Enrich Your Future 15: Individual Stocks Are Riskier Than You Believe

Update: 2024-09-23

Description

In this episode of Enrich Your Future, Andrew and Larry Swedroe discuss Larry’s new book, Enrich Your Future: The Keys to Successful Investing. In this series, they discuss Chapter 15: Individual Stocks Are Riskier Than Investors Believe.

LEARNING: Don’t invest in individual stocks. Instead, diversify your portfolio to reduce your risk.

“Diversification has been said to be the only free lunch in investing. Unfortunately, most investors fail to use the full buffet available.”

Larry Swedroe

In this episode of Enrich Your Future, Andrew and Larry Swedroe discuss Larry’s new book, Enrich Your Future: The Keys to Successful Investing. The book is a collection of stories that Larry has developed over 30 years as the head of financial and economic research at Buckingham Wealth Partners to help investors. You can learn more about Larry’s Worst Investment Ever story on Ep645: Beware of Idiosyncratic Risks.

Larry deeply understands the world of academic research and investing, especially risk. Today, Andrew and Larry discuss Chapter 15: Individual Stocks Are Riskier Than Investors Believe.

Chapter 15: Individual Stocks Are Riskier Than Investors Believe

In this chapter, Larry reveals the stark reality of investing in individual stocks, highlighting the significant risks involved. His aim is to help investors understand the potential pitfalls of this high-stakes game and why they should avoid it.

Given the apparent benefits of diversification, it’s baffling why investors don’t hold highly diversified portfolios. According to Larry, one reason is that most investors likely don’t understand how risky individual stocks are compared to owning a broad selection of hundreds or thousands of stocks.

Evidence that individual stocks are very risky

Larry notes that the stock market has returned roughly 10% per year over the last 100 years, and the standard deviation on an annual basis of a portfolio of a broad market of stocks has been about 20%. He observes that most people don’t understand that the average individual stock has a standard deviation of more than twice that.

In another study from 1983 to 2006 that covered the top 3,000 stocks, the stock market returned almost 13% per annum, but the median return was just 5.1%, nearly 8% below the market’s return. The mean annualized return was -1.1%. This means that if you randomly pick one stock, the odds would say you’re more likely to get -1.1%. However, if you own hundreds or thousands of stocks, the odds are in your favor, and you’ll get very close to that mean return.

Larry shares another stark example of the riskiness of individual stocks. Despite the 1990s being one of the greatest bull markets of all time, with the Russell 3000 providing an annualized return of 17.7% and a cumulative return of almost 410%, 22% of the 2,397 U.S. stocks in existence throughout the decade had negative absolute returns. This means they underperformed by at least 410%. Over the decade, inflation was a cumulative 33.5%, meaning they lost at least 33.5% in real terms.

In another study by Hendrik Bessembinder of all common stocks listed on the NYSE, Amex, and NASDAQ exchanges from 1926 through 2015 and included. He found:

Only 47.7% of returns were more significant than the one-month Treasury rate.
Even at the decade horizon, a minority of stocks outperformed Treasury bills.
From the beginning of the sample or first appearance in the data through the end of the sample or delisting, and including delisting returns when appropriate, just 42.1% of common stocks had a holding period return greater than one-month Treasury bills.
While more than 71% of individual stocks had a positive arithmetic average return over their entire life, only a minority (49.2%) of common stocks had a positive lifetime holding period return, and the median lifetime return was -3.7%. This is because of volatility and the difference in arithmetic (annual average) returns versus geometric (compound or annualized) returns. For example, if a stock loses 50% in the first year and then gains 60% in the second, it has a positive arithmetic return but has lost money (20%) and has a negative geometric return.

Bessembinder concluded that his results help to understand why active strategies, which tend to be poorly diversified, most often lead to underperformance. At the same time, he wrote that the results potentially justify a focus on less-diversified portfolios by investors who particularly value the possibility of “lottery-like” outcomes despite the knowledge that the poorly diversified portfolio will most likely underperform.

A diversified portfolio is the way to go

The results from the studies Larry has highlighted underscore the critical role of portfolio diversification. Diversification, often referred to as the only free lunch in investing, provides a sense of security and peace of mind. Unfortunately, many investors fail to fully utilize this powerful tool. They mistakenly believe that by limiting the number of stocks they hold, they can better manage their risks. In reality, a well-diversified portfolio is the key to long-term financial success.

Most professionals with PhDs in finance spend 100% of their time engaged in stock picking and have access to the world’s best databases and teams of professionals helping them. These individuals are unlikely to outperform. So why would an average investor think they have enough advantage over them? Larry’s stern advice to investors is not to play the game. His professional guidance is a beacon of reassurance in the complex world of investing, steering investors away from risky individual stocks and towards the safety of a diversified portfolio.

Investors make mistakes when they take idiosyncratic (unique), diversifiable, uncompensated risks. They do so because they are overconfident in their skills, overestimate the worth of their information, confuse the familiar with the safe, have the illusion of being in control, don’t understand how many individual stocks are needed to reduce diversifiable risks effectively, and don’t understand the difference between compensated and uncompensated risks (some risks are uncompensated because they are diversifiable).

Another likely explanation is that investors prefer skewness. They are willing to accept the high likelihood of underperformance in return for the small likelihood of owning the next Google. In other words, they like to buy lottery tickets. Larry says that if you have made any of these mistakes, you should do what all smart people do: Once they have learned that a behavior is a mistake, they correct it. So, steer away from risky individual stocks and go for the safety of a diversified portfolio.