Bund, Tbronx .. DAN_INTO_TRIKEKO inflation is fashion (VM18)
- Creatore Discussione ditropan
- Data di Inizio
Fleursdumal
फूल की बुराई
non c'entra una mazza 
però il 3d agostano lo chiamiamo nido d'uccello 
triplo min sul bronx a 15 zona 111,75
però il 3d agostano lo chiamiamo nido d'uccello triplo min sul bronx a 15 zona 111,75
Fleursdumal
फूल की बुराई
I turchi hanno alzato di 0,50 i loan rates al 16,25% , i lending rate al 20,25%
questi son di fede trikekonana
questi son di fede trikekonana
f4f
翠鸟科
You should know, however, that achieving this Nirvana in computerized simulations and getting the results in the three-dimensional world are two different things.
The reason is that when an adviser creates a maximum-gain-for-minimum-pain portfolio using MPT, they must make assumptions about three crucial variables: the expected rate of return of the various assets, the correlation of those assets (that is, how much or how little they move in unison) and the volatility of the assets (how much they jump up and down). And if those assumptions don’t pan out, the portfolio can go kerflooey.
Now, you could say you run the same risk with any portfolio since you’re always making assumptions about how different types of assets will perform. But when an adviser creates a more extreme portfolio - and I think it’s fair to say that a portfolio that has absolutely no bonds is definitely “out there” when it comes to a retiree’s holdings - there’s a greater chance that the actual results may vary dramatically from forecasted results.
It’s almost as if you designed a racecar specifically to exploit the straight-aways of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, but on race day the competition was moved to a different type of course - say, a winding road with tight curves or a small oval track. There’s no way your car would travel at anything close to the speed you were expecting.
And that’s the crux of the issue. In the investment world, you’re never quite sure what scenario you’ll face. So as a practical matter, you’re generally you’re better off with a more moderate portfolio that can perform decently in a wide variety of conditions than an extreme one that may thrive in a few situations but crash and burn in many others.
The reason is that when an adviser creates a maximum-gain-for-minimum-pain portfolio using MPT, they must make assumptions about three crucial variables: the expected rate of return of the various assets, the correlation of those assets (that is, how much or how little they move in unison) and the volatility of the assets (how much they jump up and down). And if those assumptions don’t pan out, the portfolio can go kerflooey.
Now, you could say you run the same risk with any portfolio since you’re always making assumptions about how different types of assets will perform. But when an adviser creates a more extreme portfolio - and I think it’s fair to say that a portfolio that has absolutely no bonds is definitely “out there” when it comes to a retiree’s holdings - there’s a greater chance that the actual results may vary dramatically from forecasted results.
It’s almost as if you designed a racecar specifically to exploit the straight-aways of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, but on race day the competition was moved to a different type of course - say, a winding road with tight curves or a small oval track. There’s no way your car would travel at anything close to the speed you were expecting.
And that’s the crux of the issue. In the investment world, you’re never quite sure what scenario you’ll face. So as a practical matter, you’re generally you’re better off with a more moderate portfolio that can perform decently in a wide variety of conditions than an extreme one that may thrive in a few situations but crash and burn in many others.
