Distinguishing Types of Drawdowns Is More Important Than Blindly Buying the Dip
Distinguishing between types of drawdowns is more important than blindly buying the dip. Academic finance categorizes risk into systemic (market-wide, unavoidable) and idiosyncratic (company-specific). Similarly, drawdowns can be market-driven (systemic, like the 2008 crisis) or company-specific (idiosyncratic, like the recent AI-driven selloff in software stocks).
Using FactSet (FDS) as an example, the article illustrates that a systemic drawdown, such as in 2008/09, was a test of the market's durability, not FactSet's economic moat. In these cases, investors can leverage a behavioral advantage—patience and a long-term view—as history shows markets tend to recover.
Conversely, the current 2025/26 drawdown in software stocks is largely idiosyncratic, driven by specific fears that AI could disrupt industry pricing power and erode moats. To capitalize on such a drawdown, an investor needs an analytical advantage: a more accurate vision of the company's future a decade from now than the market's pessimistic price implies. This requires understanding why informed sellers are wrong, a fine line between conviction and arrogance.
The key takeaway is not to apply a blunt behavioral solution (like simply buying the dip) to a problem that requires nuanced, fundamental analysis.
marsbit02/15 10:18
