Yeah. In "old man quant world", we'd say that you can diversify the (unrewarded) idiosyncratic vol away by diversifying (or indexing), to harness the equity risk premium.
-
-
Replying to @therobotjames @breakingthemark and
A common misconception is "the ERP doesn't exist if you look at an individual stocks". The truth is that the variance term for an individual stock contains a component that can be trivially removed by diversifying.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @therobotjames @macrocephalopod and
It exists, it's just explainable.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @breakingthemark @macrocephalopod and
Yeah exactly. The stock contains a component of idiosyncratic volatility, which the index does not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @therobotjames @breakingthemark and
In your language "the geometric return of the index is higher than the individual stocks, because the index has reduced variance"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @therobotjames @macrocephalopod and
Right, but why say the idiosyncratic vol is unrewarded, when the premium is explained by that idiosyncratic vol? How is it not rewarded correctly then?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @breakingthemark @macrocephalopod and
As you noted earlier, the expected geometric return of a single stock is a lot closer to the risk-free rate, than the geometric return of the index. This is because the stock contains "stock-specific variance" that washes out (nets off on average) through diversification.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @therobotjames @macrocephalopod and
I said earlier that the geometric return of individual stocks is on average half thier variance above the risk free rate. This is closer to the geometric return of the index than the RFR. This is because individual stocks are stochastically efficient.https://breakingthemarket.com/stochastic-efficiency-is-real-and-its-spectacular/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @breakingthemark @macrocephalopod and
Maybe I'm too dumb to understand that Stochastic Efficiency thing. I don't understand why you would start with assuming the optimal leverage of an asset should always be 1. Why would that need to be the case? What is special about leverage 1?
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @therobotjames @breakingthemark and
It's obviously not the case and many papers (e.g. Pedersen Betting Against Beta) have shown that empirical best leverage varies across asset classes and alpha within asset classes is -ve correlated with beta, idio vol, and total vol, the opposite to what stochastic eff. predicts.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
The "stochastic efficiency" literature (which is like, two guys with zero finance experience) is an example of how you can prove a bunch of stupid results if you make a single stupid assumption.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @theamateurbball @macrocephalopod and
Waiter! More winefor the octopus please!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.