To continue using this website, please tell us a
little about yourself:

This site uses cookies. Some of the cookies are essential for parts of the site to operate and have already been set. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but if you do, parts of the site may not work. To find out more about cookies on the website and how to delete cookies, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

I accept the FE Trustnet cookie policy

For more information Click here



It's look like you're leaving us

What would you like us to do with the funds you've selected

Show me all my options Forget them Save them
Customise this table

Why equities are less risky than bonds

In his quarterly blog, Peter Elston – chief investment officer at Seneca – writes how investors need to drastically rethink the way in which they view risk and volatility.

Peter Elston

By Peter Elston, Seneca
Monday November 30, 2015

Here’s a question. From November 1940 to September 1981, the annualised standard deviation of real returns from US long dated bonds was 7.3 per cent. In comparison, the number for equities was 17.6 per cent. Which was riskier?

Well, equities of course! 17.6 per cent volatility is much higher than 7.3 per cent and volatility is risk, right?

Well, over the forty year period, you’d have lost 67 per cent in real terms investing in US long dated bonds. But you’d have lost it gradually, hence the low volatility. To put it crudely, you’d have been the proverbial frog in the pot of water being warmed slowly to boiling point. You wouldn’t have noticed that you were being screwed.

As for equities, they returned 925 per cent over the period in question.

I can’t imagine there are many who would consider losing money slowly preferable to making money less slowly. Surely there must be a better way of measuring risk.

The reason for the poor performance of bonds was simple: inflation.

From 1940 to 1981, the inflation rate in the US rose from 0 per cent to 11 per cent. It didn’t do this in a straight line but in a zig-zag, with the rate falling somewhat in the 1960s before continuing up throughout the 70s towards its final destination in the early 80s.

Nevertheless, the real value of both coupons paid as well as principal were eroded over the period which of course all added up to poor real returns for investors.

Thus the risk of bonds performing poorly for prolonged periods can ostensibly be thought of as inflation risk. Indeed inflation risk is what causes bonds to perform poorly over short periods too.

It is often said that governments have two ways of defaulting: slowly or quickly.

The quick way involves ceasing payment of coupons and principal. The slow way to default is perhaps more insidious: through inflation that causes coupons and principal to fall - not in nominal terms but in real terms.

In other words, inflation risk can be closely related to default (or solvency) risk. Both cause permanent loss of capital.

Indeed, permanent loss of capital is what we should all fear. The problem is that measuring the scope for permanent loss of capital is hard. It involves assessing whether a company, government or individual is going to default or whether inflation is going to rise over a long period.

This requires research skills that many do not have. Much easier to use volatility that can be calculated on the back of a cigarette packet.


The problem is that volatility has little if anything to do with permanent loss of capital. Volatility is a measure of market risk, the risk that you’ll make losses as a result of market movements. And since most downward movements in markets are followed by upward movements, volatility can be thought of as temporary loss of capital not permanent.

This obsession with volatility as risk dates back to 1952. It was in this year that Harry Markowitz wrote his ground-breaking paper Portfolio Selection.

In it, Markowitz set out a framework for constructing portfolios, concluding that the rational investor would want to own the market portfolio (the portfolio made up of all securities in the market). His idea, for which he won the Nobel Prize, was based on the premise that “the investor does (or should) consider expected return a desirable thing and variance of return an undesirable thing”.

Later in the paper he writes: “The concepts "yield" and "risk" appear frequently in financial writings. Usually if the term "yield" were replaced by "expected yield" or "expected return," and "risk" by "variance of return," little change of apparent meaning would result.”

From this moment forth, volatility would be seen as something to be avoided, rather than something to embrace.

As Research Associates’ Rob Arnott succinctly put it in his article Institutionalizing Courage: “Temporary losses of value are frequent; at times they can become so frightening that they become permanent—for those that sell.”

This is the nub of the problem. Volatility is generally measured over time periods that should not concern us.

If you need your money in the next couple of years the riskiest thing you should invest in is a 2-year Gilt. If you invest in long-term assets such as equities but worry about short-term volatility, you are liable to make the cardinal error that Arnott cites.

However, if you are minded to hold on tight, perhaps you might also take the next leap of faith: taking advantage of dips by buying. Remember, most people tend to run towards shops and stores displaying “50 per cent off!” signs, not away from them. Perhaps we can learn from them.

If we are going to use volatility as a measure of risk, using periods that matter (or should matter) to us as investors is essential. For most, this means 30 years or more. So, the volatility of annualised rolling 30 year returns from equities has been 1.6 per cent, reflecting equities’ ability to recover from dips. As for bonds, the number is 2.7 per cent, reflecting the multi-decade periods when bond returns have been miserable.

In other words, equities are less risky than bonds. Now there’s a finding!


Peter Elston is chief investment officer at Seneca Investment Management. All the views expressed above are his own and shouldn’t be taken as investment advice. 


This article is for professional investors only. You will be redirected to the News & Research homepage in seconds. If you are having problems getting to the page, please click here


Data provided by FE. Care has been taken to ensure that the information is correct, but FE neither warrants, represents nor guarantees the contents of information, nor does it accept any responsibility for errors, inaccuracies, omissions or any inconsistencies herein. Past performance does not predict future performance, it should not be the main or sole reason for making an investment decision. The value of investments and any income from them can fall as well as rise.

You are currently using an old browser which will not be supported by Trustnet after 31/07/2016. To ensure you benefit from all features on the site, please update your browser.   Close