As with most things in life, there are different ways to view things, each having its own set of conclusions. The interesting thing with these different ways to view things is that none is inherently wrong or right but merely aspects of it.
When it comes to investments, there's a quite number of views people have on how to approach it. A common and popular one is value investing, this is basically finding undervalued assets and investing in them, usually for the long term because that is when their true value can become reflected in the market. In our current era, Warren Buffett is one of the best at it and plays a great role in popularizing it.
Then there's this not very popular yet common view of looking at investments from a cost perspective, i.e what's it going to cost me to invest in this or that asset. This view is quite the opposite from value investing and in my view is common amongst new investors.
At the beginning, I was quite confused with investment lingos such as oversold, underpriced, undervalued etc. I tried understanding them in a literal sense but this made me miss a dimension of interpretation that was crucial to understand.
I think when we're new to something, we often project our old ways into it to make it more familiar and less intimidating. This may seem normal but it actually is counterproductive, as it prevents us from developing fresh perspectives and seeing this new thing for what it really is.
With a cost perspective, we view investments more from their present monetary cost rather than future value. Which means if an investment seems expensive, we simply pass on it.
The main flaw of this view is that it is too limiting. The future value isn't taken into consideration and the perception of 'expensive' reflects an old mindset of measuring everything in terms of immediate cost.
We get accustomed to weighing the upfront price tag against tangible, immediate gains. This works for groceries or haircuts, but not for investments.
In that world, this static view will fail to grasp the potential for exponential growth, ignoring the possibility of an investment's future value far exceeding its initial cost.
In the late 1990s, Amazon's stock price which was just around $2, was termed 'overpriced' given it was only a fledging and unprofitable online retailer at that time with a relatively small revenue.
Many investors, focused on immediate cost, deemed it too expensive and passed on the opportunity. However, those who saw beyond the initial price tag and recognized the company's disruptive potential were rewarded handsomely.
Making investment decisions based on value instead of cost allows us to have a clearer and broader view of the long-term growth potential and compounding power of an investment.
Cost is merely an entry point. In my view, the true game lies in identifying assets with significant potential for growth, innovation, or problem-solving irrespective of what their entry point may be.
I dare say that it's a natural evolution, whereby at the start of our investment journey we have this default cost perspective when it comes to investing. Then over time and with more experience, we gradually shift towards a value perspective.
But this isn't necessarily the case, as some never reach this realization. Whatever the case may be or wherever we may be on our investment journey, taking into account this point of view can make a big difference in our overall returns.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
