The short answer
Technology has made investing easier, faster and better informed. It can reduce friction, organise information and increasingly help investors and professionals see more. But better tools do not automatically create better judgement.
A better investor still needs a clear objective, a sound process, realistic expectations, sensible asset allocation and the discipline to distinguish a meaningful change from ordinary market movement. Technology can improve the decision environment, but it cannot replace the need for sound judgement.
Easier access solved one problem
Over the last two decades, one of the biggest changes in investing has been the removal of friction. An investor can open an account quickly, transact from a phone, see a portfolio at any time and access research, market data and expert views that were once difficult to obtain.
This is a meaningful improvement. Better access has helped widen participation, improve transparency and make investing more convenient. Artificial intelligence can take this further by helping organise large amounts of information, identify patterns, personalise communication and make data easier to work with.
But friction was never the only reason investors made poor decisions. An investor can now act in seconds, but still has to decide whether the action itself is sensible. Easier execution solves the problem of access. It does not solve the problem of judgement.
More information can also create more noise
For many years, individual investors were disadvantaged because they had too little information. Today, the challenge can sometimes be the opposite.
There is a market view for almost every outcome, a comparison for almost every fund and a constant stream of commentary on what is working, what is not and what investors should supposedly do next. Portfolio values are visible continuously. Performance can be compared against an index, another fund, another asset class or whatever happens to be leading at that moment.
The same technology that makes an investor better informed can therefore make it easier to become distracted.
Not every piece of information requires a decision. Not every market movement requires a response. And not every investment that has done well recently deserves a place in a portfolio.
A better investor is not necessarily the person who consumes the most information, but the one who filters it most effectively. It is the person who has developed a way of deciding which information is relevant to the objective and which information is simply noise.
Process matters most when markets stop cooperating
A process is easy to appreciate when markets are moving in the direction we expect. Its real value becomes visible when they are not.
There will always be periods when a strategy underperforms, a market corrects, one asset class becomes unpopular or another investment looks much more attractive. No investment process can eliminate those periods.
What a process can do is create consistency in how we respond to them.
In asset management, I have always believed that durable outcomes should come from a repeatable investment process rather than dependence on individual personalities or market calls. People change. Markets change. No one gets every decision right. What creates continuity is a clear philosophy, a disciplined process and a team that can apply it through different market cycles.
I think the same principle is useful for individual investors. An investor should know why an investment is being made, what role it is expected to play, what risks come with it and what would genuinely justify changing it.
Without that framework, every uncomfortable period becomes a reason to reconsider the portfolio. With it, the investor has something more useful than a prediction: a basis for making the next decision.
Start with the objective, not with what is doing well
Technology has made it extremely easy to discover investments. It has not changed the order in which investment decisions should ideally be made.
The starting point should still be the investor's objective. What is the money meant to achieve? How much time is available? What amount of risk is reasonable? What other investments are already in the portfolio? How important is liquidity? What kind of volatility can the investor realistically live with?
Only after those questions are reasonably clear does product selection become meaningful.
The risk of beginning with products is that a portfolio gradually becomes a collection of ideas rather than a coherent investment plan. One fund is added because it performed well. Another because a sector looks attractive. Another because somebody recommended it. Over time, the investor may own many investments without being able to explain why each one is there.
This is where asset allocation and portfolio construction remain important. The objective is not to own every investment that could potentially do well. It is to build a portfolio in which different investments have sensible roles and collectively give the investor a reasonable chance of achieving the intended outcome.
Technology can help enormously with that process. But it cannot define the investor's purpose.
Expectations are part of risk
One of the most underestimated drivers of investment disappointment is unrealistic expectations.
When expectations become unrealistic, the portfolio generally has to work harder to satisfy them. That can lead to taking risks the investor did not fully understand, or constantly moving towards whatever appears capable of producing the desired return.
Markets do not deliver returns in a straight line. Strategies go through phases. Asset classes move through cycles. Even sound approaches will have periods when they appear disappointing.
If an investor enters with the expectation that every year should be good, every investment should outperform and every period of volatility should be avoided, even a sensible portfolio will eventually feel inadequate.
Becoming a better investor therefore includes understanding what investing can and cannot reasonably provide. This does not mean investors should accept poor decisions or stop evaluating their portfolios. It means the evaluation should be based on the right time horizon, the role of the investment and whether the original rationale still holds — not simply on what has performed best recently.
Realistic expectations make patience possible. And patience is not inactivity. It is often the discipline to allow a sound decision enough time to work.
What technology and AI can genuinely improve
I am optimistic about what technology and artificial intelligence can do for investment management.
There are many tasks where machines can be extraordinarily useful. They can process information faster, help organise large amounts of data, track developments across companies and markets, identify inconsistencies and bring relevant information to an investment professional much more efficiently. For individual investors, technology can improve access, portfolio visibility, planning, communication and personalisation.
The opportunity is significant. But it is important to be clear about its limitations.
A model is only as useful as the information available to it and the assumptions behind it. Data can be incomplete. Context can change. Human behaviour is difficult to reduce to a few variables. Many investment decisions involve trade-offs for which there is no mathematically perfect answer.
The most useful role for technology is therefore not necessarily to replace the person making the decision. It is to make that person better prepared to make it.
As AI becomes more capable, this distinction will matter even more. The useful question is not only, "Can technology make this decision?" It is also, "Can technology help us make this decision with better information, better discipline and fewer blind spots?"
Human judgement still matters
Investing is ultimately a series of decisions made under uncertainty. The information is rarely complete and the future is never fully knowable.
Judgement matters because context matters. The same market event can mean different things for two investors with different objectives, time horizons, portfolios and financial circumstances. The same investment can be appropriate in one portfolio and unnecessary in another. The same period of volatility can be a temporary discomfort for one investor and a genuine risk for another.
Technology can make more of that context visible. It can help organise it and challenge inconsistencies. But someone still has to decide what matters most in the situation at hand, what trade-offs are acceptable and what course can actually be followed over time.
That is not an argument against technology. It is an argument for using technology where it is strongest, while recognising where judgement remains necessary.
Good investing often means doing less
One unintended consequence of frictionless investing is that action has become very easy. That is mostly a benefit. But ease of action can also create the impression that good investors should always be doing something.
They do not.
There are periods when a portfolio should change. A goal may change. Risk may no longer be appropriate. An investment thesis may weaken. Asset allocation may move materially away from what was intended. New information may genuinely alter the decision.
But there are also long periods when the sensible action is simply to continue.
This can be psychologically difficult because activity feels productive. Doing nothing can feel as though a decision is being avoided. In investing, the opposite can be true.
If the objective is clear, the portfolio remains appropriate and nothing material has changed, choosing not to react is itself a decision. Better investors gradually become more comfortable with this. They do not confuse activity with progress.
What makes someone a better investor?
I don't think there is one characteristic. It is a combination of fairly simple things that are difficult to practise consistently.
Better investors generally know what they are investing for. They have a sensible process. They understand that risk and return come together. They diversify without collecting investments unnecessarily. They have realistic expectations. They recognise that markets will periodically make them uncomfortable. They are willing to review decisions without constantly abandoning them.
They use information, but do not allow every new piece of information to change their direction. They use technology, but do not confuse better tools with better judgement.
And they gradually learn one of the most valuable investment skills: knowing the difference between something that has genuinely changed and something that has merely moved.
Better tools should lead to better decisions
The investment industry will continue to evolve. Products will evolve. Technology will evolve. Artificial intelligence will become more sophisticated. Investors will have access to capabilities that would have seemed extraordinary only a few years ago.
That progress should be welcomed. The opportunity is to use these capabilities to improve the quality of decisions rather than simply increase the speed or frequency with which decisions are made.
The basic challenge of investing will remain surprisingly familiar. We will still have to make choices without knowing the future. We will still have to balance return and risk. We will still have to distinguish signal from noise and remain patient when markets test our conviction.
Over a long investing journey, the advantage may therefore not belong to the person with the most information or the fastest access. It may belong to the investor with a better process, more realistic expectations and the discipline to make sound decisions consistently.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are the author's personal views and are intended solely for investor education. They do not constitute a recommendation to invest in any product, fund, strategy or security. Mutual fund investments are subject to market risks. Please read all scheme-related documents carefully before investing. Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. Investment decisions should be made after considering the investor's individual goals, time horizon, risk, liquidity needs and circumstances.