The Time Bomb in Your Portfolio

Investing is risky. Everyone knows that. There are no guarantees. But the biggest risk to your portfolio isn't what you think it is.

The concept of risk, you see, means different things to different people. Moreover, if you asked an academic about risk and how to minimize it, most of the answers you'd hear would be unhelpful when it comes to the real world of investing.

Even worse, none of those answers would help you defuse the biggest risk to your portfolio.

Can't go back
The most quoted measure of risk is beta -- actually a measure of volatility. The general thinking is that a stock that jumps around a lot is riskier than a stock that doesn't, because the volatile stock's returns will deviate substantially from the market average.

Hogwash! Risk and volatility don't equate. I couldn't care a lick about whether or not a stock's returns deviate from the market average as long as those returns are better than the market average. For example, I know I wouldn't object to having owned these volatile (beta greater than 2) stocks over the past year:

Company

Beta

TTM Return

Canadian Natural Resources (NYSE: CNQ  )

2.4

39.5%

Suntech Power (NYSE: STP  )

2.2

26.2%

Sohu.com (Nasdaq: SOHU  )

2.5

300.0%

Copart (Nasdaq: CPRT  )

2.2

64.7%

Century Aluminum (Nasdaq: CENX  )

3.0

26.6%

Woodward Governor (Nasdaq: WGOV  )

2.2

40.4%

Data and screening courtesy Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.

After all, there's an easy way to take the volatility out of a volatile stock: Don't check the price.

I don't want no hippie pad
But the conception that volatility and risk equate is so ingrained in the world of financial planning that too many investors, fearing volatility, have stashed far too much of their savings in CDs, Treasuries, and bonds.

Because the real risk when it comes to investing is not volatility. Rather, as master money manager Ron Muhlenkamp often notes, risk is "the probability of losing purchasing power over time." Consider this: If you're not earning at least a 3% annual return after taxes, your money is losing value.

Your goal in investing, then -- if you'll forgive me for putting words in your mouth -- is not simply to increase your savings, but rather to beat both inflation and cost-of-living increases to increase the purchasing power of your savings over time. That means that if inflation is 3% annually and housing prices rise 3% annually, you need to be making at least 6% to stay on track to buy that vacation home in 10 years. And if you're hoping that your investments will help you afford the vacation home, you need to be earning a good bit more than 6% per year.

In other words, you need stocks.

Milo goes to college
But don't take my word for it. Mr. Muhlenkamp actually has data to back up this conclusion. He found that, from 1952 to 2002, stocks returned 11.2% annually. That's seven percentage points better than inflation and resulted in a 33-fold increase in purchasing power.

Bonds, on the other hand, returned 6.8% per year. That's just three points better than inflation and yielded merely four times the purchasing power.

And to prove once and for all that risk and volatility don't equate, Muhlenkamp found that during that 50-year period, bonds had 16 down years, while stocks had just 13.

Better returns, fewer down years, substantial increases in purchasing power -- you need stocks.

Cool to be you
The time bomb in your portfolio is inflation, and you need stocks to make sure it doesn't do you in. Any money you don't need for at least three years should be invested in stocks. And not just any stocks, but stocks that will outperform the market average. Otherwise, your seemingly low-risk portfolio may cause you to lose significant purchasing power over time.

We can help you find those stocks at our Motley Fool Stock Advisor service. Fool co-founders David and Tom Gardner have crushed the market 54% to 13% since 2002. Take a look at the stocks they're recommending today by joining Stock Advisor free for 30 days. There is no obligation to subscribe.

This article was first published on May 3, 2007. It has been updated.

Tim Hanson does not own shares of any company mentioned. The Motley Fool owns shares of Copart. Suntech Power is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers recommendation and Copart is a Stock Advisor selection. Talk to your children about the Fool's disclosure policy. It may be the most important decision you ever make.


Read/Post Comments (2) | Recommend This Article (6)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 24, 2008, at 7:20 PM, bdrees27 wrote:

    Any article that makes multiple references to the Descendents has to be wise!!

  • Report this Comment On June 24, 2008, at 8:22 PM, pogeyman wrote:

    Hey Tim,

    I can't believe I just read a Descendents reference!

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 671067, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/21/2014 1:20:03 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement