Nathan Hale

Mutual Fund Insider
Click Here

Why Willful Ignorance Trumps Expertise in Investing

By Nathan Hale | Aug 21, 2009 |

Moneywatch is currently running a feature package entitled What’s Next for the Markets? In it three very well-credentialed experts  – Diane Swonk, David Winters, and James Paulsen — offer their thoughts on what the future has in store for the markets. Each has an impressive resume, and has spent years following the markets. Each lays out a well-reasoned and logical explanation supporting their expectation for the market’s direction over the near-term. And each foresees something different.

Of course, that shouldn’t be a surprise. Trying to predict what the future holds for the stock market is a mug’s game under the best of circumstances. Throw in unprecedented volatility, a crushing recession, a burst housing market, and historic levels of debt, and, well, there’s lots of room for interpretation.

This isn’t to impugn the opinions of any of the experts. But the fact of the matter is that you should take anyone’s stock market predictions with a rather large grain of salt. Yet I, like many investors, am always a sucker to read what some expert thinks might lie ahead.

Why is that?

At a very basic level, part of it likely stems from our desire to try to wring some semblance of logic out of the seemingly irrational movements in the market. Investors are pattern-seekers, searching for correlations and causes in the random movements of the stock market. And the knowledge that sector X has led the market out of four of the past five recessions, for instance, appeals to us for the same reason that some lottery players actually pay money to have “experts” pick their numbers for them — we’re sure there’s a pattern there, and if we can only decipher it, we can make money off of it.

Another part of it is likely attributable to the same trait that causes so many investors to dedicate so much time, effort, and money to trying to pick a winning mutual fund manager: we value expertise in every other area of our lives, so why should investing be any different?

In just about every other profession — law, medicine, accounting, and so on — there’s a very strong link between the price you pay and the value of the expertise you get. If you were involved in the trial of the century, you’d surely want someone like David Boies representing you instead of the first name you found in the Yellow Pages. You’d expect Boies to increase your odds of success, justifying the healthy premium you’d pay for his services.

So many investors listen to the experts, act on their advice, even hire them to invest their money, based on the hope that the expert counsel will increase their odds of success. But volumes of historical evidence clearly demonstrate how futile that hope is. It turns out that expertise doesn’t pay dividends in the financial markets.

How can that be?

For one thing, outperforming the market is a zero-sum game — for everyone that wins, there’s someone else who loses. Those thousands of highly intelligent experts, all poring over mountains of data in an attempt to gain an edge over their competitors end up canceling each other out in the aggregate. The expert on CNBC touting technology stocks as a screaming bargain is purchasing those stocks from another investor who thinks they’re overpriced. Both can’t be right.

Exacerbating the problem is the price we pay for investment expertise. Because investing is a zero-sum game, investors as a group earn the stock market’s return before costs. But after we deduct the inflated prices we pay fund managers to swap stocks back and forth with one another on our behalf, investors as a group end up trailing the market’s return by the amount of those costs.

Because of this math, successful investing requires a bit of counterintuitive thinking — declining to pay for expertise, minimizing your expenses, and thus maximizing your share of the market’s total return provides you with an above-average return. Willful ignorance trumps expertise.

It’s fine to read opinions, of course, and consider the many arguments about what the market is doing to do over the coming months. But remain agnostic, and refrain from acting upon anyone’s prediction — no matter how well-reasoned it seems.  Instead, create a low-cost, broadly diversified, balanced portfolio that will allow you to meet your long-term goals regardless of whether the short-term bears or bulls are ultimately vindicated.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    MrRosemary

    08/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why Willful Ignorance Trumps Expertise in Investing

    So what would the market look like if everyone only invested in indexed products? I mean everyone. Nobody "trades" they only invest.

  •  
    2

    Nathan Hale

    08/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why Willful Ignorance Trumps Expertise in Investing

    Good question, MrRosemary. Obviously, a certain level of trading is necessary to keep markets at equilibrium, in which prices are consistent with underlying value. And if everyone indexed, well, prices and value could get out of whack.

    I'm not really worried about that, however. Indexing represents about 15 percent of the equity markets currently. Even if it rose to, say, 50 percent -- and half the market's participants simply bought and held for the long-term -- the other half of the market's participants trading at current rates of over 100 percent per years would keep the market's total turnover at more than 50 percent annually.

    Such a level seems almost placid compared to today's rates, but it is still markedly higher than the rates at which the markets turned over in the 1950s and 1960s, which saw many years with turnover below 20 percent. Even those low rates were sufficient to keep prices and value in line.

    The bottom line is that the only folks who are guaranteed to make money from the frantic levels of trading that take place today are the folks in the middle of each trade.

  •  
    3

    MrRosemary

    08/25/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Why Willful Ignorance Trumps Expertise in Investing

    Well it's foolish to imagine such a world when 5 stocks, Citi, AIG, CIT, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, trade with sufficient volume as to be 30% of the entire daily volume of the NYSE, and with high frequency trading and so called liquidity providers amounts of some 70% of the NYSE's daily volume.

    It's robot computers trading with robot computers. How quaint it seems when my 60 odd lot shares of an ETF get filled. An actual person buying stock, maybe even from an actual person. Oh those were the days.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Nathan Hale

Nathan Hale, a pseudonym, has spent over ten years working for one of the largest firms in the financial services industry. During his career, he's researched and written extensively about personal investing, the mutual fund industry, and financial services, contributing to a number of books and articles. In this role, he uses a nom de plume because many of his opinions about the mutual fund industry and its practices would not endear him to its participants.

Nathan Hale

In my nearly 15 years in the financial services industry, I've had the opportunity to see the industry from perspectives that very few people are privy to. I've contributed to books, articles and academic papers that examine nearly every facet of the industry. This study has led me to develop some very strong feelings, which can be summarized with a simple general statement: Your interests and the interests of those who manage your money are often in direct conflict. Of course there are exceptions to this, but they are discouragingly rare. In light of this fact, the vast majority of my investments are held in index funds. I do own a few different actively managed funds, believing, yes, that I'm an above-average investor, and can win against all odds.

Click Here
track your portfolio