This paper examines the stock performance of HSBC and Lloyds Banking Group between 2007 and 2011 as a practical exercise in portfolio management. Using annual opening prices, the analysis calculates total gain or loss, percentage change, and standard deviation for each stock. The comparison illustrates why percentage change is a more equitable measure than absolute price movement when evaluating stocks with different starting prices. The findings show that Lloyds Banking Group experienced a dramatically steeper decline of over 88% and higher volatility, while HSBC's loss of approximately 31% and lower standard deviation make it the preferable holding by all measures examined.
Having wealth is one thing; managing that wealth in an effective manner such that it produces more wealth at an efficient rate is quite another. As a great deal of wealth ends up in the stock market — where wealth can be quickly created and even more quickly eroded — understanding how to conduct a comparison of stocks is essential for proper portfolio management. There are many different considerations that should be taken into account when selecting stocks, but one simple and straightforward method of analysis is to compare the past performance of stocks under consideration. Both the price changes and the volatility of past stock performance can be an indicator of the risk and rewards associated with a given stock, especially in comparison with other potential investments. This can lead to better-informed decisions regarding which investment to select for the future.
A comparison of Lloyds Banking Group and HSBC demonstrates the manner in which this type of stock comparison can be conducted. The prices for each stock on the 1st of January — or the closest date for which an active price was available — for each year from 2007 to 2011 were recorded to give a general idea of how each stock performed over this period and to determine the general level of volatility that exists for each. Both of these figures are important: for future projections it is necessary to determine not only the total financial gain or loss incurred from each stock if purchased at the beginning of the period (i.e., on 1 January 2007), but also how much upward and downward movement the stock experienced overall, and thus how much movement it would be likely to experience in the future.
As the data table below shows, both HSBC and Lloyds Banking Group stock declined over the period of observation and analysis, with Lloyds suffering a much steeper loss in both absolute terms and percentage terms. It is useful to determine the percentage loss because the two stocks did not begin trading at the same price, and thus the same loss in absolute terms would not represent the same degree of loss to an investor. Losing £10 on an investment that initially cost £20, for example, would be far more significant than a loss of £10 on an investment that initially cost £100. In this instance, because Lloyds Banking Group started trading at a lower price than HSBC, it can already be seen that the larger absolute change would translate to a larger percentage change as well. Having the specific numbers makes it clear precisely how much the value of each stock was eroded during the period.
"Lloyds showed higher volatility by standard deviation"
By all measures examined, though neither stock would have been desirable to own over the full period from 2007 to 2011, HSBC's stock is highly preferable to that of Lloyds Banking Group. HSBC's smaller percentage decline of approximately 31% and its lower standard deviation indicate both a better return and lower risk over the period. Lloyds Banking Group, by contrast, lost nearly 89% of its opening value and exhibited greater price swings throughout. These findings underscore the value of using multiple quantitative metrics — including percentage return and volatility — when comparing investment options as part of a disciplined portfolio management strategy.
You’re 79% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.