Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@Ted I don't listen to anything Morningstar says. Wasted too much time and money performance chasing their 5 star funds. This is not a personal attack on your or your postings.
@Ted Although I do miss the "old" Ted, I do appreciate the contributions you make to this forum. You present articles from which I can draw my own conclusions as opposed to unsubstantiated buy or sell fund recommendations (which tend to have a 50% chance of being correct)
Buckets, baskets, branches, roads, rivers, rainbows and ponds. Heard them all. Useful allocationl tools, but it's easy to get carried away and miss the forest for the trees.
In "Dead Poets Society", the teacher played by Robin Williams "charts" on a chalk-board how to properly understand a poem. It's a classic scene, and I've linked the 3:33 minute video here if interested. The discussion hits near home only because I've long relied on allocation models and appreciate their value. Unfortunately, I've found that they have a tendency to spiral out of control as more "sub-categories" (ie new fund types) get incorporated into the original plan. You go from something that can be explained clearly in a half-page or 25 words to a sprawling pattern similar to what you see on the board in this scene.
In selecting her aggressive retirement portfolio, Benz wisely chose 7 funds that all had positive Alphas for the past 5 years. Now comes the acid test. Will these funds retain their positive Alphas for the next 5years?
Who knows? Historically, that has not been the case with reversion to the mean exerting its influence.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
In "Dead Poets Society", the teacher played by Robin Williams "charts" on a chalk-board how to properly understand a poem. It's a classic scene, and I've linked the 3:33 minute video here if interested. The discussion hits near home only because I've long relied on allocation models and appreciate their value. Unfortunately, I've found that they have a tendency to spiral out of control as more "sub-categories" (ie new fund types) get incorporated into the original plan. You go from something that can be explained clearly in a half-page or 25 words to a sprawling pattern similar to what you see on the board in this scene.
In selecting her aggressive retirement portfolio, Benz wisely chose 7 funds that all had positive Alphas for the past 5 years. Now comes the acid test. Will these funds retain their positive Alphas for the next 5years?
Who knows? Historically, that has not been the case with reversion to the mean exerting its influence.
Best Regards.