TIME stocks

Nasdaq Closes Above 5,000 for the First Time in 15 Years

The Times Square news-ticker announces the NASDAQ composite index topping 5,000 points on March 2, 2015 in New York City.
Bryan Thomas—Getty Images The Times Square news-ticker announces the NASDAQ composite index topping 5,000 points on March 2, 2015 in New York City.

The Nasdaq Composite last hit 5,000 during the tech bubble peak in March 2000

The last time the tech-laden Nasdaq stock closed above 5,000, Bill Clinton occupied the White House, America Online had agreed to buy Time Warner for $165 billion and beloved “Peanuts” cartoonist Charles Schulz had died in his sleep.

The index closed slightly above that level on Monday, unofficially ending Monday at 5,008.10, up 44.57 or nearly 1 percent, as investors celebrated an interest rate cut in China and upbeat economic data. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 also advanced.

The Nasdaq Composite last hit 5,000 during the tech bubble peak in March 2000. The index tumbled in the months following to land at 1,108.49 in October 2002…

Read the rest of the story from our partners at NBC News

MONEY Inequality

Why the Nasdaq Is Back but the Middle Class Isn’t

The Times Square news-ticker announces the NASDAQ composite index topping 5,000 points on March 2, 2015 in New York City. The NASDAQ composite climbed over 5,000 points for the first time in 15 years.
Bryan Thomas—Getty Images The Times Square news-ticker announces the NASDAQ composite index topping 5,000 points on March 2, 2015 in New York City. The NASDAQ composite climbed over 5,000 points for the first time in 15 years.

Why the average American has missed out on the stock market's gains.

The Nasdaq touched 5,000 on Monday and investors are having some heady Y2K flashbacks. The tech-heavy index last approached such lofty heights in 2000, when the stock market bubble had yet to pop. It was time when electronic trading, tech funds and hot IPOs were middle class obsessions. It felt like everyone could get a piece of the action.

There’s some of that boom-boom feeling in air again. (See: Uber, Shake Shack and the growing herd of “unicorns,” Silicon-Valley-speak for start-ups valued at $1 billion.) But while the Nasdaq index has returned to prosperity, this stock rally in general has felt like, in investment blogger Josh Brown’s words, a rich man’s bubble. For one thing, for better or for worse, the percentage of adults invested in the stock market is at its lowest point in decades. The financial crisis forced many middle-income investors to liquidate their stock holdings in order to weather the following years of financial hardship.

150226_INV_GallupPoll

And nobody is under the illusion that everyone’s getting rich.

A study financed by the Russell Sage foundation found that the median household’s net worth declined by $32,000 between 2003 and 2013, from almost $87,992 to $56,335. That means a typical household lost 36% of its wealth in 10 years. Yet in that same 10 year time-span, not only the Nasdaq has boomed back. The S&P 500, the most commonly used indicator of stock market health, is up 60%.

The fact that fewer Americans are invested in the market is only part of the issue. Study co-author Fabian Pfeffer says home equity made up more than half of the median household’s wealth in 2007, just before the housing crash. Worse, the housing market has improved far more slowly than the stock market, resulting in a much slower recovery for middle-income households.

ycharts_chart-5

 

And so volatility has tended to amplify inequality, even when markets eventually bounce back. While the average American was forced to divest from the stock market when shares were (in hindsight now) cheap, wealthier people were not, meaning the latter group has benefited more when the economy improved. Wealthier Americans also had a higher percentage of their wealth outside the real estate market. Pfeffer says the median household in the richest 5th percentile held just 16% of their wealth in home equity, with the rest primarily held in either business assets (49%) or financial instruments like stocks and bonds (25%).

The end result? America’s wealthiest households prospered in the aftermath of the financial crisis as the stock market improved, while the middle class was largely passed over. Pfeffer’s research found the richest 5% of Americans held 24 times the wealth of the median household in 2013, up from 13 times the wealth of a typical household in 2003. In other words, wealth inequality essentially doubled over the last decade.

MONEY Warren Buffett

The Guy Who Made a $1 Million Bet Against Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett
Nati Harnik—AP

Even if hedge funds were winning—which they aren't—you still should be in indexes.

Warren Buffett bet a prominent U.S. hedge fund manager in 2008 that an S&P 500 index fund would beat a portfolio of hedge funds over the next ten years. How’s it going?

“We’re doing quite poorly, as it turns out,” president of Protege Partners Ted Seides, who made the bet with Buffett, told Marketplace Morning Report today. In fact, an S&P 500 fund run by Vanguard rose more than 63%, while the other side of the wager, a portfolio of funds that only invest in hedge funds, has only returned 20% after fees.

The fees are the important component. When the two sides made their respective cases for why they would win, Buffett noted that active investors incur much higher expenses than index funds in their quest to outperform the market. These costs only increase with hedge funds, or a fund of hedge funds, thus stacking the deck even more in his favor.

“Funds of hedge funds accentuate this cost problem because their fees are superimposed on the large fees charged by the hedge funds in which the funds of funds are invested,” Buffett argued at the time. “A number of smart people are involved in running hedge funds. But to a great extent their efforts are self-neutralizing, and their IQ will not overcome the costs they impose on investors.”

Before fees, Seides’s picks would be up 44%—still almost twenty percentage points behind Buffett, but way ahead of where they are.

Seides, to his credit, has been transparent. “Standing seven years into a 10-year wager with Warren Buffett, we sure look wrong,” he wrote in a recent blog post for CFA Institute. He went on to cite the Federal Reserve, both for its decision to keep interest rates at basically zero and undertake an unconventional bond-buying program to jumpstart the economy in the wake of the Great Recession, as one reason why his portfolio has been so roundly beaten by the S&P 500. Of course, investors inability to consistently foresee and time major market events is one reason why index funds are so powerful. (He also points out that a broad stock market index fund is a poor measuring stick for hedge fund performance.)

There’s still three years left in the bet, but barring a prolonged stock market crash, Girls Incorporated of Omaha—Buffett’s charity of choice—seems well placed to win. (The size of that donation stands right now at more than $1.5 million, for reasons having to do with zero-coupon bonds.) Those who are inclined to support passive investing, like MONEY, can be satisfied that once again indexes trumped active traders.

Now here’s the thing: Seven years ago, Seides’ chances of winning this bet actually weren’t so terrible. Cheap index funds have a strong statistical edge over active managers, but that doesn’t mean every stock picker loses. Last December, S&P Dow Jones Indices published “The Persistence Scorecard,” which measures whether outperforming fund managers in one year can continue to outperform the market going forward. “Out of 681 funds that were in the top quartile as of September 2012, only 9.8% managed to stay in the top quartile at the end of September 2014,” according to the report. While that’s not a terribly good record, about 10% of portfolio managers (and their shareholders) think that they are clever investors.

The trouble is, they probably won’t be in the top 10% of investors over the next ten years. There will always be market beaters, even if just by random (and unfortunately unpredictable) chance. That fact goes a long way towards keeping money managers in business.

So when you hear a hot-shot alpha investor type say that he’s beaten the market over the last couple of years, just remember: Stuff happens.

MONEY investing strategy

The Track Records of Wall Street’s Top Strategists Are Worse Than You Think

fever graph on screen
Richard Drew—AP

Listening to Wall Street's top strategists is no better than random guessing.

This is embarrassing.

There are 22 “chief market strategists” at Wall Street’s biggest banks and investment firms. They work at storied firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. They have access to the best information, the smartest economists, and teams of brilliant analysts. They talk to the largest investors in the world. They work hard. They are paid lots of money.

One of their most important — and certainly highest-profile — jobs is forecasting what the stock market will do over the next year. Strategists do this every January by predicting where the S&P 500 will close on Dec. 31.

You won’t be shocked to learn their track record isn’t perfect. But you might be surprised at how disastrously bad it is. I certainly was.

On average, chief market strategists’ forecasts are worse than those made by a guy I call the Blind Forecaster. He’s a brainless idiot who assumes the market goes up 9% — its long-term historic average — every year, regardless of circumstances.

Here’s the average strategist’s forecast versus actual S&P 500 performance since 2000:

Some quick math shows the strategists’ forecasts were off by an average of 14.7 percentage points per year.

How about the Blind Forecaster? Assuming the market would rise 9% every year since 2000 provided a forecast that was off by an average of 14.1 percentage points per year.

Underperforming the Blind Forecaster isn’t due to 2008, which forecasters like to write off as an unforeseeable “black swan.” Excluding 2008, the strategists’ error rate is 12 percentage points per year, versus 11.6 percentage points per year for the Blind Forecaster. Our idiot still wins.

The Blind Forecaster wasn’t a good forecaster, mind you. He was terrible. He missed bear markets and underestimated bull markets. In only one of the last 14 years was his annual forecast reasonably close to being accurate. But he was still better than the combined effort of 22 of Wall Street’s brightest analysts.

And the Blind Forecaster required no million-dollar salary. He worked no late nights. He attended no conference calls, meetings, or luncheons. He made no PowerPoint presentations, and never appeared on CNBC. He has no beach house, and was granted no bonuses. He works free of charge, offering his services to anyone who will listen.

Amazingly, these stories aren’t rare. In 2007, economists Ron Alquist and Lutz Kilian looked atcrude futures, a market used to predict oil prices. These markets were actually less accurate at predicting oil prices than a naïve “no-change” forecast, which assumes the future price of oil is whatever the current price is now. The no-change forecast was terrible at predicting oil prices, of course. But it was better than the collective effort of the futures market.

This raises two questions: Why do people listen to strategists? And why are they so bad?

The first question is easy. I think there’s a burning desire to think of finance as a science like physics or engineering.

We want to think it can be measured cleanly, with precision, in ways that make sense. If you think finance is like physics, you assume there are smart people out there who can read the data, crunch the numbers, and tell us exactly where the S&P 500 will be on Dec. 31, just as a physicist can tell us exactly how bright the moon will be on the last day of the year.

But finance isn’t like physics. Or, to borrow an analogy from investor Dean Williams, it’s not like classical physics, which analyzes the world in clean, predictable, measurable ways. It’s more like quantum physics, which tells us that — at the particle level — the world works in messy, disorderly ways, and you can’t measure anything precisely because the act of measuring something will affect the thing you’re trying to measure (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). The belief that finance is something precise and measurable is why we listen to strategists. And I don’t think that will ever go away.

Finance is much closer to something like sociology. It’s barely a science, and driven by irrational, uninformed, emotional, vengeful, gullible, and hormonal human brains.

If you think of finance as being akin to physics when it’s actually closer to sociology, forecasting becomes a nightmare.The most important thing to know to accurately forecast future stock prices is what mood investors will be in in the future. Will people be optimistic, and willing to pay a high price for stocks? Or will they be bummed out, panicked about some crisis, pissed off at politicians, and not willing to pay much for stocks? You have to know that. It’s the most important variable when predicating future stock returns. And it’s unknowable. There is no way to predict what mood I’ll be in 12 months from now, because no matter what you measure today, I can ignore it a year from now. That’s why strategists have such a bad record.

Worse than a Blind Forecaster.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel’s columns.

The more you know about the most common mistakes that investors make, the better your likelihood of building lasting wealth. Click here for more commentary on how I think about investing and money.

Contact Morgan Housel at mhousel@fool.com. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Related Links

TIME South Korea

South Korea Decriminalizes Adultery, Condom Shares Soar

Inside a Unidus Condom Factory Ahead Of Export Price Index Release
Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images An employee unwraps condoms during testing in the research laboratory at the Unidus Corp. factory in Jeungpyeong, South Korea, on Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2013.

Well, that figures

Stocks of a South Korean condom company increased 15% after news broke that the country decriminalized adultery.

The law against adultery was approved in 1953 and upheld in 2008 under the pretext of protecting social harmony. However, citing grounds of personal freedom, seven judges in a nine-judge panel rejected the ban as unconstitutional Thursday.

“The law is unconstitutional as it infringes people’s right to make their own decisions on sex and secrecy and freedom of their private life, violating the principle banning excessive enforcement under the constitution,” said Constitutional Court justice Seo Ki-seok.

The news saw a 15% jump in shares of Unidus Corp, a manufacturer of condoms.

Some 892 South Koreans were indicted last year for adultery, though none faced jail time.

[Reuters]

MONEY Tech

Why Apple Won’t Buy Tesla

Tesla Model S
Tesla Tesla Model S

It doesn't make any sense.

According to Jason Calacanis, who bills himself as an “angel investor, entrepreneur, conference host, and podcaster,” Apple APPLE INC. AAPL -0.45% will spend $75 billion to acquire Tesla Motors TESLA MOTORS INC. TSLA -0.42% within the next year-and-a-half. While he listed a number of reasons for such a deal, his primary argument is that “once the [Tesla] Model 3 hits the road, Tesla’s market cap would make a deal with Apple a merger — not an acquisition.”

In other words, Calacanis expects such a sharp upturn in Tesla financials once it launches the more affordable Model 3 car that its market capitalization could be well north of what even Apple could afford — assuming, of course, Apple even wants to buy Tesla.

But this seems highly implausible to me.

Tesla is already quite richly valued

The first fundamental flaw with this claim is the idea that Tesla financials and market capitalization will skyrocket once the company is delivering relatively affordable electric vehicles in significant volumes. I would argue the current $25 billion market capitalization already bakes in some pretty high investor expectations.

To put this into perspective, current analyst consensus for Ford 2015 revenue — keep in mind that Ford is already in the high-volume, mainstream automobile game — sits at $143.7 billion, and its market capitalization is just shy of $64 billion as of this writing. Tesla trades at approximately 39% of Ford’s market capitalization even though the upstart carmaker is projected to generate just 4% of its 2015 revenue.

Of course, Tesla is a much higher-growth company, and it is far “sexier” than Ford, so I do not take issue with Tesla getting a richer valuation. The problem, though, is that the stock price today — at least, from what I can tell — already bakes in a lot of future success.

That means when or if Tesla succeeds in driving more volume and growing its revenue significantly, the financials might improve, but I am not convinced this could lead to the huge growth in the stock price that Calacanis predicts.

Apple would be better off buying its own stock

If Apple were to drop $75 billion on Tesla today (a three times premium to the current market capitalization), it is highly questionable as to when the company could see a return on that investment. Tesla has outright stated it does not expect to be profitable on a GAAP basis until 2020.

In this scenario, not only would Apple have to wait five years before a single cent of profit showed up on the income statement, but Tesla operations could actually drag on Apple. If the company owns Tesla, and Tesla is losing money, then that comes straight out of Apple financials.

Additionally, since Apple would need to buy Tesla with U.S.-based cash or with stock, the deal would either force the tech giant to issue shares, undoing the benefits of previous stock repurchases, or to issue a hefty amount of debt, which means paying interest on that debt. Alternatively, Apple could repatriate its foreign-held cash and get hit with a huge tax bill, but that would probably be the least likely option.

If Apple is really itching to spend $75 billion on something, it would be far better for the company to simply buy back stock. At least in this case, Apple would shrink the number of shares outstanding, immediately providing a meaningful boost to earnings per share. In my humble view, that would certainly be a quicker and easier way to juice the bottom line than to spend an exorbitant amount of money on Tesla.

MONEY stocks

Can You Really Beat the Market?

Campbell Harvey, Professor of Finance at Duke's Fuqua School of Business
Jeff Brown Don't assume everything you read in financial journals is true, says Duke University finance professor Campbell Harvey.

Turns out the smart money isn't always so.

We put the question to Duke University finance professor Campbell Harvey, 56, former editor of the Journal of Finance and president-elect of the American Finance Association. Harvey is known for taking unorthodox positions when it comes to academic research, portfolio rebalancing, and Bitcoin.

MONEY writer Taylor Tepper interviewed Campbell for the March 2015 issue of the magazine, where this edited interview originally appeared.

Q: Can you really beat the market?

A: There’s all this academic research out there that attempts to explain why stocks do well or poorly by focusing on investment factors, such as momentum or low price/earnings ratios. In all, 316 different factors were identified in the papers I studied, including things like the amount of media attention a company gets or how much it spends on advertising. My research found that of all the published papers in finance, over half are likely false. The problem is the researchers were applying the tools of statistics as if there was only one test going on when there are multiple variables. Some factors are going to look statistically significant just by chance.

Q: Can you help us understand?

A: There’s a cartoon that explains this well. Let’s say somebody has a hypothesis that jelly beans cause acne. So researchers conduct a controlled experiment where some people get jelly beans and some don’t. It turns out that there’s no significant difference. Then somebody says, “Well, maybe we’re looking at this incorrectly. We should look at this by the color of the jelly bean. So then 20 new experiments are undertaken. Again, some people get jelly beans and others don’t. But the jelly beans are just red. A separate experiment uses just yellow beans. Then all purple. Each time there’s no effect. On the 20th try, which happens to test green jelly beans, they find there’s a difference that is statistically significant by the usual rules. And then in the newspaper the next day, there’s this headline: GREEN JELLY BEANS CAUSE ACNE.

Q: What should the standard be?

A: Usually you’re looking for 95% confidence, which means there’s a 5% chance the result was a fluke. But that’s true only if you’re conducting a single test. As soon as you go to multiple tests, it’s like the jelly bean problem. You do 20 experiments and you’re likely to get a hit by chance.

Q: To be fair, you’ve made this mistake yourself.

A: Some of the papers we analyzed are my own. This actually gives me a bit of a pass when I’m talking to my colleagues and saying, “Half of what you guys published is false.” And they kind of push back: “How could you say that?” And I say, “Well, it also holds for me, okay?”

Q: What does this mean for the average investor?

A: For individual investors the best thing to do is to just go with an index fund. Don’t believe these claims of using this or that “factor” to beat the market. Invest in the broad market, and go with the lowest possible fee.

Q: But so-called smart beta index funds claim to capitalize on these “factors.”

A: Imagine there are 316 of these “smart” beta index funds, each chasing one of the factors that I detail. It is likely that more than 50% of them are destined to disappoint.

Suppose there’s an ETF investing only in stocks beginning with the letter “H.” The managers claim historical outperformance for H stocks based on simulations going back to 1926. They claim their results are “significant.” They’re likely using the wrong statistical method to declare their strategy “true.” They might have tried 26 letters and “H” worked by chance.

“Don’t believe these claims of using this or that ‘factor’ to beat the market. Invest in the broad market, and go with the lowest possible fee.”The insight is the same for 316 factors. If you try enough strategies, some will work by luck. In many cases it’s not about being “smart.”

Q: Speaking of smart, rebalancing has been recommended as a prudent approach. You’ve done research on this topic, right?

A: Rebalancing is like mom-and-apple-pie sort of finance, in that we just assume it’s a good idea. We don’t think through what it involves. In my research I detail the risk that is induced by a rebalancing strategy.

Q: Don’t you rebalance to reduce risk?

A: Let’s say you’ve got a portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds. Now, imagine stocks drop and you’re in a prolonged bear market. If you’re rebalancing, you have to buy equities to get that proportion back up to 60%. So as stocks are falling, you’re buying more and more. Your portfolio is going to have a bigger drawdown than another portfolio where you didn’t rebalance.

It works in bull markets too. If equities are going up and up and you’re rebalancing, you’re dumping stocks. The market goes up. You dump more. All of a sudden your portfolio has done worse than if you had just let it run.

Q: So how should investors think about rebalancing then?

A: It is not smart to rebalance the last day of the year or the last day of the quarter by rote. It means you’re ignoring all of the information in the market. There’s lots of information out there, so use that
information. Use your judgment.

Q: If you don’t have time to figure this out, isn’t rote rebalancing worth the risk to keep from being overly exposed to stocks before a bear market?

A: If you have a very long time horizon, you may be able to bear the extra risk by rote rebalancing. You will still have bigger drawdowns in the value of your retirement portfolio, but you don’t need the money in the short term and you can ride out the risk. My point is all investors need to understand that rote rebalancing is an active investment decision that increases risk.

Q: You’ve also done research on Bitcoin. The smart money is pretty sure it’s a worthless currency. What don’t people get?

A: Almost everything. For instance, part of the misunderstanding is the focus on the price of the Bitcoin. You see that it was at $1,000, then it’s down to $200. People say, “Well, the bubble has burst,” and stuff like that.

They are looking at just one aspect of Bitcoin. These critics don’t start by asking themselves, “What problem does Bitcoin solve?”

Q: What problem does it solve?

A: I am tired of constantly getting phone calls from my credit card companies, having to go online to fix the 20 things I’ve got auto-debits for, and dealing with charges that are not mine on my card. These are problems that many people encounter.

Q: Bitcoin is safer?

A: Bitcoin is much safer. When you go to buy something, the retailer actually is able to check a common ledger of all transactions to make sure you actually have the money to spend. The public ledger, which is almost impossible to hack, solves the problem of double spending—using the same Bitcoin to buy two things. Merchants, such as restaurants, which are paying 3% to the credit card companies, love this.

For me, though, I look at Bitcoin not just as a currency, but what it could do in the future in other applications. Think of the Bitcoin technology as a way to exchange and verify ownership. It’s like getting into your car with your smartphone. You present cryptographic proof of ownership. You’re the owner, and it’s verified through this common ledger. The car is able to identify that it is your car, and so the car starts. You’re done.

Now suppose you borrow money from the bank for the car and you’re three months behind in your payments. You present your key, the car doesn’t start. The bank has the key that starts the car. So this is a very cool idea, right?

Q: There’s still a problem with the roller-coaster ride in Bitcoin prices, right?

A: There is, and Bitcoin currently is not a reliable store of value because of it. But the price swings could be solved with more liquidity—more money in the market. The recently launched Bitcoin exchange, which is fully regulated, insured, and backed by the New York Stock Exchange, should help with this. Bitcoin price fluctuations are a factor of it being so young.

The best way to judge Bitcoin is not to look at the price progression, but to look at the vast amount of money that’s being invested by venture capitalists into Bitcoin-related companies. That’s what I look at.

MONEY financial advice

The Investing Danger That Smart People Face

man sitting in front of a wall of certificates
C.J. Burton—Corbis

You may be brilliant and a giant in your profession, but that can get you into a lot of trouble.

While returning from a business flight last year, I experienced a queasy stomach sensation. Later than night I woke up with searing pain across my abdomen. At my internist the next morning, I asked, “Do I have food poisoning?”

“I would say something more serious,” the doctor replied. “We need to get you a CAT scan.”

Off to the imaging center. The radiologist came out: “You have appendicitis,” he said. “You cannot pass Go, you cannot collect $200. You have to go straight to the emergency room. Take this copy of your images.”

I checked in at the hospital and was triaged. I slumped in a corner, clearing my email and calling the office. Eventually a doctor came out and asked why I was there.

“I have appendicitis,” I replied.

“Really?” he said. “Did you self-diagnose on WebMD?”

“No,” I said. “I went to a radiologist. I have slides! Look at my slides.”

He did, and then he operated on me.

In recovery later that day, I realized my surgeon has the exact same problem I have: “Yeah, doc, I know you have a medical degree and 30 years of experience, but I’ve been reading WebMD and I think…”

Or in my case: “Yeah, Dave, I know you have an MBA and 30 years of investing experience, but I’ve been reading [pick one] Motley Fool/Zero Hedge/CNBC/TheStreet.com, and I think…”

What do I say when clients think they know more than I do?

At my firm, we work with executive families. Our clients are brilliant; many have advanced degrees from top universities. These clients have ascended to the pinnacles of their careers and are accustomed to being the smartest person in the room.

Trouble starts, though, when the clients confuse brilliance with experience. For the most part, the clients let us do our job, but every once in a while, we’ll get an order along the lines of:

  • “Buy Shake Shack in my account.”
  • “Put 50% of my assets in emerging markets.”
  • “Put 100% of my assets in cash! So-and-so says the sky is falling!”
  • “My 14-year-old has ideas for restructuring the portfolio.”

We could say, “That is a stupid idea. We are totally not going to do that.” But that approach leads to resentful clients who may take their resentment, and their account, to another adviser.

I prefer to use these requests as opportunities for education, laced with humor. Several clients asked us about the Shake Shack IPO in January. We showed them a simple metric: stock market capitalization divided by store count. We asked, “If Shake Shack is valued at $26 million per store and McDonald’s is valued at $2.6 million per store, do you think that the Shake Shack burger is ten times better than the McDonald’s burger?” That reality check then led us into a discussion of the risks and rewards of emerging growth stocks versus value stocks.

Clients have told me that picking stocks must be easy.

“Really?” I say. “Do you like to play poker?”

“Love playing poker,” comes the reply. “Every Saturday with my buddies.”

“Really? Do you ever go to Atlantic City and play with the pros?”

“Gosh, no! I’d get my eyeballs ripped out.”

“Really? You don’t have an edge in poker, but you think you do have an edge in stock picking, which is 10,000 times more complicated than poker? Really?”

I started investing at 17, so it’s not out of the question that a 14-year-old might have good ideas (though the same parents who think their child could manage their portfolio never allow that kid to drive their car). If a parent wants to involve a child, we’ll send that child several books on investing and instructions on how to “paper trade.” If the child is willing to paper trade for a year and show me the results, I’m willing to take his or her input. (That conversation hasn’t happened yet, but one day!)

Ultimately, there has to be a line we won’t cross. If a client starts sending daily orders, or even worse, jumping into his or her accounts and making trades without us, we have to fire the client. That is a no-win situation for us: Anything that goes well in the portfolio is because of the client’s brilliance, while anything that goes badly is our stupidity. We’ll set that client free to make room for clients who do respect our expertise.

———-

David Edwards is president of Heron Financial Group | Wealth Advisors, which works closely with individuals and families to provide investment management and financial planning services. Edwards is a graduate of Hamilton College and holds an MBA in General Management from Darden Graduate School of Business-University of Virginia.

MONEY stocks

Are International Stocks Still Worth the Risk?

As the Eurozone continues to face the Greek economic crisis and slow growth overall for the continent, many investors are wondering if buying international stocks is worth the risk.

MONEY stocks

The Problem With Stock Market Games? They Aren’t Boring Enough

150221_INV_game_1
Alamy

If you think investing is fun, you're probably doing it wrong.

People often say the stock market is a game, but a growing number of companies are taking that literally. A slew of new apps, like Ivstr, Kapitall, and Bux (the latter isn’t yet available in the U.S.), say they can teach you about investing by turning it into a short-term competition, complete with scoreboards and points.

The apps keep everything simple by having users compete to predict whether a stock, or portfolio stocks, will go up or down in the next few hours, days, or weeks. (Ivstr goes up to a year.) A few try and crank up the excitement a little further with head-to-head “battles” against friends and little encouragements like “OMG!” after a player completes a trade. It’s all fake money at first, but Bux and Kapitall let users move on to real dollars.

These ideas all sound kind of fun. But do they really teach what you need to know about investing? Stock market apps tend to center around choosing a group of stocks and trading frequently based on their performance.

The trouble is, you’ll do better with your real-life money if you skip all the trading and just buy and hold a low-cost, diversified fund. Research has shown even hedge funds run by market pros can’t beat the market in the long term. Mutual funds mostly don’t beat the index either. Warren Buffett is currently winning his $1 million bet that an S&P 500 index fund will outperform a fund of hedge funds, net of all fees and expense, over just one decade.

You can actually measure how much investors as group cost themselves by trading. According to the mutual fund research group Morningstar, the average U.S. equity mutual fund earned an annualized 8.2% over the 10 years from 2004 through 2013. But the the typical fund investor (as measured by adjusting for cash flows in and out of funds) earned only 6.5%, thanks to poorly timed fund trades. Its hard to imagine retail stock traders are any better at guessing market trends.

Still, maybe there is something to this whole investing as a game idea. We just need to tweak it a little.

Allow me to introduce MONEY’s forthcoming iPhone app, RspnsblFnnclPlnnr. Here’s how it works:

  • Instead of having users pick stocks and watch the market, you spend the first hour looking for funds with the lowest fees and setting up a scheduled deposit. Then it would close.
  • The game will let you come back to check your accounts once a year, to rebalance your stock and bond allocations. But each additional viewing would cost 1000 Investo-Points.
  • Every time you try to trade a stock, the game’s in-app avatar will shake its head at you and ask if you really, really want to do that.
  • You can compete with friends! Thirty years from now, you’ll all get badges showing your huge balances, which you can post on Facebook. Because there will definitely still be a Facebook.

Okay, I suspect my app will have trouble getting past the first round of venture funding. It’s not exactly the most exciting game in the world. Except for the parts where you get to send your kids to college and retire with a decent nest egg. That part is pretty fun.

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