Portfolios & risk

What a risk score does not measure

One number, produced from a questionnaire, standing in for three separate questions. It presents well, and it does not measure the other two.

What the questionnaire is good at

Capturing disposition. How someone describes their relationship with volatility, in a calm room, with nothing happening.

That is real information and it belongs in the file. It is not nothing.

The first thing it misses

Capacity. How much loss the plan can absorb before the plan stops working.

Capacity is arithmetic. Time horizon, required withdrawals, fixed obligations, and flexibility in the goal. It has no relationship to how the client feels, and two people with identical questionnaire answers routinely have completely different capacity.

The second thing it misses

Behavior. What the client actually does when the decline is happening rather than hypothetical.

People are poor predictors of their own conduct in conditions they have not experienced. The questionnaire asks them to be exactly that.

The distinction has a name and a full statement: The Three Risks.

Why the score moves

Administer the same questionnaire to the same person in a rising market and a falling one and you will frequently get different answers.

Part of the score is the date it was taken.

What to do with it

Use it as one input. The rest — capacity from the plan, behavior from the record, and a written reconciliation where the three disagree — is stated once, on The Three Risks.

Disclosure. I am a co-founder of riskDNA AI, which builds risk analytics on this premise; it is free to advisors and funded by asset managers, who in return receive advisor-level data, and aggregated client data, on how advisors on riskDNA use and position their strategies, and whose products are among those it covers. That funding is a conflict of interest. Full disclosures.