What's the Best Way to Start Investing?
Three arguments against getting started in investing with individual stocks.
Editor's note: A version of this article first appeared in June 2020.
Read the latest on how the coronavirus is rattling the markets and what investors can do to navigate it.
I once created quite when a stir when I wrote the following on Twitter:
"I'll say it: Individual stocks are TERRIBLE investments for people just starting out. I know that many people learned about investing through their Disney shares yadda yadda but I think we need to be clearer about this when we discuss financial education."
"So much ink has been spilled discussing the failings of active managers. But we haven't talked enough about how poorly many small investors are apt to do with individual-stock purchases, especially if they're just learning. Now seems like a good time to drive home this point."
Several people seemed to interpret my comments as damning of all individual stock investments, so I followed up by posting this.
"I fear that some are misconstruing my comment. I didn't say that individuals should never buy individual stocks. Rather, that the 22-year-old with a $500 graduation gift is much better off putting the $ into an index fund and reading a few investing books before doing anything else."
To be honest, none of these posts felt particularly controversial to me at the time. After all, diversification has been called "the only free lunch" in investing. Wouldn't most people knowledgeable about matters of personal finance suggest that new investors embrace diversification from the get-go, using an ultracheap total market index or a target-date fund?
Not necessarily. Based on the volume of feedback I received, it seems I touched a nerve. So let me clarify a few reasons why I discourage individual stocks for those who are just getting started investing.
Do They Have a Place in an Experience Investor's Portfolio?
As is common with social media, a healthy contingent misread my comments as an assertion that small investors should never hold individual stocks. Several financial advisors said that they've successfully used individual stocks in client portfolios for years. Individual investors discussed how dividend-paying stocks were a big share of their portfolios.
OK, fine. I really wasn't talking about you. If you're an experienced investor with a well-thought-out portfolio that's large enough to be diversified, it's not TERRIBLE if you own individual stocks.
But I still assert that the data about active-fund performance should at least be part of your thought process when you develop your investment plan.
Yes, as a small investor you do have some key advantages over mutual funds. You're not subject to short-term performance pressures, so you can maintain a long-term mindset; you don't have shareholder redemptions to contend with, which can force fund managers out of names that they might rather hold; you can invest in smaller or illiquid names if you so choose; and you can be more tax-efficient than funds are.
But it's also wise to recognize that you're playing against professional investors, people who are paid handsomely to beat the market or at least other funds that invest like they do.
If the public track records of those professionals don't make a resounding case for active management (and they don't) what makes you believe you'll be able to do so?
The Rise and Fall of Trendy Stocks is Nothing New
So, back to novice investors: What's their best way to get started investing? How should investors just starting out go about investing? This is no trivial matter. After all, we're in an era of young investors experimenting with free trading and the ability to trade fractional shares of individual stocks.
The GameStop (GME) hubbub sparked unprecedented interest in stock trading--more than 600,000 people downloaded the RobinHood app in a single day at the height of the excitement. That's on top of the interest brought about by the coronavirus pandemic (extra free time), last year's market swoon, and the performance dominance of a handful of big technology stocks.
I'll say it again. That's a TERRIBLE way to begin investing. While some of these new investors probably have at least a basic appreciation for investment fundamentals, valuation, and diversification, let's be real: Most likely don't. On Internet forums and social media, fractional shares have been touted as a way to obtain exposure to "all of the FAANG stocks"--as if holding Facebook (FB), Apple (AAPL), Amazon (AMZN), Netflix (NFLX), and Alphabet (Google) (GOOG) makes for a well-diversified portfolio. More recently, penny stocks have been having a moment: People with zero investing got in on GameStop, Nokia (NOK), or AMC (AMC); the stock price lifted, only to fall again a week later.
I know, each market is different. But some of this mania, particularly for the FAANGs, does recall the late 1990s, when investors crowded into "can't-miss" tech names like Cisco (CSCO) and Microsoft (MSFT) in the late stages of their long-running ascent. Microsoft has soared after stumbling badly in the "tech wreck" that ensued; Cisco has underperformed the market. Many other names that soared during that period have been relegated to the dustbin of history. (Remember JDS Uniphase? I didn't, either, until someone referenced it in the Twitter discussion.) I can't help but wonder whether the newbie investor enthusiasm is just the latest in one of many speculative waves we've tended to see toward the end of various market cycles, such as the late-1990s dot-com mania and residential real estate earlier this century.
It's Unwise to Waste Even Small Amounts in the Name of Experience
Some of the best counter-argurments I saw were that making mistakes can be part of the process. Investors who I respect noted that making their own mistakes with individual stocks had been part of their own investing education, helping them build an appreciation for diversification and maintaining a long-term orientation.
They argued that getting started by investing in actual companies, in contrast with a broadly diversified fund, made them aware that they were buying small pieces of actual businesses, something that might be lost on buyers of a generic index fund. Others noted that making mistakes when you're investing with small shares of money and you're young enough to recover from them might be part of the process.
Those are all good points, but I'd also argue that even small sums, invested well, can add up to serious money over a young investor's time horizon; wasting even a few of those early years with misguided experimentation can have a decent-sized opportunity cost. And while doing something is indeed often the best way to learn about it, we're not consistently hands-on in other parts of our lives.
If my car started having problems, no one (and I mean it, no one) would suggest that I go out to the garage and try to fix it myself to help cement the value of getting a professional to do it in the first place. Why wouldn't we suggest that investors start with a professional solution first, too?
Stick to the Basics: Simple, Cheap, Well-Diversified Investing
For all of these reasons, I can't help but wonder whether the financial education effort should be more forthright when telling beginning investors about the smartest way to start off with their plans. Too much financial education stays agnostic as to the best way to get started investing, holding out individual-equity investing and buying a fund as two perfectly legitimate ways to go about it.
Indeed, many educational efforts practically glorify speculative stock trading by featuring "the stock market game." Students pick companies to track, often based on limited due diligence (cue the frenzy to pick Apple), then track them for a short period of time. The "winner" is the one whose stock has gone up the most over that short period. Talk about a recipe for terrible long-term investment results.
So if you'd like to help a young person in your life getting started with investing, here's my recommendation.
Christine Benz does not own shares in any of the securities mentioned above. Find out about Morningstar’s editorial policies.
Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.
We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.
We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management. We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences and advertising on our websites and newsletters.
How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:
To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.
Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.
To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.
Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.