We have been in the midst of a debate as to the benefits (or not) of a buy-and-hold investment methodology.  Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture highlights some recent research showing that some portfolio managers are able to exploit macroeconomic data to outperform their benchmarks.  What hasn’t worked has been an equity-centric buy-and-hold approach.  Ritholtz writes:

Cash has beaten stocks for the past 10 years; Even worse, Bonds have beaten Stocks since 1966. To me, this suggests that an active asset allocation program (rather than pure market timing) is the way to go for most high net worth investors.

Ritholtz believes that the financial industry is wedded to buy-and-hold in that it works out best from their own business perspective.  However the path to active returns is tougher than it appears at first glance.

William Bernstein has noted that only a tiny fraction, 1 in 1000, investors have the skills to become truly competent investors.  Let’s discount that figure and say 1 in 100 or 1 in 10 people have the ability to become good investors.  If that is case, how does somebody figure out if they are in that small minority?

In short, very carefully.

Eric Falkenstein at Falkenblog has a post that takes a look the process investors should use to develop and test an investment methodology.  The point being that many active investors don’t invest with any kind of plan (written or unwritten).  He writes:

If you are going to invest this way, the best thing you can do is work out a system. Develop rules, test them, write them down, and at the end of the year, evaluate your results. If you fail, perhaps give it another year. But after a few years, if you underperform standard benchmarks (eg, the SPY ETF), then either get out of the market, or stop trading, an simply invest in the SPY.

Falkenstein writes in more detail on how one might test a quantitative strategy or keep track of a fundamental process.  The important thing being that you avoid an ad hoc decision stream that provides you no meaningful feedback on your investment acumen.  The point being that this will help you decide whether you should be using an active strategy in the first place.  To wit:

Remember, odds are you will fail as demonstrated by the fact that most retail investors do not outperform the market, and neither do professional money managers. Do not assume that simply trying hard, or wanting it, are sufficient, because every money manager really wants to outperform, and most work quite hard.

After some time (and bad experiences) some investors will come to feel that an active approach is not the right for them.  James Picerno of the Capital Spectator believes that two rules can help any investor let alone one who is not expecting to materially outperform the indices.  Picerno writes:

The world is filled with recommendations and research on what works best in the money game. But when you reduce the sea of study down to the essential lessons, we’re left with rule number one—diversify within and across asset classes, i.e., asset allocation—and number two—rebalance.

It is easy to complicate your investment life.  The temptations are always out there, especially those that tap into our desire to hear unlikely stories of simple paths to success.  Picerno again:

In short, Pay close attention to designing and managing the asset mix. Much of the world practices a far more complicated form of money management, but that doesn’t mean that greater complication leads to better results.

Investing isn’t easy.  Even a streamlined process focused on asset allocation and rebalancing requires a series of decisions, each of which can be second-guessed in retrospect.  What investors can’t do is keep kidding themselves that they have a viable alpha generating process when all they are doing is investing by the seat of their pants.

This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment.

The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client.

References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.

Please see disclosures here.

Please see the Terms & Conditions page for a full disclaimer.