“They Could Have Been Doctors”
A few years ago, I watched a master class by a moderately well-known investor based in New York. There’s only one sentence that stuck with me: “They could have been doctors.”
Here’s the context. He was talking about his junior analysts, those who considered more than just financial gains when choosing stocks. They looked into ESG factors or deeper questions, like a company’s impact on society. In response, he said his only mission as an investor was to make money for his clients, and that humanitarian concerns had no place in investing.
Even back then, that mindset shocked me. As I mentioned in my article on ESG a few months ago, I’m not a huge fan of dogmas. But it raises an important question: Is our role as investors solely to make money?
Recently, I’ve been moving closer to a family office mindset for several reasons, meeting people who manage wealth for high-net-worth individuals, spending time with them, and helping households build their own financial strategies. More than ever, I find myself thinking about purpose and responsibility in investing.
Most independent, non-institutional investors do this job because they love research, analyzing businesses, and seeing returns. Yet I rarely hear discussions about the purpose behind it all. Are we making society better through what we do? Are we improving people’s lives?
Is purpose necessary to launch a fund or manage money? Probably not, unless it serves your ego or helps others grow their wealth. But generational shifts are changing this mindset. Earlier generations, Boomers, for instance, were driven by profit at all costs. Today’s Millennials and Gen Z investors see money more as a means to serve society. At least, that’s true in much of the developed world.
When we study a company, we look at its business model, market, competition, and moat. But if we were to analyze the asset management industry itself, what would we find? To me, it looks overcrowded, burdened with regulation, and lacking real differentiation. Strangely, clients pay for an uncertain outcome, performance, and often overlook costs. Many are seeking optionality, prestige, or simply peace of mind in trusting someone with their wealth. This is why, for most managers, initial capital typically comes from close networks.
What if the future of finance evolved beyond returns and reputation? What if it offered a genuine sense of impact, a way for investors to “move the needle” and make money at the same time?
That’s already happening among certain high-profile figures. Many celebrities invest not only to preserve their wealth or image but to align their money with their values. Leonardo DiCaprio funds environmental causes, Bill Gates focuses on public health, and others use their capital to shape their identities and legacies.
No, we are not doctors, we won’t save lives. But considering the real-world impact of our investments is increasingly vital, especially as new generations grow more socially aware.
I’ve always believed investing is one of the most democratic tools we have. Financing a company is a way to promote what you want to see thrive in the world. That’s the power of active investing: choosing consciously. Passive investing, on the other hand, removes that element of choice. When everyone buys ETFs, we all end up funding the same companies in the same proportions. As a result, the biggest corporations only grow bigger. Without active investors, there’s no real democracy left in the markets.
So, do investors expect more from us than just returns? Which of an investor’s needs and problems can we asnwer to? Is there still room for new managers and finance professional in an overcrowded space? How can we provide stability, trust, and genuine differentiation?
These are questions I’ve been trying to answer for years. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Feel free to reach out or share your perspective in the comments.