FREE NEWSLETTER
THE TRICKY THING about investing is that there’s no single “right” approach. In an earlier article, I described the approach I favor—what I call the five minds of the investor, which involves being part optimist, pessimist, analyst, economist and psychologist.
But there are many other ways to be successful: You might invest in real estate, or follow a quantitative investment strategy, or invest in private companies. There are plenty of people who do very well with these approaches.
That said, there are also many investing styles that look like they might work, but often don’t. Want to fare well financially? Here are five common approaches to investing that you should probably avoid:
1. The Raconteur. A raconteur is no ordinary storyteller. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, a raconteur is “a person who excels in telling anecdotes.” That’s exactly what’s dangerous about this approach to investing. Though their evidence might be anecdotal, raconteurs truly believe they are using facts to support their views.
Suppose a raconteur is trying to research a consumer electronics company. He or she might speak with someone who works for the company or might try one of its products. In both cases, the raconteur is collecting real data, but it’s too limited to be conclusive. Nonetheless, that information can be woven together into a story that sounds compelling.
Raconteurs, in fact, love to invoke the concept of “buy what you know,” an idea popularized by Fidelity Investments veteran Peter Lynch. In the introduction to his book One Up on Wall Street, Lynch argued that individual investors should buy stock in companies that they know and understand. “If you stay half-alert,” he wrote, “you can pick the spectacular performers right from your place of business or out of the neighborhood shopping mall….”
He goes on to describe how he discovered several winning stocks—including Taco Bell, Dunkin’ Donuts and Apple—using just that method. But raconteurs overlook one key fact: It isn’t that simple. Yes, Lynch recommended that investors keep their eyes open for new ideas. But he didn’t stop there. Read the rest of Lynch’s book, and you’ll quickly see that anecdotes were just his starting point. He then moved on to hard analysis.
The bottom line: Lynch didn’t achieve his astounding results just by hanging around the shopping mall. Sure, that’s where he collected many ideas. But then he spent hours reading financial statements and speaking with corporate executives to learn more.
2. The Statistician. If the weakness of raconteurs is that they gloss over the need for reliable data, statisticians go to the opposite extreme: They’ve never met a spreadsheet they didn’t like.
Statisticians love to pore over companies’ financial statements, including sales figures, profit margins and more. Then they build models to forecast where those numbers might go in the future. Ask statisticians to tell you the r-squared on their latest regression analysis, and you’ll make their day.
The problem with this approach: While the math might be impressive, spreadsheets still can’t forecast the future. They can’t foresee things that will impact the overall economy, such as a pandemic. They can’t predict things that might impact specific industries, such as technology changes, price wars or even floods. And they can’t predict things that might impact specific companies, including competition and regulatory challenges. I speak from experience here. I used to do this kind of work, and I learned the hard reality that world events can upend even the most detailed analysis.
3. The Gunslinger. A few weeks back, I talked about David Portnoy, who may be the most prominent of today’s day traders. Portnoy’s signature line: “Stocks only go up. They only go up.”
But while Portnoy might be the most well-known, he’s hardly alone. Day trading has seen a significant resurgence this year due to the pandemic. And day traders aren’t the only gunslingers. The reality is that plenty of professional investors fall into that category, too. Look at a typical actively managed mutual fund, and you’ll see a turnover figure of nearly 100%. What this means is that fund managers are, on average, buying and selling almost every single one of their holdings during the course of a year. While it might be fun to be a gunslinger, the data show that this isn’t a good strategy for professionals or individuals.
4. The Philosopher. The philosopher is similar in many ways to the statistician. But philosophers focus on bigger, longer-term trends. One of today’s most well-known philosophers is Nouriel Roubini.
An economics professor at New York University, he earned the nickname Dr. Doom for being one of the first (and only) to predict the 2008 recession. Among his current concerns: the potential for military conflict with Iran, a crash in U.S. Treasury bonds resulting from conflict with China, desertification in East Africa that could create “biblical-scale locust swarms” and the risk that the current pandemic turns into a “Greater Depression.” Could Roubini be right with these doomsday predictions? Of course.
But here’s the trouble with philosopher-style investing: Any one of these predictions could come true—or they might not. So what’s an investor to do? Should you sell everything and hide out in a bunker? The bottom line: The philosopher might sound like a sage—and might even be right over some time period. But it’s hard to translate these prophesies into practical solutions.
5. The Pragmatist. The pragmatist sees himself as the voice of reason, attempting to integrate the raconteur’s stories, the statistician’s numbers, the gunslinger’s bravado and the philosopher’s worries. Among these other four, the pragmatist sees himself as the only rational person in the room—unbiased and unemotional.
In a lot of ways, that’s a good thing. It’s certainly better than any of these approaches in isolation. The problem, however, is that combining these four approaches doesn’t necessarily lead to a better answer. Pragmatists still can’t see around corners. That’s why, as an alternative, I recommend the five minds approach—which offers an asset allocation framework that’s usable even when the future is unknowable.
Adam M. Grossman’s previous articles include Skewed Impression, What to Worry About and Fed Up. Adam is the founder of Mayport Wealth Management, a fixed-fee financial planning firm in Boston. He’s an advocate of evidence-based investing and is on a mission to lower the cost of investment advice for consumers. Follow Adam on Twitter @AdamMGrossman.
Want to receive our weekly newsletter? Sign up now. How about our daily alert about the site's latest posts? Join the list.
I think the issue this and the ‘5 minds’ post highlight is that it’s very very difficult for an investor to tell when they are being rational.
This is one reason I value a plan that focuses on low cost index funds that capture global stock market results, and only modest changes to my AA from month to month and year to year, if any. I don’t have to be rational. I don’t have to understand the Fed, or the markets, or the companies, or geopolitics. At this point, I really don’t even have to make decisions. Even rebalancing is subject to specific rules I decided on to prevent having to decide in-the-moment. Capturing market returns at very low expense is a relatively simple exercise that yields superior returns.