Football goalkeepers and investing: why doing 'something' is not always the best choice
Imagine you are a goalkeeper facing a decisive penalty: what do you do? Dive to the right or to the left, or stay still in the centre? It may seem like a minor detail, but a 2007 study by psychologist Michael Bar‑Eli and colleagues on professional goalkeepers offers a surprising lesson… one that also applies to our money.
Their analysis of 286 penalties showed that around one third of shots were aimed straight down the middle of the goal, yet goalkeepers stayed in the centre only in very few cases, preferring to dive. Staying still would have given them the highest probability of saving the penalty.
So why do so many goalkeepers choose to move? If a keeper stays still and concedes a goal, they may feel as though they didn’t do enough.
This is where psychology comes in - and with it the analogy to investing. A goalkeeper who stays still feels passive and responsible for the goal, while one who dives feels they have done everything possible. Moving reduces feelings of guilt and regret, even if it is less effective. Experts call this phenomenon action bias: the tendency to do something even when doing nothing would be the better choice.
When we invest, we behave in the same way
When we find ourselves under intense stress - like the stress investors experience when financial markets swing sharply - it is easy to be swept up by panic or euphoria. The temptation to 'do something' is strong: selling immediately out of fear of losses or buying driven by excitement.
Just like the goalkeeper facing a penalty, taking action often gives us the feeling that we are responding better to the opponent's move (the market), but it can be counterproductive. We often believe we are in control of what is happening, yet markets are complex and unpredictable. Acting impulsively can lead to costly mistakes and worse results than those achieved by investors who are able to wait calmly.
This is also emphasized by Consob, the Italian financial regulator, on the financial education pages of its website, where it warns against behavioural errors during crises and urges investors to avoid emotionally driven, impulsive decisions. Acting only when it is truly necessary, with discipline and method, and knowing how to wait, increases the chances of better long‑term outcomes.
The risk of 'doing too much', according to a Nobel Prize winner and a great investor...
Kahneman's lesson
Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, discusses the illusion of financial skills in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. He refers to a study by Barber and Odean showing that the most active investors achieved disappointing results, while those who traded less tended to earn higher returns. In practice, those who try to predict every market move by constantly buying and selling often lose more money than those who remain calm and stick to a consistent. This does not mean being passive but choosing carefully when and how to act.Charlie Mungers philosophy
Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's long‑time business partner, used to say that 'the big money is not made by buying and selling, but by waiting'. For him, patience and temperament mattered more than raw intelligence. The ability to endure losses and difficulties without panicking was the key to long‑term success.
Munger also discussed the 'I have to do something' syndrome - the tendency to act impulsively even when standing still would be the wisest choice. We often think that doing nothing means being passive or lazy, whereas patience and discipline can make the difference between success and failure.
The final lesson
What can we learn from football goalkeepers? The best choice is not the one that makes us feel as though we have done everything possible, but the one that actually works. In financial markets, just as in goal, emotional control and patience are powerful tools. Avoiding impulsive decisions and having - or trying to develop - a clear strategy can help deliver more rewarding results over the long term.