Why Investors Need to Focus on the Long-Term


0 ratings



James D. Di Virgilio

31 Oct, 2018

in Equities

One of the biggest differences between individual investors and professional portfolio managers is how they view performance. Individual Investors tend to overvalue short-term performance, placing too much emphasis on one, three and five-year returns. Professional portfolio managers place most of their analysis on seven to 10-year periods, since they coincide with a full market cycle. This is a marked difference and it can greatly change long-term results. To view how significant the differences can be, let’s take a look at 20 years of past performance.

Short-Term Performance
We will start by looking at the diversification chart below, which shows how various asset classes have performed. (The S&P 500 is represented by the category large growth stocks). Notice that over the short-term, during 1995-1999, the large growth stocks category grew approximately 38%, 23%, 36%, 42% and 29% per year. Monetarily, if you had invested $100,000 in 1995, by the end of 1999 you would have had $407,078. Many individual investors reaped such rewards and in 1999 they focused on the previous one, three and five-year time periods, making their performance look stellar, which enhanced their investing conviction and increased their expectation of their future results.


However, the years ahead, 2000-2002, proved to be quite a different story. The $407,000 that was earned during the previous five years would lose $226,000 during the next three years to become just $181,000 by the end of 2002. While this is just one simple example, you can run such analysis over many three to five-year periods which will yield similar results. What this tells us is that paying too much attention to short-term performance can skew your long-term investment strategy, which can lead individual investors to overvalue “trendy” asset classes, therefore increasing their risk and reducing their return.

A Closer Look
Let’s dig a big deeper into the 1995 to 2002 story to see how choosing a proper time period for performance evaluation can influence results.

Below is a chart of the tremendous short-term performance of the S&P 500 during 1995-1999. The blue is the S&P 500 and the red line is a multiple asset class portfolio consisting of U.S. and foreign equity, U.S. and foreign bonds, commodities, real estate, precious metals and natural resources. As you can see, the S&P outperforms the globally diversified portfolio 241.61% to 86.66%, leading many to claim in 1999 that diversification was no longer necessary. (This same claim is being made today, amidst similar short-term market conditions.)


However, long-term investing is not a five-year story, so let’s look at how the two investing styles faired when we add a few more years of data. During 2000-2002, the S&P lost -37.16%, while the globally diversified multiple asset class portfolio actually grew 15.10%. Maybe asset class diversification isn’t dead after all.


Global Diversification
Let’s put all the data points together and see what we get. Over the entire time period, from 1995 to 2002, the globally diversified portfolio outperformed the S&P 500 107.66% to 86.12%. Further, the globally diversified portfolio accomplished this using much less risk and with much less volatility. As you can see, the performance of a portfolio can significantly change when viewed over the proper time period. When individual investors focus on one, three and five-year time periods, they are prone to basing decisions off of incomplete data.


You need to be logged in to post comments or rate this article.


I don't think this view would be popular with the suits - where would they get their commission?

The mainstream media and 'the powers that be' seem to be perpetually bullish on stocks. They never want the public to sell as they always need suckers to offload their portfolios onto when the time is right. I'd say they agree with your view i.e. Hold until you die.

Nov 03, 2018

Member (6150 posts)

Interesting analysis but starts from a duplicitous perspective.

I have come to a simpler view of investing v's trading. Buying shares with a view to selling them to make a profit from price appreciation is trading, regardless of the time horizon. The industry likes to call it investing because it flatters their customers and gives them an air of professional respectability. In reality, this is trading. I don't care if its a 25-year holding period this is still trading. Buy-and-hold investment strategies are actually buy-and-hold-and-hope-and-sell trading strategies.

The only true stock market investment is one that will appear in your Will. So you buy shares for dividend income and pass them on to your children/beneficiaries, who do likewise and pass them on to theirs.

I don't think this view would be popular with the suits - where would they get their commission?

Nov 02, 2018

Member (6931 posts)

Because investors are usually people with big money. Money must work and make a profit. Long-term market trends are clearly visible and easily projected to make money easier. Investor capital is subject to less risk.

investors are people with big money ?.........seriously ?

Nov 02, 2018

Member (35474 posts)