Connect with us

Finance

Buffett really was not a great stock picker: Swedroe on investing

Published

on

Did Buffett have it easier? Why markets will never be the same

Larry Swedroe, who is considered one of the market’s most esteemed researchers, thinks Warren Buffett’s investment style doesn’t work well anymore.

He cites the number of professional Wall Street firms and hedge funds now participating in the market.

“Warren Buffett was generally considered the greatest stock picker of all time. And, what we have learned in the academic research is Warren Buffett really was not a great stock picker at all,” Swedroe told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week. “What Warren Buffett’s ‘secret sauce’ was, he figured out 50, 60 years before all the academics what these factors were that allowed you to earn excess returns.”

Swedroe indicated index funds can help investors trying to mimic Buffett’s performance.

“[Investor] Cliff Asness and the team at AQR did some great research and showed that what you accounted for the leverage Buffett applied through his reinsurance company. If you bought an index of stocks that had these same characteristics, you would have matched Buffett’s returns virtually,” said Swedroe. “Now today, every investor can own through ETFs or mutual funds the same types of stocks that Buffett has bought through companies that apply this academic research — companies like Dimensional, AQR, Bridgeway, BlackRock, Alpha Architect and a few others.”

Swedroe is the author and co-author of almost 20 books — including “Enrich Your Future – The Keys to Successful Investing” released in February.

In an email to CNBC, he called it “a collection of stories and analogies … that help investors understand how markets really work, how prices are set, why it is so hard to persistently outperform through active management [stock picking and market timing,] and how human nature leads us to make investment mistakes [and how to avoid them].”

During his “ETF Edge” interview,’ Swedroe added investors can also benefit from momentum trading. He contends market timing and stock picking often don’t factor into long-term success.

“Momentum certainly is a factor that has worked over the long term, although it does go through some long periods like everything else will underperform. But momentum does work,” said Swedroe, who’s also the head of economic and financial research at Buckingham Wealth Partners. “It’s purely systematic. Computers can run it, you don’t need to pay big fees and you can access it with cheap momentum.”

In his latest book, Swedroe likens the stock market to sports betting and active managers to bookies. He suggests more investors “play” —or invest — the more likely they are to underperform.

“Wall Street needs you to trade a lot so they can make a lot of money on bid offer spreads. Active managers make more money by getting you to believe that they’re likely to outperform,” said Swedroe. “It’s virtually impossible mathematically for that to happen because they just have higher expenses including higher taxes. They just need you to play, and so, you know, that’s why they tell you active management’s a winner’s game.”

‘Dumb retail money’

He sees active management getting more efficient in pulling in emotional investors – which he calls “dumb retail money.”

“[Emotional investors] do so poorly [that] they underperform the very funds they invest in because they get stock picking wrong and market timing wrong,” Swedroe said.

Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Finance

Tariffs may raise much less than White House projects, economists say

Published

on

President Donald Trump speaks before signing executive orders in the Oval Office on March 6, 2025.

Alex Wong | Getty Images

President Donald Trump says that tariffs will make the U.S. “rich.” But those riches will likely be far less than the White House expects, economists said.

The ultimate sum could have big ramifications for the U.S. economy, the nation’s debt and legislative negotiations over a tax-cut package, economists said.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Sunday estimated tariffs would raise about $600 billion a year and $6 trillion over a decade. Auto tariffs would add another $100 billion a year, he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Navarro made the projection as the U.S. plans to announce more tariffs against U.S. trading partners on Wednesday.

Economists expect the Trump administration’s tariff policy would generate a much lower amount of revenue than Navarro claims. Some project the total revenue would be less than half.

Roughly $600 billion to $700 billion a year “is not even in the realm of possibility,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. “If you get to $100 billion to $200 billion, you’ll be pretty lucky.”

The White House declined to respond to a request for comment from CNBC about tariff revenue.

The ‘mental math’ behind tariff revenue

There are big question marks over the scope of the tariffs, including details like amount, duration, and products and countries affected — all of which have a significant bearing on the revenue total.

The White House is considering a 20% tariff on most imports, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. President Trump floated this idea on the campaign trail. The Trump administration may ultimately opt for a different policy, like country-by-country tariffs based on each nation’s respective trade and non-trade barriers.

But a 20% tariff rate seems to align with Navarro’s revenue projections, economists said.

The U.S. imported about $3.3 trillion of goods in 2024. Applying a 20% tariff rate to all these imports would yield about $660 billion of annual revenue.

“That is almost certainly the mental math Peter Navarro is doing — and that mental math skips some crucial steps,” said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and former chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Biden administration.

Trade advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump Peter Navarro speaks to press outside of the White House on March 12, 2025 in Washington, DC. 

Kayla Bartkowski | Getty Images

That’s because an accurate revenue estimate must account for the many economic impacts of tariffs in the U.S. and around the world, economists said. Those effects combine to reduce revenue, they said.

A 20% broad tariff would raise about $250 billion a year (or $2.5 trillion over a decade) when taking those effects into account, according to Tedeschi, citing a Yale Budget Lab analysis published Monday.  

There are ways to raise larger sums — but they would involve higher tariff rates, economists said. For example, a 50% across-the-board tariff would raise about $780 billion per year, according to economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Even that is an optimistic assessment: It doesn’t account for lower U.S. economic growth due to retaliation or the negative growth effects from the tariffs themselves, they wrote.

Why revenue would be lower than expected

Tariffs generally raise prices for consumers. A 20% broad tariff would cost the average consumer $3,400 to $4,200 a year, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

Consumers would naturally buy fewer imported goods if they cost more, economists said. Lower demand means fewer imports and less tariff revenue from those imports, they said.

Tariffs are also expected to trigger “reduced economic activity,” said Robert McClelland, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

More from Personal Finance:
Economists say ‘value-added taxes’ aren’t a trade barrier
Tariffs are ‘lose-lose’ for U.S. jobs and industry
Why uncertainty makes the stock market go haywire

For example, U.S. companies that don’t pass tariff costs on to consumers via higher prices would likely see profits suffer (and their income taxes fall), economists said. Consumers might pull back on spending, further denting company profits and tax revenues, economists said. Companies that take a financial hit might lay off workers, they said.

Foreign nations are also expected to retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. products, which would hurt companies that export products abroad. Other nations may experience an economic downturn, further reducing demand for U.S. products.

Tariffs could be a major rewiring of the domestic and global economy, says Mohamed El-Erian

“If you get a 20% tariff rate, you’re going to get a rip-roaring recession, and that will undermine your fiscal situation,” Zandi said.

There’s also likely to be a certain level of non-compliance with tariff policy, and carve-outs for certain countries, industries or products, economists said. For instance, when the White House levied tariffs on China in February, it indefinitely exempted “de minimis” imports valued at $800 or less.

The Trump administration might also funnel some tariff revenue to paying certain parties aggrieved by a trade war, economists said.

President Trump did that in his first term: The government sent $61 billion in “relief” payments to American farmers who faced retaliatory tariffs, which was nearly all (92%) of the tariff revenue on Chinese goods from 2018 to 2020, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The tariffs will also likely have a short life span, diluting their potential revenue impact, economists said. They’re being issued by executive order and could be undone easily, whether by President Trump or a future president, they said.

“There’s zero probability these tariffs will last for 10 years,” Zandi said. “If they last until next year I’d be very surprised.”

Why this matters

The Trump administration has signaled that tariffs “will be one of the top-tier ways they’ll try to offset the cost” of passing a package of tax cuts, Tedeschi said.

Extending a 2017 tax cut law signed by President Trump would cost $4.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Tax Foundation. Trump has also called for other tax breaks like no taxes on tips, overtime pay or Social Security benefits, and a tax deduction for auto loan interest for American made cars.

If tariffs don’t cover the full cost of such a package, then Republican lawmakers would have to find cuts elsewhere or increase the nation’s debt, economists said.

Continue Reading

Finance

Investors hope April 2 could bring some tariff clarity and relief. That may not happen

Published

on

Continue Reading

Finance

Cliff Asness’s AQR multi-strategy hedge fund returns 9% in the first quarter during tough conditions

Published

on

Cliff Asness.

Chris Goodney | Bloomberg | Getty Images

AQR Capital Management’s multistrategy hedge fund beat the market with a 9% rally in the first quarter as Wall Street grappled with extreme volatility amid President Donald Trump’s uncertain tariff policy.

The Apex strategy from Cliff Asness’ firm, which combines stocks, macro and arbitrage trades and has $3 billion in assets under management, gained 3.4% in March, boosting its first-quarter performance, according to a person familiar with AQR’s returns who asked to be anonymous as the information is private.

AQR’s Delphi Long-Short Equity Strategy gained 9.7% in the first quarter, while its alternative trend-following offering Helix returned 3%, the person said.

AQR, whose assets under management reached $128 billion at the end of March, declined to comment.

The stock market just wrapped up a tumultuous quarter as Trump’s aggressive tariffs raised concerns about an severe economic slowdown and a re-acceleration of inflation. The S&P 500 dipped into correction territory in March after hitting a record in February.

For the quarter, the equity benchmark was down 4.6%, snapping a five-quarter win streak. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite lost 10.4% in the quarter, which would mark its biggest quarterly pullback since a 22.4% plunge in the second quarter of 2022.

Continue Reading

Trending