Itsallaguess wrote:IanTHughes wrote:
All this discussion of individual share failures, whether ultra-high yield or not, is meaningless unless it is put into the context of the overall portfolio progress, detail which is noticeable only by its total absence!
I wouldn't agree that it's 'meaningless'.
Long-term portfolio investing usually offers the opportunity to perform a high number of granular 'nudges' throughout the life of that portfolio, and I think trying to find ways to help avoid at least *some* of those nudges that might be more detrimental to that portfolio performance over the long-term than others, has got to be worth considering at some level, surely...
If one of those levels is to consider that a prospective yield of 12% might indicate that the market doesn't actually believe that such a yield is sustainable over the long term (and if it did, why isn't the yield being arbitraged down by that market...), then simply dismissing such considerations as 'meaningless' just because 'at portfolio level' progress might still be made, doesn't feel like the best long-term approach in my view.
It's one thing to accept that stumbles are inevitable, and it's another to consider that many stumbles can be broadly absorbed over time when taking a portfolio view, and I'm happy to agree that those two points are really quite valid, but to then willingly lose sight of the fact that those granular, holding-level nudges are still very important over the expected lifespan of a portfolio is a step too far, I think. It's not 'meaningless' to consider them...
If there's an income-investment equivalent of 'look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves', then surely, this is it...
Cheers,
Itsallaguess
What do you mean here by "nudges" ?