Subscribe now

The Long Game ♟️Perspective An occasional Alpha Library series:

Every day, retail investors here in Singapore and around the world log into their brokerage apps hoping to spot the next Nvidia, Tesla, or Apple. The financial media feeds us a very comforting dream. We are told to simply buy good companies, hold them tightly, and let compounding build our retirement nest egg over time.

It sounds incredibly easy. It is also mathematically broken.

As a wealth advisor, I have sat across the table from countless intelligent, hardworking people who are exhausted by the emotional rollercoaster of their own portfolios. They feel like they are doing everything right, yet their wealth is not growing the way it should.

If that sounds familiar, I want to share a piece of research that will completely change how you view the stock market.

Michael Mauboussin and Dan Callahan of Morgan Stanley recently published a sprawling quantitative study titled Drawdowns and Recoveries. They reviewed the lifecycle of 6,500 stocks over a 40-year period from 1985 to 2024. What they found entirely dismantles the casual “buy and hold” stock-picking myth.

The Wealth Destruction Engine

We often trick ourselves into believing that picking a winning stock is roughly a coin flip. The reality is far more punishing.

According to their data, nearly 60 percent of all public companies failed to even match the returns of US Treasury bills. Let us translate that into our local context. It means that over the long run, six out of every ten stocks you pick will perform worse than if you had simply parked that cash in a basic fixed deposit or left it in your CPF Ordinary Account. The overwhelming majority of the stock market is actually a wealth destruction engine.

So, where does all the spectacular market growth come from?

It comes from an exceptionally tiny sliver of extreme outliers. Just 2 percent of the companies produced 90 percent of the aggregate wealth creation.

If you are a retail investor picking individual stocks, the odds are heavily rigged against you. You are not looking for a needle in a haystack. You are looking for a specific piece of hay that might turn into gold, while 60 percent of the haystack catches fire.

The 80 Percent Tax on the Ultimate Winners

You might be thinking that you do not buy speculative junk. You only invest in massive blue-chip winners.

This is the second trap.

Let us look at the undisputed champions of our era. The top six wealth creators in the Morgan Stanley sample alone added $17.1 trillion in value.

If you were lucky enough to buy these super-creators, you might expect a smooth ride to financial freedom. But the data reveals a terrifying reality. The average maximum drawdown for the stocks of these top six companies was an agonising 80.3 percent.

Consider Nvidia. Today, it is the undisputed darling of the artificial intelligence boom. According to the report, it is the absolute leader among all S&P 500 stocks, boasting a staggering 39 percent compound annual return over the 20 years ending in 2024.

Yet, to capture that massive lifetime wealth creation, a loyal investor had to endure pure psychological torture. Between January and October of 2002, Nvidia shares collapsed by a breathtaking 90 percent.

It took just 0.8 years for the stock to lose nearly all of its value. It then took an excruciating 4.1 years just to claw its way back to its previous peak. That is five years of dead money and panic.

As the late Charlie Munger famously noted in the report, if you are not willing to react with equanimity to a market price decline of 50 percent two or three times a century, you deserve the mediocre result you are going to get. Large drawdowns are simply the strict price of admission for superior long-term returns.

Mauboussin’s research highlights a sobering timeline. The median stock takes 2.5 years to reach its absolute bottom, and another 2.5 years just to recover to its previous peak. That is five years of dead money and psychological torture. Most people simply do not have the stomach for it. They panic and capitulate at the exact bottom.

The Passive Index Illusion

Historically, the standard advice here has been to abandon individual stock picking and just buy a broad-market index ETF like the S&P 500.

However, we are living in unprecedented times. Today, standard market indices are dangerously top-heavy. Just seven mega-cap tech companies currently hold roughly 35 percent of the total weight of the index.

By blindly buying a passive ETF today, you are no longer getting broad diversification. You are heavily concentrating your hard-earned money into a handful of massive tech companies that, as the Morgan Stanley data explicitly proves, are highly susceptible to 80 percent drawdowns. If those specific seven companies suffer their historical corrections, the “safe” passive index will drag your entire retirement portfolio down with it.

The Key Takeaway

Picking individual stocks exposes you to a 60 percent chance of underperforming a basic savings account, and blind ETF investing currently exposes you to dangerous concentration risk in a handful of tech giants that historically suffer massive price collapses.

The Alternative Strategy

Stop trying to find the needle yourself, and avoid the concentrated risk of today’s passive indices. For retail investors looking to build serious, resilient wealth, the most sensible path forward right now is partnering with reputable, professional active fund managers. High-quality active managers have the strict mandate and analytical resources to navigate away from overvalued, concentrated mega-caps. More importantly, they provide the necessary institutional discipline to hold fundamentally sound businesses through the inevitable multi-year drawdowns, saving you from your own emotional panic. If you want to survive the brutal mathematics of the market, outsource the psychological warfare to the professionals.

If you found value in this article, please hold down the like ❤️ button or consider sharing with someone who might benefit from it, or simply buy me a coffee ☕️ to fuel the next one!

Buy me coffee ☕️

The Long Game ♟️- Perspective An occasional GARP investing series:

1. The GARP Valuation Dislocation

• Headline Valuation: Meta trades at roughly 22x forward earnings. Even slightly cheaper than the S&P 500 average, despite Meta having significantly higher growth prospects.

• The “Core” Discount: You strip out the operating losses from the Reality Labs division, and the core advertising business is trading at less than 18x forward earnings.

• EPS Growth Trajectory: The company is projected to grow earnings per share (EPS) at approximately 20% annually, creating a highly attractive PEG (Price/Earnings-to-Growth) ratio profile compared to the broader market.

2. AI as a Tailwind and Utility

• SaaS vs. Utility: The market is currently liquidating software-as-a-service (SaaS) stocks due to fears of AI displacement. Meta is viewed differently as a primary beneficiary.

• Proven ROI: Meta’s heavy AI infrastructure spend is already yielding tangible results by improving ad targeting precision and powering content recommendation engines like Reels, increasing user time spent on the platform.

3. Unrivalled Data Scale

• The central thesis is that AI models are commoditising, but proprietary data is not. Meta’s moat is its 3.5 billion daily active people (DAP) providing a real-time, proprietary dataset that no competitor can replicate.

4. The “Hidden Equity” in Reality Labs

• Roughly 25% drag on operating profits caused by Reality Labs is not considered dead weight, but as a “discretionary growth investment.” Just like Google’s Waymo, a division that the market currently values at zero (or negative), but which represents a free call option on significant future equity value.

5. Financial Strength to Weather the CapEx Cycle

• Meta’s core business generates massive Free Cash Flow (FCF), allowing it to fund the estimated $30B-$40B+ annual AI CapEx spend internally without stressing the balance sheet, a luxury smaller tech companies lack.

My Narrative

The market is currently suffering from “CapEx shock.” Investors are looking at the staggering sums required to build out AI infrastructure and are fleeing any company involved in the spending spree. This panic has created significant collateral damage in the software sector, but it has also opened a rare window of opportunity in the highest-quality names.

Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square recently disclosed a major stake in Meta Platforms. Viewed through a disciplined GARP (Growth at a Reasonable Price) lens, this is not a bet on hype; it is a mathematically sound wager on valuation dislocation.

The Valuation Anomaly: Analysing the P/E Ratios

In the current market environment, defensive staples with low-single-digit growth are trading at nearly 20x earnings. Yet, Meta, a company compounding earnings at roughly 20% annually, trades at a similar multiple.

The GARP opportunity becomes clearer when we dissect the valuation. Meta is essentially two companies: a massive, highly profitable advertising utility, and a cash-burning venture capital project (Reality Labs).

• Headline Forward P/E: ~22x

• “Core Business” Forward P/E (Ex-Reality Labs): <18x

If we analyse a standard Price/Earnings-to-Growth (PEG) ratio, Meta currently trades at a PEG ratio hovering around 1.0x based on its core business. In a market where investors routinely pay PEG ratios of 2.0x or higher for perceived “safety,” buying Meta at par with its growth rate is classic value arbitrage.

Why I Agree: The Data Moat and CapEx Efficiency

I agree with the thesis that the market is misinterpreting Meta’s massive capital expenditures. In the AI era, CapEx is the new moat.

While the headline CapEx figures ($30B-$40B annualised range) are eye-watering, the return on invested capital (ROIC) for this spend is evident in the core business metrics. Meta is using this infrastructure to process the behavioural data of 3.5 billion daily active users.

This is not abstract. AI-driven recommendations on Reels have directly contributed to increased engagement hours. More importantly for advertisers, AI-automated campaigns are improving return on ad spend (ROAS).

By front-loading this massive spend, Meta is creating an insurmountable barrier to entry. They are becoming the essential utility for global small business commerce, a position that AI chatbots cannot easily disrupt.

The Reality Labs “Tax” and Cash Flow

The primary argument against Meta remains Zuckerberg’s commitment to the Metaverse, which currently exerts an approximate 25% drag on operating margins.

However, a look at the Free Cash Flow Yield tells a different story. Even with this massive “tax” on profits and record CapEx spending, Meta continues to generate substantial free cash flow. This financial fortress means shareholders are not facing dilution to fund these ambitions. As Ackman argues, investors are effectively getting the Reality Labs “moonshot” for free, while paying a discounted price for the core advertising machine.

Conclusion

The current market narrative views high CapEx as a liability. The GARP investor views high CapEx, when coupled with a pristine balance sheet and a clear ROI, as a competitive advantage. Meta is currently offering double-digit earnings growth for a market-average multiple. In the long run, earnings growth dictates share price, and the metrics suggest Meta is poised to outperform.

If you found value in this article, please hold down the like ❤️ button or consider buying me a coffee ☕️ to fuel the next one!

Buy me coffee ☕️

Disclaimer: This article is for information and education purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. All investments involve risk, including the loss of principal. Please conduct your own due diligence or consult a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Invest at your own risk. Please refer to this link.

The financial industry is built on a fundamental asymmetry: the seller understands the product’s failure modes, while the buyer is shown only a comforting mountain of past performance. In the Singapore landscape, this gap is filled by the ubiquitous fund factsheet; a document most investors read as a disclosure, but institutional committees read as a crime scene.

This report provides the forensic toolkit to invert the reading process, stripping away “reassuring” brand language to expose hidden risks, misaligned fees, and the structural drags that erode long-term wealth.

Inside the paid report:

• The 10-Minute Interrogation Protocol: A step-by-step institutional method to deconstruct any fund mandate and benchmark.

• The “Expense Onion” Breakdown: Mapping the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) from visible management fees to invisible transaction churn and FX drags.

• The Red Flag Forensic Guide: How to detect closet indexing, window dressing, and style drift before they lead to a portfolio “blow-up”.

• The Decision Memo & Banker Scripts: A disciplined template to enforce investment conviction and practical scripts to challenge your relationship manager on trailer fees and active share.

Free Preview

The financial industry is built on a fundamental asymmetry: the seller understands the product’s mechanics, incentives, and failure modes, while the buyer typically sees only the narrative and the cumulative performance chart. In the high-net-worth (HNW) landscape of Singapore, where fund distribution is dominated by private banks and insurers, this asymmetry is compounded by a complex web of trailer fees, rebate structures, and “recommended lists” that often prioritise commercial viability over investment merit. The ubiquitous two-page PDF fund factsheet is the primary artefact of this asymmetry. Most investors read it as a disclosure document. Institutional investors read it as a crime scene. This issue provides the forensic toolkit to bridge that gap.

Most investors read a fund’s factsheet backwards. They glance at the fund name, skip immediately to the cumulative performance chartthe “mountain chart” to see if the line goes up, check the top ten holdings for familiar names like Apple or Nvidia, and then perhaps glance at the annual management fee. This consumption pattern is exactly how the document is engineered to be read. It relies on the “recency bias” and “outcome bias” inherent in human psychology, prioritising a comforting narrative of past success over the uncomfortable mechanics of current risk.

In the world of institutional capital allocation, where Investment Committees (ICs) adjudicate billions of dollars for endowments, sovereign wealth funds, and family offices, this reading order is considered professional malpractice. An IC does not buy “performance,” which is a historical artefact; they buy a “process” that they believe will generate performance in the future. They do not buy a “story” about innovation or resilience; they buy exposure to specific factors (value, momentum, quality) and risks, constrained by strict mandates to prevent the manager from drifting into gambling.

When a Singapore-based HNW investor receives a pitch deck from a relationship manager, they are holding a sales tool designed to trigger dopamine through green numbers and reassuring brand language. However, buried within the ratios, footnotes, and portfolio breakdowns are the signals of the fund’s true nature: its hidden risks, structural inefficiencies, and misaligned fees.

This issue of The Long Game provides you with the professional protocol to invert the reading process. We will dismantle the fund factsheet, moving from the fine print of constraints to the reality of holdings, and finally to the truth of performance. We will expose the mechanics of the Singaporean wealth management value chains, specifically the prevalence of trailer fees and the “expense onion” of total ownership costs, and provide you with a checklist to distinguish between genuine active management skill and expensive “closet indexing.”

In this issue:

• The Thesis: Why factsheets are marketing documents disguised as data and how to spot the optical illusions.

• The Ecosystem: The hidden incentives of Singapore’s fund distribution network, from retrocessions to “shelf space.”

• The Unit Economics: Deconstructing the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) beyond the Total Expense Ratio (TER), including transaction costs and FX drag.

• The Red Flags: A forensic guide to detecting style drift, window dressing, and benchmark arbitrage.

• The Protocol: A step-by-step method to interrogate any fund in 10 minutes.

• The Application: Client scripts for your private banker and a decision memo template.

Read more