Special to the Financial Independence Hub
Why We Seek the Advice of Experts
In many aspects of our lives, we defer to the judgement of experts, whether they be doctors, lawyers, or investment managers. People rely on experts’ training, experience, and intuition, which should enable them to make better decisions than lay people in their respective fields. Unless you graduated from medical school, it would be inadvisable for you to self-diagnose. Similarly, one would think that professional investors possess the knowledge and expertise to achieve superior results than their clients could achieve on their own.
Out of the Fire and into the Frying Pan
We readily concede that in most cases, experts are capable of making better decisions than their non-professional peers. However, the simple fact is that experts are not as logical and unbiased as you may believe. Specifically, there is a robust body of academic literature spanning over 60 years that clearly illustrates that experts produce worse results than data driven rules-based models.
In 1982, James Simons, an award-winning mathematician, founded investment company Renaissance Technologies (RenTec). The firm strictly adheres to mathematical and statistical methods and is regarded as the most successful hedge fund in the world. Its signature Medallion fund is famed for having the best investing record in history, returning more than 66% annualized before fees and 39% after fees over a 30-year span from 1988 to 2018. Simons stated:
“If you do fundamental trading, one morning you feel like a genius, the next day you feel like an idiot … by 1998 I decided we would go 100% models … we slavishly follow the model. You do whatever it [the model] says no matter how dumb or smart you think it is. And that turned out to be a wonderful business.”
Simons’ sentiments are echoed by legendary investor Ray Dalio. Dalio is the founder of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund, and is regarded as one of the greatest innovators in the finance world. Over the last 20 years, Bridgewater’s Pure Alpha Fund has delivered a near 20% annual compound return before fees. Dalio believes that everything can be analyzed and quantified. He stated that 99% of the time he agrees with the output of Bridgewater’s quantitative investment models. He also confessed that on the rare occasions when he has disagreed with the machine, it was right 66% of the time.
Experts? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Experts!
It seems logical that someone with an MBA from a top business school and decades of experience can beat a rules-based model. The expert’s hypothesis, which asserts that experts outperform models, is predicated on the following statements:
- Experts have access to qualitative information.
- Experts have more data.
- Experts possess intuition and experience.
In theory, these attributes should result in superior decisions and results. However, the evidence demonstrates that these alleged advantages are anything but. There is an abundance of anecdotal and empirical evidence that suggests that the three pillars underlying the expert’s hypothesis not only fail to translate into superior decisions, but generally tend to lead to inferior results.
More Is Less, both in Football and in Markets
Intuitively, having access to more information should lead to better decisions. However, studies have shown that the opposite is likely to be the case.
Meredith Whitney became famous for predicting the banking crisis of 2008. In a December 2010 segment of 60 Minutes, she outlined her gloomy forecast for the municipal bond market, stating that there would be 50 to 100 sizeable defaults. Continue Reading…






