I've been investing since my late teens and I was just a young up-and-commer in investing during the Great Recession. I studied the markets since I was about 12 years old - I read a book my father had (but never actually read and applied in his own life) on investing (One up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch). The book fascinated me for some reason.
I've seen a fair bit, but I've studied the markets far more since then and what I've studied is a lot more than what I've seen. One has to study the markets well to be a good investor. History is important in investing.
The present situation with this over decade's long bull market is unprecedented, however. It's a record market - the longest ever. So, studying history won't help too much. In this case, good Risk Management is especially key!
The uneven benefits arising from political certainty: A bad political environment will hurt your portfolio, but a healthy and beneficial political situation is only a prerequisite for investing success
A lot of people in finance and the investing world love to talk about politics and the geopolitical environment. They say how important it is for there to be a stable geopolitical environment for economies to perform well. This is true, but it leaves out too many vital details - a more useful understanding can easily be obtained.
Geopolitical certainty is less a beneficial item for investing and economic success - it's more of a prerequisite for a stable economy and an attractive environment for business. Geopolitical certainty is more of a necessary condition for good things to happen, NOT a sufficient condition. This means you need political certainty and a healthy geopolitical environment for business and the economy to be strong, BUT having a great political climate won't really help your portfolio.
The reason for this uneven distribution of benefits is because stocks aren't valued based on the geopolitical landscape - they are valued based on anticipated future cash flows, discounted at appropriate discount rates. Politics can influence this a bit, but far more so in the negative direction than in the positive one.
So, don't overdo it on how much you focus on politics, the global political landscape, and how this might impact your portfolio. A better approach is to monitor for signs of a terrible geopolitical situation on the horizon while prudently picking excellent investments to put your money in.
Economic recoveries and bull markets move slowly; recessions and downturns move fast. So, be prepared...
Do you think that once a recession looms on the horizon, you'll be able to make preparatory moves to sustain your financial investments and your portfolio? If so, you're probably wrong. You're taking on too much risk and not effectively managing the risk within your portfolio and your financial life if you naively think that pre-recession prep isn't necessary.
Recessions come too quickly for most people - it'll probably be the same for you
Too often, people fail to take prudent steps to prep for recessions, market corrections, or economic downturns - they think they'll see the signs close to it and will be able to make the needed financial adjustments. This is incredibly hard to do, however, and most people fail at it.
The main reason it's hard to do is that, unlike economic recoveries and expansions, recessions come quickly and don't tend to give warning signs until after things are already bad (so, they're not really warning signs in this case).
There's too much prep work to do pre-recession
There is too much to be done to prep for a recession, and there might not be enough time to do it if you wait for some sort of warning sign to begin. These things may include the following:
The above items are essential if you want to both protect your financial and non-financial worlds during a recession. It's also important if you're going to thrive post-recession because of recessions, market corrections, and economic downturns bring asset prices down. The smartest investors are those who are eagerly awaiting a recession with a list of quality firms and other assets to buy up at low prices.
It's hard to find great firms at any time
Generally, quality firms are those who have healthy balance sheets, strong and growing earnings, proper management, and are engaged in businesses that are not readily open to competitive entrants. This is an entire field of study, however, and there isn't enough room in a single article to even begin to delve into this topic.
Whenever people who typically aren't involved in the financial markets get invovled because prices keep rising for a particular asset class or a specific asset, it usually means a correction looms. This has been true about stocks, and it's true about pretty much any asset, including gold, silver, bonds, other commodities, real estate, etc.
Crypto is no different - whenever people pour into the crypto asset class en masse (especially those who traditionally aren't involved in finance, investing, or the financial markets), it usually means we're reaching a local peak, and a correction might be in order.
Of course, a correction doesn't mean things are through. Corrections can be healthy, and after corrections, we often see assets rise again above their pre-dip peaks.
Take a look at Google searches for Bitcoin below - one can see peaks and dips corresponding to rises and dips in the price of Bitcoin (and crypto generally). Interestingly, the spike in late 2007/early 2018 overshadows a lot of other data around it. As of this writing (October 2019), this pre-crypto correction peak is the highest point so far. However, any prudent investor who has studied market history would know that this might not be the case for long.
What is important to understand here is that whenever there's massive euphoria surrounding any financial asset, things aren't generally going to be good in the short-run and medium-run. If there's a ton of euphoria, media coverage, and both your Uber/Lyft driver and grandma want to get in on the action, it might mean the market is saturated with demand. If this is the case, prices for the particular asset might be inflated, and a correction might be in order. This isn't always the case, but it's the case most of the time.
Luckily, it's not hard to know when mass euphoria takes hold. If you're an aware person, you'll likely hear about the new asset craze at the office, at the bar, on the news, or online. Everyone knew about the Bitcoin craze in late 2017. If you want to take things a step further, however, a lot of data is available online that can provide useful proxy information - the Google Trends graph below is a basic example of this.
Have cryptocurrency and/or cryptoassets become a proper asset class in the financial world? It's hard to answer. But, sitting at the end of the first 1/5th fo the 21st Century, it seems like crypto is on its way to becoming a real asset class if it's not already there.
There isn't some special or sacred list in finance houses in London's financial district or on Wall St. in NYC that has a list of all asset classes - it doesn't work that way. What's considered a proper asset class and what's regarded as an alternative asset class (and further distinctions at various levels of granularity) is more based on collective consensus.
Common consensus may make sense, but whose consensus are we talking about. Generally speaking, whether a financial instrument is considered a proper primary asset class (like stocks, bonds, and cash) is determined by the conglomeration of the following people's/org's opinions:
It's the interplay between individuals in each of the above categories that determine whether an asset class is going to be considered a core/primary asset class in the general conception.
Another critical thing to think about is the size of the crypto market. The market cap of all cryptos can be viewed against the market cap of individuals asset classes and the entire finance industry as a whole. Questions like the following might be asked to understand better how big the overall crypto market is relative to all other finance-related markets:
Although there's no hard and fast way to determine whether anything is a core asset class definitely, crypto seems on its way to getting there. It seems likely that one day, gold will remain an alternative asset, but crypto will be a core part of most people's long term investing and retirement portfolios. One day, financial advisers may even find it imprudent to not include crypto as part of a proper diversified investing strategy.
When thinking about risk and probabilistic outcomes, potential gains and potential losses aren't the same things. Only hyper-academic people who aren't actually engaging with the real world or putting something at risk (eg. money, health, life, friends, family, reputation, dignity, etc.) would argue that downside potential should be regarded in the same way as upside potential.
Only entities that
Let's say you're a casino or a major corporation and have a ton of time and a ton of money – in that case, a binary 49% vs. 51% loss-gain distribution (49% chance of total loss; 51% of 2x gain) might make sense because you've got a 2% edge. In the long run, this edge will play itself out so that you come out ahead, assuming you stay around for the long run.
Most retail investors, small or medium-sized businesses, or other smaller orgs won't be around, however, especially if they keep sustaining losses. They should definitely consider the 49% vs. 51% probabilities, but they should also consider another key item: whether or not they think they'll survive for long if they keep engaging in these types of bets . Because, even if the odds are in their favor, a small entity has to be around in order to see those odds actually play out. If you're not around, it doesn't matter how good the odds are – to win the game, you've got to survive long enough first.
Thinking about risk, therefore, isn't a binary operation where you can simply compare probabilities – it's a far more complex exercise that has to take things such as the following into account:
How to use historical stock market data to build your investing intuition, and move one step closer to becoming an investing superhero
On Monday, October 17, 1987, the S&P 500 dropped a little over 20%. Going back to 1950, this was the single worst one-day drop in the stock market. It showed and taught a lot then, and it can still teach market participants and investors today if they are willing to listen.
Historical financial data can be magical - it can help you travel into the past and see the forests from the trees. By listening to historical data, we can more easily understand that a single-day drop of 20% in an index such as the S&P 500 is possible. By knowing that a 20% stock market drop is possible -- and by seeing the number present itself to us in the data -- we can better understand the risks we face by investing and participating in the financial world.
How do we know whats or of stock market drops are possible?
What exactly does possible mean in the context of investing and considering severe market declines? Sure, we know it's "possible" for the S&P 500 to drop by this amount or that amount. But until you ground your understanding in some historical data, you're not going understand this possibility at a deep level.
Observing the S&P 500's daily price movements will help you learn what sort of severe drops are possible for your portfolio
First, a quick note on using the S&P 500: The S&P 500 is a great place to start because it's a reasonable proxy for the market. The S&P 500 surely doesn't represent the entire market of equities, financial assets, and let alone of all assets; but, it's a reasonable and easily-manipulatable proxy for "the market."
If we care about how bad things can get in a single day (eg. an extremely severe yet plausible one day decline in your portfolio), we'll want to look at daily price data. This type of data is readily available online. There's a lot of free data, but you'll have to pay to access longer time horizons or more esoteric data.
Below, we have S&P 500 data April 3, 1950 to September 6, 2019. This represents an almost 70-year time horizon, a bit less than the expected lifespan of a person today. You can see this in the screenshots below (bottom and top of the table shown; table ordered earliest to latest).
The data has three columns - one shows the date, the other the closing price of the S&P 500 on that date, and the last column is the day-over-day change int he S&P 500 stated as a percent. The day-over-day change is easy to calculate - it's merely the one day change divided by the previous day's closing price. Declared as a formula, it is: [Day 2 - Day 1]/Day 1
This is called the arithmetic return. More complex return types -- namely the geometric return -- exist, but they are outside the scope of this discussion. The simple arithmetic return above is sufficient for our purposes.
Observing financial market data can teach you a lot and help to build a bit of market-related intuition
Just observing stock market data like this can be useful. Exploring data visually without graphing it can give us some interesting and potentially-valuable preliminary insights. This is especially true for people who haven't done this sort of data analysis before. For example, we can observe that in the very beginning of our data set (the first few days of April 1950), the S&P 500 was around $18. This is in sharp contrast to the almost $3000 S&P 500 level we observe below for September 2019. This plainly shows us that there has been some dramatic growth over the last 70 years in absolute metrics.
Although we can see some things by observing the financial data, it's hard to determine summary statistics about the S&P 500 data set visually. Stats like mean, median, minimum, and maximum are hard to see because all of the data needs to be taken into account. Taking all of the data into account can't easily be done relying on the human mind - it's just not what it's made to do. The data set has almost 17,500 rows - that's simply too much to comprehend without the use of computing devices/methods (or without a considerable amount of time to devote to this endeavor). Luckily, such devices/methods are easily available for free (eg. Google Sheets) or cheap (eg. Microsoft Excel) in the form of software. More complex options are available that are both free and paid (eg. R, Matlab, Tableau, etc.). Something like Microsoft Excel would be enough for the vast majority of use cases, however.
Finding the minimum, or the worst stock market day over the last 70 years
Some relatively easy functions can be used in Excel -- the tool of choice for most finance people -- to get some stats on the data. In the screenshot below, you can see the average, the max, and the min. The min is what we care about most here - it represents the lowest day-over-day S&P 500 change; it represents the most severe single-day drop in the S&P 500 over the last 70 years.
We can see that the worst drop is -20.47%. That means that in one single day, the stock market effectively dropped by over 20%.
Black Monday - an over 20% one day drop in the stock market
We can see the drop occurred on Monday, October 19, 1987, by examing our data set in greater detail. By filtering the data from largest to smallest, we can see what date corresponds to the worst stock market drop. Once we have the date, we can observe what happened around it in the days before and after Black Monday, which is what Monday, October 19, 1987is called in the financial industry.
The image below is the copied and pasted data from around Black Monday. It's interesting and useful to observe what happened around that time. We can see in the 10 days around Black Monday, 7 out of 10 days were losing days. We can also combine the losses to see what the cumulative loss over the 10-day period would have been. We can see that it's even worse - over the 10 days, the stock market dropped over 26%.
That means you could wake up one day over the course of your investing life and see that your portfolio is down 20% in a single day. That event would be tough to deal with - you'd be in for a very rough day and rough week. It would take some time to recover from the loss, but recovery would definitely be possible. A mistake, however, would be to panic and deviate form your long term investment strategy for no real reason beyond the fact that you're freaked out.
Use this knowledge to avoid panic sales and other forms of freaking out during the next inevitable stock market disaster
We all get freaked out in investing - it's your money that's on the line, and you don't want to lose it. Even small drops can seem bad. Even times where there's no movement could be perceived as bad if you were anticipating gains. You can't let these investing difficulties make you make investing mistakes, however. You've got to do your best to maintain a long-term perspective on investing. Something that helps us do that is exercises like the one we just went through. Looking at historical market data, understanding how the markets have moved over time, and understanding how markets may tend to move int he future are all essential things that will buffer you from foolish investing mistakes made out of fear.
If you'd like to explore the Excel file form which the above screenshots originated, you can download the file here. You'll be able to copy and paste the S&P 500 data to do your own data analysis work, like finding the maximum one-day increase.
With each economic cycle in modern economies, we experience the same thing - there's a boom, then a bust, then a recovery, and then another boom...
It's typical after a long period of growth for investors, the financial media, and your everyday Joe Shmo to start thinking that a recession looms on the horizon. But, recessions don't like fear - people freaking out doesn't usually beckon a recession.
In actuality, recessions are more often seen right after periods of intense euphoria in the economic and financial worlds. These times are marked by excessive optimism and a fear of missing out (FOMO) by many market participants. During such times you'll hear people traditionally not involved in finance or investing talking about investing - this is markedly different than how people act during times of fear or caution.
Thinking that a recession is near when most others think this is an error in most cases - one likely based on not understanding financial market history well enough. Although real panics will very likely have macroeconomic consequences (and might cause a recession or even a depression), general but relatively subdued caution and fear is not likely going to be the cause of a recession. It's when people expect it the least do macroeconomic downturns start to brew.
From a mathematical perspective, those in Finance can clearly show you how not being diversified -- in an economy that allows for diversification -- is not prudent. Why isn't it prudent? Because, for most investors, not having all of their eggs in one basket will prevent them from devastating loss should some baskets break. Baskets break all the time.
Although diversification is an ancient concept, the modern idea of financial diversification in the context of creating an effective investment portfolio can be attributed to Harry Markowitz. Markowitz published his seminal paper titled Portfolio Selection in 1952. Check it out here, and other places online.
Some investors, however, feel that they don't need this rule. Some investors think the rule, or more precisely, the nature of the world in the investing space, doesn't apply to them. They feel that they know more than the typical investor or investing firm knows - they think they're somehow better at picking stocks or making investment decisions. These people -- and they are everywhere -- believe that they're just different. It's a common thing in humanity, and it might not change.
In the context of investing -- and specifically retail or family office investing -- portfolio concentration risk is the risk that you are overly exposed to something. That something can be any of the following and more:
Inappropriate portfolio concentrations are those that expose your portfolio to more risk than you would like or more risk than would be prudent. As such, assessing the concentration levels within your investment portfolio and taking steps to ensure that they are in line with your goals is a smart thing that should be done every so often.
The good thing is that it’s pretty easy and straightforward to determine the concentration levels for a lot of things like stocks, sectors, and countries (things like determining the concentration to strategies and assumptions is a bit more complex).
Step 1: Compile your entire investment portfolio
This might be the most difficult part as modern investors often have portfolios spread out amongst different account or different institutions. For example, you might have a brokerage account, a savings account for an emergency fund, some random savings accounts, and a 401k plan at work – this isn’t unreasonably complex but it does mean you’ll need to do a bit of work compiling things initially.
In fact – you should have done this already; the info should already be complied! If you’re investing and you don’t have a single source that is updated at least occasionally where you can get a high-level picture of your portfolio, you’re making a mistake. Spending some time on this will be beneficial in many ways, beyond just understanding concentrations and concentration risk.
Step 2: Pick a concentration category (eg. stocks, countries, sectors, etc.)
Next, pick a category against which you'd like to determine concentration levels in your portfolio. Don't start with complex things - start with basic things and move towards more complexity as you slowly get a better understanding of the risk nature of your portfolio.
For example, a great place to start would be sectors - you don't want to be exposed to a particular sector too much. If you're only in tech stocks or only in blue chips, you might want to diversify at bit more, depending on your risk tolerance and investing horizon. At the very least you'll want to know that you're heavily concentrated in particular sectors.
Other key concentrations are for individual stocks (eg. the investor who's absurdly exposed to one particular stock they love at the detriment to proper portfolio risk management and diversification).
Step 3: Simply make a list
For a retail investor doing simple portfolio concentration risk analysis, once you have your portfolio in one place and once you decide what you want to examine, it's very simple to proceed.
All you need to do is make a list with two columns - the particular investment product in the right column and the percent of the portfolio that the investment product represents. This is best illustrated by the table below.
As you can clearly see, this isn't a healthy portfolio. The vast majority of the portfolio is concentrated on
The portfolio has home country bias and seems to biased toward popular or newsworthy tech stocks and friend/family tips. Only 30% (broad market ETF + global ETF) of the portfolio is in a broad, well-diversified, investment product while 55% of the portfolio is in just 3 stocks. That's simply absurd for most investors - unless you're an excellent/skilled investor with a very long time horizon and a high risk tolerance, that sort of exposure is unacceptable.
Step 4: Take prudent risk-mitigating steps to reduce the concentration risk within your portfolio
Finally, after the analysis, you would take action - you'd act in ways to adjust your portfolio to reduce concentration risk. Of course, in doing this you'd want to be prudently confident in the insights on which you base your decisions and you'll want to take other factors into account - these other factors might include tax implications and macroeconomic assumptions.
In our example above, a prudent investor would sell off some of the tech stock exposure and re-assess weather the family member's energy stock tip was actually a good tip (eg. is the stock worth owning). Then, the investor might take the proceeds from these sales and invest them into more well-diversified products like ETFs, focusing both on foreign and domestic ETFs. The investor would also want to make sure to focus on both small cap and large cap ETFs, keeping in mind their risk tolerance and adjusting appropriately.
Finally, the investor might see that they are only in equities - this might make sense but putting some money in bonds or alternatives might make sense for some investors. These decisions are all individual - one needs to act prudently based on their own circumstances.
Concentration risk is only one type of investment portfolio risk, but it's an easy one to spot and fix. A lot of investors are prone to taking on too much concentration risk. They don't do it intentionally - they just lack an investing plan or approach and instead buy stocks here and there based on emotions. This is hard to remedy - not everyone is going to create an investing approach and monitor it over time. But, people easily -- and enjoyably -- do the above exercise once in a while (at least once a year) to see if their portfolio is too concentrated on one stock, one sector, or one economy.
Devastating portfolio declines and what it takes to recover from them – the math isn’t in your favor
Everyone thinks about gaining money when they invest, but too often we neglect how important it is to not lose money. Not losing money is so important, in fact, that one of the greatest financial investors in history (and very likely the greatest one alive today) espouses the following as his Rule No 1:
Don’t lose money.
What’s Rule No 2?
Remember Rule No 1.
Rule No 2 is obviously meant to be a little humorous, but Buffet is a serious man when it comes to investing and his rules are meant to illustrate a fundamental truth about investing – that truth is that it’s very hard to recover from a loss and that it gets harder and harder the deeper the loss.
This is all best illustrated with examples. Sometimes, a good set of examples can do more for contributing to understanding than pages and pages of text. So, let’s go over three examples, each with increasing levels of severity of initial losses.
In each example, we’ll break things down into 3 time periods – Time 0, Time 1, and Time 2:
A 25% Loss – Somewhat severe, but recoverable
With a 25%loss, your $1000 declines to $750 – this represents a one-quarter decline in your portfolio and would obviously be an unwelcome occurrence. Now, let’s take a look at what sort of returns you’ll need to recover by Time 2; let’s see what sort of returns in the subsequent time period you’ll need to make you whole again.
As you can see from the table, a 33.33% gain is required in order for you to recover and get back to the initial $1000. A 10% return, 20% return, or even a strong 30%return in one time period simply won’t do it.
That means if each time period is 1 year, even a 30% return in the year subsequent to your 25% loss won’t be enough. 30% is a solid return. The fact that it’s not enough should be the first hint that getting back to whole is a lot harder than dropping, from a mathematical/percentage perspective. It’s only going to get worse.
A 50% Loss – Very severe, but you can recover if you stay prudent over the long term
With a 50% loss, it’s a lot harder to recover. Now, it takes a 100% gain (doubling your post-loss portfolio value) to get back to whole again. If you halve your portfolio, you’ll need to double it to bring it back to its original value.
So, if a time period is one year, you’ll need to double your post-loss portfolio value to get back to your Time 0 initial value. That’s very hard. You’d be far better off having avoided such a decline because it’ll be an uphill climb getting back to baseline again. This is what Warren Buffet’s Rule No 1 points to.
A drop of 50% in your portfolio value is very severe and detrimental to your long term investing goals. It will take a 100% increase -- doubling your portfolio -- to recover from a 50% loss. This is tough, but it's doable - it might not happen in a single time period but over time a prudent and disciplined investor stands a chance at recovery.
A 75% Loss – A devastating blow to a portfolio that will take some time to recover from
With a 75%, things get really bad. Now, in order to get back to whole, you’ll need a 300% gain. A 300% gain is the same as quadrupling your money (4x return). As any investor knows, a 300% return is very hard to get – it usually takes years to achieve such returns in a well-diversified portfolio.
Let’s think about this some more. As we keep increasing out Time 1 losses by 25% increments, the return needed to get back to whole by Time 2 goes up by way more than 25%. This is based on the underlying mathematics of portfolio returns, but we don’t need to get deep into that here. The above examples should clearly show how each time the loss gets more severe, the needed gain to get back to baseline gets more and more astounding.
If you lose 75% of your portfolio’s value in a single year due to a very severe recession or, far worse, due to investing blunders, you’re going to have to make some incredible returns (300%) to recover. What makes you think you’ll beable to do that? It’ll likely take a number of years and some serious investing discipline to be able to recover in this way.
A 75% portfolio decline is devastating to any portfolio. It will take a 300% return (quadrupling your money; a 4x return) to get back to whole again. This is very hard to do in a single time period. It might take years of prudent and disciplined long term investing to recover. This demonstrates why large portfolio declines are so detrimental and should be avoided.
A bit more mathematical, for the mathematically inclined
For those that are more mathematically inclined, let’s dig a bit deeper into the portfolio maths.
Let’s assume an initial portfolio value of a – this is your Time 0 value
For any portfolio change (decline or increase) d, where is greater than -1 but less than 1, the portfolio value in the immediately subsequent period (Time 1) will be a x (1 + d)
To get back to the initial portfolio value by Time 2, we’ll need to do something to the Time 1 value to get it back to a (which we stated above was our initial value)
We can simply divide the Time 1 value by (1 + d) to get back to a – that’s [a x (1 + d)]/(1 + d)
Dividing by (1 + d) is the same as multiplying by 1/(1 + d) – that’s the amount, no matter what our initial a is and what the change d ends up being, that we have to multiply the Time 1 portfolio value by
Now, notice that if d is less than 0, 1/(1 + d) will be larger than 1. So, if d is -0.25 (corresponding to a 25% decline in our first example above), then 1/(1 + d) is 1/(1 – 0.25) which is 1/0.75. What’s 1/0.75? It’s 1.3333. That means you’ll need 1.3333 times the Time 1 value – this exactly represents an aprox 33% increase.
Let’s do a 75% decline as in the third example above – now 1/(1 + d) is 1/0.25. That’s equal to 4, which represents a 300% increase over the Time 1 value.
We can see that as d approaches -1 (moving towards a total loss), 1/(1 + d) gets bigger, but by a disproportionate amount.
Can we derive a simple way to see how our 1/(1 + d) factor changes with changes in d? Yes – it’s easy using Calculus:
d/dx[1/(1 + d)] = d/dx[(1 + d)^-1] = [-(1 + d)^-2] x d/dx(1 + d) = [-(1 + d)^-2] x (0 + 1)
so, the derivative is -1/(1 + d)^2
Calculus can be applied to lots of situations to better understand how things change. F
We can see that by squaring the (1 + d) term, we’re increasing the effects of both positive and negative portfolio changes. If d < 0, then squaring (1 + d), which will be less than 1, will only make the factor smaller. By making that factor smaller, the entire factor gets bigger because dividing 1 by smaller and smaller numbers makes the result bigger and bigger.
This should be very discouraging – the numbers tell us that negative effects are magnified when we think about the returns needed to recover.
One of the best ways to calm your anxieties during market turmoil is to track your portfolio over time in a robust and sustainable way. What does that look like? It means periodically and consistently -- on a weekly or monthly basis (daily is too volatile and yearly is too high level to see intra-year fluctuations) – in a way that makes you actually have to engage with your portfolio.
This means using software or an app to track might not be sufficient if the app does all of the work for you. One of the best ways to do it is to use an Excel file and simply list your total portfolio value over time, row by row, with each row representing a particular point in time (see example below).
What this will give you is something incredible – it’ll give you some perspective. Perspective is an amazing gift, but it isn’t very easy to come by. To get real perspective, there aren’t a lot of shortcuts you can take – it takes time. But, even if you have been investing for years and years, you still likely won’t gain perspective if you don’t track your portfolio but instead mindlessly go about checking it every once in a while without putting its current value in appropriate historical context. Remember - perspective is earned.
By having some perspective, you'll be less likely to make dumb investing mistakes. When stocks go down severely due to short term market turmoil, you'll have enough historical perspective to understand that markets are volatile in the short term.
This is useful for all sorts of investors - those that invest in stocks obviously, but it's also useful for investors in real estate, derivatives, cryptoassets, and even fixed income (although fixed income can be a bit more complex because it is exposed to interest rate risk in addition to market risk).
Jamie Dimon Steps Back from Harsh Crypto Comments - Another Indication that the Traditional Financial World's Hatred of Cryptoassets is Slowly Beginning to Thaw
.Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, stepped down from his comments he made in late 2017. In September of 2017, Dimon said that Bitcoin is a "fraud" and that he would fire people who worked for him if they traded in the cryptocurrency.
bitcoin is a fraud
Many in the cryptoasset and cryptocurrency community were unhappy about such remarks coming form a very senior person in the financial and banking world. Many in the financial world, including Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, hesitated even during that time in 2017 to make extremely harsh criticism of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. They didn't make extremely harsh criticisms, but they still criticized it.
Blankfein said in November of 2017 that "maybe Bitcoin is kind of a bubble" but he also said that "the list of things that are conventional today that I use every day that I thought would never make it is a very long list."
the list of things that are conventional today that I use every day that I thought would never make it is a very long list
On Tuesday, January 9, however, Jamie Dimon said that he regretted calling Bitcoin a fraud - he added that he feels the "blockchain is real." These statements were likely prompted by various things, including the rise in cryptocurrency and cryptoasset prices since Dimon made that original statement. However, it's likely that pressure on Wall St. to not be the pariah of the crypto world also had something to do with it. Finally, it's possible that Dimon simply took some time to learn more about cryptocurrency and cryptoassets - after that learning he might have a better opinion of the overall technology behind it.
the blockchain is real
While many want to look down upon Dimon for going back on his remarks or for not being on the mark back in 2017, this isn't a smart way to think about things. Incentives matter a lot - this is basic economics. Jamie Dimon is the CEO of one of the world's largest financial institutions - he is the epitome of the entrenched establishment in the global financial world. No one who is not naive should be surprised that such a person would make negative comments about something that could potentially disrupt his entire industry - an industry he devoted his life to. Instead, it's promising that he took a step toward setting things right.
The Importance of Failing at Investing - It's Almost a Prerequisite to a Successful Long-term Investing Track Record
Failure is always unpleasant but a part of life that can teach. Not all things require failure - you can be a great academic and never fail a class and you obviously don't' want to be an engineer or an architect that ever fails. However, with investing, it's a whole different game - failure early on is almost a prerequisite to a successful long-term investing track record. It's not only that failure is ok, it's almost that utter failure early on (or possibly later on, but early on is better because you usually will have less invested early on).
Financial Markets are too Difficult to Predict
This is a pretty bold statement we're making - we're saying that not only is failure ok but that failure in investing is almost a prerequisite for a good long-term investing track record. This is the case because investing -- unlike so many other professions and activities -- involves intense levels of uncertaintly and potentially chaos. The markets are uncertain and can act in chaotic ways. Additionally, when they are chaotic, they are of the more complicated second order chaos variety - this means that not only is it hard to predict financial markets but that in attempting to predict them we influence them as well. The problem is that humans have a lot of deep-seated heuristics and cognitive biases that intensely cloud our thinking and prevent us from acting in rational ways.
Cognitive Biases and Heuristics Can Lead an Investor Astray
An engineer or an actor or an architect or a college student or an academic doesn't need to fail because their professions are (1) far less uncertain in terms of predicting outcomes and (2) rely on things that are less affected by heuristics and cognitive biases. For example, a bridge builder uses principles of physics to predict the behavior of materials in various situations - not only does this prediction not involve deeply complex or chaotic systems, but it can also be tested in small-scale environments before being implemented (something that's not really possible in a world where time travel hasn't been invented yet). Here's a brief list of some heuristics and cognitive biases:
Two Main Benefits of Investment Failure
Failure in investing does one of two things (and maybe both):
A Real-Life Example of Investment Failure
As an example, I failed big time when I was about 20 years old. This was right before the Great Recession and my friend was working at Washington Mutual as a teller while going to school - the now defunct predominantly- Western bank that was purchased by Chase after it's collapse. We were young college students interested in entering the market and we had no inkling that the Great Recession might come. We bought a significant amount of WaMu stock. Then the economy tanked and the stock went down. We were pretty heavily invested in this one stock at the time. He went to his job every day and he told me no to worry - after all, how could a big bank like this with so much real estate and so much branding and so many customers collapse? It wasn't going to happen. Then, the bank failed and we lost our entire investment.
That experience taught me a lot about investing:
There have been 22 recessions since the turn of the 20th century -- see the table below for a list of all of them (sourced from here) -- and we have currently experienced one of the longest expansion in US history as of early 2017 - by June 2017 we will have experienced an 8-year expansion (almost 96 months) - this is the third longest bull market in over 100 years. Clearly at some point within the next 2 to 5 years, we're going to experience a recession.
This article isn't about 2017 or this latest bull market, however - it's about the economy in general and the fact that things so far have been cyclical. Given the last century of markets, we can safely assume things will continue more or less the same way unless deep structural changes cause some sort of change. These types of changes might be:
Until those things happen, a prudent person would assume a recession will occur when a bull market has been going on for a long time.
Can you predict when a recession will happen? NO.
Can you predict how bad the recession will be? NO.
BUT, can you reasonably assume there will be one? YES.
Now, why are we writing this piece? Doesn't it seem obvious? Well, in fact, there are generally two schools of thought in personal finance and investing when it comes to recessions - neither of which are healthy for most people to adopt:
What's a better option? The better way is to simply observe things in light of historical data and without trying to quantify things. In this observation, you need to be incredibly humble of your lack of ability to really predict much but you still need to be mindful of the length of bull market runs. As the run gets longer - as Year 1 turns into Year 5 and then turns into Year 8 of a bull market you will want to
Most people will sell during a recession - usually after having purchased at the previous highs in a euphoric frenzy. You, however, should be sitting calmly with a pile of cash ready to buy excellent stocks at very low prices. In the meantime, you'll still want to be investing - you don't want to stop investing and wait for a recession because you can't rally predict when it will come and you don't want to spend years sitting around waiting without getting any market returns.
Be wary of those individuals who try to predict things too much, in fact, add a lot of risk to the equality. The risk comes from the false assurance they provide themselves or others - it is better to wisely understand your total lack of knowledge about something than to confidently go forward when ou really don't understand something. As Mark Twain so eloquently stated: "It ain't what you don't know that kills you, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
And now, given the rise of cyrptocurrencies and crypto assets to quasi-mainstream financial assets, we're dedicated to providing quality, relevant, and interesting material on cryptocurrencies and cryptoassets. Articles on Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Cardano, and many more cryptocurrencies and cryptoassets can be found on Pennies and Pounds - all that in addition to a plethora of information on what cryptoassets are, how the entire crypto industry came to be, blockchain/immutable ledger technology, mining, proof of work, proof of stake, and how to prudently invest in crypto if you are so inclined (based on your risk tolerance and ability to withstand the volatility that will come with a crypto portfolio).