MONEY stocks

How Investors Are Like Powerball Players

Lottery winners
Many investors dare to dream, like these winners of the $448 million Powerball jackpot. Donna Svennevik—ABC via Getty Images

It's easy to be dazzled by stocks with hot streaks. Here's why you should ignore that noise.

Almost everyone knows that playing the lottery is a terrible idea as a matter of simple math, and yet state-run lottery ticket sales run close to $70 billion per year. Why do we waste our money this way? “All you need is a dollar and a dream,” is how the old New York lotto ads put it — and of course that’s what we’re really buying when we play: a dream.

Investors as a group are supposed to be more rational than lottery players. (For one thing, there’s a lot more than a dollar at stake.) But now along comes some new evidence — in case you needed it — that that isn’t always the case. A new research paper by business professors Turan Bali, Stephen Brown, Scott Murray, and Yi Tang finds that “lottery-like” stocks tend to be overpriced, delivering lower future returns.

What are lottery stocks? Ones with unusually high average returns for their five best days in a given month — regardless of how they perform during the other 25 or so days. The idea seems to be that a handful of high return days have the same effect as news stories about big lottery winners. Investors see them and dare to dream.

This effect, the researchers say, explains one of the long-standing puzzles in finance. There’s some evidence that stocks with a high “beta” — a kind of volatility, that is — do worse than you’d expect given their level of risk. And low volatility stocks do better than you’d expect.

As I’ve written about recently, a group at the hedge-fund firm AQR argues that Warren Buffett’s tilt to lower-volatility stocks is one reason he’s done so extraordinarily well. The AQR group says low-volatility stocks have an edge because investors who want to take on more risk don’t have easy access to additional borrowed money. So when they want to goose their returns, they instead tend to crowd into riskier stocks. That drives up the valuations on shares of those high­fliers, giving cheaper, low-beta stocks an edge.

Bali and company have a more behavioral explanation. Many high-volatility stocks are also lottery stocks. So perhaps what’s going on is that investors simply see hot returns — never mind they’re short-term gains — and then chase after them. Because, hey, you never know.

MONEY Warren Buffett

One Weird Trick That Will Help You Beat the Market Like Warren

140530_HOME_Buffett_1
Warren Buffett Ben Baker—Redux

Here's a no-brainer way to win with "Warren" stocks. It won't do you any good now, but it would have been brilliant in 1993.

My story, Inside Buffett’s Brain, is about the search by financial economists and money managers for persistent patterns in stock returns. Some of these patterns might help to explain why a handful of money managers, including Buffett, have done so well. The story is about more than Buffett, though. The hunt through past market data for potentially winning strategies is a big business, and has fueled the growth of exchange-traded funds (ETFs). So a word of warning is in order.

Here’s the result of astoundingly simple Buffett-cloning strategy I put together, inspired by a “modest proposal” from Vanguard’s Joel Dickson. All you have to do buy stocks with tickers beginning with the letters in “Warren.” (You have double up on the “r” stocks, natch.)

Winning with Warren NEW

This likely “works” in part because it’s an equal-weight index—meaning each stock in the W.A.R.R.E.N. portfolio is held in the same proportion. Traditional indexes like the S&P 500 are “capitalization weighted,” meaning they give more weight to the biggest companies in the market. Because smaller stocks have outperformed in recent years, equally weighted indexes have done pretty well compared to traditional indexes in the period in question.

So you might find out that you can also beat the market with an equally weighted basket of stocks whose tickers begin with the letters in your name too. Just cross your fingers and hope the trend doesn’t reverse in favor of blue chips.

Another reason why this trick worked is that it picks from among current S&P 500 names, which means the stocks on the list are already in a sense known winners. Companies that used to be small and then graduated to the S&P 500 are on list, and companies that used to be big and then got small or disappeared aren’t on the list. But you couldn’t know which companies those were in 1993.

This is obviously dopey, and no way to run your money. (And the ideas I wrote about are much, much more sophisticated than this.) But there’s a serious point here. ETFs are a great way to buy cheap, reliable exposure to the stock market. But these days most ETFs track not a simple well-known benchmark, but a custom index built upon rules which, if followed, are thought to give investors an edge. For example there are indexes which tilt toward companies with better-than-average sales, or which specialize in certain sectors or investment themes.

These indexes often have really impressive past performance. In theory. Based on “back tests” of market data, from before the index was actually in operation.

And of course they do. Today indexes are often created with an ETF launch in mind. So there’s not much point in building an index and marketing it if you don’t know that the strategy has already won. Unfortunately, knowing what’s already worked in the past doesn’t mean you know what will work in the future.

In fact, investors in new indexes are likely to be disappointed. Samuel Lee, an ETF strategist at Morningstar, explains that in any group of past winning strategies, a high number will have won just through sheer luck. The future average performance of those strategies is almost certain to decay. Because luck runs out.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser