"Volatility is a silly measure of risk to me, but it's actually a very accurate measure of risk for most people because people get scared into stocks and out of stocks and get scared out of mutual funds and scared into mutual funds."For some reason he just refers to the mutual fund and the research without naming it (it's Ken Heebner and this article explains). The fund compounded 18% over a decade, but investors on average lost 11% since to them risk was volatility. While it might be obvious to many readers, there is potential that subconsciously this is also the case for you since this is largely reflective of human psychology.
What stuck out in the video to me was his view on risk because it is nuanced and there is truth to it despite the knee-jerk reaction many of you might have had to the characterization of risk as volatility. I think this also reveals a trait that allows someone to boast a good record like Romick's. An ability to form nuanced views that take into account numerous factors (such as the reality of human psychology in relation to risk) is the type of contrarianism that is good since it allows you to recognize mispricings. Absolute contrarianism is not a reliable way to beat the market.
There's a summary of the stock picks Romick mentions in the video on gurufocus. They are good picks, but it's boilerplate value at this point in time - Walmart, Microsoft, CVS. I'd actually never seen Romick speak, but he does a great job explaining his reasoning in a clear and simple manner. Fortune recently had a big article on Bob Rodriguez, his partner and head of FPA, which is also worth a peep while I'm on the topic of FPA.
No comments:
Post a Comment