hi alanrs,
i like your thoughtful comments and hope your independent-mindedness saved you needless portfolio decay...
I looked at some of the other responses and decided that people were pretty much only listing their assets that applied to tech investing.
actually, Apollo's rule was to put all "non-equity holdings" (including REITS, bonds, and even mutual funds) under "CASH". so i think some people's cash allocations were overstated (some people's comments explained this). i think for the most part, people were listing percentages of their financial portfolios, not just percentages of their "G&K holdings".
sure many people own their own homes and maybe a vacation home and maybe some rental property, all of which might be substantial yet not on the list
rental properties aside, most advisors i've heard of do not recommend counting home equity as an investment asset (since it does not provide a sustained cash flow, save for a reverse mortgage in the case of some elderly people). if, for example, you look at Barron's annual cover story on "how rich are you?", they tell you to figure out your net worth excluding any home equity, and deducting any outstanding home mortgages (and even deducting unpaid educational expenses for children).
One would hope that everyone takes a look at their own particular financial situation and makes decisions based on that, not based on Uncle Franks or Mike Buckleys finances.
i'm sure those two would agree. having said that, i am rather surprised at some of the enormous tech weightings listed by certain obviously very bright people on that thread. to me, this points to the whole barking-up-the-wrong-tree syndrome, where one gets caught up in a smaller issue (e.g., analyzing a company's "gorillaness" or figuring out covered call strategies) at the expense of the most critical issue of asset allocation. i myself committed this error over many months. at least, i view it as an error at this point. |
