Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (2824)	1/15/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

PETE : I understand your point. However, I don't like to follow anybody's timing signals. I have this feeling that sooner or later, it is possible for an advisor to err and that can lead me astray. Just staying fully invested in a diversified portfolio is what I like best. And I always try to imagine that the next two years will be like 1973 and 1974. In that case, what is the downside that I can tolerate? Down 25% looks OK to me, but for some reason down 30% looks a little too bad! That would lead me to a 80% stock, 20% bond, or even a 60/40 portfolio in which I decide to stay invested... forever! Dipy.

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (2824)	1/15/1998 10:17:00 PM
From: Investor2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I've been reading the last few posts about the performance of Bob's model portfolios. One thing that was missed was an analysis of the volatility of the portfolio. If I remember correctly, the beta coefficient was very low (0.5?). One must always consider risk when assessing returns. If bonds are included in a portfolio, this will lower both the risk and the performance. As mentioned previously, any foreign holdings would also tend to reduce the beta and, over the last few years, the return too. Best wishes, I2