Journal to portfolio afterlife

To a layman, an investor’s dedication to beating the market over their lifetime appears absurd. The trade-off, time spent doing other things, is huge. We each have a finite amount of time on this earth. To spend countless hours which I assume add up to years of one’s life, only to underperform the market, may appear wasteful. Insanity is repeating the same thing hoping for different results.
Bill Miller has frequently said the competitive advantages an investor can have are threefold; informational, analytical, and behavioural. For the average individual investor, it’s unlikely they have any of the three.

 
Dipende da cosa si intente per "underperforming asset". Un fondo di investimento attivo con strategia value e un etf con strategia value possono essere entrambi sottoperformanti rispetto al mercato, ma mentre tenere il primo forse è un errore, tenere il secondo potrebbe essere una opportunità di lungo termine.

And in my view, the same happens with underperforming assets in a portfolio. If the asset underperforms a little bit every month, quarter, or year, we are much more likely to give it another chance than if it drops 20% in one day. But by not taking preventive action on assets that underperform slowly we often rack up 20% underperformance by waiting.

 
In generale io preferisco chi fa previsioni con diversi potenziali scenari e con assegnazione di probabilità. In primis è la dimostrazione che sappiamo di non sapere ma che cerchiamo di tracciare delle linee nella sabbia sulla base di alcuni ragionamenti. In secondo luogo non dimentichiamo il fattore fortuna, che può fare la differenza a parità di capacità di analisi che portano a delineare una previsione.
Poi c'è l'effetto gregge per cui uscire dal seminato è più rischioso che rimanere sul sicuro.

 
While the same is still true for billions of people today, those of us in the United States and other wealthy countries have the ability to chart our own course in life. The problem is that young people are put in a position of having to make career decisions long before they have any meaningful life experience.
Hanlon’s Razor advises us to never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. In other words, we should give people the benefit of the doubt when they act in ways that we find objectionable. This principle is in keeping with the golden rule of treating others as we would hope to be treated ourselves. Human beings are flawed creatures and we should not automatically assume malice.
Occam’s Razor advises us to default to explanations that are simple rather than complicated when the simple explanation adequately describes a situation. This does not mean that the simplest explanation is always the correct explanation, just that our default assumption should start with the simplest explanation.

In linea di massima anche io mi pongo così verso il mondo.

In human relationships, whether professional or personal, one should give the benefit of the doubt when initially offended. If you believe that most people are decent, as I do, then you are most likely dealing with ignorance or stupidity rather than malice.
However, when a pattern of behavior develops over time that strongly indicates malevolent intent, our views must adapt along with the behavior. If someone is a habitual offender, then Hanlon’s Razor ceases to apply and Occam’s Razor takes over. The most likely explanation for malign behavior over a period of time is malice and we should recognize it for what it is.

La paura del cambiamento ci porta a rimanere affossati della (dis)confort zone.

Remaining in toxic situations, whether personal or professional, only increases the risk of hatred and, ultimately, self-destructing. One reason financial independence is so important is that it makes it much easier to disassociate from toxic people.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto