Afrikaans
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Basque
Belarusian
Bemba
Bengali
Bihari
Bosnian
Breton
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Catalan
Cebuano
Cherokee
Chichewa
Chinese (Simplified)
Chinese (Traditional)
Corsican
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Esperanto
Estonian
Ewe
Faroese
Filipino
Finnish
French
Frisian
Ga
Galician
Georgian
German
Greek
Guarani
Gujarati
Haitian Creole
Hausa
Hawaiian
Hebrew
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Indonesian
Interlingua
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Javanese
Kannada
Kazakh
Kinyarwanda
Kirundi
Kongo
Korean
Krio (Sierra Leone)
Kurdish
Kurdish (Soranî)
Kyrgyz
Laothian
Latin
Latvian
Lingala
Lithuanian
Lozi
Luganda
Luo
Luxembourgish
Macedonian
Malagasy
Malay
Malayalam
Maltese
Maori
Marathi
Mauritian Creole
Moldavian
Mongolian
Myanmar (Burmese)
Montenegrin
Nepali
Nigerian Pidgin
Northern Sotho
Norwegian
Norwegian (Nynorsk)
Occitan
Oriya
Oromo
Pashto
Persian
Polish
Portuguese (Brazil)
Portuguese (Portugal)
Punjabi
Quechua
Romanian
Romansh
Runyakitara
Russian
Samoan
Scots Gaelic
Serbian
Serbo-Croatian
Sesotho
Setswana
Seychellois Creole
Shona
Sindhi
Sinhalese
Slovak
Slovenian
Somali
Spanish (Latin American)
Sundanese
Swahili
Swedish
Tajik
Tamil
Tatar
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Tonga
Tshiluba
Tumbuka
Turkish
Turkmen
Twi
Uighur
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Welsh
Wolof
Xhosa
Yiddish
Yoruba
Zulu
hi I'm Howard marks and this is how to
think about
[Music]
risk the title of this class is how to
think about risk that's an important
title not what to think how to think the
first question is what is risk risk in
my opinion is the ultimate test of an
Investor's skill the return alone
doesn't tell you how good a job the
manager did the key question is you see
the return you must ask how much risk
did the manager bear to get that return
now let's look at this range of managers
what we posit is that the market is up
10% or down 10% now let's look at some
individual managers the first one is up
10 when the Market's up 10 and down 10
when the Market's down 10 ACC lishes
nothing you might as well have invested
in an index fund that emulates the
performance of the market no skill no
value added now let's look at the second
one up 20 when the market goes up 10
down 20 when the market goes down 10 no
skill no value added just a lot of
aggressiveness what about this one up
five when the Market's up 10 down five
when the Market's down 10 again no
selection ability no discernment no
value added just defensiveness you don't
need help in achieving that and you sure
shouldn't pay a lot for it but what
about the next one he or she is up 15
when the Market's up 10 and down 10 when
the Market's down 10 so in other words
Market type losses on the downside but
Superior gains on the upside value added
what I call asymmetry does better in the
good times than does poorly in the bad
times but what about this one and I
think this is the most interest I think
maybe it characterizes Me Maybe it char
izes oak tree to some extent up 10 when
the Market's up 10 down five when the
Market's down 10 so Market type gains in
the good times I personally think that
performing with the market when it does
well is good enough and that's almost
all the time nobody should have to beat
the market when it does well but if you
can do that and at the same time be
ready to decline less when the market
has it down spells I think that's
accomplishing something very
[Music]
important I believe that risk is not
volatility the academics developing
investment Theory largely at the
University of Chicago in the early 60s
just a couple of years before I got
there adopted volatility as their
measure of risk I believe they did so
largely because volatility is readily
quantifiable and nothing else is I think
volatility can be an indicator of the
presence of risk a symptom if you will
but it's not risk itself so if risk is
not volatility then what is it and in my
opinion and in the real world sense risk
is the probability of loss I think this
is what most people mean when they say
risk and I think that this is what
people demand compensation for if
they're going to Bear it uh nobody
sitting around at Oak Tree says well you
know uh we shouldn't make that
investment because it might be volatile
or uh because it might be volatile we
should demand a higher return no they
say that about the possibility of loss
we're not going to make that investment
because the possibility of loss is too
high or because of the possibility of
loss we're going to demand a risk
premium in terms of the return this is
risk the possibility of loss now another
important question is is risk
quantifiable in advance and I believe
it's not like most things occurring in
the future risk cannot be anything
except a matter of opinion I was writing
my first memo about risk in 2006 I wrote
about my belief that risk is not
quantifiable in advance and then I hit
the return key and went on to the next
section and wrote something I had never
thought about before
my belief that risk is unquantifiable
even after the fact and I think this is
a fascinating topic uh you buy something
for a dollar and a year later you sell
it for $2 was it
risky and the interesting thing is that
you can't tell from the outcome a
profitable investment may or may not
have been risky was it a safe investment
that in the case of my example was sure
to double or was it a risky investment
where you got lucky in terms of the
outcome and as I say you can't tell from
the outcome the bottom line is to me
it's impossible to quantify risk in
advance or even in
hindsight the possibility of loss is not
the only form of risk there are lots of
forms of risk my last memo on the
general subject it's called risk
Revisited again and I talk in there
about 24 or 25 different forms of risk
some serious some facius some important
some less important and obscure but
still it comes in many forms the risk of
missing opportunities is another
important risk in other words if you
think about it the risk of not taking
enough risk another really important
form uh of risk I think one of the key
risks in investing is the chance of
being forced out at the bottom which is
a bigger mistake buying at the high and
seeing a decline or selling out at the
low and missing out on the recovery
clearly it's the ladder if you buy at a
high and you experience a decline if
you're able to hold throughout and not
lose your nerve the next high is usually
higher than the last High the fact that
you experienced a downward fluctuation
might have been uncomfortable for a
little while
but by the time the new high is achieved
you're you're you're back to to your
cost and more but if you sell at the
bottom and miss out on the subsequent
recovery that means you've gotten off
the track of investing and uh may never
get back on in my opinion selling at the
bottom it's the cardinal sin in
investing
[Music]
now I want to get a little philosophical
one of my great Heroes Peter Bernstein
probably the best thinker in a
philosophic sense and and a real
investment Sage who sadly passed away
around 2009 one said essentially risk
says we don't know what's going to
happen we walk every moment into the
unknown he said there's a range of
outcomes and we don't know where the
actual outcome is going to fall within
the range and often we don't know what
the range is so in other words we have
ignorance to varying degrees about what
the future holds and it is from this
ignorance uh that risk ensues if we knew
what was going to happen by definition
there would be no risk in the memo that
I mentioned before risk Revisited again
there's a great quote uh that I got from
a Peter Bernstein memo and I thought it
was so important that I took it over
word for word in my memo it's from GK
Chesterton who was a English uh writer
and he said the following and I'm going
to give it to you word for word uh
because it's so important the real
trouble with this world of ours is not
that it is an unreasonable world or even
that it is a reasonable one the
commonest kind of trouble is that it is
nearly reasonable but not quite life is
not an
illogicality yet it is a trap for
logicians it looks just a little more
mathematical and regular than it is its
exactitude is obvious but its
inexactitude is hidden its wildness lies
in weight in other
words we know what's likely to
happen we know the other things that
probably could happen instead
we have little appreciation for the
things that are highly unlikely to
happen but could and these are what we
call in modern day terms the uh tail
events my friend Rick kanaine once said
that 96% of financial history has
occurred within two standard deviations
but everything interesting has happened
outside of two standard deviations
that's the wild part
[Music]
so now let me try in a slightly
philosophical sense to reflect to you
how I think about risk how I think you
might consider risk through four basic
points number one there was a professor
at the London Business School who said
risk means more things can happen then
will happen for most events that lie in
the future there are a number of things
that could occur we don't know which one
it will be that's where the risk comes
in more things can happen then will
happen number two as a result of that
the future should be viewed not as a
fixed outcome that's destined to happen
and capable of being predicted but as a
range of possibilities and hopefully
because you have some insight into their
respective likelihoods as a probability
distribution the most likely the less
likely the unlikely but not impossible
number three it's important to accept
that even when you know the
probabilities that doesn't mean you know
what's going to happen uh this is uh
something that I think many people fail
to grasp I play a lot of back gamon and
a lot of my examples uh on risk and
uncertainty uh come from the game of
back gamut which is played with a pair
of dice and when you roll your pair of
dice
we know exactly in advance what the
probabilities are each die has six sides
there are 36 possible combinations of
the six sides we know how many of them
for example will add up to seven and
seven is the most likely single outcome
1 16 25 34 43 52 61 there are six
possibilities out of the
36 that will give you a seven that's the
most likely outcome uh six out of 36
that's 16.7% probability now what if
instead you want to know about a six
well with a six there are five
possibilities five possibilities out of
36 that's a little less than a seventh
and then when you get down to uh the
number two is's only one one one one out
of 36 and for the number 12 only one 66
one out of 36 both of those are about a
3% probability of happening so we know
exactly what the probability
distribution looks like uh uh we know
what's the most likely the other likely
possibilities and the unlikely
possibilities we still don't know what's
going to happen so knowing the
probabilities does not eliminate the
uncertainty I work with a professor at
Warden named Chris gsy and the way he
put it to me one time we live in the
sample not the universe in other words
the universe statistics
like I just explained for the dice
determine the things that could happen
and maybe their possibility but we live
in the sample we only have one outcome
and therein lies the uncertainty a great
way to think about this is on Super Bowl
morning in 2016 they had a former
football player on uh and he said what I
thought was one of the smartest things
about uh probability I had ever heard
this game was Denver versus Carolina and
Carolina was heavily favored and they
asked him who he thought would win and
he said the following Carolina wins
eight times out of 10 this could be one
of the two now this gives you the UN the
essence of probability and the essence
of risk uh most people if they hear that
something's 80% likely to happen they
say well then I guess we know what's
going to happen I guess they might might
as well not play the game no 80% likely
means that the other team should win one
game out of five so have to play the
game because we have to figure out which
game this will be and that leads to
number four I take Dimson statement that
uh risk means more things can happen
than will happen and I turn it
over even though many things can happen
only one will thus the expected value
the probability weighted average of the
possible outcomes which is the basis on
which people make uh many decisions it
can be irrelevant they take each outcome
they multiply it by the probability they
add them up and they get the expected
outcome and many people will say well
we're going to take the course of action
that has the highest expected value but
sometimes the expected value isn't even
among the possibilities now this sounds
highly counterintuitive but think about
this let's consider a course of action
which has four possible outcomes 2 4 6
and 8 and let's say that we conclude
that each of those four is equally
likely to happen so what we do is we
take each one 2 4 6 8 we multiply it by
25% the possibility of it happening and
we add it together and in this case the
the expected value of 2 468 is five but
five can can't happen remember I said
the outcomes can be 2 4 6 and eight so
it I'm I'm only going through this to
show you the possible fallacy of
expected value there's another problem
with expected value because even though
course of action a can have a higher
expected value than course of action B
course of action a may include some
possibilities that you just can't live
with maybe course of action a uh
includes some remote possibility that
you lose all youry money and even though
it's highly unlikely you you may say I
just don't want to contemplate that so
you don't take a you take b instead
which has a slightly lower expected
value uh but without the risk of
Ruin now moving on a little bit to to
talk about the character of risk I think
it's interesting to note that risk is
counterintuitive they did an experiment
in the town of draon Holland they took
away all the traffic lights traffic
signs and Road markings what do you
think happened to the level of accidents
and
fatalities it went down how could it
possibly have gone down when all the
road AIDS were gone and the answer is
people said oh there are no more traffic
signs traffic lights or Road markings
I'd better drive more carefully on the
other hand Jill fredson is uh an expert
on a avalanches and uh she said that
better gear is created every year which
makes it easier and more feasible to to
climb and yet the risk the number of
fatalities and accidents in Climbing
doesn't go down how can that be
obviously counterintuitive people see
that better gear is being invented and
they say Well since we have better gear
we can do riskier things and the level
of accidents and fatalities is
maintained even in in spite of the
arrival of better gear so if you think
about those two examples you realize
that the risk of an activity doesn't
just lie in the activity in itself but
importantly in how the participants
approach it the degree of risk present
in a
market or in an investment doesn't come
just from the market or the investment
but how people participate in that
investment and if they conclude that the
market has become safer they may say
that that frees them to do riskier
things and that's why I believe that
risk is low when investors behave
prudently and High when they don't just
as risk is counterintuitive I believe
that risk is perverse as I said the
riskiest thing in the world is the
belief that there's there's no risk a
high level of risk Consciousness on the
other hand tends to mitigate risk so
when people say well that's really risky
if they take a a cautious approach then
it becomes safe as an asset declines in
price most people say oh it's risky look
how it's falling but with the lower
price it actually becomes less risky as
an asset appreciates most people say
that's a great asset look how well it's
doing but the rising price makes it
riskier so again pervert
and this perversity is one of the main
things that render most people incapable
of understanding risk I think it's
important to grasp a concept risk is
hidden and risk is deceptive loss is
what happens when risk the potential for
loss collides with negative events you
know Buffett says everything the
greatest and he said that uh it's only
when the tide goes out that we find out
who's been swimming naked
uh it's only in times of testing that
investors and their strategies uh are
examined uh for the risk they really
held an example of that I wrote in my
book The most important thing uh those
of us who live in California as I did at
the time our houses might contain a
construction flaw but if all is well
that flaw sits there for year after year
and doesn't produce any loss it's only
when the earthquakes occur that the
house is tested and the flaws are
disclosed and the risk the potential for
loss turns into actual loss so similarly
an investment can be risky but if it
only exists in salutary environments it
may look like a winter for a long time
and it may look safe for a long time the
fact that an investment is susceptible
to a risk that occurs extremely rarely
uh what I call an improbable disaster
what Nasim Nicholas TB called The Black
Swan in his excellent book The
infrequency of loss can make it appear
that the investment is safer than it
really is and of course that's an
entirely risky uh conclusion so uh the
infrequency with which uh risk turns
into loss uh can be deceptive uh and
cause people to underrate the risk
involved in an activ
[Music]
one of the most important things for
every investor to learn is that risk is
not a function of asset quality this too
sounds counterintuitive there's a belief
that high quality assets are safe and
lowquality assets are risky I believe
quite the opposite a high quality asset
can be priced so high that it's risky I
came to to work in this industry in
September of 1969 the banks at that time
and I was hired by one of them engaged
in what was called nifty50 investing
they invested in what were considered to
be the 50 best and fastest growing
companies in America companies so good
that nothing bad could ever happen and
there was no price too high for their
stocks and if you bought those great
companies the day I got to work in
September of 1969 and if you held their
stocks tenaciously for the next five
years you lost more than 90% of your
money because the prices paid were just
too high and unsustainable and roughly
half of those companies did run into
serious fundamental problems their
quality alone or their perceive quality
did not impart to them the safety that
people thought it would and in fact
because people thought they were so safe
they bid them up to prices which in fact
made them risky on the other hand a
lowquality asset can be cheap enough to
be safe again this seems
counterintuitive and maybe even perverse
when I left the world of equities in
1978 I was asked by City Bank to start
their activity in high yield bonds and
now I was investing in the lowest
quality uh public companies in America
and making money steadily and safely the
ju toos of these events taught me an
important lesson uh that I want to share
sh with you uh so that you don't have to
learn it firsthand my conclusion was
it's not what you buy it's what you pay
and investment success doesn't come from
buying good things but from buying
things well and if you don't know the
difference you have to study up um there
are no assets that are so good that they
can't become overpriced and
dangerous there are very few assets that
are so bad that they can't be cheap
enough to be attractive as Investments
so this is a a simple concept it sounds
like to me but I hope you'll spend a lot
of time thinking about its
[Music]
consequences now let's talk for a while
about the relationship between risk and
return this is one of the most important
of all the topics when I got to
University of Chicago The Chicago School
of theory with regard to investment had
just been developed mostly between 62
and 64 and I arrived in ' 67 and there
was a graphic that we saw all the time
it shows uh return on the vertical axis
risk on the horizontal axis and an
upward sloping line to the right we call
that a positive correlation one goes up
the other goes up as well now most
people would look at that graphic and
say well that means two things that uh
riskier assets have higher returns and
if you want to make more money the way
to do it is to take more risk I think
that's a terrible formulation very
simply if it were true that riskier
assets produce higher returns then they
wouldn't be riskier would they so that
can't be the right
explanation what the upward sloping line
the positive correlation means is that
Investments that are perceived as being
risky have to be perceived as offering
higher returns to induce people to make
those Investments that makes perfect
sense the only thing is they don't have
to deliver and it's from the possibility
that the projected returns will not be
delivered that the risk ensues when you
look at the old graph the linearity of
the relationship between risk and return
implies a Dependable relationship and
I've always felt that that was
misleading I was never happy uh when I
got out into the real world and and and
had to live with the consequences and so
I developed my own version of that chart
I took some little bell-shaped
probability distributions and I turned
them on their side and I superimpose
them on the same line it's the same
underlying line just now with some
embellishment with the old graph as you
moved from left to right the risk
increased and the return increased but
with this new graft As you move from
left to right the expected return
increases just as it did in the old one
but at the same time the range of
possibilities becomes wider and the
worst outcomes become worse that's risk
this is the way to think about the risk
return
[Music]
relationship so now let's talk a little
more about how risk should be handled
what determines investment success and
the best way I have uh to communicate
this to you in my opinion is like the
act of pulling one Lottery Ticket the
outcome from a bowl full of lottery
tickets the full range of possible
outcomes as Dimson said we're going to
have one outcome there could be many
outcomes and the outcome that occurs
never amounts in my opinion
to anything but one ticket pulled from
among the many in my opinion Superior
investors have a better sense for the
tickets in the bowl for What proportion
of them are winners and What proportion
of them are losers than do most other
people that's what makes them Superior
and thus they have a better grasp of
whether it's worth participating in a
any given Lottery and how heavily to bet
now how should each of us deal with risk
I think that risk is best assessed
through subjective judgment since risk
cannot be measured gauging it has to be
the province of subject matter experts
and I'm clearly uh jist on the subject
of
quantification I believe imprecise
qualitative expert opinion about the
probability of
loss is far more useful than precise but
largely irrelevant numbers concerning
past and projected volatility so what is
the essence of risk management Peter
Bernstein again my my hero he said
because of the existence of risk things
are going to be different from what we
expect from time to time how well are we
prepared to deal when it's different
this is a great formulation there's no
challenge dealing with the events when
they turn out as we expected the
question is are we prepared for when
they don't turn out as expected
according to Bernstein risk just means
things are uncertain good things can
happen as well as bad things but I think
the definition of risk should emphasize
the bad things and thus I would say risk
is the possibility that from the range
of Uncertain outcomes an unfavorable one
will be the one that materialize izes it
can consist of suffering a permanent
loss of capital when bad things happen
it can also consist of missing out on
gains when good things happen these
things have to be balanced let's say you
think that if you buy something today
there's a one-third chance it'll be down
in six or 12 months what will you do
about that risk many people will say
well I just wouldn't buy it but what do
you do about the other 2third the chance
that it'll be up in 6 to 12 months how
do you balance the two risks and you
know in the real world we can't make
decisions in one dimension we basically
have to balance I think that risk is
something that should be dealt with uh
constantly continuously not
sporadically that's why I Bridal when I
hear this formulation is this a risk on
Market or a risk off Market remember
risk produces loss when bad things
happen and that's when we need risk
control but I believe we never know when
bad things will happen and thus when
risk control will be needed I think the
right model for thinking about whether
we need risk control isn't American
football is soccer in American football
the team with the ball has the offense
on the field they have four tries to go
10 yards if they go 10 yards they get
four more tries to go 10 more yards and
if they can keep doing it they
eventually score but if the team doesn't
go 10 yards in four tries the referee
Blows the Whistle the ball goes over to
to the other team and they try to go 10
yards in four tries in the opposite
direction so we have two teams switching
between offense and defense changing
Personnel when there are stoppages that
has nothing to do with the real world
the right model as I say is what the
rest of the world calls football the
same 11 people mostly play the whole
game nobody tells you when to be on
offense or defense and there are very
few stoppages in which to adjust tactics
and and
Personnel that's the real world in
investing one of the key decisions is
when to be on offense when to be on
defense how much to allocate to each of
those but nobody tells you when to do it
and nobody stops the game to give you
time I think the best model for
investing and risk management is
automobile insurance we all drive we all
have cars we all have insurance on our
cars but I don't think of us get to the
end of a year and say I wish I hadn't
had Insurance because I didn't have an
accident we like having insurance for
the safety it give us regardless of
whether or not we have an accident in a
particular year I think about the
intelligent bearing of risk for profit
back in 1981 I was interviewed by one of
the first cable networks and uh the
reporter said to me how can you invest
in high yield bonds when you know some
of them are going to go bankrupt and for
some reason I was able to come up with
the right answer on the spot I said the
most conservative companies in America
are the life insurance companies how can
they Ure people's lives when they know
they're all going to die and I think
it's an interesting question but the
life insurance company is number one
taking a risk that it's aware of they're
not shocked when somebody dies that's
the way it goes number two they take a
risk they can analyze and when I was a
young man and got my first insurance
policy they sent a doctor to my house to
see if I was healthy number three they
take a risk that can be Diversified so
no life insurance companies insure just
smokers or just people who live in on
the San Andreas fault or just
skydivers just young people or just old
people they have a mix a diversified
portfolio and they take a risk that
they're well paid to Bear they figure
out the probability of what they're
going to have to pay you based on
Actuarial assumptions they allow some
windage for the uncertainty and then
they charge you a premium we do the same
we take credit risk that we're aware of
we analyze it we take a risk that we can
diversify we have large numbers of
Holdings in every portfolio which
respond to different factors and it's a
risk we're well paid to Bear we get
What's called the risk premium or a
yield premium to take the risk of
default so the bottom line is that I
believe risk is kept under control in
Superior portfolios that's one of the
things that Superior investors do highly
skilled investors assemble portfolio
that will produce good returns if things
go as expected and resist declines if
they don't this asymmetry is in my
opinion the critical element the
Cornerstone of superior investing
assembling a portfolio that incorporates
risk control along with the potential
for gains is a great accomplishment but
it's often a hidden accomplishment
because risk only turns into loss
occasionally When the tide go goes out
but The Prudent investor and hopefully
his or her clients knows that risk is
being controlled even at times when it
doesn't come to the surface so I think
that risk is something to be managed and
controlled but not avoided risk control
is indispensable risk avoidance is not
an appropriate goal in investing Will
Rogers said you've got to go out on a
limb sometimes because that's where the
fruit is I think and my experience tells
me from watching others that risk
avoidance equates to return
avoidance intelligent bearing of risk
should be able to enable us to make good
returns with the risk under
[Music]
control so what's the bottom line of all
that
foregoing you shouldn't expect to make
money without bearing risk you shouldn't
expect to make money just for bearing
risk risk is best handled on the basis
of accurate subjective judgments made by
experienced expert investors who
emphasize risk
Consciousness the great challenge in
investing is to limit uncertainty and
still maintain substantial potential for
gains and in conclusion I'll just say
that outstanding investors are out
standing for the simple reason that they
have a
superior sense for the probability
distribution that governs future events
the tickets in the bowl and for whether
the potential return compensates for the
risks that lurk in the distribution's
unattractive left-and tail this is what
enables them to achieve the asymmetry
that characterizes Superior investors
participating strongly in the game GS
when there are gains and avoiding many
of the losses when there are losses I
hope the foregoing discussion will help
you be among
[Music]
them for
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.