<<Of course, if you have a crystal ball that gives you timing to buy and sell at the right times, that's great.>>
It's not crystal ball material, quite the contrary:
....it's having a plan with target %'s or $$'s or whatever, BEFORE YOU GET THERE!
<<But looking in the rearview mirror does not teach lessons. Buying gorillas (and Kings), keeping up the dd, and holding through the bad times is the strategy to me. What you are preaching is not a strategy--it is a tactic.>>
It's not looking in the rear view mirror....not at all.
I do know everyone's own situation dictates a correct or more appropriate "strategy" when compared to one anothers. Likely it would depend on many variables like Age, risk tolerance, capital, cash flow, etc, etc, etc...
I don't have the magic formula for this problem either :-) nor does Moore, Johson and Kippola, nor does Lyncyh or Buffett. The fact is though that at some point capital preservation & diversification will come into play and that is just as important, IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT, than picking the right stocks to hold.
=========
Relation between strategy and tactics
britannica.com
In the theory of warfare, strategy and tactics have generally been put into separate categories. The two fields have traditionally been defined in terms of different dimensions: strategy dealing with wide spaces, long periods of time, and large movements of forces, tactics dealing with the opposite. Strategy is usually understood to be the prelude to the battlefield, and tactics the action on the battlefield itself. As a result, much of the literature and theory of strategy has in the past been preoccupied with the proper approach to the battlefield, the leading of troops up to the time of contact with the enemy. This situation explains the attention to strategic maneuver--aimed at putting one's army into the most favourable position to engage the enemy and compelling the enemy to engage at a disadvantage and depriving him of freedom of movement. Indeed, early writers on strategy dealt heavily in the so-called "geometrical strategy"--the angles formed by lines of movement and supply of opposing armies.
Despite distinctions in theory, strategy and tactics cannot always be separated in practice. In fact, the language of strategic maneuver (for example, "envelopment," "penetration," "encirclement") is also largely the language of tactics. Movement begets action, and action results in new movement. The one merges into the other. Strategy gives tactics its mission and wherewithal and seeks to reap the results. But tactics has also become an important conditioning factor of strategy, and as it changes, so does strategy. Battles and fronts are no longer necessarily restricted in space and time, and the distinction between battles and campaigns is no longer so clear-cut, as the tridimensional warfare of World Wars I and II demonstrated. Indeed, in World War II theatre commanders were as much concerned with the actual fighting of armed forces in battle as they were with larger strategic decisions such as relations to allies, economic problems, and political questions on the ground. Although in theory strategy continues to occupy a middle ground between national policy and tactics, in practice the line dividing it from the other two fields has become difficult to draw. |
