Introduction: Sophistication Is Revealed by the Questions Asked In investing, answers are abundant. Predictions, opinions, forecasts, and recommendations are produced continuously. What remains scarce is high-quality inquiry—questions that reveal how an investor thinks rather than what they believe. Serious investors distinguish themselves not by having confident answers, but by asking better questions—questions that expose fragility, test assumptions, and prevent irreversible mistakes. In 2026, this distinction matters more than ever. As markets grow noisier and uncertainty becomes a permanent condition, the quality of questions asked will increasingly determine the quality of outcomes achieved. This article outlines ten questions that serious investors should be asking—not to generate immediate action, but to enforce clarity, discipline, and coherence across cycles. 1. What Is the Real Risk Here—Not the Visible One? Most discussions of risk focus on what is observable: Serious investors ask a different question. They look beyond surface-level movement to identify: This question reframes risk from discomfort to damage. In 2026, investors who continue to equate risk with volatility will remain vulnerable to the risks that matter most. 2. What Would Cause Permanent Capital Loss? This is a deliberately uncomfortable question. Permanent loss is often assumed away through optimism, diversification narratives, or historical precedent. Serious investors make it explicit. They ask: This question forces honesty about downside and prevents the quiet accumulation of irreversible exposure. Across cycles, asking this question early has proven far less costly than learning the answer late. 3. Is This Decision Dependent on Being Right? Forecast-dependent decisions are fragile by design. Serious investors test whether success requires: If outcomes depend on being correct rather than being robust, risk is understated. This question shifts focus from conviction to resilience. In 2026, uncertainty remains high. Decisions that require precision remain dangerous. 4. How Does This Perform Under Stress, Not Under Assumptions? Many investment decisions are evaluated under expected conditions. Serious investors evaluate them under stress. They ask: This stress-based framing reveals fragility that optimistic scenarios conceal. In 2026, investors who fail to stress-test assumptions will continue to discover weakness only when options are limited. 5. Is This Portfolio Designed for Behaviour, or Just for Markets? Portfolios are often optimised for markets and assumed to be manageable by investors. Serious investors reverse this assumption. They ask: A portfolio that cannot be held is a portfolio that will not compound. In 2026, behavioural design remains one of the most underappreciated aspects of serious investing. 6. What Is the Time Horizon—and Is It Being Respected? Time horizon is frequently stated and quietly violated. Serious investors ask: When horizons collapse under pressure, outcomes deteriorate rapidly. In 2026, maintaining horizon integrity will remain a defining challenge—and a differentiator. 7. What Would Force an Exit—and Is That Acceptable? Every investment has an exit condition. The danger lies in unexamined exits. Serious investors ask: This question exposes liquidity risk, leverage risk, and behavioural fragility. In 2026, many investors will still discover their exit conditions only when they are triggered. 8. Is This Aligned With the Capital Behind It? Capital is not neutral. Serious investors ask: Misaligned capital undermines even well-designed strategies. In 2026, alignment between capital, strategy, and behaviour will remain one of the strongest predictors of endurance. 9. How Will This Be Evaluated When Outcomes Disappoint? Every strategy experiences periods of disappointment. Serious investors ask in advance: This question protects against outcome bias and premature abandonment. In 2026, investors who fail to define evaluation criteria upfront will continue to confuse bad luck with bad decisions. 10. Does This Allow Time to Do Its Work? Time is the most powerful force in investing—and the most easily disrupted. Serious investors ask: Decisions that shorten exposure, increase activity, or invite reaction undermine time’s advantage. In 2026, the ability to let time work remains one of the most underutilised edges in investing. Why These Questions Matter More Than Answers Answers change. Markets evolve. Conditions shift. Narratives rotate. Questions endure. High-quality questions: They do not eliminate uncertainty. They contain its impact. Serious investors return to these questions repeatedly—not to seek certainty, but to preserve coherence. Asking Better Questions Is a Structural Advantage In noisy environments, action is rewarded socially. Restraint is rarely visible. Asking difficult questions slows decision-making, resists narrative pressure, and protects against behavioural error. In 2026, this discipline remains rare—and valuable. The Enduring Idea Investment success is not driven by having better answers. It is driven by avoiding the wrong decisions. The quality of an investor’s outcomes is bounded by the quality of the questions they are willing to ask before acting. Clarity begins with inquiry. Closing Perspective Markets will continue to present new information, new opportunities, and new reasons to act. Serious investors will pause—not because they lack conviction, but because they respect uncertainty. In 2026 and beyond, the investors who endure will not be those who act fastest—but those who think most carefully before acting at all. The right questions, asked consistently, remain one of the most reliable forms of risk management available.

Introduction: Forecast Failure Is Not a Bug—It Is a Feature Forecasts fail far more often than investors admit. This is not due to incompetence or lack of effort. It is because markets are complex systems shaped by feedback loops, behavioural dynamics, and regime shifts that resist precise prediction. Yet forecasting remains central to many investment decisions—not because it works reliably, but because it provides clarity in uncertain environments. When forecasts fail, the consequences are rarely limited to performance. Confidence erodes. Behaviour deteriorates. Processes fracture. The defining question for serious investors is not whether forecasts will fail.It is what remains functional when they do. This article outlines ten characteristics of investment processes that endure when prediction breaks down—processes designed not to be right, but to remain coherent. 1. A Clear Separation Between Decision Quality and Outcomes Durable processes distinguish between: In uncertain systems, outcomes are noisy. Good decisions can lead to poor results. Poor decisions can appear successful. Processes that survive forecast failure evaluate decisions based on: This separation prevents: When forecasts fail, decision discipline—not recent results—keeps the process intact. 2. Explicit Assumptions and Predefined Error Tolerance Forecast-dependent processes often collapse because assumptions are implicit. When outcomes diverge from expectations, investors are unsure whether: Resilient processes make assumptions explicit and define: This clarity allows adaptation without panic. Processes that acknowledge uncertainty upfront are less destabilised when forecasts disappoint. 3. Inversion as a Core Design Principle Robust processes invert the usual questions. Instead of asking: They ask: This inversion shifts focus from optimism to survivability. Forecast failure becomes less damaging when downside scenarios have already been considered and absorbed into position sizing and structure. Processes that begin with risk endure longer than those that begin with conviction. 4. Position Sizing That Does Not Require Precision Processes that rely on accurate forecasting often express that reliance through aggressive position sizing. When precision is required, error becomes fatal. Durable processes: This allows forecasts to be directionally useful without being outcome-determinative. When forecasts fail, sizing—not insight—often determines survival. 5. Rule-Based Constraints That Limit Behavioural Drift Forecast failure is stressful. Stress invites discretion. Processes that survive embed: These constraints reduce the scope for emotional decision-making when confidence erodes. Rules do not eliminate judgment. They prevent judgment from becoming reactive. When forecasts fail, rules preserve continuity. 6. Evaluation Over Full Cycles, Not Short Windows Forecast-driven processes are often evaluated too frequently. Short-term evaluation: Resilient processes align evaluation frequency with: This alignment prevents premature conclusions and unnecessary change. Processes that survive forecast failure are judged over cycles—where signal emerges from noise. 7. Acceptance of Uncertainty as a Design Constraint Fragile processes treat uncertainty as a temporary inconvenience. Durable processes treat it as permanent. This acceptance influences: Rather than seeking certainty, resilient processes seek robustness across a range of outcomes. When forecasts fail, processes built for uncertainty remain operational. 8. Behavioural Safeguards for Stress Periods Forecast failure often coincides with drawdowns. Drawdowns test: Processes that endure include behavioural safeguards such as: These safeguards reduce the likelihood that behaviour, rather than markets, causes permanent damage. When forecasts fail, behaviour determines whether the process survives. 9. Liquidity and Optionality Embedded in Design Forecast failure can coincide with the need to adapt. Processes that survive preserve: This allows adjustment without forced selling or abandonment. Illiquid, tightly optimised processes often fail not because they are wrong, but because they cannot respond. When forecasts fail, optionality becomes invaluable. 10. Continuous Learning Without Overreaction Resilient processes learn continuously—but cautiously. They: They do not: This balance allows evolution without instability. Processes that survive forecast failure improve slowly—and endure. Why Forecast-Dependent Processes Fail Repeatedly Forecast-centric processes persist because they: But clarity is not resilience. When forecasts fail, these processes often: The failure is structural, not analytical. Process as a Substitute for Prediction Serious investors do not eliminate forecasting. They de-emphasise its importance. Forecasts inform scenarios.Processes govern decisions. This hierarchy allows investors to function when forecasts are wrong—which they often are. The Enduring Idea Markets do not punish incorrect forecasts. They punish fragile processes that depend on being right. The purpose of an investment process is not to predict the future, but to remain coherent when the future defies prediction. Durability, not accuracy, determines survival. Closing Perspective Forecasting will always feel intelligent. Process will always feel unglamorous. Yet across cycles, it is process—not prediction—that determines who remains invested, solvent, and disciplined when conditions change. In 2026 and beyond, the investors who endure will not be those with the most confident forecasts—but those with processes designed to survive their failure.

Introduction: Preservation Is Not the Opposite of Growth Capital preservation is often misunderstood. It is frequently framed as conservatism, risk aversion, or a reluctance to pursue opportunity. In practice, serious capital preservation is none of these things. It is a precondition for long-term participation, not a retreat from it. Across market cycles, wealth is not destroyed primarily by lack of opportunity. It is destroyed by exposure to losses that capital—and behaviour—cannot recover from. In 2026, the importance of capital preservation is not diminishing. It is increasing. This article outlines ten capital preservation principles that endure across cycles. These are not tactical rules or defensive reactions. They are structural disciplines that allow capital to survive uncertainty, retain optionality, and compound over time. 1. Preservation Begins With Downside, Not Returns Every preservation framework starts with a simple inversion. Instead of asking: Serious investors ask: This downside-first framing changes behaviour. It shifts attention away from optimistic scenarios and toward stress conditions, where preservation is actually tested. Across cycles, capital is lost not because upside was insufficient, but because downside was underestimated. Preservation begins where return discussions usually end. 2. Avoiding Permanent Loss Matters More Than Avoiding Volatility Volatility is uncomfortable. Permanent loss is irreversible. Many portfolios are structured to minimise volatility rather than protect capital. This often leads to hidden fragilities—leverage, liquidity risk, or asymmetric downside—that surface only under stress. Capital preservation requires distinguishing between: Across cycles, missing opportunities is survivable.Permanent loss is not. This principle endures because it reflects mathematical and behavioural reality. 3. Margin of Safety Is a Structural Discipline Preservation depends on margin for error. Margin of safety exists when: This margin is rarely visible during favourable conditions. It becomes invaluable when conditions change. Across cycles, capital is preserved not by precision, but by room for error. Portfolios that require accuracy to succeed are fragile by design. 4. Liquidity Is a Risk Management Tool, Not a Drag Liquidity is often treated as a performance cost. In reality, liquidity is a form of insurance. It provides: Illiquid assets can be appropriate when matched with patient capital. Fragility arises when liquidity assumptions are wrong. Across cycles, capital preservation depends on aligning liquidity with: Liquidity ignored is liquidity misunderstood. 5. Resilience Beats Optimisation Over Full Cycles Optimisation improves outcomes under assumed conditions. Markets routinely violate assumptions. Portfolios optimised for: Often perform well—until they fail abruptly. Resilience prioritises: Across cycles, resilient portfolios preserve capital more reliably than optimised ones, even if they appear less efficient in the short term. 6. Behavioural Preservation Is as Important as Financial Preservation Capital is managed by people. Behavioural breakdown is one of the most common sources of permanent damage. Panic selling, strategy abandonment, and horizon compression often occur after losses—but cause far more harm than losses themselves. Preservation principles must account for: Portfolios that exceed behavioural limits invite self-inflicted damage. Across cycles, preserving capital requires preserving behaviour. 7. Concentration Requires Humility and Restraint Concentration can enhance outcomes. It can also destroy them. Capital preservation does not prohibit concentration, but it demands: Concentration justified by recent success is particularly dangerous. Confidence grows faster than resilience. Across cycles, preservation depends not on avoiding concentration entirely, but on preventing concentration from becoming existential. 8. Time Horizon Alignment Is Non-Negotiable Many preservation failures are not investment failures. They are alignment failures. Long-duration assets funded with short-term capital create unavoidable pressure. Even sound investments become fragile when capital cannot wait. Preservation requires coherence between: Across cycles, misalignment forces decisions at precisely the wrong time. No strategy can preserve capital if time horizons are incompatible. 9. Optionality Is an Asset Worth Protecting Optionality—the ability to respond to future opportunities—is easily lost and difficult to regain. It is consumed through: Preservation is not about freezing capital. It is about retaining flexibility. Across cycles, investors who protect optionality maintain the ability to adapt rather than react. 10. Preservation Is a Continuous Discipline, Not a Market Call Capital preservation is often discussed during crises and forgotten during calm. This is backwards. Preservation must be embedded continuously through: Waiting for stress to think about preservation is too late. Across cycles, capital is preserved by discipline applied before it feels necessary. Why These Principles Endure These principles endure because they are not dependent on: They reflect enduring truths about: Cycles change. These constraints do not. Preservation and Growth Are Not Competing Goals Preservation is often framed as the opposite of growth. In reality, preservation enables growth by: The most enduring wealth is built not by maximising returns in favourable periods, but by avoiding irrecoverable loss in unfavourable ones. The Enduring Idea Capital preservation is not defensive. It is responsible. Across cycles, wealth endures not because it grows quickly, but because it avoids losses it cannot recover from. Preservation is not about fearing risk.It is about respecting it. Closing Perspective In every cycle, markets present new opportunities and new temptations. What distinguishes enduring investors is not their ability to capture every upside—but their discipline in protecting capital when uncertainty rises. In 2026 and beyond, capital preservation will remain what it has always been: The quiet foundation upon which all long-term wealth is built.

Introduction: Time Is Becoming Scarcer—Not Longer Long-term investing is often framed as a personal preference or philosophical choice. In reality, it is becoming a structural necessity. As markets grow more complex, information more abundant, and decision cycles more compressed, the ability to think and act over long horizons is steadily eroding. This erosion is not accidental. It is reinforced by technology, incentives, reporting cycles, and social comparison. After 2026, the investors who can genuinely maintain long-term perspective will not simply be patient. They will be operating with a scarce advantage. This article outlines ten reasons why long-term thinking will matter even more in the years ahead—not because markets demand it rhetorically, but because structural forces increasingly punish its absence. 1. Information Speed Is Compressing Decision Horizons Information now travels faster than reflection. Prices update continuously. Commentary is instantaneous. Interpretation is constant. This environment shortens perceived decision windows, even when underlying investment theses remain long-term. As information speed increases: Long-term thinking counters this compression by restoring proportionality—forcing decisions to be evaluated over appropriate time frames rather than information cycles. After 2026, the gap between information speed and decision quality will widen, making horizon discipline increasingly valuable. 2. Short-Term Feedback Is Becoming More Distorted Feedback is essential for learning. In markets, it is also misleading. Short-term outcomes increasingly reflect: They say little about decision quality. As evaluation cycles shorten, investors are pushed to: Long-term thinking provides insulation from distorted feedback. It allows learning to occur over full cycles rather than fragments. In a world of accelerating feedback loops, the ability to ignore misleading signals becomes a competitive edge. 3. Behavioural Pressure Is Intensifying, Not Fading Behavioural challenges are not diminishing with education or technology. They are intensifying. Constant visibility of performance, peer comparison, and narrative amplification increases: These forces push investors toward short-term decisions—even when long-term intentions remain intact. Long-term thinking is not passive resistance. It is active behavioural control. After 2026, the investors who can structurally protect themselves from behavioural pressure will outperform those who rely on self-control alone. 4. Compounding Is Becoming Easier to Disrupt Compounding depends on continuity. Continuity is becoming harder to maintain. Frequent reallocations, strategy switching, and exposure adjustments interrupt compounding more often than investors realise. Each interruption may seem small. Over time, the damage is material. As decision frequency increases, compounding becomes more fragile. Long-term thinking protects compounding not by increasing returns, but by reducing interference. After 2026, preserving compounding will matter more than optimising it. 5. Market Cycles Are Becoming Harder to Endure Psychologically Market cycles are not new. Their psychological impact is changing. Extended periods of: Test patience more severely than sharp crises. These environments encourage: Long-term thinking provides a framework for endurance during periods when progress is not visible. After 2026, investors will increasingly be tested not by dramatic events, but by prolonged ambiguity. 6. Structural Fragility Is Building Beneath Apparent Stability Extended calm encourages fragility. Low volatility and stable conditions lead to: These choices improve short-term outcomes while increasing long-term vulnerability. Long-term thinking shifts focus from near-term efficiency to durability across cycles. As fragility accumulates quietly, investors who think beyond immediate conditions will be better positioned to survive regime changes. 7. Capital Is Becoming More Impatient Capital itself has a behaviour. Shorter evaluation cycles, liquidity expectations, and performance sensitivity reduce capital’s ability to endure uncertainty. Impatient capital: Long-term thinking acts as a filter—repelling misaligned capital and attracting patient capital. After 2026, the quality of capital alignment will increasingly determine investment outcomes. 8. Forecasting Is Becoming Less Reliable, Not More Complex systems resist prediction. As markets become more interconnected and policy responses more dynamic, forecasting accuracy diminishes where it matters most. Reliance on prediction shortens horizons by anchoring decisions to near-term expectations. Long-term thinking reduces dependence on forecasting by emphasising: In an environment of heightened uncertainty, the ability to operate without precise forecasts becomes critical. 9. Endurance Is Becoming an Uncrowded Advantage Many investors endorse long-term thinking. Few can sustain it. As behavioural pressure increases, endurance becomes rarer. Endurance allows investors to: This advantage compounds quietly because it is difficult to imitate. After 2026, endurance will matter not because it is fashionable—but because it is scarce. 10. Time Is the Only Advantage That Does Not Decay Most investment advantages erode. Time does not. Time: Long-term thinking transforms time from a passive backdrop into an active strategic asset. As other edges decay, time remains. Why Long-Term Thinking Is Misunderstood Long-term thinking is often mischaracterised as: In reality, it is a disciplined choice to: It is not about waiting.It is about structuring behaviour so that time can work. The Enduring Idea The future will not reward faster reactions. It will reward fewer, better-timed decisions sustained over longer horizons. Long-term thinking is becoming more valuable because short-term thinking is becoming more dangerous. This imbalance will only intensify. Closing Perspective After 2026, markets will continue to change—but the human tendency to shorten horizons under pressure will remain. Investors who recognise this early can design around it. Those who do not will continue to confuse activity with progress. Long-term thinking is not nostalgia for a slower world. It is a strategic response to a faster one.

Introduction: Fragility Is Not the Same as Risk Risk is often discussed openly. Fragility is not. Risk is something investors believe they are managing—through diversification, models, and controls. Fragility, by contrast, is a latent condition. It does not announce itself during benign periods. It reveals itself only when stress arrives, correlations shift, and behaviour is tested simultaneously. Most portfolios do not fail because they take obvious risks.They fail because they are structurally fragile in ways that remain hidden until it is too late to respond. In 2026, many investors will still underestimate fragility—not because they ignore risk, but because they mistake stability for resilience. This article outlines ten portfolio fragilities that are routinely overlooked, quietly accumulated, and abruptly exposed. 1. Dependence on Continuous Liquidity Liquidity is often assumed, not designed for. Portfolios are frequently constructed under the assumption that: These assumptions hold during calm conditions. Under stress, they break. Liquidity fragility emerges when: The problem is not illiquidity per se, but reliance on liquidity at precisely the moment it disappears. In 2026, many portfolios will remain fragile because liquidity is treated as a feature, not a risk. 2. Concentration Reinforced by Success Concentration often grows unintentionally. Strong performance leads to: As positions succeed, perceived risk declines—even as actual dependence increases. This creates a dangerous asymmetry: The fragility is not visible during success. It appears only when outcomes reverse. In 2026, many investors will still underestimate how quietly concentration builds—and how violently it can unwind. 3. Fragility Created by Leverage Leverage amplifies outcomes—and fragility. Even modest leverage: Leverage-driven fragility often surfaces through: The danger lies not only in magnitude, but in timing. Leverage forces decisions when prices are least forgiving. In 2026, leverage will remain underestimated not because it is hidden, but because its consequences are deferred. 4. Over-Optimisation to a Narrow Set of Conditions Optimisation improves efficiency under assumed conditions. Markets do not respect assumptions. Portfolios optimised for: Often perform well—until regimes shift. Over-optimisation removes redundancy. It eliminates buffers that allow systems to absorb shock. The fragility is subtle: portfolios appear robust because they perform well, not because they can survive change. In 2026, many investors will continue to confuse optimisation with resilience. 5. Correlation Blindness During Stress Diversification is commonly assessed during normal conditions. During stress, correlations behave differently. Assets that appeared independent: This is not a modelling failure. It is a structural feature of market stress. Fragility arises when portfolios rely on historical correlation stability to provide protection. In 2026, many portfolios will remain vulnerable because diversification is evaluated when it matters least. 6. Behavioural Fragility Embedded in Portfolio Design Portfolios are not just financial structures. They are behavioural systems. Design choices that increase behavioural fragility include: When stress arrives, these portfolios demand decisions that investors are least equipped to make calmly. The result is predictable: In 2026, many portfolios will still fail not because markets are hostile, but because design did not account for behaviour under pressure. 7. Time Horizon Mismatch Fragility often arises from mismatched horizons. Examples include: When horizons misalign, pressure builds. Even sound investments become fragile when capital cannot endure the required time frame. In 2026, this mismatch will remain a major source of failure—because it is organisational rather than analytical. 8. Dependence on Forecast Accuracy Some portfolios work only if forecasts are correct. This dependence is a form of fragility. Forecast-reliant portfolios suffer when: The issue is not forecasting itself, but lack of robustness to forecast error. Resilient portfolios are designed to function across a range of outcomes. Fragile ones require precision. In 2026, many portfolios will remain vulnerable because they depend too heavily on being right. 9. Hidden Optionality Loss Optionality—the ability to respond to future opportunities—is often consumed quietly. It is lost through: Once optionality is gone, recovery becomes constrained—even if markets improve. Fragility lies in failing to recognise optionality as an asset worth protecting. In 2026, many investors will discover too late that flexibility was sacrificed in pursuit of short-term optimisation. 10. False Confidence From Benign Periods Extended calm breeds confidence. Low volatility environments encourage: Fragility accumulates precisely because outcomes appear stable. When stress returns, portfolios are revealed to be less resilient than assumed. In 2026, investors will continue to underestimate fragility because the absence of stress is mistaken for evidence of strength. Why Fragility Is So Often Ignored Fragility is ignored because it: Addressing fragility often reduces short-term appeal. It increases long-term survival. From Fragility to Resilience Resilience is not about avoiding volatility. It is about: Resilient portfolios may feel uncomfortable at times. Fragile portfolios often feel reassuring—until they fail. The Enduring Idea Most portfolios do not fail because risks are unknown. They fail because fragility is ignored. Fragility is dangerous not because it exists, but because it remains invisible until action is no longer possible. Serious investors focus less on how portfolios perform when conditions are favourable—and more on how they behave when they are not. Closing Perspective Markets will continue to test portfolios in unpredictable ways. Those designed for optimisation will struggle. Those designed for endurance will adapt. In 2026, the defining difference between survival and failure will not be insight or speed—but structural resilience built before it was needed. Fragility ignored today becomes regret tomorrow.

Introduction: Why Illusions Persist in Investing Illusions are not mistakes. They are beliefs that feel true because they simplify complexity, reduce discomfort, or offer a sense of control. In investing—an environment defined by uncertainty—illusions are especially resilient. They persist not because investors are uninformed, but because these beliefs: In 2026, the most dangerous investment errors will not come from ignorance. They will come from illusions that investors know are imperfect, yet continue to act upon. This article examines ten such illusions—ideas that appear reasonable, persist across cycles, and quietly undermine long-term outcomes. 1. The Illusion of Control Few illusions are as powerful as the belief that outcomes can be controlled through frequent decision-making. Markets, however, are complex adaptive systems. Outcomes are influenced by: Control is limited. Influence is partial. The illusion arises when: In practice, excessive attempts at control often increase error, timing risk, and behavioural interference. In 2026, investors must continue to let go of the belief that more control leads to better outcomes. In many cases, restraint is the more effective discipline. 2. The Illusion That Forecasting Is Improving Forecasting feels sophisticated. Models are more complex. Data is more abundant. Tools are more advanced. Yet forecast accuracy has not improved meaningfully where it matters most. The illusion persists because: The structural reality is unchanged: In 2026, the belief that better tools have solved prediction remains an illusion. Robust investing depends on processes that survive forecast error, not on forecasts themselves. 3. The Illusion That Smooth Returns Are Safer Smooth return profiles are often interpreted as lower risk. In reality, smoothness frequently reflects: These strategies perform well until conditions change—at which point losses tend to be sudden and severe. The illusion lies in equating experience with safety. In 2026, investors must continue to question whether smooth outcomes reflect resilience—or merely postponed risk. 4. The Illusion That Volatility Is the Enemy Volatility is uncomfortable. It attracts attention and triggers emotional responses. But volatility is not inherently destructive. The real threat lies in: Volatility often accompanies recoveries. Avoiding it entirely frequently means missing participation when it matters most. The illusion persists because volatility is visible and measurable, while true risk is contextual and delayed. In 2026, investors must continue to release the belief that volatility equals danger. 5. The Illusion That Intelligence Guarantees Success Investment success is often attributed to intelligence, insight, or analytical skill. These qualities matter—but they are insufficient. Long-term outcomes are shaped more reliably by: Highly intelligent investors frequently underperform due to: The illusion is that superior intellect overrides structural constraints. In 2026, investors must let go of the belief that intelligence alone is protective. 6. The Illusion That More Information Improves Decisions Access to information has exploded. So has noise. More data does not automatically lead to better decisions. In many cases, it: The illusion is that information quantity correlates with decision quality. In 2026, serious investors must continue to recognise that selectivity matters more than volume. 7. The Illusion That Activity Signals Skill Activity is visible. Skill is not. Frequent changes create the appearance of engagement and responsiveness. They also: Markets reward coherence over motion. The illusion persists because inactivity feels passive, even when it is deliberate. In 2026, investors must continue to abandon the belief that doing more equates to doing better. 8. The Illusion That Past Success Confirms Future Safety Success changes behaviour. After favourable outcomes, investors may: This illusion is particularly dangerous because it is reinforced by experience. Markets are cyclical. Conditions that rewarded certain behaviours may not persist. In 2026, investors must let go of the assumption that what worked recently is inherently safer going forward. 9. The Illusion That Long-Term Thinking Is Easy Long-term investing is widely endorsed. It is rarely practised. The illusion lies in underestimating the behavioural cost of long-term thinking: Long-term thinking is not a horizon. It is a discipline. In 2026, investors must recognise that the difficulty of long-term investing is precisely why it remains an advantage. 10. The Illusion That Risk Can Be Fully Measured Risk models provide comfort. They quantify what is observable, historical, and repeatable. But the most damaging risks often arise from: These risks resist precise measurement. The illusion is that risk can be fully captured by metrics. In 2026, serious investors must accept that risk management is about resilience, not precision. Why Letting Go of Illusions Is So Difficult Illusions persist because they: Letting go requires humility, restraint, and acceptance of ambiguity. These qualities are rarely reinforced by markets or peers in the short term. What Replaces Illusion in Serious Investing When illusions are released, they are replaced by: This shift does not eliminate uncertainty. It contains its impact. The Enduring Idea Illusions survive because they feel useful. But markets are indifferent to what feels useful. Long-term investment success depends less on adopting new ideas and more on abandoning comforting illusions. Clarity often comes not from adding insight, but from subtracting false certainty. Closing Perspective Every cycle introduces new expressions of old illusions. They arrive with updated language, improved tools, and convincing narratives. But their effect is unchanged. In 2026, serious investors will distinguish themselves not by what they believe—but by what they are willing to let go of. In investing, progress often begins with subtraction.

Introduction: Why Behaviour Remains the Weakest Link Markets evolve. Instruments change. Technology improves. Investor behaviour does not. Despite decades of research, broader awareness of behavioural finance, and widespread acknowledgement that emotions influence decisions, behaviour remains one of the most consistent drivers of long-term underperformance. This is not because investors are unaware of their biases. It is because knowing about behavioural mistakes does not prevent them. Behavioural errors persist because they are: In 2026, returns will still be destroyed less by markets themselves and more by how investors react to them. This article outlines ten behavioural mistakes that remain structurally persistent—mistakes that serious investors continue to make despite knowing better. 1. Selling Risk After It Has Already Materialised One of the most damaging behavioural patterns is reducing exposure after losses, rather than before risk is realised. This behaviour is driven by: The consequence is predictable: This mistake is not a failure of intelligence. It is a failure of emotional timing. In 2026, many investors will still treat realised losses as signals to de-risk—locking in damage rather than preventing it. 2. Chasing Comfort Instead of Resilience Investors often seek portfolios that feel comfortable rather than ones that are resilient. Comfort is characterised by: Resilience, by contrast, often feels uncomfortable: The behavioural mistake lies in confusing comfort with safety. In reality, smooth experiences often mask fragility, while uncomfortable periods are frequently survivable. In 2026, returns will still be destroyed by investors who prioritise emotional comfort over structural durability. 3. Overreacting to Short-Term Noise Short-term information is abundant, vivid, and emotionally charged. Markets provide: This environment encourages overreaction. Behavioural consequences include: The mistake is not paying attention. It is assigning excessive meaning to short-term movement. In 2026, many investors will still confuse information availability with informational value. 4. Abandoning a Sound Process During Drawdowns Most investment processes are designed during calm periods. They are abandoned during stress. Drawdowns test: When losses occur, investors often reinterpret: This leads to: The damage is not just financial. It is structural. In 2026, many investors will still exit sound processes precisely when those processes are most needed. 5. Mistaking Activity for Control Taking action feels productive. In uncertain environments, inactivity feels negligent. This leads to: Activity creates the illusion of control without improving outcomes. In many cases, it introduces: In 2026, returns will continue to be eroded by investors who equate movement with mastery. 6. Letting Recent Experience Dominate Long-Term Judgment Recency bias causes recent outcomes to overshadow historical context. After strong performance: After weak performance: This cyclical behaviour leads to: The mistake is not learning from experience, but overweighting it. In 2026, many investors will still allow recent outcomes to distort long-term judgment. 7. Social Comparison and Peer Pressure Investing does not occur in isolation. Performance is compared: Underperforming peers—even temporarily—creates pressure to change. This leads to: The behavioural mistake is allowing relative comparison to override absolute objectives. In 2026, social pressure will remain a powerful force driving poor decisions—particularly during speculative phases. 8. Overconfidence After Success Success often plants the seeds of future failure. After periods of strong performance, investors may: This is not irrational. It is human. But overconfidence increases fragility precisely when caution is warranted. In 2026, many returns will be destroyed not by mistakes made in adversity, but by excess confidence built during favourable conditions. 9. Waiting for Certainty Before Acting Certainty is comforting. Markets rarely provide it. Many investors respond to uncertainty by: The cost of waiting is often invisible: The mistake lies in assuming clarity will arrive before opportunity disappears. In 2026, impatience disguised as prudence will continue to undermine long-term outcomes. 10. Shortening Time Horizons Under Stress Time horizon is elastic under pressure. During drawdowns or uncertainty: This horizon compression leads to: The behavioural mistake is not changing one’s mind, but changing one’s horizon. In 2026, many investors will still allow stress to redefine time—and with it, outcomes. Why These Mistakes Persist These behavioural mistakes endure because they are: They offer short-term comfort at the expense of long-term results. Awareness alone does not prevent them. Structural safeguards are required. Designing Around Behavioural Failure Serious investors design systems that: Behaviour is managed best when it is anticipated—not corrected after the fact. The Enduring Idea Markets test behaviour far more often than they test intelligence. Most long-term underperformance begins not with a bad investment, but with a behavioural response to discomfort. Avoiding behavioural mistakes is not about emotional suppression.It is about structural preparation. Closing Perspective In every cycle, investors promise themselves they will behave differently next time. Yet the same mistakes recur—predictably and persistently. The difference between investors who compound and those who do not lies less in foresight and more in behavioural consistency under pressure. In 2026, the most valuable investment skill will remain unchanged: The ability to do fewer wrong things—again and again.

Introduction: The Most Dangerous Risks Rarely Announce Themselves Risk is often discussed loudly and managed quietly—usually too late. Headlines focus attention on visible threats: recessions, interest rates, geopolitical events, and market volatility. These risks feel concrete because they are observable and frequently discussed. The most consequential risks, however, tend to be structural rather than spectacular. They accumulate slowly, remain hidden during benign conditions, and materialise only when investors have the least flexibility to respond. In 2026, many investors will still underestimate risk—not because they ignore it, but because they define it narrowly. This article outlines ten risks that remain persistently underestimated, not due to lack of awareness, but due to misframing, mismeasurement, or behavioural blind spots. 1. The Risk of Permanent Capital Loss Despite widespread acknowledgment, permanent capital loss remains underweighted in practice. Much risk management continues to focus on: These measures capture discomfort, not damage. Permanent capital loss is different. It impairs: Losses that permanently reduce capital base are far more damaging than temporary fluctuations, yet they are often accepted implicitly through leverage, concentration, or asymmetric exposures. In 2026, the most underestimated risk remains the one that matters most: capital that does not recover. 2. Behavioural Risk Disguised as Market Risk Market volatility is frequently blamed for poor outcomes. In reality, behaviour often amplifies market movement into permanent damage. Behavioural risk manifests as: These actions are rarely labelled as “risk” in formal frameworks, yet they are among the most reliable causes of long-term underperformance. The underestimation lies not in behaviour itself, but in the assumption that it can be controlled without structural support. 3. Liquidity Risk During Stress, Not Calm Liquidity appears abundant until it matters. During benign conditions, assets trade smoothly, spreads are narrow, and exit assumptions feel reliable. Stress reveals a different reality. Liquidity risk becomes acute when: Investors often underestimate: In 2026, liquidity risk will remain underestimated because it is invisible until it is unavoidable. 4. Concentration Risk Hidden by Recent Success Concentration often builds gradually, justified by strong performance or high conviction. As positions perform well: This creates a dangerous feedback loop. The risk is not concentration itself, but concentration reinforced by success, where adverse outcomes become both financially and psychologically difficult to manage. In 2026, many investors will continue to underestimate how quickly concentration can transform from strength into fragility. 5. Fragility Created by Over-Optimisation Optimisation seeks efficiency. Markets reward robustness. Portfolios optimised for: Often perform well under expected conditions—and poorly when reality diverges. Over-optimisation reduces margin for error. It assumes stability in a system defined by uncertainty. The risk here is subtle: portfolios appear resilient precisely when they are most vulnerable. 6. Correlation Risk During Regime Change Diversification is often assessed using historical correlations. During regime changes, correlations shift. Assets that appeared diversified: This is not a modelling error. It is a feature of stress environments. In 2026, investors will still underestimate correlation risk because it cannot be observed clearly until it matters. 7. Time Horizon Mismatch Many risks arise not from asset choice, but from horizon mismatch. This occurs when: When horizons misalign, even sound investments become risky. The underestimation lies in assuming that good assets offset bad alignment. They do not. 8. Process Breakdown Under Pressure Processes are tested under stress—not during calm periods. Common breakdowns include: Investors often underestimate how fragile processes become when outcomes disappoint or narratives turn hostile. In 2026, process risk remains underestimated because it is assumed to be controllable—until it isn’t. 9. Risk Created by Forecast Dependence Forecasts provide clarity in uncertain environments. They also create dependency. When decisions rely heavily on forecasts: The risk is not forecasting itself, but overreliance on being right. In uncertain systems, resilience comes from processes that function even when forecasts fail. This risk remains underestimated because forecasting feels analytical rather than behavioural. 10. The Risk of Losing Optionality Optionality—the ability to respond to future opportunities—is a critical but often overlooked asset. It is lost through: Optionality disappears quietly. By the time it is recognised, it is usually unrecoverable. In 2026, many investors will still underestimate how fragile optionality is—and how difficult it is to rebuild once lost. Why These Risks Remain Underestimated These risks persist because they: They require design and discipline rather than reaction. Rethinking Risk in Structural Terms Serious risk management begins with reframing. Risk is not: Risk is: When risk is framed this way, priorities change. The Enduring Idea The most dangerous risks are not the ones investors talk about most. They are the ones embedded quietly in structure, behaviour, and assumptions. Risk that is underestimated is risk that compounds—until it surfaces all at once. Managing risk begins with defining it correctly. Closing Perspective Markets will always present visible risks. Serious investors focus on the invisible ones. Those who design portfolios, processes, and capital structures with underestimated risks in mind preserve resilience. Those who do not often discover risk only when options are limited. In investing, the goal is not to eliminate uncertainty. It is to survive it—without permanent damage.

Introduction: Underperformance Is Not an Accident Investment underperformance is often explained through anecdotes. Poor timing. Bad luck. Unfavourable markets. A missed opportunity. An unexpected shock. These explanations are comforting because they imply randomness. They suggest that underperformance is episodic and avoidable with better insight or improved forecasting. The reality is more uncomfortable. Most investor underperformance is structural. It arises not from isolated mistakes, but from the way portfolios are designed, decisions are evaluated, incentives are set, and behaviour is shaped over time. In 2026, despite better tools, more information, and broader access, the same structural forces will continue to undermine long-term outcomes for most investors. This article outlines ten such forces—not as judgement, but as diagnosis. 1. Short-Term Evaluation of Long-Term Decisions One of the most persistent causes of underperformance is a mismatch between decision horizon and evaluation horizon. Many investment decisions are explicitly long-term in nature: Yet they are evaluated over months or quarters. This mismatch creates predictable consequences: In 2026, this structural inconsistency remains widespread. Long-term decisions cannot be validated—or invalidated—over short windows. When they are, underperformance becomes inevitable. 2. Behavioural Pressure Embedded in Portfolio Design Behaviour is often discussed as a personal weakness. In practice, it is frequently a design failure. Portfolios that: Create behavioural stress under normal market conditions. When volatility arrives, these designs force decisions at precisely the wrong time. The structural issue is not that investors panic.It is that portfolios are built in ways that make panic rational. In 2026, many investors will continue to underestimate how portfolio structure shapes behaviour—and pay the price. 3. Confusing Activity With Progress Activity is visible. Progress is not. Frequent changes—rebalancing, reallocating, rotating strategies—create the impression of responsiveness and control. They also introduce timing risk, friction, and behavioural error. This structural bias toward activity is reinforced by: Over time, excessive activity: In 2026, investors will still underperform not because they do too little—but because they do too much. 4. Treating Volatility as Risk Volatility is measurable. Risk is contextual. Yet many investment frameworks continue to equate the two. This leads to: Portfolios optimised for low volatility often embed risks that surface only under stress—liquidity risk, leverage risk, or asymmetric downside. The structural error is not fear of volatility.It is the misdefinition of risk itself. Until this distinction is corrected, underperformance will persist. 5. Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation Outcome bias—the tendency to judge decisions by results rather than reasoning—remains one of the most damaging structural forces in investing. In noisy environments: When outcomes drive evaluation: Over time, outcome bias pushes investors toward: In 2026, outcome bias will continue to undermine decision quality—quietly and consistently. 6. Misaligned Incentives and Time Horizons Incentives shape behaviour more reliably than intention. Many investment structures reward: Even when long-term outcomes are the stated objective. This misalignment leads to: Underperformance emerges not from poor ideas, but from incentives that penalise patience. Until incentives align with long-term objectives, results will remain structurally compromised. 7. Fragility Hidden by Stable Conditions Extended periods of stability mask structural weakness. Low volatility environments encourage: These choices often improve short-term outcomes—until they do not. When conditions change, fragility reveals itself abruptly. The structural issue is not risk-taking per se, but risk-taking without margin for error. In 2026, many investors will discover that what appeared resilient was merely untested. 8. Capital That Cannot Endure Uncertainty Capital is not neutral. Capital with: Forces behaviour that undermines long-term strategies. This pressure manifests as: Underperformance is often blamed on markets or managers. The structural cause is frequently capital misalignment. In 2026, investors who ignore the behavioural properties of their capital will continue to underperform—even with sound strategies. 9. Overreliance on Forecasts in an Uncertain System Forecasting offers the comfort of clarity. Markets offer none. Despite this, many investment decisions remain anchored to: When forecasts fail—as they inevitably do—confidence erodes and behaviour deteriorates. Robust processes are designed to function without prediction. Fragile ones depend on being right. In 2026, overreliance on forecasts will remain a structural weakness—not because forecasting is useless, but because it is over-weighted. 10. Insufficient Respect for Time and Compounding Compounding is widely admired and poorly protected. Structural behaviours that break compounding include: Each interruption resets the compounding process partially or entirely. Underperformance accumulates not from a single error, but from repeated interference. In 2026, many investors will still underestimate how little compounding tolerates impatience. Why These Forces Persist These structural causes endure because they are reinforced by: They do not disappear with better information. They require deliberate design to counteract. What Structural Outperformance Actually Requires Avoiding underperformance is not about finding superior ideas. It requires: These are structural choices—not tactical ones. The Enduring Idea Most investors underperform not because they lack intelligence or access. They underperform because the systems they operate within are misaligned with how markets actually work. Underperformance is structural before it is personal. Until structure changes, outcomes will not. Closing Perspective Markets will continue to evolve. Instruments will change. Narratives will rotate. The structural forces that drive underperformance will remain. Investors who recognise these forces early can design around them. Those who do not will continue to relearn the same lessons—cycle after cycle.In the long run, investment success is less about exceptional insight and more about exceptional alignment—between time, behaviour, process, and capital.

Introduction: Why Investors Keep Relearning the Same Lessons Every market cycle produces new narratives, new instruments, and new reasons to believe that “this time is different.” Yet beneath the surface, the fundamental challenges of investing change very little. What changes is memory. As cycles fade, hard-earned lessons are forgotten. Behaviours re-emerge. Fragilities rebuild. Confidence grows faster than resilience. Eventually, markets force a reminder. 2026 does not require new investing wisdom.It requires relearning enduring lessons that are persistently ignored. This article outlines ten such lessons—not as predictions, and not as advice—but as structural truths that continue to govern long-term outcomes. These are lessons serious investors already know intellectually, yet often fail to apply consistently. 1. Risk Is Not Volatility—And Never Was Volatility remains one of the most misunderstood concepts in investing. Price movement is observable, measurable, and emotionally salient. Risk, however, is not defined by how much prices fluctuate, but by the probability and severity of permanent capital impairment. Treating volatility as risk leads investors to: In 2026, this confusion remains widespread. The enduring lesson is simple:Volatility is what investors feel. Risk is what investors suffer. Serious risk management begins with downside, not discomfort. 2. Most Underperformance Is Behavioural, Not Analytical Access to information has never been broader. Analytical tools have never been more sophisticated. Yet aggregate investor outcomes remain persistently disappointing. The reason is not lack of intelligence. It is behaviour. Underperformance is driven by: These behaviours overwhelm many analytical advantages over time. In 2026, the lesson remains unchanged:Controlling behaviour matters more than improving forecasts. 3. Process Matters More Than Conviction Conviction feels strong. It is reassuring during uncertainty and compelling during success. But conviction without structure is fragile. When conditions change, conviction often dissolves. Process endures because it: Serious investors relearn repeatedly that conviction fails under pressure, while process remains. In 2026, the edge still lies with those who prioritise repeatable decision-making systems over strength of belief. 4. Capital Preservation Precedes Compounding Compounding is celebrated, but its prerequisites are often ignored. Compounding requires: Large drawdowns do not merely slow compounding. They often break it—mathematically and behaviourally. The lesson investors must relearn is foundational:You cannot compound capital that has not survived. Preservation is not conservatism. It is a prerequisite for participation in long-term growth. 5. Short-Term Results Say Little About Skill Markets provide noisy feedback. In the short term: Judging ability by short-term results leads to: In 2026, performance remains easy to measure and difficult to interpret. The enduring lesson:Skill reveals itself over cycles, not quarters. 6. Long-Term Thinking Is a Behavioural Edge, Not a Forecast Long-term investing is often framed as a time horizon. In reality, it is a behavioural discipline. Long-term thinking requires: These traits are rare, not because they are unknown, but because they are difficult to sustain. In 2026, long-term thinking remains one of the few advantages that cannot be arbitraged away—precisely because it is behaviourally demanding. 7. Fragility Builds Quietly During Calm Periods Risk accumulates most rapidly when it feels unnecessary to think about it. Extended stability encourages: Fragility is rarely obvious in benign conditions. It reveals itself only under stress—often when options are limited. The lesson investors must relearn is uncomfortable:The absence of stress is not evidence of resilience. 8. Capital Quality Matters as Much as Strategy Quality Not all capital behaves the same way. Capital with short horizons, low tolerance for volatility, or high sensitivity to recent performance introduces pressure that distorts decision-making. Misaligned capital forces: In contrast, patient capital enables coherence across cycles. In 2026, serious investors must continue to recognise that capital alignment is a form of risk management. 9. Compounding Is Fragile and Time-Dependent Compounding is often described as automatic. It is not. Compounding breaks when: Missing a small number of strong recovery periods can materially alter long-term outcomes. The lesson remains critical:Compounding rewards continuity, not activity. Impatience is one of the most expensive mistakes investors continue to make. 10. Endurance Is a Competitive Advantage Markets reward endurance quietly and relentlessly. Endurance allows investors to: This advantage does not show up in short-term rankings. It becomes visible only with hindsight. In 2026, endurance remains an underappreciated edge—one that does not depend on insight, speed, or prediction. Why These Lessons Must Be Relearned—Not Just Remembered These ten lessons are not new. They are rediscovered repeatedly because: Serious investors distinguish themselves not by knowing these lessons, but by designing portfolios, processes, and expectations that enforce them. Relearning is not intellectual repetition.It is behavioural reinforcement. How These Lessons Fit Together Taken together, these lessons form a coherent framework: Each lesson reinforces the others. Ignoring one weakens the entire structure. The Enduring Idea Markets evolve. Human behaviour does not. The most important investing lessons are not the ones investors don’t know— but the ones they repeatedly fail to apply. 2026 does not demand innovation.It demands remembrance, discipline, and restraint. Closing Perspective Serious investing is not about discovering new truths each year. It is about resisting the gradual erosion of old ones. These ten lessons have endured across cycles because they reflect structural realities—about risk, behaviour, time, and capital—that do not change. Investors who relearn them early preserve optionality.Those who relearn them late pay for the reminder. In the long run, markets do not reward novelty.They reward coherence sustained over time.