adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

What is investment risk? – The Hindu

Published

 on


Risk must be defined based on investment objective, not on the possibility of negative returns in future

How do you define investment risk? We ask this question because many individuals are worried that equity investments currently carry high risk, having recorded continual uptrend in recent times. In this article, we show that risk must be defined based on your investment objective, not on the possibility of negative returns experience in the future.

Goal failure

You invest to achieve a goal. This could range from buying a house within the next five years to investing for your retirement 25 years hence. Risk in this context is not about earning negative returns.

300x250x1

Rather, it the possibility that you may fail to buy the house because of adverse returns experience of your investment portfolio during the time horizon for the goal.

Note that adverse returns experience is not the same as negative returns experience. Suppose you save ₹53,000 every month for 10 years. Your objective, say, is to accumulate ₹1 crore to make down payment for a house.

Your investment must generate compounded annual return of 8.5% for you to achieve the goal.

The risk in relation to this goal is the possibility of your investments earning less than 8.5% in any year; for a small shortfall in one year can compound to large amount over the remaining time horizon for the goal.

The risk on your trading portfolio is measured differently. In this case, you are trading to generate gains from short-term fluctuations in the market. So, risk is the possibility of loss on your investments sometime in the future.

Your definition of risk is important for you to achieve your investment objectives. Why?

Suppose you create a stock-bond portfolio to meet your goals. Specifically, your bond investment will be in bank recurring deposits and your stock investments in equity funds. The actual return on your recurring deposit is the same as expected return, as the maturity value of the deposit is known at the time of investment.

Moderating risk

This means your investment risk can be attributed to your exposure to equity funds. There are couple of ways that you can moderate this risk.

One, you could continually reduce the proportion of your equity allocation and shift the money to fixed deposits starting four years from the end of the time horizon for the goal.

This change in allocation requires additional capital contribution in those years because expected returns on bonds is significantly lower than the expected return on equity. It is preferable to have equity allocation of not more than 30% of the portfolio at the end of the time horizon for a goal.

Two, suppose you expect to earn 10% on your equity investment every year.

In any year when your investment generates greater than 10%, you could redeem units equal to the excess returns and keep this money in a fixed deposit paying annual interest. This money can be used in years when your equity investment generates less than 10%.

Conclusion

You may be wondering why we did not discuss inflation in our discussion about investment risk. This is because your investments are set up to earn nominal returns, not inflation-adjusted return.

You should factor inflation as part of your goal, not as a risk associated with your investment portfolio. Suppose you want to buy a house 10 years hence. You should observe the current price of a similar property and inflation-adjust this price over 10 years.

If actual inflation is greater than assumed inflation, then the house that you want to buy in the tenth year may cost more than your estimated price.

True, you could fail to achieve your goal if this shortfall is significant. But this failure is not due to adverse returns experience of your investments; it is due to the unexpected increase in inflation.

(The author offers training programme for individuals to manage their personal investments)

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

BWXT announces $80M investment for plant in Cambridge – CityNews Kitchener

Published

 on

By


BWX Technologies (BWXT) in Cambridge is investing $80-million to expand their nuclear manufacturing plant in Cambridge.

Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, was in the city on Friday to join the company in the announcement.

The investment will create over 200 new skilled and unionized jobs. This is part of the province’s plan to expand affordable and clean nuclear energy to power the economy.

300x250x1

“With shovels in the ground today on new nuclear generation, including the first small modular reactor in the G7, I’m so pleased to see global nuclear manufacturers like BWXT expanding their operations in Cambridge and hiring more Ontario workers,” Smith said. “The benefits of Ontario’s nuclear industry reaches far beyond the stations at Darlington, Pickering and Bruce, and this $80 million investment shows how all communities can help meet Ontario’s growing demand for clean energy, while also securing local investments and creating even more good-paying jobs.”

The added jobs will support BWXT’s existing operations across the province as well as help the sector’s ongoing operations of existing nuclear stations at Darlington, Bruce and Pickering.

“Our expansion comes at a time when we’re supporting our customers in the successful execution of some of the largest clean nuclear energy projects in the world,” John MacQuarrie, President of Commercial Operations at BWXT, said.

“At the same time, the global nuclear industry is increasingly being called upon to mitigate the impacts of climate change and increase energy security and independence. By investing significantly in our Cambridge manufacturing facility, BWXT is further positioning our business to serve our customers to produce more safe, clean and reliable electricity in Canada and abroad.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

AI investments will help chip sector to recover: Analyst – Yahoo Finance

Published

 on

By


The semiconductor sector is undergoing a correction as interest rate cut expectations dwindle, prompting concerns about the impact on these high-growth, technology-driven stocks. Wedbush Enterprise Hardware Analyst Matt Bryson joins Yahoo Finance to discuss the dynamics shaping the chip industry.

Bryson acknowledges that the rise of generative AI has been a significant driving force behind the recent success of chip stocks. While he believes that AI is shifting “the way technology works,” he notes it will take time. Due to this, Bryson highlights that “significant investment” will continue to occur in the chip market, fueled by the growth of generative AI applications.

However, Bryson cautions that as interest rates remain elevated, it could “weigh on consumer spending.” Nevertheless, he expresses confidence that the AI revolution “changing the landscape for tech” will likely insulate the sector from the effect of high interest rates, as investors are unwilling to miss out on the “next technology” breakthrough.

300x250x1

For more expert insight and the latest market action, click here to watch this full episode of Yahoo Finance.

This post was written by Angel Smith

Video Transcript

BRAD SMITH: As rate cut bets shift, so have moves in one sector, in particular. Shares of AMD and Intel, both down over 15% in the last 30 days. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index, also known as Sox, dropping over 10% from recent highs, despite a higher rate environment.

Our next guest is still bullish on the sector. Matt Bryson, Wedbush Enterprise Hardware analyst, joins us now. Matt, thanks so much for taking the time here. Walk us through your thesis here, especially, given some of the pullback that we’ve seen recently.

MATT BRYSON: So I think what we’ve seen over the last year or so is that the growth of generative AI has fueled the chip stocks. And the expectation that AI is going to shift everything in the way that technology works.

And I think that at the end of the day, that that thesis will prove out. I think the question is really timing. But the investments that we’ve seen that have lifted NVIDIA, that have lifted AMD, that have lifted the chip stock and sector, in general, the large cloud service providers, building out data centers. I don’t think anything has changed there in the near term.

So when I speak to OEMs, who are making AI servers, when I speak to cloud service providers, there is still significant investment going on in that space. That investment is slated to continue certainly into 2025. And I think, as long as there is this substantial investment, that we will see chip names report strong numbers and guide for strong growth.

SEANA SMITH: Matt, when it comes to the fact that we are in this macroeconomic environment right now, likelihood that rates will be higher for longer here, at least, when you take a look at the expectations, especially following some of the commentary that we got from Fed officials this week, what does that signal more broadly for the AI trade, meaning, is there a reason to be a bit more cautious in this higher for longer rate environment, at least, in the near term?

MATT BRYSON: Yeah. I think certainly from a market perspective, high interest rates weight on the market. Eventually, they weigh on consumer spending. Certainly, for a lot of the chip names, they’re high multiple stocks.

When you think about where there can be more of a reaction or a negative reaction to high interest rates, certainly, it has some impact on those names. But in terms of, again, AI changing the fundamental landscape for tech, I don’t think that high interest rates or low interest rates will change that.

So when you think about Microsoft, Amazon, all of those large data center operators looking at AI, potentially, changing the landscape forever and wanting to make a bet on AI to make sure that they don’t miss that change, I don’t think whether interest rates are low or high are going to really affect their investment.

I think they’re going to go ahead and invest because no one wants to be the guy that missed the next technology wave.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

If pension funds can't see the case for investing in Canada, why should you? – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on

By


It’s time to ask a rude question: Is Canada still worth investing in?

Before you rush to deliver an appropriately patriotic response, think about the issue for a moment.

A good place to begin is with the federal government’s announcement this week that it is forming a task force under former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz. The task force’s job will be to find ways to encourage Canadian pension funds to invest more of their assets in Canada.

300x250x1

Wooing pension funds has become a high-priority matter for Ottawa because, at the moment, these big institutional investors don’t invest all that much in Canada. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, for instance, had a mere 14 per cent of its massive $570-billion portfolio in Canadian assets at the end of its last fiscal year.

Other major Canadian pension plans have similar allocations, especially if you look beyond their holdings of government bonds and consider only their investments in stocks, infrastructure and real assets. When it comes to such risky assets, these big, sophisticated players often see more potential for good returns outside of Canada than at home.

This leads to a simple question: If the CPPIB and other sophisticated investors aren’t overwhelmed by Canada’s investment appeal, why should you and I be?

It’s not as if Canadian stocks have a record of outstanding success. Over the past decade, they have lagged far behind the juicy returns of the U.S.-based S&P 500.

To be fair, other countries have also fallen short of Wall Street’s glorious run. Still, Canadian stocks have only a middling record over the past 10 years even when measured against other non-U.S. peers. They have trailed French and Japanese stocks and achieved much the same results as their Australian counterparts. There is no obvious Canadian edge.

There are also no obvious reasons to think this middle-of-the-pack record will suddenly improve.

A generation of mismanagement by both major Canadian political parties has spawned a housing crisis and kneecapped productivity growth. It has driven household debt burdens to scary levels.

Policy makers appear unwilling to take bold action on many long-standing problems. Interprovincial trade barriers remain scandalously high, supply-managed agriculture continues to coddle inefficient small producers, and tax policy still pushes people to invest in homes rather than in productive enterprises.

From an investor’s perspective, the situation is not that appetizing. A handful of big banks, a cluster of energy producers and a pair of railways dominate Canada’s stock market. They are solid businesses, yes, but they are also mature industries, with less than thrilling growth prospects.

What is largely missing from the Canadian stock scene are big companies with the potential to expand and innovate around the globe. Shopify Inc. SHOP-T and Brookfield Corp. BN-T qualify. After that, the pickings get scarce, especially in areas such as health care, technology and retailing.

So why hold Canadian stocks at all? Four rationales come to mind:

  • Canadian stocks have lower political risk than U.S. stocks, especially in the run-up to this year’s U.S. presidential election. They also are far away from the front lines of any potential European or Asian conflict.
  • They are cheaper than U.S. stocks on many metrics, including price-to-earnings ratios, price-to-book ratios and dividend yields. Scored in terms of these standard market metrics, they are valued more or less in line with European and Japanese stocks, according to Citigroup calculations.
  • Canadian dividends carry some tax advantages and holding reliable Canadian dividend payers means you don’t have to worry about exchange-rate fluctuations.
  • Despite what you may think, Canada’s fiscal situation actually looks relatively benign. Many countries have seen an explosion of debt since the pandemic hit, but our projected deficits are nowhere near as worrisome as those in the United States, China, Italy or Britain, according to International Monetary Fund figures.

How compelling you find these rationales will depend upon your personal circumstances. Based strictly on the numbers, Canadian stocks look like ho-hum investments – they’re reasonable enough places to put your money, but they fail to stand out compared with what is available globally.

Canadians, though, have always displayed a striking fondness for homebrew. Canadian stocks make up only a smidgen of the global market – about 3 per cent, to be precise – but Canadians typically pour more than half of their total stock market investments into Canadian stocks, according to the International Monetary Fund. This home market bias is hard to justify on any rational basis.

What is more reasonable? Vanguard Canada crunched the historical data in a report last year and concluded that Canadian investors could achieve the best balance between risk and reward by devoting only about 30 per cent of their equity holdings to Canadian stocks.

This seems to be more or less in line with what many Canadian pension funds currently do. They have about half their portfolio in equities, so devoting 30 per cent of that half to domestic stocks works out to holding about 15 per cent of their total portfolio in Canadian equities.

That modest allocation to Canadian stocks is a useful model for Canadian investors of all sizes. And if Ottawa doesn’t like it? Perhaps it could do more to make Canada an attractive investment destination.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending