Itsallaguess wrote:Gengulphus wrote:There's good reason to try to study all of them - but studying them properly requires a large investment of time and effort and careful design of the study to avoid hindsight bias and confirmation bias. Few private investors can afford that investment, far fewer are willing to prioritise it over other uses of the time and effort, and even fewer have the detailed understanding of the various pitfalls required to do the design properly. And the net result is that we don't have even one proper "'quantum theory' paper" about Luniversal's yield < 1.5 * (FTSE AllShare yield) test, let alone similar ones about other tests.
Completely agree with all of the above, but I think it's over-complicating my position on the topic.
Not certain how it can be, because it's not even trying to present your position on the topic! It's presenting mine - and it's a pretty simple position: for private investors, doing such studies is basically in the "too difficult" category.
No argument with any of what followed - indeed, I think it's a reasonably close match to my "Personally, I would keep things simple: have a decent set of checks / analysis that one applies to all candidates. After doing them, one either decides "safe enough" or "too dangerous"." conclusion to my last post.
Gengulphus