Chance Avoidance vs. Risk Reduction: An Overview
Risk avoidance and risk reduction are two strategies to manage risk. Risk avoidance behaves with eliminating any exposure to risk that poses a potential loss, while risk reduction deals with convert the likelihood and severity of a possible loss. This article will explore the differences between the two approaches.
Key Takeaways
- Jeopardy avoidance is an approach that eliminates any exposure to risk that poses a potential loss.
- Risk reduction parcel outs with mitigating potential losses by reducing the likelihood and severity of a possible loss.
- For example, a risk-avoidant investor who is taking into consideration investing in oil stocks may decide to avoid taking a stake in the company because of oil’s political and credit risk.
- Meanwhile, an investor with a chance reduction approach to the same oil stocks would diversify their portfolio by keeping their oil stocks, while obtaining stocks in other industries that could help offset any losses from the oil equities.
- In order to engage in peril management, a person or organization must quantify and understand their liabilities.
Risk Avoidance
Risk avoidance is not shut up any activity that may carry risk. A risk avoidance methodology attempts to minimize vulnerabilities that can pose a warning. Risk avoidance and mitigation can be achieved through policy and procedure, training and education, and technology implementations.
For example, take it an investor wants to buy stock in an oil company, but oil prices have been falling significantly over the past few months. There is state risk associated with the production of oil and credit risk associated with the oil company. If an investor assesses the risks associated with the oil business and decides to avoid taking a stake in the company, this is known as risk avoidance.
Risk Reduction
On the other proffer, risk reduction deals with mitigating potential losses through more of a staggered approach. For example, assume an investor already owns oil stocks. The two factors discussed earlier are still relevant: there is political risk associated with the television of oil, and oil stocks often have a high level of unsystematic risk. As opposed to a risk avoidance strategy, this investor can adjust risk by diversifying their portfolio by keeping their oil stocks while at the same time buying stocks in other manufactures, especially those that tend to move in the opposite direction to oil equities.
In order to engage in risk management, a person or grouping must quantify and understand their liabilities. This evaluation of financial risks is one of the most important and most fastidious aspects of a risk management plan. However, it is crucial for the well-being of your assets to ensure you understand the full capacity of your risks. If you have several streams of income, for instance, losing one stream won’t hurt as much if only 25% of a bodily’s income comes from that stream.
Financial diversification is one of the most reliable risk reduction strategies. When your economic risk is diversified, the adverse side effects are diluted.
Suppose the investor diversifies his portfolio and invests in various sectors of the market-place. However, he currently faces systematic risk due to an economic downturn. The investor may reduce his risk through a hedge. For exempli gratia, the investor can protect his long positions and reduce his risk by buying put options for his long positions. He is protected from a potency drop in his portfolio value because he is able to sell his stocks at a predetermined price within a specified period.
The investor who steer clear ofs the risk forfeits any potential gains the oil stock may have. On the other hand, the investor who reduces his risk still has the right stuff gains. If the stock market goes higher, his long positions will appreciate in value. However, if his positions de-escalate in value, he is protected by his put options.
Risk Avoidance vs. Risk Reduction Pros and Cons
Prevention vs. mitigation strategies when it be communicates to an investor who wants to avoid risk should be equally weighed. It may come down to just the level of risk twisted, and how an investor ultimately diversifies his portfolio. Here are some pros and cons of risk avoidance vs. risk reduction:
-
Safely guarantees that returns will not be lost or jeopardized
-
Closes the door on opportunities for future close in ons, especially potentially higher returns on investment
-
Simple way to focus on steady streams of income
-
Seeks a “trounce of both worlds” approach to mitigating risk, while exposing yourself to potentially high returns
-
Can be riskier financially, if risks come to pass to fruition
-
Requires a more complex approach to investing, including full understanding of your liabilities
Risk Avoidance vs. Gamble Reduction FAQs
Which Is Better Prevention or Mitigation?
Each investor should weigh the scenario at hand, uniform of risk, and decide whether prevention vs. mitigation strategies are the best fit for the investment style and portfolio.
What Are the Types of Risk Mitigation?
A few kinds of risk reduction policies include diversifying your portfolio to balance out risks and reducing risk through hedges.
What Is the Relationship Between Avoidance and Elimination?
Endanger avoidance and elimination are frequently grouped together: unlike risk mitigation, investors who choose to avoid risk in all will divest from certain investments and choose to switch strategies altogether.