When
a firm makes an investment, in a new asset or a project, the return on that investment
can be affected by several variables, most of which are not under the direct
control of the firm. Some of the risk comes directly from the investment, a
portion from competition, some from shifts in the industry, some from changes
in exchange rates and some from
macroeconomic factors. A portion of this risk, however, will be eliminated by
the firm itself over the course of multiple investments and another portion by
investors as they hold diversified portfolios.
The
first source of risk is project-specific; an individual project may have
higher or lower cashflows than expected, either because the firm misestimated
the cashflows for that project or because of factors specific to that project.
When firms take a large number of similar projects, it can be argued that much
of this risk should be diversified away in the normal course of business. For
instance, Disney, while considering making a new movie, exposes itself to
estimation error - it may under or over estimate the cost and time of making
the movie, and may also err in its estimates of revenues from both theatrical
release and the sale of merchandise. Since Disney releases several movies a
year, it can be argued that some or much of this risk should be diversifiable
across movies produced during the course of the year.[1]
The
second source of risk is competitive risk, whereby the earnings and
cashflows on a project are affected (positively or negatively) by the actions
of competitors. While a good project analysis will build in the expected
reactions of competitors into estimates of profit margins and growth, the
actual actions taken by competitors may differ from these expectations. In most
cases, this component of risk will affect more than one project, and is
therefore more difficult to diversify away in the normal course of business by
the firm. Disney, for instance, in its analysis of revenues from its Disney
retail store division may err in its assessments of the strength and strategies
of competitors like ToysÕRÕUs and WalMart. While Disney cannot diversify away
its competitive risk, stockholders in Disney can, if they are willing to hold
stock in the competitors.[2]
The
third source of risk is industry-specific risk ÐÐ those factors that
impact the earnings and cashflows of a specific industry. There are three
sources of industry-specific risk. The first is technology risk, which reflects the effects of technologies that
change or evolve in ways different from those expected when a project was
originally analyzed. The second source is legal risk, which reflects the effect of changing laws and
regulations. The third is commodity risk, which reflects the effects of price changes in commodities and
services that are used or produced disproportionately by a specific industry.
Disney, for instance, in assessing the prospects of its broadcasting division
(ABC) is likely to be exposed to all three risks; to technology risk, as the
lines between television entertainment and the internet are increasing blurred
by companies like Microsoft, to legal risk, as the laws governing broadcasting
change and to commodity risk, as the costs of making new television programs
change over time. A firm cannot diversify away its industry-specific risk
without diversifying across industries, either with new projects or through
acquisitions. Stockholders in the firm should be able to diversify away
industry-specific risk by holding portfolios of stocks from different
industries.
The
fourth source of risk is international risk. A firm faces this type of
risk when it generates revenues or has costs outside its domestic market. In
such cases, the earnings and cashflows will be affected by unexpected exchange
rate movements or by political developments. Disney, for instance, was clearly
exposed to this risk with its 33% stake in EuroDisney, the theme park it
developed outside Paris. Some of this risk may be diversified away by the firm
in the normal course of business by investing in projects in different
countries whose currencies may not all move in the same direction. Citibank and
McDonalds, for instance, operate in many different countries and are much less
exposed to international risk than was Wal-Mart in 1994, when its foreign
operations were restricted primarily to Mexico. Companies can also reduce their
exposure to the exchange rate component of this risk by borrowing in the local
currency to fund projects; for instance, by borrowing money in pesos to invest
in Mexico. Investors should be able to reduce their exposure to international
risk by diversifying globally.
The
final source of risk is market risk: macroeconomic factors that affect essentially all companies and all
projects, to varying degrees. For example, changes in interest rates will
affect the value of projects already taken and those yet to be taken both
directly, through the discount rates, and indirectly, through the cashflows.
Other factors that affect all investments include the term structure (the
difference between short and long term rates), the risk preferences of
investors (as investors become more risk averse, more risky investments will
lose value), inflation, and economic growth. While expected values of all these
variables enter into project analysis, unexpected changes in these variables
will affect the values of these investments. Neither investors nor firms can
diversify away this risk since all risky investments bear some exposure to this
risk.
Why
do we distinguish between the different types of risk? Risk that affect one of
a few firms, i.e., firm specific risk, can be reduced or even eliminated by
investors as they hold more diverse portfolios due to two reasons.
In contrast, risk that affects most of all assets in the
market will continue to persist even in large and diversified portfolios. For
instance, other things being equal, an increase in interest rates will lower
the values of most assets in a portfolio. Figure 3.5 summarizes the different
components of risk and the actions that can be taken by the firm and its
investors to reduce or eliminate this risk.
While
the intuition for diversification reducing risk is simple, the benefits of
diversification can also be shown statistically. In the last section, we
introduced standard deviation as the measure of risk in an investment and
calculated the standard deviation for an individual stock (Disney). When you
combine two investments that do not move together in a portfolio, the standard
deviation of that portfolio can be lower than the standard deviation of the
individual stocks in the portfolio. To see how the magic of diversification
works, consider a portfolio of two assets. Asset A has an expected return of mA and a variance in returns of s2A, while asset B has an expected return of
mB and a variance in returns of s2B.
The correlation in returns between the two assets, which measures how the
assets move together, is rAB.[3]
The expected returns and variance of a two-asset portfolio can be written as a
function of these inputs and the proportion of the portfolio going to each
asset.
mportfolio = wA
mA + (1 - wA) mB
s2portfolio = wA2 s2A + (1 - wA)2 s2B + 2 wA wB rAB sA sB
where
wA = Proportion of the
portfolio in asset A
The last term in the variance formulation is sometimes
written in terms of the covariance in returns between the two assets, which is
sAB = rAB sA sB
The savings that accrue from diversification are a function
of the correlation coefficient. Other things remaining equal, the higher the
correlation in returns between the two assets, the smaller are the potential
benefits from diversification. The following example illustrates the savings
from diversification.
In
illustration 3.1, we computed the average return and standard deviation of
returns on Disney between January 1999 and December 2003. While Aracruz is a
Brazilian stock, it has been listed and traded in the U.S. market over the same
period. [4]
Using the same 60 months of data on Aracruz, we computed the average return and
standard deviation on its returns over the same period:
|
Disney |
Aracruz ADR |
Average Monthly Return |
- 0.07% |
2.57% |
Standard Deviation in Monthly Returns |
9.33% |
12.62% |
=
(.9)2(.0933)2+(.1)2(.1262)2+ 2
(.9)(.1)(.2665)(.0933)(.1262)
=
.007767
Standard Deviation of Portfolio = = .0881 or 8.81%
The portfolio is less risky than either of the two stocks
that go into it. In figure 3.6, we graph the standard deviation in the portfolio
as a function of the proportion of the portfolio invested in Disney:
As the proportion of the portfolio invested in Aracruz
shifts towards 100%, the standard deviation of the portfolio converges on the
standard deviation of Aracruz.
[1] To provide an illustration, Disney released Treasure Planet, an animated movie, in 2002, which cost $140 million to make and resulted in a $98 million write-off. A few months later, Finding Nemo, another animated Disney movie made hundreds of millions of dollars and became one of the biggest hits of 2003.
[2] Firms could conceivably diversify away competitive risk by acquiring their existing competitors. Doing so would expose them to attacks under the anti-trust law, however and would not eliminate the risk from as yet unannounced competitors.
[3] The correlation is a number between Ð1 and +1. If the correlation is Ð1, the two stocks move in lock step but in opposite directions. If the correlation is +1, the two stocks move together in synch.
[4] Like most foreign stocks, Aracruz has a listing for depository receipts or ADRs on the U.S. exchanges. Effectively, a bank buys shares of Aracruz in Brazil and issues dollar denominated shares in the United States to interested investors. AracruzÕs ADR price tracks the price of the local listing while reflecting exchange rate changes.