Smart Advice for the HuffPost Investor: Why Do Investors Search So Hard For The Holy Grail of Investing?

It is an interesting anomaly.

Investors are confronted with two choices: They can capture market returns (minus low transaction costs) with 100% certainty, or they can pursue the quest for higher returns, with the probability that they will underperform the markets.

You would think that the choice would be clear. Yet the majority of investors opt to ignore the data and try to "beat the markets."

This week, I deal with several methods frequently used by investors to try to accomplish this elusive goal. None of them work. I suspect the reason investors keep trying relates more to behavioral finance than to a dispassionate examination of the data.

Thanks for your much appreciated comments and questions. Please keep them coming.

Question: You are always recommending index funds. How risky are they?

Answer: Any investment in the stock or bond markets carries risk. The higher the percentage of stocks in your portfolio--whether in actively managed funds or in index funds--the greater the risk.

My recommendation of index funds is intended for investors who can tolerate market risk. Investors who have a time horizon of less than four years should not be exposed to any market risk--even in a very conservative portfolio consisting primarily of bonds. The time horizon increases to as much as twelve years for investors whose portfolios consist primarily of stocks.

Investors who cannot tolerate any market risk should invest in FDIC insured Certificates of Deposit or Treasury Bills. While these investments are typically called "risk free", that is somewhat misleading because they still carry a small amount of risk.

Question: Do you recommend using Exchange Traded Funds to buy sectors of the market?

Answer: No. Because I have no way of determining which sectors of the market will outperform other sectors. The technology and telecom sectors were very hot before they crashed in 2001. The financial sector was booming until the recent sub-prime debacle. Sector picking is no more reliable than stock picking.

Question: Are stock markets efficient? What does that mean?

Answer: The efficient markets theory holds that stocks in developed markets are correctly priced because the price reflects all public information about the stock. An excellent summary of the data supporting this theory can be found on the web page of Dimensional Fund Advisors here.

While I find this data convincing, others do not. However, I believe the debate over whether markets are, or are not, efficient misses the point.

I have yet to find any data supporting any methodology that investors can follow to exploit perceived inefficiencies in the market. Therefore, the debate seems moot.

Dr. Mark Rubenstein summarized the issue in an article in the Financial Analysts Journal, stating:

"...for a single investor (in the absence of inside information) to believe that prices are significantly in error is almost always folly. Public information should already be embedded in prices."

The next time your broker or advisor scoffs at the notion that markets are efficient, ask her to show you data indicating any methodology that consistently outperformed the markets, without taking more risk.

Don't worry about being overwhelmed by her response.

Question: Do you recommend buying high dividend stocks? Aren't they just like bonds, but with higher returns?

Answer: The reader whose comment stimulated this question used Provident Energy Trust (PVX) as an example of this strategy. He noted that "[I]t's an energy trust from Canada that pays like 12% dividends and the price barely moves. What I'm getting at is this: are you completely, 100% against owning any stocks? Surely, a wise investor like you wouldn't be totally against owning stable, slow, boring, dividend paying stocks. It's almost like having a supercharged savings account or CD."

Sounds good. Great return, little risk. Is there really a free lunch?

Of course not. Let's examine the data.

The three year weighted standard deviation of PVX as of December 2007 was 20.60 vs. a standard deviation of the S&P 500 of 7.74. This means that PVX is almost three times as volatile as the S & P 500. A portfolio consisting solely of an S & P 500 index fund would be too volatile for almost all investors. This stock is almost 300% more volatile! Does that sound like it is "stable", "slow", and "boring" to you?

Higher returns, whether in the form of dividends or total returns, always come with a price tag: higher risk.

Instead of engaging in the fruitless search for high returns with low risk, investors would be far better served by determining an appropriate asset allocation for their investment objective and tolerance for risk and investing in a globally diversified portfolio of low cost index or passively managed funds.

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.

Comments

[SisterAnn]

Dan's article is soothing.

One thing I learned when I started investing is "The trend is your friend". Simple and true, follow the trend, if it is up, invest and if it is down, sell.

Oil, banks, airlines and gold are all down, in markets opening overseas. I take it from that, the trend is down.

The US stock futures for Monday have been showing down over 2%, but now they show down just a little (0.21%). Sometimes it is hard to follow the trend.

[Unrepentantliberal]

Why seek the holy grail? To strike it rich! To beat the house in Vegas, to break the bank in Monte Carlo. I tell my friends who ask me why I don't gamble in any of the casinos in our state, "I do gamble, I invest in the stock market."

But, after reading your column and book, I have shifted my investments to follow your sane, sensible and proven approach and I have allot less stress about what's going on financially than I used to. I did reasonably well in the past, but it came as a result of taking unwise amounts of risk. Thanks Mr. Solin.

[dmbaer]

>I have no way of determining which sectors of the market will outperform other sectors

So what are your thoughts about using market sectors as categories in an asset allocation scheme?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

At first blush, I didn't appreciate the subtlety.

If I may... What if different stock market sectors had historically DIFFERENT risk-return patterns, one from the other?

You might not know which would outperform in the future, but you WOULD know which had different risk-return curves in the past.

And if indeed those risk-return curves drive macro level asset allocation, why blindly take an entire market slice, when at the mid-cro level you can fine-tune by high-risk / low-risk sector?

Might this suggest that a more aggressive asset-allocation portfolio (say 80% stock, 20% bond) gather higher risk-return ratio sectors within it than a more conservative asset-allocation portfolio (say 50-50)?

[josephjsalas]

Let's cut to the Chase Ma--er---INVEST IN THE iNTERNAL REVENUE SEX-SCAM!

[Mutex]

"The time horizon increases to as much as twelve years for investors whose portfolios consist primarily of stocks."

If history holds true this is very good advice. How many people actually understand and follow it though? A funny thing happens when most people try to make plans 12 years into the future...life intervenes! Like the old saying says 'life is what happens while you're busy making other plans'.

Also, your advice is based on past history and implies that nothing of significance has changed in the economy.

The problem is that significant and pernicious change has taken place. We are facing unprecedented debt, energy costs, a housing glut and a current account deficit with no end in sight...all inside our shiny, new 'service economy'!

Please explain to me how we are suppose to maintain the illusion of prosperity while we continue to sink further and further into debt.

Or better still, how do we get out of debt while we continue to need to import energy and manufactured goods when all we seem to have to offer in return is war and fiat currency.

Hey Dan, the silence is deafening.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Great follow-up to the "investment porn" topic.

In a recent study, "Sex and Financial Risk Linked in Brain."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/sex-drives-men-to-take-ri_n_95169.html

So I got to wondering:

Do single men and married men of otherwise similar economic profiles undertake financial risk similarly?

And if not, what can you infer about their relative sexual lives, let alone sexual risks?

Do men who invest in European stocks prefer European women? Are celibate men into US Bonds? Are S&M dudes into US bondage? Oh wait...

Sex doth selleth. Heck, I wouldn't have even read the article if the title was "Gastric enzymes and..."

Gives a whole new meaning to Dan's freudian "searching hard." Gotta run -- off to see if my portfolio is rising.

[cktirumalai]

The late Sir James Goldsmith sold his stocks just before the market crash of 1987, sensing a tidal wave coming. But most of us don't have his canny prescience and would do well to heed the general framework in which you give your advice.
It is known, for instance, that stocks register most of their big gains on a limited number of days during the year, but not even the most financially educated know when these are going to come. It is best to choose stocks or mutual funds with care, and not to abandon them at the first hint of trouble.