Which return is better return, 40% or 30% ?

There is no doubt that 40% is more better return. But is it a right way to judge the return just by seeing the number. we ignore another important factor called as “RISK” involved. In most of the cases, people really don’t consider evaluating the return in relation to RISK taken to earn that kind of return.

Which is better?

1. 30% with High risk
2. 20% with moderate risk

In this case , 2nd is better than 1st , as the Return per unit of risk is better than the 1st case. (considering High risk is 3 units , and moderate is 2 and Low is 1 .

So the actual measure of return should be, Return per unit of risk

REAL RETURN = ABSOLUTE RETURN / RISK TAKEN

There are many balanced mutual funds which have given little less return than diversified equity funds , and hence can be called as much better investment tolls because there was much lower risk involved with them , in case there was any fall in markets , these mutual funds would have fallen less than equity funds. Many mutual funds advertise there products only on the basis of returns and don’t care to tell investors that there is high risk involved with the products.

If you are given 2000 for climbing a tree and 5000 for jumping from one building terrace to another , the first choice is much better. In that case you don’t go for the second option just looking at 5000.

If today all banks start giving 12-15% assured return on Bank deposits, Equities investments will fall to great extent , because bank deposits will have much better returns considering the risk involved.

I would be happy to read your comments or disagreement on any topic. Please leave a comment.