The importance of consistency, even when investing

Few virtues seem as simple and yet are as difficult to cultivate as consistency.

In an ideal world, there should be a direct relationship between what we think, what we say, and what we do. However, reality is often far more complex: circumstances can be difficult and constantly changing, our priorities evolve over time, and many important decisions require us to navigate a landscape full of nuances.

Being consistent does not mean remaining fixed in a rigid and immovable position or acting in exactly the same way regardless of context or changes in reality. Properly understood, consistency means striving to ensure that our decisions are reasonably aligned with our values, our goals, and our personal circumstances. In other words, it means trying to ensure that what we do makes sense in light of what we think and what we say, without denying the need to adapt when the environment changes or when circumstances make perfect alignment difficult.

This reflection is particularly relevant when we talk about investing, because investing is not simply a matter of deciding where to place our money. It also involves deciding what risks we are willing to take, how long we can maintain an investment, what financial needs we want to meet, and what impact we want our money to have. In that sense, our investments say a great deal about who we are, even though we are not always fully aware of it.

An investor may claim to have a high degree of risk aversion and yet be drawn to complex or highly volatile products when they promise high returns. They may describe themselves as a long-term investor and still react impulsively to every market downturn. They may also advocate certain social or environmental values while simultaneously investing without paying any attention to the activities of the companies they finance. In all these cases, there is a clear gap between what is thought, what is said, and what is ultimately done.

For this reason, consistency in investing should not be limited to a statement of intent. It should be reflected in our decisions as investors: what we invest in, what risks we take, and how we react when markets put our convictions to the test. After all, a consistent investment approach is one that maintains a reasonable balance between our financial needs, our risk tolerance, and our principles and values.

Sustainable investing is a good example of this need for consistency.

The challenge lies precisely in distinguishing between what forms part of our principles and what belongs to the realm of preferences or circumstances.

There are areas in which it makes sense to be firmer, even inflexible. For many investors, certain activities such as controversial weapons, anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, or other businesses that are clearly incompatible with their values should have no place in an investment portfolio. In these cases, consistency requires setting clear red lines. If something directly contradicts our principles, excluding it is not a matter of appearance, reputation, or fashion, but rather a logical consequence of what we claim to stand for.

That necessary firmness, however, should not be confused with intolerance. The real world rarely offers perfect solutions. Companies operate in complex sectors, economies undergo transitional processes, and many activities that are necessary for society to function have both positive and negative aspects. Expecting all investments to be absolutely pure, flawless, and perfectly aligned with each of our convictions can lead us to an unrealistic and, above all, unhelpful position.

Consider, for example, the energy transition. The need to move towards a more sustainable model that is less dependent on fossil fuels does not seem negotiable. Yet it is also necessary to acknowledge that this process cannot happen overnight, nor can it occur in exactly the same way across all countries, sectors, or companies. Some businesses that are far from perfect today may be making determined efforts to improve their processes, reduce their emissions, or transform their business models. In these cases, consistency may not consist in demanding absolute purity, but rather in supporting credible paths of improvement.

Something similar happens with technology, artificial intelligence, digitalisation, and certain industrial sectors. These realities pose risks, ethical dilemmas, and obvious challenges, but they are also part of the world in which we live and can contribute to progress if they are developed and used appropriately. Rejecting them outright may be just as unwise as accepting them without any critical analysis. Consistency requires facing reality as it is, distinguishing between what is essential and what is secondary, and making balanced decisions.

For this reason, investing consistently requires a combination of conviction and flexibility. Conviction, so as not to abandon what we consider genuinely important. Flexibility, in order to understand that reality changes, that transformation processes are imperfect, and that, at times, supporting positive evolution may make more sense than simply excluding everything that does not fit perfectly into an ideal definition.

It also requires honesty with ourselves: recognising our true tolerance for risk, aligning our financial goals with our limitations, identifying and upholding our “red lines” even when it is inconvenient, and ultimately preventing our convictions from becoming an excuse to deceive ourselves and ignore the complexity of the world. Being consistent does not mean always being right.

We all make mistakes, including when investing. We may misinterpret a situation, overestimate an opportunity, underestimate a risk, or place too much trust in a trend. We may make decisions that, with the benefit of hindsight, were not the best ones. But consistency is not destroyed by error if we are capable of recognising it, learning from it, and adjusting our course.

In fact, perhaps an important part of consistency lies precisely in this: not endlessly justifying our mistakes merely to protect an appearance of firmness. Being consistent does not mean always being right. It means maintaining a clear, honest, and recognisable direction over time. A direction that allows us to look back and see that, even when we were wrong, our decisions reflected certain principles, needs, and a particular way of understanding investing.

In an environment that is increasingly dynamic, polarised, and full of contradictory messages, being consistent does not seem like an easy task. Investment trends come and go, market narratives change constantly, and the pressure to achieve immediate results can lead us away from our own objectives. Precisely for that reason, consistency becomes an especially valuable virtue.

Investing consistently does not mean being rigid or pursuing an impossible perfection. Rather, it means maintaining a course of action aligned with our values, our needs, and our tolerance for risk, while continuing to adapt to a complex and changing reality; holding firm convictions, but not immovable ones; accepting mistakes, learning from them and, ultimately, continuing to move forward without losing sight of what we consider truly important.

In the end, consistency in investing is not very different from consistency in life. As we said at the beginning, it consists of trying to ensure that there is a reasonable relationship between what we think, what we say, and what we do. It will not always be a perfect relationship, because perfection rarely exists, but it can be an honest, conscious, and sufficiently solid one that helps us make better decisions and feel more satisfied with our actions and with ourselves.

Because investing consistently is not about always being right. It is about knowing who we are, what we stand for, and where we want to go. Markets will change, circumstances will change, and we will probably change as well. But if we are capable of adapting without abandoning what is essential, we will have found a more conscious and authentic way of investing… and of living.