Why we’re bad at investing part 4: We crave novelty

The best stock portfolios tend to have very low turnover. “Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style,” Warren Buffett wrote in his 1990 letter to shareholders.

Not only does low turnover make portfolios more tax efficient, but it means that they are constructed with a long-term view of the companies owned, and not just stocks bought as a speculation for a quick flip.

Thanks to technology, buying a new stock has become akin to ordering something new off Amazon. The desire can be generated by a whim (maybe you read something in the Wall Street Journal this morning that inspired you to “invest” in another stock) and executed in seconds. It sends a rush of endorphins through your veins. You feel like you've done something productive. Optimized your portfolio. You feel great about this decision.

But just like buying stuff online, by the time it arrives at your front door you might be wondering whether you really need it. It might not be all it was cut out to be.

So here's the thing about the vast majority of financial news: you can (and should) ignore it.

Charlie Munger famously said he has been reading Barron’s for 50 years, and in all that time it has given him one investment idea. He said that idea led him to make $80 million “with almost no risk.”

If you're like me, after reading a single issue of Barron’s you might have at least a few new companies you're thinking of buying... or selling. And Charlie says that in half of a century, it has motivated him to make a grand total of ONE investment move.

We should all strive to be like Charlie.

Be an investment minimalist.

Don't buy that shit off Amazon.

And don't trade that stock because of that article you read.

Both wise decisions.