According to google (which you like to quote), you are way too much under-weight in equities. You should be a lot higher - depending on which "google" page you believe, you should be as high as 60% in equities.

Not for any particular moment, just a general % based on general investment principles, taking years-to-retirement into account. I presume wong is not that old...

People committing suicide are gamblers - not investors.

You quote Google, in the sense that "just google" because it's too long for you to write, or something like that. But no problem, I actually agree about "your rules", which is different from "my rules" which is different from "other people's rules".

DCA is fine, if you consider it as long-term investment. But then, you could be regularly sinking your hard-earned cash into a drain regularly.

But VCA, or twin-vest or whatever is just too vague for which people keep discussing but never provide anything useful because there is too much "it depends". So that makes it meaningless to tell people to "google".

---

Added on August 13, 2011, 10:14 pmI never said that is what you blindly should do. I said that is what is what you get when you "googled". There is a whole bunch of things you could get too, including DCA and VCA and TwinVest.


This post has been edited by howszat: Aug 13 2011, 10:14 PM

Of course, high-risk, high-returns.

There are many types of lotteries with the highest risks, and highest returns. They are known as gambling.

Of course, you should google to get the meaning of the terms to get a basic understanding of at least what other people are saying about it.

DCA is something that has been abused by agents without providing all the necessary details and implications. VCA is too vague.

My point is you quote these acronyms too often, to the point of being misleading because you quote it often, and no one challenged you.

One-on-one is irrelevant. What I have to say I say in public. No problems with you sharing your points of view and whatever works for you. I'm just pointing out there are more to that view.

My opinion is that all your statistics are of very limited value. Because there are too many factors outside an investor's control. For eg, a good Fund Manager may be replaced by a not-so-good Manager, or the basic objectives of the fund are no longer appropriate for the economic conditions. Which means that all those statistical methods are just basic fiddling while your fund loses money (or as Rome burns as the saying goes).

My approach is more on fundamentals depending on region, sector, market conditions and objectives of the funds, and whatever my research tells me at the time. I don't have a single across-the-board formula.

That's the thing - I have seen papers that argue against DCA - that it's not necessarily better in long term performance than lump sum. And sure, those statistics are from PM. You can also get something else from PM, and other fund managers too for that matter - "Past performance of a fund is not an indication of its future performance". So what does that say about past statistics? Well, they do still have some value, but my point is it's limited because it's open to interpretation, and you need to keep it in context. So sorry, no high horses, just some down to earth realities.