In the next few years, a client’s evaluation of their advisor will boil down to the professional’s ability to do two things: add alpha and keep them invested. True, these have always been core components of an advisor’s role, but in the coming years they will take on added significance.

Why? It’s a function of a low-return environment, and the psychological roller coaster that is likely to unfold.

While the term “alpha” is widely used, in our experience, it’s not particularly well understood. Alpha, properly defined, is return in excess of what could have been expected given the risks assumed to generate the returns. Notice that this is not strictly outperformance relative to a benchmark, but rather, its relative performance given the level of risk taken.

Imagine last September you placed a $500 wager on the Saints to win the Super Bowl this Sunday. Further imagine your heartbreak as a human error resulted in perhaps the worst no-call in the history of sports, thereby thwarting your chance to cash a $6500 ticket. The joy and agony we all experience from our sports obsessions often hinge on the mistakes, biases, and mis-cues of the all-too-human participants.

In addition to death and taxes, investors could be forgiven for being seduced into the belief that there are two additional certainties in life: 1.) stocks will only ever go up, and 2.) the Patriots will either make it to the Super Bowl, or at least be in contention each year (they have played in the AFC Championship game in each of the last seven years).

In a recent article, Morningstar analyzed the performance of long/short equity funds, and concluded that while many managers in the category exhibit stock-picking skill, that skill has been insufficient to make up for the fees. Fair enough, but what caught our eye wasn’t the conclusion, but rather the methodology employed to assess skill: multi-factor regression analysis using the Fama-French factor returns.