Always Avoid Complicated Investments

The investment industry often tries to sell complicated investment products as “sophisticated” ways to grow your money. In this NYT article they discuss the perils of complicated and opaque investing products:

Complex Investments Prove Risky as Savers Chase Bigger Payoff

From the article:

Regulators across the country are confronting a wave of investor fraud that is saddling retirement savers with steep losses on complex products that until a few years ago were pitched only to the most sophisticated investors.

Here’s the reality: Successful sophisticated investors don’t like complicated investments. In fact, my experience in the venture capital and entrepreneur world has shown repeatedly that the best investors avoid needlessly complex investments almost entirely. Why? Because they hide tons of risk behind all the moving parts.

I really dislike complicated investment products of any sort. I don’t care what is being promised, chances are there are significant risks buried in it that will come out eventually.

Keep investing simple. The simpler you keep your investing, the more likely you are to grow it without any surprises. Here are some quotes from our book that hit on this idea repeatedly:

If you walk away from this book with anything, it should be the idea that you do not need a complicated investment strategy to do well in the markets. In fact, it’s just the opposite. A simple strategy will often outperform complicated ones over time.

For most investors, the more complicated an investment is, the more likely it is to lead to losses due to unknown or poorly understood risks. Despite this reality, many investors have been convinced that the more complicated an investment is, the more sophisticated it must be. It is important to know your limits and not let overconfidence lead you into something you know little or nothing about.

[W]hen Craig was raising venture capital money he often saw that the best ideas and successful companies could quickly explain what they do. Their ideas were simple to understand and the business could be easily evaluated for risks. Yet there were many (unsuccessful) entrepreneurs who had horribly complicated ideas that were very difficult to understand. Invariably, experienced venture capitalists would completely avoid these complicated investments. These investors know from hard-earned experience that complicated investments that they don’t fully understand rarely turn out well.

If you don’t understand how an investment works within about five minutes, walk away. Even if you miss a hot new opportunity because you don’t fully understand it, there will be duds that you will also avoid by staying away. The most successful investors on the planet have no shame in admitting they avoided an investment that they didn’t understand. So don’t let anyone make you feel guilty for staying away from something that doesn’t make sense to you.

Investors should invest as simply as possible. This strategy applies even to very large portfolios. Complexity kills returns. Complicated investing strategies and products can conceal many hidden costs and risks that may be hard to see from the outside. These costs and risks will often not be discovered until it’s too late.

Investing does not need to be, nor should it be, complicated. There is a strong relationship between complicated investment products, lower performance, and higher risks—all things you don’t want.

Invariably, the more complicated and opaque an investment product is, the more likely it is to have hidden risks that simpler investments do not have. What investors want to do is identify and diversify against known risks intelligently. What investors do not want to do is have any risks come as a surprise. Surprises can be expensive. Unfortunately, complicated investments are often full of surprises. Investors should not go out looking for trouble if it can be easily avoided by keeping things simpler.

Keep it simple!

8 thoughts on “Always Avoid Complicated Investments

  1. Hello, I wanted to leave a comment on http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2008/12/22/permanent-portfolio-historical-returns/ but I couldn’t because the comments are closed on that post. I have a question and would be really grateful if you could reply:

    Does the performance of the permanent portfolio on this page http://crawlingroad.com/blog/2008/12/22/permanent-portfolio-historical-returns/ take into account the re-balancing costs and tax consequences of those re-balancing costs? Or is the performance before costs/taxes etc.

    Also, thank you for the site and the work you do.

  2. No they do not. The primary reason is the industry doesn’t do that because it is simply too variable between investors on what costs they pay, tax brackets, etc.

    I’d say the tax costs are very low simply because you rebalance it so infrequently and it holds some assets that are quite tax efficient.

    As with any portfolio, the less you touch it, the more money you get to keep compounding. Every time you trade you will owe the government. So I recommend taxable investors stick to the wider 15%/35% rebalancing bands and touch the portfolio as little as possible. New money to be deposited should also go towards the lowest performing asset. That will put off rebalancing as well.

    Finally, each person’s tax situation is different. So if you have any in-depth questions you should probably speak to a tax attorney or qualified accountant familiar with your personal circumstances. Hope that helps.

  3. Thank you for your reply, and that does help. I suppose it is fair to say then that the Permanent Portfolio would under-perform a 100% stock portfolio not because the stock portfolio is intrinsically better but because it wouldn’t involve any re-balancing or taxes. Is that assumption correct?

  4. Well again it all depends. If you use stock funds with heavy turnover from the manager or the index it follows (such as small cap value), then they could generate a lot of taxable events. It’s just too variable to say with any authority what will or won’t do best. The general principles though apply:

    1) Don’t use funds with high turnover.
    2) Don’t cause turnover yourself with tinkering with things.
    3) Rebalance infrequently and only when you hit your high side rebalancing bands.
    4) Put assets that can benefit from tax-deferral in tax-deferred space first (like bonds).

    Those are general guidelines.

  5. I meant if you invested entirely in $VTI (compared to investing in $VTI $TLT $GLD $SHY) would your performance be better simply because you wouldn’t be doing any re-balancing or taxes?

  6. It would probably be worse because it will be so volatile that most investors couldn’t handle it. So what you’d save in taxes, would be lost in psychological trauma and being chased out of your investments watching them go up and down wildly in value. IMO.

    Or the market could stay flat/decline for years and then you’d lose out that way.

    So the point really is that taxes are a fact of life, but I wouldn’t let my fear of paying taxes drive me into investing strategies that could cause losses in other ways.

  7. Good point about not letting re-balancing costs and taxes force you into making unwise investment decisions. After all, stocks did go down 89% between 1929 and 1932. I think going 100% equity is a sucker bet. I think one way to get around the re-balancing and taxes would be to invest in $PRPFX but their performance kinda sucks to be honest. I don’t think they follow Browne’s principles properly.