Professional Documents
Culture Documents
If the asset values do not move up and down in perfect synchrony, a diversified portfolio will have less risk than the weighted average risk of its constituent assets, and often less risk than the least risky of its constituents.[1] Therefore, any risk-averse investor will diversify to at least some extent, with more risk-averse investors diversifying more completely than less risk-averse investors. Diversification is one of two general techniques for reducing investment risk. The other is hedging. Diversification relies on the lack of a tight positive relationship among the assets' returns, and works even when correlations are near zero or somewhat positive. Hedging relies on negative correlation among assets, or shorting assets with positive correlation. It is important to remember that diversification only works because investment in each individual asset is reduced. If someone starts with $10,000 in one stock and then puts $10,000 in another stock, they would have more risk, not less. Diversification would require the sale of $5,000 of the first stock to be put into the second. There would then be less risk. Hedging, by contrast, reduces risk without selling any of the original position.[2] The risk reduction from diversification does not mean anyone else has to take more risk. If person A owns $10,000 of one stock and person B owns $10,000 of another, both A and B will reduce their risk if they exchange $5,000 of the two stocks, so each now has a more diversified portfolio.[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 Examples 2 Return expectations while diversifying 3 Maximum diversification 4 Effect of diversification on variance 5 Diversifiable and non-diversifiable risk 6 An empirical example relating diversification to risk reduction 7 Corporate diversification strategies 8 History 9 Diversification with an equally-weighted portfolio 10 See also 11 References 12 External links
[edit] Examples
The simplest example of diversification is provided by the proverb "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Dropping the basket will break all the eggs. Placing each egg in a different basket is more diversified. There is more risk of losing one egg, but less risk of losing all of them. In
finance, an example of an undiversified portfolio is to hold only one stock. This is risky; it is not unusual for a single stock to go down 50% in one year. It is much less common for a portfolio of 20 stocks to go down that much, even if they are selected at random. If the stocks are selected from a variety of industries, company sizes and types (such as some growth stocks and some value stocks) it is still less likely. Further diversification can be obtained by investing in stocks from different countries, and in different asset classes such as bonds, real estate, private equity, infrastructure and commodities such as heating oil or gold.[4] Since the mid-1970s, it has also been argued that geographic diversification would generate superior risk-adjusted returns for large institutional investors by reducing overall portfolio risk while capturing some of the higher rates of return offered by the emerging markets of Asia and Latin America.[5][6]
argument leads to portfolios that are weighted according to some definition of economic footprint, such as total underlying assets or annual cash flow.[8] Risk parity is an alternative idea. This weights assets in inverse proportion to risk, so the portfolio has equal risk in all asset classes. This is justified both on theoretical grounds, and with the pragmatic argument that future risk is much easier to forecast than either future market value or future economic footprint.[9]
diversification occurs in the spreading of the insurance company's risks over a large number of part-owners of the company.