After the fall (and partial recovery): Portfolio evolution

Asset allocation, risk, diversification and rebalancing. Pros/cons of hiring a financial advisor. Seeking advice on your portfolio?
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

After the fall (and partial recovery): Portfolio evolution

Post by Shakespeare »

Well, unlike Yielder and a few others, I decided to stick to my balanced portfolio/rebalancing strategy (modified by the Iron Rule to guard against a no-recovery scenario). Now, I'm part of the way back - say, 2 or 3 Honda's. :wink:

So what have I learned and what changes am I making?

First, like many, I have decided that I had too much in equities. So I have been taking some profits. If the rally continues, I will be taking more money off the table.

Second, the correlated downturn has shown that intra-country diversification is insufficient protection against major problems. So I intend to further reduce my US holdings in particular (and may in fact drop them to zero eventually.) But there remains some worry about a future Canada-only problem; I'm not sure how to protect against that. (Currency-hedged TIPs would be nice.)

Third, I am going to continue to guard against specific risk by broadening my non-indexed holdings (Canadian stocks and REITs). Eventually, these holdings will look like XDV and XRE, as at $9.95 trading costs I can replicate the major holdings fairly cheaply.

Fourth, now that I am sixty and officially a senior, I will be systematically reducing my overall equity position, even more than suggested by the other points above. After all, the two or three Hondas back in my driveway could purchase a quite reasonable annuity which would boost my CPP and small pension significantly.

As this evolves, I expect to wean myself away from worrying about security selection.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
bbsj
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 302
Joined: 16 Nov 2006 20:37

Post by bbsj »

I agree with everything except purchasing annuity now. The payout for annuities is dependent on interest rates and they are too low these days. If you look at http://www.ifid.ca for payout rates over the years, it is well worth waiting for increased interest rates to get decent annuity payout.
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Post by Shakespeare »

I agree with everything except purchasing annuity now
I should clarify that I don't intend to purchase an annuity now. But I intend to put funds in a lower-risk allocation than equities - perhaps a mixture of cash and short-term bonds, possibly in RRBs despite their relatively long duration (and current disappointing yields).

But the equity allocation is definitely going to be reduced.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
like_to_retire
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5923
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 07:14
Location: Canada

Post by like_to_retire »

But the equity allocation is definitely going to be reduced.
What new allocation are you moving toward?

ltr
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Post by Shakespeare »

I haven't yet decided where the money will go. Initially, it will be used to boost cash levels. I may add to my RRB position.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9064
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Post by BRIAN5000 »

I have decided a 50/50 is to volitile for me and will move to a 20/80 or more likey 30/70 split, equity side capped at $500,000.00. So depending on growth the FI side will get larger going forward. At the moment I have delayed early retirement to @ 55 unless there is a package of some sort.

I'm up 5 Honda civic's, next door neighbour 10.
like_to_retire
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5923
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 07:14
Location: Canada

Post by like_to_retire »

like many, I have decided that I had too much in equities.
Yeah, even with my (pre-crash) conservative portfolio of 30% equities, I came to the same conclusion, mostly because I under-estimated how easily preferred shares can act like equities in hard times.

I had pegged preferreds as fixed income, and there's nothing wrong with that because that's what they are, but while their payout is fixed, their share price can be very equity-like. Anyone with preferreds learned that through the fall of last year.

So, what I learned from the tough times we've been through, is that preferreds are in a class of their own. This provoked me to add a separate class to the standard fixed / equity / cash allocation to become fixed / preferred / equity / cash. This eliminates my need to characterize preferreds as equity or fixed - as it deserves a class of its own (IMO).

As a retired guy, I have now moved from a (62% fixed / 30% equity / 8% cash) to a (57% fixed / 20% preferred / 15% equity / 8% cash).

I haven't made any moves yet, (as I have some price targets I've set that haven't been met), but I did add some preferreds at the bottom that have so far been very kind to me this year. I'm close to wiping out all my losses of last year.

I was also lucky enough to completely get out of all US equities last July. I won't be returning any time soon.

So, any of you guys with preferreds thinking along the same lines, or am I out in left field - shakes?

ltr
Jaunty
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1539
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 16:41
Location: Niagara

Post by Jaunty »

My target was 70/30 (equity/fixed), but because of circumstances I was at about 50/50 when the market dropped (and dropped...). I am evaluating the 70/30 vs 50/50. Just had 2 GIC's payout in a LIRA and moved the money into XSB and will watch for potential interest rate moves closely. Like others, I'm part way back, but still quite a ways to go (how much is a Civic?). I'll stick to my ETF's with a few stocks added from the index to increase the potential as I see it.
Like LTR, Preferreds equity-like response to the market caught me by surprise. First time I've gone through a market correction owning preferreds. Not sure yet if I'll change my approach there. I'll watch for others' thoughts.
Unlike Shakes, I'm not yet "officially a senior" - at least, not until the middle of the week - so I haven't had to take that into consideration yet! :D
Shurville
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 495
Joined: 28 Oct 2005 21:46

Re: After the fall (and partial recovery): Portfolio evoluti

Post by Shurville »

Shakespeare wrote:So what have I learned and what changes am I making?

Second, the correlated downturn has shown that intra-country diversification is insufficient protection against major problems. So I intend to further reduce my US holdings in particular (and may in fact drop them to zero eventually.) But there remains some worry about a future Canada-only problem; I'm not sure how to protect against that. (Currency-hedged TIPs would be nice.)


My concern with only investing in Canada is the usual one. It is such small market,too dependant on commodities and financials and the USA as the customer.Also hard to get decent exposure to retail,tech,and health care in Canada.I still want to hold the P & G's ,GE's and J&J's of the world to get both global and US exposure.My ex-Canada will continue to be 25% of equities.
User avatar
Springbok
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5438
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Re: After the fall (and partial recovery): Portfolio evoluti

Post by Springbok »

Shakespeare wrote:Well, unlike Yielder and a few others, I decided to stick to my balanced portfolio/rebalancing strategy (modified by the Iron Rule to guard against a no-recovery scenario). Now, I'm part of the way back - say, 2 or 3 Honda's. :wink:
Cars or lawnmowers? :)

Anyway, why use Hondas. Don't successful investors drive Benzes?
I was down 4 or 5 nice Benzes but now only 2 or 3. 8)

But in easier to understand numbers, I was down 28% at the "bottom" but recovery has reduced this to only about 12% down. Still up 13% since retirement (5.5yrs) despite drawing ~4% as income.

Having ~10% in high yield securities helped a lot - those trust distributions keep flowing in, albeit at slightly reduced rate more recently.

Plan for future - not much change. ~70% FI in registered accounts balance a mix of growth and income stocks.

No FI in unregistered, 100% equity. This is in part high yield funds including trusts with emphasis on energy. Most of these have high ROC distributions. Rest of unregistered is in the usual dividend paying stocks (banks, utilities, etc). REITS are mainly included in trust funds like SCI.UN.

We currently draw all our unregistered income and supplement this by drawing from our RRIFs because we are in a low tax zone between retirement and forced RRIF withdrawal (low taxation helped by ROC and dividend income).

Total draw is now about 4% of current portfolio value.

Not sure how many Hondas that would be but it helps keep our old Benzes on the road ;)

Not counting any chickens yet though - we could still be in for a rocky ride.
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9064
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Post by BRIAN5000 »

(how much is a Civic?).
plain old run of the mill civic $20,000

fully loaded Ex is $25,000
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Post by ghariton »

I've never believed in market allocation according to target ratios of equity, bonds, etc. I've got an amount of bonds that will let me live modestly but reasonably comfortably to age 90, and I maintain that amount. (That's close to Shakespeare's ironn rule.) (After 90, it will be CPP and OAS, and my house equity will help pay for the nursing home.)

The rest of my money is in equities, mostly US ETFs, but some Canadian ETFs as well, plus very small amounts in three individual energy producers (my play mone). As the market fluctuates, so does the proportion of equities in my portfolio. They currently amount to about a third. While that ratio must have bounced around a lot lately, it is not something I track.

This approach was inspired by all I learned on this forum, believe it or not. In particular, I do not believe that I can time markets or pick individual stocks. And as a general rule, I assume that corporate management is the enemy of investors -- or at least not a friend. They will give us the minimum they can get away with and still stay in place.

So holding some equities is a good idea. Corporations still need to raise external finaqncing from time to time, and so it is in their interests to keep us sweet. As well, cutting dividends sends an awful message and can lead to shareholder revolt. So existing dividends are kind of safe. But I would not rely on equities for income I must have to live on. I count on them just for the extras, like a new car, or a remodelled kitchen, or Starbucks coffee.

So, without planning it, I guess I do run an asset allocation scheme after all. Place in bonds enough money to cover your basic living expenses. Place the rest, which is intended to cover the "nice-to-have", into equities. And I don't care about the numerical ratio that results.

The experience of the last year has not changed this approach at all. I am very comfortable with it.

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
User avatar
Springbok
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5438
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Post by Springbok »

ghariton wrote: So, without planning it, I guess I do run an asset allocation scheme after all. Place in bonds enough money to cover your basic living expenses. Place the rest, which is intended to cover the "nice-to-have", into equities. And I don't care about the numerical ratio that results.
I think most retirees do something along these lines.

First, they chose a lifestyle, then they try and arrange their income to match it.

Unfortunately, bonds don't always have the same yield. Right now, would your bond "allocation" or Shakespeare's iron rule be enough to live on?

When FI yield is insufficient, retirees look for other alternatives. Income Trusts blossomed because of this.

Asset allocation rules are fine in theory - make the % FI same as your age and you will be fine. But if that does not cover your living expenses, you either need a lifestyle change or you have to take on more risk.

I just hate those all encompassing allocation rules that advisers and financial sites quote. Each situation is different. Someone living totally off investments needs quite different rules compared with someone with a pension plus investments that only supplement income.
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Post by Shakespeare »

make the % FI same as your age and you will be fine. But if that does not cover your living expenses, you either need a lifestyle change or you have to take on more risk.
When you get sufficiently old that the mortality premium is significant, you can take on less risk and annuitize.

I will seriously consider (partial) annuitization when I can purchase an annuity with a similar cashflow to my portfolio return. Right now that return is about 8 1/2 %. I can get close to that at 65.

(That would be accomplished by selling any unindexed bonds/GICs or XSB and using the proceeds for an annuity, which replaces non-indexed fixed income.)
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
Springbok
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5438
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Post by Springbok »

Shakespeare wrote:]When you get sufficiently old that the mortality premium is significant, you can take on less risk and annuitize.

I will seriously consider (partial) annuitization when I can purchase an annuity with a similar cashflow to my portfolio return. Right now that return is about 8 1/2 %. I can get close to that at 65.

(That would be accomplished by selling any unindexed bonds/GICs or XSB and using the proceeds for an annuity, which replaces non-indexed fixed income.)
Annuities are something I should look into. A few questions:

- Over what time period did you calculate the 8.5% return of your equity portfolio? Presumably not over the past 12 months!

- Is there any risk if the issuer of the annuity (or it's insurer) has problems - such as in case of AIG.

- There is still risk of inflation - Even a bond ladder will more or less keep pace with inflation, but an annuity does not unless you can buy an indexed annuity, which presumably pays out much less. This would be a major concern considering the times we live in.

- I had a quick look at insured annuities here. May be an option in our case because my wife will likely outlive me. Or maybe one of those 10yr guaranteed types.
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Post by Shakespeare »

Over what time period did you calculate the 8.5% return of your equity portfolio? Presumably not over the past 12 months!
Post-retirement IRR (10.5 years).
Is there any risk if the issuer of the annuity
Yes, but it's covered up to a certain point ($1k/month IIRC). But that isn't really relevant because if a Really Big Insurer goes tits up the insurance fund won't cover it. Nevertheless, I would stick with major insurers and probably not go over $1k/month with each one.
There is still risk of inflation
So you keep some money in RRBs. Also, CPP and OAS are indexed.
Or maybe one of those 10yr guaranteed types.
Whatever type you choose will have a lower payout than male, single, not guaranteed, which is the maximum payout.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
BRIAN5000
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9064
Joined: 08 Jun 2007 23:27

Post by BRIAN5000 »

($1k/month IIRC).
I think its $2000.oo but can't find a link right now to verify,
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Post by Shakespeare »

BRIAN5000 wrote:
($1k/month IIRC).
I think its $2000.oo but can't find a link right now to verify,
http://www.assuris.ca/Client/Assuris/As ... licyholder
If your life insurance company fails, your Payout Annuity policy will be transferred to a solvent company.

* On transfer, Assuris guarantees that you will retain up to $2,000 per month or 85% of the promised Monthly Income benefit, whichever is higher.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
j831robert
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 752
Joined: 01 May 2005 14:12
Location: SW Ontario

Post by j831robert »

I'm one of the older 'geezers', blessed with a sufficient federal indexed pensions to get by comfortably - no debts and only a Korean Roller Skate inhabiting our driveway. Until recently I tried to be fully invested and 100% in equities - all income producing. Have now moved into 23.5% Preferreds (guru's can't seem to make up their minds whether they are fish or fowl and I agree with L-T-R's proposition for treating them as a separate entity). Although it frosts my butt to do so I'm at about 12% cold, hard, cash, just under 5% in RRB's and the balance (about 60%) in dividend paying equities and, despite the wisdom of my betters, am likely to stay there having failed to get much beyond Investing 101 - "Equities are the first to recover". My wife will at some point in the forseeable future require institutional care and the ladies of her family tend to longevity - ergo the likely requirement for income beyond our pensions.
User avatar
Norbert Schlenker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7960
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
Contact:

Post by Norbert Schlenker »

like_to_retire wrote:I had pegged preferreds as fixed income, and there's nothing wrong with that because that's what they are, but while their payout is fixed, their share price can be very equity-like. Anyone with preferreds learned that through the fall of last year.
[nods sheepishly]
So, what I learned from the tough times we've been through, is that preferreds are in a class of their own. This provoked me to add a separate class to the standard fixed / equity / cash allocation to become fixed / preferred / equity / cash. This eliminates my need to characterize preferreds as equity or fixed - as it deserves a class of its own (IMO).
Consider for a moment high yield bonds. Where would they fit? It seems to me that preferred shares are much like them, paying a fixed income but very equity like when trouble strikes. (Larry Swedroe advises staying away from high yield bonds for exactly this reason. Something that looks safe except when the tornado looms isn't safe at all.)
So, any of you guys with preferreds thinking along the same lines, or am I out in left field
I don't see it your way because I don't see that I have any choice. My family's aggregate portfolio is less than 20% tax deferred. Some fixed income has to be in taxable accounts. Fully taxable interest is not competitive with dividends on high quality Canadian preferreds.

For me, it's not a matter of portfolio evolution, for I don't see a plausible way to adapt. Instead, it's me that has to adapt, the better to be able to grit my teeth the next time the unavoidable stress appears.
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
2 yen
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4116
Joined: 09 Apr 2005 09:15

Post by 2 yen »

I plan to live off the dividends from my registered account. No pension. Then at age 65 (15 years away) start to add RRSP income that is being generated in the form of bonds. I honestly cannot get too excited about the fixed / equity percentage thing. My dad had a 31 year retirement almost all paid for by dividends. If things get so bad that the Canadian blue chips go belly up, we're all in for it anyway. So until 65 I'm 100% dividend income, then RRSP income after that. We will receive a little CPP and OAS at 65 as well, but not much.

Springbok, how do you feel about the trusts you hold and the conversion next year? I'm just wondering how others are preparing for this eventuality.

Thanks all for 'fessing up. It really is helpful. Cheers.
like_to_retire
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5923
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 07:14
Location: Canada

Post by like_to_retire »

My family's aggregate portfolio is less than 20% tax deferred. Some fixed income has to be in taxable accounts. Fully taxable interest is not competitive with dividends on high quality Canadian preferreds.
I'm in the same boat with only 25% sheltered and the rest in my open account.

To accommodate my conservative approach, I bite the bullet and still keep quite a large percentage of bonds in the taxable account.

If I assigned that taxable portion of bonds to preferreds, it would bring the allocation of preferreds from the present 20% up to ~50% (of the entire portfolio). That is just too high, and adds a lot more risk to my portfolio.

My preferred allocation began only five years ago, at which time I had a portion of my bonds in corporate higher yielding bonds. The taxes were crushing, so I decided to learn about preferreds and slowly move the higher risk corporate bond portion over to preferreds (as the bonds matured).

This has helped greatly with my rather large tax bill, but still leaves a fairly large bond ladder (of now all government bonds & GIC's) in the open account. I'll live with the taxes.
Consider for a moment high yield bonds. Where would they fit? It seems to me that preferred shares are much like them, paying a fixed income but very equity like when trouble strikes.
I know your argument is sound, but I'm one of those mis-guided individuals who don't mark their bonds to market. Yes, I know that's wrong, but I always keep them to maturity and as such mark them to face in my software.
Preferreds on the other hand, I do mark to market, and as such, make my very conservative nature go on high alert when they drop by 40% in tough times. Unless they're retractable, there is no waiting for maturity to get my money back, even though the fixed income they produce does placate me somewhat.

So, this is why I have decided to treat them as a separate asset class in my allocations. Perhaps high yield bonds deserve a separate class allocation.

ltr
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Post by Shakespeare »

For me, it's not a matter of portfolio evolution, for I don't see a plausible way to adapt. Instead, it's me that has to adapt, the better to be able to grit my teeth the next time the unavoidable stress appears.
But Swedroe's point is that a certain portion of the portfolio is there for safety and liquidity and for no other reason. Now, each individual must decide what portion of the portfolio falls into that category. But, if it can't be accommodated within the registered portion, it has to be accommodated within the non-registered portion - tax disadvantages notwithstanding. If the overall portion of your portfolio is allocated in such a way that the fluctuations in value exceed your risk tolerance, you must decrease the risk of some of your portfolio - whether or not you suffer a yield or tax disadvantage.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
Springbok
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5438
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Post by Springbok »

2 yen wrote:
Springbok, how do you feel about the trusts you hold and the conversion next year? I'm just wondering how others are preparing for this eventuality.

Thanks all for 'fessing up. It really is helpful. Cheers.
I no longer own any individual trusts that would be affected by the conversion. Only individual trust is Riocan . Rest is in SCI.UN and AOG.UN , both funds that distribute high ROC percentages as compared with their sister funds SIN.UN and OGF.UN. Total trust allocation in overall portfolios is not that high - about 10%, perhaps. But cash flow is high!

Regarding the conversions - I expect that distributions will drop for some trusts while others with large tax pools will continue for some time as trusts after 2010. Overall, the fund distributions will go down, but after conversion, the income will be classed as dividend income and be taxed as such, thus offsetting the drop in distribution for many. The companies should still have the same inherent value after conversion and any negative affect the conversions will have should have been priced in by now. There will also likely be many mergers, particularly in the energy sector and this should improve efficiency.

My problem, is that I have to convert my RRSP to RRIFs at almost exactly the same time as the Trusts convert and at that time my taxable income will jump considerably. That is why I am using the ROC funds to reduce taxes on income now. This allows us room to draw down our RRSP/RRIFS to some extent, at a lower tax rate.

The period between retirement and RRSP conversion is a tricky period and different for each individual. I did many studies and what I am doing seems to work for us, but might not for others.

Finally - Perhaps Iggy will delay the conversion when he gets elected later this year :)
User avatar
scomac
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7788
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 09:47
Location: The Gateway to Wine Country

Post by scomac »

Like most of you, I road the roller coaster down and then back up again. As many have indicated, it wasn't a particularly enjoyable ride. I continued to be surprised shocked at just how volatile prices can be when emotions rule the day. This is twice now that I have been through this sort of mania and with each successive experience, I come away with a strong desire to reduce risk by reducing my exposure to equities.

Similar to Norbert, about 75% of our investment assets are in taxable accounts. As a result, I too turned to preferred shares as a tax efficient substitute for a portion of our fixed income. Prior to the sell-off last year, we were in roughly a 50:50 equity/income split with 15%-20% of the income side made up of preferreds. At this point, I am inclined to classify preferreds as more of a hybrid income security that warrants a distinctly separate allocation from equity or income. I would tend to place junk debt and REITs in this grouping and as such it will result in the eventual reduction of our equity component to allow for a 50% allocation to investment grade fixed income. It will take time to get there as I will periodically reduce equity exposure as the markets improve.

I am going to place greater emphasis on liquidity and have been working at raising the cash portion of our assets to eventually cover about 1 year worth of expenses. I hadn't paid a lot of attention to this relying on dividend and interest payments to look after liquidity needs without having much of a reserve, but I think that this will be more important going forward as the after-tax income stream will shrink by placing a greater allocation in bonds. Ultimately, the reduction in common equity exposure that will have to be made up for by an increase in the exposure to RRBs regardless of the real yields being offered. In order to achieve that, nominal fixed income will be moved from tax deferred into taxable accounts as bonds mature.

As others have stated, global equity diversification has offered little in the way of tangible benefits during the past 10 or so years when all markets have gone down in tandem twice now. The only thing that is variable seems to be the rate of decline (or increase) and this appears to have as much to do with currency as any of the underlying economics. Conversely, there has been a definite benefit to having adequate sector diversification and more importantly rules that limit the amount of exposure to any given sector. This seems to be more problematic for passive investors who use broad index funds/ETFs than stock pickers. This may simply be the randomness of the returns of these times, but I not sure and as a result I would be tempted to rebalance these holdings on a somewhat tighter schedule than is typically recommended. The smaller the percentage of one's portfolio that is dedicated to equities, the less critical this becomes and as a result it brings into question the whole point of individual security selection. I don't anticipate making any big moves in this regard any time soon, but I can foresee this fundamental change coming as we age. As always is the case, these things seem to be more evolutionary than simply trying to hit a fixed target.
"On what principle is it, that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"
Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1830
Post Reply