{"id":119105,"date":"2023-11-20t14:50:39","date_gmt":"2023-11-20t19:50:39","guid":{"rendered":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/?p=119105"},"modified":"2024-08-27t17:00:35","modified_gmt":"2024-08-27t21:00:35","slug":"clients-who-dont-listen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/2023\/11\/20\/clients-who-dont-listen\/","title":{"rendered":"clients who don\u2019t listen"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/strong><\/p>\n

sometimes you need to take a hands-off approach.<\/strong><\/p>\n

by anthony glomski
\nyour $5 million high-net-worth practice<\/em><\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

staying invested consistently is the all-weather approach. what do we mean by this?<\/p>\n

more: <\/b>why you should function as a fiduciary<\/a> | how to flip the switch to wealth preservation<\/a> | three ways to work together on wealth<\/a> | target the family ceo<\/a> | five challenges of liquidating a business<\/a>
\n\"goprocpa.com\"exclusively for pro members. <\/span><\/strong>log in here<\/a> or 2022世界杯足球排名 today<\/a>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

some of our clients reside near us in los angeles, where the average annual temperature is a very comfortable 65 degrees. in southern california, our \u201cseasons\u201d don\u2019t vary much from the average annual temperature of 65. other clients reside in new york city, where the average temperature is cooler, but still a very comfortable 56 degrees. however, the temperature swings are much more significant in the big apple, ranging from stifling heat and humidity in the summer to icy temperatures and falling snow in winter.
\n
\nin my home state of indiana, a similar average of 54 degrees is skewed by even colder winters. we also have clients in central texas. on the surface, the average annual temperature of 66 degrees is about the same as it is in california. but in texas, there are fiery, sticky summers and freezing, rainy winters, which means central texans have far fewer days at their comfortable 66-degree average than do southern californians.<\/p>\n

the markets are a lot like the weather in texas or new york city. the long-term results are just fine, but rarely do we have a year in which returns are in the narrow and comfortable 10- to 12-percent band. true, stocks have delivered average annualized returns of around 10 to 12 percent since 1926 \u2013 making them the best-performing asset class by far \u2013 but those \u201caverage\u201d returns rarely occur during shorter periods of time such as one year, five years or even 10 years. instead, investment returns are \u201clumpy.\u201d we have above-average (hot) periods during which returns are much higher, followed by below-average (cold) periods in with returns are much lower. this is how we arrive at the historical average in practice.<\/p>\n

to maximize your client\u2019s chance of realizing the returns that stocks potentially offer over time, they must invest \u2013 and stay invested \u2013 for long periods of time. otherwise, they risk being out of the market during those robust periods when returns are well above average. as dimensional fund advisors founder david booth is fond of saying, \u201cyou\u2019ve already paid for the risk, so it might be good to stick around for the expected return.\u201d<\/p>\n

further complicating matters is the impossibility of predicting consistently when market surges and swoons will occur. it turns out that stock market gains are highly concentrated \u2013 a relatively small number of days are responsible for the bulk of the stock market\u2019s impressive long-term returns. miss just a few of those key days, and the investor\u2019s long-term returns plummet. not convinced?<\/p>\n

let\u2019s say your client invested $1,000 in january 2004 in a fund that earned the same return as the s&p 500. by 2019, that $1,000 would have grown to more than $3,642 provided you left your money in that fund for the duration (see the table below). but if you had tried to time the market and were not invested during the best 20 days of each year during that period, your $1,000 would have grown to just $1,191 \u2013 less than one-third of what you would have earned had you remained fully invested.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\ngrowth of $1,000 invested january 2004 through december 2019<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
s&p 500<\/td>\n$3,642<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
s&p 500 without the best 20 days of each year<\/td>\n$1,191<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
source: the s&p data are provided by standard & poor\u2019s index services group.<\/h5>\n

 <\/p>\n

so why is it so difficult for many to stay invested and to capture the full returns that the market offers? the fact is, humans tend to make investment decisions based on their emotions. we can blame this behavior on generations of successful marketing by financial services providers combined with human wiring.<\/p>\n

the results, however, are decidedly bad. consider these returns* for the 20-year period through 2019:<\/p>\n