When a Gain Still Signals a Legal Problem
At first glance, a 5% gain for the year may appear acceptable.
But investment performance cannot be evaluated in isolation.
When the broader market — such as the S&P 500 — generated a 17.9% return during the same time period, the issue is no longer simply whether the account gained value. The issue becomes whether the account materially underperformed an appropriate benchmark.
✔ There Was a Gain
Yes. The account increased in value.
✔ But It Materially Underperformed the Benchmark
A 5% return compared to a 17.9% market return represents a significant performance gap. Over time, that gap compounds and can result in substantial lost opportunity.
✔ Underperformance May Support Legal Claims
Material underperformance can support claims involving:
- Unsuitable investment strategy
- Excessive concentration in certain products
- Overly conservative or overly aggressive allocation
- Failure to follow stated investment objectives
- High-fee or commission-driven product selection
- Negligent portfolio management
In many cases, investors are told:
“You made money. There’s no problem.”
But that statement ignores benchmark comparison, asset allocation standards, and risk-adjusted performance analysis.
A properly constructed portfolio aligned with an investor’s objectives should reasonably track — or be intentionally positioned relative to — appropriate market benchmarks. When there is a substantial divergence without justification, it raises serious questions about:
- Strategy design
- Product selection
- Fee structure
- Disclosure adequacy
- Supervisory oversight
The Legal Importance of Comparative Performance
Investment fraud and broker misconduct claims are not limited to situations involving outright losses.
Sometimes the issue is not that the account declined — but that it failed to perform as it reasonably should have under prevailing market conditions.
That distinction is how many investors are misled.
“You made money” can obscure:
- Missed market gains
- Misaligned risk exposure
- Commission-driven decision-making
- Hidden product limitations
Comparative performance analysis is often a key component of evaluating suitability and breach of duty.
If your account gained modestly while the market significantly outperformed, it may be worth a professional review.
Even gains can mask misconduct.
Free Consultation
We don’t get paid unless you win.
Turning Financial Betrayal Into Justice
