A market drawdown does not just test your portfolio. It tests your decision-making under pressure. Most investors who study fundamentals, follow a strategy, and understand valuations still make self-destructive decisions when their account is down 15% and the news cycle is relentlessly negative.
The problem is not knowledge. It is the three cognitive biases that activate during drawdowns and override rational analysis. Understanding them — and building a framework that neutralises them in advance — is the difference between systematic wealth building and emotional destruction of capital.
Bias 1 — Loss Aversion
Behavioural finance research established a consistent finding: the psychological pain of losing S$10,000 is approximately twice as intense as the pleasure of gaining S$10,000. Losses are not felt symmetrically. This asymmetry drives premature selling at the worst possible moment.
An investor buys a position at S$8.00. It drops to S$6.50, a 19% decline. The stock is still fundamentally sound. The sector is in a temporary correction. But the pain of sitting with an open loss becomes intolerable. The investor sells at S$6.50 to stop the psychological discomfort. Three months later the stock recovers to S$9.20.
The investor did not lack knowledge. They lacked a pre-defined exit rule. Loss aversion fills the decision vacuum when no rule exists.
The framework fix: A stop-loss level is set before entry, not during a drawdown. If the entry is S$8.00 and the stop is S$6.80, the maximum acceptable loss is 15%. When S$6.80 is hit, the position is closed. Automatically. The decision is made once, in advance, without emotion. Loss aversion has no decision to distort.
Bias 2 — Anchoring
Anchoring is the tendency to fixate on a reference point — typically the purchase price — and make subsequent decisions relative to it rather than based on current fundamentals.
An investor holds a position bought at S$12.00 now trading at S$7.50. The question they ask is: "will it get back to S$12.00?" This is the wrong question. The right question is: "given what I know today about this company and the current economic environment, is S$7.50 a good entry point?"
The purchase price is irrelevant to the future return. The company's current fundamentals and sector positioning are the only relevant inputs. Anchoring to the entry price causes investors to hold deteriorating positions far too long, averaging down into businesses with weakening cash flow and rising debt.
The framework fix: Position sizing rules limit averaging down. A maximum portfolio risk of 1-2% per position means there is a ceiling on how much capital flows into any single position regardless of price movement. The portfolio is sized by risk, not by conviction anchored to a historical price.
Bias 3 — FOMO
Fear of missing out operates in reverse during recoveries. After a drawdown, markets often recover sharply. An investor who sold at the bottom watches others profit from the rebound and re-enters at the peak — buying high after having sold low. This sequence, repeated across a few market cycles, permanently impairs returns.
FOMO-driven re-entry also tends to be undisciplined. The investor buys without checking whether the macro environment supports the sector, whether the individual company passes fundamental checks, or whether the entry price offers an acceptable risk-reward. The decision is driven by watching others profit, not by process.
The framework fix: Rules-based entry criteria require a checklist before any position is opened: macro phase alignment, sector confirmation, fundamental health checks, Shariah screening, and position sizing calculation. A checklist cannot be bypassed by FOMO. Either the criteria are met or the trade does not happen.
What a Systematic Framework Actually Does
A systematic framework does not guarantee profits. No framework does. What it guarantees is the elimination of self-inflicted damage — the losses caused not by market conditions but by emotional reactions to them.
The three rules are simple:
- Set stop-loss levels before entry. Loss aversion has no decision to corrupt.
- Size positions by risk percentage, not dollar amount or conviction. Anchoring has no averaging-down to exploit.
- Require a checklist for every new entry. FOMO has no undisciplined re-entry to drive.
The framework is written during calm periods when the mind is clear. It executes during drawdowns when the mind is not. That separation is where the edge lives.
Want a framework that removes emotion from your investment decisions?
20 minutes. We discuss how to build rules-based entry, exit, and position sizing criteria for your specific portfolio and risk tolerance.
Start a Conversation* All figures, percentages, and projections referenced in this article are for illustrative purposes only and are based on historical performance. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Actual results will vary depending on individual circumstances, market conditions, and the specific products or strategies selected. This article does not constitute an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell any financial product. Please consult a qualified adviser before making any financial decisions.