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.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
8 High-Risk Investments That Could Double Your Money
When an investment vehicle offers a high rate of return in a short period of time, investors know this means the investment is risky.
Given enough time, many investments have the potential to double the initial principal amount, but many investors are instead attracted to the lure of high yields in short periods of time despite the possibility of unattractive losses.
This article manages to go from dumb to dumber. It might be solid advice for a few investors, but not for 99% of us. It recommends high risk portfolio components that historically have not delivered superior average annual returns when compared to the more conventional stock and bond investment groups, but at much higher volatility. In some rare instances this approach may indeed generate superior results, but the odds against that are high. It is a Losers game!
I remain consistent to earlier posts by recommending a visit to Portfolio Visualizer to test my assertion. That site allows Monte Carlo simulations for input portfolios. Here is the Link to that useful tool::
Try some candidate portfolios using the article recommended strategy and compare it to more standard portfolios. The more common stock and bond portfolios win most of the time. That’s why they are conventional,wisdom. The article advocates a dumb idea. No!!! It’s dumber than dumb. Just a small percentage of the recommended investment classes will suffice for most folks as a minor part of a diversified portfolio. I was wrong. The recommended portfolio is not right for 99.9% of us.
Sometimes it seems as if link-posts are made just for the sake of posting, without much thought being given to either the subject matter, or it's suitability for the typical MFO investor. I frequently wonder if some posters even bother to fully read and understand their links.
Attempts are sometimes made to excuse this low-quality linkage by claiming "not enough coffee" or "I was in a hurry". Sorry... doesn't wash.
Comments
This article manages to go from dumb to dumber. It might be solid advice for a few investors, but not for 99% of us. It recommends high risk portfolio components that historically have not delivered superior average annual returns when compared to the more conventional stock and bond investment groups, but at much higher volatility. In some rare instances this approach may indeed generate superior results, but the odds against that are high. It is a Losers game!
I remain consistent to earlier posts by recommending a visit to Portfolio Visualizer to test my assertion. That site allows Monte Carlo simulations for input portfolios. Here is the Link to that useful tool::
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation#analysisResults
Try some candidate portfolios using the article recommended strategy and compare it to more standard portfolios. The more common stock and bond portfolios win most of the time. That’s why they are conventional,wisdom. The article advocates a dumb idea. No!!! It’s dumber than dumb. Just a small percentage of the recommended investment classes will suffice for most folks as a minor part of a diversified portfolio. I was wrong. The recommended portfolio is not right for 99.9% of us.
Best Regards
Attempts are sometimes made to excuse this low-quality linkage by claiming "not enough coffee" or "I was in a hurry". Sorry... doesn't wash.
Hi sirs... I Should have label article 'investing 101',, .. These readingsshoukd be for newbies