More

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

GET UPDATES FROM Dan Solin
 

Three Sources of Negative Alpha

Posted: 07/05/11 06:53 PM ET

Much of the information in the financial media is wrong or misleading. It can be difficult to separate fact from fiction, especially when the source of the information is someone with apparent credibility.

Recently, Pat Dorsey gave an interview to Morningstar. The interview was titled: Three Sources of Alpha. Dorsey was formely Morningstar's director of equity research. He is now with Sanibel Captiva Trust, a division of The Naples Trust Company, where he is Vice Chairman and Director of Research & Strategy. He is the author of two books on investing.

According to a press release, "Dorsey's investment approach strikes a chord with investors looking for capital preservation combined with returns that can outpace the market indexes."

I am curious about his methodology for beating the markets. His interview with his former employer gives us some insight into his investment strategy. He has a three pronged approach:

1. He seeks an "informational advantage" which he describes as "knowing more than the other guy." I wonder how he will get this advantage. Sanibel is a long way from Wall Street. Is it possible Dorsey can uncover information about publicly traded companies that is not instantaneously known to millions of traders around the world? He concedes this is not likely except for small caps, where he believes you can get an "informational advantage" if you "work hard", because small businesses "are not very well followed by Wall Street."

Really? This will come as news to the sophisticated fund managers of more than 600 small cap mutual funds, some of whom probably work really hard in an effort to beat their benchmark. According to a Standard & Poors study, for the five year period ending 2010, 72% of Small Cap Growth funds, were outperformed by their index. 51% of Small Cap Value funds, and 60% of Small Cap Core funds met the same fate. You have to wonder why Mr. Dorsey believes he can succeed where these fund managers failed.

2. He notes the possibility of an "analytical advantage" and uses as an example a "quant model" that processes data better than anyone else. However, he concedes that "like an information advantage, analytical advantages are also pretty hard to come by."

With two prospective sources of "alpha" pretty much eliminated, he discusses the third one.

3. He calls this a "behavioral advantage" which is "simply acting a little bit more rationally than everyone else." He has more confidence in this factor, which he believes is "pretty achievable given how irrational the market can be."

He has a point, but he reaches the wrong conclusion. Markets don't act "irrationally". They are random and unpredictable. Instead of trying to achieve "alpha", investors need only accept the fact that capitalism works. The ultimate "behavioral advantage" is capturing the returns of global markets, using low management fee index funds in an asset allocation suitable for you. Pursuing "alpha" is the essence of irrational investor behavior.

If Mr. Dorsey really wants to give his clients a "behavioral advantage", he will tell them to read books by Burton Malkiel, John Bogle, William Bernstein, David Swensen and many others, including my Smartest series of investing books. Armed with the overwhelming research in these books, his clients will abandon the quest for alpha, which usually yields "negative alpha" for everyone except those who claim they can deliver it.


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.

 
 
 

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

Much of the information in the financial media is wrong or misleading. It can be difficult to separate fact from fiction, especially when the source of the information is someone with apparent credib...
Much of the information in the financial media is wrong or misleading. It can be difficult to separate fact from fiction, especially when the source of the information is someone with apparent credib...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:57 PM on 08/08/2011
Hello all, on the 8th of July 2011, I had commented on this very article that one should completely avoid the stock market because like Dan says, movements of the stock market are random. The S&P 500 has since shed 16% of its value. I am not trying to say I have some special skills or foresight. Its just common sense: the stock market is a mug's game.
09:08 AM on 07/08/2011
Dan is right that stock market movements are random. Which is why one should completely avoid putting their money into stock market. This world is crazy enough as it is. Do we really need more randomness in our lives by exposing our hard earned money to the vagaries of the stock market? For anyone working in the private sector- your jobs are already strongly correlated to the stock market. You do not need more exposure and risk in your lives.
iwrite2
If I were DNA Helicase I could unzip your Genes
02:03 PM on 07/06/2011
Two comments, WAGOX,
The second is like unto it...WMICX until 1/31/07
Looks like he figured it out...maybe you should spend time with him
yappnmutt
humping legs for liberty
09:21 AM on 07/06/2011
the surest way of making money in the stock market is buying an otherwise decent(financially sound) company at its 52 week low and selling it at a pre decided level of profit from a few cents to a few dollars while selling losers as quick as possible for later entry at a lower price. spread the risk across several different companies. or get lucky and buy a gmcr at a very low price and let it ride until the bubble bursts.
photo
Mr Hankey
Kucinich / Sanders (Democratic Socialist)
12:04 AM on 07/06/2011
Considering the usa may possibly default, I wonder if my 401K bond allocations are worse off than other choices.

I don't see why all 401Ks can't have a choice of a guaranteed fund that may not make any gains, but will not ever lose my contributions. It should be a choice. That's how I'd invest for the next year - the politics of the debt ceiling are harrowing.
11:27 AM on 07/06/2011
Considering that most bond funds don't even keep up with inflation, they are guaranteed losers in the long run, especially if interest rates go up - then bonds will crash big time.
photo
Mr Hankey
Kucinich / Sanders (Democratic Socialist)
09:19 PM on 07/06/2011
True - and that would be like having money in the bank, which hardly makes any interest at all....except with the bank, the money is supposedly FDIC insured. With a 401K, it possible to lose it all with market fluctuation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notdarkyet
End the Drug War.
11:51 AM on 07/06/2011
I agree and I have said so for a long time. This was what WS wanted as a way to get small investors they could wipe out into the market. Instead of companies offering retirement plans this became your only choice. I have known many people who took hits on their 401s and had to go back to work after bubble crashes. And this is what they want to do with SS.
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
11:46 PM on 07/05/2011
ok...so you disagree with him. While most funds do not outperform the markets, many private investors do...every year. The key is, you need to do a lot of work and they take advanatge of being small and being able to move in and out of markets much more quickly with fewer constraints.

As for the Analysts, some are good and many/most talk out of their hats...five minutes watching MSNBC tells you these guys are all over the place. Meredith Whitney being the most recent GENIUS who was wrong.....and scared everyone to death with her predicitions. A few weeks ago many were predicting Baidu would go under 100...done...finished for now...totally wrong...even Jim Crammer the pawn of Goldman's was spouting this tripe..

PS years ago Peter Lynch did many of things suggested by Pat Dorsey...he blew the averages away...for years.
05:02 AM on 07/06/2011
Lynch got lucky for a while, probably in an up market. It can happen, and proves nothing.

I'd like to know more about these private investors who beat the market every year. The last guy doing that was Bernie Madoff.
11:03 AM on 07/06/2011
Bill Miller beat the S&P 500 for 15 consecutive years. So how has he been doing lately? Not so well. His Legg Mason Value Trust underperformed the S&P 500 by 10 percent in 2006, 14 percent in 2007 and 18 percent in 2008. According to Yahoo finance, the fund ranks in the 99th percentile in performance over the past five years.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:38 PM on 07/05/2011
For a moment I thought this article was going to be about Paul Krugman
photo
AlanBannacheck
President of the Deep Thoughts Association (DTA)
06:18 PM on 07/05/2011
Sounds like the ominous three sources of Alpha really are. insider trading, computers that trade faster then the market, and brainwashing.

Also the market is irrational because it was created by humans, who are likewise, irrational. Why else would behavioral economics exist?