Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 342

Mr Market isn't so foolish, after all

You and Mr Market jointly own a private business. Each day Mr Market announces the amount that he believes the business is worth. You may pay him half that figure to become the full owner, cash out of your stake, or do nothing.

This arrangement strongly benefits you, because while Mr Market determines the amount, you alone possess agency. You, not Mr Market, decide if a transaction will occur, and if so, in which direction and at what price. Better yet, Mr Market is an idiot – the proverbial sucker at the table.

When he's giddy, he "can only see the favourable factors affecting the business," and thus "names a very high buy-sell price." Other times, "he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead … on those occasions, he will name a very low price."

The story of Mr Market originated with Ben Graham and was further popularised by Warren Buffett, whose words I cite. That passage was among my first investment lessons. I was so taken with the Mr Market metaphor that my imagination reworked it. In my adaptation, Mr Market became a dressmaker, who puts his creation on the floor each day, then sets a price that matches his mood. Successful investing meant not paying retail. Wait to buy until Mr Market is glum; the identical dress will be offered at a lower price.

Good versus evil

There's less talk these days about Mr Market. However, the underlying concept remains intact. In a year-end commentary in The Financial Times, former investment manager (and current fellow at the London School of Economics) Paul Woolley depicted the equity markets similarly:

"Active investing comprises two main strategies. One is based on the expectations of the cash flow each asset can generate. The other responds to short-term movements and ignores fundamental value."

To restate, Mr Market's business has an immutable value that can only be known with certainty by The Lord, but which can be estimated by top investors. However, that fixed value is buffeted (so to speak) by the actions of the rabble. The One True Price will bobble, sometimes sharply. This behavior frightens the masses but represents an opportunity for those who resist the popular confusion.

It's a morality play. Good investors are those who hold stocks solely for their future cash flows, regarding them exactly as they would private businesses, except that public stocks may be bought and sold far more conveniently. Every other type of investor is bad. Fortunately, justice is served, as the virtuous profit and the wicked do not.

The messy reality

I no longer believe such a thing to be true. Over the years, I have come to realise that the two-investor scheme is hopelessly oversimplified. The marketplace contains far more participants than merely 1) fundamental buyers who invest dispassionately, valuing companies based on their expected future cash flows, and 2) nonfundamental investors who are driven by their emotions, or something else silly.

For example, some investors seek earnings surprises - companies that declare higher-than-expected quarterly results. They buy stocks after their companies release unexpectedly good announcements, then exit when the news becomes less positive. Such investors do not belong in the second category, as their decisions clearly rely on business fundamentals. But neither do they place in the first category, because they don't discount expected cash flows. They are something different altogether.

So, too, are those buyers who are guided by macroeconomic conditions. Investors who decided early in the 1970s that inflationary pressures had become too high, and that it was best to trade their inflation-sensitive utilities stocks for oil companies, were fundamental investors. Their analysis did not involve specific businesses, but it was nonetheless rational and related to corporate earnings.

"Emotions," would state Graham and Buffett, when confronted by trades that lay outside their two-investor structure. "Trends and momentum," wrote Woolley. However, neither critique consistently holds. Investors frequently trade their equity shares for defensible reasons that don't involve recalculating a company's expected cash flows.

A question: Are those who buy companies that have increased their dividends in each of the past 10 years "fundamental" investors? Probably not by Mr Market's standards, if they discovered the approach by torturing a stock database until it confesses.

On the other hand, only high-quality companies can raise their dividends every year. That attribute does inform about their underlying businesses. It seems to me that such quantitative tactics are just another way of getting at what Graham, Buffett, and Woolley advocate: attempting to gauge the accuracy of Mr Market's prices.

Who’s the sucker now?

That's the optimist's view of stock market behaviour. The pessimist would turn this discussion on its head.

True, some investors seek earnings surprises, others make macroeconomic forecasts, and still others buy "investment factors" (such as rising dividends, low price/book value, or relatively small stock market capitalisations).

Yes, those reasons are seemingly rational. Unfortunately, those investment tactics generally don't work, because so many others are already making similar trades.

I think that the pessimist is largely correct. In the 80s and 90s, several prominent funds thrived by investing in earnings surprises. Their performances have since slowed. Mutual funds that invest based on broad macroeconomic themes have fared even worse. As for investment factors, hundreds of strategic-beta funds currently mine those fields. Most of them trail their benchmarks.

But there's the problem: The same argument applies to beating Mr Market by traditional means. Woolley is correct when he writes that "few professional portfolios are actually invested exclusively for long-term cash flows." What he doesn't mention is that the percentage of such portfolios that outperform the indexes isn't any higher than with portfolios that use less-virtuous tactics.

In summary, when Mr Market discounts his dress, he probably realises something that you do not. He may realise that its style is on the wane, and that six months after buying the dress you will realise that you no longer wish to own it. Or he has learned that the fabric frays. The dress looks fine on the rack, but word is spreading that it doesn't wear well.

It's comforting to regard Mr Market as the gullible party, but unrealistic. More often than not, the overconfident investor is the true sucker at the table.

 

John Rekenthaler is Vice President of Research for Morningstar, a columnist for Morningstar.com and a member of Morningstar's Investment Research Department. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.


Try Morningstar Premium for free


 

3 Comments
Peter Thornhill
February 03, 2020

I'll go a step further Mark.
Speculation according to one of my dictionaries is "buying and selling in an attempt to benefit from a fluctuation in the price, sometimes in an antisocial way"
As a counterpoint; The Modern Encyclopaedia for Children, which my parents bought for us when we were kids 60+ years ago, defines investing as "the use of money productively so that a regular income is obtained".
Couldn't have put it better myself.

Ian Frost
February 02, 2020

I think the greatest confusion is the term "investor". Those commentating on the stock market minute by minute and day by day are commenting predominantly on the activities of short term traders, those seeking to profit from short term changes in market price, rather than those who are buying the stocks based on their longer term investment fundamentals. I accept that long term investors trades are part of the price movement, but the immediate reaction to announcement by the company or economists is the traders moving in and out.
It would be useful to know the length of time that a stock has been held when it is sold to determine whether the sale is a long term investor who's view of the stock has changed. It would also be interesting to know the ownership duration intention of the purchaser. That would give a better understanding of "value" as against trading profit.

Mark Hayden
January 30, 2020

I am with Ben Graham & Warren Buffett. Mr Market is a great analogy. It helps explain (for long-term investors) the surprising market movements in shares that has nothing to do with the underlying business. I also believe that investors can be split into two groups: long-term investors and short-term investors; and that an investor cannot be a bit of both.


 

Leave a Comment:

     
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The 20 Commandments of Wealth for retirees

To mark his 80th, we publish a Noel classic plus his timeless commandments for retiree wealth, based on decades of advising clients, writing bestsellers and reaching millions of people every week.

Are you caught in the ‘retirement trap’?

Our retirement savings system is supposed to encourage financial independence but there is a ‘Retirement Trap’ due to the reduction of age pension entitlements as assets and income rise.

The power of letting winners run

Handling extreme winners is a complex task. Conventional wisdom such as “you never go broke taking a profit” often leaves a lot of money on the table as strong growth stocks continue to run.

Tony Togher on why cash isn’t just cash

An active manager of cash and fixed interest funds can achieve higher returns than the cash rate through a selection of other securities while managing both liquidity and income for clients.

'OK Boomer' responses keep on coming

Our sincere thanks for the amazing personal stories of how wealth was built by hard work or where some were not as fortunate. Another 600 readers have taken part in the survey since the last update.

NAB hybrid: one says buy, one says sell, you decide

Differences of opinion make a market, and hybrid specialists disagree on the likelihood that NAB will call one of its hybrids early. It makes a major difference to the expected return on NABHA.

Latest Updates

Should your equity manager hold lots of cash?

An investment with any fund manager should be part of an asset allocation decision, but what happens when your equity manager decides to do a major switch to cash? It messes up your plan.

Superannuation

The moral hazard of a national super fund

If billions of dollars of retirement savings were lost by a government agency in a national super scheme, the cost and risk would be passed back to the government and ‘caveat emptor’ would be history.

Investment strategies

Dispelling the disruption myth

We tend to call any change a 'disruption', but the vast majority of so-called disruptive technologies are variations on a theme. Many innovations are really high-risk, low-probability investments.

Compliance

Watch your SMSF’s annual return this year

The best way to preserve your SMSF’s favoured status is to make sure the fund’s annual return reaches the ATO on time. There are new rules this year that every SMSF trustee should know.

SMSF strategies

SMSFs have major role but not for everyone

Arguments between segments of the super industry do not foster public confidence. SMSFs are suitable for many who seek control of their own financial destiny, but it's not a competition. 

Sponsors

Alliances