I overheard a money manager stating the importance of staying invested so that investors can catch the first meteoric rise off the bottom.....paraphrased......"being in such lifts off the bottom are important to not underperform the benchmark indices."
As individual investors, we are not compared in any mandatory way to any benchmark indices. Any such comparison is done voluntarily--or perhaps under durress by a spouse who wonders about our competency--sometimes with good reason. Assuming a measure of competency which has schooled us into stepping aside lest we get flattened by an avalanche of selling activity, we have a heckuva lot outperformance goodwill accrued as we've sidestepped a wholesale 40%+ haircut on our portfolio. Why, then, should we feel compelled to step into the opaque and turbulent waters of a market uncertain as to if its next move is up or down?
Why are there few money managers willing to say such? Who's to know. But even forgetting about any of that, and I do not believe in benchmark performance against indices. Relative outperformance against an absolute loss of dollars is a hollow victory. John Hussman is astute in pointing out that the best way to compare the performance of one's money manager is over the course of an ENTIRE cycle. Makes sense to me.