1
1
At a public talk a few years ago, a seasoned value investor began his speech with a statement that surprised the audience:
“Even Warren Buffett says most people should just index. And I agree with him.”
Then he paused, smiled, and added:
“But Warren Buffett doesn’t index. And neither do I.”
That simple contradiction opens the door to one of the most misunderstood debates in investing: indexing versus active investing—and why both can be right at the same time.
Let’s start with the uncomfortable truth.
Most investors:
For such investors, indexing is not a compromise—it is a solution.
When you buy an index fund, you:
That is why Warren Buffett has repeatedly advised ordinary investors to stick with low-cost index funds. It protects people from their own worst instincts.
Here’s the paradox.
If indexing is optimal, why don’t great investors index themselves?
Why don’t Buffett, Joel Greenblatt, or other elite stock pickers simply buy the S&P 500 and relax?
The answer is simple:
And markets still make plenty of them.
Students often argue:
“There are more analysts, more data, more computers. Isn’t the party over for active investing?”
If markets were perfectly rational, they would be right.
But consider what actually happened in the most-followed market in the world—the U.S. stock market:
This alone tells us something crucial:
People are still emotional. People are still extreme. People are still wrong.
And averages hide far more than they reveal.
An index like the S&P 500 smooths reality.
Under the surface:
If you believe, as Benjamin Graham taught, that stock prices fluctuate around intrinsic value like a wave around a horizontal line, then mispricing is not the exception—it is the rule.
Markets throw pitches all the time.
Here’s the uncomfortable part.
Even though opportunities exist, most active managers still underperform.
Why?
Managers panic, chase trends, and abandon discipline—just like individuals.
Most professionals are judged on three-year benchmarks:
Even if the strategy is correct long-term, few are allowed to stick with it.
Studies show something deeply counterintuitive:
Among the best-performing managers over a 10-year period:
In other words:
To beat the market long term, you must be willing to look wrong—sometimes for years.
Most investors simply cannot tolerate this.
Consider one remarkable example.
A mutual fund:
Yet the average investor in that fund lost 11% per year.
How?
They converted excellence into failure—through behavior alone.
Institutions fare no better.
Given these realities:
This trend will continue—and probably should.
But here’s the irony.
The more people give up on valuing businesses, the more opportunities remain for those who still can.
As a stock picker:
Markets are still driven by fear, greed, impatience, and institutional pressure.
That hasn’t changed—and likely never will.
Despite all the talk about formulas, ratios, and models, the real edge is shockingly simple.
Patience.
Not patience for days or weeks—but years.
You must:
Very few people can do this.
Most investors:
Very few can answer:
If you cannot value a business, indexing is the correct choice.
If you can—and have the temperament—active investing remains alive and well.
The real question is not:
“Which is better?”
The real question is:
“Which fits you?”
Indexing is superior for:
Active investing is viable only for those with:
Great investing never looks smooth.
Returns:
If you require validation, applause, or short-term comfort, you will fail—no matter how smart you are.
Markets are harder than ever.
Yet opportunities remain.
Why?
Because human nature hasn’t changed.
Fear, greed, impatience, envy, and regret still dominate decision-making.
That is why:
You don’t need to beat the market to succeed.
You need to avoid self-inflicted failure.
If you choose indexing, do it with confidence and consistency.
If you choose active investing, understand the cost:
As Joel Greenblatt ultimately reminds us:
Beating the market requires both skill and discipline—but discipline is far rarer.
That—not information—is the real edge.
