Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Internet Analysis - Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (108)	2/3/1999 4:59:00 PM
From: Steve Robinett	Respond to of 419

CTC, You can get all the volatility information you need at the Chicago Board Options Exchange. cboe.com At the CBOE click on quotes, then click use the right box to retrieve fundamental information about stocks or indexes. I notice you can put in SPX and get an historical volatility number expressed in the same way as the volatility for individual stocks. For example, the SPX current volatility today shows as 17.34% and that of AOL at 80.14%, so you might be able to say that AOL is about 4.62x more volatile than the broader market. They also have some historical data you can download in spreadsheet form to backtest ideas. For implied, as opposed to historical, volatility, look at the VIX which you can get on line almost anywhere. Try ^VIX in yahoo quotes. Best, --Steve

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (108)	2/7/1999 4:54:00 PM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 419

Again I posit that risk, from an investor's perspective cannot be truly measured by volatility. Few on this board would consider a company that has 28% volatility and 7 years of strong capital appreciation risky. It may be from an academic standpoint, but not from a realistic viewpoint. Investors percieve risk as the potential for loss, not the text book definition of deviation from expected return. A value at risk methodology is much more grounded in reality, IMHO. From the investors perspective, you could actually be overstating or understating the risk premium by adding components to it that are not truly considered risky, such as the probability that MSFT will spike up sharply 4 times over the next year, driving up its volatility. That is understandably characterized as reward by long investors, and not risk. A downward spike is a "risky" occurence. In trying to fix the problems with CAPM, be sure not to ignore the all too academic pitfalls inherent in so manh of those theoretical models.