IanTHughes wrote:
pyad wrote:I wish to stress, though, that anybody considering this approach must be made aware that there are risks. Neither the income nor the capital is guaranteed. If you cannot live with that then, clearly, don't do it.
I do recommend that you should think about that warning as well, you may find it helpful.
Ian
I also think those that espouse the view that the performance of a single, and admittedly (I think) first, portfolio of that strategy in action, with the associated survivor and hindsight biases, should recognise the existence of a single event, or experiment, can not be extrapolated to claims such as the strategy, or concept, has, or does work.
Which other scientist, or branch of science, would make such strong claims around a single event whose author even goes so far to describe it as having risk attached?
How would followers of this particular niche strategy be arguing were there to be a single surviving, and first, portfolio on a Growth or Value Board, were it also to demonstrate remarkable returns? Is it possible some of its detractors might point to the luck in selecting an Amazon equivalent - even were it among an initial portfolio where 50% turned out to be duds? Is it possible those detractors might be pointing out that initial luck in selection, or now pointing out the practical concern of having, say 2-3 shares, making up over 50% of this conceptually proven experimental successful portfolio.
Did Leicester winning the Premier League make them the best domestic team, and provide justification for that claim in future years? Did the Wanderers winning 5 of the first 7 FA Cup Finals highlight there ongoing success (or not) in that competition? Did Notts County appearing as the first team outside the top division in 1900/01 guarantee further successes either in the FA Cup or as one of the top tier teams? (clearly not as 1 time winners and now not even in the Football League). What about Tottenham just 7 years later in the same position (almost the complete opposite having been rarely out of the top flight and winning each of their next 7 cup finals).
Single example experiments rarely prove anything.
As for pyad claiming he would relish seeing 100% of the income (seemingly regardless of its size) delivered by a single share from an initial 15 share portfolio, demonstrates to me the contempt he holds for this place generally, and sadly too, his followers. Seeing such a high attrition rate, and likely income hit in an income strategy he knows real people have put real money behind is not far short of scandalous and certainly irresponsible in my opinion.