Chance versus Design in the Discipline of Investing

Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.

“In play there are two pleasures for your choosing;

The one is winning and the other – losing.”

Lord Byron, Don Juan

Endeavors in the financial markets do not fall firmly on, but move fluidly between, extremes on the chance and design spectrum. At times, investment outcomes are a product of chance and design engaging in a competition. And at other times, they are a product of the two working together.

Chance pushes investors to look for predictions. Yet it is exactly the presence of chance that renders predicting a futile effort.

Overemphasizing the role of chance

Another important attribute of investing is that it is further characterized by the presence of design. Interestingly though, most participants either completely ignore design or pursue it in a rather haphazard fashion. We are in the middle of an environment where Wall Street has sold the idea that design has no role to play in investment decisions making. Indeed, it has sold the idea rather successfully. As a result, an increasing proportion of investment flows have gone towards funds that focus exclusively on chance as the source of investment returns, i.e., passive funds and ETFs. As the chart below shows, over the past decade passively managed assets as a percentage of total U.S. equity assets has persistently risen at the expense of actively managed assets.

Source: Morningstar

Rational investor’s objective

As we stated earlier, the placement of financial endeavors in the chance and design spectrum is fluid. It is possible to shift the placement of one’s engagement further towards design via a rational decision-making process; that is the primary objective of a rational investor.