One of our posters just listed a portfolio with about 20 tech stocks in it, and I would bet he would have just as big a loss as Ruff or myself on a down day. If the market crashes, and I want out in a hurry, I would want to be on line selling one stock rather than 20!
In defense of that, I would just like to say there are obvious strategies available to have one's portfolio all set up in the event that a 'crash' occurs which doesn't even require one to be at his computer, on the phone with the brokerage house or worrying whether one was able to 'get out or not' whether it be 40 stocks, 20 stocks, 10 stocks or 1 stock. You cannot guarantee a price, but if there really is a 'crash' pretty much any price is up for grabs on the way down. Not only would the online trading lines be jammed at the firms, but the speed at which one would be able to sell would not be much quicker than molasses whether one called on the phone or tried to get through online. Certainly something to plan for no matter which online brokerage or telephone brokerage one uses.
This business of "diversification" is the subject of endless debate on this thread, and will continue to be discussed, with no agreement reached. Ruff, many others, and I, are comfortable owning just Q. others are horrified at our decision.
I agree that no agreement will be reached and also feel that there is no need for an agreement to be reached. There's more than one recipe to make bread. Some like it white and square, some like it with sunflower seeds, some like it with rosemary, some like it dark with oats, some like it with sun dried tomatoes and some like a basket of bread with lots of butter. However you look at it - it's all starch.
I think that someone with a portfolio of 10 to 20 stocks, who is an active investor, who reads and participates in this thread, is just limiting their up side. I used to do this, until I came up with the "Russian Army" approach, and started really making money.
That might be what you personally think, but there certainly is a case for other methods. It all depends on what you consider 'up side' and 'really making money' as opposed to risk/reward. Yes, provided one's Russian Army is attacking and winning - the up side is powerful and quick. Yet every army has a weakness which can be exposed. Limiting down side risk is a successful strategy as well. Granted, investors that have experienced tremendous up side over the years are more attracted to this strategy for the sake of insurance and protection. Based on the goals each individual investor has, the strategy is shaped and there is no way we could all agree on the same method.
I know Unq and others have mentioned the QQQ (Nasdaq 100) method of diversification. It certainly is an alternative, but if you take a close look at the stocks in that 'fund', one finds a lot of companies that are really not worth investing in based on their fundamentals and growth rates. I took a serious look at it earlier this year and found no less than 37 stocks at the time which I would not choose to invest my money. A small basket of 4 or 5 quality stocks would outperform over the long run. Stocks that show numbers like this: EPS Growth (146%), Revenue Growth (218%) and total return (105%) and is ranked the number one fastest growing co. in the US (Fortune 500 data). If the QQQ itself could offer something of that magnitude......
BB |
