Underperformance of Actively Managed Portfolios: Some Behavioral Insights

Abstract

Two glaring anomalies in investment management are apparent: (1) after fees, active portfolio managers do worse than market indices, and (2) clients continue to pay for services they don’t receive. The purpose of this paper is to offer explanations of these anomalies from a behavioral perspective. We explore some of the cognitive biases that perpetuate active management and subsequent underperformance, including herding, disposition, and endowment effects, as well as conservatism and status quo biases, overconfidence, and agency problems. Investors’ continued use of active managers despite persistent disappointing returns is attributed to being victims of framing effect, hot-hand fallacy, lack of knowledge as well as intimidation or insecurity, and status quo bias. We propose some ways that portfolio managers and investors could improve their decision making.     

Buffett’s alpha: further explanations from a behavioral value investing perspective

Warren Buffett has had extraordinary success as an investor, but there is no agreement as to why. Some academic researchers attribute his performance to mere luck. Frazzini et al. (Financ Anal J 74(4):35–55, 2018), concluded that his alpha is due to leveraging safe, high-quality, and cheap stocks. However, there has been no analysis to date of Buffett’s performance from a behavioral perspective. We argue that Buffett’s success is partly due to qualitative and psychological factors, including tenacity, patience, avoidance of overconfidence, organizational culture, and the reputation effect. Using information from shareholder letters, writings, interviews, and speeches by Buffett and his colleague Charlie Munger, we demonstrate how such psychological factors, together with the quantitative findings of Frazzini et al., render a more complete and satisfying explanation of Buffett’s alpha.