I’m a big fan of the MasterChef TV programme and, as this week is the final of the current series, I decided to ignore all the election stuff and illustrate the similarities between MasterChef and investing.
In the programme contestants face a series of cooking challenges and many things can and do go wrong – low quality ingredients, inadequate preparation and poor implementation all play their part. Investing can be a bit like this too.
The world of investment consists of two broad approaches. The first is the traditional active one, where managers try to find mis-priced securities, or seek to time their buy or sale points in the market. This is similar to the challenge in MasterChef, when a contestant has to invent a new dish within a set time frame. The chef commits to their chosen recipe, but ends up racing against time locked into particular ingredients to create a single dish. It may work out, but if they lose attention for a moment then the dish is ruined and they have nothing to fall back on.
Likewise, the active investment manager locks in on his best ideas and finds himself with little flexibility to move; he is restricted by time as he’s trying to trade on information he believes is not reflected in the prices of the stock. If it doesn’t work, he does not have a Plan B.
If you plan to stand out from the crowd, you are going to build cost and complexity into your process. Using a cooking analogy, the price of ingredients (out of season asparagus, for example) is going to be secondary to making an impact. Once you have committed to your dish, there is no changing tack.
The second approach to investing is when the investment manager seeks to track as closely as possible to a commercial index. The goal here is not to stand out – this is most like the challenge in MasterChef, where the contestants have to cook a standard popular dish with set ingredients.
In this case, the ingredients (or investments in the case of the investment manager) are known and it is just a matter of assembling them. The drawback of this particular approach is the absence of flexibility. The dictated menu may not suit everybody; it may be the best lasagne in the world, but if your diners don’t like pasta you have a problem.
However, what if there was a system that combined the creativity of the first approach with the simplicity of the second? In this case, the focus shifts from being different for the sake of it, or following someone else’s recipe, to drawing from a range of ingredients to produce a diverse menu that suits a range of tastes.
In this third approach, our contestants do not face unnecessary constraints in terms of time or ingredients. Instead, they assemble a broad selection of dishes from multiple ingredients suitable for the season and at a time of their choosing. The difference here is that the chefs are focusing on what they can control and eliminate elements that may restrict their choices. The ultimate aim is to efficiently and reliably provide meals that suit a range of palettes.
In the world of investing, this third way is the optimal approach. Picking stocks and timing the market, like making brilliant off-the-cuff meals – in any condition, in an efficient and consistent manner – is tough even for the master. Cooking meals off a provided menu (index managers) can be inflexible and costly.
The third way is what we believe in and why we choose investment managers who do not have to outguess the market to get a good result. They do not have to lock in on a couple of their best ideas and hope they turn out, and neither do they have to contract the job out to a commercial index provider. They design diverse funds that take advantage of the aspects of expected returns and build flexibility into the system, so that an efficient and reliable investment solution is served.
The MasterChef of Investing.