Bob Keyes, on January 7th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Patrick, as an investment advisor, how do you balance the risks and need of an individual investor who is trying to make a return in a market dominated by big players/hedge funds/institutions who have a very different risk profile and appetite than a small investor has. Seems to me that the small guy is just along for the ride, be it good or bad, and has to try to anticipate the risk profile of those who dominate the markets because they are the players that will ultimately determine how well markets perform and react to events.
I think this is a great comment and reflects the attitudes of many small investors especially when reviewing the results of 2008. It seems to me that the central concern is… how can a small investor compete? The assumption here is that the bigger players have the advantage and seem to be the biggest influence in establishing prices. Lets look at some of the evidence.
We know that in the aggregate, the returns available to all investors is the return to the markets. That’s all there is. On average then, if costs are lower for those getting the market return, the average return to “passive investors” will be greater than the average return the “active investors” receive when costs are considered. This simple important point was perhaps first introduced by Bill Sharpe in his 1991 article titled the Arithmetic of Active management.
There are several implications to consider:
Star Hedge Fund, portfolio managers and large institutional investors spend all of their time and effort trying to outperform their contemporaries. They spend money employing managers and analysts. They have marketing staff and advertising budgets. They trade to exploit opportunities so as to gain relative advantage. All of these initiatives cost money. So if manager A gets some advantage then, by definition, the other managers must do worse. The costs employed in these efforts reduces the total return available to the group. Though it may seem intuitive, it is worth noting that despite the considerable “advantages” and effort employed, as a group they under-perform the return provided by the markets in which they invest . They must because of the costs of their operations.
Some active managers will do better, though any innovation is quickly adapted by the competition. It’s a big arms race and we all benefit in the outcome as prices of assets are refined. It helps our markets operate more efficiently. We need active managers to ensure that prices are fair. Their efforts act as a kind of subsidy to all investors, ensuring a reasonable relationship between risk and return. We need not jump to the conclusion the prices are always “correct” but there is significant pressure brought to bare so that investments move to equilibrium value, where risk and return are in balance.
It’s really tough to compete as an active manager. These people are smart, committed and well financed. The dream of opening a discount brokerage account and competing with these folks is probably going to turn into a nightmare. The occasional exception, like a lottery winner, doesn’t change the math. Unless you are born into this world wealthy, building your own hedge fund probably happens after you retire from you life’s work. Discount brokerage accounts have helped to reduce the costs for individuals to trade stocks. But bringing a knife to a gunfight is not my idea of a relaxing retirement plan. You have to look at the incentives. Discount brokerages do better when clients trade more. Clients do worse when they trade more. It doesn’t matter if the cost of the transaction is zero. I will provide more on this in a future post.
Our mandate is to help small investors win by putting them at an advantage. We focus on capturing the return provided by the asset classes in which we invest. We focus on keeping costs down and minimizing taxes. We focus on providing service on financial issues outside of investment returns. We play a winning game not a losing one.
