William F. Sharpe, Reprinted from The Financial Analysts’ Journal Vol. 32, No. 4, July/August 1976. p. 4, Copyright 1976, Association for Investment Management and Research, Charlottesville, VA:

Some years ago, in a land called Indicia, revolution led to the overthrow of a socialist regime and the restoration of a system of private property. Former government enterprises were reformed as corporations, which then issued stocks and bonds. These securities were given to a central agency, which offered them for sale to individuals, pension funds, and the like (all armed with newly printed money). Almost immediately a group of money managers came forth to assist these investors. Recalling the words of a venerated elder, uttered before the previous revolution (Invest in Corporate Indicia), they invited clients to give them money, with which they would buy a cross-section of all the newly issued securities. Investors considered this a reasonable idea, and soon everyone held a piece of Corporate Indicia. Before long the money managers became bored because there was little for them to do. Soon they fell into the habit of gathering at a beachfront casino where they passed the time playing roulette, craps, and similar games, for low stakes, with their own money. After a while, the owner of the casino suggested a new idea. He would furnish an impressive set of rooms which would be designated the Money Managers’ Club. There the members could place bets with one another about the fortunes of various corporations, industries, the level of the Gross National Product, foreign trade, etc. To make the betting more exciting, the casino owner suggested that the managers use their clients’ money for this purpose. The offer was immediately accepted, and soon the money managers were betting eagerly with one another. At the end of each week, some found that they had won money for their clients, while others found that they had lost. But the losses always exceeded the gains, for a certain amount was deducted from each bet to cover the costs of the elegant surroundings in which the gambling took place. Before long a group of professors from Indicia U. suggested that investors were not well served by the activities being conducted at the Money Managers’ Club. Why pay people to gamble with your money? Why not just hold your own piece of Corporate Indicia? they said. This argument seemed sensible to some of the investors, and they raised the issue with their money managers. A few capitulated, announcing that they would henceforth stay away from the casino and use their clients’ money only to buy proportionate shares of all the stocks and bonds issued by corporations. The converts, who became known as managers of Indicia funds, were initially shunned by those who continued to frequent the Money Managers’ Club, but in time, grudging acceptance replaced outright hostility. The wave of puritan reform some had predicted failed to materialize, and gambling remained legal. Many managers continued to make their daily pilgrimage to the casino. But they exercised more restraint than before, placed smaller bets, and generally behaved in a manner consonant with their responsibilities. Even the members of the Lawyers’ Club found it difficult to object to the small amount of gambling that still went on. And everyone but the casino owner lived happily ever after.

What Sharpe’s Parable Proves

Sharpe published this parable in 1976, fifty years before anyone reading it today. The parable is as accurate today as when it was written. The money managers are still at the casino. The casino owner is still deducting a certain amount from each bet to cover the costs of the elegant surroundings. The clients are still paying for this.

The key sentence in the parable is the one that explains why losses always exceeded gains: “a certain amount was deducted from each bet to cover the costs of the elegant surroundings in which the gambling took place.” This is the mathematical proof that active management in aggregate cannot beat passive indexing. Before fees, active managers as a group hold the market. They must, because they collectively own the market. After fees, they underperform it by exactly the amount of those fees. This is not an empirical finding that might be reversed. It is an arithmetic truth. Every dollar paid to active managers is a dollar of underperformance relative to the market index.

The Indicia fund managers, the passive indexers, are the professors’ response. They escape the casino logic by refusing to bet. They hold the market and pay no fees for the privilege of holding it. The mathematics guarantee they outperform the average active manager by exactly the fee amount. The empirical research over the subsequent five decades has confirmed what the parable proves: the vast majority of active managers underperform their benchmarks net of fees over any sufficiently long period.

Where does systematic trend following fit in this parable? The Indicia story describes two choices: bet at the casino or hold the index. But there is a third choice Sharpe does not address in this piece: a systematic, rules-based approach that does not try to predict individual security outcomes, does not pay the casino’s fees for the privilege of speculating on corporate fortunes, but instead captures genuine return sources unavailable to the casino gamblers and the index holders alike. Trend following operates across global futures markets, capturing the large directional price movements that occur in currencies, commodities, bonds, and equity indices. These return sources are not the roulette table. They are the structural price trends produced by macro-economic changes, supply-demand imbalances, and behavioral responses to uncertainty. The casino owner has no cut to take from a trader who is following price trends in global futures markets with a systematic rules-based approach. The casino is the active equity stock-picking that Sharpe describes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is William Sharpe’s Indicia parable about?

It is an allegory published in 1976 that explains why active management in aggregate cannot outperform passive indexing. The money managers in the parable represent active equity managers. The casino represents the active management industry. The deduction from each bet represents management fees and transaction costs. Because active managers collectively own the market, their gross returns equal the market return. After deducting fees, their net returns must be below the market. The Indicia fund managers represent passive index investors who escape this arithmetic by refusing to participate in the casino.

Why does this parable remain accurate today?

Because the arithmetic at its core has not changed. Active managers as a group own the market. Their gross returns must equal the market return in aggregate. After fees, they must underperform. This is not a finding that better fund selection can circumvent. It is a mathematical truth that applies to the average active manager regardless of the decade, the market environment, or the sophistication of the analysis performed at the casino.

Where does systematic trend following fit in the Indicia parable?

It is a third option that Sharpe’s binary does not address: a rules-based approach that operates across global futures markets rather than at the active equity casino. Systematic trend following does not attempt to predict corporate fortunes. It follows price trends in currencies, commodities, bonds, and equity indices. These are genuine return sources distinct from both the casino gamblers and the index holders. The casino owner takes no cut from this activity.

Trend Following Systems
Want to learn more and start trading trend following systems? Start here.