Investors Archives - Goldcrest Partners

Why good investors can be difficult people

This article’s title may be deliberately controversial, but it points to something real. Good investors are not difficult people in any simple or universal sense. Many are loyal, generous and care deeply about others. But the mental disciplines that make them effective in markets can make them harder to understand, and sometimes harder to be with, in ordinary human relationships.

Why?

Good investors are trained, formally or otherwise, to distrust surface narratives. They look for incentives, asymmetries, second-order effects, hidden risks, mispriced information and emotional distortion. They are paid to notice what others miss, to resist consensus, to separate signal from noise and to change their mind when the evidence changes. These are exceptional capabilities in investment decision-making. They are not always comfortable capabilities to be around.

Most people do not experience conversation as a search for decision quality. They experience it as connection, reassurance, recognition, belonging or emotional exchange. The investor, by contrast, may instinctively interrogate the logic of what is being said. What is the evidence? What assumption sits underneath that claim? What would make this view false? What incentive does this person have to believe it? What is the downside risk?

In an investment meeting, these questions are marks of skill. At dinner, in a marriage, inside a family, or with colleagues who are seeking support rather than analysis, they can feel cold or adversarial.

The issue is usually not bad intention, however. It is “mode mismatch”. Investors often develop a high-resolution operating system for uncertainty. They are comfortable with probabilities where others want certainty.

There is also a kind of professional conditioning, as markets can and do punish naivety. In fact, over time, an investor learns that charming stories can conceal weak economics, confident leaders can be wrong and consensus can be dangerous. The results of real-world investment experience, therefore, make them more discerning. But, it can also make them more suspicious, so that the same instinct that serves capital can erode trust if carried unfiltered into human relationships.

Good investors may also become impatient with imprecision. They hear overstatement, false certainty, weak assumptions, narrative fallacy and emotional reasoning everywhere. Once someone has learned to see these patterns, they cannot easily unsee them. This creates a twin burden: they may feel surrounded by loose thinking, while others feel judged, corrected or subtly diminished.

Yet, the conclusion should not be that investors are destined to be difficult people. Nor should it be that every investor must become equally skilled at developing rewarding relationships. The deeper point is that investment judgement and relational judgement are different disciplines, and their relative importance depends on the role.

For a specialist analyst or portfolio manager, a certain degree of sharpness may benefit from more tolerance because it is useful. They still need enough relational skill to be heard, challenged and trusted, but excessive interpersonal adaptation can blunt the very edge they are paid to bring. For an investment leader, the equation changes. At this level, poor relational judgement is no longer just a personality quirk, it becomes a performance drag.

For chief investment officers, board members or allocators, the criteria of success shift even more. Here, people are the majority part of the role. The ability, therefore, to translate rigorous thinking into good relationships is not a soft skill. It is the primary purpose and determinant of success.

The mature investor, then, is not universally accommodating. That is where Goldcrest’s specialism matters. Generic leadership and human performance development often miss the investor’s operating system; technical investment training often misses the human system in which judgement is applied.

Goldcrest works precisely at that intersection: for investors, by investors. The aim is not to soften rigour, but to know when it needs translation.

The 54% edge: Federer, Wimbledon and the compounding of judgement

At Wimbledon, excellence is easy to misread.

From the outside, the great players appear to impose themselves on the match. They look fluent, certain, almost inevitable. Centre Court gives dominance a theatre: the quiet walk to the baseline, the composed serve, the clean winner, the score moving steadily in one direction. By the time the trophy is lifted, the story can look like control.

Roger Federer’s recent Dartmouth address offered a different, more useful version of the story.

Across his career, Federer won almost 80% of his matches. Yet he won only 54% of the points he played.

That is not a footnote. It is the entire lesson.

The margin at each individual point was narrow. But in tennis, points become games, games become sets, sets become matches, matches become tournaments and tournaments become careers. A small advantage, sustained with discipline, compounds into an outcome that looks far larger than the edge that created it.

This is why the number is so striking. Federer’s greatness was not built on winning every point. It was built on a process robust enough to keep producing a small edge under pressure, again and again, without being flattened by the last mistake or flattered by the last success.

For investors, the parallel is direct enough to be useful and imperfect enough to be interesting.

The best investors are not right all the time. In fact, their hit rate is about the same as Federer’s. They are not exempt from error, noise, poor timing, adverse conditions or incomplete information. Their advantage often sits in something more modest and more durable: a slightly better capacity to frame the question, weigh evidence, challenge assumptions, size conviction, manage risk and keep judgement intact when the environment is ambiguous. That is the investment equivalent of Federer’s 54%.

Furthermore, in markets, the individual “point” is not always visible. It may be a decision to initiate a position, resist a consensus, reduce exposure, add to a holding, change one’s mind, challenge an internal thesis or do nothing when action would feel more satisfying. Each decision may be small in isolation. Some will be right, some will be wrong and some will be rewarded or punished for reasons that have little to do with the quality of the underlying judgement.

But over time, these decisions compound. They become portfolio outcomes. They shape quarters…quarters become years…years become track records. Track records become trust, reputation and the capacity to keep attracting capital and improve the lives of those who provide it.

So, Federer’s simple phrase: “it’s only a point” does not mean the point is trivial. When the point is being played, it deserves total attention. But once it is over, it cannot be allowed to contaminate the next one. Investors face the same inner turmoil where a past poor decision can affect their future thoughts and opinions. In those moments, those decisions are rarely corrupted by a lack of intelligence. Instead, they are corrupted by attachment, ego, fatigue, defensiveness or the unexamined desire to recover ground.

The best investment processes are, therefore, designed to protect judgement at precisely these points. This is the less visible work behind long-term performance and why Goldcrest’s work on investment decision-making starts with the human and organisational conditions that sit beneath the visible result.

Because better performance does not come simply from asking people to have more conviction. The harder and more valuable discipline is calibration: knowing how strongly to hold a view, what evidence would change it, how much capital it deserves and where the reasoning may be vulnerable.

For, while at Wimbledon, a 54% edge at the point level can become a championship career, in investment management, durable investment performance is built the same way: decision by decision, quarter by quarter, year by year, through a process that keeps judgement clear when certainty is unavailable.

The meeting after the meeting

Have you ever been in a position where an investment committee finished, where the paper was good, the discussion was serious and the decision was made? And, then, the team (understandably) moves on.

But then, later that day, one line from the meeting comes back to you. A challenge that was raised but not really explored. A moment when the room got slightly too eager to agree. Nothing dramatic, just a faint sense that the conclusion arrived a little too neatly.

Most experienced investors know this feeling. It matters more than people like to admit.

Formal process is important. Meetings, papers and clear decisions all matter. But some of the best judgement in investing happens after the official discussion has ended. That is when people reflect on what really happened in the room, rather than what the minutes say happened.

This is useful because investment decisions are never driven by analysis alone. They are shaped by status, fatigue, group mood, time pressure and the natural desire for closure. Teams can have a sound process on paper and still make decisions in conditions that are less robust than they look.

Sometimes a meeting produces real clarity. Sometimes it produces relief. It’s important to recognise that those are not the same thing.

The question worth asking afterwards is not “Was the decision right?” That often cannot be known for some time. The better question is “Was the decision made well?” Did the discussion sharpen the issue, or just settle it? Was dissent properly tested, or merely noted? Did the team become more precise, or just more comfortable?

This is where mature investment cultures have an edge. They do not treat the formal process as sacred simply because it is formal. They make room for a second layer of judgement. Not endless reopening of decisions, but honest reflection on how the decision was reached.

That can lead to practical improvements. A position may still be taken, but at a smaller size. The monitoring may become tighter. A team may realise that the thesis is fine, but the quality of challenge was weak. Or a manager may simply notice that the room was being influenced by the confidence of one person more than the substance of the case.

None of this is soft. It is part of decision hygiene.

In investing, process is not just what sits on the page. It is also what happens in the room and what lingers after people leave it. Investors who pay attention to that tend to build better judgement over time. They are not just analysing opportunities. They are analysing the quality of their own thinking.

That is usually worth the extra five minutes.

Calibration, not conviction

In investment management, conviction is often treated as a defining virtue. Strong views, decisive language and visible confidence can create momentum in meetings and reassurance in uncertain markets. In a profession built around judgement under ambiguity, that confidence in conviction can be valuable.

Investment culture therefore tends to admire conviction. There is a reason for that. Markets do not reward endless caution, and many good ideas feel uncomfortable at the point of purchase.

Yet conviction and quality are not the same thing. The more important skill is not simply having conviction, but knowing when it is warranted, how strongly it is warranted and what action it should translate into.

In short, it is calibration, not conviction, that should be an investor’s goal.

Calibration means matching confidence to reality. It is the discipline of knowing how much you should believe, how much uncertainty still sits around the case and how that should affect position size and timing. In practice, that is a more useful skill than simply sounding assured.

In fact, many investment mistakes are not caused by weak ideas. They are caused by too much certainty wrapped around decent ideas. An investor may be broadly right about direction, but wrong about the strength of the investment edge, the timing, the downside or the amount of capital the idea deserves. That’s a calibration problem.

This is where investing becomes more than just having opinions. It is not enough to think something is attractive. You also need to ask: how attractive is it, how clear is the edge, what could go wrong and what size of position does that justify? Those are less glamorous questions, but they are usually the ones that protect returns.

Good investors tend to be more precise here than dramatic. They do not confuse confidence with quality. They ask what must be true for the thesis to hold. They think about what would weaken the case. They notice when they are reacting to price rather than evidence. And they are more comfortable than most with saying, “There may be something here, but the edge is not strong enough yet.”

That last point matters. In many teams, “no edge” sounds timid. In truth, it is often a sign of maturity. Knowing when not to force conviction is part of the job.

Over time, the investors who last are usually not the loudest. They are the ones who repeatedly align belief, sizing and behaviour with the actual quality of the opportunity in front of them.

Conviction has its place. But in the long run, calibration is what makes it useful.

Execution drag usually begins in unresolved decisions

A strategy offsite goes well. The priorities are sensible, the ambition feels credible and the senior team leaves the room believing it has real alignment. Six months later, the organisation has moved, but not with the pace or coherence people expected.

This is usually described as an execution problem. Though often, it is something slightly different.

In large organisations, execution drag rarely begins with a bad strategy. More likely is that it begins with decisions that were discussed, but never really settled. Priorities were named, but not made exclusive. Trade-offs were recognised, but not owned. Authority looked clear in the room, but then became blurred as the strategy travelled through regions, functions and reporting lines.

That is where momentum leaks away.

So, while the strategy may be sound, the problem is that the decisions around it are too soft. What has genuinely become less important? Which activities are losing resource so others can gain it? Who decides when two parts of the business optimise for different outcomes? Which choices are closed, and which are still open? If those questions are not answered firmly enough, people further down the organisation start having to guess.

That guessing is expensive. Teams try to honour the new direction while also keeping legacy expectations alive. The result is effort without enough movement. Everyone feels busy, but fewer things actually shift.

There is also a human side to this. Senior teams often underestimate how much energy change actually consumes. A strategy can feel clear at the top because a small number of people have spent a concentrated amount of time shaping it. Lower down, it lands as another addition to an already crowded agenda. If the supporting decisions are not clear, the organisation absorbs the strategy as pressure rather than direction.

This is why execution depends so heavily on decision quality. Good strategy creates direction, but only clean decisions create enough coherence for the system to move. Which tensions are likely to reopen? Where will exceptions start to creep in? Which stakeholders will interpret the priorities differently unless someone keeps restating them?

This is not glamorous work, but it is where strategy either becomes real or slowly frays.

When execution feels weaker than expected, it is worth asking not only whether the plan is strong enough. It is also worth asking whether the surrounding decisions were made firmly enough for the business to act without having to infer what the senior team really meant.

Investment edge is not a slogan

In investment management, few words are used more freely than “edge.” It appears in meetings, research discussions and portfolio debates as a marker of confidence and competitive advantage. Used well, it captures something important: the need to possess a genuine reason to expect better outcomes than the market consensus.

Yet the term is often relied upon more than examined. It can become a convenient label for belief rather than a clear explanation of why a view should outperform. That matters, because successful investing depends not on sounding convinced, but on having an advantage that is real, durable and capable of being translated into returns.

The real question, then, is not whether a team believes it has edge, but whether it can define the source of that edge with precision and express it through a disciplined process.

A useful test is simple: what exactly is the edge? Is it informational, analytical, behavioural, structural, or something about the way the team is organised? Is it coming from a better understanding of the business, a cleaner read on incentives, a longer time horizon, or a stronger process for separating signal from noise?

If that cannot be answered clearly, then “edge” may just be a respectable label attached to enthusiasm.

This matters because the market does not reward people for merely having a view. It rewards people for having a better view that is well enough expressed to survive time, variance and friction. That is a much higher standard.

There is another problem too. Even when an edge is real, it may not be large enough to matter. A valid insight that cannot overcome costs, uncertainty, liquidity or portfolio constraints is not much use in practice. Good investors understand this. It means they do not just ask whether they have an edge. They ask what sort of edge it is, how durable it might be and how it should be expressed.

That is where process becomes important. Edge is not only intellectual. It is organisational. A modest advantage can become valuable if it sits inside a disciplined system that challenges and calibrates well, journals decisions, updates honestly and avoids forcing risk where no edge exists. Just as importantly, a decent edge can be wasted by poor sizing, weak process or emotional leakage.

The reality is less glamorous than people often hope. Long-term outperformance is rarely built on brilliant one-off calls. More often it comes from small but genuine advantages, expressed repeatedly and protected carefully.

There is maturity in being able to say, “This is interesting, but we do not have enough edge.” That is not a weak conclusion. In fact, in many cases, it is the strongest one available.

Edge should therefore be treated as a standard, not a slogan. If it is real, it should be possible to explain where it comes from, why it should persist for long enough to matter and how the team intends to convert it into returns.

Anything less is usually just optimism wearing a smarter suit.

Emotional regulation and decision quality

There will be many times in an investor’s career where a stock is moving against the position while news flow is noisy and messages are coming in. Often, in times like this, an investor’s attention may narrow as the time horizon shortens so that the urge to act starts to outweigh the case for acting.

Most investors recognise this state, even if they do not always name it. And they absolutely should be aware of it. It has a direct bearing on decision quality.

Emotion in investing is often treated as something awkward or slightly embarrassing, as though serious professionals ought to be able to operate above it. That is unrealistic. Emotions are always present. The better question is whether they are being noticed and managed well enough to stop them distorting judgement and conviction.

This is not about becoming flat or robotic. In fact, emotion carries useful information. Discomfort can be a warning. Excitement can point to asymmetry. Anxiety can reveal uncertainty that has not been thought through properly. The issue is what happens when those signals are not regulated.

Under pressure, the body moves first. Attention narrows, while threat sensitivity rises and ambiguity becomes harder to tolerate. In markets, that can show up as forced action, brittle communication, overreaction to price or a stronger attachment to an existing view, simply because changing course now feels psychologically expensive.

That is why emotional regulation is not a side topic. It is part of investment skill.

The practical discipline is to create a gap between state and action. What is actually happening here? Has the thesis changed, or has my internal state changed? Am I responding to evidence or trying to relieve discomfort? Is this urgency real, or am I just finding uncertainty hard to sit with?

Investors who can ask those questions in real time usually make better decisions. They are not emotionless. They are simply less likely to let emotion take the wheel.

This matters in teams as well. Emotional states spread quickly. One person’s agitation, certainty or defensiveness can alter the tone of a discussion and narrow the group’s thinking. Teams that regulate well do not remove emotion from the room or meeting. They stop it from running the room.

In a profession shaped by pressure, volatility and incomplete information, this is not optional. Investors need enough awareness of themselves to stay thoughtful when markets or meetings start to feel loud.

The goal is not to eliminate feeling. It is to preserve judgement when feeling is present. That is a more realistic standard and, ultimately, a far more valuable one.

Challenge without theatre

Challenge is widely recognised as an essential ingredient of good investment decision-making. Most teams would agree that robust debate, dissenting views and scrutiny of assumptions should improve outcomes. In principle, the case is straightforward.

In practice, however, challenge is harder to cultivate than many organisations assume. It depends not only on having intelligent people willing to question ideas, but on creating an environment where disagreement is useful rather than disruptive. Too little challenge can leave weak thinking untested. Too much of the wrong kind can turn discussion into performance rather than progress.

The real issue, then, is not whether a team claims to value challenge, but whether challenge is helping the quality of judgement when decisions matter.

Most investment teams say they value challenge. The problem is that challenge is easy to praise in principle and much harder to handle well in practice. Some teams have too little of it. Others have plenty, but it comes with too much performance and not enough usefulness.

The reason that either of these is a problem is that too little challenge leads to false alignment. The team sounds coherent, but the debate has been too polite or too compressed to do real work. On the other hand, too much theatre creates the opposite problem. People challenge to show sharpness, not to improve the decision. It becomes a display of intelligence rather than a search for truth.

Neither helps much.

Good challenge is quieter than that. It is disciplined, evidence-based and aimed at strengthening the decision rather than winning the room. It asks what would disconfirm the thesis, where the assumptions are carrying too much weight, what the other side of the trade might be seeing and whether the confidence level really matches the evidence.

That requires a particular team environment. People need to know that challenge is expected, not awkward. They need to know that changing their mind is not weakness. And senior people need to show that they want better decisions more than they want smooth meetings.

There is an emotional side to this as well. If disagreement is experienced as a threat, people either retreat or become defensive. Once that happens, the discussion is no longer really about the asset. It is about identity, status or control. That is usually where challenge becomes either timid or theatrical.

The strongest teams treat challenge as part of professional discipline. Not aggression, not point-scoring, and not endless devil’s advocacy. Just a shared standard that confidence should be tested before it earns the right to be expressed in the portfolio.

When that standard is present, something useful happens. Debate becomes less performative and more clarifying. People become more precise. Risks become more visible. Positions may still be taken, but the quality of conviction improves.

That is what challenge is for. Not heat for its own sake, but better judgement.

Instilling trust in a team

Trust: Defined

Within a team, trust is characterised by a mutual understanding and knowledge of each member’s skills and abilities. Crucially, that involves knowing what other team members can and cannot do. For that reason, it is a purely neutral concept that can be earned through shared experiences among team members. Over time, a person’s belief and trust in another team member’s abilities can change and evolve, based on new evidence and behaviour.

Why instilling trust is vital between team members

Trust is essential to any high-performing team. Patrick Lencioni’s seminal work “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” places trust at the foundation of a functional team for good reason. Many of the most serious challenges to an effective team functioning optimally derive from its absence.

But the formation of trust is a complex and gradual process, established through ongoing interactions. By its very nature, it is something to be granted rather than made during those interactions. Individuals cannot insist someone trusts them. However, individuals can establish the conditions, which make them more trustworthy.

The same is true within teams. Instilling trust within a new team demands proactive encouragement. Largely based on exchanges between team members, over time it evolves and develops. It is galvanised by shared experiences, wins and losses. Teams are rarely static, and the high-performing team is critically aware of the varying capital within the group as members change, relational bonds tear and repair, and reputations are built.

Trust as an enabler

Effectiveness of action is critical to high performance and trust is crucial to enable this.

When strong trust exists within a team, the division of labour can be clearer because there is confidence in the reliability of others to perform their roles. When we trust fellow team members implicitly, it allows us to focus on our own activity without double guessing and inefficiency. It means we don’t have to seek assurance, as we simply know and trust how another team member will perform.

It is vital, though, to dispel misconceptions about instilling trust. It should not be mistaken for blind faith. It must be justifiable either to demand it or extend it. Trust must be given and earned appropriately, but it must also be given genuinely and sincerely.

How Goldcrest Partners Can Help

Over time, most people will have developed the critical capacity to evaluate the triggers, cues and data to help decide whether to trust or not trust. However, this becomes more difficult when we encounter novel situations. Conversely, though, a high-performing team is able to calibrate the context much more quickly and accurately than an individual.

Goldcrest Partners can help your team become capable of navigating and interpreting trust with other team members. With our experience of improving team performance, we can support leaders striving to establish a better environment for trust to flourish – at pace.

Given the benefits that can be reaped when trust is strong within a team, it can be one of the most significant actions a leader can make. Recognising the value of trust and how to cultivate it to create a high-performing team is a vital first step in achieving team goals.

7 conditions for a high-performing team

At its essence, a high-performing team is one where the whole is more than the sum parts.

But achieving this status doesn’t happen by happy accident and requires dedicated attention.

So what if we applied the same strategy, research and analysis to optimising the operation of our teams as we do to the service of our clients? How would that look?

Goldcrest Partners co-founder, Tim McEwan, using his experiences of teamwork during his career in the British Army, has identified 7 conditions that he believes are essential to success. They are:

Altogether, the conditions offer a systemic framework to pull together individual brilliance into collective power, allowing each team to define for itself what high performance looks like and the journey to get there. As a process, it’s intensive, but the results are compelling.

To begin implementing the high-performing team framework, read our series of pieces exploring each condition, starting with trust – which you can read here.