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

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Welcome to Firstlinks Election Edition 458

At around 10.30pm on Saturday night, Scott Morrison called Anthony Albanese to concede defeat in the 2022 election. As voting continued the next day, it became likely that Labor would reach the magic number of 76 seats to form a majority government.   

  • 19 May 2022

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?

Interviews

Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.

Superannuation

Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.