Skip to main content

Liquidity and Systematic risk

Peter Bernstein in his article published in Journal of Portfolio Management speculates on the relationship between the liquidity and systematic risk.

The article seems to be based on the assumption that the liquidity is very closely correlated to systematic risk. This can be proved empirically and something traders experience day-to-day. Briefly, liquidity is the function of various macro-economic factors and hence would lead to a systemic impact.

Mr. Bernstien says, "How much research do you need to buy S&P500 index fund or futures as compared with research you would have to do if you wanted to pick and choose just a few among those five hundred stocks? No wonder the five hundred together are more liquid than any one or even ten of them - and in this case diversification comes along for the ride. No research!"

"More liquid the asset, more the liquidity means WYSIWYG. The value of all assets with so much similarity move up and down together because they are interchangable with one another." and hence "When it comes to most liquid kinds of assets such as money or treasury bills, liquidity and sytematic risk are one and the same. [emphasis in original]

In other words, if the liquidity is more, the impact the market forces has on the particular asset is more, and if the liquidity is less the systemic impact is less. Using the above, we can deduce, liquidity & specific-risk are two sides of the same coin (are inversely related). Hence as the degree of liquidity reduces for a particular asset the specific-risks for the asset increases, and hence the need for greater amount of asset specific research.

We may also deduce that (relative) out-performance [;)] is directly related to the liquidity in the asset.

On a lighter vein, in the periods of liquidity would be the period of easy money for those who are in right asset class. We do not require fund managers to outperform. We only have to watch the liquidity (policies/impact) in the system. Or as the street wisdom goes, high-tide raises all boats. But make sure you factor in the specific-risk so that you are not the one swimming naked when the tide goes out.


>> To be revised

:) Falkor
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How-to overcome sendentary lifestyle.

Some interesting points on overcoming sedentary lifestyle. There are many other routine ones, just try googling that. 1. Some not so routine tips on avoiding the sedentary lifestyle 2. Walking while talking on phone is a good way to get expressive and burn calories too. 3. Don't use the phone to call someone a short walking distance away. Walk and visit whenever possible. Same for grocery shopping. 4. Catch a different bus that makes you walk a bit more. You can catch a bus from a different stop, a little farther from your regular stop. 5. Pacing the length of the subway platform whenever the train/bus is late. 6. Dance Source: from various places on net
Post a Comment
Read more

Cognitive rules of business presentations

In his recent book, Clear and to the Point, Kosslyn explained that the four rules of PowerPoint are: The Goldilocks Rule, The Rudolph Rule, The Rule of Four, and the Birds of a Feather Rule. Here's how they work. The Goldilocks Rule refers to presenting the "just right" amount of data. Never include more information than your audience needs in a visual image. As an example, Kosslyn showed two graphs of real estate prices over time. One included ten different numbers, one for each year. The other included two numbers: a peak price, and the current price. For the purposes of a presentation about today's prices relative to peak price, those numbers were the only ones necessary. The Rudolph Rule refers to simple ways you can make information stand out and guide your audience to important details -- the way Rudolph the reindeer's red nose stood out from the other reindeers' and led them. If you're presenting a piece of relevant data in a list, why not mak...
Post a Comment
Read more

Definition of Cult Stocks

From a blog: A classification describing stocks that have a sizable investor following, despite the fact that the underlying company has somewhat insignificant fundamentals. Typically, investors are initially attracted to the company's potential and accumulate positions in speculation that its potential will be fulfilled, providing the investors with a substantial payout. While most of these cult stocks promise they will be the next big story after they make a new discovery or get the newest contract from the government, most do not provide investors with anything other than the story. Furthermore, these stocks typically generate very little, if any, revenue at all. For example, many micro-cap biotech stocks are cult stocks. While they promise that they are going to be working on a miracle compound or drug, most of them do not have any source of income as they slowly burn away their initial capital in research and development. However, some cult stocks do occasionally make good on...
Post a Comment
Read more