Compounding has positive asymmetry. A stock can only lose 100%, but it can gain multiples of that. This means a portfolio with one stock compounding at +26% and another at -26% doesn't break even over time; the winner's gains eventually dwarf the loser's total loss, leading to strong positive returns.

While a pension fund's ultimate goal is hitting its absolute actuarial return, this is irrelevant for short-term evaluation. In the short run, performance must be judged relative to peers or benchmarks to account for the prevailing market environment.

Top tennis players like Rafael Nadal win only ~55% of total points but triumph by winning the *important* ones. This analogy illustrates that successful investing isn't about being right every time. It's about consistently tilting small odds in your favor across many bets, like a casino, to ensure long-term success.

The smooth exponential curve of compounding is a myth. In reality, it occurs in a world of shocks and uncertainty. True long-term compounding isn't just about picking winners; it's the result of having a robust process that allows you to survive the inevitable randomness and volatility along the way.

The highest-performing strategies often have extreme volatility that causes investors to abandon them at the worst times. Consistency with a 'good enough' strategy that fits your temperament leads to better real-world results than chasing perfection.

Timing is more critical than talent. An investor who beat the market by 5% annually from 1960-1980 made less than an investor who underperformed by 5% from 1980-2000. This illustrates how the macro environment and the starting point of an investment journey can have a far greater impact on absolute returns than individual stock-picking skill.

The effort to consistently make small, correct short-term trades is immense and error-prone. A better strategy is focusing on finding a few exceptional businesses that compound value at high rates for years, effectively doing the hard work on your behalf.

A 50% portfolio loss requires a 100% gain just to break even. The wealthy use low-volatility strategies to protect against massive downturns. By experiencing smaller losses (e.g., -10% vs. -40%), their portfolios recover faster and compound more effectively over the long term.

Even long-term winning funds will likely underperform their benchmarks in about half of all years. A Vanguard study of funds that beat the market over 15 years found 94% of them still underperformed in at least five of those years. This means selling based on a few years of poor returns is a flawed strategy.