the banking system is behaving appropriately.
This mirrors our own approach to assessing the risk associated with a potential investment. We ask ourselves what is the probability this company will go wrong? And if it does go wrong, how much do we lose?
This means we may buy a company even if there is a chance we will lose everything. We would, of course, want the risk of total loss to be small, and to be more than compensated for that tail risk* through attractive profits if the tail risk does not come to fruition.
This is precisely the reason why we construct diversified portfolios of 30 – 50 risk-adjusted positions. Given enough time, on average, there should be more stocks that recover strongly than those that do not. And of those that do recover, their positive contribution should significantly outweigh the negative effect of the disappointments.
*Tail risks include events that have a small probability of occurring and occur at the ends of a normal distribution curve.
Fund Manager, Equity Value
I joined Schroders in 2000 as an equity analyst with a focus on construction and building materials. In 2006, Nick Kirrage and I took over management of a fund that seeks to identify and exploit deeply out of favour investment opportunities. In 2010, Nick and I also took over management of the team's flagship UK value fund seeking to offer income and capital growth.
The views and opinions displayed are those of Nick Kirrage, Andrew Lyddon, Kevin Murphy, Andrew Williams, Andrew Evans, Simon Adler, Juan Torres Rodriguez, Liam Nunn, Vera German and Roberta Barr, members of the Schroder Global Value Equity Team (the Value Perspective Team), and other independent commentators where stated.
They do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders' communications, strategies or funds. The Team has expressed its own views and opinions on this website and these may change.
This article is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information on the website when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Nothing in this article should be construed as advice. The sectors/securities shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be considered a recommendation to buy/sell.
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.