Understanding your risk tolerance
“Fortune favors the bold”–Virgil
Do you buy a new laptop for $1,000 or reconditioned one for $900? The reconditioned product is $100 cheaper, but presumably more likely to fail. Do the savings make it worth taking a chance? Situations like this, where decisions are made under uncertainty, warrant risk analysis.
The two questions in risk
Two questions are central to risk analysis. First, can you objectively measure the risk? I’ll focus on financial risk, which is defined as the spread, or mathematically, the variance of outcomes. The more dispersed likely outcomes are (the higher the variance) the more risk there is.
In the laptop example, the reconditioned product will probably behave more erratically than a new laptop, hence buying it is riskier. Why do you take on extra risk? Simple: the reconditioned product is cheaper. This is because in well-functioning financial markets, a riskier investment must provide a a higher potential return (i.e., a riskier product is priced cheaper than comparables with less risk).
The second question in risk analysis is: what is your own tolerance for risk? Economists consider three risk types:
- Risk averse, meaning getting a sure $1 is better than entering a gamble that gives you $1 on average–which is naturally what most people are
- Risk neutral, meaning getting a sure $1 is equal is equal to entering a gamble that gives you $1 on average–think of how the Terminator might view finances
- Risk loving, meaning getting a sure $1 is worse than entering a gamble that gives you $1 on average–think of people playing the lottery or the slot machines
You can understand your financial risk by taking a large survey about risk. The survey may even surprise you. I discovered I could take on more risk than I thought.
Successful risk management
One more thing: successful risk management is about matching your risk tolerance with rewarding risky opportunities. Sounds easy enough, but we often fail to take risks for fear of looking stupid.
One study (pdf) encourages NFL coaches to be more aggressive on fourth downs and go for it instead of punting. While the study was praised, it has not been widely incorporated as a good strategy among the league. The book The Wisdom of Crowds offers one explanation: an individual coach who takes the new advice fears failure because the media can singularly blast him for acting different from the group. There is a safety to keeping to conventional wisdom, even if you know that it’s wrong.
Who knows, though, attitudes may change. Some organizations have differed from the group and been successful: see the New England Patriots.
Other articles on risk
I have written many articles about risk on this site. Here is a sampling of a few of my favorites:
–Why I would buy disability insurance: there is a great benefit to being protected from loss of income due to disability
–The misbehavior of markets: market risk is not priced well, claims Mandelbrot in this fascinating book. Mandelbrot says that markets follow a fractal pattern rather than a bell curve and explains how he would revise academic finance to price risk better
–Myth: young people need to invest aggressively: Young people should be safe with their money, in my opinion. When risks are carefully laid out, it is often the case that older people are in a better position to invest aggressively.
This post is part 4 of a 7-part series on the most important lessons in personal finance. Here are links to all of the articles in the series:
Share this post:
Previous post: Understanding opportunity costs
Next post: Lifestyle funds make little sense for people who want the best





