Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 634

Multiple ways to win

The following is an extract from Morningstar's Mark LaMonica and Shani Jayamanne's new book, Invest Your Way.

****

Just 30 kilometres outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sits the sleepy town of Malvern. Population: 3419. The town was best known as the site of the obscure battle of Paoli in the Revolutionary War, when British regulars surprised American militia in a night attack. The town is now known for something else: it is the headquarters of Vanguard, which manages just under A$14.8 trillion in assets. That’s a hard number to wrap your head around. It’s more than five times Australia’s GDP. Vanguard could buy every publicly traded company in Australia — 8.75 times over. Vanguard is the champion of passive investing and has become synonymous with the investing style. As passive investing has gained in popularity Vanguard has become a juggernaut in the investing world.

For years there has been a debate between advocates for active and passive management. It may be too early for either side to declare victory, but the momentum is certainly with passive. Investors will argue passionately about active vs passive. Within active management there will be advocates for certain strategies or approaches.

You won’t get that from us. We don’t think there is only one investment strategy. One of the tenets of this book is that there are multiple ways you can invest to accomplish your goals. We want you to find a strategy that you are comfortable with and believe in, that is right for your goals and your circumstances. That’s why we think these debates about the ‘right’ strategy are of little value.  

However, the debate on actively managed versus passively managed investments does illustrate where so many investors go wrong. In this chapter we dig into the debate a bit further to show that it isn’t what you invest in that matters, it’s how you invest and how you frame success.  

Passive describes behaviour and not investments

Vanguard founder John Bogle described passive investing in a straightforward way. Pick your asset allocation. Gain exposure to each asset class using a broad-based index and then do nothing. The passive part about following Bogle’s investment approach is not the investments in your portfolio — it’s you.

You do nothing and trust that over the long term low fees and better tax outcomes will make a difference. Trust that all this activity that investors go through making decisions on what to buy and sell and when to buy and sell only detracts from returns. Passive investing is based on the notion that investors can’t make good decisions consistently and end up owning the wrong things at the wrong times. Bogle famously summed up passive investing like this: ‘Don’t look for the needle in the haystack. Just buy the haystack.’

This is a passive strategy. No-one is picking individual investments that go into a fund or ETF, and the end investor is not picking what to buy and sell or when to buy and sell those products.

This compelling investment approach has attracted legions of investors to the passive camp. The problem is that somewhere along the way people lost sight of why passive investing works. There’s a difference between passive investing and using passive investment products to actively invest.

Buying and selling different passive investments is not passive investing. Stretching the boundaries of what is considered passive to narrower and narrower indexes that promise exposure to a compelling theme is not passive investing. Investing in products that follow an index with high turnover through constant rebalancing is not passive investing. Remember that the passive part of passive investing is not the products you buy. You are passive. 

It isn’t what you invest in but how you invest that matters

John Bogle was a big critic of ETFs when they came out. To Bogle an ETF didn’t make any sense. If you are investing passively, why do you need an investment that you could easily trade. Bogle understood the downside of poor investor behaviour and was worried that the biggest selling point for an ETF — the fact that they are easy to trade — would lead to more trading. He was right. A study conducted by UTS in 2008 explored whether individual investors benefit from the use of ETFs. The study found that portfolio performance when investors used ETFs was lower than when they didn’t.

It wasn’t a small loss. The study found that ETF portfolios underperformed non-ETF portfolios by 2.3 per cent a year. In theory this makes no sense. The difference in returns is the result of buying and selling ETFs at the wrong time rather than choosing the wrong ETFs. A critical finding in the study was that ETF portfolios did outperform if the investor bought the investment and held it for the long term. Is there an inherent problem with ETFs? Of course not. The problem is us.

There is a difference between investments and investing. An investment is something you buy and sell, like an ETF or a share. Investing is a process. This book is about the process of investing. Most books about investing are about how to find the right investment to buy. We think the process is far more important. The success of any process comes down to a few common traits: patience, resilience and consistency lead the list. Investing is no different.

The inconvenient truth about investing is that our own behaviour is having a negative impact on our results. The good thing is that your behaviour is completely in your control. If you avoid mistakes, you will get better results than everyone else. Stop following the approach taken by many professional investors who frequently trade. They do that because if they have short-term underperformance investors will pull money out, which will hurt their livelihood. You have none of those pressures. The only thing trading too much is doing for you is hurting your returns.

Trading too much isn’t just an issue with investors who pick passive investments. Active fund and ETF investors tell themselves that they are letting professionals manage their money because they think it’s too hard to pick individual shares. Yet they constantly switch which professionals get to manage their money based on short-term performance.

Passive fund and ETF investors can be holier than thou. They quote John Bogle constantly, yet they don’t follow his advice. They switch passive investments frequently based on their perception of what will do well based on short-term market conditions. They buy high and sell low. They decide anything tracking an index is passive, even if that index has 10 shares that are selected fortnightly using a Ouija board.

Both active and passive investing can work, but we don’t think active investment works in the way it is practised by many fund managers. We also don’t think passive investing works in the way most end investors practise it.

Our point is simple and is repeated ad nauseam throughout the book. In investing we have met the enemy . . . and it is us. Changing your behaviour is hard. It means ignoring articulate people making compelling cases for and against investments. It requires immunity to highly paid and skilled marketers. It means dulling your emotions as your portfolio climbs and falls.

One of our favourite things about investing is that it is all about us. It’s us against the world. Maybe the playing field isn’t level and professionals have more time and resources than we do. Maybe they know more than we do. They may be far smarter than we are. Yet we retain control over our outcomes. It comes down to the basics: having a goal and a long-term strategy. Most of all, it means resisting the temptation to constantly chase returns.

****

This is an extract from Invest Your Way, a personal finance book that combines foundational investing theory, real-world application and our own experiences. It is designed to help readers create a financial plan and investing strategy that is tailored to their unique goals and circumstances.

Purchase from Amazon: https://amzn.to/46qMXAu

Purchase from Booktopia: https://booktopia.kh4ffx.net/55zd5N

 

Mark Lamonica, CFA, is Director of Personal Finance at Morningstar Australia.

Shani Jayamanne is Director, Investment Specialist, at Morningstar Australia.

 

  •   22 October 2025
  • 3
  •      
  •   
3 Comments
Lauchlan Mackinnon
October 23, 2025

Hi Mark and Shani,

Thanks again for the book. :)

You address an important topic, but the article raises some questions for me.

IS OVERTRADING OF ETFs REALLY A PROBLEM ... AND IF SO HOW BAD IS IT?

On this particular point - ETFs vs active investing - you write - "A study conducted by UTS in 2008 explored whether individual investors benefit from the use of ETFs. The study found that portfolio performance when investors used ETFs was lower than when they didn’t."

2008 is a long time ago ... by my math, around 17 years ago. I expect people's knowledge and behaviours around ETFs have changed a lot during that time. Certainly, my understanding of investing has changed *a lot* in those 17 years. It's also just one study - which risks the appearance of you cherry picking or window shopping for something that gives you the result you want, rather than identifying a widely recognised hard trend in the data.

The premise of your article is that for people buying ETFs:

(1) they are overtrading, and
(2) this overtrading results in a lower performance outcome, and
(3) in the case of the one study you cite, from 17 years ago, this performance outcome is worse than for non-ETF investing.

I don't see that - in this article - you've marshalled the evidence to show that overtrading ETFs is a problem today, or show us the extent of how bad the problem is.

And if ETFs are being overtraded, who is doing it?

Is it 5% of ETF investors, or 10%, or 40%, or 65%?
Is it primarily new ETF investors, or is it experienced investors who have been at investing for longer than 10 years as well?
Is there a generational difference (is it younger generations doing this overtrading, or boomers)?
Is it tied to one investing philosophy or another, or to particular platforms for trading, or platforms (YouTube, TikTok) that they get their investing information from?
Does this behaviour relate more to particular types of ETFs e.g. thematic vs broad based index ETFs?
Is there any other pattern for who is doing this kind of overtrading (gender, political orientation, profession, etc)?

WHAT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED ...

Without seeing any data, I would have imagined that there is a whole spectrum of investors, from passive "buy and hold" investors to actual day traders.

I also would have anticipated that for BOTH ETF investors and for active stock pickers we would find people at various points in that behavioural spectrum.

I think the problem you are wanting to address here is how poor behavioural traits impact investing outcomes. But personally I don't see why it would be inherently worse for ETF investors - if anything I would have thought ETFs would tend to dispose people more towards just leaving it and let its index rise (usually) or fall (occasionally) with the market.

CAN ARBITRAGE AND TRADING CAN BE OK?

I also personally don't have a philosophical concern with people doing some trading of ETFs, if it's around some form of enlightened arbitrage, and they know what they are doing.

For example, a 60/40 portfolio with rebalancing arbitrages between the (historically) non-correlated asset classes of equities and bonds, each held (for example) in ETFs. If equities are up and bonds are down, rebalancing reallocates the high performing asset towards buying more of the low performing asset. Vice versa if bonds are relatively up and equities are down. It's arbitrage between uncorrelated asset classes.

You can do arbitrage with other non-correlated asset classes as well - for example gold vs equities (again, for example, both held as ETFs). If gold is up while equities are down, you could sell gold and buy equities, or when gold is down and equities are up do the opposite. It's essentially rebalancing those asset classes in your portfolio ... without calling it that.

You could do arbitrage around market patterns. If you believe an asset or asset class is ridiculously overpriced by the market, you can sell off some of it, and then have a pool of money to use later when the market is down. This is arbitrage around pricing ... Jim Cramer advocates for this on his Mad Money on CNBC (he calls it "sell into strength," and also recommends separating the selling from the buying by at least six months).

You had a podcast recently with Morningstar investment manager Bianca Rose, who discussed how Morningstar do arbitrage around timing: that the market's processing of information may be temporarily in disequilibrium and undervaluing or overvaluing certain assets or asset classes, and Morningstar take advantage of that arbitrage as a trading (rather than buy and hold investing) activity.

You could also do in principle do arbitrage between high performing asset classes or assets and low performing asset classes or assets if you had a strong reason to believe they would alternate. For example someone might conclude that Australian banks seem historically overvalued at the moment - if they hold some bank stocks and see another asset class they believe is currently undervalued and will rise in the future, they could do arbitrage between these asset classes and then, when the reverse is true, do the opposite transactions.

Warren Buffet was basically doing arbitrage around valuation, picking undervalued quality stocks that will appreciate over time. It's arbitrage with a long time horizon.

I think we could make a case for a certain level of trading, alongside investing, if there's a strong arbitrage rationale for it and the investor knows the impacts and risks and dynamics of doing it - and can therefore do it responsibly.

Of course, I don't think that kind of arbitrage is necessarily easy. It requires some knowledge and judgement, otherwise things could go wrong and you get worse outcomes than just buying and holding. It's a case for use with care, "at your own risk."

Managing those kinds of choices about investing strategy and behaviour is, of course, is what you and Morningstar help people with.

3
Mark Hayden
October 23, 2025

Some good points are made in this article and worth consideration. However my focus is on the difference between Long-term investors and Short-term investors. Long-term investors need to be patient at times - but not passive because at times a switch is needed. The article encourages further thought about Active vs Passive and Professional vs DIY.

1
Kevin
October 24, 2025

So what would your version of reality be Mark,everybody has a different version.You think for yourself,or join in with the groupthink rubbish and the conspiracy theories.

When you are presented with all the rubbish and the facts always go with the facts,you will be one of the very few people that doesl.

The time machines,get everything precisely wrong etc etc.Our own time machine believer will be rushing to the scene of the emergency now,in his time machine. The undeniable facts are $2160 to buy the minimum 400 shares in CBA .Leave it alone to compound with the DRP and you now have 2670 ( probably closer to 2673 ) shares in CBA.As undeniable as that is,and the facts are everywhere to prove it right,what do you want to see.What is your version of reality. Are you looking for people to agree with you and tell you what you want to hear.

As crazy as the time machine people are,and they are. They will continue with their delusions and nonsense until the day they die.Denial to the grave.

As crazy as they are the ones that have gone right down the rabbit hole are brilliant for amusement.Microsoft investor relations ( + other US companies) have calculators. Type in 100 shares on 4Jan 2018, they cost US $8711. As of yesterday they were worth $52,056. Part of the magnificent 7.

The crazies are always crazy,they always get dumber,every day of their lives.Microsift has been a great company to own over a long term,and it has had some flat spots,that's why Bill Gates was the richest man in the world.

Or was Bill Gates inventing vaccines,with a plan to control the world,with the little nañobots in ,to kill people, or control them.Who knows what goes on in the minds of the crazy people.

There is you life ahead .Ask the crazies,or find out what is real and find out the facts.

Your next increase in CBA shareholding will be at the end of March next year. You'll just have to think for yourself.

CBA investor relations will have the facts there to work out for yourself.Microsoft calculator goes back to mid 1990 I think.

Long live the crazies and their fact free world I say.They really make investing fun and show you exactly how money makes fools of people

1
 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Are markets broken?

The challenges of building a lazy portfolio

$100 billion! Five reasons investors are flocking to ETFs

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

The hidden property empire of Australia’s politicians

With rising home prices and falling affordability, political leaders preach reform. But asset disclosures show many are heavily invested in property - raising doubts about whose interests housing policy really protects.

Preparing for aged care

Whether for yourself or a family member, it’s never too early to start thinking about aged care. This looks at the best ways to plan ahead, as well as the changes coming to aged care from November 1 this year.

Our experts on Jim Chalmers' super tax backdown

Labor has caved to pressure on key parts of the Division 296 tax, though also added some important nuances. Here are six experts’ views on the changes and what they mean for you.        

Latest Updates

A speech from the Prime Minister on fixing housing

“Fellow Australians, I want to address our most pressing national issue: housing. For too long, governments have tiptoed around problems from escalating prices, but for the sake of our younger generations, that stops today.”        

Taxation

Family trusts: Are they still worth it?

Family trusts remain a core structure for wealth management, but rising ATO scrutiny and complex compliance raise questions about their ongoing value. Are the benefits still worth the administrative burden?

Exchange traded products

Multiple ways to win

Both active and passive investing can work, but active investment doesn’t in the way it is practised by many fund managers and passive investing doesn’t work in the way most end investors practise it. Here’s a better way.

Economy

The Future Fund may become a 'bad bank' for problem home loans

The Future Fund says it will not be paying defined benefit pensions until at least 2033 - raising as many questions as answers. This points to an increasingly uncertain future for Australia's sovereign wealth fund.

Investment strategies

Managed accounts and the future of portfolio construction

With $233 billion under management, managed accounts are evolving into diversified, transparent, and liquid investment frameworks. The rise of ETFs and private markets marks a shift in portfolio design and discipline. 

Property

Commercial property prospects are looking up

Commercial property is seeing the same supply issues as the residential market. Given the chronic undersupply and a recent pickup in demand, it bodes well for an upturn in commercial real estate prices.

Infrastructure

Private toll roads need a shake-up

Privatised toll roads in Australia help governments avoid upfront costs but often push financial risks onto taxpayers while creating monopolies and unfair toll burdens for commuters and businesses.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.