Howard Marks highlights a pension fund that, by never ranking above the 27th or below the 47th percentile annually, achieved 4th percentile performance over 14 years. This mathematical paradox demonstrates that avoiding major losses is more powerful for long-term compounding than chasing huge, inconsistent wins.

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 modern market is driven by short-term incentives, with hedge funds and pod shops trading based on quarterly estimates. This creates volatility and mispricing. An investor who can withstand short-term underperformance and maintain a multi-year view can exploit these structural inefficiencies.

Investors often judge investments over three to five years, a statistically meaningless timeframe. Academic research suggests it requires approximately 64 years of performance data to know with confidence whether an active manager's outperformance is due to genuine skill (alpha) or simply luck, highlighting the folly of short-term evaluation.

AQR's Cliff Asnes highlights that a prolonged period of underperformance is psychologically and professionally more damaging than a sharper, shorter drop. Enduring a multi-year drawdown erodes client confidence and forces painful business decisions, even if the manager's conviction in their strategy remains high.

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.

Investors rarely sell a fund for outperforming its benchmark too aggressively, but they should consider it. Research by Vanguard's John Bogle tracked the top 20 funds of each decade and found they almost always became significant underperformers in the following decade, demonstrating the danger of chasing past winners.

While institutional money managers operate on an average six-month timeframe, individual investors can gain a significant advantage by adopting a minimum three-year outlook. This long-term perspective allows one to endure volatility that forces short-term players to sell, capturing the full compounding potential of great companies.

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.