SORTINO RATIO: A Focus on Downside Investment Risk

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd

***

***

In the field of investment analysis, one of the most important challenges is balancing risk and reward. Investors want to maximize returns, but they also want to minimize the chances of losing money. Traditional measures such as the Sharpe Ratio have long been used to evaluate risk‑adjusted performance, but they treat all volatility the same. This means that both upward and downward swings in returns are penalized equally, even though investors generally welcome upside volatility. To address this limitation, the Sortino Ratio was developed as a more refined tool that focuses specifically on downside risk.

Definition and Formula

The Sortino Ratio measures the excess return of an investment relative to the risk‑free rate, divided by the standard deviation of negative returns. In formula form:

Sortino Ratio=Rp−Rfσd\text{Sortino Ratio} = \frac{R_p – R_f}{\sigma_d}

Where:

  • RpR_p = portfolio or investment return
  • RfR_f = risk‑free rate
  • σd\sigma_d = standard deviation of downside returns

This formula highlights the unique feature of the Sortino Ratio: it only considers harmful volatility, ignoring fluctuations that exceed expectations.

Why It Matters

The key advantage of the Sortino Ratio is its ability to separate “good” volatility from “bad” volatility. Upside volatility, which represents returns above the target or minimum acceptable rate, is not penalized. Downside volatility, which represents returns below expectations, is penalized heavily. This distinction makes the Sortino Ratio especially useful for investors who prioritize capital preservation. For example, retirees or individuals saving for short‑term goals may prefer investments with higher Sortino Ratios because they indicate stronger protection against losses.

Practical Applications

The Sortino Ratio has several practical uses:

  • Portfolio Evaluation: Investors can compare funds or strategies using the Sortino Ratio. A higher ratio suggests better risk‑adjusted performance.
  • Risk Management: By focusing on downside deviation, managers can identify investments that minimize losses during downturns.
  • Goal‑Oriented Investing: For individuals with specific financial targets, the Sortino Ratio helps ensure that chosen investments align with their tolerance for risk.

For instance, a mutual fund with a Sortino Ratio of 2 is generally considered strong, meaning it generates twice the return per unit of downside risk.

Comparison with the Sharpe Ratio

While both the Sharpe and Sortino Ratios measure risk‑adjusted returns, they differ in how they treat volatility. The Sharpe Ratio penalizes all fluctuations, whether positive or negative. The Sortino Ratio, however, only penalizes harmful volatility. This makes the Sortino Ratio more investor‑friendly, especially for those who care more about avoiding losses than capturing every possible gain. In practice, the Sharpe Ratio is better for broad comparisons across asset classes, while the Sortino Ratio is better for evaluating downside protection in portfolios.

Limitations

Despite its strengths, the Sortino Ratio is not without limitations:

  • Data Sensitivity: It requires accurate downside deviation data, which can be difficult to calculate.
  • Threshold Choice: Results vary depending on the minimum acceptable return chosen.
  • Context Dependence: It should be used alongside other metrics, such as the Sharpe or Treynor Ratios, for a complete picture of risk and return.

Conclusion

The Sortino Ratio is a powerful tool for investors who want to measure performance while minimizing exposure to harmful volatility. By focusing exclusively on downside risk, it provides a more realistic assessment of whether returns justify the risks taken. While not perfect, it complements other risk‑adjusted metrics and is especially valuable for investors with low tolerance for losses. In today’s uncertain markets, understanding and applying the Sortino Ratio can help investors make smarter, more resilient decisions.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

Understanding Risk Adjusted Portfolio Performance

A Vital Feedback Loop for any Medical Professional’s Investment Program

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA, MEd, CMP™

[Publisher-in-Chief]

While recently visiting the beautiful Johns Hopkins University and Medical School in Baltimore Maryland, I realized that investment portfolio performance measurement — much like an annual physical exam in the Spring — is an important feedback loop to monitor progress towards the goals of the medical professional’s investment program.

Performance comparisons to market indices and/or peer groups are a useful part of this feedback loop, as long as they are considered in the context of the market environment and with the limitations of market index and manager database construction.  Inherent to performance comparisons is the reality that portfolios taking greater risk will tend to out-perform less risky investments during bullish phases of a market cycle, but are also more likely to under-perform during the bearish phase.  The reason for focusing on performance comparisons over a full market cycle is that the phases biasing results in favor of higher risk approaches can be balanced with less favorable environments for aggressive approaches to lessen/eliminate those biases.

THINK: The “flash crash” of March 2009, and the DJIA now hovering near a record of  late.

The Biases

Can we eliminate the biases of the market environment by adjusting performance for the risk assumed by the portfolio?  While several interesting calculations have been developed to measure risk-adjusted performance, the unfortunate answer is that the biases of the market environment still tend to have an impact even after adjusting returns for various measures of risk.

Assessment

However, medical professionals and their advisors will have many different risk-adjusted return statistics presented to them, so understanding the Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio, Jensen’s measure or alpha, Morningstar star ratings, etc. and their limitations should help to improve the decisions made from the performance measurement feedback loop.

And, these are discussed elsewhere on this ME-P.

MORE:  https://medicalexecutivepost.com/2022/10/19/what-is-risk-adjusted-stock-market-performance/

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

Product Details  Product Details

***

PHYSICIANS BEWARE: Traditional Financial Planning “Rules of Thumb”

DOCTORS AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS BEWARE?

We ARE Different!

SPONSOR: http://MarcinkoAssociates.com

By Dr. David E. Marcinko MBA CMP®

SPONSOR: http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

CMP logo

***

  • While financial planning rules of thumbs are useful to people as general guidelines, they may be too oversimplified in many situations, leading to underestimating or overestimating an individual’s needs. This may be especially true for physicians and many medical professionals. Rules of thumb do not account for specific circumstances or factors occurring at a particular time, or that could change over time, which should be considered for making sound financial decisions.
  • Great Health Industry Resignation: https://medicalexecutivepost.com/2021/12/12/healthcare-industry-hit-with-the-great-resignation-retirement/

For example, in a tight job market, an emergency fund amounting to six months of household expenses does not consider the possibility of extended unemployment. I’ve always suggested 2-3 years for doctors. Venture capitalist lay-offs of physicians during the pandemic confirm this often criticized benchmark opinion of mine.

As another example, buying life insurance based on a multiple of income does not account for the specific needs of the surviving family, which include a mortgage, the need for college funding and an extended survivor income for a non-working spouse. Again a huge home mortgage, or several children or dependents, may be the financial bane of physician colleagues and life insurance.

CITE: https://www.r2library.com/Resource/Title/082610254

***

EXAMPLES: Old/New Rules

  • A home purchase should cost less than an amount equal to two and a half years of your annual income. I think physicians in practice for 3-5 years might go up to 3.5X annual income; ceteras paribus.
  • Save at least 10-15% of your take-home income for retirement. Seek to save 20% or more.
  • Have at least five times your gross salary in life insurance death benefit. Consider 10X this amount in term insurance if young, and/or with several children or other special circumstances.
  • Pay off your highest-interest credit cards first. Agreed.
  • The stock market has a long-term average return of 10%. Agreed, but appreciated risk adjusted rates of return..
  • You should have an emergency fund equal to six months’ worth of household expenses. Doctors should seek 2-3 years.
  • Your age represents the percentage of bonds you should have in your portfolio. Risk tolerance and assets may be more vital.
  • Your age subtracted from 100 represents the percentage of stocks you should have in your portfolio. Risk tolerance and assets may still be more vital.
  • A balanced portfolio is 60% stocks, 40% bonds. With historic low interest rates, cash may be a more flexible alternative than bonds; also avoid most bond mutual funds as they usually never mature.

There are also rules of thumb for determining how much net worth you will need to retire comfortably at a normal retirement age. Here is the calculation that Investopedia uses to determine your net worth:

Compensation in the Physician Specialties: Mostly Stable - NEJM  CareerCenter Resources

RULES 72, 78 and 115: https://medicalexecutivepost.com/2022/01/30/the-rules-of-72-78-and-115/

INVITATION: https://medicalexecutivepost.com/2021/05/08/invite-dr-marcinko-to-your-next-big-event/

***

COMMENTS ARE APPRECIATED

Thank You

Subscribe to the Medical Executive-Post

***

FINANCE: https://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Financial-Planning-Strategies-Advisors/dp/1482240289/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418580820&sr=8-1&keywords=david+marcinko

***

APPLE: What is its Corporate Value

AS INVESTORS – HOW DO WE EVALUATE FINANCIAL RISK?

By Vitaliy Katsenelson CFA

***

***

READ: https://vitaliy.substack.com/p/what-is-the-value-of-apple-how-do?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

***

***

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Thank You

***

How [DOCTORS] Construct Investment Portfolios That Protect Them

***

ASK AN ADVISOR

***

Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA - YouTube

By Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA

***

Question: How do you construct investment portfolios and determine position sizes (weights) of individual stocks?

I wanted to discuss this topic for a long time, so here is a very in-depth answer.
CITE: https://www.r2library.com/Resource/Title/082610254

Answer
For a while in the value investing community the number of positions you held was akin to bragging on your manhood– the fewer positions you owned the more macho an investor you were. I remember meeting two investors at a value conference. At the time they had both had “walk on water” streaks of returns. One had a seven-stock portfolio, the other held three stocks. Sadly, the financial crisis humbled both – the three-stock guy suffered irreparable losses and went out of business (losing most of his clients’ money). The other, after living through a few incredibly difficult years and an investor exodus, is running a more diversified portfolio today.

Under-diversification: Is dangerous, because a few mistakes or a visit from Bad Luck may prove to be fatal to the portfolio.

On the other extreme, you have a mutual fund industry where it is common to see portfolios with hundreds of stocks (I am generalizing). There are many reasons for that. Mutual funds have an army of analysts who need to be kept busy; their voices need to be heard; and thus their stock picks need to find their way into the portfolio (there are a lot of internal politics in this portfolio). These portfolios are run against benchmarks; thus their construction starts to resemble Noah’s Ark, bringing on board a few animals (stocks) from each industry. Also, the size of the fund may limit its ability to buy large positions in small companies.

There are several problems with this approach. First, and this is the important one, it breeds indifference: If a 0.5% position doubles or gets halved, it will have little impact on the portfolio. The second problem is that it is difficult to maintain research on all these positions. Yes, a mutual fund will have an army of analysts following each industry, but the portfolio manager is the one making the final buy and sell decisions. Third, the 75th idea is probably not as good as the 30th, especially in an overvalued market where good ideas are scarce.

Then you have index funds. On the surface they are over-diversified, but they don’t suffer from the over-diversification headaches of managed funds. In fact, index funds are both over-diversified and under-diversified. Let’s take the S&P 500 – the most popular of the bunch. It owns the 500 largest companies in the US. You’d think it was a diversified portfolio, right? Well, kind of. The top eight companies account for more than 25% of the index. Also, the construction of the index favors stocks that are usually more expensive or that have recently appreciated (it is market-cap-weighted); thus you are “diversified” across a lot of overvalued stocks.

If you own hundreds of securities that are exposed to the same idiosyncratic risk, then are you really diversified?

Our portfolio construction process is built from a first-principles perspective. If a Martian visited Earth and decided to try his hand at value investing, knowing nothing about common (usually academic) conventions, how would he construct a portfolio?

We want to have a portfolio where we own not too many stocks, so that every decision we make matters – we have both skin and soul in the game in each decision. But we don’t want to own so few that a small number of stocks slipping on a banana will send us into financial ruin.

In our portfolio construction, we are trying to maximize both our IQ and our EQ (emotional quotient). Too few stocks will decapitate our EQ – we won’t be able to sleep well at night, as the relatively large impact of a low-probability risk could have a devastating impact on the portfolio. I wrote about the importance of good sleep before (link here). It’s something we take seriously at IMA.

Holding too many stocks will result in both a low EQ and low IQ. It is very difficult to follow and understand the drivers of the business of hundreds of stocks, therefore a low IQ about individual positions will eventually lead to lower portfolio EQ. When things turn bad, a constant in investing, you won’t intimately know your portfolio – you’ll be surrounded by a lot of (tiny-position) strangers.

Portfolio construction is a very intimate process. It is unique to one’s EQ and IQ. Our typical portfolios have 20–30 stocks. Our “focused” portfolios have 12–15 stocks (they are designed for clients where we represent only a small part of their total wealth). There is nothing magical about these numbers – they are just the Goldilocks levels for us, for our team and our clients. They allow room for bad luck, but at the same time every decision we make matters.

Now let’s discuss position sizing. We determine position sizing through a well-defined quantitative process. The goals of this process are to achieve the following: Shift the portfolio towards higher-quality companies with higher returns. Take emotion out of the portfolio construction process. And finally, insure healthy diversification.

Our research process is very qualitative: We read annual reports, talk to competitors and ex-employees, build financial models, and debate stocks among ourselves and our research network. In our valuation analysis we try to kill the business – come up with worst-case fair value (where a company slips on multiple bananas) and reasonable fair value. We also assign a quality rating to each company in the portfolio. Quality is absolute for us – we don’t allow low-quality companies in, no matter how attractive the valuation is (though that doesn’t mean we don’t occasionally misjudge a company’s quality).

The same company, at different stock prices, will merit a higher or lower position size. In other words, if company A is worth (fair value) $100, at $60 it will be a 3% position and at $40 it will be a 5% position. Company B, of a lower quality than A but also worth $100, will be a 2% position at $60 and a 4% position at $40 (I just made up these numbers for illustration purposes). In other words, if there are two companies that have similar expected returns, but one is of higher quality than the other, our system will automatically allocate a larger percentage of the portfolio to the higher-quality company. If you repeat this exercise on a large number of stocks, you cannot but help to shift your portfolio to higher-quality, higher-return stocks. It’s a system of meritocracy where we marry quality and return.

Let’s talk about diversification. We don’t go out of our way to diversify the portfolio. At least, not in a traditional sense. We are not going to allocate 7% to mining stocks because that is the allocation in the index or they are negatively correlated to soft drink companies. (We don’t own either and are not sure if the above statement is even true, but you get the point.) We try to assemble a portfolio of high-quality companies that are attractively priced, whose businesses march to different drummers and are not impacted by the same risks.  Just as bank robbers rob banks because that is where the money is, value investors gravitate towards sectors where the value is. To keep our excitement (our emotions) in check, and to make sure we are not overexposed to a single industry, we set hard limits of industry exposure. These limits range from 10%–20%. We also set limits of country exposure, ranging from 7%–30% (ex-US).

CONCLUSION

In portfolio construction, our goal is not to limit the volatility of the portfolio but to reduce true risk – the permanent loss of capital. We are constantly thinking about the types of risks we are taking. Do we have too much exposure to a weaker or stronger dollar? To higher or lower interest rates? Do we have too much exposure to federal government spending? I know, risk is a four-letter word that has lost its meaning. But not to us. Low interest rates may have time-shifted risk into the future, but they haven’t cured it.

***

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Thank You

Subscribe to the Medical Executive-Post

***

***

Market Risk & The All-Terrain Portfolio

Interview by RealVision (In case you missed it)
By Vitaliy Katsenelson CFA
***
DEAR ANN AND ME-P READERS: I wanted to share with you a recent interview I did with RealVision TV.
***
If you haven’t heard of them, RealVision is an internet-based video platform that features serious, long-form interviews with leading financial thinkers – think of it as “CNBC for grown-ups.” I’ve personally watched a bunch of their interviews, and always find them challenging and enjoyable.
***
When I was recently in New York, I sat down with Tony Greer of TG Macro to discuss IMA’s All-Terrain Portfolio, Tesla, Bitcoin, oil, the dollar, value investing, and more – all the usual suspects.
******
LINK:
If you’re interested, you can check out the interview above or read a transcript of it here.
***
Assessment: Your thoughts are appreciated.
***
BUSINESS, FINANCE, INVESTING AND INSURANCE TEXTS FOR DOCTORS:
THANK YOU
***
Product DetailsProduct Details