Investors like to focus on the promise of high returns, but they should also ask how much risk they must assume in exchange for these returns. Although we often speak of risk in a general sense, there are also formal expressions of the riskreward relationship. For example, the Sharpe ratio measures excess return per unit of risk, where risk is calculated as volatility, which is a traditional and popular risk measure. Its statistical properties are well known and it feeds into several frameworks, such as modern portfolio theory and the BlackScholes model. In this article, we examine volatility in order to understand its uses and its limits.
Annualized Standard Deviation
Unlike implied volatility  which belongs to option pricing theory and is a forwardlooking estimate based on a market consensus  regular volatility looks backward. Specifically, it is the annualized standard deviation of historical returns.
Traditional risk frameworks that rely on standard deviation generally assume that returns conform to a normal bellshaped distribution. Normal distributions give us handy guidelines: about twothirds of the time (68.3%), returns should fall within one standard deviation (+/); and 95% of the time, returns should fall within two standard deviations. Two qualities of a normal distribution graph are skinny "tails" and perfect symmetry. Skinny tails imply a very low occurrence (about 0.3% of the time) of returns that are more than three standard deviations away from the average. Symmetry implies that the frequency and magnitude of upside gains is a mirror image of downside losses.
SEE: Volatility's Impact On Market Returns
Consequently, traditional models treat all uncertainty as risk, regardless of direction. As many people have shown, that's a problem if returns are not symmetrical  investors worry about their losses "to the left" of the average, but they do not worry about gains to the right of the average.
We illustrate this quirk below with two fictional stocks. The falling stock (blue line) is utterly without dispersion and therefore produces a volatility of zero, but the rising stock  because it exhibits several upside shocks but not a single drop  produces a volatility (standard deviation) of 10%.
Theoretical Properties
For example, when we calculate the volatility for the S&P 500 index as of Jan. 31, 2004, we get anywhere from 14.7% to 21.1%. Why such a range? Because we must choose both an interval and a historical period. In regard to interval, we could collect a series of monthly, weekly or daily (even intradaily) returns. And our series of returns can extend back over a historical period of any length, such as three years, five years or 10 years. Below, we've computed the standard deviation of returns for the S&P 500 over a 10year period, using three different intervals:
Notice that volatility increases as the interval increases, but not nearly in proportion: the weekly is not nearly five times the daily amount and monthly is not nearly four times the weekly. We've arrived at a key aspect of random walk theory: standard deviation scales (increases) in proportion to the square root of time. Therefore, if the daily standard deviation is 1.1%, and if there are 250 trading days in a year, the annualized standard deviation is the daily standard deviation of 1.1% multiplied by the square root of 250 (1.1% x 15.8 = 18.1%). Knowing this, we can annualize the interval standard deviations for the S&P 500 by multiplying by the square root of the number of intervals in a year:
Another theoretical property of volatility may or may not surprise you: it erodes returns. This is due to the key assumption of the random walk idea: that returns are expressed in percentages. Imagine you start with $100 and then gain 10% to get $110. Then you lose 10%, which nets you $99 ($110 x 90% = $99). Then you gain 10% again, to net $108.90 ($99 x 110% = $108.9). Finally, you lose 10% to net $98.01. It may be counterintuitive, but your principal is slowly eroding even though your average gain is 0%!
If, for example, you expect an average annual gain of 10% per year (i.e., arithmetic average), it turns out that your longrun expected gain is something less than 10% per year. In fact, it will be reduced by about half the variance (where variance is the standard deviation squared). In the pure hypothetical below, we start with $100 and then imagine five years of volatility to end with $157:
The average annual returns over the five years was 10% (15% + 0% + 20%  5% + 20% = 50% ÷ 5 = 10%), but the compound annual growth rate (CAGR, or geometric return) is a more accurate measure of the realized gain, and it was only 9.49%. Volatility eroded the result, and the difference is about half the variance of 1.1%. These results aren't from a historical example, but in terms of expectations, given a standard deviation of (variance is the square of standard deviation, ^2) and an expected average gain of , the expected annualized return is approximately  (^2 ÷ 2).
Are Returns WellBehaved?
The theoretical framework is no doubt elegant, but it depends on wellbehaved returns. Namely, a normal distribution and a random walk (i.e. independence from one period to the next). How does this compare to reality? We collected daily returns over the last 10 years for the S&P 500 and Nasdaq below (about 2,500 daily observations):
As you may expect, the volatility of Nasdaq (annualized standard deviation of 28.8%) is greater than the volatility of the S&P 500 (annualized standard deviation at 18.1%). We can observe two differences between the normal distribution and actual returns. First, the actual returns have taller peaks  meaning a greater preponderance of returns near the average. Second, actual returns have fatter tails. (Our findings align somewhat with more extensive academic studies, which also tend to find tall peaks and fat tails; the technical term for this is kurtosis). Let's say we consider minus three standard deviations to be a big loss: the S&P 500 experienced a daily loss of minus three standard deviations about 3.4% of the time. The normal curve predicts such a loss would occur about three times in 10 years, but it actually happened 14 times!
These are distributions of separate interval returns, but what does theory say about returns over time? As a test, let's take a look at the actual daily distributions of the S&P 500 above. In this case, the average annual return (over the last 10 years) was about 10.6% and, as discussed, the annualized volatility was 18.1%. Here we perform a hypothetical trial by starting with $100 and holding it over 10 years, but we expose the investment each year to a random outcome that averaged 10.6% with a standard deviation of 18.1%. This trial was done 500 times, making it a socalled Monte Carlo simulation. The final price outcomes of 500 trials are shown below:
A normal distribution is shown as backdrop solely to highlight the very nonnormal price outcomes. Technically, the final price outcomes are lognormal (meaning that if the xaxis were converted to natural log of x, the distribution would look more normal). The point is that several price outcomes are way over to the right: out of 500 trials, six outcomes produced a $700 endofperiod result! These precious few outcomes managed to earn over 20% on average, each year, over 10 years. On the left hand side, because a declining balance reduces the cumulative effects of percentage losses, we only got a handful of final outcomes that were less than $50. To summarize a difficult idea, we can say that interval returns  expressed in percentage terms  are normally distributed, but final price outcomes are lognormally distributed.
SEE: Multivariate Models: The Monte Carlo Analysis
Finally, another finding of our trials is consistent with the "erosion effects" of volatility: if your investment earned exactly the average each year, you would hold about $273 at the end (10.6% compounded over 10 years). But in this experiment, our overall expected gain was closer to $250. In other words, the average (arithmetic) annual gain was 10.6%, but the cumulative (geometric) gain was less.
It is critical to keep in mind that our simulation assumes a random walk: it assumes that returns from one period to the next are totally independent. We have not proved that by any means, and it is not a trivial assumption. If you believe returns follow trends, you are technically saying they show positive serial correlation. If you think they revert to the mean, then technically you are saying they show negative serial correlation. Neither stance is consistent with independence.
The Bottom Line
Volatility is annualized standard deviation of returns. In the traditional theoretical framework, it not only measures risk, but affects the expectation of longterm (multiperiod) returns. As such, it asks us to accept the dubious assumptions that interval returns are normally distributed and independent. If these assumptions are true, high volatility is a doubleedged sword: it erodes your expected longterm return (it reduces the arithmetic average to the geometric average), but it also provides you with more chances to make a few big gains.

Investing
What a Family Tradition Taught Me About Investing
We share some lessons from friends and family on saving money and planning for retirement. 
Retirement
Two Heads Are Better Than One With Your Finances
We discuss the advantages of seeking professional help when it comes to managing our retirement account. 
Investing
Where the Price is Right for Dividends
There are two broad schools of thought for equity income investing: The first pays the highest dividend yields and the second focuses on healthy yields. 
Chart Advisor
Now Could Be The Time To Buy IPOs
There has been lots of hype around the IPO market lately. We'll take a look at whether now is the time to buy. 
Professionals
A Day in the Life of a Hedge Fund Manager
Learn what a typical early morning to late evening workday for a hedge fund manager consists of and looks like from beginning to end. 
Entrepreneurship
Creating a Risk Management Plan for Your Small Business
Learn how a complete risk management plan can minimize or eliminate your financial exposure through insurance and prevention solutions. 
Personal Finance
How Tech Can Help with 3 Behavioral Finance Biases
Even if you’re a finance or statistics expert, you’re not immune to common decisionmaking mistakes that can negatively impact your finances. 
Investing Basics
5 Tips For Diversifying Your Portfolio
A diversified portfolio will protect you in a tough market. Get some solid tips here! 
Entrepreneurship
Identifying And Managing Business Risks
There are a lot of risks associated with running a business, but there are an equal number of ways to prepare for and manage them. 
Active Trading
10 Steps To Building A Winning Trading Plan
It's impossible to avoid disaster without trading rules  make sure you know how to devise them for yourself.

Are secured personal loans better than unsecured loans?
Secured loans are better for the borrower than unsecured loans because the loan terms are more agreeable. Often, the interest ... Read Full Answer >> 
Which mutual funds made money in 2008?
Out of the 2,800 mutual funds that Morningstar, Inc., the leading provider of independent investment research in North America, ... Read Full Answer >> 
Does mutual fund manager tenure matter?
Mutual fund investors have numerous items to consider when selecting a fund, including investment style, sector focus, operating ... Read Full Answer >> 
Why do financial advisors dislike targetdate funds?
Financial advisors dislike targetdate funds because these funds tend to charge high fees and have limited histories. It ... Read Full Answer >> 
Why are mutual funds subject to market risk?
Like all securities, mutual funds are subject to market, or systematic, risk. This is because there is no way to predict ... Read Full Answer >> 
Why have mutual funds become so popular?
Mutual funds have become an incredibly popular option for a wide variety of investors. This is primarily due to the automatic ... Read Full Answer >>