GoSeigen wrote:CryptoPlankton wrote:So no really cohesive strategy, more of a scattergun approach?
Ok, here's my version.
-I don't believe "we know nothing".
-I do believe all investors are intelligent, capable people with all sorts of interests, knowledge, skills and specialisms.
-I believe that each individual applying her skill and capability to finding the most promising investments taking into account the breadth of knowledge they have, when aggregated, results in the most optimal securities pricing that humans are likely to achieve.
-I believe that some of these people, despite their skills and knowledge, are inept when it comes to investing and it is only right that the market should teach them so in short order by transferring their wealth to someone more adept.
-It follows that if each investor invests to the best of their ability, whatever that ability may be the market periodically will prune the weakest of those investors and retain the most skilled and simultaneously deliver an optimal outcome for the economy as a whole.
I invest on that basis, using all my skill and knowledge and learning to find the best place for my capital. I don't follow any rigid mechanical strategy like HYP or others that are discussed from time to time because I don't believe any one rigid strategy can work over all time. One has to continually adapt and evolve one's thinking as the world changes. Otherwise one becomes one of the inept investors that the market will eventually cull with deep dividend cuts, bankruptcies, default or share dilution.
GS
I think the OP was asking for actual evidence of portfolio content, and therefore the means to verify some of the alternative investments strategies.
What is conspicuous by its absence, is the same kind of detail from any of these critics about their own investment portfolios.
I believe reference here is being made to how on the HYP board, a number of posters provide detailed breakdowns of their portfolios, and when they make purchases (or sales) they tend to mention this and also indicate how that changes the composition of their portfolio
This also enables people to see the strategy in practice, and also to independently verify how well it is performing for people, without relying on people just popping along and asserting that their strategy is superior and they're making lots of money but without any evidence to back up their claims.
-I don't believe ...
-I do believe ...
-I believe ...
-I believe ...
One of the often quoted criticisms of the HYP approach is that it is perceived by some as almost a religion. That people seem to take it on faith without question.
I believe the OP's challenge is to the non-HYPers to provide evidence - to actually show either their portfolio, or at least maintain a demonstration portfolio which illustrates their non-HYP strategies in action, thereby giving evidence of what their strategy is, how it works, and thereby a means of actually evaluating such strategies.
Come to think of it, while there is a lot of criticism of HYP, I don't think any of those criticising it actually have a specific alternative strategy that could be quantified.
It just seems to be a case of 'anything but HYP'... but what does that mean? An anti-HYP strategy? That they buy anything that an HYP wouldn't, and vice-versa, they don't buy anything an HYPer would?
I mean just look at comparisons on the previous thread - they've been high yield vs the 'rest' or the 'market not-specifically high yield'. Which is either saying it's anti-HYP, or just 'buy the market'. That's not to say 'buy the market' isn't a valid strategy - iirc the buy a low cost market tracker was a recommendation of TMF originally. But I'm not sure that the anti-HYPers are really claiming 'just buy the market' instead of use an HYP.
Your beliefs aren't really a strategy. They're just a manifesto for each individual to buy whatever shares he or she thinks are a good investment, based on their own skills or expertise.
While there's nothing wrong with that, it's hardly what one would call a defined strategy.
Look at it this way, if someone comes to you and asks your strategy be explained to them, it would basically be "buy what you thinks going to make you money".
Obviously 'good' advice, but does it really have any more substance than telling them 'buy low, sell high'? It doesn't actually define anything. It defers all to the individual investor and says 'you make the decision'.
And even then, unless you provide regular updates, or a demonstration portfolio, your beliefs are just that - beliefs. How do you know that someone investing following your beliefs in the individual investors capability, will achieve superior returns? How do *we* know that your beliefs are valid?
You see, on the one hand people can look at the HYP board, and see what it means in practice, they can see the decisions being taken and they can see the results people are obtaining. All documented up front, so as to avoid winner-bias.
But on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anything equivalent provided by the anti-HYP brigade
So, we know, boy do we know, that many people don't like the HYP strategy. But what we don't have is any evidence other than repeated assertions that 'other' strategies are better. But we don't seem to have any clear idea what these other strategies specifically are, other than they are clearly not HYPs.
And yes, I use the plural "strategies" - I'm not claiming it's binary. So while, imv, there does seem to be a clear group of people who can be lumped together as anti-HYP, I don't claim they all share the same non-HYP strategy. I fully accept there may be multiple alternative strategies.
But right now, I don't think any of us could point to any details, or evidence of performance, of these 'other' strategies to know specifically what they are. Certainly nothing that a newbie could come along and evaluate for themselves whether any of these alternative strategies would suit them, and evidence of how well they perform, etc.
Not just 'growth', or 'low yield' … but what does it actually mean in practice? How do you go about applying the strategy? What verifiable evidence that it actually works (and isn't just survivorship bias)?
I think that's what the OP was specifically asking for.