Is there a return-on-investment vs risk graph anywhere?
"There may well be several such graphs, I expect googling will turn them up; but the definition of risk is actually quite important here. My definition of risk might not be quite the same as yours, so the relative risk factors would be different. For example: in general, stocks are more risky than bonds.  But owning common shares in a blue-chip company might well be less risky than owning bonds from a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and no single risk number can really capture that. Another example: while I can put all my money in short-term deposits, and it is pretty ""safe"", if it grows at 1% so that my investment portfolio cannot fund my retirement, then I have a risk that I will run out of money before I shuffle off this mortal coil.  How to capture that ""risk"" in a single number? So you will need to better define your parameters before you can prepare a visual aid. Good Luck" "Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com.  Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11.  The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an ""Average Return"", which I was told was for a 3 year period.  Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available.  You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of.  For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a ""Best of the Web"" site.  Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them.  Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention.  For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it.  Thanks,  George"
An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance. "You are effectively 'making' 3.8% right now. By maintaining a loan at 0% vs the 3.8% you'd otherwise pay, you are ahead by that percent.  Now, if you borrowed at 3.8%, and made 7.6% on your investments, taxes aside, you'd break even. you are exactly ahead by the same 3.8%.  It seems to me that with a break-even of 7.6%, you'd be taking a risk based on the market return over the next few years. In a sense, that's true for any of us, but in your case, you are not deciding where to put idle cash, you already have the 3.8% option of ""leave well enough alone."" This is where I'd quote Harry Callahan - 'you've gotta ask yourself one question: ""Do I feel lucky?"" Well, do ya, punk?'" "that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. Those are annualized yields.  It would be more precise to say that ""a 30Y US Treasury bond yields 2.78% per year (annualized) over 30 years"", but that terminology is implied in bond markets. So if you invest $1,000 in a 30-year T-bond, you will earn roughly 2.78% in interest per year. Also note that yield is calculated as if it compounded, meaning that investing in a 30-year T-bind will give you a return that is equivalent to putting it in a savings account that earns 1.39% interest (half of 2.78%) every 6 months and compounds, meaning you earn interest on top of interest. The trade-off for these low yields is you have virtually no default risk.  Unlike a company that could go bankrupt and not pay back the bond, the US Government is virtually certain to pay off these bonds because it can print or borrow more money to pay off the debts. In addition, bonds in general (and especially treasuries) have very low market risk, meaning that their value fluctuates much less that equities, even indicies.  S&P 500 indices may move anywhere between -40% and 50% in any given year, while T-bonds' range of movement is much lower, between -10% and 30% historically)." "The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than ""conservative"" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value." No such evidence exists, because many people do beat the market. And many people fail to earn market rate of return. The way you achieve the former is generally to take risks that also increase the likelihood of the latter. The amount of time and effort you invest may bias that result, but generally risk and potential reward tend to track pretty closely since everyone else is making the same evaluations. You can't prove a negative. We can't prove unicorns don't exist either. We can advise you that hunting for one is probably not productive; many others have been trying, and if there was one we'd probably have seen at least something that encourages us to continue looking. Not impossible, but the evidence is far from encouraging. Market-rate-of-return can be achieved fairy reliably with minimal risk and minimal effort, and at mostly long-term tax rates. I consider that sufficient for my needs. Others will feel otherwise. "This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it.  By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions.  But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution.  I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things ""average out"" over time.  If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical.  Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return.  You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion.  When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks?  In many cases, less risks.  This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills).  When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk.  Buying risky securities adds to that risk.  When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky.  You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so.  But I can't be sure." "You are conflating two different types of risk here.  First, you want to invest money, and presumably you're not looking at the ""lowest risk, lowest returns"" end of the spectrum. This is an inherently risky activity.  Second, you are in a principal-agent relationship with your advisor, and are exposed to the risk of your advisor not maximizing your profits. A lot has been written on principal-agent theory, and while incentive schemes exist, there is no optimal solution.  In your case, you hope that your agent will start maximizing your profits if they are 100% correlated with his profits. While this idea is true (at least according to standard economic theory, you could find exceptions in behavioral economics and in reality), it also forces the agent to participate in the first risk.  From the point of view of the agent, this does not make sense. He is looking to render services and receive income for it. An agent with integrity is certainly prepared to carry the risk of his own incompetence, just like Apple is prepared to replace your iPhone should it not start one day. But the agent is not prepared to carry additional risks such as the market risk, and should not be compelled to do so. It is your risk, a risk you personally take by deciding to play the investment gamble, and you cannot transfer it to somebody else.  Of course, what makes the situation here more difficult than the iPhone example is that market-driven losses cannot be easily distinguished from incompetent-agent losses. So, there is no setup in which you carry the market risk only and your agent carries the incompetence risk only. But as much as you want a solution in which the agent carries all risk, you probably won't find an agent willing to sign such a contract. So you have to simply accept that both the market risk and the incompetence risk are inherent to being an investor.  You can try to mitigate your own incompetence by having an advisor invest for you, but then you have to accept the risk of his incompetence. There is no way to depress the total incompetence risk to zero." "Answering this question is weird, because it is not really precise in what you mean. Do you want all stocks in the US? Do you want a selection of stocks according to parameters?  Do you just want a cool looking graph? However, your possible misuse of the word derivative piqued my interest. Your reference to  gold and silver seems to indicate that you do not know what a derivative actually is. Or what it would do in a portfolio.  The straightforward way to ""see"" an efficient frontier is to do the following. For a set of stocks (in this case six ""randomly"" selected ones):      library(quantmod)  library(fPortfolio)  library(PerformanceAnalytics)     getSymbols(c(""STZ"", ""RAI"", ""AMZN"", ""MSFT"", ""TWX"", ""RHT""), from = ""2012-06-01"", to = ""2017-06-01"")     returns &lt;- NULL  tickerlist &lt;- c(""STZ"", ""RAI"", ""AMZN"", ""MSFT"", ""TWX"", ""RHT"")  for (ticker in tickerlist){   returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker)))))  }  colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist  returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns)    frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns)  png(""frontier.png"", width = 800, height = 600)  plot(frontier, which = ""all"")  dev.off()    minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = ""LongOnly"")    Portfolio Weights:    STZ    RAI   AMZN   MSFT    TWX    RHT   0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051     Covariance Risk Budgets:    STZ    RAI   AMZN   MSFT    TWX    RHT   0.1140 0.3912 0.0000 0.1421 0.1476 0.2051     Target Returns and Risks:   mean    Cov   CVaR    VaR   0.0232 0.0354 0.0455 0.0360    https://imgur.com/QIxDdEI  The minimum variance portfolio of these six assets has a mean return is 0.0232 and variance is 0.0360. AMZN does not get any weight in the portfolio.  It kind of means that the other assets span it and it does not provide any additional diversification benefit.   Let us add two ETFs that track gold and silver to the mix, and see how little difference it makes:    getSymbols(c(""GLD"", ""SLV""), from = ""2012-06-01"", to = ""2017-06-01"")    returns &lt;- NULL  tickerlist &lt;- c(""STZ"", ""RAI"", ""AMZN"", ""MSFT"", ""TWX"", ""RHT"", ""GLD"", ""SLV"")  for (ticker in tickerlist){   returns &lt;- cbind(returns, monthlyReturn(Ad(eval(as.symbol(ticker)))))  }  colnames(returns) &lt;- tickerlist  returns &lt;- as.timeSeries(returns)   frontier &lt;- portfolioFrontier(returns)    png(""weights.png"", width = 800, height = 600)  weightsPlot(frontier)  dev.off()    # Optimal weights  out &lt;- minvariancePortfolio(returns, constraints = ""LongOnly"")  wghts &lt;- getWeights(out)  portret1 &lt;- returns%*%wghts  portret1 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret1)[,3]  colnames(portret1) &lt;- ""Optimal portfolio""    # Equal weights  wghts &lt;- rep(1/8, 8)  portret2 &lt;- returns%*%wghts  portret2 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret2)[,3]  colnames(portret2) &lt;- ""Equal weights portfolio""   png(""performance_both.png"", width = 800, height = 600)  par(mfrow=c(2,2))  chart.CumReturns(portret1, ylim = c(0, 2))  chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 2))  chart.Drawdown(portret1, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.06, 0))  chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.06, 0))  dev.off()   https://imgur.com/sBHGz7s   Adding gold changes the minimum variance mean return to 0.0116 and the variance stays about the same 0.0332. You can see how the weights change at different return and variance profiles in the picture.  The takeaway is that adding gold decreases the return but does not do a lot for the risk of the portfolio.  You also notice that silver does not get included in the minimum variance efficient portfolio (and neither does AMZN).  https://imgur.com/rXPbXau  We can also compare the optimal weights to an equally weighted portfolio and see that the latter would have performed better but had much  larger drawdowns. Which is because it has a higher volatility, which might be undesirable.  ---  Everything below here is false, but illustrative.  So what about the derivative part? Let us assume you bought an out of the money call option with a strike of 50 on MSFT at the beginning of the  time series and held it to the end.  We need to decide on the the annualized cost-of-carry rate, the annualized rate of interest, the time to maturity is measured in years, the annualized  volatility of the underlying security is proxied by the historical volatility.   library(fOptions)   monthprc &lt;- Ad(MSFT)[endpoints(MSFT, ""months"")]  T &lt;- length(monthprc) # 60 months, 5 years  vol &lt;- sd(returns$MSFT)*sqrt(12) # annualized volatility    optprc &lt;- matrix(NA, 60, 1)  for (t in 1:60) {   s &lt;- as.numeric(monthprc[t])   optval &lt;- GBSOption(TypeFlag = ""c"", S = s, X = 50, Time = (T - t) / 12, r = 0.001, b = 0.001, sigma = vol)   optprc[t] &lt;- optval@price  }    monthprc &lt;- cbind(monthprc, optprc)  colnames(monthprc) &lt;- c(""MSFT"", ""MSFTCall50"")    MSFTCall50rets &lt;- monthlyReturn(monthprc[,2])  colnames(MSFTCall50rets) &lt;- ""MSFTCall50rets""    returns &lt;- merge(returns, MSFTCall50rets)    wghts &lt;- rep(1/9, 9)    portret3 &lt;- returns%*%wghts  portret3 &lt;- cbind(monthprc, portret3)[,3]  colnames(portret3) &lt;- ""Equal weights derivative portfolio""    png(""performance_deriv.png"", width = 800, height = 600)  par(mfrow=c(2,2))  chart.CumReturns(portret2, ylim = c(0, 4.5))  chart.CumReturns(portret3, ylim = c(0, 4.5))  chart.Drawdown(portret2, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.09, 0))  chart.Drawdown(portret3, main = ""Drawdown"", ylim = c(-0.09, 0))  dev.off()  https://imgur.com/SZ1xrYx   Even though we have a massively profitable instrument in the derivative. The portfolio analysis does not include it  because of the high volatility. However, if we just use equal weighting and essentially take a massive position in  the out of the money call (which would not be possible in real life), we get huge drawdowns and volatility, but  the returns are almost two fold. But nobody will sell you a five year call.  Others can correct any mistakes or misunderstandings in the above. It hopefully gives a starting point.  Read more at:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance)  The imgur album:  https://imgur.com/a/LoBEY"