Folks, we seem to have two competing themes here. One is the "enough" theme, or "winning the game". The other is reasonable asset-allocation assuming that a person is investing for growth.
I don't believe in "enough". The purpose of having $50M, is to reach $100M. The purpose of having $100M, is to reach $200M. And so on. It never ends! Why should it? Is it somehow dishonorable or morally reprehensible to chase wealth? On what basis do we conclude, that upon reaching some threshold, the "game" is "won", whereupon, the prudent thing, is to switch from wealth-building to wealth-preservation?
But once we agree about investing-for-growth, the immediate question is one of US large-cap vs. also mid-cap and small-cap; and ex-US. For the latter, we have a marathon thread. For the former, not as much exposure, but similar debate... namely recency bias vs. belief in truly structural changes. I am mostly on team-structural. What the OP is doing, is not only reasonable-enough, but probably more reasonable than many alternatives.
Well done, OP!
I don't believe in "enough". The purpose of having $50M, is to reach $100M. The purpose of having $100M, is to reach $200M. And so on. It never ends! Why should it? Is it somehow dishonorable or morally reprehensible to chase wealth? On what basis do we conclude, that upon reaching some threshold, the "game" is "won", whereupon, the prudent thing, is to switch from wealth-building to wealth-preservation?
But once we agree about investing-for-growth, the immediate question is one of US large-cap vs. also mid-cap and small-cap; and ex-US. For the latter, we have a marathon thread. For the former, not as much exposure, but similar debate... namely recency bias vs. belief in truly structural changes. I am mostly on team-structural. What the OP is doing, is not only reasonable-enough, but probably more reasonable than many alternatives.
Well done, OP!
Statistics: Posted by unwitting_gulag — Mon Nov 11, 2024 12:13 am — Replies 99 — Views 7844