Why stock index investing is probably wrong for you

Stock index investing is a common recommendation on the journey to financial freedom.

And sure, it looks like there could seemingly be advantages to stock index investing. 

Are we sure which chimpanzee is picking the stocks here?

In stock index investing, there is no smartassing around with what stocks should be in the index. 

Hence, a stock index is less risky than certain other high-risk-behaviors, such as running around in a cage of chimpanzees armed with guns, sky diving in a squirrel suit, picking stocks, etc.

An index has the advantage that we don't need to bring our small and far too proud and easily tricked brains into how to pick out individual stocks. No guns, no squirrel-suits, no fragile ego complex in the equation.

Just a mathematical, simple rule, behind the index.

That's good, in the exceedingly likely event that we do something stupid when we try to 'think'.

Another important advantage: it's easy to start investing in a stock index. 

Investing in an index can very easily be set up to be automatic. 

Yet, does that automatically make the index the right choice for you?

Obviously, index investing is - over the very, very long time - probably better than not investing (but that's not entirely true, as we will see below, and that's a helluva important nuance). 

"It's better to start early" as they say.  "Good for you that you are still young if something happens", is what they actually mean.

Why stock index investing is not good for you

So one way or the other, we're talking about our life's savings.

Even if it takes a few hours more of effort, we think that given all the tens of thousands of hours one has potentially spent earning one's life savings, one might be able to stomach a few more hours to understand some more nuances than just blindly following the stock index investing-recommendation.

Let's say that we're not complete investing newbies and have understood that we need to invest, and that it's better to avoid the squirrel suit-bunch and chimpanzees with guns, yet we're still ready to spend some hours to think a little deeper, after all. 

So is there something hiding immediately beyond stock index investing? Is the recomendation, well, really good?

Let's start with what "good" could mean.  

Good could mean 'good' as in efficient; as in there is no other obvious alternative that, with reasonable ease, provides a better price for the risk one is taking on. 

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that stock index investing is efficient; however we measure risk, as long as we stay within some minimal boundaries of what 'rational' can mean; there are simple yet better variants. 

Here's a trivial example: balancing in just 20% of a very different asset class (we propose gold) makes the resulting two-asset portfolios much, much less volatile. 

And that has a tremendous impact. Less volatility means a higher probability to reach the destination in a comfortable time even in a bleak scenario. Less volatility means a higher safe withdrawal rate when living off one's investments, which directly translates into higher material standard. 

Less volatility means sleeping better at night.

Why wouldn't one go with that?

Well, you're right. Why wouldn't one. 

A rule such as the 80/20-split is so simple that one can easily stay rule-based, applying yearly rebalancing back to the asset split. Such a rule is so straightforward that only someone with severe cognitive deficits would say that the the portfolio suggested above is not, to the minimally interested investor, just as trivial as investing in an index. 

There are other alternatives; investigate and find a composition that suits you, instead of assuming the one-size-fits-all-recommendation of pure stock index investing.

A quick summary from previous articles here on the blog:

• Stock index investing can have up towards the double time needed to recover back to +/-0 (often more than 10 years) than a simple modification with another asset class. 
• A stock index is a very dangerous place to be. 10+ years of severe underperformance is common. Life is long enough for most of us, and everything that can happen should be assumed to happen during our investment lives.
• Even worse: catastrophic setbacks of 20+-25 years have happened in recorded history. What, then, promises that such setbacks, or worse, might not happen again in our lifetimes? 
• Because of the risk of decade-long setbacks, one is much more likely to try to time the market with stock index investing even if one is 'supposed' not to. This will destroy the average return that was the motivation in the first place.
• One doesn't get fair compensation of a better average return for the wild swings of a stock index compared to easy adjustments to a much safer portfolio. 

Let's leave the serious reservation concerning the lack of efficiency with that. Because that's not the most important objection.

Most importantly: where are we in the assumption?

We're concerned if one doesn't feel that one shouldn't even consider one's own risk tolerance when investing one's life savings. 

Serious downside protection is very cheap, like house insurance. 

One-size-fits-all is a non-sequitur; a deceptive misuse of logic. The conclusion (that it's right for us) don't follow on the premise (that stock index investing is easy and hopefully gives some kind of average return after a few decades).  

Yes, a stock index buys a certain basket of stocks. But that doesn't mean that the risk implied in that basket is acceptable for us. 

We have our own plans, goals, appetites, emotions, journeys and ambitions.

Why should a certain portfolio by default match an acceptable investing profile for us? Why assume that we are not ready to 'pay' with less chance of the most rosy best scenarios, to be able to stay out of seeing or investments devaluated for decades until they reach the same level again, if we're even there to see it?

Not to mention a higher withdrawal rate, that just plain simply translates into a higher material standard when living off one's investments. 

The 'one-size-fit-all' assumption of the stock market, and stock market index investing, is, we think, a dangerous one.

For us, for instance, it has been more important to arrive at financial freedom within a reasonable time, also in a hypothetical bleak scenario, rather than arrive a tiny little bit quicker on average. 

The assumption that all our hopes and dreams fit automatically in the strategy of stock index investing is a hole in the deceptive conclusion of stock index investing as a universal recipe for everyone. 

Examples of misalignment 

- Importance to reach the goal: There are better ways when it's more important to reach the goal within a reasonable time, than to reach the goal quickly.

-High and stable withdrawal: There are better ways when it's more important to be able to withdraw a high, sweet amount to live of. Risk efficient returns it's the cherry on financial freedom, and stock index investing doesn't have it as we saw above. 

- Fear might derail the plans: In the beginning of one's investment career, contrary to common wisdom, one might be so discouraged by a long setback that it's worth to trade a slightly lower expected return and have serious and robust protection of the downside. The same fear might get hold of experienced investors as well, when they realize how long a downturn might turn out to be.

A side-note on cost averaging

It's at this point that proponents of blind stock index investing might throw in the argument of cost-averaging. Of course we don't mean that you should invest everything you own tomorrow, they say. The risk of regret would be to high, they try to comfort the nervous investor. 

Cost-averaging, we're afraid to say, is a fallacy. Let's see what we mean. 

The problem lies in the answer to this question: If one feels that one can't go all in with a large sum due to fear of regretting the timing, well, why should one be comfortable with the risk profile in a year? Or in two years? 

There's a never-ending recursion behind the argument. 

Two years down the line when one is entirely in the stock index; should one sit awake every night and wonder if we should "cost average" in (or out) of the investment? 

No. The obvious conclusion is that the risk profile of the investment is wrong for that investor from the outset.

A tragic recommendation

The most tragic (almost criminal) aspect with recommending stock index investing as a cure for everything, is perhaps to recommend it for complete newcomers, perhaps especially those with some savings already. 

Many are the examples of a newcomer that are emotionally attached to their savings ("I worked a lifetime!") or perhaps sudden wealth ("I inherited my mother!").

These newcomers are then scared and overwhelmed when the market eventually drops (as it always does), and sells at a low point, misses the bounce upwards and might be set back for decades, if they even ever gets back in ("I destroyed my life savings", "I lost not only my mother, but also the sum of money she left me").

Think about your risk profile first, if someone recommends that you should cost-average into an investment. If you can't stomach to own a certain portfolio today, why should you be able to stomach that in a year from now? 

Once more, volatility is more dangerous than one might think from the armchair, until one starts to face real prospects of financial ruin, however minute they are.  

So why would you assume that stock index investing is right for you? 

Farewell

//antinous&lucilius