Recs

62

3 Reasons You Should Not Take Advice From Dumb Articles

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Last month, U.S. News & World Report published an article that we think was as dangerous as it was dumb. Titled "3 Reasons You Should Not Manage Your Own Money," the thesis was that investing, you know, is really hard and therefore best kept to professionals.

You may not be surprised to know that the article was written by one of those very professionals, one Kelly Campbell of Campbell Wealth Management, who, if you live near Fairfax, Va., would probably love for you to take his advice and hire him. But before you run out and do that, let's at least consider the reasonableness of his reasons.

Reason No. 1: The financial world has changed.
According to Mr. Campbell, the "practice of buying stock in a company you like, or one that manufactures the products you use, doesn't work like it used to. The markets move too quickly. ... As a result, it's harder to make money by buying and selling at the right time."

We agree that market timing is a loser's game today, but here's a news flash: It's always been that way. Business school professor Javier Estrada provides some of the most compelling evidence of this. After studying data from 15 global markets over 70 years, Professor Estrada concluded that "less than 0.1% of the days considered" actually matter to long-term returns, meaning "the odds against successful market timing are staggering."

This is more than 70 years worth of data! All of which goes to show: You should not try to time the market today any more than you should've tried to time it 10 or 20 years ago. Furthermore, you shouldn't entrust your wealth to someone who seems to imply that he can time the market.

And as for companies that make products you like? We agree it's a simplistic investing philosophy. But sometimes it's helpful to keep things simple.

So long as you were able to tolerate volatility and try not to time the market, household brands Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO  ) and Nike (NYSE: NKE  ) would have earned you 32% and 351%, respectively, over the past decade. They wouldn't have done this because you use their products, but the fact is, great companies will perform provided you give them the time to do so -- and we suspect both of these great companies will perform well over the next decade given that they're just getting started selling their products in the emerging world.

Reason No. 2: The average investor does not have the necessary time, tools, or inclination to research and monitor their portfolio accurately.
The bias here is that an investor can only be successful by winning the same short-term game that many so-called professionals try to play on a daily basis, trading in and out of hedged positions based on metrics such as momentum ... that don't have anything to do with the performance of a good business over a long period of time.

So, yes, we agree that investors who try to play that game are likely to lose. We don't have the same computing power, nor do we have an army of Ph.D.s working on our behalf, as a firm like Renaissance Technologies (who can win at this game) does. The solution is not to concede defeat and hand money to a professional who in most cases also does not have the same resources or smarts as Renaissance. The solution is to avoid playing that short-term game.

The fancy term for this is "time arbitrage," but it's as simple as buying great companies or low-cost indexes at good prices, and then holding them for the long term.

Reason No. 3: The average investor does not have access to certain investments that could significantly improve their returns and lessen their risk.
This is the most inane reason of all. Was Mr. Campbell putting his clients in the senior tranches of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) built from residential mortgages? Those "sophisticated" products were advertised to investors as being safe, but, as we found out during the recent financial crisis, they turned out to be anything but.

The key to successful investing is not to make it more complicated. As it gets more complicated, you end up with a portfolio that has a lot more things you don't know you don't know -- a situation that toppled even the financial whizzes at AIG, Lehman, Bear, and others.

Our alternative advice? Keep it simple. Figure out what your financial goals are (retirement, education, etc.). Determine how much you need to save and what return you need to achieve, and then allocate your assets to plain-vanilla stocks and bonds to do just that. The fabulous low-cost indexes offered by Vanguard are one way. Vanguard Total Stock Market (NYSE: VTI  ) , for example, is a great place to keep your equity investments, and not coincidentally is long a lot of companies -- Coca-Cola, Nike, and more -- whose products you use.

If you want to pick some stocks on top of a low-cost index approach and are prepared to put in the due diligence, we say go ahead. We think you'll actually do quite well by thinking long term, sticking with great companies, and avoiding the fees that so many professionals charge. As another academic paper, "Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Brokers in the Mutual Fund Industry," concluded:

We find that the brokered channel sells funds with inferior pre-distribution-fee returns. The channel does not show any evidence of superior aggregate market timing ability, and shows the same return-chasing behavior as observed among direct-channel funds. Finally, more sales are directed to funds whose distribution fees are richer.

It's OK to be an amateur
Indignation aside, we disagree with the notion that non-professional investors are incapable of managing their own money. It's not that we're biased against all professional money managers -- many act as fiduciaries and help build wealth for their clients. In fact, if you need some help figuring out your financial goals and determining your required savings rate and required rate of return to achieve, a consultation with a fee-only financial planner could well be in your best interest. But don't let any wealth manager tell you that you can't do it yourself.

If Mr. Campbell had wanted to give good advice to U.S. News & World Report readers, his default guidance should not have been to "hire a professional," but rather to get a plan and "buy an index fund." We think that's just fine for 90% of the people out there, but the Fool is also founded upon the belief that for people who want to learn, talk with others, share ideas, and research businesses, it's possible to outperform the market.

You can situate yourself for next year with our new free report, "Motley Fool Top Picks and Perspectives 2011," by entering your email address in the box below. You'll also hear about our Million Dollar Portfolio service, which features best-of-breed stock picks from the Fool's advisory services.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Fool.com managing editor and one-time U.S. News intern Brian Richards does not own shares of any companies mentioned. Global Gains and Million Dollar Portfolio associate advisor Tim Hanson doesn't, either. Coca-Cola is an Inside Value and Income Investor selection. Nike is a Stock Advisor pick. The Fool owns shares of Coca-Cola. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 3:13 PM, jmt587 wrote:

    I love the little explanatory piece about Campbell at the bottom of his article:

    "Campbell is also the author of " Fire Your Broker ,""

    He wrote a book called Fire Your Broker! Now that is something the Fool could get behind!

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 5:48 PM, dht629 wrote:

    Due to a small inheritance and the knowledge that recent appointments would be beneficial to stock, I invested for my 3 sons. My first purchase was Feb 2009 and all initial investments were concluded by April 2009. Three purchases WFMI @10.50, Crox @1.86 and JCG @10.66 were deemed doomed/bad by the experts(?). I sold all at about a 40% gain within 5 months and reinvested. Though I have been fortunate (Gained 3 times the DOW to date and gained 42% YTD. I traded several stocks and reinvested for very favorable results, but I still kick myself for early choices. The repeated statement, if the reason you purchased a stock are still valid, be very cautious of the experts?

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Cryptblade wrote:

    I totally agree with you about this. Asinine and audacious for a "certified financial planner" to write an article like that in US News. In fact, that CFP should be the LAST person to talk about it.

    I've TAKEN CFP courses before. I've studied for Series 7, 6, and 63 licenses. Guess what? They were like taking the SATs!

    This guy has no proven ability to manage anyone's money. In fact, if he was REALLY good, he'd be a fund manager, not a CFP! Plus - even if he managed money, what's HIS RETURN for his clients?

    I invested money in a mutual fund for 6 years. It did well and it kept reinvesting year after year. after the financial crash and 6 years later, i walked away with only $300 profit.

    I made MORE off of 1 trade on AAPL! I made more off of one trade from OMTR (now sold to ADBE).

    Give me a break! "Expert" - the "proletariat" investor is the way to go!

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 6:24 PM, dht629 wrote:

    Totally agree. My daughter-in-law transferred her 401 and left me pick stocks. Up 25% in five months. Dividend reinvested stocks. Most solid but Nat Gas speculative thrown in. Not a fan of pacing the DOW. That's like going for a tie.

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 6:45 PM, robtom wrote:

    I have two questions: is 32% over 10 years a good return? And, when you speak of timing the market, ar you dismissing technical analysis? I don't know if you, as administrators, answer to this board but if so, please explain.

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 6:54 PM, jm7700229 wrote:

    "The key to successful investing is not to make it more complicated."

    I agree with this whole article. The dissonance comes from the above quote, because the Motley Fool encourages us to play with puts and calls. I've never researched this process because I don't believe that there is any mechanism that will assure that I "can't lose", as the Fool suggests. I just know that it's complicated, and if it works, than smarter people than me will make it work for them and to my detriment. I try not to make it more complicated.

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 8:09 PM, Bonefish100 wrote:

    Gee whiz. Coca Cola at 32% "in a decade." What a deal...3.2% per annum!

    When I don't routinely make 50% per annum, after taxes, using technical analysis, then I start to worry.

    And when I used brokers I routinely made 1 to 2% per annum. There are excellent tools out there for all of us to be more informed without the necessity of old-time brokers. TD Ameritrade offers a number of them (By the way, I don't work for them).

    I do have to agree that there are some dumb articles out there...and some of them appear on TMF.

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 8:32 PM, blesto wrote:

    robtom

    At least you're observing Buffet's #1 rule; Don't lose money.

    And I believe rule #2 is see Rule #1

    jm7700229

    I agree with you about puts and calls, but many subscribing Fools are interested so that the Motley Fool provides available education in that so people won't go into it blind.

    It's not for me, but learning about using puts and calls is another tool I can place in my investor tool box.

  • Report this Comment On November 15, 2010, at 9:19 PM, iambemused wrote:

    Interesting article and comments. I am a CFP operating out of Perth, Western Australia. I find it interesting that commentary on almost any financial matter post GFC has become so polarised. It seems that many people see black and white where my experience and training suggest grey.

    Most people would be able to do a fine job of dealing with their own money, if they had the time and inclination. Those that are endowed with those attributes should get on with it, and consider a financial planner carefully - i don't know what it is like in the US of A but here in Australia there is an awful lot of bias built into the system, so it is difficult for the self-directed to find a planner that can work within those guidelines.

    However, it is also true that a large number of people find money matters complicated and confusing, and they do not have the inclination or ability to build their own knowledge. These people would be well placed to see even a biased planner (i'm thinking Australian operational standards here), as they are likely to end up with a fairly vanilla operation where risk is heavily moderated, and for many of those people that is quite enough of an outcome.

    My experience post GFC is that many newsletter writers and "pamphleteers" are using the upset to promote their wares in a highly dubious way. Many of these "do-it-yourselfer" sources are actually stepping over the boundary, and providing personal advice. There is an obvious and massive difference, which should be respected by all parties. Just because a straddle derivative play might make money doesn't mean that it is suitable for everyone. Just because you have earned 50% in a pool of particularly clever trades, it doesn't mean that everyone is going to have your timing, insight and luck. Nor do we all share equivalent material, informational access and financial capacity.

    There is a role for financial planners in the world of money. Unfortunately, it is often overplayed as a response to excessively enthusiastic "you can trade your way to millions like i did!" advertising campaigns.

    Financial planners do not just deal with investments (at least, not here in the Centre of the Civilised Universe), so making a decision to ignore the services on offer simply because your planner cannot promise you DOW beating returns is like telling your kids to ignore Santa Claus because they don't like Christmas pudding.

    The world is not straight lines, and i've yet to see pure white or black in the real world. If your world is different then good on you! If your world is like mine then every decision is a choice between ok, bad and potentially badder outcomes, and in that world it is helpful to hope for the best but to plan for the worst. If Cassius found it helpful then i am sure a few of us can as well.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2010, at 10:52 AM, pls52 wrote:

    iambemused

    You are quite correct. In Knoxville, Tennessee as in Perth or anywhere else very few things in life in general are strictly black or white. Most fall into that gray area where it is best not to assume anything.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2010, at 11:04 AM, quaternion2 wrote:

    It is somewhat true that that so called professionals are better at managing money than their customers. In fact they make money out of the fees they charge on their customers's both in bad and good market times. In bad market times they are quick to justify customers' losses by blaming the market while in better times they never gain much.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2010, at 4:44 PM, mrwizard555 wrote:

    the folks that put as much effort into choosing a financial planner of any sort, that they are willing to put into their own investing decisions. might as well buy treasuries. safer and cheaper.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2010, at 9:35 AM, busterbuddy wrote:

    I you'd purchased one share of Coke in 1919 and never did another thing you'd be a millionaire today.

    So ....... Well you'd be dead but ....... YOu'd been a rich dead person.

    Just give me your money honey I got the time. YOu go honky tonking and I spend your money real fine.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2010, at 1:54 PM, mwallace2775 wrote:

    @truthisntstupid & Bonefish100 re: robtom:

    Actually, the S&P is DOWN 12.3% since Nov 2000 (S&P on Nov 17, 2000: 1367.72, S&P on Nov 19, 2010: 1199.73)! So... being +32% since Nov 2000 means you beat the S&P by 40+ percentage points! You could have done a whole lot worse! This whole argument needs to be taken in the context of the most horrific downturn since the 1930's. If we were taking about the 10 years between 1990 and 2000, yes, being up 32% would be a terrible return, because the S&P was up over 300% during that period, but we're not.

    Bonefish100: in order to calculate the individual per annum return that yields 32% over 10 years, you don't just divide by the final by 10 and arrive at 3.2% 3.2% compounded annually over 10 years gives you a 37% return. Since it is compounded, you actually need an annual return of 2.8% over 10 years to get a 32% return for the whole 10.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2010, at 11:12 AM, 4melody wrote:

    Interesting discussion and views. One needs to evaluate their individual goals for investing in the first place. Then they need to research as much information as possible to attain those goals. I've never been one to hand over my assets for someone else to manage. Sharebuilder has been very user friendly in allowing me to make my own investments. There are other companies out there that provide the same service but Sharebuilder seems the best priced at the present time.

    I've been a Motely Fool reader for many years and find their articles timely and useful over all. As individual investors we need to use common sense and not just chase the next new stock. Timing is relative Invest in solid companies that have paid dividends for at least a decade along with some hunches from personal reading and research and you can maintain a respectable portfolio. Thank you fellow Fools for your various articles and postings. We all can benefit from the collective insight. Happy investing and returns!

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1369728, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/26/2012 1:51:44 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 4 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 3:59 PM
VTI $67.76 Down -0.16 -0.24%
Vanguard Total Sto… CAPS Rating: ***
NKE $108.79 Up +1.31 +1.22%
Nike CAPS Rating: ****
KO $75.23 Down -0.33 -0.44%
The Coca-Cola Comp… CAPS Rating: *****

Advertisement