Michael Lewis’ latest book, “The Undoing Project,” weaves together the biographies of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, two Israeli psychologists whose work in the 1970s–1990s launched a new way of combining behavioral academics with practical applications. Their specialty was exploring the ways the human mind makes systematic errors when forced to judge uncertain situations.

At first, you may not think that sounds like gripping entertainment. But in typical Michael Lewis fashion, these pair of academics become a fascinating read.

I and my Hill Investment Group colleagues had the privilege of meeting Lewis and hearing him speak shortly after he published his 2003 book, “Moneyball.” In it, he showed how Major League Baseball teams were making poor decisions on valuing players based on human judgment. Defying convention, Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane evaluated players using data rather than “expert” judgments to successfully compete against teams boasting much higher payrolls.

When Lewis wrote “Moneyball,” he wasn’t aware how powerful his book would become. He was simply intrigued by a real-life illustration of objective evidence beating the pants off of conventional so-called wisdom.

In some respects, “The Undoing Project,” is a prequel to “Moneyball.” Lewis admits, he didn’t realize it at the time how much of what he explored in “Moneyball” came directly from professors Tversky and Kahneman and their earlier work. Once he connected the dots, he decided to write a book about them too. Their story is about how they used their understanding of systematic errors in people’s judgment to improve that judgment, and thus improve their decision-making.

I believe one of their most important findings is this: Knowing you or others have biases (such as relying on overly small samples, anchoring on past assumptions, and mistaking hindsight as being predictive) isn’t sufficient to overcome them. Even when we know we’re being influenced, we often let it happen anyway!

Here’s one example from Lewis’ book:  In 2016, basketball player Jeremy Lin signed a $38 million contract with the Brooklyn Nets – clearly a coveted hire. But back in 2010, no NBA team would draft him. “He lit up our models,” one team manager said … but as a Chinese-American Harvard grad, Lin didn’t fit the stereotype. Even though they had the evidence (the models) in hand, they were unable to overcome their biases and recruit him when he could have been had for far less money.

Back to professors Kahneman and Tversky. In 2002, Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for the work that continues to shape our lives today. Amos Tversky likely would have received the award as well but, sadly, he passed away in 1996, and Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously. In any case, their work has contributed to untold advances in medical diagnosis, military decisions, professional sports and – last but hardly least – financial economics.

Across all of these disciplines and more, the takeaway is that human bias is ever-present, which is why we must remain ever on guard against it. Hint: One of the best ways I know to combat your own biases is to recruit someone who is aware of how prevalent they are, to let you know when it’s happening to you.

Sometimes, it’s admirable to persevere against slim odds and sometimes not – such as if you’re trying to pick the next winners among actively managed funds. Think you can identify which ones will not only survive the next few years but also outperform their peers? Dimensional took a look at this question and found the likelihood is somewhere in the range of slim odds to fat chance.

Want to know more about how to interpret this chart – and invest accordingly? Give us a call.

Part of our job here at Hill Investment Group is to keep a relatively close eye on financial industry news, so our clients don’t have to (unless they find it interesting). One technical tidbit caught our eye recently when Vanguard’s advisor news channel reported on how its index funds will be impacted by a change to the way the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) will be reconstituting its indexes.

Wow, that’s a lot of jargon. Let’s translate.

Most investors are familiar with the broad strokes of index investing. An index fund identifies a slice of the market to invest in – such as U.S. small-company value stocks. The fund manager then picks an index that tracks that same swath, and buys up essentially everything that index is holding. For the past several years, Vanguard has been using CRSP indexes to fulfill that role.

Mostly, that’s a relatively sensible way to go about investing. CRSP indexes are at least as robust as any others for tracking particular markets. And index funds are certainly better than active managers, who spend their time and your money trying to dodge in and out of markets, without adding expected extra worth.

If there weren’t an even better – let’s say best – way to go about it, we’d probably be all in on index funds ourselves (and there are times we use them, when we feel they are the ideal tool for the job at hand). But, instead of investing in funds that follow indexes that follow a swath of the market … we typically prefer funds that skip the index “middle man,” and buy into the vast majority of a market swath directly. Dimensional Fund Advisors is one such fund manager, and the longest-tenured among them, having been around since 1981.

Vanguard’s recent announcement speaks to one reason we prefer the more direct approach. One bugaboo index funds face is what to do whenever its underlying index “reconstitutes,” or changes the securities it’s tracking. Every index does this from time to time. For example, say a small company becomes a big company. A small-cap index must then stop tracking its stock and, usually, pick a different one to track instead.

That means any index fund tracking that index must actually sell and buy those same swapped-out securities – and relatively quickly if it wants to keep accurately reflecting its target index. You may already be a step ahead of me if you recognize that this creates some pricing challenges. If several index fund managers are all trying to sell and buy the same securities at around the same time, the trades can end up costing more than if there weren’t an essentially artificial supply-and-demand issue at play.

To help alleviate (although probably not eliminate) that challenge, CRSP has announced it will spread its reconstitution activities across five days instead of just one.

Again, that’s a sensible idea, and it may help some. But remember, fund managers like Dimensional allow us to avoid the reconstitution challenge entirely by more directly tracking the small-cap value market (and many others). This is a topic for another post, but direct tracking also offers other advantages over being tied to an index. Suffice it to say here that not all small-cap value funds are equally as effective at capturing the expected premiums available from this relatively narrow market.

So, with respect to Vanguard’s recent announcement, “better” is nice. But when the choice is, “better or best?” … we still prefer best.