Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 143

Learning from my investment mistake

I recently made what I consider to be an investment mistake in my personal portfolio. Strangely, it doesn't look like a mistake on paper, but you only become a better investor by admitting and learning from your errors. Whether a work or a personal investment, a post-mortem is an important process to go through whether the investment was successful or not.

I will share my broad reflections of this experience with you. For confidentiality reasons, I cannot provide all of the details but I don’t think that stops me giving some useful insights.

For personal background context, you should know that I work in wealth management, study and have a young family. I love my work and have had a history of prioritising my work and my study above my personal finances. I have a lifelong trail of personal operational slippages which have cost me through the years, for example, not claiming refunds on expenses and not completing paperwork to accept free staff share offers at previous companies. At least things now align better as my super is invested in the fund that I manage at Mine Wealth + Wellbeing.

A little while ago, I made a private equity-style investment. For much of the time I was invested, I felt uncomfortable with the exposure. Recently it was restructured and I was fully paid out, both principal and interest. Overall, if you just looked at my outcome (low double digit annualised returns) you would say that it was a good investment. But deep down I know I made some fundamental mistakes.

What were my mistakes?

The first, and largest, mistake was the time I spent undertaking due diligence. Due to time constraints, I put in what I thought was a sufficient amount of time, but on reflection I should have put in a lot more. How much time is the right amount? The answer to this question is not known at the start of the due diligence process; rather a point is reached where you feel confident you have an appropriate amount of insight. Allocating time for due diligence is especially important in the case of illiquid investments where there is no opportunity to capitalise on subsequent learnings (unlike listed stocks for example when you can change your mind and exit the position with little cost). Different types of investments require different levels of due diligence. In the case of a private investment a large amount of time should be dedicated to the business model, competition, financial analysis and the structure of the transaction.

The related mistakes were broadly flow-on effects from the first mistake. When you are time poor you do less primary research (your own independent research) and take shortcuts such as relying on the information presented to you and taking confidence from the quality of the co-investors. These are examples of shortcuts that work well often but not always.

It’s also important to reflect on what went well. I was involved in the structuring of the original investment and overall this was well-designed in the sense that it provided lots of protection for investors. Also by investing alongside some high quality investors it did prove that they were able to have some positive influence on the final outcome as the investment wavered (and it did get hairy: at one point, interest payments were missed).

Lessons for other investors

A post-mortem is a valuable process for all investors. It allows you to reflect on what went right and wrong and to consider improvements to your investment process. If you are reflecting as a group (for instance, we do this at Mine Wealth + Wellbeing) there can be moments where people may feel defensive but if the session is run positively then a lot of good can come from it.

The reflections I make are largely for personal investors, and particularly those who have an SMSF:

  • As much as investing is interesting, do you have the skill to select your own investments? What is your personal investment edge that justifies selecting your own investments rather than relying on professional fund managers or using passive investments?
  • If you believe you have the skill, do you have the time to appropriately assess investment opportunities and conduct ongoing monitoring on each of your investments? In my case I believe I have the skill but time was the issue.
  • Are there investments that you are considering because they sound interesting and would be a great conversation starter? If yes, do you have the skill and time to appropriately assess and monitor these opportunities? Sometimes these skills need to be even more specialised. Strategies like hedge funds and private equity sound exciting but they can be much more complex to assess.
  • If you are considering private (illiquid) investments, then the issues raised about skill and time are even more important: you cannot easily reverse your decision once it is made.

Following on from my self-reflection I changed the way I invest my personal portfolio. I acknowledge that I don’t have enough time to undertake due diligence and conduct ongoing monitoring on a range of investments. Indeed, my personal investment process is well below the investment process I apply at work. I came to the view that this makes investing in private, illiquid investments a bad match for me at this stage of my life. So now I invest in liquid assets through managers that I know very well and trust. As my personal situation changes then the scope of my personal portfolio management activities may also change.

Being honest with yourself is an important starting point when designing and evolving your personal investing strategy. How well does your current strategy line up against your skills and time availability?


David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at Mine Wealth + Wellbeing. He is working towards a PhD at University of New South Wales.


Warren Bird
February 21, 2016

Here's a question for you - David and anyone else who'd care to answer. (Graham, maybe this could become a separate topic.)

Do you think the guys in The Big Short made an investment mistake? As I was watching the film last week I couldn't help but thinking that, especially those that were managing other people's money not just their own start-up seed funding, that they took one heck of a risk putting the whole value of their capital at risk on this one position.

Is that investing or is it gambling? To me it's the latter, but then again it might just be a style of investing that, as long as you know you're taking such a binary risk (make a motza or lose the lot), is OK. What do people think?

Been there B4
February 20, 2016

Some years ago I invested in an unlisted company that was to provide "smart" services to the energy sector. The services were quite complex and would have been difficult to describe to the guy in the street. After a couple of further capital-raisings ( read put hand into my pocket) the company was purchased by a "trade-buyer" with genuine knowledge of its potential.

I got out of the position with a modest profit. More luck than analysis

Now I get concerned with the IPOs of outfits offering Apps with Software as a Service in the Cloud ... but what do they really do and who are the paying customers?

Vishal Teckchandani
February 19, 2016

This is great reading that shows no matter how far we are in the investment knowledge curve, there will always be mistakes to make and lessons to learn.

David Bell
February 19, 2016

It really is a factor of time isn't it!? The process we undertake at work is very tight... yet that leaves me with little time to apply the same standards to my personal investments. It is so important to be realistic about how ambitious you can be with your personal investment strategy.

Cheers, David

February 19, 2016

Here are some things I've missed in similar circumstances: fine print in CEO contract, fine print in loan agreement with bank, or in share-holder agreement, or missed a higher ranking security over premises, or non-disclosure of some contingent liabilities in balance sheet, misunderstanding option exercise terms, etc (these are lessons I have learned over the years)


Leave a Comment:



Who dares loses: Buffett on luck, taxes and a challenge

Portfolio composition and what you find under the bonnet

Investment forecasts: foresight or folly?


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.