Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 138

Long-term investing: the destination is better than the journey

The old adage ‘time in the market, not timing the market’ is frequently used in articles like this one, with good reason – it often holds true. One of the key elements of successful investing is patience, as a long-term mindset is required to achieve investment goals. Returns in the short-term can be unpredictable and volatile, so investing with a short-term focus produces difficulties and can be counterproductive. It is easy to be fixated on the daily market movements and become distracted from long-term investment goals. It is often better to take a step back and allow investments to grow steadily over time.

Returns over different time horizons

To highlight the merits of having a long-term perspective, we assessed the historical returns after fees and tax of a ‘balanced’ superannuation strategy over three distinct time intervals: rolling one-month, rolling one-year, and rolling 10-years.

Exhibit 1 shows the rolling one-month returns or the portfolio's individual month-to-month performance. The green bars above the x-axis represent positive performance and a gain in the portfolio's value. A red bar below the x-axis represents negative performance and a loss in the portfolio's value.

There are no clear patterns or sequence to the returns. In the short-term, even a well-diversified portfolio exhibits volatile and unstable returns.

Exhibit 2 illustrates the rolling one-year returns, so each bar includes 12 months of performance.

Here we observe smoother and more persistent positive returns over time, with less frequent periods of negative performance.

Exhibit 3 depicts the balanced portfolio's returns over rolling 10-year periods and each bar accounts for 10 years of performance. The benefits of long-term investing become apparent, with two important takeaways:

  • In this period, there are no periods of negative returns, which means that no matter what 10-year period an individual was invested over, the portfolio delivered positive performance. This is because the well-diversified balanced strategy recovered from any losses or periods of underperformance within each 10-year window.
  • The returns are significantly smoother and considerably less volatile compared to shorter time horizons. Investors can see past the haze of short-term market movements and focus on achieving long-term investment goals.

Peter Gee is Research Products Manager with Morningstar Australasia. Information provided is for general information only, and individuals should seek personal advice before making investment decisions. The objectives of any individual have not been considered in this article.

 

  •   11 December 2015
  • 8
  •      
  •   
8 Comments
Gary M
December 10, 2015

“Patience” is fine if you are happy you have bought great businesses at great prices and are not worried that maybe you haven’t; and if you have great confidence that your existing investments will definitely achieve your goals when you need to them to; and if you know for sure that you won’t panic when your passive portfolio falls 50% or more. For everybody else (99% of investors) there is little reason to be patient.

Jerome Lander
December 10, 2015

Unfortunately, this is a simplistic view of markets based on looking in the rear view mirror, and with no elucidation of what the drivers of the returns have been, and how these might have changed and be different in future.
I would hate for anyone to rely upon this sort of analysis to invest their money, as depending upon the starting point they could easily have a very disappointing result.
Would you consider the following a good investment result:
Return: 5% per annum (over 10 years)
Risk: Biggest draw down 30-40%
Most people wouldn't, and nor should they! Alas, this is the sort of result they could achieve if they started today, and didn't lose their nerve in the meantime...

Jon B
December 10, 2015

The trouble is institutionalised laziness and the insistence that tracking error is more important than negative returns. Constructing actively managed, diversified portfolios from managers that hate to lose investors money makes a monstrous difference to investor performance. All the above article proves is that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

David
December 10, 2015

Why on earth would any investor be in commodity stocks, just as one example, over the last 3 years?

Brian S
December 10, 2015

There is nothing new here and for those in the superannuation accumulation phase it should be reassuring. For those of us in the pension phase with drawdowns of 5% per annum or more a "balanced" portfolio may be too agressive but there is little published material showing how our investments would perform over various time spans and with different asset allocations.

Peter Vann
December 11, 2015

Hi Brian S

1) Another way to address your desire for more research is in

http://ccfs.net.au/cvs/content/Impact_of_Investment_Risk_onRetirement_Income.pdf

In this white paper the authors** derive sustainable retirement income estimates as a function of the aggressiveness of their asset allocation for three specific cases. These calculations account for investment (and inflation) volatility (for the technical it uses a stochastic analysis not the simple but misleading deterministic analysis) .

Whilst these are only 3 specific cases, the nature of the conclusion seen on page one applies for many general cases.

2) Sure, Peter Gee's analysis is based on history, whereas in reality we all need to undertake forward looking analysis. But forward looking analysis uses history as a guide, plus current market conditions and expectations (not in the statistical sense) of future return generating parameters. Hence Peter's work provides useful insights for that forward looking process.

Peter Vann

Peter

** Chris Condon and myself.

Terry McMaster
December 12, 2015

This article shows that there can be an inverse relationship between the number of words, very low, and both the quality and quantity of information, very high.

The graphics tell the tale beautifully.

In summary, investing in shares and property is a long term exercise and if you are not prepared or able to take a long term view, ie at least ten years, then you should not invest in shares or property.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Phil Bamback
January 04, 2016

Well said Terry... even though nothing more needs to be said I felt this was needed :)

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

The investing rule that explains the next market crash

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

One risk after another

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.