Skip to main content

Is Risk Necessary?

I teach a class at USC’s Marshall Graduate Business School, where we explore some pretty interesting discussions.  Last week I prodded the class to explore whether risk was valuable, or even necessary.  I mean, who really likes to lose?  If risk could somehow be removed from markets wouldn’t everyone be better off?


As the class pondered that thought my mind wandered to the effects of long-term guaranteed contracts on the performance of star athletes.  Perhaps most exemplary to me was the complete collapse of the skills and ability to perform of Venezuelan pitcher Johann Santana a few years back, once the New York Mets acquired him in free agency and gave him a massive long-term guaranteed contract.  Of course, his is not the only example, but perhaps because he hails from the same Venezuelan town in which my die-hard baseball fanatic father-in-law resides, his experience has stuck with me.

My class pointed out that risk inspires creativity and heightens awareness.  Risk inspires greater effort, and also stimulation that one can even characterize as fun – think of the fear that gives way to joy on a roller coaster or to having endeavored to try something physically challenging that was fearful at first but once done brought great joy.  A world without risk, we concluded, was a dull, and even dead world.

There are many in government who seem to be fundamentally opposed to risk and who think it is their jobs to de-risk our lives.  Our central bank, the Fed, fears that allowing rates to float freely, as the cost of money always should inasmuch as it should reflect the pricing of money as driven by supply and demand, would introduce too much risk to the world economy.  We see the opposition to risk seep into many other aspects of life, both large and small.  My kids’ school removed the swings from the lower school playground recently when a kid got hurt.  Continuing to squeeze risk out of our lives, while perhaps well intended, will create a dead society with less creativity or great accomplishments, and with very little productivity.  There are surely certain risks that would be prudent to limit or even strive to eliminate, but those are precious few and probably ought to be limited to the basic human needs such as food, water, energy, and education.  Risk and freedom are inextricably linked, as are risk and fulfillment.  We must be very careful not to lose sight of those connections.

Popular posts from this blog

Greed & Laziness

In this most contentious and fascinating of election cycles, when nearly each conversation leads to politics, and when polarization runs so high, I ask myself - what is the essence of the debate between left and right?  What does it really mean to be a Conservative or a Liberal?

Why Rates Must Remain Low

There is an old bond trader joke that I first heard in the 1980’s when I traded mortgage-backed securities at Drexel Burnham Lambert.  It went like this:  “Upon dying, Albert Einstein finds himself in what he is told is heaven.  He encounters another individual there and asks him what his IQ is.  When he is told that it is 175 he is overjoyed, knowing that he’s found an intellectual peer with whom he can share much.  Upon meeting another, he discovers that person’s IQ is 140 and is pleased to have met another highly intelligent person with whom he can enjoy chess and other pursuits.  He is feeling pretty good about heaven, when he comes across a person who tells him that his IQ is a mere 90, and he is flummoxed.  What, he wonders, is this guy doing in my heaven and what can I even say to this person?  Then it comes to him.  ‘Where,’ he asks, ‘do you think interest rates are heading?’”

CMBS In Flux

The CMBS market has been in a period of upheaval, with dramatic spread widening on bonds and a resulting much more expensive cost of capital for real estate borrowers who depend upon this channel for their debt financing.Market participants today wonder whether we’ve entered a period like the summer of 2011, when spreads on bonds last widened this dramatically and then snapped back within a year to provide tremendous returns for those who were courageous enough to purchase bonds at the time when there was panic selling.Or, people wonder, is this recent downturn a prelude to a structural or systemic problem, like what was experienced in 2007, when spreads widened and sucked investors in, only to punish those early responders with a much more dramatic price collapse in the next 24 months.