Jim Kopas Blog
Home > Investments > Playing not to Lose: How Successful Investors Win

Playing not to Lose: How Successful Investors Win

October 5th, 2009

One of the most unnerving events for a diehard football fan is to witness their beloved team jump out to an early lead.  Players relax as the coaching staff change from their initial game plan (that got them off to a great start) to a much more conservative game plan that more often then not allows their opponents to get back into contention.  This conservative method is often described as “playing not to lose,” and while it might be problematic in sports this very same approach sets the foundation for successful investors.  

The typical investor is geared up to chasing the easy money and believes that in order to get big returns you must take big risks.  Unfortunately this type of investment philosophy is backwards thinking; instead limiting portfolio losses is the most crucial aspect to successful investing as it will lead to big returns.  Legendary investor Warren Buffett states, “The first rule of investing is don’t lose money; the second rule is don’t forget Rule No. 1.”  In recent years, return performance has received the spotlight throughout the investment industry; however more attention should be placed on avoiding losses.  The chart below illustrates the negative impact of losses on a portfolio.

Impact of Losses

As you can see the gain required to recover from a loss is exponential in nature; similarly a relatively small loss can eliminate a large gain.  For example, any buy and hold investor from late 2007 through early 2009 (market peak to trough) lost approximately 57% of his/her portfolio, and in order to offset that loss they would need a gain of 133% (which could take several years in a secular bear market).    

This concept of limiting losses is even more crucial for investors that depend on income from their investment portfolio (i.e. Retirement Accounts).  Withdrawals from these portfolios impair gains while intensifying losses, making it even more important for consistent portfolio returns with minimal losses.  Let’s assume now that the previously mentioned buy and hold investor withdraws 1.25% quarterly (5% annually) from the portfolio to pay for living expenses. What percentage gain does he/she need to recoup the investment losses in addition to the withdrawals?  The investor would need over a 182% return on their portfolio to just break even.

This simple mathematical fact that the gains required to offset a loss are exponential in nature demonstrates the importance of limiting investment losses.  Learning not to lose might seem boring but investors will be more successful if they master limiting portfolio losses rather then simply search for large gains.      

 

As always, please feel free to leave any feedback in the comments sections below. I look forward to your comments and I will have a new investment article posted early next week.

Jim Kopas Investments

  1. Joseph Hogue
    October 5th, 2009 at 21:19 | #1

    There is an important distinction in strategy between the ‘quality’ of competitor against which you are competing. Example: the amateur game of tennis is usually won by the player who commits the fewest big errors, while the professional game is won by the player who aggressively ‘beats’ the other player.

    I would say this applies to the world of investing. Some players, i.e. hedge fund managers, may need to play aggressively to ‘win’ the game while an individual investor may be more concerned about simply not committing big errors.

  2. Manish Agarwal
    October 7th, 2009 at 07:53 | #2

    They give time to market instead time the market. They have business sense and then they became an equity investor.

  3. Jim Kopas
    October 7th, 2009 at 08:20 | #3

    @Joseph Hogue

    You bring up a good point Joseph. Certainly an investment manager’s competition plays a crucial role in how a manager’s performance is perceived. However, the performance of the investment manager should be based on the individual goals of their clients rather then a relative performance comparison. A risk adverse client would gladly accept more moderate returns in exchange for the peace of mind in knowing their portfolios are safe.

    What I am trying to say is that managers should be evaluated on how well they satisfied their clients needs rather then how the stacked up again the competition. If investment managers are able to keep this in mind during their investment process they will most certainly find themselves more successful, at least in the minds of their clients which is ultimately all that matters.

  4. October 21st, 2009 at 12:45 | #4

    Your blog is so informative … ..I just bookmarked you….keep up the good work!!!! :)

  1. No trackbacks yet.