Is volatility a measure of risks? No, which Howard Marks already covered in many interviews.
However it is a sign of activity which is enhanced or diminished by way of short term news. This news comes via quarterly reports or headlines, and eventually fundamentals, or exogenous events like geopolitical or regulatory changes.
Unfortunately someone decided to describe volatility as risky. It makes no sense.
An academic investor might think “this company’s beta is 1.5, and that’s too risky an investment to make”. What they may fail to consider if beta is heavily influenced by their thesis is fundamental foundations.
Yes a business (stock) may have a high beta.
What if it also has a debt to equity ratio below one?
What if the high beta company has retained earnings up the last several years?
What if the high beta company continuously pays down debt, has low capital expenditures, and a rise in revenue and net income?
If the beta is high but the return on equity, return on assets and liquidity ratios are also high does that mean you have to pass because the beta is rising?
What if this company also possesses technological immunity from things like ai infrastructure, and automation?
What If the business beat estimates the last 5 years? Yet you forego the deployment of capital because of a Greek word that means “house” currently functioning above the number 1?
