Subtle Differences

I was doing some researching and ran across the website of a very "intelligent" sounding financial advisory firm. Their website is very well done. They advertise that they are fee-only planners, and (like us) are independent. They present a good image. They even have a name in their title that is very much like the name of a firm with which Veritas has a business relationship. The more I looked at their site, the more I felt like they are our clone from another dimension: similar sized staff, articles about market panic, references to Money Smart Week, and a golf event.  If I were an outsider, I would see almost no difference between this firm and Veritas Financial Services.

But then I dug a little deeper. One of their FAQs (frequently asked questions) is about active management. I am quoting their reply directly:

"Active investment management is the use of analytic research, forecasting, experience and expertise to decide what securities to buy or sell and when. This process aims to achieve a greater rate of return than the market by identifying mispriced assets. In contrast, passive investing subscribes to the Efficient Market Hypothesis and promotes index investing based on the premise that it is not possible to beat the market. These are the two main schools of thought in investment management and attract significant debate and contention within the industry and academia.

Actually, there is NO contention amongst academics about which method is best, only on Wall Street. But anyway, here is their next section on "which is best."

We employ an active investment strategy as we feel greater returns can be achieved with this method. While the majority of investors don’t beat the market, our results have shown that it is not impossible.

And something makes them different from "the majority of investors?” This is a common psychological misperception, similar to how over half of drivers think they are “above average.” I continue, from their website:

Our process can be referred to as “tactical asset allocation” [TRANSLATED: “MARKET TIMING”] in which we make changes…based on our current Market Outlook [TRANLATED: “GUESS”]. With these adjustments we aim to add value for our clients by anticipating broad market and economic themes. We also utilize active mutual fund managers…to make the decisions of which specific companies are best poised to profit from these themes. While many tout index funds because of lower expense ratios, our experience [BUT WHAT RESEARCH?] has shown that there are fund managers who are worth the higher cost [ARE THEY INDENTIFIABLE IN ADVANCE?] and we spend a lot of our research time trying to identify those managers and make sure the costs are appropriate for the value provided."

Here is a case of an intelligent-looking firm in all respects that falls victim to the same cancer of active management, and not only that-- MARKET TIMING (ie "tactical asset allocation"). The sad truth is, they interpret mutual fund manager luck in making correct bets as a consistent, repeatable, and predictable skill they can employ for their investors.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Granted, index funds are often held in high esteem for being less expensive, but inexpensive isn't everything. It is also the asset mix that matters. At Veritas, we use structured Free-Market funds and emphasize appropriate asset allocation and true diversification. We do NOT advocate actively-managed funds.

It is highly unlikely that the average investor can decipher and discern these subtle differences. That is why our goal is, week in and week out, to educate you, the investor.

Jeremy Burri
Financial Advisor Coach

Registered Investment Advisor