|
Printable version |
From: | Matt & Vanessa <vibez@paradise.net.nz> |
Date: | Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:38:02 +1200 |
Hey. Well, there's certainly some truth in
that. Generally speaking, the winners don't stay winners for a terribly
long period of time, and the market tends to regress to the mean anyway - which
means your top-picks can become decidedly average.
I may not become rich overnight, but it still my
intention to do so. While our investments are growing (we have, after all,
only been going eight months), I think it's extremely important that my
portfolio offers a good degree of risk cover. Diversification will
give me that. The last thing I need is for 20% of my portfolio to tank,
and given that I'm not a trader per se (brokerage fees bite too much at this
level of investment), I need reasonably continuous growth to get a bit of
impetus going.
So I constructed my portfolio using a range of
variables, primarily based on dividend yield (published) and potential capital
growth (guess-timated) for each share, multiplied by the target weighting for
each, and arrived at a figure (courtesy of my friend Excel). That figure
comes out at just over 13%.
If I can match that figure I think I will have done
well - which may be a euphemism for "settling for less", but in these low
inflation/low interest times is significantly better than what I'll get at the
bank, for what I would consider to be a managed level of risk.
As it happens, due to that little pearler
Wrightsons and my hunch pick Baycorp Adv., I'm actually almost 17% to the
good.
I'll take it!
smasha
portfolio theory diversifies away your
risk as well as your return, my suggestion would be to trade 1 -
2 times a year ( stick all your eggs in one basket )
if you have done your research and you know your
right why not go in large, I put everything I had into gold after 100's of hours
of research, if it had not come off I would have been stopped out and still had
70 - 80% of my capital
you will not get wealthy by conservative investing
making 15% in a good year
|
|