I assume I can just aim the components. Would that work. Or is a constant value system like Mr. Puri better. I'm looking for simplicity. In the Ivy portfolio book buy and hold did ok also about 9%.
1step,
I think you've hit on the basic issue. Simplicity. Whilst we can appreciate all of Clive's hard work and statistical crunching, at the end of the day, all any look-back at the past tells us is where we've been. Yes, one can analyze it to death to find the "coulda, woulda, shoulda's" of what one might have done at some key point in the past that would make us multi-millionaires now, but unfortunately the crystal ball is more rear-view mirror than reliable guide to the future. The fact that we didn't, indeed couldn't know at that particular time the particular action we should have taken has, inexorably, led us here. The fact that we want a better return for the future, rather than blindly handing our money over to mutual funds puts us ahead of most.
That being said, it is probably far better, in the long run, to settle upon one system and give it a good run, instead of trying to explore each and every idea that gets tossed up on here. Unless you've all kinds of money that you can use for such systemic experimentation, of course. AIM (and variants) are the main tools of choice here, and I think the envelope can be stretched enough to include Mr. Puri's system, as it might be considered a "slow AIM" of a sort. So find something and go with it, mind your step around all the ladders this, permanent portfolios that, careful not to fall into that stack of virtual shares over there, might be difficult to get an option to come back out. Someone might have to call you, or you'd might end up being put upon. In any case, don't sell yourself short, you're on the right track overall.
Best,
AIMster
