Trick Question? - Which Stock is riskier?

Warning: I'm a layman when it comes to finance (I'm an Engineer). I was wondering if this is just a simple question or if there are deeper insights.

"Stock A trades at $10/share and has a beta of 2.0; stock B trades at $50/share and has a beta
of 0.5. Suppose you know with perfect knowledge that both stocks are worth $55/share, which one is
riskier?"

Seems to me that since Beta is higher for A, it would be considered riskier. However, the price is so much lower, you would not need to put down as much money to reap the same returns.

Stock A is underappreciated by %550, while B is underappreciated by %110. You'd only have to invest 5 times less in Stock A to receive the same returns if the prices started to return to their true value. The question is: does that mean it is simply has more potential, or does that factor into it's perceived risk?

 

If you can see the future and know that both shares is going to be worth $55/share, then there are no risk. Personally I think risk is a misnomer, it should be uncertainty. Risk can be quantifiable, uncertainty isnt.

 
JasonLoh:
If you can see the future and know that both shares is going to be worth $55/share, then there are no risk. Personally I think risk is a misnomer, it should be uncertainty. Risk can be quantifiable, uncertainty isnt.

I don't think the question means "seeing the future", just knowing the true value of the stock. Even if the value is $55, isn't there a risk/uncertainty that the rest of the market (which contains a great number of irrational people) won't actually value it correctly?

 
  1. Stock with higher Beta will likely to be more volatile, thus riskier than stock with slower Beta.
  2. Real avlue of both stock is 55$ doesnt mean the whole market will realize its value. If they do, the market is perfect, and there is no arbitrage opportunity.
 

Beta only measures systematic risk and is assumed to measure a stock's overall risk only under the assumption of a perfectly efficient market. If you know, with perfect knowledge (I'll assume that means no insider information), that stock A is worth 5.5 times its market value, then the market isn't efficient. So beta isn't capturing unsystematic risk in this case and isn't very useful. Additionally, beta is backward looking and your valuation is forward looking.

And if the assumption that over time the market value converges with intrinsic value, I would say that stock B is riskier. We would expect Stock A's returns to be more rightward skewed than Stock B's because of that convergence. I think lower partial moment might be more relevant than beta for this stock.

Or something along those lines...

 

If you "KNOW" the stock price is worth 55 AND you know it will actually appreciate to 55, neither stock has any risk if you pay cash for them if you can hold to the date it realizes fair value. Stock A is clearly a better buy though (all else equal). It would help to know the timing of when it would realize that value. If you know stock B will hit 55 tomorrow, but stock A will hit it in 10,000 years, I'd take stock B.

Edit: The trick in this question is claiming to "know" anything about what the future holds. There are only probabilities.

 

I think you could also think about it in terms of expected returns per unit of market risk - i.e. expected return/beta (not a technically correct formula, but close since - Expected Returns - Rf / Beta = slope of securities market line).

Even if you assume the same end point in time, and that both stocks will go to $55, you may have different paths to get there (the volatility of the stock). The beta describes the behavior of this path relative to the market. Stock A has a much higher ratio, and should be considered to have a greater return-to-risk reward. Hence, I would consider this less risky.

  • edited grammar -
 
Best Response
discrete:
I think you could also think about it in terms of expected returns per unit of market risk - i.e. expected return/beta (not a technically correct formula, but close since - Expected Returns - Rf / Beta = slope of securities market line).

Even if you assume the same end point in time, and that both stocks will go to $55, you may have different paths to get there (the volatility of the stock). The beta describes the behavior of this path relative to the market. Stock A has a much higher ratio, and should be considered to have a greater return-to-risk reward. Hence, I would consider this less risky.

  • edited grammar -
The problem is that market risk, beta, and the SML are only relevant to an individual security in an efficient market context. The question assumes an inefficient market because these stock prices don't reflect the available information. Even if this were a risk averse market, Stock A should be priced much higher by the CAPM than it is relative to Stock B unless you're assuming grossly unrealistic risk free rates.

I agree with the idea of a risk/reward ratio, but I would think that a Sortino ratio or Kelly Criterion would be more relevant because we would be worried more about the rightward skewness of Stock A's returns than the even bidirectional distribution assumed by the CAPM.

Unless Stock A has more default risk than B (which seems unlikely given their equal intrinsic value), Stock A would be less risky when you take its lower partial moment into account. Same conclusion, though.

 

Provident et provident delectus iste accusamus pariatur qui. Qui aliquam saepe dolorem consequatur. Expedita numquam quis a ut. Ut omnis eum qui accusantium sit ipsa. Eum sit quis cumque.

Sunt voluptas soluta consequatur iste atque. Minima et at omnis sunt ipsum et reprehenderit.

Dolor aperiam illo et reiciendis. Doloribus provident molestiae doloremque atque nam omnis consectetur. At omnis et est numquam molestias id praesentium. Deserunt illum qui facere dolore incidunt.

Impedit magnam distinctio optio quam est porro dolores. Omnis sunt dolor est maiores qui.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”