Asset Allocators – Anne Richards

Featuring Anne Richards

Anne Richards, CIO of Aberdeen Asset Management, continues the Asset Allocators series, discussing why investors often favor certain assets and disregard others, why the availability of liquidity should not always be presumed, and how tail risks are assessed as probabilities but the implications of an occurrence are often ignored.

Published on
16 February, 2016
Topic
Monetary policy, Investment Framework, Portfolio Management
Duration
21 minutes
Asset class
Bonds/Rates/Credit, Equities, Cash
Rating
102

Comments

  • mx

    markettaker x.

    19 8 2018 00:12

    0       0

    bailed at 6 minutes. Life's too short.

  • IC

    Iain C.

    10 3 2016 07:40

    0       0

    4:00 - Cash: Wasn't Harry Dent predicting years ago that demographic deflationary pressure would trump QE? Followed by: it's not due to fear - it's due to fear!?

  • DS

    Dan S.

    4 3 2016 15:14

    0       0

    The economic probability models are based on even distribution of domain members. This is invalid. Imagine distressed members as clusters that form a strange attractor. For example, shale debt.

  • DS

    Dan S.

    4 3 2016 15:06

    2       0

    Say it: the model is broken and we are blind.

  • SM

    Stefan M.

    27 2 2016 11:20

    2       1

    Saying a lot without saying much...reason why I better manage my own money and not paying someone for getting very little / nothing...on a second thought, scary if I had my money under that "guidance"

  • DF

    Dominic F.

    26 2 2016 11:31

    0       0

    "You can't have your cake and eat it" Deal with it.

  • AW

    Anthony W.

    21 2 2016 20:27

    1       0

    It's good to hear from mutual fund asset managers. A great contrary indicator and example of what NOT to do.

  • S

    Simon .

    21 2 2016 14:40

    0       0

    Some good observations. Lost me on her last view though. The rise of what technological wonders? Facebook? And those big cities in China .... They would be the empty ones built with debt. No?

  • LV

    Lex V.

    20 2 2016 13:16

    6       0

    Good explanation of how the traditional asset management industry works, but also a great example of why it is so important to manage your own investments as the best custodian of your own money.

  • CL

    Charl L.

    19 2 2016 11:38

    0       0

    Negative interest rates show that risk free do not exist anymore.

  • WS

    Wes S.

    19 2 2016 02:12

    1       0

    ...an asset alloc. that believes the markets are totally random with no predictive value in fundamental or technical anal...helloProf. Malkiel...no conviction, no process, no analysis....no charts...

  • KC

    Kendrick C.

    18 2 2016 16:03

    2       0

    I would not expect any more from aberdeen. They are transferring risk to their investors and not putting money where their mouth is. Smart business structure though.

  • RH

    Richard H.

    18 2 2016 01:31

    4       0

    I am in awe at the clarity of thought

  • CH

    Calvin H.

    17 2 2016 18:20

    11       0

    This is one of several reasons why I manage my own money.

  • WB

    William B.

    17 2 2016 07:08

    3       0

    This was more Abstract course in how portfolio managers think. Sad for them to be so limited!,,

  • RM

    Richard M.

    16 2 2016 17:52

    5       0

    Great discussion of ways of expressing risk and building in protections related to that (and spot on comments regarding misguided regulations). Wonderful interview (esp. the hopeful ending!).

  • CM

    C M.

    16 2 2016 17:42

    16       20

    WAIT! Did she say asset prices are being manipulated, there is no risk free rate, and values are based on discounted cash flows?! This video is a snoozer. Sorry, RV.

  • PR

    Peter R.

    16 2 2016 16:51

    15       0

    An interesting and thoughtful view of current asset allocation issues for most retail investors (like me) Very helpful in confusion and chaos we currently find ourselves in. Thanks Anne.

  • CC

    Christopher C.

    16 2 2016 13:52

    5       0

    If information is the negative reciprocal value of probability and the probabilities keep being miscalculated. Then is the calculation wrong or the information wrong. Or both? Implications?