We never shy away from the big investment questions at Premier. Last year, for example, we decisively ended the whole C-3PO Vs Han Solo debate. Now we aim to settle an arguably more contentious issue: should you invest with Indiana Jones? 
I’m surprised this has been such an emotional industry touchpoint for so long. The answer seems clear: You back Dr Jones with your hard-earned cash every day of the week.
Why am I so certain?
It’s helpful to understand the two struts of the counterargument: he takes too much risk and he fails to plan with sufficient rigour. Both are understandable concerns, but neither is valid.
Let’s deal with risk-taking.
As a focused, goal-oriented individual, Dr Jones can realistically claim to be the father of modern ‘Outcome Investing’. You can draw a straight line between his quest for the Ark of the Covenant, for example, and the modern adventurer’s crusade for a half-decent income and a bit of capital growth. (Or if not a straight line, then at least one that jinks satisfyingly between historical waypoints on a tea-stained map).
I’m certain that, had he been able to pop down to the shops to pick up the Sacred Stones of Sankara, and thereby avoid travelling half-way round the world to face down the maniacal devotees of the evil god Kali, then that is exactly what he would have done.
But the stones were not, as he might reasonably have hoped, sat in the Oxfam window, nestled between the Downton box set and a sun-faded edition of Buckaroo! That being the reality, Dr Jones needed to take some risk to get what he wanted. And there’s nothing to suggest those risks were excessive given the magnitude of his desired outcome.
And so it is with investing.
Were investors able to nip down the high street and – at zero risk – secure a four-plus-and-growing income or mid-single-digit capital growth, then we would heartily recommend they do so. But no such option exists.
So we, as our investors’ appointed managers, need to take some risks to get what they want. Granted, we’re not taking the kind of snake-dodging, Hitler-defying risks in which Dr Jones specialises, but then it’s modest capital growth we’re after here, not the Holy Grail.
This is called ‘appropriate risk’. Dr Jones is focused wholeheartedly on achieving the outcome his backers want, and he takes as little risk as possible to achieve that outcome. That’s good stewardship in our book.
The second criticism is his supposed unwillingness to create and stick to a detailed plan. This stems from the following exchange in Raiders of the Lost Ark:
“I'm going after that truck.”
“How?”
“I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go.”
Now, I acknowledge that ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I’m making this up as I go’ aren’t what most people want to hear from their fund manager.
But thankfully, as professional investors, we can call on impenetrable technical jargon to say exactly the same thing, but more impressively. In this case, we’ll sub in the term ‘reflexivity’ – a concept expounded by George Soros. And say what you like about George, you can’t deny he’s earned a bob or two over the years.
‘Reflexivity’ is mind-bendingly difficult to describe, so I’m not going to try. But at its heart lies the acceptance that we can’t know everything, or anything close to it. None of us are infallible, so it’s better to acknowledge that than carry on in denial.
On this basis, Dr Jones’ honest admission shows mental fortitude, not weakness. He acknowledges that the situation keeps changing, so his plan must keep changing too (although his desired outcome remains the same). Contrast that with someone who thinks they know precisely how things will pan out: They’d have panicked as soon as the man hit the fan.
2016 has been the perfect year for highlighting the dangers of the ‘know-everything’ model.
Few investors predicted Brexit or Trump, which caught many out who tried. But even those who were clever enough to predict the upsets were then walloped by markets doing the exact opposite to what they ‘should have’. So rather than be reassured by a manager who gives us a precise investment plan, we should instead be wary: they don’t know that they don’t know.
A sensible investor shouldn’t try to tell you precisely what will happen in the next 12 months, just as Dr Jones won’t tell you exactly how he’s going to catch the truck. Sure, equities may be better for generating income and growth than bonds today, but if bonds crash and equities rally, we’ll need to adapt. ‘It depends’ is a more diplomatically astute way of saying that than ‘I’m making it up as I go’, but it’s a similar principle.
So let’s end this debate right here. Dr Jones is determined to achieve a specific outcome, and he takes the minimum risk necessary to achieve that outcome by sensibly adapting to an ever-changing reality. Sounds like the right stuff to me.
Right, who’s next?
Simon Evan-Cook is senior investment manager at Premier Multi-Asset Funds. The views expressed above are his own and should not be taken as investment advice.