iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dan Solin

Dan Solin

Posted: December 14, 2010 06:27 PM

Foolish Advice From the Motley Fool

What's Your Reaction:

Matt Koppenheffer at the Motley Fool recently took issue with me for a blog I wrote called "Ten Investing Facts You Probably Don't Know -- but Should".

Mr. Koppenheffer is a contributing writer to the Motley Fool. His biography touts his skills as a stock researcher and indicates that he is an "unabashed fan" of Warren Buffett.

Before taking shots at my statement that Buffett is a proponent of indexed based investing, and touting the screens he uses to pick stock winners, Mr. Koppenheffer pointedly notes that being an index fund adviser "seems like a bit of an oxymoron" to him.

Perhaps Mr. Koppenheffer's readers are able to put together a globally diversified, risk adjusted, portfolio of fifteen passively managed funds, in the right asset allocation, with a tilt towards small and value, consistent with the Fama-French three factor model, on their own. Personally, I have never met anyone who could do this without expert advice.

From there, it got worse. Mr. Koppenheffer correctly noted that the one article I referred to as support for Buffett's views on indexing stated that, on this occasion, he indicated indexing was the best way to invest for "...small investors who don't have time to research individual companies." Fair point.

However, as a self-styled fan of Buffett, surely Mr. Koppenheffer was aware that Buffett, at many other times, indicated his view that indexing was the best way to invest for all amateur and professional investors. Here is a fair representation of these views:

"A very low-cost index is going to beat a majority of the amateur-managed money or professionally-managed money... I would just have it all in a very low-cost index fund from a reputable firm, maybe Vanguard. Unless I bought during a strong bull market, I would feel confident that I would outperform... and I could just go back and get on with my work."

With his misrepresentation of Buffett's real views in the minds of his readers, Mr. Koppenheffer offers them his stock picking advice. He likes to use screens, like valuation multiples, company performance metrics and others. He then provides a list of the stocks that some of his "favorite screens" have identified (or, as he put it "spits out.")

Why these screens would identify any mis-pricing of these stocks eludes me. All of these factors are known to millions of investors worldwide looking at the same data. It is incorporated into the price of these (and all other) stocks, making the current price a fair price. These specific stocks may increase or decrease in value, but it won't be due to the factors identified in Mr. Koppenheffer's screens. It will be based on tomorrow's news, which no one knows or can predict.

Mr. Koppenheffer dismisses proponents of indexing with some disdain, calling them non-investors who "...would rather watch a Dharma and Greg rerun, reorganize their closet, or go to the dentist."

Not exactly. They include William Bernstein, Merton Miller (a Nobel Laureate), Paul Samuelson (another Nobel Laureate), and Burton Malkiel, among many others. Indexing is also supported by hundreds of academic studies showing only about 5% of stock pickers beat their appropriate benchmark.

William Sharpe, still another Nobel Laureate, spelled out the reasons for the failure of active management (which is premised on stock picking) in this short article entitled "The Arithmetic of Active Management". I urge you to read it. It is simply stated, easy-to-understand and irrefutable.

Mr. Koppenheffer cites no data supporting his stock picking advice, which is not surprising. He also provides no data from which his readers can hold him accountable for his prior stock picks.

The thrill of the chase is exciting. Mr. Koppenheffer and many other members of the financial media see no problem in dispensing advice that generates profits for them (by increasing viewers which boosts revenues) even though those who follow this advice are likely to be harmed by it.

This is not just "foolish". It's irresponsible.

The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Here is the trailer for my new book, Timeless Investment Advice.

 
 
 

Follow Dan Solin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DanSolin

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
48thGuy
07:24 AM on 12/15/2010
Valuation based on historic earnings... Dividends that beat the yield on a 10-yr. Treasury.
Read Ben Graham, the Classic 1934 Edition.
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
03:08 AM on 12/15/2010
Better odds in Vegas counting cards.
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
11:21 PM on 12/14/2010
In my experience stock pickers may be superb in one kind of market and terrible in others....

Prior to the Fall of '08 Collapse in April the messages were mixed all over from advisors...some calling it a big disaster building and others minimizing it....

Fortunately we were in Italy and had dinner with the head of the Bank who that day pulled the plug on Air Italia...and during dinner he said Straight out..."GET OUT OF ALL EQUITYS".."NO MATTER WHAT MARKET THEY ARE IN"...

this was around the time UBS Wrote off its first 42 Billion.

He was not a stock picker and said he knows nothing about valuing them...but he said he did understand Liquidity...and its collapsing..under bad paper..best stock advice we ever got...we exited the market the next morning...
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dan Solin
My Smartest Portfolio book is a game changer.
06:49 AM on 12/15/2010
Did he also tell you to get back into the market in time for the recovery in 2009-2010?
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
08:48 AM on 12/15/2010
he did, but we were anyway...so many obvious bargans out there....FORD, AIG, et all. Just like Christmas....still not out of the woods yet but much better..just nosticed the NASDAQ is back t where it was in '07.
09:33 PM on 12/15/2010
August, 2008 I was finally released 18 months after our facility closed. As the environmental manager I was the last one to leave. I took early retirement and drew my pension in one lump sum payment. It went into my Vanguard IRA the day after Labor Day. The market fell 300 points and continued it's decline.
The previous two years I researched the different types of investing. I became convinced that owning a globally diversified portfolio of index funds was the way to go. During the crash I stayed all in while every one of my friends bailed at some point. In March, 2009 I had lost 31%. I have since gained 58% for a +9% since August, 2008. My friends have yet to get back to even. Cramer constantly talks about getting back to even and I want to throw a brick at the TV telling him that long ago I reached that goal.
Keep preaching, Dan, became it works.
For what it's worth I held a 55/45 stock/bond portfolio of these asset classes: US Large(VFIN­X), US Large Value(VIVA­X); US Small(NAES­X); US Small Value(VISV­X), US REITS(VGSI­X); Internatio­nal Large(VDMI­X), Internatio­nal Large Value(VTRI­X), Internatio­nal Small(VFSV­X); Emerging Markets(VE­IEX). I would also have held Internatio­nal Small Value but Vanguard does not have a fund in that asset class. For the bond portion I used Intermedia­te and Short Term.
08:06 PM on 12/14/2010
Dan, I saw the Motley Fool article and am glad you responded to it. I have three of your books and you have convinced me you are right about indexing. However, Mr. Buffet didn't make billions indexing. I am no expert but I believe he made his money buying cheap companies, stocks, etc. Wouldn't that also be appropriate for someone (unlike myself) who has the time and inclination to research companies and stocks and buy low and sell high? Thanks
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dan Solin
My Smartest Portfolio book is a game changer.
09:11 PM on 12/14/2010
Buffett buys control of companies. He is not a stock picker. It is counter-intuitive for many to understand there is precious little evidence of anyone having the skill to identify stocks that are not fairly priced. Trying to do so is a zero sum game.
08:25 AM on 12/15/2010
I am a fan of your writing here and your books. You do not enhance your credibility and the case for indexing when you characterize Buffett as "not a stock picker." Buffett was most certainly a successful stock picker through most of his career, though certainly in recent years he has emphasized whole companies as their valuation has become more relatively attractive compared to valuation of stocks that, due to size constraints, Buffett can select from today.

It would be better to tell people that yes, it is true that some like Buffett have extraordinary skill (or luck), but you, dear reader, shouldn't plan on being like Buffett, or playing in NBA or NFL. It's not going to happen. And yet, dear reader, by indexing, you can exceed the performance of the vast number of institutions and individuals who haven't absorbed the message that they aren't going to play in the NFL, or beat the market.