Sink That Putt!

July 7, 2009

This is a fascinating piece about how golfers, consciously or unconsciously, behave more conservatively on birdie putts than on par putts, costing themselves—on average—a full stroke over 72 holes, and for a top golfer, more than $1 million in annual prize money. The reason for their conservatism is loss aversion, a psychological phenomenon noted by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman and his collaborator, Amos Tversky. In short, people try harder to avoid perceived losses than they pursue gains. Kahneman realized loss aversion is in full bloom in the financial markets, which is why (among other related investor irrationalities) he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Articles like this point out why it is so important to have a systematic, rules-based approach to the markets. By doing so, we are able to treat every putt the same way, so to speak. A systematic approach does not vary depending on whether our last transaction was a success or a failure, or whether we’ve recently been outperforming or underperforming. We just keep pounding away at a strategy that has been shown to add value over time. By not pulling any psychological punches, we are more likely to capture whatever excess returns are available in the strategy.


Volatility and Personal Responsibility

July 7, 2009

I have to confess that I am a little confused about this article. First, the author presents information from Morningstar that confirms the QAIB information that Dalbar has been pointing out for many years—that investors in funds do not do as well as the underlying funds themselves.

Then, he appears to blame volatility for making investors behave badly and suggests that funds with lower volatility will create better investor performance. After which he quotes Warren Buffett, who indicates the opposite—that he would rather have the higher return and accept the volatility than take the lower return. All of this is a little unclear to say the least.

Let me clear up a few things then. First, I’m not at all sure it is true that lower volatility enhances investor returns. Dalbar’s QAIB shows that bond fund investors lag bond funds by approximately the same margin as stock fund investors lag stock funds. Bonds are significantly less volatile, but that doesn’t seem to help at all. Dalbar shows only a marginally longer holding period for asset allocation funds than for stock funds, where again there is a significant difference in volatility. If volatility were really the determining factor in whether investors could hang in and perform well or not, these metrics should reflect it.

Second, I believe it is the investor and the advisor’s responsibility to do due diligence and know what they are buying. If you buy an emerging markets growth fund, for example, the fund is not exactly trying to hide that it may be volatile. You accept the volatility as your tradeoff for the potentially higher return. That’s the American way. To blame the volatility for poor returns, to me, is symptomatic of current, soft-headed American culture where no one is ever responsible for their own decisions. After all, wasn’t it that mortgage broker who made you buy a house you couldn’t afford?

No, Mr. Buffett has it right, I think. Ultimately, what makes you wealthy is the return. That means you have to deal with the volatility. And really, what is the big deal? The only ”investment acumen” a fund investor has to have to earn the NAV return is to sit like a slug! That’s it—you don’t really have to do anything clever. There is no magic trick involved, just patience. Research a strategy thoroughly, take a stand, and make a commitment, for goodness sake!


Nugget of Wisdom…from 1922

July 7, 2009

Steve Leuthold’s July research included the following quote:

“Stock price movement represents the aggregate knowledge of Wall Street and, above all, its aggregate knowledge of coming events. The stock market represents everything everybody knows, hopes, believes, anticipates, with all that knowledge sifted down to…the bloodless verdict of the market place.” -William Peter Hamilton, The Stock Market Barometer, 1922.

This is the very reason why price is the primary input into our models.