{"id":4573,"date":"2019-03-29T15:04:56","date_gmt":"2019-03-29T14:04:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/estably.com\/good-is-not-good-enough-for-us\/"},"modified":"2024-02-07T16:54:09","modified_gmt":"2024-02-07T15:54:09","slug":"good-is-not-good-enough-for-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/estably.com\/en\/good-is-not-good-enough-for-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Good is not good enough for us"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Good is not good enough for us - we want more than the MSCI World return <\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

March 29, 2019 | Digital Asset Management<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFacebook<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i>\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTwitter<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i>\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tLinkedin<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i>\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMail-bulk<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i>\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

MSCI World return over the last 40 years<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Patience is a virtue that most people lack. But patience is one of the keys to success, especially in value investing. Because let’s be honest: wouldn’t you lose faith in success if, after five years of negative performance, you were still being told that things would get better?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n
\n

But: If you had invested EUR 100,000 in the MSCI World Index (in EUR) 40 years ago<\/strong>, you would have an amount of over EUR 2.5 million<\/strong> in your account today (in purely nominal terms, without inflation).<\/p>\n

You often hear the argument that you don’t need an asset manager because some indices are better than asset managers anyway and you should therefore buy index funds yourself at low fees. But don’t be fooled.<\/p>\n

What if you had entered the MSCI World Index 20 years ago instead of 40 years ago? The average annual return would then be around 2%. That’s less than inflation. The “under-the-mattress” investment method would have been the better choice. Isn’t that absurd?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

We want more than the MSCI World return<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Back then, 20 years ago, a bubble developed on the markets and the indices (and the shares they contained) were overpriced. Two simple but important lessons can be drawn from this:<\/p>\n