“Conventional economic reasoning says that if two stocks have similar expected future cash flows and similar dependence on the market, we prefer the one that is less volatile. But might we not see some advantage to stock in volatile company A, which has survived many crises, over stock in safe, untested company B? Perhaps A’s stresses have allowed evolution of the characteristics that will succeed in the future, whereas B is narrowly positioned for the conditions of the past. In the future, perhaps A’s volatility will allow it to move faster into opportunities and away from dead ends, and to evolve as conditions change.”

– Aaron Brown, Red-Blooded Risk

Why does academia assume lower volatility is better?
How many real world instances have you seen confirming that more volatile = more robust, while smooth = over managed, artificial, and possibly brittle?
What are some of the advantages of embracing volatility — managing it versus shunning it?