Roger Schreiner

Two Examples Showing Buy and Hold Must Not Necessarily Lose

I can prove that my active management is better than buy and hope, if I can just find "one" passive manager to accept my challenge. Isn't it strange that NONE of those you talk about in your article will accept my challenge? I think it says a lot. We have been active for 20 years and we have the track record to prove it is a safer way of reaching your investment goals. My challenge below:

My $100,000 Challenge to John Bogle
Index investing doesn’t work in the real world of inefficient markets.

Roger J. Schreiner

His disciples call themselves “Bogleheads,” and cling to his “Pillars of Wisdom” as though they were the Ten Commandments. Those in the media adore him and treat his words like gospel. He’s an icon—a God-like figure to thousands of investors.

John Bogle is the founder of The Vanguard Group, and launched the first index mutual fund in 1975. Since then, he has dedicated his career to encouraging investors to “own the market” by investing in index funds. He stresses the importance of asset allocation and low fees within a passive, buy-and-hold investment approach. There is no doubt that Mr. Bogle is sincere and has noble ambitions, but I believe his unwavering faith in the markets is misplaced.

Today, he is taking up what many are calling his final crusade. On February 24, he appeared before a Congressional committee in Washington, D.C. to tell lawmakers about his vision for “an independent Federal Retirement Board to oversee both the employer-sponsors and the plan providers, assuring that the interests of plan participants are the first priority…Our Federal Retirement Board should not only foster the use of broad-market index funds in the new defined contribution system but approve only private providers who offer their index funds at minimum costs.”

Mr. Bogle wants Congress to overhaul our retirement system by “limiting investment choices” for workers’ retirement plans and providing “more understandable options.” Under his plan, “only private providers” (such as Vanguard) would be “approved” investment vehicles.

If you’re not sure which investments are right for you, don’t worry; John Bogle knows. If he has it his way, a Federal Retirement Board will make your investment decisions for you. Doesn’t Mr. Bogle realize that shareholders in his index funds had their retirement plans decimated last year? Do you really want him guiding your investment decisions? Nothing personal, Mr. Bogle, but I think buy-and-hold has failed—it doesn’t work.

On June 19, in an interview with IndexUniverse.com, Bogle was asked, “Do you believe that there are environments that are more favorable to active management than passive management and index investing?” His response was clear. “There is no way that active managers can possibly have an advantage no matter what the circumstances are. It is just statistically, mathematically, tautologically impossible.”

My $100,000 Challenge

I hereby challenge John Bogle to a friendly wager. I want to bet $100,000 of my own money that my active investment approach can outperform his passive one.

I am challenging Mr. Bogle directly because he has the loudest voice in the industry. However, my challenge is also open to other passive investors and managers. I have set aside $1,000,000 and am ready to accept up to ten challengers. I have $100,000 earmarked for my contest with Mr. Bogle and another $900,000 waiting for nine others who want to accept the challenge.

The Wager: Both Mr. Bogle and I will place $100,000 in an escrow account at the bank of Mr. Bogle’s choice. At the end of the wager, the winner gets his $100,000 back and the loser will contribute his $100,000 to the winner’s favorite charity in his name.

The Portfolio: Mr. Bogle is free to construct his own portfolio using the index funds of his choice. I will create an exact replica of Mr. Bogle’s holdings for my portfolio. During the contest, Mr. Bogle must passively hold the assets in his portfolio and, in my portfolio, I will limit myself to trading the same assets. As an active manager, I will be able to use cash in my portfolio to help control risk. Of course, Mr. Bogle can use cash too. If he wishes, a website can be maintained so that the public can follow the portfolios and/or the results. There will be complete transparency.

The Time Period: Mr. Bogle can choose the length of the contest—anywhere from one year to a few years, or as many years as he wishes.

Fees and Expenses: Mr. Bogle’s portfolio will incur no (0%) annual management fees. My portfolio will have the disadvantage of incurring a 2% annual management fee, in addition to any transaction costs. We will use a tax-deferred, retirement account structure, so there are no tax implications for short-term capital gains.

The Results: Risk and return are the most basic and logical measures of investment success. In order to win the contest, a portfolio must have both higher return and lower risk. To calculate risk and return we will use the statistical measures of total return and standard deviation.

Mr. Bogle? Well, there you have it. Since you believe “there is no way that active managers can possibly have an advantage no matter what the circumstances,” my $100,000 must seem like free money to you. I’m waiting for your call. I’m not holding my breath though, because I am sure you will find a reason to back down. Of course, if you do, that will help prove my point—that my active investment process is superior to your high-risk “buy-and-hope” approach.

Any passive investor who believes he or she can generate a safer and higher return in their buy-and-hold portfolio than I in my active portfolio has an opportunity to relieve me of $100,000. I’m giving the passive investor all the choices, except the one they saddle themselves with—the burden of not managing their money.

We have created a web page dedicated to “My $100,000 Challenge to John Bogle” at scminvest.com/100k. There we will post the names of everyone (with their permission) who takes me up on my challenge and you can sign up to receive an e-mail alert. You can post your comments, ask me a question, and take our “Active vs. Passive Survey.” There is also a link for a free subscription to our Dynamic Investor newsletter.

Talk is Cheap

I’ve been writing about the flaws of passive investing for over twenty years, but to what end? Articles, debates and media interviews cannot settle the longstanding dispute between active and passive investors. Talk is cheap.

If John Bogle is a consumer advocate, he is also a lobbyist promoting the products of the company he founded. Unfortunately for investors, he has the ear of lawmakers in Congress, most of whom do not truly understand investing. I believe Bogle’s investment philosophy is dangerous to investors’ retirement savings, as evidenced by the results of last year. It is based on old, flawed investment models like Modern Portfolio Theory, the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and the Random Walk Theory. A proper reading of today’s financial research suggests that these theories are unfounded. To some in our industry, that’s blasphemy—but it’s what I believe to be the truth.

Passive investing is simply ill-equipped to handle the unpredictable events and market volatility we have experienced over the last ten years—it ignores reality. Professor Robert Shiller of Yale University has shown that the instability of asset prices is much greater than is predicted by EMH. That is, where the EMH suggests that passive exposure to investment markets are a way to control risk, real-life experience (the best kind of evidence) shows that markets are actually the source of risk! Even Eugene Fama himself, the father of EMH, recently admitted, “markets are not entirely efficient.” In a recent interview with David Salisbury he said, “market efficiency is a simplification of the world, which does a good job on almost everything, but some things it doesn’t do a good job with.”

The problem with building an investment strategy around the Efficient Market Hypothesis (and the other theories EMH supports) is that it only takes one event—one market crash—to wipeout your retirement savings. Every investor’s time horizon is limited—they don’t have forever to wait for markets to recover.

On August 7th, John Mauldin, an economist and author of the newsletter Thoughts from the Frontline, shared his opinion on EMH. “The Efficient Market Hypothesis, according to Robert Shiller, is one of the most remarkable errors in the history of economic thought. EMH should be consigned to the dustbin of history. We need to stop teaching it, and brainwashing the innocent. Robert Arnott (who oversees $31 billion at Research Affiliates) tells a lovely story of a speech he was giving to some 200 finance professors. He asked how many of them taught EMH—pretty much everyone’s hand was up. Then he asked how many of them believed it. Only two hands stayed up!”


Baffle a Boglehead: Use Facts and Logic

Bogleheads won’t admit it, but indexing is high-risk and has delivered low returns historically. According to CrestmontResearch.com, from 1900 through 2008, the stock market has returned just 5.8% on an annualized basis (including dividends and adjusted for inflation). To capture that 5.8% return, investors had to suffer devastating losses along the way, including an 89% loss (1929-32), a 48% loss (1973-74), another 49% loss (2000-02) and, most recently, a 57% loss (2007-09). It took investors 25 years and almost 900% gain just to break even after the 1929-32 bear market. How many years is it going to take Bogleheads to recover from the 57% loss of 2007-09? How much time do you have?

<< INSERT “Impact of Losses” CHART HERE >>

Every quarter, in our Dynamic Investor newsletter, we publish “SCM’s 5 Rules for Investment Success.” We think they are so important that we print them every quarter—we want investors to read them time and time again.

Our Rules for Investment Success are very different from John Bogle’s Pillars of Wisdom. The glaring difference is that our rules are focused on risk management and an acceptance of uncertainty about the future. Bogle’s Pillars of Wisdom hardly acknowledge that investing is risky. His first pillar is: “Investing Is Not Nearly as Difficult as It Looks.” Oooo-kay. I don’t know about you, but if Mr. Bogle is going to work from that premise, I don’t want him anywhere near my retirement savings!

In contrast to Bogle’s first pillar, our first rule is “Avoid Significant Loss.” The man known as the most successful investor of all time, Warren Buffett, agrees. He reminds investors often of his first two rules: “Rule #1: Never lose money. Rule #2: Never forget rule #1.”

“I May Be Wrong But I Doubt It.” —Charles Barkley, 11-time NBA All-Star

There are two reasons why I am not concerned about losing the challenge. First and foremost, because active management is adaptable, it has a huge tactical advantage over passive indexing—sophisticated investors understand this. The risk management benefit, which is inherent in our investment process, gives us an edge that passive investing cannot overcome.

Secondly, it is highly unlikely that John Bogle or anyone else will accept my challenge. I hope he does, though, because it will be a great opportunity for us to raise money for our charities. If passive management truly is superior, or has some kind of built-in advantage, I won’t have any trouble finding ten passive managers to accept my challenge.

To be perfectly clear, active investing does not insure success, and it certainly does not guarantee investors will profit. No investment manager can make such a claim, no matter how long the investment time horizon and no matter who is running the portfolio. By challenging Mr. Bogle, my objective is simple: to prove to everyone—especially individual investors who have been misled by the mainstream financial services industry for far too long—that active investing can be less risky than buy-and-hold. The proof will come when no passive manager accepts my challenge. If someone does, then I will have the opportunity to prove it with my results.

A Safer Way to Reach Your Retirement Goals

If you look objectively at the history of financial markets, it becomes clear that passive, buy-and-hold investing is a high-risk, low-return endeavor. Investors who are close to or in retirement don’t want high risk and unpredictable returns. They want low risk and more predictable returns. For retirees who own tax-deferred retirement accounts, such as IRAs, active management may offer lower risk and more consistent returns.

Investors who utilize active investment strategies in their retirement accounts can move between stocks, mutual funds, ETFs and cash with no tax consequences and with little or no transaction costs. The performance of our active investment strategies speaks for itself. For complete performance information on all of our investment models, please visit our website, or contact us directly.

Investors must unlearn what people like John Bogle have been telling them. The greatest threat to your retirement is uncertainty of the future—it’s the next credit crisis, the next financial crisis, the next recession. If you accept buy-and-hold, you must expect that, at some point, your retirement savings will experience a devastating loss. I always tell investors, “Your investment process must include an exit strategy, otherwise, you shouldn’t be invested in the stock market.”

While our past is certain, the future is unknowable. Bogle’s approach is reckless and irrational because it assumes the market will provide positive returns to all investors. There is no guarantee that returns will be positive no matter how long you invest. My advice to you is to find an investment manager who truly understands risk and has a plan for both good and bad markets. Find a financial advisor that is confident enough to take on today’s uncertain markets, but is humble enough to know what he does not know.

Market Timing Buries 'Buy and Hold' in Asset Allocation

Good stuff Dr. Kris.

We are a market timing firm and our investors had double-digit POSITIVE returns in 2008. We have been doing market timing and sector rotation for twenty years, and we do NO PASSIVE investing whatsoever of our clients - the risk is just too high. Every major market in the world had declined 75% - 90% during the last century. No one - with more than two brain cells - can honestly believe that buy-and-hope is a conservative way to invest!

Now's the Time for Buy-and-Hold

This is laughable. Buy-and-Holders DO NOT have the option to say this is a good time to buy-and-hold, because they buy and hold. They CAN NOT take advantage of "these good situations."

You just don't get it. Buy-and-Hold means you can't do what's best for yourself, you have to accept every decline, every crash, every drawdown, no matter how stupid you are doing it.

There are so many complete myths, lies and illogical arguments in your article, I don't know where to begin.

If you every want to do a public debate I'm the first in line.

We are an active manager who has consistently outperformed the market with significantly less risk than passive investors for the last 20 years. We up last year, our investors are happy, and they LOVE active management. I could go on and on.... and would love to publicly debate your insane passive approach. Good luck, you're going to need it!

Vanguard Threatened by Tactical Asset Strategies?

Isn't it about time to PUT UP OR SHUT UP. All this debate is exhausting and only leads to more debates. Let's see who will take my challenge from the passive investment community. Bogle has had my challenge (below) in front of him for over a month and has not responded. Is there a reason? Of course there is! He can't win!

My guess there isn't a passive manager out there who will take my challenge, because they are at such a HUGE disadvantage "riskwise." Stop debating. Let me prove it.

Passive investing is high risk, and investors who accept it are going to continue to continue to suffer great losses from time to time. No one in their right mind drives their car 24/7; no one in their right mind drives without brakes. Life is all about making adjustments as necessary. No conservative investor should be told to sit there passively as their retirement assets disappear. No one should tell them to do so.

Sure active management is hard. So what. So is living, advancing your career, growing your family, and raising your children. (I hope you aren't passive about those things too!)
----------------------...
My $100,000 Challenge to John Bogle
Index investing doesn’t work in the real world of inefficient markets.

By Roger J. Schreiner (Email: [e-mail])

His disciples call themselves “Bogleheads,” and cling to his “Pillars of Wisdom” as though they were the Ten Commandments. Those in the media adore him and treat his words like gospel. He’s an icon—a God-like figure to thousands of investors.

John Bogle is the founder of The Vanguard Group, and launched the first index mutual fund in 1975. Since then, he has dedicated his career to encouraging investors to “own the market” by investing in index funds. He stresses the importance of asset allocation and low fees within a passive, buy-and-hold investment approach. There is no doubt that Mr. Bogle is sincere and has noble ambitions, but I believe his unwavering faith in the markets is misplaced.

Today, he is taking up what many are calling his final crusade. On February 24, he appeared before a Congressional committee in Washington, D.C. to tell lawmakers about his vision for “an independent Federal Retirement Board to oversee both the employer-sponsors and the plan providers, assuring that the interests of plan participants are the first priority…Our Federal Retirement Board should not only foster the use of broad-market index funds in the new defined contribution system but approve only private providers who offer their index funds at minimum costs.”

Mr. Bogle wants Congress to overhaul our retirement system by “limiting investment choices” for workers’ retirement plans and providing “more understandable options.” Under his plan, “only private providers” (such as Vanguard) would be “approved” investment vehicles.

If you’re not sure which investments are right for you, don’t worry; John Bogle knows. If he has it his way, a Federal Retirement Board will make your investment decisions for you. Doesn’t Mr. Bogle realize that shareholders in his index funds had their retirement plans decimated last year? Do you really want him guiding your investment decisions? Nothing personal, Mr. Bogle, but I think buy-and-hold has failed—it doesn’t work.

On June 19, in an interview with IndexUniverse.com, Bogle was asked, “Do you believe that there are environments that are more favorable to active management than passive management and index investing?” His response was clear. “There is no way that active managers can possibly have an advantage no matter what the circumstances are. It is just statistically, mathematically, tautologically impossible.”

My $100,000 Challenge

I hereby challenge John Bogle to a friendly wager. I want to bet $100,000 of my own money that my active investment approach can outperform his passive one.

I am challenging Mr. Bogle directly because he has the loudest voice in the industry. However, my challenge is also open to other passive investors and managers. I have set aside $1,000,000 and am ready to accept up to ten challengers. I have $100,000 earmarked for my contest with Mr. Bogle and another $900,000 waiting for nine others who want to accept the challenge.

The Wager: Both Mr. Bogle and I will place $100,000 in an escrow account at the bank of Mr. Bogle’s choice. At the end of the wager, the winner gets his $100,000 back and the loser will contribute his $100,000 to the winner’s favorite charity in his name.

The Portfolio: Mr. Bogle is free to construct his own portfolio using the index funds of his choice. I will create an exact replica of Mr. Bogle’s holdings for my portfolio. During the contest, Mr. Bogle must passively hold the assets in his portfolio and, in my portfolio, I will limit myself to trading the same assets. As an active manager, I will be able to use cash in my portfolio to help control risk. Of course, Mr. Bogle can use cash too. If he wishes, a website can be maintained so that the public can follow the portfolios and/or the results. There will be complete transparency.

The Time Period: Mr. Bogle can choose the length of the contest—anywhere from one year to a few years, or as many years as he wishes.

Fees and Expenses: Mr. Bogle’s portfolio will incur no (0%) annual management fees. My portfolio will have the disadvantage of incurring a 2% annual management fee, in addition to any transaction costs. We will use a tax-deferred, retirement account structure, so there are no tax implications for short-term capital gains.

The Results: Risk and return are the most basic and logical measures of investment success. In order to win the contest, a portfolio must have both higher return and lower risk. To calculate risk and return we will use the statistical measures of total return and standard deviation.

Mr. Bogle? Well, there you have it. Since you believe “there is no way that active managers can possibly have an advantage no matter what the circumstances,” my $100,000 must seem like free money to you. I’m waiting for your call. I’m not holding my breath though, because I am sure you will find a reason to back down. Of course, if you do, that will help prove my point—that my active investment process is superior to your high-risk “buy-and-hope” approach.

Any passive investor who believes he or she can generate a safer and higher return in their buy-and-hold portfolio than I in my active portfolio has an opportunity to relieve me of $100,000. I’m giving the passive investor all the choices, except the one they saddle themselves with—the burden of not managing their money.

We have created a web page dedicated to “My $100,000 Challenge to John Bogle” at scminvest.com/100k. There we will post the names of everyone (with their permission) who takes me up on my challenge and you can sign up to receive an e-mail alert. You can post your comments, ask me a question, and take our “Active vs. Passive Survey.” There is also a link for a free subscription to our Dynamic Investor newsletter.

Talk is Cheap

I’ve been writing about the flaws of passive investing for over twenty years, but to what end? Articles, debates and media interviews cannot settle the longstanding dispute between active and passive investors. Talk is cheap.

If John Bogle is a consumer advocate, he is also a lobbyist promoting the products of the company he founded. Unfortunately for investors, he has the ear of lawmakers in Congress, most of whom do not truly understand investing. I believe Bogle’s investment philosophy is dangerous to investors’ retirement savings, as evidenced by the results of last year. It is based on old, flawed investment models like Modern Portfolio Theory, the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and the Random Walk Theory. A proper reading of today’s financial research suggests that these theories are unfounded. To some in our industry, that’s blasphemy—but it’s what I believe to be the truth.

Passive investing is simply ill-equipped to handle the unpredictable events and market volatility we have experienced over the last ten years—it ignores reality. Professor Robert Shiller of Yale University has shown that the instability of asset prices is much greater than is predicted by EMH. That is, where the EMH suggests that passive exposure to investment markets are a way to control risk, real-life experience (the best kind of evidence) shows that markets are actually the source of risk! Even Eugene Fama himself, the father of EMH, recently admitted, “markets are not entirely efficient.” In a recent interview with David Salisbury he said, “market efficiency is a simplification of the world, which does a good job on almost everything, but some things it doesn’t do a good job with.”

The problem with building an investment strategy around the Efficient Market Hypothesis (and the other theories EMH supports) is that it only takes one event—one market crash—to wipeout your retirement savings. Every investor’s time horizon is limited—they don’t have forever to wait for markets to recover.

On August 7th, John Mauldin, an economist and author of the newsletter Thoughts from the Frontline, shared his opinion on EMH. “The Efficient Market Hypothesis, according to Robert Shiller, is one of the most remarkable errors in the history of economic thought. EMH should be consigned to the dustbin of history. We need to stop teaching it, and brainwashing the innocent. Robert Arnott (who oversees $31 billion at Research Affiliates) tells a lovely story of a speech he was giving to some 200 finance professors. He asked how many of them taught EMH—pretty much everyone’s hand was up. Then he asked how many of them believed it. Only two hands stayed up!”


Baffle a Boglehead: Use Facts and Logic

Bogleheads won’t admit it, but indexing is high-risk and has delivered low returns historically. According to CrestmontResearch.com, from 1900 through 2008, the stock market has returned just 5.8% on an annualized basis (including dividends and adjusted for inflation). To capture that 5.8% return, investors had to suffer devastating losses along the way, including an 89% loss (1929-32), a 48% loss (1973-74), another 49% loss (2000-02) and, most recently, a 57% loss (2007-09). It took investors 25 years and almost 900% gain just to break even after the 1929-32 bear market. How many years is it going to take Bogleheads to recover from the 57% loss of 2007-09? How much time do you have? See attached chart: “Impact of Losses”

Every quarter, in our Dynamic Investor newsletter, we publish “SCM’s 5 Rules for Investment Success.” We think they are so important that we print them every quarter—we want investors to read them time and time again.

Our Rules for Investment Success are very different from John Bogle’s Pillars of Wisdom. The glaring difference is that our rules are focused on risk management and an acceptance of uncertainty about the future. Bogle’s Pillars of Wisdom hardly acknowledge that investing is risky. His first pillar is: “Investing Is Not Nearly as Difficult as It Looks.” Oooo-kay. I don’t know about you, but if Mr. Bogle is going to work from that premise, I don’t want him anywhere near my retirement savings!

In contrast to Bogle’s first pillar, our first rule is “Avoid Significant Loss.” The man known as the most successful investor of all time, Warren Buffett, agrees. He reminds investors often of his first two rules: “Rule #1: Never lose money. Rule #2: Never forget rule #1.”

“I May Be Wrong But I Doubt It.” —Charles Barkley, 11-time NBA All-Star

There are two reasons why I am not concerned about losing the challenge. First and foremost, because active management is adaptable, it has a huge tactical advantage over passive indexing—sophisticated investors understand this. The risk management benefit, which is inherent in our investment process, gives us an edge that passive investing cannot overcome.

Secondly, it is highly unlikely that John Bogle or anyone else will accept my challenge. I hope he does, though, because it will be a great opportunity for us to raise money for our charities. If passive management truly is superior, or has some kind of built-in advantage, I won’t have any trouble finding ten passive managers to accept my challenge.

To be perfectly clear, active investing does not insure success, and it certainly does not guarantee investors will profit. No investment manager can make such a claim, no matter how long the investment time horizon and no matter who is running the portfolio. By challenging Mr. Bogle, my objective is simple: to prove to everyone—especially individual investors who have been misled by the mainstream financial services industry for far too long—that active investing can be less risky than buy-and-hold. The proof will come when no passive manager accepts my challenge. If someone does, then I will have the opportunity to prove it with my results.

A Safer Way to Reach Your Retirement Goals

If you look objectively at the history of financial markets, it becomes clear that passive, buy-and-hold investing is a high-risk, low-return endeavor. Investors who are close to or in retirement don’t want high risk and unpredictable returns. They want low risk and more predictable returns. For retirees who own tax-deferred retirement accounts, such as IRAs, active management may offer lower risk and more consistent returns.

Investors who utilize active investment strategies in their retirement accounts can move between stocks, mutual funds, ETFs and cash with no tax consequences and with little or no transaction costs. The performance of our active investment strategies speaks for itself. For complete performance information on all of our investment models, please visit our website, or contact us directly.

Investors must unlearn what people like John Bogle have been telling them. The greatest threat to your retirement is uncertainty of the future—it’s the next credit crisis, the next financial crisis, the next recession. If you accept buy-and-hold, you must expect that, at some point, your retirement savings will experience a devastating loss. I always tell investors, “Your investment process must include an exit strategy, otherwise, you shouldn’t be invested in the stock market.”

While our past is certain, the future is unknowable. Bogle’s approach is reckless and irrational because it assumes the market will provide positive returns to all investors. There is no guarantee that returns will be positive no matter how long you invest. My advice to you is to find an investment manager who truly understands risk and has a plan for both good and bad markets. Find a financial advisor that is confident enough to take on today’s uncertain markets, but is humble enough to know what he does not know.

Beware the Buffett Effect: Part II

Market timing is the key to investing. It always has been, it always will be. Sure it is tough. It is very, very tough, but if you work at it you can lower your risk (exposure) dramaticly and the benefits of good timing are the difference between success and total failure when you look at 2008. Many of our investors had double digit positive returns last year, all out strategies out performed the indices by huge margins in 2008. Not everyone can do this stuff. I can't hit a golf ball 300 yards, but I know some players can.... I can't fly an airplane but I can certainly find a pilot to take me where I need to go. You just have to be humble enough to let someone else take the wheel if you can't drive.

Vanguard's Sauter: Avoid Irrational Exuberance with Alternatives

Passive investing never made sense, it never will. Only looking backwards can one tell if you SHOULD HAVE. Investing is about going forward.

The facts are: passive investing is investing without an escape plan, which means it is greatly flawed. Active investing, while offering no guarantees, certainly gives you a fighting chance.

Last year Vanguards passive equity strategy suffered market like losses. Our portfolios were up 5% to 30% and we took less risk. We have outperformed the last 1, 3, 5, and 10 year periods, again, with less risk.

Now we only manage .001% of the assets that Vanguard does, but we have investors who are still growing there assets, rather than the losing money as those who made a single bet without a safety net.

I wish Vanguard good luck, because the ONLY way they can win for therei investors is if there is a bull market.

Roger Schreiner, CEO
Schreiner Capital Management, Inc.
scminvest.com

Now's the Time for Buy-and-Hold

Even those who "appear" to support you, use "active management" to overcome the fault of passive investing.
a) keep money in reserve....
b) this is a good time/bad time.....
c) dollar cost averaging (bad, bad, idea)
d) different time horizons

Remember, buy-and-holders don't have options. They don't want options. They sit in the road until the truck runs over them, then they lay in the road hoping someone (maybe Obama) will come pick them up.

Sorry, but you picked the strategy. Just because it seemed to make sense at the time, you had to know that doing thing is probably not a good idea in the long term.

Active vs. Passive Investing: What's the Average?

Roger,

My guess is that you (and others) don't really understand what (most) successful active managers do. It is NOT a matter of making a decision not to be in the market once or twice a year (for us). We make decisions each and every day on what our exposure will be for the next day. We go one day at a time.

In 2008, when passive investors lost 50% or more, we experienced double digit returns in some of our disciplines. MOST OF THAT MONEY WAS MADE ON THE "LONG" SIDE OF THE MARKET!

Most people who find fault with active management, assume that we made a decision to short the market, or go to cash for some period of months... but nothing could be further from the truth.

Active manage is NOT about predicting the future, or making guesses the future. We make probability plays day by day. Our returns come from daily decisions about whether to be long, short or in cash in various amounts.

Your assumptions about active managers and active management come from a lack of understand of what good active managers do. It's all about "risk management."

Returns are generated my managing risk, not just accepting whatever the market delivers.

Roger Schreiner

Index Investing: Pluses and Minuses

Passive investing is investing in "hope" and hope is not an investment strategy. Hope is the belief that something will happen without your effort. Does that really sound like a prudent and realistic approach for assets; those assets you are saving and growing for your retirement. Passive investing is high risk; it is speculating and gambling with your future.

Active strategies, at least, give you a fighting chance.

To say that technical analysis is not infallible, is as unnessary as saying that it gets dark at night because the sun goes down.

I would be happy to challenge "any investor" that my active investment process will produce better (safer and bigger) returns than their passive approach.

Roger Schreiner
Schreiner Capital Management, Inc.
scminvest.com

'Edge' Chart User’s Guide

Ron,

Awesome service. I love the simplicity of it and the fact that it is visual.

Index ETFs Have the Edge Over Actively Managed CEFs

Gary, Your arguments make no sense. Comparing Actively Managed ETFs to Index-Type ETFs is not a reasonable thing to do. Actively Managed (anythings) can vary so greatly, whose to say which be better or best. All I know is that passive investing in anything is stupid - it eventually fails.

Whether or not actively managed succeeds, fails, or does goes back and forth depends on who is managing it and how sound their process is - this is not something that can broadly be defined as a "good or bad thing."

Costs are one thing, but if good management overcomes them, who cares! I don't care if the charge 500 basis points a year, if they can outperform the disaster of buy-and-hope, it's a better value!

You get all hung up on the stuff that distracts investors from making money. Almost everything we have be told about investing is wrong - this is just another one of those myths and distraction that keeps investors from making money.

Roger Schreiner
Schreiner Capital Management, Inc.

The Evolution of Passive vs. Active Investing

Roger,

Whenever I see an article on active investing vs. passive investing I send my challenge. (see below) It's been several months since I made the formal challenge to Bogle (and dozens of other passive cheerleaders) And after dozens and dozens of postings, I have yet to get a single challenge. It certainly makes you wonder if these so-called "passive investors" really believe what they preach. My guess is that they want their investors to stay put, but they actively manage their assets because it's just too risky to ride stocks down 50% or more, just because "market timing is difficult." I'm still waiting for someone to accept my challenge.......

My $100,000 Challenge to John Bogle
Index investing doesn’t work in the real world of inefficient markets.

Roger J. Schreiner

His disciples call themselves “Bogleheads,” and cling to his “Pillars of Wisdom” as though they were the Ten Commandments. Those in the media adore him and treat his words like gospel. He’s an icon—a God-like figure to thousands of investors.

John Bogle is the founder of The Vanguard Group, and launched the first index mutual fund in 1975. Since then, he has dedicated his career to encouraging investors to “own the market” by investing in index funds. He stresses the importance of asset allocation and low fees within a passive, buy-and-hold investment approach. There is no doubt that Mr. Bogle is sincere and has noble ambitions, but I believe his unwavering faith in the markets is misplaced.

Today, he is taking up what many are calling his final crusade. On February 24, he appeared before a Congressional committee in Washington, D.C. to tell lawmakers about his vision for “an independent Federal Retirement Board to oversee both the employer-sponsors and the plan providers, assuring that the interests of plan participants are the first priority…Our Federal Retirement Board should not only foster the use of broad-market index funds in the new defined contribution system but approve only private providers who offer their index funds at minimum costs.”

Mr. Bogle wants Congress to overhaul our retirement system by “limiting investment choices” for workers’ retirement plans and providing “more understandable options.” Under his plan, “only private providers” (such as Vanguard) would be “approved” investment vehicles.

If you’re not sure which investments are right for you, don’t worry; John Bogle knows. If he has it his way, a Federal Retirement Board will make your investment decisions for you. Doesn’t Mr. Bogle realize that shareholders in his index funds had their retirement plans decimated last year? Do you really want him guiding your investment decisions? Nothing personal, Mr. Bogle, but I think buy-and-hold has failed—it doesn’t work.

On June 19, in an interview with IndexUniverse.com, Bogle was asked, “Do you believe that there are environments that are more favorable to active management than passive management and index investing?” His response was clear. “There is no way that active managers can possibly have an advantage no matter what the circumstances are. It is just statistically, mathematically, tautologically impossible.”

My $100,000 Challenge

I hereby challenge John Bogle to a friendly wager. I want to bet $100,000 of my own money that my active investment approach can outperform his passive one.

I am challenging Mr. Bogle directly because he has the loudest voice in the industry. However, my challenge is also open to other passive investors and managers. I have set aside $1,000,000 and am ready to accept up to ten challengers. I have $100,000 earmarked for my contest with Mr. Bogle and another $900,000 waiting for nine others who want to accept the challenge.

The Wager: Both Mr. Bogle and I will place $100,000 in an escrow account at the bank of Mr. Bogle’s choice. At the end of the wager, the winner gets his $100,000 back and the loser will contribute his $100,000 to the winner’s favorite charity in his name.

The Portfolio: Mr. Bogle is free to construct his own portfolio using the index funds of his choice. I will create an exact replica of Mr. Bogle’s holdings for my portfolio. During the contest, Mr. Bogle must passively hold the assets in his portfolio and, in my portfolio, I will limit myself to trading the same assets. As an active manager, I will be able to use cash in my portfolio to help control risk. Of course, Mr. Bogle can use cash too. If he wishes, a website can be maintained so that the public can follow the portfolios and/or the results. There will be complete transparency.

The Time Period: Mr. Bogle can choose the length of the contest—anywhere from one year to a few years, or as many years as he wishes.

Fees and Expenses: Mr. Bogle’s portfolio will incur no (0%) annual management fees. My portfolio will have the disadvantage of incurring a 2% annual management fee, in addition to any transaction costs. We will use a tax-deferred, retirement account structure, so there are no tax implications for short-term capital gains.

The Results: Risk and return are the most basic and logical measures of investment success. In order to win the contest, a portfolio must have both higher return and lower risk. To calculate risk and return we will use the statistical measures of total return and standard deviation.

Mr. Bogle? Well, there you have it. Since you believe “there is no way that active managers can possibly have an advantage no matter what the circumstances,” my $100,000 must seem like free money to you. I’m waiting for your call. I’m not holding my breath though, because I am sure you will find a reason to back down. Of course, if you do, that will help prove my point—that my active investment process is superior to your high-risk “buy-and-hope” approach.

Any passive investor who believes he or she can generate a safer and higher return in their buy-and-hold portfolio than I in my active portfolio has an opportunity to relieve me of $100,000. I’m giving the passive investor all the choices, except the one they saddle themselves with—the burden of not managing their money.

We have created a web page dedicated to “My $100,000 Challenge to John Bogle” at scminvest.com/100k. There we will post the names of everyone (with their permission) who takes me up on my challenge and you can sign up to receive an e-mail alert. You can post your comments, ask me a question, and take our “Active vs. Passive Survey.” There is also a link for a free subscription to our Dynamic Investor newsletter.

Talk is Cheap

I’ve been writing about the flaws of passive investing for over twenty years, but to what end? Articles, debates and media interviews cannot settle the longstanding dispute between active and passive investors. Talk is cheap.

If John Bogle is a consumer advocate, he is also a lobbyist promoting the products of the company he founded. Unfortunately for investors, he has the ear of lawmakers in Congress, most of whom do not truly understand investing. I believe Bogle’s investment philosophy is dangerous to investors’ retirement savings, as evidenced by the results of last year. It is based on old, flawed investment models like Modern Portfolio Theory, the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and the Random Walk Theory. A proper reading of today’s financial research suggests that these theories are unfounded. To some in our industry, that’s blasphemy—but it’s what I believe to be the truth.

Passive investing is simply ill-equipped to handle the unpredictable events and market volatility we have experienced over the last ten years—it ignores reality. Professor Robert Shiller of Yale University has shown that the instability of asset prices is much greater than is predicted by EMH. That is, where the EMH suggests that passive exposure to investment markets are a way to control risk, real-life experience (the best kind of evidence) shows that markets are actually the source of risk! Even Eugene Fama himself, the father of EMH, recently admitted, “markets are not entirely efficient.” In a recent interview with David Salisbury he said, “market efficiency is a simplification of the world, which does a good job on almost everything, but some things it doesn’t do a good job with.”

The problem with building an investment strategy around the Efficient Market Hypothesis (and the other theories EMH supports) is that it only takes one event—one market crash—to wipeout your retirement savings. Every investor’s time horizon is limited—they don’t have forever to wait for markets to recover.

On August 7th, John Mauldin, an economist and author of the newsletter Thoughts from the Frontline, shared his opinion on EMH. “The Efficient Market Hypothesis, according to Robert Shiller, is one of the most remarkable errors in the history of economic thought. EMH should be consigned to the dustbin of history. We need to stop teaching it, and brainwashing the innocent. Robert Arnott (who oversees $31 billion at Research Affiliates) tells a lovely story of a speech he was giving to some 200 finance professors. He asked how many of them taught EMH—pretty much everyone’s hand was up. Then he asked how many of them believed it. Only two hands stayed up!”


Baffle a Boglehead: Use Facts and Logic

Bogleheads won’t admit it, but indexing is high-risk and has delivered low returns historically. According to CrestmontResearch.com, from 1900 through 2008, the stock market has returned just 5.8% on an annualized basis (including dividends and adjusted for inflation). To capture that 5.8% return, investors had to suffer devastating losses along the way, including an 89% loss (1929-32), a 48% loss (1973-74), another 49% loss (2000-02) and, most recently, a 57% loss (2007-09). It took investors 25 years and almost 900% gain just to break even after the 1929-32 bear market. How many years is it going to take Bogleheads to recover from the 57% loss of 2007-09? How much time do you have? See attached chart: “Impact of Losses”

Every quarter, in our Dynamic Investor newsletter, we publish “SCM’s 5 Rules for Investment Success.” We think they are so important that we print them every quarter—we want investors to read them time and time again.

Our Rules for Investment Success are very different from John Bogle’s Pillars of Wisdom. The glaring difference is that our rules are focused on risk management and an acceptance of uncertainty about the future. Bogle’s Pillars of Wisdom hardly acknowledge that investing is risky. His first pillar is: “Investing Is Not Nearly as Difficult as It Looks.” Oooo-kay. I don’t know about you, but if Mr. Bogle is going to work from that premise, I don’t want him anywhere near my retirement savings!

In contrast to Bogle’s first pillar, our first rule is “Avoid Significant Loss.” The man known as the most successful investor of all time, Warren Buffett, agrees. He reminds investors often of his first two rules: “Rule #1: Never lose money. Rule #2: Never forget rule #1.”

“I May Be Wrong But I Doubt It.” —Charles Barkley, 11-time NBA All-Star

There are two reasons why I am not concerned about losing the challenge. First and foremost, because active management is adaptable, it has a huge tactical advantage over passive indexing—sophisticated investors understand this. The risk management benefit, which is inherent in our investment process, gives us an edge that passive investing cannot overcome.

Secondly, it is highly unlikely that John Bogle or anyone else will accept my challenge. I hope he does, though, because it will be a great opportunity for us to raise money for our charities. If passive management truly is superior, or has some kind of built-in advantage, I won’t have any trouble finding ten passive managers to accept my challenge.

To be perfectly clear, active investing does not insure success, and it certainly does not guarantee investors will profit. No investment manager can make such a claim, no matter how long the investment time horizon and no matter who is running the portfolio. By challenging Mr. Bogle, my objective is simple: to prove to everyone—especially individual investors who have been misled by the mainstream financial services industry for far too long—that active investing can be less risky than buy-and-hold. The proof will come when no passive manager accepts my challenge. If someone does, then I will have the opportunity to prove it with my results.

A Safer Way to Reach Your Retirement Goals

If you look objectively at the history of financial markets, it becomes clear that passive, buy-and-hold investing is a high-risk, low-return endeavor. Investors who are close to or in retirement don’t want high risk and unpredictable returns. They want low risk and more predictable returns. For retirees who own tax-deferred retirement accounts, such as IRAs, active management may offer lower risk and more consistent returns.

Investors who utilize active investment strategies in their retirement accounts can move between stocks, mutual funds, ETFs and cash with no tax consequences and with little or no transaction costs. The performance of our active investment strategies speaks for itself. For complete performance information on all of our investment models, please visit our website, or contact us directly.

Investors must unlearn what people like John Bogle have been telling them. The greatest threat to your retirement is uncertainty of the future—it’s the next credit crisis, the next financial crisis, the next recession. If you accept buy-and-hold, you must expect that, at some point, your retirement savings will experience a devastating loss. I always tell investors, “Your investment process must include an exit strategy, otherwise, you shouldn’t be invested in the stock market.”

While our past is certain, the future is unknowable. Bogle’s approach is reckless and irrational because it assumes the market will provide positive returns to all investors. There is no guarantee that returns will be positive no matter how long you invest. My advice to you is to find an investment manager who truly understands risk and has a plan for both good and bad markets. Find a financial advisor that is confident enough to take on today’s uncertain markets, but is humble enough to know what he does not know.

What the Stimulus Plan Means for ETFs, Sector by Sector

Tom,

Very, very nice report. Useful.

Roger

Small Cap ETF Underperformance Signals Continuing Investor Fears

Gary,

I think you better look a more carefully at the charts.... RJS

The Active vs. Passive Funds Debate: Who Wins?

Tom,

There should be no debate, passive investing is risky and dangerous to your wealth. I would not consider any of the stuff in your list as seriously "active." Just because they move things around, they stay full invested. "Active investing" should include cash or money market at times of high risk.

As you know we "actively manage" our portfolios on a daily basis. Almost all of our strategies were positive or flat on the year, we even had two that were up double digits, one of them up about +30% in 2008. Our active portfolios take LESS RISK than passively invested strategies, and LESS RISK than those you classify as active (above).

Do you know ANYONE who would select a passive approach over an active approach in a goal-oriented endeavor? Niether do I. Investing is no different than any other goal-oriented endeavor, you need to actively manage your assets to prevent getting killed in markets like we are experiencing.

It is sad that the mutual fund industry has persuaded investors to accept passive investment as a serious approach. Any approach that does not have an escape plan is worthless. It is time to be honest.

There are advisors and firms out there that can outperform buy-and-hold. Justs because there aren't many, isn't an acceptable reason to buy and hold. I can't believe it's ever sensible to buy-and-hold, the risk is just too great. It's time to be honest with the American public and with individual investors about the unacceptable high risk of buy and hold.

Roger Schreiner
Schreiner Capital Management
scminvest.com