2 Types of Risk, 2 Types of Bubbles

Most investment advice is focused around managing risk. But what exactly is risk?

In an upcoming book, famed author William Bernstein separates the concept of risk into two categories. The Wall Street Journal reviews:

What Mr. Bernstein calls "shallow risk" is a temporary drop in an asset's market price; decades ago, the great investment analyst Benjamin Graham referred to such an interim decline as "quotational loss."

Shallow risk is as inevitable as weather. You can't invest in anything other than cash without being hit by sharp falls in price. "Shallow" doesn't mean that the losses can't cut deep or last long -- only that they aren't permanent.

"Deep risk," on the other hand, is an irretrievable real loss of capital, meaning that after inflation you won't recover for decades -- if ever.

Charlie Munger once put this slightly differently: "Using volatility as a measure of risk is nuts" he said. That's shallow risk. "Risk to us is 1) the risk of permanent loss of capital, or 2) the risk of inadequate return." That's deep risk.

According to Bernstein, four things cause deep risk: Inflation, deflation, confiscation and devastation. I'd add another: Extreme valuation.

For the market as a whole, deep risk has presented itself only a few times in the last two decades: stocks in 2000, real estate in 2006, and (likely) precious metals in 2011. In each case, valuations were nearly double (or more) above historic norms. And in each case, it could be a decade or more before losses are recouped. This is very different from the market's normal wiggles. You can ride out shallow risk. Deep risk leaves permanent scars.

The deep-versus-shallow risk comparison is a reminder that we often lump investing concepts into a single category when the reality is more nuanced.

There's another investment concept that we mistakenly conflate all the time: bubbles.

There are two types of bubbles: Income bubbles, and valuation bubbles. They are entirely different.

An income bubble is when a company's valuation might look reasonable, but the way it's making money is perverse and unsustainable. Bank stocks last decade are a perfect example. Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) looked like a decent investment in 2006. Twelve times earnings, two times book value, 18% return on equity, and a 4% dividend yield. Those are respectable numbers. But the way Citigroup was earning money -- packaging and selling the most asinine mortgage loans ever created -- was dangerous and unsustainable. That was the bubble.

A valuation bubble is the just the opposite. The company's valuation gets crazy, but the way it's making money is solid and sustainable. Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT  ) is a good example. In 2000, Wal-Mart stock traded for more than 50 times earnings -- astronomical for a retail stock. That sky-high valuation kept returns low over the following decade. But there was nothing wrong with Wal-Mart the company. Business boomed from 2000 to 2010. Earnings per share grew threefold. Shareholders received almost $30 billion of dividends. Investors' pain was entirely due to starting valuations. That was the bubble.

Just like deep-versus-shallow risk, the difference between income and valuation bubbles has to be appreciated. We talk about them as if they are a single topic when they can mean very different things and lead to very different outcomes. I'm all for keeping things simple, but as Einstein put it, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." 


Read/Post Comments (4) | Recommend This Article (20)

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 July 31, 2013, at 6:46 PM, hbofbyu wrote:

    How do you know when you are in a bubble?

    In 2000 I remember discussing how high valuations were but they were being justified with statements like: "This is a paradigm shift to a new dotcom economy." or "This is because of the baby-boomers 401Ks. All that money has to go somewhere..."

    There were even economists saying that we have finally figured out how to manage an economy and have everything under control (including the US dudget defecit) and we may never see recessions again.

  • Report this Comment On August 05, 2013, at 7:40 PM, lowmaple wrote:

    Some economists belong to Buffet,s third i group.

  • Report this Comment On August 05, 2013, at 7:50 PM, randallw wrote:

    ....and the Titanic was "unsinkable". When the consensus is that something is either inevitable or impossible, its a bubble. There are no sure things - invest as such.

  • Report this Comment On August 09, 2013, at 5:24 PM, ddepperman wrote:

    Careful research, judicious thinking. Dot com hype was a joke. The growth rate of the 2000s was around 1.7%, and the earlier decades a bit over 2.3.

    For a paradigmatically shifting economic force it--tech--packed little punch.

    There are some good books. I found--do not laugh--The Little Book of Bulls' Eye investing to give shape to my recent conclusions. There's also Ed Easterling's Probable Outcomes. Read it and weep for the hype surrounding us.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2567670, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/19/2014 10:42:34 AM

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