Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

A Good Investment for You is Not Necessarily a Good Investment for Me
According to Michael Lewis, one of the standard ways in which a stockbroker tries to sell a stock to a small investor is by invoking the hallowed name of Warren Buffett. The intuition is clear: Warren Buffett became a multi-billionaire by picking great stocks. If you pick the same stocks as Warren Buffett, you too could get rich.
Abnormal Returns has a name for this kind of thinking: "coattail investing". And as they point out, it's a very bad idea.
We have written previously why investors should examine their own investment process before wholeheartedly embracing this approach of 'piggyback' or 'coattail' investing. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Dana Cimilluca illustrates how some large investors have been burned trying to bottom fish recently in the financial sector. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the subsequent credit crisis has made a number of supposedly smart investors look pretty dumb.
The danger for individual investors is evident. If you had blindly followed the so-called 'smart money' into any number of financial stocks in the past couple months you would in all likelihood be sitting on unrealized losses.
As a general rule, it's a really bad idea to invest in a stock because some other investor, whom you think is very clever, is investing in that stock. For one thing, you have no idea what their hedges might be. For another, you have no idea what their exit strategy is. And more generally, the chances of your risk profile being the same as their risk profile are minimal.
The vast majority of individual stock pickers, I think it's fair to say, overestimate their own risk appetite, or underestimate the risk in their portfolio, or both.
And yes, it is possible to overestimate your own risk appetite, just as it's possible to overestimate your own hot-dog appetite. People regularly think they have more room for food/risk than they actually do. One good way of judging a financial advisor, indeed, is to see whether he says things like "you might tell me you want 15% returns, but in fact you want lower returns than that, because you can't afford to lose the kind of money which you'll be risking if you aim for 15%". It's the kind of statement which ought to be made much more frequently than it actually is.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





