Search
Get in touch!
Linkedin X-twitter Envelope

Cliff Asness: Rational strategies for a less efficient market

In his latest paper titled ‘The Less-Efficient Market Hypothesis’ AQR’s Cliff Asness explains why he believes markets have become less efficient over the past 30+ years due to technology, gamified trading, and social media.

This inefficiency raises the stakes for rational active investing, with bigger and longer-lasting market swings. Investors should embrace this opportunity but remain cautious of strategies that might not perform well long-term.

Asness stresses the importance of sticking with sound investment principles despite volatility. While indexing is a reasonable choice for some, active value and quality stock picking may offer better opportunities.

Here are the key takeaways:

  • Two major episodes of market inefficiency are highlighted: the dot-com bubble of 1999-2000 and the period around 2019-2020, where value spreads (the difference in valuation between expensive and cheap stocks) reached unprecedented levels.
  • Three hypotheses are proposed for this decrease in efficiency:
    • The rise of indexing
    • Prolonged periods of very low interest rates
    • The impact of technology, particularly social media and gamified trading platforms
  • Cliff believes the third hypothesis – the impact of technology – is the most significant factor contributing to market inefficiency.
  • This decrease in efficiency presents both opportunities and challenges for rational, value-based investors: Potentially higher long-term returns, but greater difficulty in sticking with strategies during periods of underperformance.
  • Many investors are responding to this by increasing allocation to index fund and investing more in private equity and private credit, which the author criticizes as “volatility laundering”
  • Cliff suggests investors should
    • maintain a long-term perspective
    • Focus on overall portfolio performance rather than individual line items.
    • Be more aggressive with diversifying strategies
    • Improve investment processes and diversify beyond traditional value strategies

Good investing has always been a challenge combining a) discerning what is right, and b) sticking with what is right. Both have always been vital and both still are. But if markets are indeed “less efficient” the first task has actually gotten easier and the second harder — and the skills needed to pursue good investing have shifted. That tells us what we should work on going forward.

Click here to go to the external source.

Share the news

Disclaimer of liability

The above has been prepared by Børsgade ApS for information purposes and cannot be regarded as a solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security. Nor can the information etc. be regarded as recommendations or advice of a legal, accounting or tax nature. Børsgade cannot be held liable for losses caused by customers’/users’ actions – or lack thereof – based on the information in the above. We have made every effort to ensure that the information in the above is complete and accurate, but cannot guarantee this and accept no liability for errors or omissions.

Readers are advised that investing may involve a risk of loss that cannot be determined in advance, and that past performance and price development cannot be used as a reliable indicator of future performance and price development. For further information please contact info@borsgade.dk

You might also find this interesting:

Thomas Shrager: Superior Value Outside the U.S

July 3, 2025

In a comprehensive interview, Thomas Shrager and Jay Hill from the renowned New York value investing boutique Tweedy, Browne articulate their belief that the most compelling investment opportunities currently lie outside the United States. The veteran fund managers, who oversee portfolios for the 104-year-old firm, explain that international markets offer dramatically better value propositions than the overvalued U.S. equity market, which they describe as “priced for perfection” at 24 times earnings.

Aswath Damodaran: The Uncertain Payoff from Alternative Investments

June 18, 2025

Professor Aswath Damodaran’s latest analysis challenges the conventional wisdom surrounding alternative investments, revealing significant gaps between marketing promises and actual performance. Aswath examines how institutional and individual investors have increasingly embraced alternatives like hedge funds, private equity, and venture capital, often with disappointing results despite decades of compelling sales pitches.

Alternative investments have gained mainstream acceptance over the past two decades, moving beyond their traditional institutional confines to target individual investors. The core argument for these investments rests on two pillars: their supposedly low correlation with traditional stocks and bonds, and their potential to generate excess returns through superior management and market inefficiencies. However, Damodaran’s analysis suggests these benefits may be largely illusory when subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

Michael Mauboussin: How to Handle Intangibles in Modern Value Investing

June 18, 2025

Michael Mauboussin, Head of Consilient Research at Morgan Stanley, delivered a compelling keynote presentation at the Ben Graham Centre for Value Investing’s 2025 conference, addressing how the rise of intangible assets has fundamentally altered the landscape of value investing.

Drawing from nearly a century of investment wisdom while adapting to modern realities, Mauboussin argues that traditional accounting methods have become increasingly inadequate for evaluating companies in today’s intangible-heavy economy. His presentation reveals that intangible investments now represent 1.7 times tangible investments in the U.S. economy, a complete reversal from 1977 when tangible investments dominated by a factor of 1.4.

Cliff Asness: Missing the Best Days Isn’t the Real Problem

June 12, 2025

Clifford Asness of AQR Capital Management revisits his 1999 rejected paper that challenged one of the most common arguments against market timing. The widespread belief that missing just a few of the market’s best days destroys long-term returns is fundamentally flawed, according to Asness.

His analysis shows that while missing the best performing days does hurt returns, missing the worst performing days provides symmetrical benefits. The author demonstrates through both historical data and simulations that this “evidence” against market timing is mathematically obvious and essentially useless for investment decision-making.

Asness argues that legitimate criticisms of market timing should focus on investors’ lack of skill rather than cherry-picked scenarios of perfect incompetence. His 25+ years of out-of-sample data confirms these findings, showing the argument remains as flawed today as it was when first proposed.