The Big Picture

Transcript: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors founder and chairman

 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors Founder & Chairman, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

~~~

MASTERS IN BUSINESS:  David Booth
Founder & Chairman, Dimensional Fund Advisors

Bloomberg Radio — Transcript

ANNOUNCER (00:00:02): Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts. Radio. News.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:00:07): This week on the podcast — what can I say? Legendary investor and founder of Dimensional Funds, David Booth, talks about his entire career, his philosophy, philanthropy, how he helped build DFA into a trillion-dollar fund, and why people refuse to just manage what they can and stay calm in the face of volatility and market events. I thought the conversation — and the book, Stay Calm — was fascinating, and I think you will also. David Booth, welcome back to Bloomberg.

DAVID BOOTH (00:00:53): Well, thanks for having me. It’s always a pleasure.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:00:56): I was gonna say the same — it’s always a pleasure. I know your background, but I’m gonna assume a lot of listeners may not be familiar with it, so I wanna start by going all the way back to your college and grad school education. You get a bachelor’s in economics from the University of Kansas, then you get a master’s degree focused in business, and then you go to the University of Chicago for a PhD. That very much sounds like academia was the future.

DAVID BOOTH (00:01:27): It really was, in the sense that, like a lot of kids, when you’re in college or even high school, you think, boy, I’d like to be a professor — ’cause that’s all you know.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:01:38): And it’s a great job. You’re on a campus, it looks like fun.

DAVID BOOTH (00:01:42): Back in those days, it was a good profession. I mean, there is a thrill of teaching kids, seeing the light go on. Kind of the same thing we have in business, when you have a client and finally —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:01:59): When they get it.

DAVID BOOTH (00:02:00): When they get it, you know, it’s very cool.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:02:03): So at Chicago, you pivot from a PhD to an MBA, and eventually you become the assistant, researcher, TA to some young professor who was not that much older than you — Gene Fama. Tell us a little bit about what led to that pivot.

DAVID BOOTH (00:02:19): Well, the backdrop is, in that period of time — the late sixties, early seventies — that’s when finance really emerged as a science, and it has continued to evolve, even today. And by that I mean, for something to be a science, you need testable hypotheses — don’t worry, I’m not getting too heavy into this. And before 1960, they just didn’t have the data to test things out. So in the early sixties, the University of Chicago developed this research-quality database, CRSP. The CRSP data started in 1926, and they’ve updated it, so now we have over a hundred years of data.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:03:05): When did Chicago first roll that out?

DAVID BOOTH (00:03:08): About ’63. Fama, my mentor and Nobel laureate in 2013, was in the PhD program at Chicago when Jim Lorie and Larry Fisher developed this database, and they turned it over to Gene and said, look, do some papers, do something with this data. So he had a head start on everybody, and for the next 20 years he was the most cited academic —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:03:38): Still one of the most cited academics.

DAVID BOOTH (00:03:40): Maybe the most ever, really, in finance.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:03:44): First mover advantage, for sure. So around the time you finish your PhD, Fama’s Efficient Market Hypothesis — that thesis was starting to gain traction, at least in academia, if not yet on Wall Street. Tell us a little bit about what was so attractive about EMH.

DAVID BOOTH (00:04:06): Well, it was incredibly exciting. First, let me just make a slight correction — I actually didn’t get a PhD.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:04:12): Right — you were working on your PhD, and then you got an MBA.

DAVID BOOTH (00:04:16): Yeah. And eventually I decided the world would be better served if Gene Fama did research and I tried to apply the ideas, rather than the other way around. So I walked into his office one day and said, look, I think I’d like to leave the program. So he calls up Mac McQuown out at Wells Fargo in San Francisco. Mac was in charge of applying quantitative methods for the bank, and one of the areas he worked on was investing. Mac had always wanted one of his students, so he recommended me, and Mac and I hit it off, and he invited me to come work for them. And so I decided to leave the program.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:04:57): So, the first job — did you ever get your MBA, by the way?

DAVID BOOTH (00:05:00): I got the MBA on the way out. They gave me an MBA.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:05:03): That was nice — that was a good investment on their part. You worked for Mac at Wells Fargo, right? In San Francisco. I didn’t realize you were on the West Coast for a while.

DAVID BOOTH (00:05:13): Right. I mean, this is the early seventies, so it was still kind of a Haight-Ashbury kind of thing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:05:20): For sure. So Mac is the guy who’s often credited with creating the first version of an index fund. I think, if memory serves, it was for an institutional client’s pension or something like that.

DAVID BOOTH (00:05:33): Yeah, right. It was Samsonite.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:05:35): Samsonite, that’s right. Walk us through that. What was it like?

DAVID BOOTH (00:05:40): It turns out it was really pivotal in the history of finance, for a couple of reasons. One is, in doing all this research in finance, the fundamental question became: if you can’t outguess the market, how are you supposed to invest? Most people grow up thinking — and back in those days, everybody thought — that investing was about trying to pick the next winner stock, and time markets, and that sort of thing. And beginning in the mid-sixties, all of a sudden, with this burst of data, they could examine things like: are the professional managers that try to outguess the market worth the cost? And they’ve been doing this research for years, and there’s no compelling evidence that they’re worth the cost. In fact, I think the most practical assumption for all your readers is that the professional investors don’t seem to be able to beat the market. And that has a profound implication. And in fact — we can get around to more of the personal story — my parents grew up in the Great Depression and then fought World War II and so forth, and never had much money. But they never invested in public markets, ’cause they thought of themselves as outsiders, and the insiders would make all the money and just take advantage of them. So they never invested, and they had a little tougher time in retirement than they probably should have.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:07:18): And to be fair, the history before the post-World War II era was — they weren’t so wrong.

DAVID BOOTH (00:07:26): That’s right, they weren’t so wrong. So now, that’s the breakthrough. One of the implications of the new science is that the outsiders can do as well as the insiders — maybe better, once fees are considered — ’cause you can buy market portfolios very easily and very inexpensively now, and the pros don’t seem to be able to beat that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:07:45): Well, the data on the pros — it doesn’t matter if you’re looking at Morningstar or SPIVA or DALBAR or any of the annual studies — is that in any given year, less than half of professionals beat the index. And I think that’s net of fees.

DAVID BOOTH (00:08:02): In fact, just yesterday there was a front-page article in The Wall Street Journal — only 27% last year.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:08:11): In the last 12 months. It was a particularly bad year, because one sector dominated, and if you didn’t have exposure to that sector, you badly lagged. Then the year before, the sector didn’t dominate. So you had to pick the sector, time it right, and stay invested.

DAVID BOOTH (00:08:25): Of course, if you do all of that, you don’t need our help.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:08:28): That’s exactly right. So Mac creates the first index fund — or one of the first. I’m curious, was there much of a reaction or any pushback from Wall Street, or did it just kind of slip by unnoticed?

DAVID BOOTH (00:08:43): No, there was a huge pushback. It was stuff they didn’t want to hear. I mean, they’d been claiming for years — oh yeah, we can beat the market, we can do 15 or 20% regardless of markets — all these claims. It turned out, unfortunately, they couldn’t be backed up by the data. That’s a very powerful lesson in developing arguments: if you have data and the other side doesn’t, it’s kind of an —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:09:09): Unfair fight.

DAVID BOOTH (00:09:10): Unfair fight. But it gets into a lot of issues we’ll cover as to why I’m still out trying to deliver that message.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:09:20): It’s so hard to believe. So let’s talk a little bit about that message. You and some of your Chicago classmates — Rex Sinquefield is one, and he had worked on an S&P 500 index fund at American National Bank. And then Larry Klotz was also a Chicago —

DAVID BOOTH (00:09:39): No — we worked together at A.G. Becker.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:09:42): And that was also in Chicago — in Chicago, but not the university. Right. And then Mac basically helped fund this: hey, we wanna apply everything we learned at Chicago and express the insights of Fama in an investible thesis. Right?

DAVID BOOTH (00:09:59): And the interesting thing there was that there were really two avenues being explored simultaneously. We had one group that I worked in, and we used as our primary outside consultants Fischer Black and Myron Scholes.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:10:14): More Nobel laureates.

DAVID BOOTH (00:10:16): Two more. It turns out, in working on our project, they developed the Black-Scholes option pricing model, for which Myron became a Nobel laureate — Fischer, unfortunately, had passed away, so he didn’t get it. The idea of our group was: okay, we accept that Michael Jensen and the work of others says these pros can’t seem to beat the market — so what are you supposed to do? By then we’d developed quite a bit of the science, and one idea, based on the models at the time — sounds silly now — was, well, if you have a portfolio that has a higher beta than the market, it should outperform.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:10:58): What does that mean — you’re just taking on more risk?

DAVID BOOTH (00:11:01): You’re just taking on more risk. That’s one way to beat the market: take more risk, but still being diversified. So that was the Samsonite account. They figured out a way of creating a higher-beta portfolio. Basically, they would start out with equal positions in all the stocks — they bought equal dollar amounts — and a portfolio like that should have a somewhat higher beta. Let me just refresh people’s memory: the market has a beta of one. So if you fluctuate more than the market, you have a beta greater than one, and if you fluctuate less than the market, your beta is less than one. And if you have a higher beta, you should outperform — that was the thinking. Incredibly naive. And we were kind of geeky back then.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:11:55): I think you guys are still a little geeky.

DAVID BOOTH (00:11:57): Still — well, yeah, I’ve learned to kind of appreciate that, actually. So that was one of the groups. The other group at Wells was the trust department. Mac hired somebody to head up trust investments, and he wanted to do an S&P 500 index fund.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:12:21): Still early seventies or so?

DAVID BOOTH (00:12:22): Yeah, still.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:12:24): So this is decades before BlackRock, years before Vanguard. This is very, very early.

DAVID BOOTH (00:12:30): So that’s what they wanted to do. And we go, look, as a scientist, you wouldn’t do an index fund. But I think it was some marketing genius who came in and said, no, you want an S&P 500 index fund — everybody can understand that, you can track the index. And here again, the pros don’t seem to be able to beat that index, so you can at least get the index return.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:12:53): Can’t get alpha if you’re not at least getting beta, right?

DAVID BOOTH (00:12:56): Yeah, right. So now, those are two different points of view. And the reason I emphasize that is that the S&P 500 index fund idea took off. That group left and changed hands a couple of times, and now that’s the cornerstone of BlackRock.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:14): It worked its way eventually to Barclays, and then BlackRock bought that whole business. And what are they — 14, 15 trillion, something like that?

DAVID BOOTH (00:13:22): No, I mean, it’s phenomenal success. I’m not arguing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:27): And they basically proved the point: hey, it’s really hard to beat the market.

DAVID BOOTH (00:13:31): Beat the market, yeah. So hats off to them. Now, keep in mind — let’s go back to the other group, the one that I was working on that really became the basis for Dimensional. Eventually our group ended up irritating the trust department enough that they got rid of us.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:47): So this was you, Rex —

DAVID BOOTH (00:13:49): No, Rex wasn’t there at the time.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:50): He wasn’t? So who was the initial group?

DAVID BOOTH (00:13:53): Well, Rex was part of the initial group of Dimensional, sorry. And we brought people in to help us out — the first two people we talked to were Gene Fama, my mentor, on the research side, and Mac McQuown, who by that time had left Wells as well. Then we pulled together the other leading academics we worked with — people like Merton Miller, the 1990 Nobel laureate, and Myron Scholes, ’97, along with Fama.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:14:27): So out of all of this, the first fund that you launched when DFA began in Brooklyn was a small cap — or micro cap — strategy.

DAVID BOOTH (00:14:37): Right. We were the first people to use “small cap” as a term, meaning smaller companies.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:14:41): And this was based on some of Fama’s initial factors — small seemed to have persistent performance attributes.

DAVID BOOTH (00:14:50): Yeah — that was documented about 10 years later. So here we are, in some ways flying blind. We had a compelling argument, because in 1981, if you looked at large institutional investors, they weren’t holding the stocks of smaller companies in any meaningful way. So if you wanna be diversified, you want large and small, not just large.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:15:11): So was that the pitch to institutions? Small cap will diversify against the rest of your holdings?

DAVID BOOTH (00:15:18): Right. And so we got our first clients with that. So we’re off and running with a small cap fund, we had clients, and in talking to Fama, he goes, well, you know, we have a student here that did his PhD dissertation on just what you’re looking at — Rolf Banz. Rolf had done a study breaking down stocks on the New York Stock Exchange into size quintiles, largest to smallest, and the smallest quintile outperformed all the others by quite a bit over time. So, putting my marketing hat on, I think we’ll define small to be the smallest quintile of companies on the New York Stock Exchange — Mama didn’t raise a complete idiot here, you know. So that was how we got started. And there really wasn’t a counterargument, ’cause people couldn’t say, oh, I’ve got that covered — they knew they didn’t have small cap covered. So what we were able to do is provide access to small companies, and that’s really the basis of Dimensional. And about 10 years later, Fama, along with his colleague Ken French, developed this multifactor model. Back when I was at Wells, we just had the single factor, beta. So now we had a couple more factors.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:16:39): So Fama-French started with three, then it was five, and arguably there are just hundreds, most of which are tiny.

DAVID BOOTH (00:16:46): Yeah, most of which are tiny. And they kind of collapse to —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:16:51): Five to seven is plenty.

DAVID BOOTH (00:16:53): Well, three is plenty. We really have four or five now. But you get your big bang out of the first one, the market —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:17:01): The beta.

DAVID BOOTH (00:17:02): The beta. And the second factor, say value versus growth — that picks up a lot, not as much as the first. And then you get into size — small, that adds a little. Then you can add — pretty soon it’s just diminishing marginal utility, like everything in life.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:17:19): Quality, momentum — as you work your way down, each generates less and less of a bang. But what’s so fascinating to me is nobody had taken the approach that, hey, there is plenty of quantitative data to back this up, here is a testable thesis, a falsifiable thesis, and we can express these ideas in a portfolio. That, to me, was what set the launch of Dimensional apart from everybody else. Am I stating that correctly?

DAVID BOOTH (00:17:50): You got it. That’s it. And it shows you how powerful an idea it was, ’cause here we are starting a firm — we have no track record, I’m the first portfolio manager, I’d never managed stocks or even bought stocks before, and we’re operating outta my spare bedroom in downtown Brooklyn Heights. So you figure, how can you pull that off? Well, you can pull it off if the idea itself is so profound and backed up with incredible research. That’s hard to refute.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:18:28): So here’s the key question. Given how powerful that is — but at the time, fairly novel — what do you think Wall Street just missed about index investing? Because clearly there’s a financial opportunity, right? Whether or not your particular fund at the moment is selling performance and active selection, no one else looked at this and said, hey, there’s a business to be had here.

DAVID BOOTH (00:18:56): Well, back in those days — and fortunately this is changing now — basically nearly all financial services were distributed through commission salesmen. So Wall Street — basically, if you have a commission broker managing your money, I dunno what you’re gonna do, but you’re gonna be trading a lot, I can assure you. And if there’s anything that all this research pointed to, it’s that you don’t wanna trade a lot. Trading is a negative expected outcome, kind of like gambling in Vegas. But that’s the cornerstone of Wall Street. So they go, what do you mean, you’re telling me I shouldn’t be trading a lot? You’re ripping my eyes out. This can’t be true. And you go, hey, look, all I can tell you is we have logic, reason, and empirical evidence on our side. You have no data — all you have is bluster on your side. And over the long haul we’re winning, but it’s taken 50 years.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:19:54): Hard to make somebody understand something when their income is depending on them not understanding it, to paraphrase.

DAVID BOOTH (00:20:02): Right. And if you don’t have data to support it, then all you’re doing is bluster. And look, Wall Street firms in those days were very good at shoving product down people’s throats.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:20:13): Oh, for sure. I would tell you they’re still pretty good at it.

DAVID BOOTH (00:20:17): Well, I’m softening up, because along the way there was a development — an incredible development, almost as important as the development of the science — the fee-only financial advisor, which we started working with in the late 1980s.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:20:36): We are gonna get to that question. I wanna stay with Fama’s insights and your ability to express them in a portfolio. The fascinating thing about DFA to me is that it’s not simple market-cap-based indexing. The approach that you embraced early on was: how can we express something that’s a combination of what indexing would eventually become, married to a systematic, factor-based investing strategy?

DAVID BOOTH (00:21:12): Right. And by the way, early on, even going back to the days at Wells, we had these two groups — you know, you ought to index — and then the scientists saying, no, you can do better than indexing. And that’s 45 years — that’s been our message. As a scientist, you wouldn’t index, for a lot of reasons. One is you’re putting a constraint on yourself: I want to track an index. Constraints cost — in economic terms, that’s costly, and we can get into where the cost is. The other part of it is the silly way that index funds have to behave.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:21:54): Because of the announcements of additions and deletions — they telegraph it, right?

DAVID BOOTH (00:21:58): Telegraphed. Standard & Poor’s — if they add a new stock into their S&P 500 index today, it’ll go in at tonight’s closing price. If you are an S&P 500 index fund manager, then you want to buy that stock today at tonight’s closing price.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:22:15): Even though you know it’s gonna run up in anticipation.

DAVID BOOTH (00:22:18): Right — and even though you know that every other S&P 500 index fund manager out there is also gonna want that stock at tonight’s close. So that’s where — and probably all sciences are this way — there’s the science, and there’s the art of the science. You go to medical doctors, let’s say. They all study the same textbooks; well, some of ’em are just better at execution than others. And that’s what we’re talking about here. The simplest of all ideas: if you’re trying to buy a stock at the same time everybody else is, that’s probably not a good trade. Intuition would tell you that. And I think our most recent study shows that the runup is about 4% — when it goes into the index, the index pays about 4% more than a fair price.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:23:11): And the flip side is, the deletions have a tendency to outperform the S&P over something like 12 or 24 months. Same thing — people sell in advance, and by the time it’s actually deleted, it’s appreciably cheaper, and maybe that becomes a value.

DAVID BOOTH (00:23:28): Well, let me give you the downside of our approach, which is you have to have a certain amount of trust in the manager, because we’re not slavish. I mean, with indexing, you know exactly what they track — the gosh darn index. That’s what they said — that’s all they said they would do. And our idea is saying, look, we will use a little flexibility, a little bit of human judgment along the way. Not a lot — not like the old days of wild stock picking —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:23:56): Throwing darts.

DAVID BOOTH (00:23:57): Darts, or whatever. But we’ll use a little bit of judgment, and that requires you to have a little confidence in our ability to execute. So when we started, a lot of people said, look, how do we know you can execute? Because when you go out and buy or sell, you’re gonna be trading against professional investors. They think they have undiscounted information, if you will — something special, special knowledge — and you don’t. Okay, well, it turns out there’s a flip side to that, which is: if you’re an active manager and you think you know something special, you also realize the half-life of that is really short. Minutes, probably.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:24:43): Today it’s probably milliseconds.

DAVID BOOTH (00:24:45): Probably milliseconds. So if you wanna get rid of a stock, you want to get rid of it right now — at least by the end of the day. And so we come along, and we’re kind of indifferent. We buy 10,000 stocks — you know, on any given day, we don’t buy all 10,000 of ’em. We focus a lot on what’s trading easily that day. Even a small company stock, 20% of the time it trades a lot.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:25:12): In other words, you can use execution and volatility as a source of better pricing.

DAVID BOOTH (00:25:17): Better pricing, yeah. And that’s worked out over 45 years — the first 45 are the toughest, I realize. But still, people slap their forehead — that’s hard to believe, that there’s this professional money manager out there trading against you. It’s not that we take advantage of them. We provide liquidity, and our clients get the benefit of providing that service.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:25:47): And by providing liquidity, it means you’re willing to be a buyer at times when many other people are not.

DAVID BOOTH (00:25:54): But we’re not gonna pay retail for that stock. I mean — if you can talk to me, can you do something for me on the price?

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:25:59): Take a little something off. Really, really interesting. Coming up, we continue our conversation with David Booth, founder and chairman of Dimensional Fund Advisors, talking about his brand-new book, Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:26:17): I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is David Booth. He is the founder and chairman of Dimensional Fund Advisors. His new book is out — probably by the time you’re hearing this — Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. So I wanna sum up the book in a sentence, and then we’re gonna really delve into it: “Uncertainty isn’t something to fear — it’s where possibility lives.” Ooh. Explain that.

DAVID BOOTH (00:26:59): That is a good question. Every now and then, you know, you write something down —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:27:02): By the way, I have a dozen fantastic quotes, and I’m gonna try and click through all of them.

DAVID BOOTH (00:27:07): No, it’s funny, ’cause you write it, and then you forget you wrote it, and then you go back and look at it and go, hey —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:27:11): That’s not bad.

DAVID BOOTH (00:27:12): That’s not bad, yeah. And let me tell you about a breakthrough that happened to us about 10 years ago. We realized that there are a lot of parallels between investing and your life experiences, and a lot of that has to deal with how you deal with uncertainty. You know, as you grow, you learn how to deal with uncertainty, and what you realize is uncertainty is what creates opportunity. If there were no uncertainty, you wouldn’t have the ability to progress. So it’s not about eliminating uncertainty — it’s about managing uncertainty. That’s true in life, and the reason I bring that up is ’cause that’s also true in investing. If there were no uncertainty — in other words, if all investing was riskless —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:28:12): I got some 10-year Treasuries at three and a half percent that you can hold and barely keep up with inflation.

DAVID BOOTH (00:28:19): Well, if there were no uncertainty in investing, every investment would have the same return — the riskless return, whatever that is. So in investing as well, it’s uncertainty that creates opportunity. And once people start to realize that, we go — let’s go back: how do you deal with uncertainty? Well, first off, you realize that life is not totally predictable. I mean, think back 20 years ago. Could you have predicted where you are today, or where you’ll be 20 years from now?

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:28:57): Nobody in December 2019 was predicting a pandemic the next year — in a market that would scream higher. You could show it in every annual forecast we see — and we’ll talk a little bit about predictions in a minute — but the future is inherently unknowable.

DAVID BOOTH (00:29:13): And so embrace that uncertainty. That’s what gives us the opportunity in life and investing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:29:20): So what do you say to people who are investors — hey, uncertainty creates opportunity — but how does the average mom-and-pop investor live through the regular 15, 20, 25% drawdowns we see all the time in equity markets?

DAVID BOOTH (00:29:41): Well, the quick answer to that is stay calm — that’s why we call it that; it’s the name of the book. So let me give you an example of the fundamental problem we have with helping people stay invested. Let’s say bad news comes into the market — the pandemic, or a particular stock. And then you look at the stock or the market and you see it’s down 20% or whatever, and you go, holy cow, I gotta get out. There’s bad news and the market and things are dropping — that is human nature. What we’d like to have people think is: look, okay, the pandemic — bad news — came into the market, and the market’s down 20 or 30%. And people were saying, what are we supposed to do? What do you think is gonna happen? I go, hey, look, I don’t know what’s gonna happen — and anybody that thinks they can predict what’s gonna happen, I’d be a little suspicious about. But here’s what I believe will happen: people aren’t just gonna sit there and take it. Kind of the cornerstone of all of my belief in markets and how they work is human ingenuity. That’s what ends up bailing us out. When bad things happen, you don’t just sit there and take it in life — you figure out how to get back on track. And I go, so here we have the pandemic that’s hit — that’s a big smash in the mouth to these firms. They’re not just gonna sit there and take it. They’ll figure out how to get back on track. They’ll try something new and different, and along the way there’ll be winners and losers, and I dunno who the winners will be and the losers. But what I do believe is that effort, that human ingenuity, will likely get us back on track faster than most people think. Which is what happened.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:31:38): We saw that during the financial crisis. The pandemic was less than a quarter — down 34% — and from that end of the first quarter in 2020, the S&P was up 69% for the rest of the year.

DAVID BOOTH (00:31:52): Unbelievable. So that’s what we’re getting at. I mean, what was going on — and this is what I get back to: what do you tell people to get through the tough times? Go back to first principles. Okay, we have the pandemic, and there were all kinds of forecasts, but the consensus, I remember at the time, was it’s likely to be a two- or three-year kind of phenomenon. And so the market’s down about 20 or 30%. That seems about right to me. I mean, I don’t know.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:22): So in other words, it’s already in the price, and trying to act in response to something everybody knows seems like a waste of time.

DAVID BOOTH (00:32:29): Yeah. I learned that really in the late nineties. I was on an investment committee — I used to sit on investment committees; I don’t anymore, other than our own. And the chairman of that investment committee went around the world. This was 1998 — I dunno if you remember —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:47): Sure — Long-Term Capital Management. I was on a trading desk. I remember that vividly.

DAVID BOOTH (00:32:51): Right. And you had the Russian default, you had the Asian contagion. He goes around the world — the chairman of the committee — and eventually talks about all the problems around the world, and he concludes: so why should we invest in stocks at all? And I said, well, you know, I think you’ve characterized what was going on in these different countries. Okay. But I think all you’ve done is explain why the market’s down 35%. And he goes, ah — and we stayed invested, and of course we were amply rewarded. So if people could just go through first principles — and by that I mean: bad news comes into the market, they look and they say, aha, the stock is down, now I want to get out ’cause I’m stressed. If we can get them to change their opinion and say, look, the market’s down — I mean, the price is down quite a bit — and that’s probably about right, given the bad news that we have, then: therefore, I need to stay invested. I was thinking the other day, if I come out with a second book, maybe I’ll call it Stay Invested. So we’d have Stay Calm and Stay Invested.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:33:57): I think your second book should be named What Would Gene Fama Say?

DAVID BOOTH (00:34:01): There you go.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:34:02): If the market’s down 30%, what would Fama say? He’d say, it’s in the price. And just sit there and relax and stay calm.

DAVID BOOTH (00:34:09): And that’s the science, you know.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:34:11): That’s really interesting. So you mentioned some forecasts and predictions. Another aspect of the book is: plan, don’t predict. You can’t foresee the future, so making decisions based on predictions — you’re essentially engaging in wishful thinking.

DAVID BOOTH (00:34:30): Well, that’s right. I mean, you need to have a plan for going forward in life and investing, but don’t waste the time on trying to predict the unpredictable. Markets are unpredictable — that’s why the pros can’t beat the market, ’cause markets are unpredictable. And yet over the long haul — if you go back, we haven’t talked about the history, but a hundred years of returns that covers the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, high inflation, the Great Financial Crisis, the pandemic — through all of that, 10% a year. I think a lot of what I do now, particularly talking to students, is talk about the miracle of the stock and bond markets. These public markets are truly miracles.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:35:19): Really, really fascinating. Here’s another thesis that I think is really very, very insightful: control what you can, manage what you can’t. You can’t control crashes, recessions, interest rates, or any of that century of terrible events — but you can manage yourself, your allocation, your ongoing saving. Discuss that a little bit.

DAVID BOOTH (00:35:44): Well, that’s right. In terms of dealing with it — it’s all about managing uncertainty. So control what you can, and manage what you can’t — manage the uncertain part as best you can. Hey, you can’t eliminate it, but you can manage it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:35:59): And by managing it, you’re talking about having a financial plan and sticking to it, continuing to dollar-cost average into it. Like, there are things within your control — that’s what you should be managing. And the things outside of your control, just accept. You can’t control what the Fed does, or what’s happening in the Straits, or who moves.

DAVID BOOTH (00:36:20): Yeah. A lot of people, they make portfolio decisions based on their forecast of what the market’s gonna do. That’s a waste of time. You wanna pay attention to what’s going on, because over your lifetime there are gonna be situations when you need to change your investment policy around — but it’s not based on what’s going on in the market. You need to change — you know, you get a new job, you wanna retire, you have a family. All these things can cause you to invest differently. But at every point, you want to have a long-term plan in place and manage to that. So you can’t control the stock market. You can control how much risk you take, basically. There are two basic decisions as you go down the path. First is the split: how much do you have in stocks at all, versus relatively riskless assets like a money market fund or a bond. So you get that right. And then the second part is, to the extent you’re investing in stocks, buy the whole market. That makes you as good as the insiders — people that think of themselves as outsiders. That’s another miracle of markets: right now you have it, unlike my parents, who never had that available to ’em. Now everybody has access. The market is good for everyone.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:37:40): So let’s talk a little bit about financial media, which you write extensively about in the book. Another quote of yours: “Modern financial media is designed to capture your attention, presenting commentary, stories and expert forecasts that are nothing more than distracting noise.”

DAVID BOOTH (00:38:00): Yeah, that’s right. I mean, today, undoubtedly, we have a lot more data thrown at us than ever before. I don’t know that we have a lot more meaningful information, but we have a lot more data, that’s for sure. And so it’s important these days for people to think critically — always go back to first principles. This year in particular, there’s been a lot of anxiety. We have, you know, some wars, we have all kinds of things —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:38:28): Tariffs.

DAVID BOOTH (00:38:30): Any number of things you could be anxious about. But I tell people, look — do you think you have more anxiety today, or people have more anxiety today, than during the Great Depression, or during, say, World War II, when it looked like we were losing at first? Those were real, serious anxieties. So I’m not making light of the anxiety, but what the hundred years of data shows us is the market does a really good job of pricing all that uncertainty and the risks.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:38:59): So another quote in the same section: “In investing, success often comes not from doing more, but from tuning out more.” So I have to share this with you, ’cause every time I write “tune out the noise,” I get a ton of pushback. Hey, you can’t just ignore all this. You can’t tune it out. It’s really difficult, and just telling people to tune out the noise is a waste of time. What’s your argument back?

DAVID BOOTH (00:39:29): Well, first, I’m glad to see you get your share of that — just like I do. I go: basically, what we’ve outlined is you want to have sensible portfolios — on the equity side, buy the whole market. And the market does a great job of pricing. So all the anxieties that you can express — and there are plenty of things to be concerned about; I’m not making light of ’em at all — that’s why the prices are doing whatever it is they’re doing. And so, unless you’re faster than the market, unless you think you’re smarter than the market, you just have to assume that whatever it is you’re concerned about, it’s already been priced in. You’re too late. By the time you get a certain piece of information, the market’s already reflected it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:40:22): It’s already in the price.

DAVID BOOTH (00:40:24): It’s already in the price. You’re too late.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:40:26): So this quote might be one of the most profound things I read in the book — you read it and you’re like, wow, that’s really insightful; at least that was my response: “This isn’t a book about how to invest. It’s a book about how to think about investing. It’s not about picking stocks; it’s about taking stock of what really matters.” Ooh. Right? I mean —

DAVID BOOTH (00:40:52): That’s an example of — you go back and reread it, and I’m like, I wrote that? That’s really, really good. That’s not bad.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:40:58): No, that’s damn fine. And it’s because you are implying, hey, this is about securing your family’s future — but it’s not just about money, it’s about all the things that really matter.

DAVID BOOTH (00:41:12): Well, yeah. We have a segment in there about what true worth is about, rather than true wealth. My parents I describe as being wealthy — they just didn’t have much money. So you want to focus on what’s really important to you.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:41:33): “The quiet dividend of patient compounding, in both life and investing.”

DAVID BOOTH (00:41:38): Yeah. I mean, one of the first things you’ll learn about in finance is the magic of compounding. If you get that 10% return, it means your portfolio doubles every seven years. And you double it six times if you have a 42-year horizon — that’s six seven-year periods. And life is the same way. You are the result of the effects of the compounding of decisions that you’ve made in life all the way through. And maybe that’s where wisdom comes from — the compounding of the effects of decisions.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:42:21): Really, really interesting. I really enjoyed the book — Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. Coming up, we continue our conversation with David Booth, author of Stay Calm and founder of Dimensional Fund Advisors, talking about philosophy and philanthropy. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:42:41): I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is David Booth. He is founder and chairman of Dimensional Fund Advisors and author of the new book, Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. So I wanted to talk a little bit about both your philosophy — and how it developed — and philanthropy. We’ll circle back to philanthropy in a minute, but let’s talk a little bit about Dimensional. You guys didn’t want to participate in ETFs for a long time, ’cause you preferred to offer your products through advisors to investing customers. What was the idea of working through the advisor side of it, as opposed to marketing directly to Main Street?

DAVID BOOTH (00:43:42): Well, first off, in any business, the marketing is a big component. Now, you have to understand, we’re starting outta my brownstone — in my apartment. It wasn’t like we had a big marketing machine, and we didn’t know anything about selling to the retail public. We did know institutional investors, and so our first clients were large — typically pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds. That was the first eight years or so; that was who we talked to. And then one day Dan Wheeler came along. He was a financial advisor in Sacramento —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:44:29): In California, right. I know the name.

DAVID BOOTH (00:44:32): And he said, I’d like to have access to your funds. Now, at that time it was kind of unusual for a firm like ours to get big institutions to invest in a mutual fund, but we had created a mutual fund, and because they were institutional clients, our fees were very low — institutionally priced. And so it made it ideal for a fee-only financial advisor — a fee-only advisor being one where we don’t pay them any money and they don’t pay us. I mean, it’s strictly arm’s length.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:45:10): What year was that, with Wheeler?

DAVID BOOTH (00:45:12): About 1989.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:45:15): So that was long before advisors had taken over from stockbrokers. The fiduciary side of the business was still relatively tiny.

DAVID BOOTH (00:45:27): It was tiny. But these were highly energized financial advisors. I mean, typically the advisor would have come from a wirehouse and felt really dirty about themselves — and I’m just repeating what they told me.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:45:40): Oh no, I’ve heard it a million times.

DAVID BOOTH (00:45:42): And to see this approach, which is based on science — you have all the data you could ever want backing up what we do, and you could come up with a sensible investment approach that undoubtedly would work over the long haul —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:46:00): It feels good. I had someone leave a wirehouse to become an advisor, and I asked them why — this is, I don’t know, the early two thousands. And I’ll never forget the line I was told: they’re called brokers because they make their clients broker. And I’m like, wow — talk about feeling like, I gotta get out of this side of the street.

DAVID BOOTH (00:46:22): Yeah. It doesn’t have to be that way. But to observe — the ability to beat the market is such a narrow advantage that it takes an incredible firm. I mean, we’re a professional manager, and we can do things that a retail client can’t do — and it has nothing to do with picking stocks, let’s keep in mind, but dealing through market mechanisms: the way you trade, securities lending, so on and so forth. There are things we can do, but the margins are very, very slim. The idea that somebody way down the food chain — a broker at a retail firm — would have some of that magic is hard to accept.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:47:12): So when you guys began working with advisors, it wasn’t to design portfolios. The advisor was there essentially to keep the client from abandoning their portfolio and getting in the way of compounding.

DAVID BOOTH (00:47:26): Yeah, absolutely. One of our advisors said it right. He said, you know, I don’t have clients with investment problems, I’ve got investments with client problems.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:47:38): That’s a great line.

DAVID BOOTH (00:47:39): But the difference between the two is education. And we’ve always sold through education — we bring people in for seminars and stuff. And the book — I mean, that’s why you would do the book — is to help people better understand how markets work, so they will be more confident that they can have a good investment experience.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:48:00): You guys have done a good job on the education side. I’m kind of curious if that’s the reason why you stayed out of ETFs for so long. And for people who are trying to put this in context: DFA launched in 1981, in 2020 was your first ETF, and today you are the largest active ETF issuer in the country. So why leave all that money on the table for 40 years?

DAVID BOOTH (00:48:30): Well, I don’t know — must have been a pandemic, you know, something. Anyway — no, it’s because early on, our advisors said they didn’t need the ETF. The beauty of a regular mutual fund is you go in at net asset value at the end of the day. That’s about as clean as you can come up with. If you buy an ETF, you’re buying it in the open market, and for some people that’s a little scary.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:48:58): Whatever the open market cost might be, the offset of the tax advantage has to wildly outweigh it. In a non-qualified account, ETFs are vastly superior to a mutual fund most of the time, for that tax reason.

DAVID BOOTH (00:49:14): Well, to a conventional mutual fund, I agree with you. But we’ve been able to use —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:49:19): Use a dual class.

DAVID BOOTH (00:49:20): Yeah. We’ve been able to eliminate a lot of the tax advantage of ETFs.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:49:28): By the way, you and Vanguard seem to be the leaders in that space, for having an ETF and a mutual fund essentially track the same holdings.

DAVID BOOTH (00:49:39): And now, coming out this summer and into the fall, we are innovating even more. Right now, we have mutual funds and ETFs that do the same thing — two pools of money doing the same thing. The SEC has given us approval to merge those two, so it’ll just be one pool of assets with two ways of accessing it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:50:04): Two different wrappers, same pool of money.

DAVID BOOTH (00:50:06): Same pool of money. So that will take away the argument — you don’t have to worry about it anymore.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:50:14): That’s really good. Isn’t that cool?

DAVID BOOTH (00:50:17): That actually speaks to how science is developing. It’s not like we sit on our hands — we’re continually trying to work through things and become more efficient.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:50:29): So let’s talk about another philosophical belief from you guys that I’m fascinated by. People have had a hard time wrapping their heads around: is DFA an indexer? Are they an alpha chaser? And the way I kind of explained it to myself was: no — when you look at traditional indexers, they’re just using one factor of the many Fama-French factors, and what Dimensional has said is, hey, we’re going to use three, four, five factors. So we are indexers, plus the next four factors on the list. Is that a fair philosophical breakdown?

DAVID BOOTH (00:51:10): Yeah, that’s part of what we do — exactly that. And there are some people that don’t want to have a bias towards value or small cap, and for those we have kind of plain vanilla funds too, that aren’t biased. But in both cases, it’s about execution. We talked about how an index fund has to trade in a bizarre sort of way — and we don’t do that. We apply that thinking to all the funds. So that, here again, what we’re trying to do is apply the science, and by the way we structure portfolios, we think we can do better than index providers. And then secondarily, the way we trade, relative to the way index funds trade — that’s true in everything we do. But then, some clients like to have a small cap bias, some don’t. It’s their money — we try to come up with whatever they think is sensible.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:52:20): So let’s talk a little bit about philanthropy, ’cause I know part of the book discusses legacy, and you’ve been very involved philanthropically. A decade ago you signed the Giving Pledge, and — I go back two decades — right around the time of the financial crisis, you made a gift in ’08 to the University of Chicago’s business school, which I think was the largest gift ever in the country, or to Chicago, at that time: $300 million. And now it’s the Chicago Booth School of Business. Tell us a little bit about what motivated a gift of that size to that recipient, and what are your thoughts 20 years later?

DAVID BOOTH (00:53:04): Well, okay, first lemme just say it was kind of funny. The announcement for that was made in November of 2008 — like, the week after Obama got elected for the first time. And so there was a big announcement at the school — they said, big announcement coming tonight, free food, come on in — and they thought it had something to do with Obama. He’s a Chicago guy. So that’s when they announced that the school’s name was changing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:53:35): Which, by the way, wasn’t a requirement of your gift. You argued against it.

DAVID BOOTH (00:53:40): Well, I didn’t argue against the Obama part.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:53:42): I heard through several people that you pushed back initially.

DAVID BOOTH (00:53:46): Well, I pushed back a little bit, but not a lot. What happened was, I approached the dean of the business school and said, you know, it’s time for payback here — for what the university has done for me, and the faculty. And not only training me in school, but then following up over the years — over the now decades, 45 years. You know, we’ve had five Nobel laureates work very closely with us; all of ’em have been significant directors of our mutual funds or the company, Fama being a founder as well. It’s time for me to pay back, and it’s gotta be a big chunk of what I have. So this is what I’m willing to do. And the dean looks at it and goes, you know, we were thinking about naming the school, and we weren’t asking for nearly this much — we’ll name the school after you. I go, okay, well, whatever. But it was about me wanting to feel good about me.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:54:46): Well, you feel a sense of obligation to the University of Chicago ’cause of everything they gave you. Undergraduate and pre-PhD, MBA — you were at Kansas, and you gave them a similar number last year: $300 million to the University of Kansas athletics program. Why focus on sports there? What’s so significant about Kansas athletics? ‘Cause, by the way, as a school, they’ve been doing pretty good.

DAVID BOOTH (00:55:18): Oh yeah, yeah.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:55:19): Athletics-wise.

DAVID BOOTH (00:55:20): Yeah. Well, first off, Lawrence, Kansas, where the University of Kansas is, is my hometown. I went to Lawrence High School and then the University of Kansas. So, with all the relatives, it’s in my blood. And for a big state school like that, what’s really important is to have a great, competitive athletic program. I mean, I know the arguments — some people go, you know, they’re not so sure about that —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:55:51): It doesn’t hurt their marketing, their ability to recruit professors, students. It makes the town better. I mean, it just multiplies across everything, regardless of how you feel about big football in college.

DAVID BOOTH (00:56:06): Right. But I happen to love it, and I particularly love college basketball. Kansas has always been really good at basketball, and it’s getting better in football. And then with NIL — a little dollop of NIL coming down the pike —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:56:20): Name, image, likeness. Get some money to the students.

DAVID BOOTH (00:56:24): To the students. So it puts great financial pressure on the schools, and it’s difficult for a state school to have a big budget for athletics when their professors are making what they’re making. So it’s important for private money — for alums and whatever — to step up in order to help them be successful.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:56:53): And I’m gonna assume that this isn’t the end of your academic gifts — you’re gonna be doing other stuff in the future, and obviously the Giving Pledge is a part of that. But I have to ask about a purchase you made in 2010, which is: you bought Naismith’s original document of, essentially, here are the rules of basketball — this is where basketball was invented. And I think you paid over $4 million for it, and then you gave it to the University of Kansas athletic department. Explain — tell us about that.

DAVID BOOTH (00:57:30): Well, it was really kind of an interesting auction. James Naismith invented basketball in 1891 — if you think about it —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:57:40): The peach crate.

DAVID BOOTH (00:57:41): Yeah, the whole thing. It’s the only major sport that I can think of where we know who invented it. It was a class assignment for him in school, at the YMCA in Springfield, Massachusetts. So the rules stayed in the family, and as things happen over time, they just decided that they wanted to sell it. So I decided — here again, basketball is so important; if you live in Lawrence, Kansas, you realize that the rules of basketball, those two typewritten pages, need to be in Lawrence, Kansas. ‘Cause Naismith, after he invented the game, goes to teach at Kansas for 40 years; he’s buried in Lawrence. So I realized that —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:31): Perfect match.

DAVID BOOTH (00:58:32): Match — had to buy it. So it started off, they thought it would go for about $2 million, but along the way — I was bidding over the phone, and there was somebody else bidding over the phone, and it kept ratcheting up, and I ended up paying about four and a half million. The person on the other end of the phone was David Rubenstein.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:52): Get out! Oh, that’s hilarious.

DAVID BOOTH (00:58:53): Your Bloomberg —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:55): Co-host — fellow host. That’s amazing. Did you explain eventually to him why you bought it and why it went to Kansas?

DAVID BOOTH (00:59:03): No — once I paid for it, it was announced who bought it. So he sent me an email the next day saying, hey, I think I cost you some money. Which is funny. So we still have a good chuckle about that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:59:18): So, the last piece of philanthropy I have to ask about before we get to our favorite questions: you’re known as an avid art collector. If you go down — I don’t know what river that is in Texas, but I’ve been on that boat — you can see some of your sculptures right from the river, if you’re in a boat. You’ve endowed a conservation center at the Museum of Modern Art, and — as opposed to just donating a sculpture or a painting — you’re essentially helping them preserve their entire collection in perpetuity. Tell us a little bit about that.

DAVID BOOTH (00:59:55): Well, I mean, preserving your patrimony is important for any country, and art is such a big deal, and MoMA is such a great museum —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:00:06): Spectacular collection.

DAVID BOOTH (01:00:08): Spectacular.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:00:08): Of which, like, 3% is displayed at any time. It’s an enormous, enormous collection.

DAVID BOOTH (01:00:18): It’s complicated. So I’ve sat on the board there for about 10 years now, and it’s just really been tremendously exciting. And then I endowed the conservation lab, because conservation is easy to overlook. But taking care of, particularly, modern art — which could be some fiberglass or something — who knows what kind of stuff goes into it —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:00:41): To say nothing about how paint decays, how canvas, paper — all that stuff is problematic over time.

DAVID BOOTH (01:00:51): In the old days, conservation was probably somebody kind of having a couple sips of alcohol and dabbing some paint on a painting and trying to clean it, or whatever. That’s changed. Now it’s incredibly sophisticated — you take X-rays of the painting or whatnot, you study the chemistry of it. So I’ve headed up that conservation committee for quite a while now. It’s very exciting to see what they’ve done to maintain the art.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:01:21): Huh, really interesting. All right — I only have you for a couple more minutes, and you and I can continue this conversation in Southern California, in Huntington Beach, in a few weeks. For now, let’s jump to our favorite questions that we ask all of our guests, starting with: tell us about the mentors who helped shape your career. And I have a pretty good idea who they are.

DAVID BOOTH (01:01:44): Well, no, that’s right. Let’s just start with the Nobel laureates: Merton Miller and Gene Fama, Myron Scholes, Bob Merton and Doug Diamond. Kind of an impressive group of characters.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:01:56): That’s a Murderers’ Row right there.

DAVID BOOTH (01:01:58): Murderers’ Row, yeah. Then you had Mac McQuown, who really started indexing —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:02:06): And he really was the initial — was he the first check into DFA?

DAVID BOOTH (01:02:11): No, he was a founder. In fact, more importantly — besides investing in the funds, he helped us raise the money, the risk capital, for the firm. And then I always have to throw in my parents. I mean, it ties into what True Wealth was about. They never had much money, but they were wealthy — they had figured out what life was about.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:02:40): Huh — really, really interesting. Let’s talk about books, in addition to yours. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading currently?

DAVID BOOTH (01:02:48): Well, I just finished 1929, Andrew Ross Sorkin’s new book. That’s very, very interesting.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:02:54): That is on my nightstand — it’s up in a few books in my queue.

DAVID BOOTH (01:02:59): Then, in the last couple years, the book I’ve really liked a lot was Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan. And she takes us through what became known as the Treaty of Paris. When the Armistice was signed at the end of World War I — that’s just when all kinds of crazy things happened, because the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Russian Empire collapsed, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. So you had to create new countries all over the place — all through Central Europe and the Middle East. It took about six months to develop the Treaty of Paris. The first five or so, they didn’t do much, and then all of a sudden, the last month, they just got together. I don’t know if they could have done much better, but it was pretty chaotic.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:03:51): Really interesting. I’m gonna add that to my list. Tell us — are you streaming anything? What do you do to relax? Podcasts, movies — what entertains you?

DAVID BOOTH (01:04:02): Well, I mean, your podcast. But — no, we have a new season of Ted Lasso, which I’m really all over.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:04:09): My wife and I are waiting for there to be more than three or four in the queue. It’s just too frustrating to watch one a week.

DAVID BOOTH (01:04:16): By the way, he’s a KU alum as well.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:04:18): Yes, yes — I knew that.

DAVID BOOTH (01:04:20): And we have any number of series. You know, what happened was, when the pandemic hit and we couldn’t go out much, I watched more TV in that two-year period than I ever watched before — or since.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:04:34): Same — absolutely the same. I was mentioning the other day that 6:30 is the new 7:30. It used to be, if you tried to make a dinner reservation around 7 or 7:30, it was the toughest reservation to get. And now it seems the hard reservation to get is 6 or 6:30. And it’s not just that we’re aging and heading towards the early bird special. I think people want to go to dinner and then come home and watch whatever it is — Ted Lasso or Lioness or Yellowstone, whatever their thing is. It’s so funny you say that, but the pandemic was absolutely the most TV I’ve watched in my life.

DAVID BOOTH (01:05:15): Yeah, right.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:05:16): Our final two questions. I think this book offers a lot of interesting advice, but I want to ask you specifically: for a recent college grad who is interested in a career in either investing or wealth management or anything along those lines, what sort of advice would you give them about building a career?

DAVID BOOTH (01:05:39): Well, first off, I don’t give advice — but here are some thoughts. First are the thoughts that probably everybody will tell you: figure out where you have some skill — some comparative advantage or competitive advantage — and what you are passionate about. So marry those two things, passion and skill, and work really hard. Now, the part that I don’t think is emphasized enough is: by the time you get outta school, you’ve developed a set of values — your personal set of values. Pay attention to that. So find something you’re passionate about, that you have a skill in, that kind of maps into your values — and pay attention to those values, and don’t deviate from them in pursuit of just a short-term job. I mean, when you get outta school — like when I got outta school, most people, you’re just lucky to find any good job. But over time, you kind of iterate towards what you think is really valuable.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:06:57): Good advice — or good insight; I know you don’t like to call it advice. Our final question: what do you know about the world of markets and investing today that might’ve been useful back in 1981, when you were first launching Dimensional Funds?

DAVID BOOTH (01:07:16): Well, I think one of the big things there is that I didn’t realize how difficult it would be to persuade people about this new way of thinking about investing. I mean, because I’m sitting there — of course, I’m totally wound up with all the University of Chicago stuff. I have all the science, the data and so forth. I go, once you explain that to people, they’ll flock to it. You know, I’ve been doing this for 55 years. People don’t flock to new ideas just based on new research or new ideas. You have to soak the ground down around ’em, let ’em sink into it. So I guess if I’d known how hard it was, I don’t know if I would’ve pursued it. But I think we’re getting close. So now I’m at the phase where it’s exciting to explain all this stuff to people, ’cause they’re starting to respond to it, and I really find it great.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:08:10): You’re getting close — keep at it. Eventually you’ll convince a few people. David, thank you for being so generous with your time. This has been absolutely delightful. We have been speaking with David Booth. He is the founder and chairman of Dimensional Funds and the author of Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack team that helps put this conversation together each week: Alexis Noriega is my video producer, Sean Russo is my researcher, Anna Luke is my podcast producer. And before I say so long, I just want to thank Alexis for being a fantastic video producer and helping to put this podcast into the world of YouTube and videos. She’s departing to take a full-time gig — that’s a big promotion for her, and we wish her the best of luck going forward. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors founder and chairman appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Tuesday AM Reads

Welcome to September! Kick the month off right with your morning reads:

Higher Yields Are a Boon for Muni Bond Buyers: The rise in bond yields has been a good news/bad news story. For the U.S. Treasury, the increase has been disquieting and has elicited an extraordinary scheme to double its buying of long-term maturities to boost their prices and suppress their yields. Hilltop’s Tom Kozlik on municipal yields hitting some of their most compelling levels in years — and unlike Treasuries, munis still reward investors for extending maturities. (Barron’s)

• How Much Is the Iran War Costing Americans?: John Cassidy on why a proper calculation must take in much more than just the military costs. (New Yorker) see also How the War in Iran Is Redrawing the Global Energy Map: Coco Liu on what six months of disrupted Middle Eastern production and a contested Strait of Hormuz have done — chiefly, pushing governments and consumers toward renewables. (Bloomberg)

​• ‘A Roth IRA on Steroids’: Wealthy Americans Find Another Tax-Free Way to Invest: On the tax-free vehicle one adviser calls “a Roth IRA on steroids for people who can afford it and want to leave it to their heirs.” Private-placement life insurance contracts allow unlimited investments to grow tax-free. (Wall Street Journal)

​• America’s Next Grocery Shock Is Brewing: Erica Pandey on the forces piling up beyond beef, coffee, and chocolate — expensive grain, soaring fertilizer, and more.  (Axios)

• Scott Bessent Takes On Bond Vigilantes in $32tn Treasury Market: George Steer on the Treasury’s plan, which stunned Wall Street, to “at least double” its purchases of long-term government bonds — dismissed by investors as a “band-aid on a bullet hole” amid a $40tn debt burden and smouldering inflation. (Financial Timessee also What Is Scott Bessent Doing With the $32tn Treasury Market — and Will It Work?: Claire Jones on the former financier’s sternest test yet. (Financial Times)

​• The Online Shopping Trend Where You Buy Nothing: Itika Sharma Punit on South Korea’s “dopamine sites,” where the pleasure comes from browsing, curating, and tracking — not from a delivery. (Rest of World)

How Paris swapped cars for bikes – and transformed its streets: Under Anne Hidalgo – mayor for 12 years until last week – the French capital added bike lanes, cut traffic and reclaimed public space, but not without resistance (The Guardian)

​• These Generals Fought for Israel. Now They See ‘Jewish Terrorism’ as the Threat.: Ronen Bergman on the growing number of former Israeli generals, intelligence officials, and prime ministers accusing West Bank settlers of ethnic cleansing with government support. “Once a society behaves this way, that society is doomed.” (New York Times)

​• Your Brain May Not Actually “Make” Decisions: Indiana University’s Tom James on why the perceive-then-decide sequence we all imagine may be very different from what actually happens inside the brain. (ScienceDaily)

​• How Arena Club and Fanatics Are Turning Baseball Cards Into Online Casinos: Derek Jeter, fresh off his Hall of Fame induction, became the face of a startup that digitizes pack-ripping — turning an age-old hobby into something that resembles online gambling. (Barron’s)

Video of the day: I Tracked Down the Company Ruining Fruit

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business with David Booth, Founder, Chairman, and former CEO of Dimensional Funds Advisors. DFA just crossed $1 trillion dollars, and has become the largest active equity ETF manager. Booth’s new book is “Stay Calm: Learn to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life.”

Earth’s oceans just broke a heat record. The implications will be massive

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

 

The post 10 Tuesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Monday AM Reads

My back-to-work morning reads:

Is the AI Capex Bubble About to Burst? What 250 Years of Market History Tell Us. The spending on artificial intelligence will end, but probably not when investors suspect it will.  (Barron’s)

Rampell: Wall Street Loved Scott Bessent and Kevin Warsh. Not Anymore.: Catherine Rampell on how the bond market soured on the Treasury secretary and the Fed chair it once cheered. (New York Times).see also Rising bond yields add tens of billions to G7 countries’ debt costs World’s biggest developed economies face higher financing costs since start of US-Iran war, weighing on. (Financial Times)

Ordinary Abundance: Edward Bellamy once imagined that music on demand would be “the limit of human felicity.” A modern apartment is full of things that once drew the same kind of awe. A meditation on the wealth hiding in plain sight — the ordinary comforts, capabilities, and freedoms that would have astonished every previous generation. (Ordinary Abundance)

• Six Conversations About Money You Should Have Before Getting Married: Heather and Douglas Boneparth with the words of wisdom they wish someone had shared with them many moons ago. Planning the life you’ll have together takes a lot more than looking at your bank accounts. Here’s how to get started (The Joint Account)

How Big Tech Blinded Itself to the Grassroots AI Revolt: Caught in its own echo chamber, the industry’s playbook is failing — and the messier things get, the more out of touch tech leaders appear, even with Anthropic and OpenAI IPOs looming. (Wall Street Journal)

Why Your Weather App Sucks: Forecasts are more accurate than ever. Why doesn’t it feel that way? Nitish Pahwa on why “30 percent chance of scattered thunderstorms” becomes a partly-cloudy icon — correct for 70 percent of your area, soaking wrong for the rest.  (Slate)

Why America Is Switching From Booze to Weed. Derek Thompson on two extraordinary simultaneous trends — the share of Americans who drink is at a record low since Gallup began tracking in the 1930s, and 66% of under-35s now say moderate drinking is bad for your health, up from under 30% in 2004. (Plain English)

• Earth’s Oceans Just Broke a Heat Record. The Implications Will Be Massive: Anthony Edwards on Friday’s warmest globally averaged sea surface temperatures in recorded history, amid a surging El Niño and long-term warming. (San Francisco Chronicle) see also 2026: A Climate ‘You Are Here’: Thomas Neuburger closes his series on this year’s record Super El Niño with a look at what’s coming over the next ten years (God’s Spies by Thomas Neuburger)

Trump tried to scrap NASA’s Roman Space Telescope last year. Now it’s launched: “People were giving up their weekends, and at the same time, there was this compartmentalized knowledge that it could all get cut.” Josh Dinner on the flagship observatory’s final hours before liftoff, freshly encapsulated in its payload fairing. (Space.com)

Wilde at heart Is Olivia Wilde doing male narcissist autofiction? Olivia Wilde is a woman making choices in her professional and personal life; isn’t that feminism? (Dirt)

Video of the day: Japan’s Honda Is Taking Over the World’s Skies — And Nobody Knows

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business with David Booth, Founder, Chairman, and former CEO of Dimensional Funds Advisors. DFA just crossed $1 trillion dollars, and has become the largest active equity ETF manager. Booth’s new book is “Stay Calm: Learn to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life.”

 

ICE Arrests Soar as People With No Criminal Record Are Increasingly Targeted

Source: New York Times

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Monday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Dolly Parton

 

 

1. What you’ve got to know is she WROTE those songs!

So it’s October 1973. I’m driving with the top down on my 1963 Chevy Impala trying to get something on the radio.

This was before cassette decks. Sure, you could buy an aftermarket 8-track, but they sat under the dash and were notorious for getting stolen. Furthermore, the 8-track format itself was wonky. With the movement of the heads from track to track…tapes wore out quickly and thus were a bad investment. Which is all to say when you were in the hinterlands, long before the days of Bluetooth, never mind satellite radio, you’d drive down the highway with your right hand on the radio dial, trying to pull in a listenable station.

Now this was in the hinterlands of Vermont. Needless to say, this ’63 convertible didn’t have FM, not that there was a station broadcasting in the backwoods. But AM signals travel further and…

What you notoriously got was rural news, the farm report, and country music. In an era where no proud rocker followed what was going on in Nashville.

Sure, Ringo made a record in Tennessee. But most of us in the north had never even been south of the Mason-Dixon Line, unless it was the hop, skip and a jump to Florida. We wrote off the south, that’s where you went with your long hair and got attacked by rednecks.

Now don’t confuse today’s country music with yesteryear’s. Today’s country is the rock of the seventies. Back then, it was people with high hair singing twangy songs…

Sure, there was a TV show, “Hee Haw.” But this was long before the average fan of the Fab Four gave props to Roy Clark for his picking ability. As for Buck Owens…we couldn’t find Bakersfield on a map, never mind name a single song of his.

Sure, we knew Roger Miller from the AM radio of the sixties. “Trailers for sale or rent…” This was what we endured to get to the Beatles.

But I’m in a pensive mood, wondering how I’m going to endure another year of college, it’s a brisk day and I stumble on to a station and what comes out is “Jolene.” It was not only the first time I heard the song, it was the first time I’d ever heard Dolly Parton. She hadn’t crossed over, she wasn’t featured on Top 40 radio in the metropolis. But rather than continuing to mosey down the dial, looking for some rock, I listened.

“Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene”

This was rootsy. Not that different from those Bonnie Raitt albums I was enamored of. This was not drippy drama, songs to sleep to. I could relate. And I never forgot it.

2. Now we knew who Dolly Parton was. I mean how could you not? With that hair and those boobs?

But the real breakthrough into the mainstream was “9 to 5.” Back when Jane Fonda could open a movie and a flick like this could garner an audience. “9 to 5” was a staple. Everybody saw it. And what they saw in Dolly Parton was someone who didn’t deny her roots, but was in on the joke. That was the thing about Dolly Parton, she had a sense of humor, she could make fun of herself. Not to mention writing the title song, which went all the way to number one and earned her an Oscar nomination.

Dolly Parton was now part of the firmament.

From the holler, but never lumped into the same bucket as Loretta Lynn and George Jones, no matter how talented they might have been. Dolly Parton was now mainstream, when those other acts were not. They were still inhabitants of the country ghetto, Parton had transcended that.

And she maintained this status for the next half century. To this day! Most people have ups and downs, their careers wax and wane. People change their opinions on them. But not Dolly Parton. Somehow by being aw shucks and exhibiting all that talent, she was embraced.

And, once again, she was in on the joke. She’d go on late night TV and play the role. You’d think she was ditzy, almost a bimbo, and then she’d let out a zinger showing that she was as sharp as you and me and to underestimate her was a mistake.

3. But Parton’s crossover appeal, the cementing of her credibility amongst those who were not country fans, was the 1987 “Trio” album, which she made with Linda Ronstadt and Emmylou Harris.

I bought that album, played it too. It was a natural extension of the country rock that began with “Sweetheart of the Rodeo,” which always had a place in the firmament, it never died.

Now the funny thing is the true star, the person who could make it happen, was Linda Ronstadt, who was a superstar in the seventies and then broadened her purview to the stage with “Pirates of Penzance” and then cut three albums of standards with Nelson Riddle. If Ronstadt’s name was on it, it sold.

And in truth, Linda had much more broad-based musical success than Dolly, more hit albums, but now, nearly forty years later…

Linda’s star in the public firmament has faded, yet Dolly’s shines as bright as ever.

Because Dolly wrote.

That’s what makes it so you’re remembered. The songs.

And Dolly’s songs were personal. And her story from there to here was one of lifting herself up by her own bootstraps. Gloria Steinem may have gotten all the ink, but Dolly was just as much of a role model for women’s liberation, if not more.

Dolly wrote for herself. And the personal is universal, when you do it right.

And she was so damn likable. Without being syrupy sweet, without shaving off all of her rough edges. She played the game with a wink. And those who play and can beat the odds doing it their way…we cotton to them.

4. And then there was the whole kerfuffle with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

Unlike the desperate with a chip on their shoulder, looking for the accolade as a victory lap they can put on their résumé, Dolly thought she didn’t deserve induction, because she wasn’t really a rock artist.

But if you’re going to induct Whitney Houston…

And, of course, Dolly wrote Whitney’s signature song, “I Will Always Love You.” An outstanding performance, but it’s the song that will live on, not Whitney Houston. Look at history, rarely are interpreters remembered, but writing, when done right, is forever.

So Dolly Parton, of all people, is calling the Hall on its B.S. Ironically, she’s standing up for the leather jacketed crowd pissed that pop, never mind hip-hop, is now part of the Hall. She was more interested in the integrity of the institution than the award.

But when Dolly finally acceded, she took the stage, played the guitar and ROCKED! I was there. You couldn’t watch it without a smile on your face. If this was the Rock Hall, she was going to deliver, and she did!

5. Now if you want to know every facet of Dolly’s career, there are plenty of obituaries to fill that need. You can go on Spotify and listen to her catalog. I’m no expert.

I’m just like so many of you. Country music of the sixties and seventies was not my bag (Although I did love Charlie Rich’s “The Most Beautiful Girl”… Then again, do youngsters even know that classic? I don’t see any of them covering it. But young acts continue to cover “Jolene” and other Dolly Parton songs.), but Dolly Parton was an exception. We all knew her, she was embedded in our hearts and minds. As much as she appeared, she was never overexposed, we were always glad to see her. She was like someone from down the street, dropping by for a cup of coffee, gossiping with relish. She was more than a performer, she was a person!

I know you know what I’m talking about.

Which is why there’s a national, international outcry over her passing.

Old rockers? They’re dropping like flies. Then again, when they’re not on the road…out of sight, out of mind. But Dolly Parton never left the news. And she’s left a hole that cannot be filled, because she was sui generis, there was only one Dolly Parton.

And there will never be one again.

Just like the Beatles were a product of post-war Liverpool…

Dolly Parton was a product of a rural America that has expired with modernity. Sure, there’s still poverty, but there’s also flat screen TVs and smartphones and the internet…

Actually, all you can really do is marvel. At what Dolly achieved, and she never rested on her laurels, she continued to march forward.

Wow.

~~~

Visit the archive:   http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

@Lefsetz  http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz

If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter

~~~

Originally published by Bob Lefsetz at the Leftsetz Letter

 

The post Dolly Parton appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Sunday Reads

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetency, corruption and policy failures:

• ‘A Deal Written in Pencil’: Tariffs Are Erasing America’s Credibility: David Hebert on the lesson Mark Carney says Canada drew from 18 months of dealing with Washington, after the US slapped a 50% tariff on $20 billion of Canadian goods. (The Daily Economy)) see also Wiped Out: US Faces Surging Toilet Paper Prices amid Trade War with Canada: Lauren Aratani on Carney’s vow to match US tariffs “dollar for dollar.” (The Guardian)

• The Government Report That Made Me Stop Trusting Our Statistical Agencies: Jared Bernstein has spent years waving people off this degree of mistrust. He writes that he no longer can. (Jared Bernstein)

• Bitcoin Treasury Companies Shed $80bn in Value as Business Model Unwinds: Nikou Asgari on an FT analysis of the 50 largest corporate bitcoin holders — combined market cap down from $150bn in July 2025 to $67bn today.(Financial Times) see also Bitcoin Is Great (For Systemic Theft of Aid Money): Robin Wigglesworth on a new NBER paper that uses on-chain data to trace exactly where the money went. Jamie Dimon’s acerbic list of bitcoin’s use cases holds up better than its defenders would like. (Financial Times)

• Logging In Was Never Supposed to Be This Complicated: Will Oremus on password managers, passkeys, and the tyranny of the two-factor-authentication code. (The Atlantic)

• The Teaser Period: Why the AI Boom Is Built to Break: Groundbreaker rewinds to summer 2006, when prices had risen for a decade, delinquencies were near record lows, spreads were tight, and the securitization machine hummed. Ask a trading desk then whether the mortgage market was months from seizing and most would have laughed. Trillions in compute commitments come due in 2027–2028. The hidden mechanics reveal how the AI boom breaks, and when. (Groundbreaker) see also Wiggleswroth: This Is How the A.I. Debt Binge Sinks the Economy: In other words, if 2025’s A.I. frenzy was merely bonkers, we are now entering the territory of bonkers squared — or perhaps even bonkers cubed. Robin Wigglesworth on the hyperscalers’ borrowing spree — if 2025’s AI frenzy was merely bonkers, we are now entering the territory of bonkers squared, or perhaps bonkers cubed. (New York Times)

• A State Gave Sheriffs 20% of Its Opioid Settlement Cash. We Followed the Money: Aneri Pattani on Louisiana sheriffs spending millions in settlement funds on law enforcement gear rather than treatmentt (Stat)

• They Dedicated Their Lives to Teaching. Then the Deepfakes Started: Caroline Haskins on teachers like Luis DeSantiago, whose likeness turned up in AI-generated photos circulating among students on social media. The deepfake epidemic in schools is affecting more than students. Four teachers tell WIRED about becoming targets of sexualized, AI-generated content—and how difficult it was to find accountability. (Wired)

• America Has 3 Billion Words of Legal Code Riddled With ‘Policy Sludge’: Outdated rules are gumming up governments across the country. Daniel E. Ho of Stanford: the Fed still sends Congress an annual report on the Presidential $1 Coin Program, years after the coins stopped being minted for circulation. Federal law demands it. (Washington Post)

Josh Shapiro is battling RFK Jr. over measles, and the politics are getting messy: Rachel Roubein on the heated call between the Pennsylvania governor and the health secretary, minutes before Shapiro announced two measles-related deaths. A feud between the Pennsylvania governor and health secretary sparked by this week’s reports of measles-related deaths laid bare the increasingly polarized politics of public health. (Washington Post) see also RFK Jr Lied in Senate Confirmation Hearings, Newly Revealed Documents Indicate: Michelle R. Smith on letters obtained by the Guardian and AP contradicting the health secretary’s sworn testimony that his 2019 Samoa visit had “nothing to do with vaccines.”Letters obtained by Guardian and AP contradict testimony that 2019 visit to Samoa had ‘nothing to do with vaccines’ (The Guardian)

Dolphins and other lovers: The Andoque of the Amazon know what we have forgotten: the forest’s most beautiful creatures are also its most dangerous (Aeon)

Video of the day: Your Reality Is a Simulation

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business with David Booth, Founder, Chairman, and former CEO of Dimensional Funds Advisors. DFA just crossed $1 trillion dollars, and has become the largest active equity ETF manager. Booth’s new book is “Stay Calm: Learn to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life.”

One of two measles-related deaths of unvaccinated people in Pennsylvania was an infant

Source: CNN

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

MiB: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors Founder & Chairman



 

 

This week, I speak with David Booth, founder and chairman at Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) and author of the new book, Stay Calm.

We discuss his time at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where he was the research assistant to American economist and Nobel Laureate Eugene Fama, before leaving to start DFA. We also discuss his embrace of the uncertainty of markets and the importance of staying the course. His philanthropic history and giving back to the places that shaped him.

A list of his current reading/favorite books is here; A transcript of our conversation is available here Tuesday.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Seth Bernstein, CEO of AllianceBernstein and Head of Asset Management of Equitable Holdings, the 69% owner AB. The firm manages $905.5B. Previously, he spent 32 years at JPMorgan Chase, where he eventually became the Global Head of Managed Solutions & Strategy at JPAM, responsible for all discretionary assets for Private Banking clients, and Global Head of Fixed Income & Currency. He eventually became CFO of JPM’s Investment Management & Private Banking division.

 

 

 

 

Newest Authored Book

 

Current Reading/Favorite Books

Paris 1919 by Margaret McMillan

1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History–And How It Shatteredâ a Nation

The post MiB: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors Founder & Chairman appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Weekend Reads

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a mug of Danish Blend coffee, grab a seat outside, and get ready for our longer-form weekend reads:

• Who Pays the Cost When Americans Opt Out of Science?: Adam Frank thought science denial would hit a bottom once people experienced the direct consequences of being wrong. It turns out he was wrong. Astrophysicist Adam Frank used to think the consequences of rejecting science would play out on the individual level. He’s since changed his mind. (Big Think)

Imagine an Organism: Imagine a human infant. And imagine, further, part of its development. The organism gestates for some time, eventually developing a visual system, a hearing system, a phonatory system, and some means of locomotion, among other things. It enters the world mostly fully formed, though not fully grown, and reacts to it in ever-changing ways during its physical development. It starts sorting out the world right away, and within 10 months has created a rich knowledge base, building categories of two main kinds – verbal and visuo-spatial – which in time will give rise to more abstract concepts. In particular, the organism puts together linguistic meanings (for gestures, words, and phrases) on the verbal side, and spatial relations and object categories on the visuo-spatial side; in time, these two kinds of categories will combine into more general representations. David Lobina reviews Blaise Agüera y Arcas’s What Is Intelligence? — noting that radiologists are still around, despite Geoffrey Hinton predicting their demise in 2016. (Inference) see also What To Expect When You’re Expecting (A World of Multi-Agent Systems): How do we model the future of work? It takes an AI village. Researchers gave a set of AI agents a shared goal, memory files, individual virtual computers, and a group chat, email, and Google Docs — then watched. The result is the AI Village. How do we model the future of work? It takes an AI village. (Asterisk)

App Life in China Notes on a Long-Delayed Return to China: It may be hard to make money in China in 2026, but it is very pleasant to spend it. A major element of involution is the brutal competition in every market that puts downward pressure on prices as consumers, spoiled for choice, demand higher and higher quality. Hotels, trains, flights, food, clothes, cars, phones, electronics, massages, mountaineering gear, Labubus: all are cheap compared to the United States. (ChinaFile)

Einstein’s Miracle Year: Many attempts have been made to explain relativity to non-scientists, among them several by Einstein himself, beginning with Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1916, first published in English in 1920). It is still in print today, though despite having had so many readers it has not succeeded in persuading the general public to abandon fundamental intuitions about space, time, mass, motion and gravity in favour of the deeply counterintuitive view of the physical world put forward by Einstein. Our minds and imaginations remain stubbornly Newtonian. Most of us find it hard to shake the instinctual belief that an apple falls to the ground because it is pulled there by the force of gravity, the same force that keeps the planets in their orbits. (London Review of Books)

The Church of Raising Cane’s: The hottest restaurant chain in America is inspiring people to fly 16 hours to try it. I went to find out why—and I saw too much: Steffi Cao joins the Church of Raising Cane’s — a chain inspiring people to fly 16 hours for chicken fingers. “I went to find out why—and I saw too much.” The hottest restaurant chain in America is inspiring people to fly 16 hours to try it. I went to find out why—and I saw too much. (Slate)

LIV Long and Prosper: Dispatches from the End of an Era: Loathe it or love it, LIV Golf was a gift from the content gods. Lives were changed, fortunes amassed, legacies elevated and reputations shattered. It all came to an unceremonious end on Sunday night in Indianapolis. Flash mobs and the Rhino Jive, NFTs and positive EBITDA — four and a half years of LIV Golf’s fever dream come to a close in Indianapolis. (Skratch)

• The Kill Switch for Harmful Genes: Saloni Dattani on why biomedical research has spent decades as a boot stamping on a biologist’s face — the boot labeled “medicinal chemistry” — and the new class of drugs that changes the equation. (Works in Progresssee also Every Disease Is a Policy Failure: Mathias Kirk Bonde on why doubling global life expectancy in a century fails to register. (Works in Progress)

The most influential works of American culture: Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan and the iPhone were the most cited omissions on The Post’s list. Carla Spartos on what readers said the Post’s list of 25 left out — one work per decade since the founding was never going to satisfy anyone, and monuments were the first complaint. (Washington Post)

The Qataris Gave Trump an Airplane. He Crippled Their Country in Return. The tiny Gulf state is learning that the U.S. president doesn’t always keep his end of the deal. Shane Harris on the repurcussions. (The Atlantic)

An Oral History of Tim Curry’s Escape to the One Place Uncorrupted by Capitalism: Is it the sweet transvestite from Transexual, Transylvania in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, is it Wadsworth the butler who butles in Clue, is it Stephen King’s sewer clown in It? Or is this—seriously, this short, ridiculous cutscene from Red Alert 3—the defining performance of Tim Curry’s long career? (Vice)

Video of the day: Martin Scorsese Breaks Down His Most Iconic Films | GQ

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with David Booth, Founder, Chairman, and former CEO of Dimensional Funds Advisors. DFA just crossed $1 trillion dollars, and has become the largest active equity ETF manager. Booth’s new book is “Stay Calm: Learn to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life.”

 

The Market, Not The Fed, Now Sets Long Rates

Source: Apollo

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Weekend Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Wanted: A More Humble Fed

 

 

Today was Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s first speech as chair at Jackson Hole. The line that stood out to me was not his discussion of AI, but rather, “The Fed should be humble and never naïve.” So let’s delve into the idea of a more humble Fed…

My professional focus has been identifying and trying to correct the common behavioral errors we all make as investors. One cannot help but notice how similar mistakes are made by these collections of people operating within large organizations.

One side effect of this, as a market and economic observer, is seeing the errors made by giant institutions. Not just big asset management firms, but the Federal Reserve, Treasury, Congress, corporations, and other institutions; they can – and all too often do – engage in the same behavioral mistakes we see individuals make. After all, large institutions are essentially collections of individuals, in a hierarchical structure, acting on behalf of their owners, patrons, and constituents.

The difference between individual errors and institutional ones is in magnitude. When Congress screws up, we may get a financial crisis; when the Fed makes a big mistake, unemployment may rise, or inflation may get out of control. The stakes for institutional errors are so much greater than the regular snafus each of us falls prey to.

I, too, would like to see a more humble Fed. I’d like to see less certainty in their beliefs, fewer forecasts, reduced reliance on surveys and inflation expectations, and even less reliance on their belief that they are the dominant player impacting prices. And I’d like to see a greater acknowledgment that their models, while often useful, are also wrong.

Worse, I see little evidence of any humility in the Fed’s 2% inflation target: “The Fed’s price-stability objective of 2 percent, as measured by the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, is a firm, fixed target.”

Sorry, but that reveals both error and a lack of humility. I have discussed this before, but rather than repeat those complaints, let’s consider the target from the perspective of institutional error and correction.

2% Inflation Target History: As former Fed Vice Chair Roger Ferguson explained, it is an anomaly that traces back to an offhand political remark by Finance Minister Roger Douglas on New Zealand television in March 1988, in which he said he wanted inflation brought down to “around 0 to 1 percent.”

Thus, the 0–2% band was born and codified by the Reserve Bank Act of 1989. It was adopted by Canada in 1991, the UK in 1992, Sweden, Australia, and Finland in 1993, the ECB in 1998, and, finally, by the Fed at the July 1996 FOMC meeting.1 On January 25, 2012, then Fed Chair Bernanke made it official.

Evidence for 2% is non-existent: Little in the academic literature suggests the 2% inflation target is anything other than an arbitrary number. 2 I will spare you the tedious exercise of reviewing a spate of papers, and instead point you to a survey of 600 economists: more than half would keep the current 2% target, citing the “credibility cost” of changing the target – not what target number is optimal. 3

This is classic institutional behavior: refusing to correct an error for reputational or credibility reasons is simply ego over substance.

The Post-Pandemic Regime: The largest U.S. pandemic in over a century was followed by the biggest post-World War II fiscal stimulus (as a percentage of GDP). This changed everything: It scrambled supply chains, shifted consumption habits, and upended inflation. In light of massive regime change, one might imagine the Federal Reserve would adapt to radically new and different conditions or acknowledge the error. Yet they have continually failed to do so.

So much for humility…

~~~

All good traders know that their cheapest mistake is their first one — and it should be unwound immediately. Doubling down, refusing to fix a bad trade, failing to acknowledge that conditions have changed — these are recipes for expensive failures.

The 2% inflation target is an accidental anomaly, a political improvisation from New Zealand circa 1988. Hardening it into monetary policy orthodoxy is a classic form of institutional error. The sooner the mistake is unwound, the better off the global economy will be.

We all suffer from cognitive judgment errors. It is an unavoidable aspect of the human condition. If we can better understand how and why these errors occur, we have a fighting chance to correct them. It would be enormously productive for society if our largest, most influential, and most important institutions could do the same.

 

 

 

Previously:
2% Inflation Target is Silly (July 26, 2023)

3% Is the New 2%… (August 3, 2026)

What’s Upsetting the Bond Market? (August 25, 2026)

Five Ways the Fed’s Deflation Playbook Could Be Improved (Businessweek, August 18, 2023)

What Models Don’t Know (May 6, 2020)

 

 

Source:
In Our Time Chairman
By Kevin Warsh
Fedewral Reserve, August 28, 2026

 

 

__________
1. Greenspan insisted the number stay secret: “If the 2 percent inflation figure gets out of this room, it is going to create more problems for us than I think any of you might anticipate.”

2. Claude tells me the following: “No paper derives 2% as the optimal inflation rate. The number preceded the research, and the literature since points in every direction.”

The specific examples include The Boskin Commission, Akerlof, Dickens & Perry (1996), Blanchard, Dell’Ariccia & Mauro (IMF, 2010), Ball (2014).

3. SeeThe optimal inflation target: Views from 600 economists,” by Kim Ristolainen, Andrea Ferrero, Esa Jokivuolle, Gene Ambrocio, 21 Jul 2022.

 

The post Wanted: A More Humble Fed appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Friday AM Reads

My end-of-week morning reads:

Current Issues in Forward Guidance: “Broader communication about reaction function remains essential as long as it is conditional, disciplined, and uncertainty aware. Risks should be clearly spelled out. Central banks may still seek to influence the yield curve, but communication should emphasize the contingencies under which the path would change rather than a promise to deliver it. Scenario-based communication can be helpful in this respect.” (IMF)

Kenneth Rogoff: Is the Trump Treasury Panicking Over the Level of US Debt?: Kenneth Rogoff on the first signs of panic as US debt surpasses $40 trillion and the steady rise in global long-term rates — which he long argued was inevitable — starts causing real pain. With the federal deficit near 6% of GDP and the national debt over $40tn, America’s fiscal position looks increasingly precarious (The Guardian) see also What a century of data tells us about today’s corporate bond spreads: Low spreads were normal. Are they so again? Duncan Lamont of Schroders on whether 30 years of data is enough to judge credit spreads that are, to use a technical term, piddly. (Financial Times)

• The Fall and Redemption of Bill Miller, Once the Greatest Money Manager of Our Time: Most licked their wounds and moved on, but for those close to the fire, like Miller, whose Legg Mason Value Trust was decimated in the crisis, the healing took longer. “I think his investing genius and record is deeply underappreciated because of the timing of his departure from the Value Trust,” says Chris Davis, chairman and portfolio manager of Davis Advisors. The Legg Mason manager who beat the S&P 500 fifteen years running, lost it all in the financial crisis, and made it back again. (Barron’s)

How to Stop Being Financially Nihilistic Without Pretending Everything Is Fine: Hanna Horvath answers the question she gets most from readers — “okay, but what do I actually do about this?” — with tactical financial advice that meets you where you are. (Your Brain on Money)

• The Shingle-Style Home Gets Reinvented for the 21st Century: Homeowners are modernizing the historic exteriors by paring back moldings and columns in favor of bolder, more colorful facades. (Wall Street Journal) see also Four Ways to Spot HOA Risks Before You Buy a Home: Buying into a homeowners association means going into business with your neighbors. (Wall Street Journal)

• Where Drones Cannot See, the Ukraine War Is a Deadly Game of Cat and Mouse: Carlotta Gall’s dispatch from the Zaporizhzhia front, where Russian troops infiltrate the overgrown basin of the dam they blew up three years ago and Ukrainian soldiers hunt them at close quarters. (New York Times)

• The Choices We Make About AI Now Are Critical: Bill Gates argues the transition to the AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history — and right now, we are not preparing adequately for it. (Gates Notessee also Bill Gates Says We’ve Passed AI’s Danger Thresholds. Now What?: Mat Honan sits down with Gates in Kirkland. (MIT Technology Review)

How to spot a psychopath: ‘It’s like the difference between a domestic cat and a wild cat’: Zoe Williams on Robert Hare’s classic 20-trait checklist, developed in 1980 entirely from prison populations — and what it misses. People with persistent predatory personalities cause an inordinate amount of pain. Recently, our shared understanding of them has grown – and it could help protect us (The Guardian)

MLB players reveal a modern toll of legal gambling: Threats, DMs and encounters: With the proliferation of legal gambling and the convenient access social media platforms can provide, athletes are hearing more than ever from those who tie their checking accounts to their performance. A pitcher coughs up a lead, returns to his locker, and finds the direct messages waiting. The Athletic polls players on what the proliferation of legal betting has done to their inboxes. (The Athletic)

• First Look: What If Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson Really Are Brothers?: Rebecca Ford on the project born nine years ago on a porch in Greece, when the two actors’ kids decided their fathers had to be related. In their new Apple TV comedy series, the actors and best friends play fictionalized versions of themselves as a way to explore a long-standing rumor that they’re actually related. (Vanity Fair)

Video of the day: China Unveils 7 2027 Models and They’re ALREADY Scaring the Rivals

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this weekend with David Booth, Founder, Chairman, and former CEO of Dimensional Funds Advisors. DFA just crossed $1 trillion dollars, and has become the largest active equity ETF manager. Booth’s new book is “Stay Calm: Learn to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life.”

 

2026: A Climate ‘You Are Here’ Last part of the ‘Super El Niño’ series

Source: God’s Spies by Thomas Neuburger

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Thursday AM Reads

My late August morning reads:

• What’s Cool in High School? Personal Finance: Thirty-nine states now require a personal-finance course to graduate — up four since 2024 — while economics requirements are shrinking. (Wall Street Journalsee also Could You Beat a High-Schooler on the New AP Personal-Finance Test?: The College Board rolls out AP Business with Personal Finance this fall. (Wall Street Journal)

• How Universities Should Prepare Founders: Paul Graham on what the YC partners actually look for after 20 years of refining the model — “We’re like grad school. We get them next.” (Paul Graham)

Wiped out: US faces surging toilet paper prices amid trade war with Canada: Paper products among hardest-hit sectors after trade negotiations broke down, with 25-50% tariffs estimated. (The Guardian)

• Getting Ahead Has Never Been Easy: Ben Carlson on the minor miracles we take for granted — electricity, clean water, indoor plumbing, music on demand — and why not celebrating them is itself a sign of progress. (A Wealth of Common Sensesee also Ordinary Abundance: Edward Bellamy once imagined music on demand would be “the limit of human felicity.” (Ordinary Abundance)

• One Hundred Percent AI: Ted Merz on the dustup after Stanley Druckenmiller used AI to write a WSJ op-ed criticizing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. When readers spotted the linguistic patterns, Druckenmiller copped to it: “there’s a reason I moved from an English major to an economics major.” (Ted Merz)

• ‘The Worst I’ve Ever Seen’: Cargo Thefts Have Turned Violent in Pursuit of AI Hardware: Paresh Dave on two recent California incidents that show how far criminal organizations will go to steal servers and other data-center gear. Experts allege that two recent incidents in California show the extreme lengths that criminal organizations are willing to go to to steal servers and other gear meant for data centers. (Wired)

The Catskills Were Once Considered a Hidden Gem. Now the Secret’s Out: Priced out of the Hudson Valley, wealthy New Yorkers are heading north, pouring millions into home renovations and new builds. Pandemic lockdowns sent a Long Island couple looking for a second home in Sullivan County; they paid $1.65 million on the Toronto Reservoir in 2021. Plenty of people had the same idea. Now the Secret’s Out. Priced out of the Hudson Valley, wealthy New Yorkers are heading north, pouring millions into home renovations and new builds (Wall Street Journal)

Diabetes can now be easily reversed. Here’s how: With the right steps, it’s possible to put type 2 diabetes into remission and restore healthy blood glucose levels. Ling Thomas on research showing type 2 diabetes doesn’t have to be a lifelong chronic condition — the secret is taking the pressure off our organs. (BBC Science Focus) see alsoIs Expensive Bottled Water Actually Better for You?Megan Tomos on the industry that turned the simplest thing we consume into glacial, iceberg, volcanic, and alkaline varieties — complete with water sommeliers and restaurant water menus. Luxury water can contain different minerals and taste noticeably different. But a remote source, alkaline pH, and high price do not necessarily mean better hydration. (Wired)

Near-total lunar eclipse is coming up with the Americas in prime position: After being shut out of this month’s total solar eclipse, the Americas will have the best seats in the celestial house when Earth’s shadow briefly envelops the moon. Almost the entire lunar surface will be masked Thursday night into Friday — a whopping 96% — making this an especially deep partial eclipse. Marcia Dunn: after missing this month’s total solar eclipse, the Americas get the best seats Thursday night into Friday as 96% of the moon goes dark. (AP)

• Dolly Parton: Photos From an Extraordinary Life and Career: Alan Taylor’s photo retrospective of the singer, songwriter, actor, and philanthropist, who died this week at 80. (The Atlanticsee also What We Loved Most About Dolly Parton: Is there anyone with a fan base as deep and wide — Christians, union organizers, drag queens, cowboys, Jane Fonda and Donald Trump? (Washington Post)

Video of the day: The rise and fall of Ticketmaster

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with David Booth, Founder, Chairman, and former CEO of Dimensional Funds Advisors. DFA just crossed $1 trillion dollars, and has become the largest active equity ETF manager. Booth’s new book is “Stay Calm: Learn to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life.”

 

Text got cheap. Judgment didn’t.

Source: Grasping Reality

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

 

The post 10 Thursday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

At The Money: Dividend Growth with David Bahnsen



 

At The Money: Dividend Growth with David Bahnsen (August 25, 2026)

Dividends are among the oldest and most highly regarded forms of equity investing. But in an era of mega-cap growth, should you own dividend-paying equities?

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner and chief investment office of The Bahnsen Group, a national private wealth management firm. His new book is “Profit from the profit: the past, present, and future of dividend growth investing.”

For more info, see:

Personal Bio

Professional website

LinkedIn

~~~

 

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple PodcastsYouTubeSpotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

At The Money: David Bahnsen: Profit from the Profit — Part 1
Bloomberg  |  Host: Barry Ritholtz

 

BARRY RITHOLTZ: How often do you think about dividend investing and, in particular, dividend growth investing? Dividends are one of the oldest and most highly regarded forms of equity investing. But in an era of mega-cap growth, should you be chasing dividends or buying growth? David Bahnsen is the author of a new book, Profit from the Profit: The Past, Present and Future of Dividend Growth Investing. He’s also the founder and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group, managing over $10 billion.

So David, let’s start with just the title of the book, Profit from the Profit. Explain the difference between profiting from a company’s underlying economic activity versus merely profiting from a change in stock price.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, my view, Barry, is that all investing comes down, at some form or another, to the underlying profits of what is being invested in. And you could say, well, what about pre-profit companies, pre-revenue, venture capital? All of those things still are being invested in out of some outlook on future profitability.

And to the extent you want something that’s more liquid and a little more stable and diversified, the types of things that usually are found in public markets, then you’re dealing with underlying profits and some sort of discounting of those future profits into a present valuation. And what I’m suggesting here in the prepositional phrase, “profit from the profit,” is I’m saying, let’s take those profits that we own the company for and let’s allow the individual investor to participate in those profits in the way that, throughout history, they often did, which is the receipt of a dividend.

Now, of course, I recognize companies cannot pay all the profits out to their risk-taking investors. They need to hold onto some profits and retain some for a rainy day. They need to pay down debt. They need to reinvest in CapEx and growth of the company. But there has to be some reward to the risk-taker, and dividends represent a palatable, tangible, repeatable profit from those profits.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: So let’s dive into that philosophy, which you describe as really a philosophy of ownership rather than simply an investment strategy or even a tactic. I really like that framing. Explain the foundation of thinking of your ownership of a stock as owning a company. I believe it’s an underlying business that has a market strategy, that has a management team, right?

DAVID BAHNSEN: It’s a real company. Every company we own is effectively a lemonade stand, and there’s different levels of complexity and all of those things, and it’s goods or services or both. But at the end of the day, it’s a business. And one of the problems with the success of index investing is we do start to think something that isn’t true: that we made our money from the market, from the index going up.

Companies go up, and you can aggregate that, and the math gets very complicated, but there’s only value being created when there are underlying businesses that are adding value, and there are customers of businesses that are buying goods and services that meet the needs of humanity. So this underlying first principle drives what I believe about value creation, and therefore the generation of profits, and from the generation of profits, the ability to reward shareholders with those.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: So some of the writings you’ve put out over the years that I’ve seen really draw a distinction between what you just described as value creation, as opposed to buying a couple of numbers on a screen and the numbers go up. And you’ve been pretty blunt about describing that there is a difference between owning a company and speculating in the market. Discuss that difference. How do you draw the line between economic investing and just speculation and gambling?

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, I think that, by definition, the easiest line is things that are zero-sum versus things that are not. And so when you place a wager with your friend on the Mets game, first of all, if you took the Mets, you’re probably gonna lose the bet. Second of all, there’s one winner, one loser. But when you invest in Procter & Gamble, I don’t believe that’s the case. You’re investing in them creating new wealth, new profits, new opportunities, et cetera. And so that, by definition, de-speculates the investment to some degree. But also there’s just a lot of investing that is based on a guess of a price in a certain period of time.

One of the reasons that we don’t do option investing at my firm is because even if I have a lot of conviction in a company, and I can go buy a call option on it, I can’t make any money doing that unless I also attach the time value to it. But I’m not interested in speculating on when an announcement may come or when the company may be honored in the market with a higher valuation. Long-term value creation is not necessarily gonna be within a timeline. And so, you know, there’s different ways people can get to this, but our view is that speculation, you know it when you see it.

And at the end of the day, we’re right now in a speculative mode. I never thought I’d see speculation like we saw in the ’90s when I was starting my investing career, and what we saw going into real estate with the pre-’08 period. There’s been a lot of moments of speculative mania and fervor in my career. Right now, the instrumentation that exists for speculation, with literal speculation in DraftKings and sports markets, and now these prediction markets, single-day option ETFs, all of this stuff, it’s unbelievable. They’re all consciously geared towards speculation.

A dividend portfolio is saying, “Hey, I really believe people are gonna buy soda pop,” or they’re gonna continue needing oil and gas to heat their homes, et cetera.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: Yeah, it’s really becoming a problem, especially to the current generation of young men.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Yeah.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: Who pretty much have become gambling junkies. It was bad enough when people were betting on the outcome of games, but if you’re betting on, is he gonna hit this free throw? Well, you know, you’re just throwing dice. You might as well go to Vegas.

Related to this, you’ve discussed in the book the difference between endogenous and exogenous returns. Dive into that a little bit and explain what those differences are, and what it means to an investor, not a speculator.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, essentially, we’re just talking about the difference between trying to get your return from factors that are external, that are outside of your control, that are outside the underlying reality of the business. So, in this particular case, we’re sort of referring to what you believe others’ psychology will be, how other investors are gonna respond. I think the P/E ratio’s gonna get bid up because this stock is going to be popular. That would be an example of an exogenous factor, and I think it is by far the most, shall we say, prevalent way of thinking about investing.

But when you’re talking about stuff that is within the business, that my return is gonna come from the performance of the company, from their success in growing profits and competing and creating value, then that’s endogenous. And it is an entirely different mentality and approach. I do not suggest everyone’s self-aware of this. I don’t think it’s totally self-conscious. But I think that the implicit mentality or objective of many investors today is that they’re betting on what others are gonna do, as opposed to betting on how a company is gonna perform.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: Really, really interesting. So this book, Profit from the Profit, is a follow-up to your 2019 book, The Case for Dividend Growth. It’s been seven years. I’m curious, what has changed, either in the economy, the markets, or your own thinking, that made an update of the book necessary?

DAVID BAHNSEN: I think that you had basically the S&P nearly triple in seven years.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: Which is crazy, by the way. Crazy to think about.

DAVID BAHNSEN: But we had had a bit of a dip in 2018, and so there’s a little bit of convenient timing here. The S&P, I think, was down 5% in 2018 from the combo of a little bit of Fed tightening and President Trump’s trade war then. And then it rallied huge at the very beginning of 2019. We had a hiccup in COVID, but then really that only lasted about a month, and ended up having a very robust period. There was one bad year. It’s really the only bad year we’ve had since the financial crisis, in 2022. But then Nvidia, three 100% years in a row, you just have had a massive rally.

So it’s worth saying, “Hey David, your thesis from seven years ago, has it become antiquated?” And you look at it and say, well, actually, Barry, I don’t wanna jinx myself for 2026, but when dividend growth was up 5% in 2022 and the S&P was down 18, and dividend growth did fine in the three years in between, not as much as the Nvidia stuff, but still did fine. And now a year like this year, where dividend growth is beating the market by 400, 500 basis points, I think you’re gonna end up with a five-year number that’s better than the market, but that’s because of that first 2022 year. This story, to me, is very probable for the next three, five, seven years.

At a 23 times entry multiple on the S&P, earnings growth is great, but unless you think you’re gonna get a 29x, if you’re gonna actually have to fight against multiple contraction for the next few years, the math of the index return is what it is. I’m not being bullish or bearish here. I’m just being a mathematician. It’s gonna be very hard for the S&P to deliver continued 15% returns.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: Yeah. In the past few years we’ve had 25% returns. Good luck keeping up with that.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Exactly. And I think that the story of my first decade professionally managing money is what I’m now coming back to, saying, look, the market can retreat here even with good underlying fundamentals. It’s just that the Intels, Microsofts, Ciscos of the 2000s, all of them grew their earnings, their profits, their cash flows. All of them were lower at the end of the decade than the beginning of the decade. And I don’t know that that’s gonna happen with Nvidia. I’m not making a bearish AI call. But I am asking investors to realize that things are not as easy as they might have seemed the last three or four years.

And I think that the update of the book was my attempt to restate, update the argument. New charts, new numbers. But then also, Barry, I think it’s a little bit more philosophical. I’m adding a little more as to where I think about doomsday investing in dividend growth. And then I am encountering some of the objections. There’s folks like Meb Faber that notoriously talk about how a dividend is totally worthless, that all you’re doing is taking from one part of the company, the balance sheet, and giving it to someone else. It’s zero-sum. And I’m contending with that argument, contending with stock buybacks, contending with tax efficiency. Some may not find my arguments persuasive, but I am making an argument on all of those points.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: So typically dividend-paying stocks are often concentrated in mature sectors: financials, energy, utilities, staples, things like that. How do you prevent a dividend growth portfolio from being an unintended sector bet or value factor bet?

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, the value factor bet is harder to avoid than the sector side. For us, it is true that we’ve always been very limited in our exposure to consumer discretionary because the consumer discretionary names, by definition, it’s hard to pay a sustainable dividend when you’re depending on 16-year-old girls liking your clothes at the mall. It’s just a very discretionary sector.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: A little bit fickle, yep.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Exactly. But there’s actually a lot of durability. And all of the cool kids from the ’90s are now dividend growers today. You know, your Qualcomms and Ciscos and even Microsoft; it looks like a low yield ’cause the stock price has gone up so much. But after George W. Bush’s second tax cut changed the tax rate on dividends, Microsoft all of a sudden became a great dividend payer. So I suspect that a lot of these tech names could end up becoming good dividend growers, and some of them already are. Texas Instruments, Broadcom. But they’re kinda old tech. They’re not the cool tech stuff.

But you wanna keep a benchmark agnosticism, in my opinion, but you still wanna be sector diversified. So we own basically every sector to some degree or another, but my weightings to those sectors, I’m agnostic to what the benchmark is. We’ve been overweight energy and underweight consumer discretionary for most of my career. It’s worked out just fine.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: Yeah, to say the very least. Let me throw an interesting curveball at you. One of the most interesting companies that does not pay a dividend has been Berkshire Hathaway. They’ve created enormous value without ever paying a dividend. They occasionally, when the stock gets, quote-unquote, cheap, they’ll do some buybacks. And they’re sitting on this massive, what is it, $300 billion cash pile. How do you distinguish between a company that should retain its earnings so it can make those opportunistic acquisitions versus one that really should be paying its shareholders some form of dividend?

DAVID BAHNSEN: You know what’s fascinating, Barry, is that Berkshire Hathaway is the company that proves my point, not the exception to the point. They are not a company. They are a holding company, and what do they hold? A whole bunch of companies that pay dividends to them. Now, they may choose not to return that cash to the shareholders because that’s what the investors consciously bought: a hold co where you are asking Mr. Buffett and Munger in the years past, now a new management team, to invest that capital. It’s much more like a mutual fund of private and public companies. But the Coca-Colas and Wells Fargos and Apples and, by the way, even the private businesses, the railroads and See’s Candies, have made massive cash payments to the hold co. So it isn’t really contradictory to it.

There are companies out there that are operating companies that also have not been dividend growers that have been very successful. But I would argue that I could find 100 examples of ones that didn’t return capital to shareholders and set money on fire for every one I could find that proved to be a better steward of that capital. In the appendix of the book, I talk about the comparison of Viacom, and now that Sumner Redstone’s no longer with us, I make him the foil, because the amount of money these people set on fire over the years. They wouldn’t pay a sustainable dividend. A lot of their competitors did, and then they just did these media M&A orgies, and all of them were capital destructive. That, to me, is much more common than a company that, by not paying a dividend, is creating more value.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: When we go to lunch, remind me to tell you the story of a company I was affiliated with that had an opportunity to do a special giant one-time dividend, and instead they lit the money on fire.

But Berkshire, as the exception that proves the point, raises an interesting question. Do dividends, continually paid and actually increased dividends, does that impose a discipline on management? And how could you distinguish when having to meet the dividend is a positive thing versus when it might discourage investment or innovation or intelligent risk-taking?

DAVID BAHNSEN: You know, it’s such a thoughtful question, and I’m not just saying this to blow smoke here, but I very much doubt that very many other interviewers are gonna ask that to me, ’cause it’s really an important question, and you get it. Barry, that’s a trade-off that exists, right? There is a sense in which an opportunity might get missed because the faithfulness to the dividend causes someone not to pursue a risk that might have ended up paying out.

What I would suggest is that’s a risk worth taking for most investors. Not those with a highly speculative or high-risk, high-beta, high-octane part of their portfolio. But ultimately, if someone had said, “You know what? I’m not gonna do this AOL-Time Warner merger because we’re not gonna be able to sustain the dividend doing it,” that would have protected about $300 billion of capital. And I could go on and on. Those are not nut-picking examples; they’re the norm.

Now, there’s been plenty of good and healthy M&A. Exxon’s deal with Pioneer, Chevron’s deal with Hess, Exxon’s deal with Mobil. They didn’t cut the dividend during COVID, for God’s sake, when oil was negative. They didn’t cut the dividend during Valdez, during the financial crisis. Having the social contract where your cash flow, your payout ratio, your balance sheet enabled you to sustain it doesn’t mean you can’t do M&A, but it should mean you can’t do reckless M&A. And I would suggest that Comcast has been a more faithful user of M&A than Viacom and Paramount were.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: Huh. I saved my favorite question for last, which is you argue dividend growth allows investors to benefit from volatility rather than merely having to endure it. Explain what you mean by that. What’s the philosophy behind benefiting from volatility?

DAVID BAHNSEN: So when we say endure volatility, an S&P investor who is an accumulator, not a withdrawer, does not suffer from the volatility. And ultimately the premium return they get is a trade-off to the volatility that they’re expected to deal with. So that’s all what it is.

However, a dividend growth investor has an automatic purchase going on across a diversified portfolio. You assume volatility is a given. It’s going to happen, so there is therefore no way to escape the fact that you are mathematically benefiting because you are already compounding. Your return goes where it goes, and then you’re getting more the next year, the next year. Now you’re getting more purchases of the thing that is compounding. So it creates an automated compounding machine within a compounding investment.

And that leverage over time is monumental, and it ought to excite people that are 30, 40, 45 years old accumulating long-term, because you can say to yourself, “Every time the market’s down, I am buying more shares of the things that are, in the future, gonna be creating cash flow for me.” And that’s how you end up with the sort of stocks that are paying 30, 40, 50% of the original purchase price annually, which sounds crazy, but the math makes sense.

BARRY RITHOLTZ: Yes, sir. That’s exactly right. So to wrap up, if you’re interested in dividend growth investing, if you’d like to try and generate market-equaling portfolios with less volatility and higher wealth creation, check out the new book, Profit from the Profit: The Past, Present, and Future of Dividend Growth Investing by David Bahnsen.

I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Bloomberg’s At the Money.

 

 

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

The post At The Money: Dividend Growth with David Bahnsen appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Wednesday AM Reads

My mid-week morning train WFH reads:

• Are Inflation-Fighting Bonds on Sale?: I just bought more Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities. Plus, more questions for your adviser about private funds (and happy 96th birthday, Warren Buffett)  Jason Zweig on why he just bought more TIPS. (Wall Street Journal)

• Forget the Bond Rout, Fund Managers Are in Party Mode: Robin Wigglesworth runs the list: Hormuz still closed, an AI boom fuelled by off-balance-sheet exposure, a Fed that may hike, Japan in a bond crisis, private credit stressed, leverage everywhere. And yet. (Financial Times) see also The Most Hated Asset Class in the World: Ben Carlson: in December 2024 it was international stocks, which have run nicely since. Today the same vibes are showing up in fixed income — a lot of intelligent investors want nothing to do with bonds. (A Wealth of Common Sense)

The Debt-Equity Distinction: A Century of Policy by Accident. American Affairs Volume X, Number 3 (Fall 2026. (American Affairs)

The Connections That Turned a Precocious Teen Into the Fallen ‘Nostradamus of AI’ A 24-year-old investor was hailed as a visionary and attracted billions—before turning into Wall Street’s latest cautionary tale. (Wall Street Journal).

Mark Cuban wants to solve wealth inequality by making employers choose between paying higher taxes or giving every member of staff company stock: “I would like to see it so that every single CEO, founder, entrepreneur does what I did, which was to give equity to every single employee,” he said. “The way you’re going to reduce income inequality for anybody who works with somebody is making sure they get shares of stock and then they benefit.” (Fortunesee also Mark Cuban Says He Has the Solution to Growing Income Inequality, and It’s to Reward Every Employee — From CEO to Janitor — With Company Stock: The earlier “What It Takes” podcast version of the argument. (Fortune)

• A New Force Is Increasing Inequality in America: Shira Ovide: evidence is mounting that AI is helping the richest people and cities pull further ahead of everyone else. (Washington Post)

• Rich People Create Money Printers. They Don’t Save a Dime.: BowTied Bull on one of the biggest psyops in history — that the wealthy sit on big cash balances and huge incomes. They don’t; they build assets that throw off cash. (BowTied Bull)

• More U.S. Parents Opting Children Out of Vaccine Requirements, C.D.C. Reports: Francesca Paris: new exemption data lands a week after Trump signed an executive order calling to scale back childhood shots, with measles spreading. (New York Timessee also US Vaccination Rates Fall Again as Exemptions Continue to Rise, CDC Data Shows: Beth Mole: again, the CDC skipped the full report and simply posted the data online. (Ars Technica)

• NASA’s New Space Telescope Is Poised to Discover Hidden Facets of the Universe: Jay Bennett: the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is expected to find as many as 200,000 new planets and probe dark matter and dark energy. The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is expected to discover as many as 200,000 new planets and reveal details about the elusive nature of dark matter and dark energy. (Wired)

• Martha Stewart Recreates Her 1995 People Cover on Her Gorgeous Farm: Ana Calderone catches up with Stewart 31 years after the original cover story opened outside her $1.7 million house on Lily Pond Lane — still an insomniac, still up before dawn, still never slowing down. ‘Street Cred’ and Never Slowing Down: The lifestyle icon invited us to her New York farm, where she reflected on all she’s created — and what’s still left on her never-ending to-do list (People)

Video of the day: I Want to Hold Your Hand: The Hidden Details You Can’t Unhear in The Beatles’ Most Important Song

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this past weekend with Alex Morris of TSOH Investment Research. He is the author of “Buffett and Munger Unscripted: Three Decades of Investment and Business Insights from the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholder Meetings.” The book was named one of Amazon’s “Best Books of 2025.” To write it, he reviewed every Berkshire annual meeting from 1994 through 2024 — 100s of hours of video covering more than 1,700 shareholder questions over 31 years — after Berkshire released the meeting archives.

 

2026 Top 100 VC firm results

Source: Stanford GSB Professor on Startups & Investors

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Wednesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.