According to investor Howard Marks, people sell assets either because they're up (to lock in gains) or down (out of panic). Both are poor reasons. The only valid reasons to sell are if your original investment thesis is no longer true, or if you've found a demonstrably better opportunity.
Contrary to the industry's bias for action, Howard Marks advocates for strategic inaction, flipping the common saying to 'don't just do something, sit there.' True long-term success comes from owning good assets and letting ideas work, not from constant trading and reacting to short-term market noise.
Marks frames contrarian investing not as simple opposition, but as using the market's excessive force (optimism or pessimism) against itself. This mental model involves letting the market's momentum create opportunities, like selling into euphoric buying, rather than just betting against the crowd.
Despite his reputation, Marks made just five significant macro calls in his career. These were not based on economic forecasts but on 'taking the temperature' of investor behavior when it reached extremes of euphoria or despair. This highlights the rarity of true, high-probability moments to make major portfolio shifts.
To avoid emotional, performance-chasing mistakes, write down your selling criteria in advance and intentionally exclude recent performance from the list. This forces a focus on more rational reasons, such as a broken investment thesis, manager changes, excessive fees, or shifting personal goals, thereby preventing reactionary decisions based on market noise.
Howard Marks argues that you cannot maintain a risk-on posture and then opportunistically switch to a defensive one just before a downturn. Effective risk management requires that defense be an integral, permanent component of every investment decision, ensuring resilience during bad times.
In 2008, Howard Marks invested billions with conviction while markets crashed, yet he wasn't certain of the outcome. He held the paradox of needing to act decisively against the crowd while simultaneously accepting the real possibility of being wrong. This mental balance is crucial for high-stakes decisions.
Contrary to the 'hold forever' value investing trope, a three-year period of underperformance is a strong signal that your initial thesis was flawed. It's better to admit the mistake and reallocate capital than to stubbornly wait for the market to agree with you.
True investment maturity isn't about holding through drawdowns. It's about recognizing when new information invalidates your thesis and selling immediately. The common instinct to defend a position by buying more is a costly mistake that turns event-driven plays into distressed holdings.
Suboptimal selling is often driven by fear: a position gets "too big" or you want to lock in gains. A better approach is to only sell when you find a new investment you "love" more. This forces a positive, opportunity-cost framework rather than a negative, fear-based one, letting winners run.
While having a disciplined rule like reviewing a stock after 24 months is useful, it should be subordinate to a more critical rule: sell immediately if the fundamental investment thesis breaks. This flexibility prevents holding onto a losing position simply to adhere to a predefined timeline.