Håller med dig i stora drag, men några tankar:
Fenomenet kallas på engelska Tracking Error Regret, och är något som dom flesta investerare måste kämpa med att hantera för att ha en lyckosam strategi över tid.
Har själv provat mängder med investeringstrategier senaste åren, så som tex 100% Global index, 100% OMXS, 100% Investmentbolag, 50/50 marknadsviktad, Lysa, egna varianter av Opti portföljer, Avanza Auto, golden butterfly, multi-factor, utdelningsbolag, variant av allvädersportfölj. Många gånger för att lära mig känna hur det känns och vad min benchmark är, bättre att göra misstagen och proven när man är ung och portföljen är relativt liten.
Och min slutsats efter alla dessa år av provande är att det är högst personligt vad som utgör ens “benchmark”, och när man känner “tracking error regret” från när man avviker från detta egen upplevda benchmark, för amerikanska investerare kan tex all avvikelse från S&P500 rendera i stor ånger.
Så för att få till en egen lyckosam strategi bör man fundera ut vad som är ens eget “benchmark”, och vilka avvikelser från det benchmarket man skulle klara av att hantera utan att avbryta eller byta strategin.
Tycker denna artikel från Larry Swedroe i ämnet är läsvärd, Tracking Error Regret
Is the Enemy of Investors, dock skriven för amerikanska investerare, några bra urklipp:
Impatience
I have learned that when contemplating investment returns, the typical investor considers three to five years as a long time, and ten years as an eternity.
When it comes to the returns of risky asset classes, however, periods as short as three or five years should be considered nothing more than noise — and even ten years is a relatively brief period.
No more proof is required than the negative 1 percent per year return to the S&P 500 Index over the first decade of this century. Investors in stocks shouldn’t have lost faith in their belief that stocks should outperform safe Treasury bills due to the experience of that decade.
Here’s a much more striking example. Over the 40-year period ending in 2008, U.S. large-cap and small-cap growth stocks both underperformed long-term U.S. Treasury bonds.
I would hope that investors didn’t abandon the idea that these risky assets should be expected to outperform in the future just because they had experienced a long period of underperformance.
Yet, when it comes to international investing — perhaps because of home country bias — investors are far too willing to abandon well-thought-out strategies involving global diversification of international equities when they experience inevitable periods of underperformance.
As I have discussed previously, investors need to understand that when they invest in risky assets (such as stocks, and more specifically small and value stocks), they should expect to experience some very long periods in which those risky assets underperform.
If that wasn’t the case, there would not be any risk.
Summary
Diversification means accepting the fact that parts of your portfolio may behave entirely differently than the portfolio itself.
Knowing your level of tolerance for tracking error risk, and investing accordingly, will help keep you disciplined.
The less tracking error you are willing to accept, the more the equity portion of your portfolio should look like the S&P 500 Index.
On the other hand, if you choose a market-like portfolio, it will be one that’s not very diversified by asset class and will have no international diversification.
At least between these two choices — avoiding or accepting tracking error — there is no free lunch.
It is almost as important to get this balance right as it is to determine the appropriate equity/fixed-income allocation.
If you have the discipline to stick with a globally diversified, passive asset class strategy, you are likely to be rewarded for your discipline.