Key Perspectives on Risk

Essential Discussions with Clients

Christophe Voegeli

Risk. A scary word to people, no matter the context. Whether hiking a mountain, leaving an employer, or investing a dollar, risk is something we are evolutionarily predisposed to avoid. But in the world of money, when risk is mentioned, what exactly is being said? When returns are considered, so is risk, but what is risk?

Much like rates of returns, there are several variations. These include loss of principal, time frame risk, liquidity risk, market risk, firm risk, and regulatory risk.  The goal is to explain how these impact the investments the clients hold.


One of the simplest concepts clients and Dealing Representatives (DRs), understand is risk to capital; it means the client has lost money. Commonly, investments are discussed in relation to the security, or safety, that is being offered. In other cases, it is very clear there is risk to the invested capital.  Security could be a function of government regulation, like some bank and insurance products that have potential guarantees.  Alternatively, security could be a matter of underlying assets, with no guarantee, with the security only contingent on the value extracted from those assets and their management.  Principal security is usually a function of the nature of the investment, its management style, and most significantly, the asset class and the regulatory channels in which it finds itself in.

With equities and real estate being the most common and significant assets carrying risk to most investors, how can one protect themselves from loss of principal? For real estate, it is often said that you do not make your money when you sell, but rather when you buy. The notion here is that buying an asset 'on the cheap' will help to protect your principal. With equities, the same theme applies. When buying stocks, it is prudent to purchase them with a margin of safety, a term coined by the famous Benjamin Graham. With both these asset classes, trying to compute what is 'cheap' is a far from perfect game of assessing valuation metrics, reviewing historical data, and making projections. While individual securities can always lose, buying an asset for the long term may help avoid a loss to principal, as long as the asset recovers over time.


Economists (including Keynes who is quoted above) have a propensity to observe trends in both the short and long term. The theme of such a tagline is suited for the exempt world, as often assets are illiquid and medium to long term in nature. Exempt investments loosely refer to alternative assets, which are different from most retail investments such as mutual funds and stocks. While it’s noted that holding onto assets for the long term can be a good approach, time frames are always a consideration, and there may be risk. This is called time frame risk; the risk that someone cannot 'wait' for the investment to exit or redeem. Land and real estate developments are the best examples of this.


Time frame risk is also tied to liquidity risk; the notion that an investment cannot be sold, even if an investor needs the cash.  At the peak of the great financial crisis, the above quote by analyst Chris Taggert was popular.  Cash is king (or queen) and when cash is needed, investors do not care about upside or exciting projections; they just want to sell.  An emergency fund is a good textbook example where most investors need safe, liquid, and low tax consequence money.  Three to six months of fixed basic living expenses is suggested, and liquidity is critical.  In this case, any exempt investment is ill advised.  


While a lot of financial models and academic research suggest investors are rewarded with excess returns when using long term, risky and illiquid assets (a strong argument for using exempt assets), investors and DRs should be aware of specific liquidity needs and time frames in the investor's life cycle. This is core to the planning process and should never be undermined.

This being said, there is often a misconception that long term assets with risk are not suitable for a retiree. While having ample liquidity and some guaranteed income with security are paramount (often called an income floor in retirement planning), inflation and exhaustion of capital (called longevity risk, aka, running out of money) are serious risks too. For a couple at 65 years old, who will very likely see at least one of them live to their mid 80s or beyond, there is still a place for long term assets, as their portfolio still has a long term element. As long as the retired investor can absorb the investment, time frame, and liquidity risk, there can be a place for risky assets, with allocation proportions and exposure remaining major considerations. If the investor cannot absorb a loss, stick to guaranteed tools mostly or entirely. This distinction is critical for retirees.

A very common allocation rule of thumb is to make the investor's age the percentage of their portfolio which should be in safe or guaranteed investments. This is a guideline, but a prudent and sound one indeed.  In addition, some of the retirement modeling literature suggests that approximately 5 or 10 years before retirement, there is a de-risking of the portfolio; and then, paradoxically, risk is turned up 5 to 10 years after the retirement date.  This is to provide more upside, inflation hedging, and longevity risk management, with the prospect of superior returns.  The idea is that in the window before retirement, and shortly after when the portfolio is at its largest, downside risk is managed.


Financiers often seek out the composition of risk. Total risk of an individual stock is made up of (1) market based (systematic risk) and (2) firm specific (idiosyncratic risk). For example, a stock investor that diversifies their holdings across 100 stocks across the whole market will have a portfolio that mainly consists of market-based risk, with the investor's portfolio sensitive mainly to broad market movements. Alternatively, with firm specific risk, an investor that buys just one stock has all risk concentrated into the performance of that single company.

Interestingly, research shows that if one large company stock is purchased in each sector of the economy (financials, energy, healthcare, etc.), total risk stems mainly from market-based risk; that is, firm specific-risk is largely eliminated by investing in just 10 to 14 stocks. In other words, an equal investment in each of a dozen stocks is somewhat all it takes to achieve a well diversified portfolio.

In the world of public finance and related academia, it is often said that picking stocks or timing the market is (near) impossible, and picking currencies is even harder.

The challenge, and opportunity, of the exempt space is that an investor is picking a management team, in contrast to a broad asset class or currency, for example. Returns are less about selecting assets based on valuation methods and public data (like the stock market), and more about selecting a specific asset, a business model, and a team leading the use of funds. That is, in the exempt world, risk and return are often more about firm specific risk than market based risk. As a result, the risks and return outcomes of the exempt space can be very different from that of a public security. The hopeful side effect of this of course is that a return can be had on your money, which is tied to both management skill and asset performance, and less so on the public news and factors that can affect the stock or bond markets. However, there are always factors that can affect both public and private markets, never mind a specific investment.


In the exempt world, reporting, monitoring and regulation are very different from the public space. Key person risks become far more severe. This can include management risk, misappropriation of funds, and simply put, 'people not doing what they said they were going to do.' These risks do exist in the public space, but with the public eye and robust reporting required, these risks are managed in a very different way.

Efforts are being made by the regulators, dealers, or the industry as a whole, to strengthen the exempt space. However, this regulation also has a cost, which is why the people behind issuing companies do seek out the often cheaper and more limber exempt space, which may allow returns to be had for the exempt investor. Yes, the exempt space carries opportunity, but risks still present themselves, and clients must always be made aware.

While DR and client meetings can be filled with planning concepts, tax talk, and discussion of beneficiaries, the word risk comes up more than anything. This is due to the regulatory environment indeed, but at a higher level it is for the client's best interest. Explaining risk to a client in a language they can understand is key, as it protects the DR, the dealership, and most of all, the client.

Please note this article was originally published in Exempt Edge Magazine and updated for Educate & Explore.

Christophe Voegeli
Financial Planner & Founder of Clear Focus Financial

Christophe Voegeli, BSc, CFP, CLU, CFA, is a financial planner and the founder of Clear Focus Financial. He has been building his practice since 2001 with his practical focus on professionals and business owners in the Edmonton and Calgary area. Christophe focuses on holistic financial planning, including estate and insurance planning, coupled with wealth management and retirement modelling. Christophe completed his degree in mathematical finance at the U of A in 2007 while doing research in applied mathematics. He then went on to complete his CFP in 2009, obtained his CFA charter in 2012 and obtained his CLU in 2015. He sits on the board of CFA Society Edmonton planning events in private wealth. He has been a member of CALU, Advocis, MDRT and court of the table. He may be reached at or via

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Olympia Trust Company, Olympia Financial Group Inc., or any of its affiliates. The author’s views and opinions are based upon information they consider reliable, but neither Olympia Trust Company, Olympia Financial Group Inc. nor any of its affiliates, warrant its completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such.