Why Achieving Alpha For Managers Is a Black Swan

Every quarter or so, the more senior monkeys and perhaps for the younger ones their parents, receive a 401k statement in the mail. Contained within these few pages are the cold hard facts, the summary performances of their retirement nest egg. As they look at the bold red numbers on the front page, some will simply ignore them while others may go into a rage over a few thousand dollar loss. Black or red, I would bet that most investors, not just in 401k’s, have at least wondered why their fee-based active fund managers typically deliver no better results than the market. What they don’t put in “the fine print” is that only less than one percent of managers actually achieve alpha and here’s why…


Charles D. Ellis CFA and Chairman of the Whitehead Institute offers some hard data on the matter. He recently published an article in the Financial Analysts Journal titled, Murder on the Orient Express: The Mystery of Underperformance. As a summary he basically finds that,
active management may be the only service ever offered that costs more than the value delivered.”
This makes sense since the commodity fees charged for index funds means that managers only provide added value when they beat their benchmark. In economic terms, the marginal cost of investing in the fund would equal the excess return minus the incremental fee charged, or alpha. However, the evidence finds that this is in fact not reality.

• Pick any 12-month random period and about 60% of mangers underperform
• Move it to a 10-year time frame and the underperformance grows by 10%
• Double that and it becomes less robust, growing to about 80% of managers

Furthermore, 24% of managers carry a negative alpha and 75% roughly match the market’s return. That leaves about 1% left, similar in probability to Nassim N. Taleb's black swan event. The key difference is that black swans are statistically significant from zero while managers that achieve alpha are not.

Can you name ANY manager who have defied the statistics and achieved alpha?


Buried within Ellis’s article he uncovers a paradox. Despite a fund managers skillfulness, experience, and intelligence the professionals that collectively dominate the buy-side by their very nature disadvantages them to beat their benchmarks. He suports this by saying...
No manager talks candidly to their clients about the difficulty of investment management as firm information and rigorous analyses has proliferated, competitors multiplied, and information advantages have become increasingly commoditized.”

He goes on to point out their two major inherent flaws:

1. They believe deeply in the value of their work, known as familiarity bias. He cites strong circumstantial evidence showing in their literature that benchmarks and historical performance are cherry-picked and that the results are shown without fees.
2. Investment philosophies tend to be oversimplified and sold as a universal truth or a conceptual competitive advantage.

Do you agree with this paradox and are managers somewhat at fault?


In my opinion, I’m going to take Mr. Ellis for his word. Since I can’t see his research, have similar experiences, or proper credentials. I can neither prove nor disprove his findings but I will say that due to his publication it's probable that his analysis is correct. With that said, I’d like to turn to the more senior monkeys who may be fund managers themselves and their professional opinions on the matter.

Do you think achieving alpha is even possible today given the algorithmic programs, HFT, and overall market efficiency?
 

Suppose a tweed-clad humanities academic says something like “Clearly the presentation of the self in post-colonial feminist societies has been influenced by Noam Chomsky calls ‘the heteronormative displacement paradigm,’ where blah blah blah….” Most folks would just roll their eyes and move on.

Put a brooks brothers-clad ER analyst in front of them saying “Given our model’s projections of sales for product X and GDP growth in country Y, as well as well as the company’s strong financials (detailed in Appendix C), we think Stock Z should be priced at $126 and therefore is a strong buy…” And people lap it up and open their wallets. But this is essentially the same thing as above, finance just has better window dressing and the illusion of solid math to back up their assertions.

 

There are some anomalies in terms of individual managers who appear to have alpha over very long time horizons.

  • Peter Lynch is the best example, the t-stat on his outperformance is something like ~15 (inexplicable based on EMH).
  • Warren Buffet
  • Bill Gross
  • Jeff Gundlach
  • Bill Miller used to be a good example (15 straight years of outperformance) until he got absolutely annihilated after the financial crisis.

There are likely many other examples at smaller funds, but it can be a lot of work to identify them.

 
Best Response

The reality is that there is no incentive to "beat the market" for most mutual funds because the fee structure rewards asset gathering over performance. The other day my dad said to me (finance lay man) that if he were to hand his money over to anyone it would be Fidelity. Why? Well the reality is that Fidelity have the budget to market themselves as a successful company and retail investors buy into that even though most Fido mutual funds underperform their benchmarks. Also, don't underestimate the Financial Advisor distribution channel that makes it very difficult for average joe to get impartial advice on asset managers.

Secondly, if you are a manager managing a fund, why take the risk of underperforming your peers? As long as you go with the flow and perform in line with everyone else you will keep your cushy 7 figure job. No point in trying to outperform if it means you lag for a few quarters and lose AUM which will kill your salary. This creates a conflict of interest. Jeremy Grantham (value investor) at GMO wrote a great paper on this dilemma.

Finally, the gate keepers for institutional money, investment consltants and trustees, have become obsessed with short-term performance which forces managers to try and deliver excess returns quarter by quarter for fear of losing big mandates. A lot of clients say they believe in long-term investing but get antsy when a manager underperforms for a few quarters.

Unsurprisingly, the investors of Graham and Doddsville, who shun AUM growth for growth's sake and invest for the long-term have bucked the trend and are generally amongst the few managers who consistently beat the market.

 
Ovechkin08:
Unsurprisingly, the investors of Graham and Doddsville, who shun AUM growth for growth's sake and invest for the long-term have bucked the trend and are generally amongst the few managers who consistently beat the market.

I didn't read the comments before posting... but yeah. This. This x 1000. Asset accumulation always leads to irrational position sizing and taking on too many positions. The more you own the more you become the market. Concentration is how you get your alpha. Of course, it's also how you fail miserably. Just don't do the latter.

I hate victims who respect their executioners
 
BlackHat:
Ovechkin08:
Unsurprisingly, the investors of Graham and Doddsville, who shun AUM growth for growth's sake and invest for the long-term have bucked the trend and are generally amongst the few managers who consistently beat the market.

I didn't read the comments before posting... but yeah. This. This x 1000. Asset accumulation always leads to irrational position sizing and taking on too many positions. The more you own the more you become the market. Concentration is how you get your alpha. Of course, it's also how you fail miserably. Just don't do the latter.

I agree, even as a relative amateur. I am always disappointed when I see a manager allocating at most 2% of his capital to a given position. If you're investing intelligently, you should feel comfortable putting 10% or more in a single high conviction position. And again, if you are smart about it, you have downside protection: is that company you bought 10% above liquidation value really likely to fall 50%?

Also absolutely agree about asset accumulation. From the HF guys I know, it sounds like even at $500m you start having trouble buying some of the more thinly traded small caps.

 

My former fund has a 30 year annualized that's 6% higher than the S&P. My current has an 8 year that's even higher. I think this happens with statistically significant regularity.

I hate victims who respect their executioners
 

investment management in aggregate creates no economic value. it just appropriates a slice of capital for the managers. No matter of investment philosophising changes this fact. It's the nature of inter-mediating the investment process.

therefore the strategic issue for an individual asset manager is whether they appropriate their share from other asset managers, from their own clients or a combination of both. I think this needs to be a conscious decision and strategies for investment, fund raising and business organisation should be set in a manner consistent with this decision.

 

Qui et molestiae ut est. Ipsam vitae dignissimos et dolor. Qui molestiae voluptatem totam. Officiis quos quia consequuntur sed voluptatem qui qui molestiae.

Qui laborum molestiae provident fugit. Illo tempore quo eos nemo voluptas. Et et tempora minima voluptatem ut velit ut.

Ducimus dignissimos repudiandae non. Voluptas a odio dignissimos quo minus quis. Et architecto ad quos aut et. Molestias et officiis cumque natus. Quaerat hic numquam illo saepe dolores recusandae quia. Iste cum ipsam totam quibusdam sit. Dolores alias error eum iste.

Non dignissimos nihil repellendus aliquid aperiam rerum consequatur. Enim blanditiis quibusdam nobis ut repudiandae cumque ex. Enim aspernatur ex quis eum. Harum quia et recusandae. Optio ullam aut corporis ut consequatur. Sed accusamus quod harum odit totam quia. Ab dolor velit eos repudiandae optio. Ea sint laborum voluptatem porro consequuntur.

My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”