The Consequences of Panic Selling Are Almost Always Bad

6
The Consequences of Panic Selling Are Almost Always Bad

Article by Loss Aversion by John Szramiak was originally published on Vintage Value Investing

Get The Full Seth Klarman Series in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Seth Klarman in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues.

October 15, 2014 was a rocky day for investors in the stock market, which at its lowest point dipped 460 points, close to “correction” status. A late-day rally saw stocks rebound, ending the day down 173 points at 16,142. Some investors decided to weather their losses, betting that the market turbulence would eventually settle. Others panicked and dumped stocks.

That, history tells us, was a mistake.

Baupost’s Seth Klarman Suggests That The U.S. Could Be Uninvestable One Day

Seth KlarmanIn his 2021 year-end letter, Baupost's Seth Klarman looked at the year in review and how COVID-19 swept through every part of our lives. He blamed much of the ills of the pandemic on those who choose not to get vaccinated while also expressing a dislike for the social division COVID-19 has caused. Q4 2021 Read More

Soc Gen: Active Managers Might Be Responsible For Rise of Passive AUM

Which Investors Had the Biggest Losses?

An analysis from SigFig, an investment planning and tracking firm, looked at how investor behavior that volatile day almost 3 years ago affected their long-term performance. They found that about 20% of investors decided to reduce their exposure to equities, mutual funds and ETFs, with some selling 90% or more. Those were the investors with the worst performance. As the SigFig researchers point out:

“Those who appeared to panic the most—for example, those who trimmed their holdings by 90 percent or more—had the worst 12-month-trailing performance of all groups. Their portfolios delivered a trailing 12-month return of -19.3 percent as of Aug. 21, compared with -3.7 percent for the people who did nothing during that October correction.”

An Incredibly Powerful Value Investing Framework

The Consequences of Panic Selling Are Almost Always Bad

Reacting emotionally to sudden shifts in the market typically has negative consequences. Investors who tend to panic when stocks move lower are simply locking in their losses rather than avoiding the them.

A recent study from University of Missouri professor, Rui Yao, sought to examine this phenomenon by looking at the behavior of investors during the economic downturn of 2008 in granular detail. Among her findings was that the more vulnerable investors were, the more they tended to panic, and the more they tended ultimately to lose. For example, those who had been laid off or didn’t have an emergency fund were among the first to begin selling. Yao also found, however, that many who were not especially vulnerable yielded to the same “panic/sell” error:

“If you were laid off and don’t have an emergency fund, that’s one thing. But these are people who don’t have immediate consumption needs and aren’t harvesting losses for tax reasons. They shouldn’t be moving into cash.”

So, why would someone who is financially well-off behave in the same way as someone who is economically vulnerable? The predictive factor which linked the two groups, according to Yao, was not a financial variable, but a psychological one: “loss aversion.”

Losing Loss Aversion

What Is Loss Aversion?

Scientific American describes loss aversion this way: imagine a friend challenges you to a betting game (check out: Steven Crist on Value Investing and Horse Betting). Winners and losers are determined by the flip of a coin. If it lands on heads, you gain $20. If it lands on tails, you lose $20. Studies have found that for most of us, the amount you could win would have to be double the amount you could lose for you to take that bet.

Loss Aversion

In other words, the psychological impact of potential losses is about twice as powerful as the impact of potential gains of the same size.

Goldman Sachs: Value Investing Is Dead.....

Prospect Theory: Behavioral Economics

In 1979, psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (author of highly recommended book: Thinking, Fast and Slow) released a groundbreaking study, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” That analysis applies loss aversion theory to the financial choices people make, like whether to sell or hold on to stocks during a market downturn. Investopedia describes prospect theory as follows:

“Prospect theory assumes that losses and gains are valued differently, and thus individuals make decisions based on perceived gains instead of perceived losses. Also known as “loss-aversion” theory, the general concept is that if two choices are put before an individual, both equal, with one presented in terms of potential gains and the other in terms of possible losses, the former option will be chosen.”

The Neurological Underpinnings of Loss Aversion

A 2007 study from Russell A. Poldrack, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, looked at loss aversion behavior at the neural level. Monitoring the brain activity of study participants deciding whether or not to take a gamble with actual money, he and his fellow researchers found that the regions of the brain which process value and reward are more “silenced” when individuals evaluate a potential loss than they are activated when they assess a similar-sized gain. Poldrack summarizes their findings in this way:

“We found enhanced activity in the participants’ reward circuitry as the amount of the reward increased and decreasing activity in the same circuitry as the potential losses accrued. Perhaps most interesting, the reactions in our subjects’ brains were stronger in response to possible losses than to gains—a phenomenon we dubbed neural loss aversion.”

What Does This Mean for Your Investments?

It’s human nature in some instances to take actions which are not in our best interest—but the impact of yielding to self-destructive impulses can be devastating when applied to key investment decisions. So remember: Smart value investors base their financial decisions, in the market and elsewhere, on reliable data, not emotion.

 

Updated on

Ben Graham, the father of value investing, wasn’t born in this century. Nor was he born in the last century. Benjamin Graham – born Benjamin Grossbaum – was born in London, England in 1894. He published the value investing bible Security Analysis in 1934, which was followed by the value investing New Testament The Intelligent Investor in 1949. Warren Buffett, the value investing messiah and Graham’s most famous and successful disciple, was born in 1930 and attended Graham’s classes at Columbia in 1950-51. And the not-so-prodigal son Charlie Munger even has Warren beat by six years – he was born in 1924. I’m not trying to give a history lesson here, but I find these dates very interesting. Value investing is an old strategy. It’s been around for a long time, long before the Capital Asset Pricing Model, long before the Black-Scholes Model, long before CLO’s, long before the founders of today’s hottest high-tech IPOs were even born. And yet people have very short term memories. Once a bull market gets some legs in it, the quest to get “the most money as quickly as possible” causes prices to get bid up. Human nature kicks in and dollar signs start appearing in people’s eyes. New methodologies are touted and fundamental principles are left in the rear view mirror. “Today is always the dawning of a new age. Things are different than they were yesterday. The world is changing and we must adapt.” Yes, all very true statements but the new and “fool-proof” methods and strategies and overleveraging and excess risk-taking only work when the economic environmental conditions allow them to work. Using the latest “fool-proof” investment strategy is like running around a thunderstorm with a lightning rod in your hand: if you’re unharmed after a while then it might seem like you’ve developed a method to avoid getting struck by lightning – but sooner or later you will get hit. And yet value investors are for the most part immune to the thunder and lightning. This isn’t at all to say that value investors never lose money, go bust, or suffer during recessions. However, by sticking to fundamentals and avoiding excessive risk-taking (i.e. dumb decisions), the collective value investor class seems to have much fewer examples of the spectacular crash-and-burn cases that often are found with investors’ who employ different strategies. As a result, value investors have historically outperformed other types of investors over the long term. And there is plenty of empirical evidence to back this up. Check this and this and this and this out. In fact, since 1926 value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by an average of four percentage points annually, according to the authoritative index compiled by finance professors Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago and Kenneth French of Dartmouth College. So, the value investing philosophy has endured for over 80 years and is the most consistently successful strategy that can be applied. And while hot stocks, over-leveraged portfolios, and the newest complicated financial strategies will come and go, making many wishful investors rich very quick and poor even quicker, value investing will quietly continue to help its adherents fatten their wallets. It will always endure and will always remain classically in fashion. In other words, value investing is vintage. Which explains half of this website’s name. As for the value part? The intention of this site is to explain, discuss, ask, learn, teach, and debate those topics and questions that I’ve always been most interested in, and hopefully that you’re most curious about, too. This includes: What is value investing? Value investing strategies Stock picks Company reviews Basic financial concepts Investor profiles Investment ideas Current events Economics Behavioral finance And, ultimately, ways to become a better investor I want to note the importance of the way I use value here. It’s not the simplistic definition of “low P/E” stocks that some financial services lazily use to classify investors, which the word “value” has recently morphed into meaning. To me, value investing equates to the term “Intelligent Investing,” as described by Ben Graham. Intelligent investing involves analyzing a company’s fundamentals and can be characterized by an intense focus on a stock’s price, it’s intrinsic value, and the very important ratio between the two. This is value investing as the term was originally meant to be used decades ago, and is the only way it should be used today. So without much further ado, it’s my very good honor to meet you and you may call me…
Previous article Y Combinator – What Ideas Are Trending Among Tech’s Biggest Influencers?
Next article Active Investing Is Not Dead, By George! Patton Versus Passivism

No posts to display