3 ms·

> Bonds have (relatively) low returns but almost 0 risk Each of the asset classes you listed has risks. Bonds are subject to term (i.e. inflation) and credit (

> Bonds have (relatively) low returns but almost 0 risk Each of the asset classes you listed has risks. Bonds are subject to term (i.e. inflation) and credit (i.e. default) risk. Bonds may be less volatile than equities and commodities, but they can definitely go down (e.g. 2022). The only free lunch in investing is diversification.

ipaddr 2y ago
Some bonds go down and others have floors.
jon_richards 2y ago
Sure, there’s no free lunch, but there is the beat-you-up-and-take-your-lunch-money of not investing. Bonds may have gone down, but they still paid out. Unless people sold at a loss for liquidity or could’ve timed the market and bought low, they were better off than people stashing money in a mattress or most bank accounts.
- eru 2y ago
  Yes, holding cash also has risks.
  - jon_richards 2y ago
    That's not really my point. I think one thing that gets lost in the "everything has different levels of risk" discussion is that many risk/reward profiles are bad. Calling everything a tradeoff is misleading. Banks are more than happy to capitalize on laziness and lack of knowledge (an American is more likely to change their spouse than their bank), so the balance between risk and reward gets thrown out of whack. The simple term for this is Sharpe Ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio If you want to get really deep into investment theory, Beta implies basically everything is a good investment in small enough amounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) Though in practice, Beta is mostly irrelevant beyond a relatively simple portfolio https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-myth-more-why-140043091.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-myth-more-why-...
    - eru 2y ago
      > I think one thing that gets lost in the "everything has different levels of risk" discussion is that many risk/reward profiles are bad. Yes, not everything is on the efficiency frontier for risk/reward. Eg cash is convenient to spend, so it can 'get away with' offering a worse risk/reward profile. Yes, the Sharpe ratio is one of many ways to measure risk adjusted returns. > If you want to get really deep into investment theory, Beta implies basically everything is a good investment in small enough amounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) Well, that assumes no fees, transaction costs and taxes, I think. And even without transaction costs etc, the theoretically optimal amount can be so low that it's not worth bothering with.

ipaddr 2y ago

Some bonds go down and others have floors.

jon_richards 2y ago

Sure, there’s no free lunch, but there is the beat-you-up-and-take-your-lunch-money of not investing. Bonds may have gone down, but they still paid out. Unless people sold at a loss for liquidity or could’ve timed the market and bought low, they were better off than people stashing money in a mattress or most bank accounts.

eru 2y ago
Yes, holding cash also has risks.
- jon_richards 2y ago
  That's not really my point. I think one thing that gets lost in the "everything has different levels of risk" discussion is that many risk/reward profiles are bad. Calling everything a tradeoff is misleading. Banks are more than happy to capitalize on laziness and lack of knowledge (an American is more likely to change their spouse than their bank), so the balance between risk and reward gets thrown out of whack. The simple term for this is Sharpe Ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio If you want to get really deep into investment theory, Beta implies basically everything is a good investment in small enough amounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) Though in practice, Beta is mostly irrelevant beyond a relatively simple portfolio https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-myth-more-why-140043091.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-myth-more-why-...
  - eru 2y ago
    > I think one thing that gets lost in the "everything has different levels of risk" discussion is that many risk/reward profiles are bad. Yes, not everything is on the efficiency frontier for risk/reward. Eg cash is convenient to spend, so it can 'get away with' offering a worse risk/reward profile. Yes, the Sharpe ratio is one of many ways to measure risk adjusted returns. > If you want to get really deep into investment theory, Beta implies basically everything is a good investment in small enough amounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance) Well, that assumes no fees, transaction costs and taxes, I think. And even without transaction costs etc, the theoretically optimal amount can be so low that it's not worth bothering with.