He used the term incorrectly because it sounds better than the accurate investment characterization of the transaction. Low risk/high reward sounds better than high risk/high reward, and most people don't know the difference and can easily confuse cost with risk. I like to use the example of a lottery ticket. It only costs a dollar. The payoff can be huge, but the odds, i.e., the risk of winning are enormously high. Is the $1 lottery ticket a low risk/high reward investment? No, it is not. It is high risk/high reward, and that is precisely why it is low cost. If your investment manager invested solely in lottery tickets and told you that he had invested in low cost/high reward assets, you'd have him arrested or committed to an insane asylum. Risk with regard to a portfolios assets has to do with the quality of the asset and the probability that it will perform at market levels. You pay more for low risk assets than you do for high risk assets. You allocate less of your portfolio to his risk investments. The $800k invested in Zumaya is a small portion of payroll. That doesn't convert the asset into a low risk asset. You just invest a smaller portion of your portfolio in high risk assets. Ryan has it 100% right.