Sign up for the One Day In July newsletter to receive meaningful musings and investor insights from founder and CEO Dan Cunningham. Once a month, direct to your inbox.
"By the age of 40," author Elizabeth Gilbert once wrote, "everyone could write a memoir titled 'Not Exactly What I Had Planned.'" That pretty much sums up 2025 as an investment year. Almost from the start, the year turned into a black hole for adjectives. It twisted and turned, riding the back of a wild policy year, and with twelve days to go... generally has turned in a strong performance.
In a way, the endless information that spills forth from our screens is making investment decision-making more difficult. For example, you can say "Here is a thing I believe." You can then find something that matches that belief. The problem with the Internet is that the frictional barrier to finding "information" that backs up the belief is low. But the root problem, and this affects investors, scientists, and really all of us, is that you ask the question already edging toward the result that you want. To avoid falling prey to behavioral errors in investing, it is best to steer away from this natural tendency.
This can be difficult to do, though. For example, this year many people have thought "Wow, the world seems like it is at peak chaos." And I agree! I mean I don't think many people look back on 2025, kick their heels up with a bottle of port that they didn't quite finish off from the 2024 holidays, and think "Well, that went as planned." But who knows, really. Maybe we just see a lot more turbulence in the information age. Maybe when a saber-tooth tiger was hunting you on Christmas Eve 10,000 BC the part of the cave behind the fire pit seemed chaotic too.
One thing I do know is that you can't map what you want, at least in investing, onto a chaotic system. Markets, businesses, human behavior... it's all pretty volatile. It makes life frustrating and fun at the same time. But it won't fit a specific plan. That's just something you accept as an investor as you build tools and a strategy on top of that reality.
By being part of One Day In July, you trust all of us here with an important part of your life. We recognize that. We find that challenging and invigorating. That trust is an intangible that no contract can define, and no spreadsheet can quantify. All of us here thank you for it.
A good friend of mine who thinks he is in finance but actually is a philosopher recently told me, "There are always problems. The fun thing about the future is the problems to solve are new."
Onward to 2026.
~Dan Cunningham
You are probably seeing the news about private credit, alternatives, and private real estate. Now specially available in 401k plans as well!
But remember, liquidity is thy friend.
Finance firms perceive value when they can get someone's cash and lock it up without that person having the ability to give them a pesky call saying "I need my money back." They can, for example, buy an asset that looks like it has great returns but kind of ignore the leverage attached to it. They can write lots and lots of covenant default terms into the fine print, hoping to protect the investment with a pile of legalese.
There is a lot of interest in this! In New York, all kinds of complex deals are now possible when you restrict liquidity. Let's face it, if you are toiling on the desk of a large investment house, you might be a little jealous when you learn that your classmate from a fancy college, who did worse than you on the Chemistry 202 final, got a job at a Silicon Valley venture capital firm and she has her investors locked in, with plenty of time to make decisions. To make matters worse, she is now ahead of you on the national leaderboard of Brawl Stars, and keeps texting you about it at work while you try to deal with client fund redemptions. This all seems unfair.
And your venture capitalist classmate doesn't have a market reporting on what her investments are worth every fifty milliseconds. So if things go badly, she has time to paper it over, kind of smooth out the returns curve, maybe have lunch with the auditor who determines the value of the private investment. Remind said auditor how much she loves the independence of the audit, oh and also the auditing fees charged are high but remember she hasn't negotiated them down.
So back in New York, this seems like a good idea and you mimic the principles with a private credit fund. You can package all kinds of fees that are hard to see into the investment, you have lots of time to deal with portfolio, you don't have a market reporting on you, and if investors want their money back, you can tell them sorry, they should have read the fine print.
But on the other side of the coin, the investor has given up a lot. It is common that clients need liquidity, and we get it for them, generally within 48 hours. Sometimes the time is not as short, but an asset shift is warranted, and we need to be able to make it.
If you give up the right to liquidity, you should get paid a substantial amount in exchange. This includes CDs from banks, which lock up capital, generally with only minimal extra compensation.
However, Cliff Asness at AQR Capital Management notes that too much liquidity can be a negative to the investor.1 John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, did not like ETFs because they tempted the investor to trade too much.
This dichotomy is something we think about a lot, and at One Day In July, we take seriously our role as advisors to preserve near-perfect liquidity for you, while creating some barrier to friction-free trading.
~ Dan Cunningham
1. Cliff Asness at AQR notes this:
"I mean, let’s get real, does anyone seriously doubt that at least part of the attraction of private equity, and its wildly growing popularity, is an increasing acceptance among investors that they will have to get very aggressive to reach their goals (e.g., underfunded pension plans and the like), but still possess an absolute aversion to living under the true reported volatility this aggression entails?"
This was from 2019, but still relevant today. Read more here.
I don't love historical business comparisons as they relate to markets. They're used to sell books about market crashes and euphorias, but there are too many significant variables that change over time for the analogies to be worth much predictively.
A lot of people are asking One Day In July advisors if we are worried given the high price-to-earnings ratio of the S&P 500, now exceeding the top of the dot-com bubble. This is only one asset class in which we invest, but let's ignore that detail. Yes, it is expensive, but investors have concluded that business is robust and growing. And there were trillions of dollars printed that have to go somewhere. Eventually some of them reach the bond and stock markets.
Let's rewind to 1997. The movie Titanic was skyrocketing, unlike its eponymous boat which was not so fortunate, and Michael Jordan & Scottie Pippen still liked each other, at least enough to cooperate on court. More quietly, the market's price-to-earnings ratio was rising:
Jan 1, 1995: 14.89
Jan 1, 1996: 18.08
Jan 1, 1997: 19.53
People were getting worried in 1997 about this. The tech bubble was emerging and the sock puppet of pets.com hadn't even made an entrance yet. There was talk that it was time to sell and harbor the ship from the coming storm.
The storm did happen, and no amount of chatter from Sock Puppet could calm it. The S&P 500 declined 47.4% from the top of dot-com to the post-9/11 bottom in 2003, and that included dividends (the price drop was 49.1%).
But if you had reacted in 1997... you probably would not have been happy. For three more years the S&P 500 continued its inexorable rise, with a price-to-earnings ratio that peaked at 29.04. At the top, surgeons were day-trading between procedures, pontificators were declaring the end of work, and Wall St. analysts decided U.S. dollars didn't matter, that eyeballs on web pages were the new currency (I'm not going to draw any analogies to crypto here).
Now here's the problem. As the market ripped up, you were on the sidelines. From 1997 to the top three years later, your calm neighbor who was not worrying about the market but was busy composting her coffee into her petunia flower beds doubled her money, while you and your accountant were figuring out how to pay the tax bill on your trade. While the cash had the benefit of being less volatile, this drip drip of underperformance has the tendency to break someone at just the wrong time, so you may have re-entered the market a few years later... at the top.1
By the year 2000, Neighbor Petunia had room to take some losses versus you. So even if the market comes down a lot, which it did, it went up a lot before that. Here's how it worked out over a decade, starting at the beginning of 1997 with $100,000. The dark green line is the S&P 500, the blue area is a diversified blend of 80% S&P 500, 20% small-cap (Russell 2000), and the gray area is how cash performed:
You can see that it's a fool's errand. There is no way to know when to get out, and there is no way to know when to get in. A small group can make a lot of money selling books that scare people or get them excited. For everyone else, don't try to time the peaks and valleys.
~ Dan Cunningham
Notes:
1. Technically: "At the top... and without the tax money you paid."
2. S&P decline source: Morningstar Sources for P/E multiples. Multpl.com and Shiller
3. Graph data source: Yahoo Finance and ODIJ Research. Daily effective funds rate is used for cash. Daily rebalancing assumed in the 80%/20% portfolio. Total return assumed (dividends included). One Day In July LLC does not guarantee actual returns or losses. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Returns vary based on start and end dates selected. Returns presented do not take into consideration any taxes, investment fees, or inflation.
v 2.4.123 | © One Day In July LLC. All Rights Reserved.
