So I'm looking for some piercing, informative question to ask with this survey
i think the main issue is, do you still believe G&K investing is a valid approach for your entire investment portfolio? some people like to say they only invest a small portion of their portfolio in G&K stocks*, but from the many portfolios i've seen here, i think the majority are invested mostly or entirely in G&K (i think it's no accident that the three capitalized words in this thread's title are "Gorilla and King Portfolio"). and given that many G&K stocks have done not so well over the past 20 months, that means people who are largely in such stocks have seen the effects in their entire portfolios.
since ultimately, what really matters to the average investor is how their portfolio does as opposed to this or that silly mistake, i would suggest portfolio approach is the forest and issues like "my worst mistake" are the trees.
* as a point of reference, tech stocks make up slightly less than 20% of the S&P500, which is itself just part of a broader market. if one takes a standard 60/40 split between stocks (using S&P500 as a proxy, as many US investors commonly do) and bonds as a starting point, then the standard allocation to tech for a US investor would be no more than 20% of the 60% in stocks, or 12% of the total (the actual amount would be considerably less if one looks at the total global market.)
so just for starters, i would say that allocation of more than, say, 12% of total assets (including bonds and cash) to tech is an overweighting compared to a standard US investor allocation.
if somebody says they want to invest the 12% of tech in their portfolio in G&K stocks instead of the QQQ or the Naz (or just holding the S&P), i'd say, well, i can understand that approach within the context of the arguments TFM makes for preferring G&K stocks over other tech stocks.
but if somebody says, i am investing 100% in G&K stocks because of their sustainable advantage compared to other tech stocks, well, i think that is a different argument which does not logically follow from what TFM says about the virtues of G&K stocks (since sustainable advantage compared to other tech cos says nothing about relative performance compared to the total market). i am curious if portfolio effects over the past couple years may have caused others to reach a similar conclusion. |
