In the previous article, I hypothesized that risk ratings could decrease
even more over the next few years as the volatility experienced during the
financial crisis in 2008 begins to fall out of the 10-year standard
deviation (SD) calculation. I wanted to explore this idea further and look
at how the 10-year SD will change, and how this could affect risk ratings
under the new CSA methodology.
We will start by looking at the historical volatility figures. The chart
below shows the average 1-year and 10-year SD going back 30 years. The
universe includes only funds with a 10-year history and excludes money
market funds as well as Passive Inverse/Leveraged ETFs.
The first thing to notice is that the 10-year SD is much more stable than
the 1-year SD. Despite this fact, you can clearly see the effect that
periods of extreme volatility have on the 10-year SD. This effect can be
seen at both the beginning of a volatile period as well as 10 years after
the volatile period has ended. For example, in October 1987, the 10-year SD
jumped to 13.9% from 12.8% in just one month. This was due to the “Black
Monday” market crash on October 19, 1987, when equity markets fell more
than 20% in one day and funds lost an average of 13.2% for the month. This
extreme one-month return can be seen at the bottom of the chart and is
responsible for the entire 1.1-point increase in the 10-year SD. The
opposite effect can be seen on the other side of the calculation. Ten years
later, when this month drops out of the calculation, the 10-year SD falls
to 9.9% from 11.1%.
A few years after this, in August 1998, the Russian debt crisis caused
funds to lose an average of 12% in one month and the 10-year SD to jump to
10.6% from 9.9%. Then in August 2008, one month before the credit crisis
would result in funds losing an average of 10% for two consecutive months,
the effects of the Russian debt crisis fall out of the calculation, and the
10-year SD declines to 12.3% from 13%. The drop would be short-lived, as
the figure rose back to 13.1% by November 2008 and to 13.5% by August 2009,
its highest level in over 20 years.
Which brings us to today. The 10 year SD has been steadily falling for the
past eight years and now sits at 11.5%. Looking at the chart, you can see
that the 1-year SD has not been above the 10-year value since early 2010.
Once the volatility we experienced during the financial crisis drops out of
the calculation, assuming we do not experience another spike in volatility
(more on that in a minute), the 10 year SD will decrease rapidly. This has
the potential to significantly alter risk ratings that will be using the
new CSA methodology starting this year.
Let’s project the 10-year SD over the next two years. If we assume that
volatility over the next two years reflects the average volatility we have
experienced over the past 8 years, we can use the 8- and 9-year SD values
as a proxy for the projected 10-year SD figures. Using this assumption, the
table below shows the projected 10-year SD values over the next two years.
The first thing you will notice is that the projected figure at January
2018 is slightly higher than the current 10-year SD. However, this is not
all that surprising when looking at the historical graph, because the
period of extremely low volatility leading up to the 2008 credit crisis
falls out of the calculation.
The change that is projected over the following year is much more dramatic.
The projected 10-year SD at January 2019 is just 10.5%, almost 2 percentage
points below the value projected at January 2018. Interestingly, this
entire change will occur during the final five months of the period, with
the largest decreases occurring in September and October of 2018 when
September and October 2008 drop out of the calculation. The graph below
shows the projected 10-year SD for the next two years.
Assuming that volatility will remain steady for the next two years may seem
like a stretch to some observers. But even if this scenario were to play
out, the average 10-year SD would still be above its low point over the
past 20 years, which was set in July 1998 at 9.9%. While this scenario may
seem unlikely to materialize, it would not be unprecedented based on
historical trends, so we cannot completely discount the possibility.
Now let’s look at how these changes might affect risk ratings under the new
CSA methodology, which uses fixed SD bands to assign risk ratings.
Assuming the projected SD values play out, the percentage of funds that
could potentially change categories will not differ significantly over the
next year when compared with my previous analysis. By January 31, 2019,
however, the total percentage of funds that could potentially change
categories would increase to 49%, with an astounding 97% of these – or more
than 700 funds – potentially moving down at least one risk band. And if we
extrapolate over the entire universe of funds, this number could easily
It is also worth pointing out that the past two major market crashes have
been preceded by periods of extremely low volatility. In both cases, the
10-year SD dropped significantly leading up to the event. Whether this is
just coincidence based on the limited time frame of this analysis or
whether it highlights a drawback of measuring risk using SD with fixed risk
bands, we should not overlook the possibility that risk ratings could
potentially be decreasing just as the risk of a tail event is at its
Brian Bridger, CFA, FRM, is Vice President, Analytics & Data at Fundata Canada Inc. and is a
member of the
Canadian Investment Funds Standards Committee.
Notes and Disclaimers
© 2017 by Fund Library. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in
part by any means without prior written permission is prohibited.
Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees and expenses all may be
associated with mutual fund investments. Please read the simplified
prospectus before investing. Mutual funds are not guaranteed and are not
covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or by any other
government deposit insurer. There can be no assurances that the fund will
be able to maintain its net asset value per security at a constant amount
or that the full amount of your investment in the fund will be returned to
you. Fund values change frequently and past performance may not be
repeated. The foregoing is for general information purposes only and is the
opinion of the writer. No guarantee of performance is made or implied. This
information is not intended to provide specific personalized advice
including, without limitation, investment, financial, legal, accounting or