Rethinking Index Investing
There are two general different ways to play the equities game. You can try to pick individual stocks yourself in the hopes of someday replicating the success of Warren Buffett, or you can leave such aspirations to the more ambitious folks in our society and simply try to earn an average return.
As I have argued before, although I do believe it is possible to beat the market consistently as Warren Buffett has done, this does not mean that just anyone can hope to do so.
It takes a unique person. Of course, where does that leave the rest
of us?
Mr. Buffett has said that the ordinary investor is better
off investing in a passively managed index fund than an actively
managed mutual fund. While the proponents and salesmen of index funds
or fund families that try to capture the benefits of index funds love
to use this quotation for their own self-serving benefit, it is hard to
disagree with Mr. Buffett. He calls such ordinary investors
“know-nothing investors,” although he doesn’t mean it as an insult. He
just means that if you don't know what you are doing, it is safest to
simply accept your mediocrity and guarantee yourself average returns.
This begs the question, though, what is “average? “
This argument is also consistent with the efficient market theorist’s investment strategy. Since we can't expect to beat the market anyway, why not simply arrange to earn the relatively high returns equities offer us while minimizing fees through passive management? Note the underlying assumption behind all of this, that "the market" is best proxied by a value-weighted index, and this is where we get in to trouble.
What is “the market?” Professor Richard Roll’s famous critique of the Capital Asset Pricing Model has stumped theorists for nearly thirty years now. He contended that we will never be able to truly quantify risk because the true “market” portfolio is unobservable – it includes all assets that contribute to wealth, everything from stocks to baseball cards to human capital.
So let me ask two simple questions. Why are market-value weighted indexes such as the Nasdaq Composite or S&P 500 the most generally accepted benchmarks by which to compare investment results? Is there any particular reason for such value-weighting other than convention?
Some fund companies have made a big business out of creating alternative indexes that try to outperform or by taking the components of existing indexes and weighting them equally, and yet others weight them according to the Fama-French Three Factor Model. Yet we continue to measure performance relative to value-weighted benchmarks. Perhaps, since as individual investors we likely never have sufficient wealth to affect the value of one stock purely through our individual trades, we should have no limit to how to we (passively) allocate our wealth. Hence, by benchmarking ourselves to the S&P 500 we are actually overstating our relative performance.
Exchange traded funds, ETFs, are very much in vogue at the moment. The original ETFs were broad-market index funds such as the SPDRs, which mimic the performance of the S&P 500, and appealed to two types of investors. The first type is the delusional folks that think they can actually predict the direction of the market. We can thank those geniuses, I suppose, for providing liquidity to the second type of investor who uses the SPDRs for true investment purposes.
But by purchasing shares of SPDRs or any other broad-market index fund, investors are inadvertently investing most heavily in those companies that are most likely to be overvalued. This is the crux of my argument. Since the S&P 500 (SPY) is a value-weighted index, the value of one share of a SPDR will be dominated by the largest companies and those that have most recently appreciated. So while you may rest assured that your share does in fact represent the collective performance of five hundred different companies, why should you prefer that, among those five hundred companies, you are weighted towards the ones that are quite possibly the most overvalued?
For illustration, consider the three largest components of the S&P 500; ExxonMobil (XOM), GE (GE) and Microsoft (MSFT). This trio is clearly not surprising - these companies are the three biggest in the economy. But what makes me think that these three companies deserve the largest portion of my money? Do I really want $5.88 of the $146.00 I pay for my SPDR to be allocated to ExxonMobil? Moreover, the mere fact ExxonMobil is so large (as measured by market value) may be because investors are paying too much for it.
These are philosophical questions. The index fund advocate will argue that investing in the largest companies is the point. That is, because ExxonMobil is so dominant in the economy, so too should it be dominate in my index fund. But to me this seems unnecessarily limiting, since both larger companies and those that have recently appreciated are likely to underperform their counterparts - provided we believe the evidence provided by Fama and French (1988, 1992) of long-term mean reversion in stock prices and the outperformance of small firms. (I do.)
As I have a habit of doing, I have raised some questions without suggesting any real answers. I will leave that up to anyone wishing to comment.
Get Seeking Alpha Free Stock Alerts by Email!
Get Free Stock Alerts by Email!
ETFs In Focus
-
Editor's Picks
-
Most Popular
- GSEs Into Conservatorship: Can Housing Stabilize Now?
- Buying Berkshire: The Ultimate No-Brainer
- PowerShares Dynamic Retail ETF Finds Bargains in Discount Retailers
- Global Stock Markets: We All Fall Down!
- American Capital Agency: Making Money the Old-Fashioned Way
- How Should Policymakers Respond to the Employment Report?
- Full list of Editor's Picks »
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News »
- Apple: Steve and I Have Been Wrong »
- Gold Futures' Dirty Secret (Part II) »
- Rescuing Frannie »
- Why Commodities May Be Nearing a Turning Point »
- Is Gold Getting Ready to Bounce? »
- Corning: Looking Very Cheap »
- Friday Outlook: What Phony Sell-off?! »
- Bill Ackman's Letter to Paulson On Restructuring Plan »
- The $64 Trillion Question: What's the Dollar Really Worth? »
- Don't Believe the Gold Bears' Hype »
-
Long Ideas
-
Short Ideas
-
Cramer's Picks
- Nokia Is the Smart(phone) Bet - Barron's
- Geologix Explorations: Another Mexican Monster Miner?
- Don't Recycle Schnitzer Steel Yet - Barron's
- Antigenics: Insider Buying Alert
- Discover Financial: A Creditable Investment - Barron's
- American Capital Agency: Making Money the Old-Fashioned Way
- Time to Recognize Cognizant - Barron's
- Avoid the 'Group Think' on Melco-Crown
- Safeway: A Safe Way to Invest
- A Rustbelt Revival: From Doom to Boom
- Full list of Long Ideas »
- Nuance Communications: An End to Acquisitive Growth
- Short Interest Rising in Tesoro; Shorts Covering Airline Positions
- Harbinger Capital: Cut Short
- Not Much Meat on Pilgrim's Pride's Bones
- Salesforce.com: Demystifying the Force
- Should We Listen to Boone Pickens on Oil?
- Three Reasons Solar Sell-off May Be in Early Innings
- Is the Market Rolling Over?
- Solar and Oil, Part Deux
- Financial vs. International ETFs: Which Bear is Grizzlier?
- Full list of Short Ideas »
- Fed Should Cut Rates - Cramer's Mad Money (9/5/08)
- Bullish on Wachovia - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/5/08)
- Worst Downgrades - Cramer's Stop Trading! (9/5/08)
- Pimco's Bill Gross: Jim Cramer Is 'Courageous' and 'Entertaining'
- Cramer Sees the Light - Cramer's Mad Money (9/4/08)
- Keep Buying Big Brown - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/4/08)
- Don't Buy These Bonds - Cramer's Stop Trading! (9/4/08)
- Loss of Integrity - Cramer's Mad Money Recap (9/3/08)
- Not Off the RIMM - Cramer's Lightning Round (9/3/08)
- Unbelievable Moves - Cramer's Stop Trading! (9/3/08)
- Full list of Cramers Picks »
Trading Center
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »



This article has 3 comments:
While I liked the general idea of the Rydex fund, it seemed to me at the time that the market trend was towards large and mega cap stocks. So that while the fund performed very well after 2002, it would perform less well in 2007 & beyond.
Any thoughts?
F&F's work showing that "value" stocks tend to outperform the average is interesting but the issue of what constitutes "value" is IMO open to question. F&F used P/B, which may be flawed, outdated, or both. Look at how stocks from the financial sector dominate value indexes today (e.g. IWN, IVE, EFV). Book value is a dubious concept at best. At times, I would argue that growth stocks actually represent better "value", in that the price of 5 years of above-market earnings growth is reasonable versus the market averages. In fact, I believe this to be the case now, if you look at the above-average growth prospects for many technology companies trading at P/E multiples not much higher than the index averages. This is the end result of 6 years of "value" investing being in favor. The market is well aware of F&F's research and it's entirely possible the value premium is being reduced until it exactly matches the risk premium associated with e.g. beaten-down stocks (like said financials).
Another problem for F&F - world markets are becoming increasing correlated, such that the differences between US and international equities are blurring. It may be time for a fresh look at what constitute distinct asset classes. For example, dividing the market by sector might result in less correlation among assets now. Rebalancing across sectors could work just as well in MPT, and if proven, would lend some credence to the Wall Street notion of "sector rotation".