Survival of the Fittest? Survivorship Bias in Investing

If you've ever sat down with a big bank "financial advisor" to discuss funds, you might've been amazed by the market-beating returns they advertised. Look at all those gains? Take my money!

Before you go all in, you should ask yourself:

Is this too good to be true?

What about all the research showing how most active funds fail to beat their benchmark?

Market data has repeatedly shown that an overwhelming majority (< 80%) of active managers fail to beat their benchmark over an extended time period.

So why do these funds look so good?

The answer is survivorship bias. Survivorship bias is looking only at winners (and ignoring the losers) to formulate your opinion. This leads to an incredibly inflated view of reality.

When funds perform poorly, they fall out of favour. They struggle to attract capital and eventually shut down. When these funds vanish so do their performance record. What remains are the strong performers with the attractive (i.e. marketable) returns.

In John Bogle's Little Book of Common Sense Investing, he studied equity funds from 1970-2016. Of the 355 funds that existed at the start of the period, 281 of them have gone out of business. That's an over 80% failure rate!

If I know who the strong performers are, shouldn't I just invest in them?

The problem is past performance is no indication of future performance. A 15-year sample (2000-2015) of US mutual funds demonstrates how rare it is for outperformance to persist. Of the 2,758 funds that existed in 2000, only 20% of funds outperformed through 2010. Of those out-performers, only 37% of them continued to outperform through 2015.

It's difficult to pick winners, odds are you'll end up picking an under-performer. When you opt for passive investing, you give up on outperforming the market. However, you'll end up outperforming the over 80% of investors who'll underperform the market. With very little effort to boot!

“Don't look for the needle in the haystack. Just buy the haystack!”
― John C. Bogle

Comments

The Art of Giving Feedback

Constructive feedback is an awkward affair. You don't want hurt feelings, but recognize the importance of honesty. You've tried the classic "hoping things will get better on its own" and unfortunately it hasn't played out. When giving feedback, here are a few things that I try to keep it mind. Start with empathy. Step into their shoes and understand their story. If you don't know, ask. Be genuinely curious. Feedback is a dynamic affair. Shared communication with a shared goal towards progress. Take the emotion out of it. Focus on the situation, not the person. Focusing on the person adds unnecessary weight to an already emotionally-bloated event. Be specific. Give clear examples. Vague feedback equals dismissed feedback. Doing above won't de-awkward things fully, but it will dampen it and increase the chance of better outcomes.

Today's Special: Humble Pie

You champion a project, fight for an idea, and then...reality sets in. That churning in your stomach isn't butterflies, it's the realization you've missed the mark. Pride will puff up your chest, and kick in the "defend at all costs" instinct. But arguing with the umpire never changed a call. Admitting you're wrong isn't a sign of weakness. It can strengthen your professional standing. In a world obsessed with the illusion of infallibility, the courage to adjust course is a breath of fresh air. It shows you're confident enough to be wrong, and adaptable enough to learn from it. Do your research, think critically, and stand behind your decisions. But when the data whispers (or screams) otherwise, don't be afraid to swallow that slice of humble pie. Be the first to acknowledge. Don't wait for someone to point out your mistake. Be open, take responsibility, and most importantly, focus on what you're going to do to address it. Don't dwell ...

Negative Feedback, Positive Lessons

In the battle against plastic bags, a five-cent tax was shown to be much more successful at deterring usage than a five-cent credit for bringing your own bags. Carrots satisfy but sticks sting, and they sting hard. So we default to the less painful choice of avoiding loss. Loss aversion impacts the way we process information. A 2019 study invited participants to learn through a series of multiple choice questions. Each question only had two options to choose from. Whether guessing correctly or not, they would still learn the right answer. Despite the identical learning opportunity, participants were much more successful at recalling the answers they guessed correctly than those they got wrong. "You're right!" feels good. We savour the moment, analyzing every detail. "You're wrong!" stings. We want to quickly forget, dismiss, and move on. When we succumb to loss aversion, we miss opportunities to learn. Failure is part of the process. We'll experie...

Herman Ye

Search