The New Age of Investing: The Hidden Risks of Commission-Free Trading
In recent years, the investment ecosystem has witnessed a radical transformation driven largely by the emergence of commission-free trading platforms and low-cost exchange-traded funds (ETFs). While these innovations have democratized access to investing for retail investors, they have also introduced a complex array of challenges that are less visible but equally impactful. As trading fees evaporate, investors may find themselves navigating a landscape fraught with increased risks that could undermine their financial goals.
The Evolution of Investment Costs
The late John Bogle, founder of Vanguard and architect of the index fund movement, famously advocated for low-cost investing. His “cost matters hypothesis” posited that because the average return across all portfolios equals the market return minus the fees charged by active managers, keeping costs down is crucial to enhancing returns. This powerful argument galvanized investors to shift towards low-cost, diversified index funds over the past three decades.
However, as commission charges approach zero, the fundamental dynamics of investing have shifted. With the immediate burden of fees lifted, many investors may overlook another crucial point: the relationship between risk and return. Lowering fees is a significant win for investors, but what happens when the costs associated with risk become more pronounced?
The Risk Matters Hypothesis
Through discussions with friends and family, coupled with observations in online forums, we’ve noted a troubling trend: many retail investors have become increasingly enamored with the idea of “free” trading, rushing into a world of frenetic, high-frequency trading. To contextualize this behavior, we developed the “risk matters hypothesis” (RMH), a corollary to Bogle’s seminal ideas.
The RMH posits that the average risk across all active portfolios is greater than that of the market portfolio. Investors, particularly those with concentrated stock positions, face the reality that they are likely to experience a lower return-to-risk ratio—also known as Sharpe ratio—compared to a broadly diversified index fund. This notion of return-to-risk is pivotal: investors must be aware that taking on additional risk might not lead to proportional rewards, especially when active management is at play.
Distraction from Long-Term Goals
Warren Buffett has cautioned against the current climate of market behavior, which he likens to a casino. He stated, “Markets now exhibit far more casino-like behavior than they did when I was young. The casino now resides in many homes and daily tempts the occupants.” This “casino-fication” is evidenced by the explosive growth in options trading and the glorification of day trading, which often mimics online gambling.
The influx of leveraged, concentrated, and options-based ETFs further fuels this environment, encouraging reckless speculation among retail traders. Active trading not only increases risk exposure but also diverts focus from fundamental investment strategies that maximize long-term returns.
In essence, the notion of “free” investing can mislead individuals into believing that they can reap substantial rewards without incurring substantial risk, when in reality, the opposite might be true.
The Double-Edged Sword of Risk
It’s vital to recognize that the appetite for increased risk among retail investors generally means that other market participants are equally inclined to take on greater risk. Professional trading firms—often more skilled and experienced—are on the other end of retail trades, necessitating higher returns to account for their risk exposure. This creates a double whammy for retail investors; by taking on additional risk, they may inadvertently lower their potential returns, as the professionals are positioned to profit at their expense.
When active investors pursue higher returns through increased risk, they might find the landscape much harsher than anticipated. Unlike the zero-sum nature of fee payments—where one party pays a fee and another receives it—the risk-taking environment is a negative-sum game. No matter how actively retail investors trade, there is a substantial likelihood that they will lag behind their more knowledgeable counterparts.
Caution in the Era of Free Trading
In the wake of easier access to trading platforms and numerous investment options, the potential pitfalls of volatility and risk are more relevant than ever. While the allure of commission-free trading is compelling, the “risk matters hypothesis” serves as a reminder that veering too far from the market can have dire consequences.
For most retail investors, the safest and most prudent strategy may still be to invest in broadly diversified index funds. By eschewing high-stakes trading for the stability of diversified investments, individuals can still enjoy the benefits of low-cost investing while mitigating their exposure to the hidden costs associated with increased risk.
Conclusion
The shifting landscape of investing reflects a broader trend toward accessibility and democratization. However, it also highlights the complexities and risks intrinsic to modern investment strategies. The transition to a commission-free model has liberated many investors, but it has also obscured the often-overlooked dangers tied to risk. Understanding the nuances of both fees and risk becomes essential in guiding investors toward a successful financial future. By focusing on long-term strategies and recognizing the implications of risk, individuals can navigate this new world of investing with greater assurance and purpose.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
1
20
20
