

FlashChat  Actuarial Discussion  Preliminary Exams  CAS/SOA Exams  Cyberchat  Around the World  Suggestions 

Finance  Investments Subforum: NonActuarial Personal Finance/Investing 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
#11




Luckily for all of you, I am in my first ever finance course so I can answer this question for all of you.
In the long run, the standard deviation for returns on stocks is actually lower than the standard deviation for returns on even government bonds. But, the yield rate for stocks in the long run is still quite a bit higher. There is a nice chart in my finance book. Stocks are riskier in the short term for sure, so you must be rewarded for this risk, or no one would buy them as has already been mentioned. But, you are not rewarded for the specific risk of a certain stock because you can get a welldiversified portfolio where most of that risk is gone. The risk that always remains is the risk of the market, and so you are rewarded by the market risk premium. 
#12




Quote:
Current theory is garbage imo... Last edited by The Obese Dog; 11102010 at 01:49 PM.. 
#13




So if most people put money blindly into equity mutual funds with their 401(k) deposits, is it possible that so much extra money is in equities that the expected return is below the risk free rate? Do the really good investment advisors put money in US equities today? Part of stocks are based on expected return being > than treasuries, other variables include just basic supply demand principles. If blind money is going in, the expected return on capital can get very low. The more invested in index funds instead of being actively managed probably has an effect too.

#14





#15




Not if people were riskneutral.

#18




Maybe I'm misunderstanding but you do realize it's possible to create negative interest rates. In fact, it's been argued that creating negative interest rates should be considered in monetary policy.

#20




Quote:
Risk neutral  think of it as a math statement: For any risk proflie, the following is true...... and fill in the blank. A good example is putcall parity. It makes no difference whether you are risk averse or not, that formula holds. The cool part of that statment is: If it's true for all risk postures, then if I solve the pricing problem with a completely risk averse posture, I get the "right" answer. Solving derivative pricing using rfr and a numeraire is a lot easier, so we do that. Risk neutral has nothing to do with expected returns of assets. The whole discipline is about how to price derivatives, not underlying. I call RN valuation a giant and elegant interpolation machine. You cannot use it to price assets, only derivatives. It is interpolation because you want to find the price of a derivative that is not actively traded. (if it was actively traded, you don't need a formula, just look up the price!). So we make big ol' stochastic formula that are ultimately calibrated to the observed prices of traded instruments in order to estimate the prices of related derivatives. No magic. Sadly, RN pricing will not make you rich  unless you can locate the pricing anaolies (arbitrage) and exploit them for instant profits. Good luck, on that, 'cuz you aren't the only one out there looking for those trades.
__________________
A very great politician, Winston Churchill, once said that politicians complaining about the newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea. 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

