It’s flattering to think that we’re “more talented, informed, and equipped” than fund managers of the past. Who wants to disagree with that? Maybe it really does help explain why there seem to be fewer star fund managers.

On the other hand, maybe the sameness of results we see among managers with public records owes something to their understanding that mediocrity = job security. Who hasn’t seen the quote by Keynes, “Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally”?

Notice the not-at-all-subtle pressure toward conformity that comes from calling the difference between a fund’s return and that of the S&P 500 “tracking error.” As if anything but making the same return is a failure?

And here’s another thought. Maybe your definition of a .400 hitter needs to be modified, at least for private – as opposed to institutional – clients.

Our financial advisory firm in Omaha focuses on getting clients through the ninth inning, where they can achieve their individual goals. If we focused on beating the market by a wide margin, we might incur so much volatility that people would leave the game early. A standout manager – a .400 hitter – is the one who helps them win.