Simply keeping pace with peers is not a valid measure of success. If peers are taking excessive risks in a bubble, matching their performance means you were equally foolish. True skill is outperforming in bad times while keeping pace in good times.
Jeff Aronson warns that prolonged success breeds dangerous overconfidence. When an investor is on a hot streak and feels they can do no wrong, their perception of risk becomes warped. This psychological shift, where they think "I must be good," is precisely when underlying risk is escalating, not diminishing.
During periods of intense market euphoria, investors with experience of past downturns are at a disadvantage. Their knowledge of how bubbles burst makes them cautious, causing them to underperform those who have only seen markets rebound, reinforcing a dangerous cycle of overconfidence.
In a world of highly skilled money managers, absolute skill becomes table stakes and luck plays a larger role in outcomes. According to Michael Mauboussin's "paradox of skill," an allocator's job is to identify managers whose *relative* skill—a specific, durable edge—still dominates results.
To achieve above-average investment returns, one cannot simply follow the crowd. True alpha comes from contrarian thinking—making investments that conventional wisdom deems wrong. Rubenstein notes the primary barrier is psychological: overcoming the innate human desire to be liked and the fear of being told you're 'stupid' by your peers.
Judging investment skill requires observing performance through both bull and bear markets. A fixed period, like 5 or 10 years, can be misleading if it only captures one type of environment, often rewarding mere risk tolerance rather than genuine ability.
Marks emphasizes that he correctly identified the dot-com and subprime mortgage bubbles without being an expert in the underlying assets. His value came from observing the "folly" in investor behavior and the erosion of risk aversion, suggesting market psychology is more critical than domain knowledge for spotting bubbles.
Investors obsess over outperforming benchmarks like the S&P 500. This is the wrong framework. It's possible to beat the index every quarter and still fail to meet your financial goals. Conversely, you can underperform the index and achieve all your goals. The only metric that matters is progress toward your personal objectives.
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.
In a hyper-growth market where demand is at an all-time high, it's easy to mistake a favorable environment for individual skill. This powerful 'current' can hide significant operational flaws, which only become apparent when the market inevitably shifts, as seen in the ZIRP era.
The secret to top-tier long-term results is not achieving the highest returns in any single year. Instead, it's about achieving average returns that can be sustained for an exceptionally long time. This "strategic mediocrity" allows compounding to work its magic, outperforming more volatile strategies over decades.