The psychology of investing
Why Losing Feels Twice as Bad as Winning Feels Good
The single most studied bias in all of behavioural economics doesn't live in your spreadsheet — it lives in the way pain and pleasure are wired completely asymmetrically in your brain.
The Idea
In the late 1970s, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky ran a deceptively simple experiment: they asked people whether they'd accept a coin-flip bet where tails meant losing a fixed sum. To make the gamble feel worth taking, the potential gain had to be roughly twice the potential loss. Lose a month's rent, and you'd need to win nearly two months' rent just to feel it balanced out. This asymmetry — now called loss aversion — isn't irrationality in the pejorative sense. It's a deeply embedded feature of how humans evaluate change. We don't measure outcomes from zero; we measure them from wherever we currently stand, and losses loom larger than equivalent gains from that reference point. For investors, this has a specific and costly consequence. It makes holding a losing position feel emotionally preferable to selling it — because selling locks in the loss and makes it real, while holding keeps it theoretical. It also makes people bail out of perfectly sound investments during a market dip, because the pain of watching a portfolio fall overrides any rational calculation about long-term trajectory. The brain registers a portfolio drop like a physical threat. The prefrontal cortex, where deliberate reasoning lives, gets crowded out by the amygdala's alarm system. Knowing this intellectually is useful. But knowing it doesn't automatically defuse it — which is the genuinely humbling part.
In the World
In 2008, as markets collapsed, Vanguard — one of the world's largest index fund providers — tracked what its retail investors actually did. The data was striking: a significant portion of people sold their holdings near the bottom of the crash, locking in enormous losses, and then failed to re-enter the market before it recovered. Many didn't return at all. On paper, their long-term investment thesis hadn't changed. The companies they owned shares in still existed. The economic system had not permanently collapsed. But the psychological experience of watching their savings shrink by thirty or forty percent was simply unbearable, and they acted to stop the pain. This pattern has a name in behavioural finance: 'myopic loss aversion.' The 'myopic' part matters. Investors who checked their portfolios daily were far more likely to make reactive, loss-avoiding trades than those who checked quarterly. The more frequently you look, the more opportunities you have to feel a loss — and the more likely you are to do something about it that your future self will regret. Richard Thaler, who later won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on behavioural economics, identified this dynamic and drew a pointed conclusion: for most people, the best investment strategy is one that makes it structurally harder to react. Automatic contributions, infrequent reviews, and friction-heavy selling processes aren't just nudges — they're architectural defences against your own nervous system.
Why It Matters
Understanding loss aversion reframes how you think about financial pain. That sick feeling when your portfolio drops isn't a signal that something has gone wrong with your strategy — it's a signal that you're human, and that your brain is doing exactly what brains do. The question is whether you act on that signal. More practically: it shifts where you direct your energy. Instead of trying to feel less anxious when markets fall — which is a losing battle — you design your investment setup to reduce the number of moments where anxiety can lead to action. That might mean automating contributions so investing becomes invisible, setting a firm policy of checking performance only once a quarter, or writing down your investment thesis when you're calm so you can read it back to yourself when you're not. It also reframes how you evaluate your past decisions. Most people who sold during a downturn don't think 'I was experiencing myopic loss aversion.' They think 'I made a smart call to cut my losses.' Knowing the research doesn't guarantee you'll behave differently — but it at least offers a competing narrative when the alarm bells start ringing.
A Question to Ponder
If you knew with certainty that you wouldn't look at your investments for five years, would your current strategy feel more or less stressful — and what does that tell you about whether your strategy actually fits your psychology?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable