Investing term

What is Sunk-cost?

Letting money you've already spent or lost dictate your next decision.

The sunk-cost fallacy is letting money or effort you've already spent — and can't recover — dictate your next decision. Because we hate to feel that past spending was 'wasted', we keep pouring in resources to justify it, when the past cost is gone regardless of what we do next.

In investing it shows up as holding a losing position because of how much you've already lost, rather than judging it fresh on its future prospects — 'I can't sell now, I'm down so much.' But the amount you've lost is a sunk cost; it doesn't change whether the investment is a good hold from today. The only rational question is whether the investment is worth owning from here, on its own merits, regardless of what it cost you or how much it's already fallen.

The past cost is already gone
Money already lost is gone — it shouldn't drive the next choice$5,000 already lostgone · unrecoverableignore itOnly question that counts:worth holding from here?

Sunk-cost thinking holds a losing investment because of how much you've already lost — but that money is gone whether you hold or sell. The only rational question is whether it's worth owning from here.

For example

You hold a sinking stock because you're 'in too deep to sell now' — but the money already lost is gone whether you hold or sell; only the future prospects should decide.

Learn it by doing

That's Sunk-cost in theory — it clicks when you use it. Practise it hands-on in a free, interactive lesson (Stage 12, Investor Psychology: FOMO, Panic & Biases).

Try the free lesson →

Why it matters to you

Sunk-cost thinking matters because it keeps money trapped in bad investments to honour past losses that can't be undone. Every day you hold something only because of what it already cost you is a day that capital isn't in a better use. Learning to treat past losses as irrelevant to the forward decision — to ask only 'is this worth holding from here?' — frees you to reallocate to better opportunities instead of defending a lost cause.

'I'm in too deep to sell now'

The feeling of being 'in too deep' after a big loss is the sunk-cost fallacy at work: the loss is already incurred whether you hold or sell, so it shouldn't factor into the decision. Holding a poor investment to avoid 'wasting' what you've already lost just compounds the mistake. Judge it fresh — worth owning from here, or not?

Frequently asked questions

What is the sunk-cost fallacy?

The sunk-cost fallacy is letting money or effort you've already spent and can't recover influence your next decision. In investing, it appears as holding a losing position because of how much you've lost, rather than judging it on its future prospects. The past cost is gone regardless of what you do now.

How does sunk cost affect investment decisions?

It leads investors to keep holding — or even add to — losing positions to avoid feeling that their earlier money was wasted. This traps capital in poor investments to honour unrecoverable losses, instead of reallocating to better opportunities. The loss already happened; only the forward prospects should drive the decision.

How do I avoid the sunk-cost fallacy?

Judge each holding purely on its future prospects, ignoring what it cost you or how much it's already fallen. A useful question: if you had the cash today, would you buy this investment now? If not, the only reason to hold is the sunk cost — which shouldn't count. Focus forward, not backward.

Related terms

← Back to the full glossary