Changing racing team in mid-season

30 Oct. 2016
Author
Roberto Plaja

A loss is always a loss – whether “taken” or not

A loss is always a loss – whether “taken” or not

A loss is always a loss – whether “taken” or not

A friend and I were talking about the alternatives he was facing in dealing with some unprofitable investments. The hang-up for him was that selling now meant “locking in the losses for good” whereas I argued for treating the current state as a done deal (tax consequences aside) and searching for other investment opportunities with more appealing prospects. After all, there is no law of physics or 11th commandment (accidentally lost by Moses as in this clip) that says “Thou shalt never lose money with thy mutual fund.”

But there was no way to convince him and so I left without being of much use. Sometime afterwards I thought of the following analogy and wished I’d share it with him.

We are in the middle of the racing season and your F1 team is last; you are pondering what to do. Mixed feelings of pride and loyalty to your staff compel you to stay the course, but deep inside you know you simply don’t have the goods (pilot, car, engineers, whatever). One day the owner of the current lead team pays you a visit and proposes an exchange: for no money, well maybe only legal fees, he’s willing to give you his team and take on yours, keeping the owner rankings unchanged (in other words, he will keep first place with your team and you will keep last place with his team). Stunned, you tell your competitor you need to think this over for a minute or two. What will you do: continue with your current set-up and hope to recover the lost ground or make the swap and see if you can recover faster with the obviously better team?

That’s really the conundrum of my friend and so many other investors I have met in similar situations in the past. To see this, substitute your current team with your losing position, your competitor’s team with your potential alternative(s) and the legal fees with brokerage commissions. You may say that the analogy does not really apply in the case of investing; after all no one is going to show up and give you the winning anything. This is only partly true. First, there is no guarantee the winning racing team will keep winning. Second, as for the generous owner, he exists inasmuch as you can choose with little effort from many different alternatives in the pursuit of your objectives.

The above decision is not easy. We don’t like to admit failure and perhaps even less have the stamina for looking at different solutions. The task is further muddled by the variety of potential short term results and by the fact that your current position may indeed be the best suited to recover your losses. The important thing is not to take it for granted and do some homework before staying the course.
A friend and I were talking about the alternatives he was facing in dealing with some unprofitable investments. The hang-up for him was that selling now meant “locking in the losses for good” whereas I argued for treating the current state as a done deal (tax consequences aside) and searching for other investment opportunities with more appealing prospects. After all, there is no law of physics or 11th commandment (accidentally lost by Moses as in this clip) that says “Thou shalt never lose money with thy mutual fund.”

But there was no way to convince him and so I left without being of much use. Sometime afterwards I thought of the following analogy and wished I’d share it with him.

We are in the middle of the racing season and your F1 team is last; you are pondering what to do. Mixed feelings of pride and loyalty to your staff compel you to stay the course, but deep inside you know you simply don’t have the goods (pilot, car, engineers, whatever). One day the owner of the current lead team pays you a visit and proposes an exchange: for no money, well maybe only legal fees, he’s willing to give you his team and take on yours, keeping the owner rankings unchanged (in other words, he will keep first place with your team and you will keep last place with his team). Stunned, you tell your competitor you need to think this over for a minute or two. What will you do: continue with your current set-up and hope to recover the lost ground or make the swap and see if you can recover faster with the obviously better team?

That’s really the conundrum of my friend and so many other investors I have met in similar situations in the past. To see this, substitute your current team with your losing position, your competitor’s team with your potential alternative(s) and the legal fees with brokerage commissions. You may say that the analogy does not really apply in the case of investing; after all no one is going to show up and give you the winning anything. This is only partly true. First, there is no guarantee the winning racing team will keep winning. Second, as for the generous owner, he exists inasmuch as you can choose with little effort from many different alternatives in the pursuit of your objectives.

The above decision is not easy. We don’t like to admit failure and perhaps even less have the stamina for looking at different solutions. The task is further muddled by the variety of potential short term results and by the fact that your current position may indeed be the best suited to recover your losses. The important thing is not to take it for granted and do some homework before staying the course.

A friend and I were talking about the alternatives he was facing in dealing with some unprofitable investments. The hang-up for him was that selling now meant “locking in the losses for good” whereas I argued for treating the current state as a done deal (tax consequences aside) and searching for other investment opportunities with more appealing prospects. After all, there is no law of physics or 11th commandment (accidentally lost by Moses as in this clip) that says “Thou shalt never lose money with thy mutual fund.”

But there was no way to convince him and so I left without being of much use. Sometime afterwards I thought of the following analogy and wished I’d share it with him.

We are in the middle of the racing season and your F1 team is last; you are pondering what to do. Mixed feelings of pride and loyalty to your staff compel you to stay the course, but deep inside you know you simply don’t have the goods (pilot, car, engineers, whatever). One day the owner of the current lead team pays you a visit and proposes an exchange: for no money, well maybe only legal fees, he’s willing to give you his team and take on yours, keeping the owner rankings unchanged (in other words, he will keep first place with your team and you will keep last place with his team). Stunned, you tell your competitor you need to think this over for a minute or two. What will you do: continue with your current set-up and hope to recover the lost ground or make the swap and see if you can recover faster with the obviously better team?

That’s really the conundrum of my friend and so many other investors I have met in similar situations in the past. To see this, substitute your current team with your losing position, your competitor’s team with your potential alternative(s) and the legal fees with brokerage commissions. You may say that the analogy does not really apply in the case of investing; after all no one is going to show up and give you the winning anything. This is only partly true. First, there is no guarantee the winning racing team will keep winning. Second, as for the generous owner, he exists inasmuch as you can choose with little effort from many different alternatives in the pursuit of your objectives.

The above decision is not easy. We don’t like to admit failure and perhaps even less have the stamina for looking at different solutions. The task is further muddled by the variety of potential short term results and by the fact that your current position may indeed be the best suited to recover your losses. The important thing is not to take it for granted and do some homework before staying the course.

May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
Autorisation
Switzerland
Investing implies your capital is at risk. The value of your account depends on market movements and you may get back less than you invest.
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Unless otherwise specified, all return figures shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not actual customer or model returns. Actual returns will vary greatly and depend on personal and market conditions.
Simplewealth AG is a Swiss-based advisory service, designed to assist clients in achieving discrete financial goals. We are not intended to provide comprehensive tax advice or financial planning with respect to every aspect of a client's financial situation and do not incorporate specific investments that clients hold elsewhere.
© SIMPLEWEALTH AG 2015 — 2022.
MADE WITH ❤️ IN BEAUTIFUL
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charges and expenses.
FAQ
Navigation
Language
Documents
Social Media
1
2
How your assets can grow?
All your investments are insured. Up to USD 500k
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charge sand expenses.
Client securities accounts at Interactive Brokers LLC are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") for a maximum coverage of $500,000 (with a cash sublimit of $250,000) and under Interactive Brokers LLC's excess SIPC policy with certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London 1 for up to an additional $30 million (with a cash sublimit of $900,000) subject to an aggregate limit of $150 million. Futures and options on futures are not covered. As with all securities firms, this coverage provides protection against failure of a broker-dealer, not against loss of market value of securities. For the purpose of determining an Interactive Brokers LLC client account, accounts with like names and titles (e.g. John and Jane Smith and Jane and John Smith) are combined, but accounts with different titles are not (e.g. Individual/John Smith and IRA/John Smith). SIPC is a non-profit, membership corporation funded by broker-dealers that are members of SIPC.