Stocks — Part III: Most people lose money in the market.

So, here we have this wonderful wealth building tool that relentlessly marches upward but – and this is a major but  – boy howdy it’s a wild and unsettling ride.

In Part I & Part II I presented to you a very rosy view of the stock market and its wealth building potential.  Every thing I wrote is true.  But, this too is true:

Most people lose money in the stock market.

Here’s why:

1.  We panic when times are tough and buy when the market is soaring.

We buy high and sell low.  This applies to all of us.  It is the way humans are hard-wired.  We are psychologically unsuited to prosper in a volatile market.  It takes an act of will and effort to understand, accept and then change this destructive behavior.

Here’s a sobering fact: The vast majority of investors in mutual funds actually manage to get worse returns from their funds than the funds themselves generate and report.  Let that little nugget sink in a moment.  How can this be?  We can’t help trying to “time” the market and so jump in and out; almost always at the wrong times.

Listen here for a moment to what Warren Buffett has to say about this.  My favorite line:

“The Dow started the last century at 66 and ended at 11,400. How could you lose money during a period like that? A lot of people did because they tried to dance in and out.”

2.  We believe we can pick individual stocks.  

You can’t pick winning stocks.  Don’t feel bad.  I can’t either.  Nor can 80%+ of most pros.

Oh, sure.  Occasionally we can, and Oh My what a heady feeling it is when it works.  It is incredibly seductive.  Picking a stock that soars is an intense and addictive high.  The media and internet are filled with “winning” strategies that feed on this delusion.

Last year I spotted a trend and made 19% in four months on the five stocks I choose.  (Sigh.  I still have this addiction.)  That’s almost 60% annualized.  This while the market was flat for the year.  That’s spectacular, if I do say so myself.  It is also impossible to do year after year.

Even slightly beating the Index year after year is vanishingly difficult.  Only a handful of investors have been able to modestly outpace it over time.  Doing so made them superstars.  That’s why Warren Buffet, Michael Price and Peter Lynch are household names.  That’s why I don’t let my occasional win go to my head.  That’s why I let Index Funds do the heavy lifting in my portfolio.

For more on this, here’s the 2nd post ever I wrote for this blog:

http://jlcollinsnh.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/why-i-can’t-pick-winning-stocks-and-you-can’t-either/

And here’s my take on a currently popular strategy:

http://jlcollinsnh.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/dividend-growth-investing/

3.  We believe we can pick winning mutual fund managers. 

Actively Managed Stock Mutual Funds (funds run by professional managers as opposed to Index Funds) are a huge and highly profitable business.  Profitable for the companies that run them.* For the investors, not so much.

So profitable are they, there are actually more mutual funds out there than there are stocks.  You read that correctly.  Yeah, I’m amazed too.

There is so much money at stake, investment companies are forever launching new funds while burying the ones that fail.  The financial media is filled with stories of winning managers and funds, and advertising from them.   Past records are analyzed.  Managers are interviewed.  Companies like Morningstar are built around researching and ranking funds.

The fact is only 20% of fund managers will beat the Index over time.  80% will fail.  100% of them will charge you high fees to try. There is no predicting which will be in that rarefied 20%.

Every fund prospectus carries this phrase:  “Past results are not a guarantee of future performance.”  It is the most ignored sentence in the whole document.  It is also the most accurate.

Here’s little “trick” the mutual fund companies employ.  When one of their funds under-performs they’ll simply quietly close it and fold the assets into something doing better.  The bad fund disappears and the company can continue to claim its fund are all stars.  Cute.

There’s lots of money to be made with actively managed funds.  Just not by the investors. Want to hear me rant more about this?  Here you go:

http://jlcollinsnh.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/index-funds/

4.  We play in the wrong end of the pool.

Mmmm.  Beer.

Imagine you’ve just spent a few hours reading all pithy posts here on jlcollinsnh.  (As well you should!)  Richly deserving of a reward you crack open a bottle of your favorite brew and pour it into a nice chilled glass.

If you’ve done this before you know that if you carefully pour it down the side you’ll wind up with a glass filled mostly with beer and a small foam head.  Pour it fast and down the center and you can easily have a glass with a little beer and filled mostly with foam.

Imagine now someone else has poured it for you, out of sight, and into a solid mug you can’t see thru.  You have no way of knowing how much is beer and how much is foam.  That’s the stock market.

See, the stock market is really two very different things:

1.  It is the beer:  The actual operating businesses we can own a part of.

2.  It is the foam:  The traded pieces of paper that furiously rise and fall in price moment-to-moment.  This is the market of CNBC.  This is the market of the daily stock market report.  This is the market people are talking about when they liken Wall Street to Las Vegas.  This is the market of the daily, weekly, monthly, yearly volatility that drives the average investor out the window and on to the ledge.

This is the market that, if you are smart and want to build wealth over time, you will absolutely ignore.

When you look at the daily price of a stock it is impossible to know how much is foam.  This is why a company can plummet in value one day and soar the next.  This is why CNBC routinely features experts, each impressively credentialed, confidently predicting where the market is going next – while contradicting each other.  It is all those traders competing to guess how much beer is actually in the glass, and how much is foam.

Over time, it is the beer that matters.  It is the beer that is the real, operating, money making underlying businesses beneath all that foam and froth that relentlessly drives the market ever higher.

Understand, too, that what the media wants from these commentators is drama.  Nobody is going to sit glued to their TV while some rational person talks about long-term investing.  But get somebody to promise the Dow is going to 20,000 by year’s end or, better yet, is on the verge of careening into the abyss, and brother you’ve got ratings!

But it’s all just so much noise and it doesn’t matter to us.  We’re in it for the beer!

Next time we’ll talk about that big, ugly event.

Disclaimer:  Like everything on this blog, this is only sharing ideas.  You are solely responsible for your own choices.

Addendum I:

Wander on over to Mrs. EconoWiser’s fine site and you can listen to what Warren Buffet says about stocks: You can’t dance in and out of them. My favorite line:

“The Dow started the last century at 66 and ended at 11,400. How could you lose money during a period like that? A lot of people did because they tried to dance in and out.”

Addendum II:

*In addition to underperforming Index Funds, actively managed funds cost more, and those costs have a very serious and negative impact on your results. My pal Shilpan has a great post on this:  That Mutual Fund is Robbing Your Retirement

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
This entry was posted in Stock Investing Series and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

23 Comments

  1. Posted April 26, 2012 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Nice take on the market psychology Jim. You’ve hit the nail on the head with the facts on mutual funds. I think people who invest in mutual fund without giving much thought are worst than those who try to actively manage their portfolio by picking stocks.

    • Posted April 27, 2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      Thanks!

      In my opinion successful investing will always be elusive without understanding our human psychology and how it works against us.

      Choosing an actively managed mutual fund is every bit as difficult as choosing an individual stock. In both cases you are investing in the individuals that run the company or fund.

      At least stock pickers realize, mostly, the challenge they’ve undertaken. Mutual fund companies spend huge amounts convincing people choosing a fund is easy. It’s not.

      Fortunately Index Funds do away with both those choices for a simpler and more profitable option.

      • Posted April 29, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

        Got that right, Jim. I’ve gotten out and stayed out of mutual funds where I can. But I still cling to the notion that I can pick stocks. As you said, we’re only human. And we like beer.

        • Posted April 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

          It is one of the toughest of all addictions to shake.

          Stock picking that is. Not beer. ;)

      • Posted July 7, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for linking my latest article. I have much to learn from your wisdom. I am definitely making progress.

  2. Trish
    Posted May 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Jim-
    What’s a “tax-managed” fund?
    I have some Vanguard balanced funds, and I’m wondering what that means.
    I’ve been testing your theory. I have half my investment in a managed fund, half in an index fund. So far, I’m ahead on the managed, so I figure it might be time to get out and go index. Overall, the difference doesn’t seem to be worth the extra cost.

    • Posted May 7, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

      great question!

      most actively managed funds do a lot of trading in their effort to try to out-pace the Index. Problem is, those trades are taxable events for the fund shareholders creating tax liabilities that may not be expected or wanted.

      a tax-managed fund seeks to limit its trading and thereby its taxable events for shareholders.

      Because Index funds buy and hold all the stocks in an index they are, by definition, tax efficient.

      Good luck with your test. a big advantage Index funds have is their low cost. Managed funds charge higher fees and that is a never-ending drag on their performance.

  3. Dave
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 4:58 am | Permalink

    Hi, I’m new here and wanted to say thanks for a really useful blog, which I’m steadily catching up with.

    The only thing that really irks me is that you consistently spell Warren Buffett’s name incorrectly. Like, every time you mention him. It’s not a dig, I just felt you should probably know.

    • Posted June 6, 2012 at 8:13 am | Permalink

      Welcome Dave…..

      Glad you’re enjoying it.

      Yeah, Warren’s been bugging me about that extra ‘t’, too. I’ll try to do better.

  4. Julie
    Posted June 17, 2012 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    I have not read this article yet, but I saw the first item and just had to comment – I LOVE the Back to the Future reference! Fantastic! Ok, now to read the actual article…..

    • Posted June 18, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

      Ha!

      glad somebody caught the reference!

      The FC was the only thing I could think of with the useful power and serious danger of the market.

  5. Posted March 8, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Hey Jim, Love the beer analogy! The foam vs beer comparison is refreshing, has great balance, and a clean and crisp finish

    • jlcollinsnh
      Posted March 8, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

      :)
      Thanks Jeremy…

      ..and I love your take on it!

  6. kyle
    Posted November 30, 2013 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Great post, Jim. I’ll take my nice Belgium beer with little foam, sit back and enjoy. It’s important for people to continually to pound it into their heads that at some point in time, they are going to loose a lot of money in the stock market, it’s how it goes, but you have to be patient and ride out the tough spots to gain that money back. It’s counter intuitive to how our fight/flight brains are wired, so you have to show discipline and stay the course.
    You should consider doing a post on the craziness that is Bitcoin right now. People are thinking this is the next big thing, and people are foolishly (IMO) looking at it as an investment. The cyrpto-currency has its pros and cons, but it’s not going to replace the USD or any other currency for that matter, just potentially become a new contender in the currency game. It has to be less confusing to the public for it to be widely accepted, which in its current state, it is not.

    • jlcollinsnh
      Posted December 2, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      Thanks Kyle…

      Truth is everybody makes money in stocks when the market rises. But what investors do when it falls it what determines whether it will make them wealthy.

      I am only vaguely aware that Bitcoin exists and nothing I’ve heard so far makes me want to know more. :)

      While it might not always show, I try to write only about those things I actually know and understand. ;)

      I will say one of the reasons I tend to hold minimal cash is that all currencies are somewhat imaginary. That is, any value is a function of mutual agreement subject to constant change. I prefer owning pieces of dynamic, striving businesses = stocks = VTSAX.

  7. Chris
    Posted February 15, 2014 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    One thing I don’t get: How is it that supposedly MOST people perform worse than the corresponding index share market?

    Let’s say you are right and one can not predict shares that outperform the market, – is it then not that by pure chance 50 % of us would perform better, 50 % would perform worse, – i.e. would there not a normal bell curve type distribution around the mean?

    This is of course different if I pay fees for a managed fund, or if I pay lots of fees for trading, – but if we take that out of the equation for this question, – if it just came to me deciding to pick my own stocks out of a basked (let’s say the Dow Jones), – would my chances not have to be 50 : 50?

    Thanks for clarifying!

    • jlcollinsnh
      Posted February 19, 2014 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      Hi Chris…

      Sorry for the delay. I was actually hoping to get the http://www.madfientist.com to weigh in on this as I’m curious as to what his take might be.

      In any event, my answer is simply that people have an almost endless array of ways to repeatedly lose money in the market:
      Trying to time it
      Trading
      Stock picking
      Bad managers
      High fees

      ..and a bunch more I’m not thinking of just now. So it is not just one event with a 50/50 chance but an endless stream of events, each stunningly easy to get wrong.

      But you are right in this way: If you and I were to choose a given stock and you went long while I went short, we would each have a 50/50 chance of being right.

      In fact this is exactly what happens with each specific trade in the market. For every buyer who thinks the time is now, there is a seller happy to unload. At that moment, only one can be right.

      Index funds, on the other hand, rise relentlessly (although not smoothly) and are self cleansing. as described in this series.

      Make sense?

      • Posted April 11, 2014 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

        I saw this on your Q&A II and I don’t know if I’m interpreting the question correctly and don’t want to fault your answer, but… I think the question is how is the market not a zero-sum game (before fees of course)? I’m sure I’m missing something, but market timing alone doesn’t seem to explain it on a whole. It seems intuitive that for everyone that buys high and sells low there would have to be someone buying low and selling high. So maybe it’s more a matter of equity distribution, when stocks are high the stocks get spread thin to more people because people are bad a timing stocks, and then when they are low fewer people buy them but get more of a slice. Sorry, too many rambling comments after my afternoon coffee…

        • jlcollinsnh
          Posted April 13, 2014 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

          I think maybe the missing element in your analisis is that stocks are not simply traded pieces of paper like a casino game in Vegas.

          Rather they represent real, tangible ownership in companies. Each of those companies has the ability and strives to create value.

          Those that do expand the economic pie and this is what keeps the market from being a zero-sum game.

          Make sense?

          • Posted April 15, 2014 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

            Yes, sorry, game was a bad choice of words, and I get why the economy grows. So maybe zero-sum game doesn’t quite convey what I meant. I was trying to say zero-sum with respect to the overall market. If market indices representing the mean, to say that most people lose money in the stock market implies that the median return is much less than the mean. What explains that? Intuitively one might think that for every person who times the market wrong and sells low, they must be selling to someone so that second person timed the market correctly and you end up with one person losing money and one person making money. Then across the millions of transactions that define the stock market you might end up with a normal distribution with regards to gains and losses relative to the market, sort of like the distribution you’d expect if you had millions of people flipping coins over and over again. But then I realized it only takes one person who timed the market correctly to buy up shares from many people who timed it incorrectly, so the distribution isn’t a nice normal bell… Or is my understanding of the stock market / math still way off?

    • Posted February 22, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      Hey Chris, Jim’s delayed reply was definitely my fault so I apologize for that. He emailed me to ask if I’d take a stab at replying to your comment and I said I would but I’m only making it over here now.

      Luckily, Jim chimed in with a great response (no big surprise there) so hopefully that answered your question.

      I wrote an article about some of the cognitive biases that cause us to make bad investing decisions so feel to check that out for a few more reasons why most people underperform the market.

  8. Posted April 11, 2014 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Maybe I’m just weird, but when I pour a beer I aim straight for the bottom because I like the foam :P I just realized today when talking to a friend about investing that we’ve only ever sold stocks once, to make the down-payment on our house (aside from 401k rollovers or small allocation adjustments which I wouldn’t exactly classify as selling). As a matter of fact, I was referencing this very post. We are both pretty boring investors and were discussing how it’s hard to talk investing with most people who are all “market timing” this and “daily fluctuations” that. They definitely don’t want to be told how they are playing a zero sum game at best (before fees) and are really just gambling in a casino they don’t own at worst. Anyhow, I was mentioning an amazing blog I read that has a great explanation about how crazy it is that people lose money in the stock market despite the fact that the market always goes up ;)

    • jlcollinsnh
      Posted April 13, 2014 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

      Mmmmmm…

      and what blog would that be, LMaS? ;)

2 Trackbacks

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe:
Subscribe to email feed
Email
Subscribe to RSS Feed
RSS