For many years, I’ve been troubled by a conundrum: If mutual fund investors are not earning the market return, even adjusting for expenses, who is taking the winning side of their transactions?
The authors concluded that “the value of a sophisticated investor derives from the private information he brings to the process.” (Italics added.)
Rather than “private information,” I suspect what they meant was “private evaluation.”
If you want to earn high investment returns, you’re going to have to look far from the overgrazed investment commons.
.. examined the investment returns of various organizational structures, reasoning that if investment skill was to be found anywhere, it would indeed be in the wild and wooly world of private equity. Their results were stunning. As expected, banks, insurance companies, investment companies, private advisors, and corporate pension funds did not do terribly well. Public pension funds did a little better, and one group-endowments-did spectacularly well, with returns 21% better than average.
Swensen described his pleasure at knowing that he made it possible for many more poor students to attend Yale: “In the finance world it is very easy to measure winning and losing in dollars and cents. That has always seemed to be an inadequate measure. The quality of life is a better way to measure winning and losing. Money is only one element of that.”
And speaking of successful money managers, while Warren Buffett has not exactly taken the same vow of “poverty,” he does share Swensen’s otherworldliness, living in the same modest house for several decades, fitting out his living room at the Omaha Furniture Mart, and subsisting on Coke and cheeseburgers. Is there a connection between Buffet and Swensen’s relative disdain of the material world and their brilliance as money managers and, more generally, of the superior performance of endowments and public pension plans?
You bet there is. Cognitive psychologists have long known that we are very poor judges of what makes us happy: the pleasure from money, fame, possessions, and power turns out to be quite transient (and so is the pain from things which we think would permanently sadden us: the depression caused by sudden, permanent blindness or paraplegia, for example, is surprisingly short-lived).
Three things provide long-lasting satisfaction, as quantitatively measured by academic psychologists: autonomy, meaningful contact with others, and the development and exercise of competence. Cognitive researchers loosely refer to fame, fortune, and power as “external rewards,” and autonomy, connectedness, and competence as “internal rewards.”
The message for small investors is clear. Begin with the assumption that you value your independence, family, friends, and intellectual and physical development, and do not want to spend the rest of your life buying and managing small machine tool shops and insurance offices, or financing chip, software, and Internet startups.