Dividend investing attracts people who dislike drama, yet the most dramatic self-inflicted wounds still come from portfolio construction—specifically, the belief that a handful of “high-conviction” holdings is somehow safer than broad, boring diversification. The modern concentration argument is usually sold with the same props: Warren Buffett’s “three stocks could be enough,” a few heroic winner stories, and a quiet refusal to discuss the graveyard of concentrated blowups.
The five-stock mirage
In 2024, Institutional Investor highlighted the year’s top-performing hedge fund—up 122%—and noted it held only five stocks. That datapoint sounds like proof until the second datapoint arrives: the same top 2024 fund was down 77% in 2022. The point isn’t that the manager was uniquely reckless; it’s that extreme concentration is structurally engineered to create extreme outcomes, which is why concentrated funds reliably show up near the top and near the bottom of any performance league table.
“Three wonderful businesses” meets reality
Buffett’s 1996 remark that diversification is “protection against ignorance” is quoted endlessly, but the leap that follows—find three businesses and “bad things aren’t going to happen to those three”—is exactly the leap markets punish. The Coca-Cola example in the same discussion is a useful reality check: Berkshire held a large, concentrated position in Coke as of 1996 and has maintained it, and the material frames “horrific” underperformance as ending with 2X more wealth in one asset versus another when both start at $1 in 1996 with dividends reinvested. The claim that Coke “horrifically underperformed” both the S&P 500 and PepsiCo since 1996 is the uncomfortable subtext: concentration can be “right” on quality and still be wrong on outcome for decades.
What the research actually says
The strongest pro-concentration evidence is narrower than its fans admit: Anton, Cohen, and Polk (2021) find that managers’ “best ideas” outperform the market and the other stocks in their portfolios by approximately 2.8% to 4.5% per year. But the same analysis explicitly describes “best ideas” inside diversified portfolios—illustrated as a manager holding 100 stocks where the best idea beats the other 99—not proof that collapsing a portfolio into a tiny handful improves results. On the opposite side, the material cites multiple papers reporting that concentration hurts mutual fund performance and highlights Smith and Shawky (2005) arguing the ideal number of holdings is 481, which is not exactly a love letter to the 10-stock religion.
2026 reality check: volatility doesn’t stay “noise”
Concentration advocates often argue that short-term volatility is just “noise,” while the long-term is where “permanent loss” supposedly fades; the counterpoint in the material is that for individual stocks, much volatility reflects fundamental news that does not conveniently mean-revert away. The case studies are intentionally blunt: Valeant fell 93% from its peak and Bill Ackman exited in 2017 after losing about $4 billion, Sears fell 70% while its owner held it “during a period in which the market doubled,” and Wirecard was about 17% of a fund in 2019 before going down about 98%. These numbers matter for dividend investors because “income reliability” is not a separate universe from balance-sheet risk and business-model risk; a concentrated income stream is still a concentrated stream.
The ARK lesson, updated through 2025
The ARK section works because it mixes narrative confidence with quantifiable outcomes: Cathie Wood wrote in December 2021 that strategies could “triple to quintuple” over “the next five years,” yet the material states ARK Innovation ETF was down 48% since December 2021 and “horrifically underperforming the S&P 500.” Morningstar’s 2024 wealth-destruction tally gives the broader institutional version of the same story: it estimated the ARK fund family “wiped out” $14.3 billion of shareholder value over a 10-year period, more than twice the second-worst family on its list. For a more recent performance snapshot that reflects how quickly narratives can swing, Schwab’s performance table (as of 12/31/2025) shows ARKK market-price total return of +35.5% for 2025, alongside S&P 500 Total Return of +17.9% for 2025.
In dividend investing, humility is not a personality trait—it’s a design principle: the future is unknowable, outcomes are noisy, and the “conviction” story is often just survivorship bias wearing a suit. When a portfolio is built so that a single mistake can dominate the income line and the capital line, the result isn’t discipline; it’s fragility, dressed up as courage.
Someone’s sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago. ― Warren Buffett.
Learn the MaxDividends Way
Start Here
🔑 Explore the Premium Hub (exclusive — upgrade to unlock)
Guides & Step-by-Step
Deep Insights
📖 I ❤️ Dividends: Why I Believe Dividend Investing Is the Best Strategy | E-Book
How Effective is the MaxDividends Strategy for Building Growing Passive Income
Help & Support
Got a question about dividends? Ask Max, your AI Dividend Assistant!
Didn’t get the answer you need? Reach out: max@maxdividends.app or team@maxdividends.app — we’ll help you out.
Strong case against overconcentration. The Valeant and Wirecard examples hit hard - these weren't fringe picks, they were high-conviction holdings that still cratered. What gets skipped in the Buffett argument is his cash buffer giving downside protection most retail investors lack. I ran a 12-stock dividend portfolio until one cut tanked my income by 9%. Learned the hardway that concentration feels smart unitl it doesn't.