Long-horizon growth plus daily liquidity is a combination no other class offers - and the price of the liquidity is a visible quote that invites you to use it.
10 min read · Level 2
The distinctive cost of public equity is not the fee or the spread or the volatility; it is that the price is visible every few seconds, and no other asset class charges anything comparable. A private business, a property, a stake in a fund with quarterly marks - all of these can decline by exactly as much, and their holders mostly sit through it, not because they are more disciplined but because nothing is displaying the decline to them minute by minute. The liquidity that makes public equity so useful and the visibility that makes it so hard to hold are the same feature, and they cannot be separated by any product design. The practical conclusion is one most investors resist: for a long-horizon holder, the optimal amount of engagement with a public equity position is close to the amount available to the owner of an unquoted one, which is very little. That is not a counsel of ignorance - the annual report still needs reading - but it does mean that the ability to check the price continuously is a cost of the asset rather than a benefit of it, and treating it as a benefit is what the worked example above actually measures.
Every asset class in a portfolio should be doing a job that the others cannot. Public equity does three, and only the combination is distinctive.
It provides a claim on the growth of business activity, without a maturity date. A residual claim has no end and no cap, so the surplus can compound for as long as the business produces one. Nothing with a contractual payment can do that, because a contract states in advance what it will pay.
It is convertible to cash within days, in almost any size an individual holds, at a price you can see before you commit. No private holding, no property, no fund with a redemption notice period offers that.
And it is diversifiable at low cost, across hundreds or thousands of businesses, in a single instrument - which converts the risk of any one residual claim disappearing into exposure to business activity in general.
What it does not do is equally important. It provides no dated cash flow, so it cannot fund a known obligation on a known date. It provides no contractual floor. And it carries systematic risk that diversification within the class does not remove: when the market falls, nearly all of it falls.
Because a portfolio assembled without asking what each part is for tends to end up with several holdings doing the same job and no holding doing some of the others.
The growth job is the reason equity is the largest holding in most long-horizon portfolios, and the arithmetic behind that is not subtle. Over thirty years, 100,000 compounding at 7% becomes 761,226 while the same sum at 3% becomes 242,726 - 3.14 times as much, from a difference of four percentage points a year. The horizon is what converts a modest annual edge into that gap, and it is the one input an individual controls completely.
The liquidity job matters for a less obvious reason: it is what lets the rest of the portfolio be illiquid. A holder with a large, freely saleable equity position can commit elsewhere to things with lock-ups, because there is somewhere to go for cash that does not require a distressed sale. Liquidity in one part of a portfolio is what buys the capacity to be patient in another.
And the cost of that liquidity is where this class is genuinely different from every other, because the cost is not charged in basis points. It is charged in temptation.
Educational, not personalised financial advice. Nothing in the Investor Academy is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold anything — what is right for you depends on your own circumstances and the rules where you live.
The temptation has a price and it can be computed exactly.
A holder has 100,000 in a diversified equity position at its peak. The market falls 30%; the position is worth 70,000. The decline is uncomfortable and, unlike a private holding, it is displayed continuously. The holder sells.
The market subsequently recovers. The holder, waiting for confirmation that the recovery is real, buys back when prices have returned to 90% of the previous peak.
Sold at 70% of peak prices: 70,000 Bought back at 90% of peak prices: 70,000 / 0.90 = 77,777.78 of peak-priced exposure
When prices return to the previous peak, this holder has 77,777.78 where they would have had 100,000. The shortfall is 22,222.22, a permanent reduction of 22.22%, and it is entirely the cost of the round trip. No business failed. No claim was impaired. The whole of it came from selling below and buying above, and neither action would have been possible at all in an asset that could not be sold on a Tuesday.
Set that against what the class is there to provide. Over thirty years:
100,000 at 3% a year: 242,726 100,000 at 5% a year: 432,194 100,000 at 7% a year: 761,226
A holder who gives up 22.22% of the position once has surrendered a large fraction of a decade of that compounding for a decision that felt, at the time, like risk management. That is the trade this asset class actually offers: growth and liquidity together, with the liquidity charged in the form of a continuously visible invitation to abandon the growth.
The first mistake is treating the daily quote as the risk. The risk is the residual claim being impaired. The quote is the mechanism by which that risk is communicated, and also the mechanism by which a temporary decline gets converted into a permanent one.
The second is holding equity for money with a date on it. Public equity has no maturity and no floor, so a known obligation twelve months out is exactly the wrong thing to fund with it - not because a fall is likely, but because the consequence of one is that you sell into it.
The third is assuming diversification within the class removes the class's own risk. Holding four hundred companies removes the risk of any one residual claim disappearing; it does nothing about the fact that they are all residual claims on the same economy. That is systematic risk, and it is what other asset classes are for.
The fourth is sizing the position by conviction rather than by the horizon of the money. The right question is not how much you believe in equities; it is how long this particular money can be left alone.
Write one sentence for each asset class you hold saying what it is there to do. If two of them produce the same sentence, one of them is redundant. If no holding produces the sentence 'this funds a known obligation on a known date', that job is unfilled and equity cannot fill it.
Sort the money by when it is needed. Sums with a date inside a few years do not belong in a residual claim, however attractive the claim looks. Sums with no date and a long horizon are exactly what this class is for, and the compounding arithmetic rewards leaving them alone.
The value of daily liquidity is that it lets other parts of the portfolio be illiquid without leaving you stranded. Treat it as the reason you can commit elsewhere, not as permission to reposition. Both are technically uses of the same feature; only one of them is the one you are being compensated for.
The round trip in the example cost 22.22% of a position. The only reliable defence is a written rule made while nothing is happening: what constitutes evidence that the residual claim is impaired, what you will do if it is, and what you will do if it is not. Then let the quote do what it does.
For money with a long horizon and no fixed date, where you want a claim on the growth of business activity and want to retain the ability to convert to cash quickly if circumstances change.
Avoid it for a known obligation with a known date, avoid sizing it beyond the decline you have decided in advance you will sit through, and avoid using it as the only asset class - diversifying within equities does nothing about the risk they all share.
Investors who hold both public equities and an unquoted stake - a private business, a property, an interest in a fund reporting quarterly - frequently report having held the unquoted asset through a decline they would not have sat through in the listed one. The underlying economics are often similar or worse in the private case; what differs is the reporting frequency. A holding revalued four times a year presents its owner with four decisions; a holding revalued every few seconds presents thousands. The pattern is not evidence that illiquid assets are superior - the same absence of a quote is what makes them hard to exit when exit is genuinely needed - but it does locate the difficulty of holding public equity in the visibility rather than in the volatility.
If you would have held a private version of the same business through this decline, the thing you are reacting to is the quote, not the asset.
Create a free account to read the rest and apply it to your own investing.