Lootman wrote:
If one assumes that someone starts investing when they are 30, retires at age 60 and lives to be 90, how likely will it be that the exact same strategy will be relevant throughout that period?
That's like saying that the methodology chosen in 1959 will still meet your needs today.
I believe that TJH might assert that that is exactly what he did. But I'm not sure that a majority of folks are as smart and diligent as he is.
Apologies for the late reply here Lootman, but I'm glad that you've mentioned Terry because I think he's a great example that helps to explain why I think income-investing *is* such a great single-strategy for 'lifetime investing', as it's clear that when we see what Terry has achieved, we see that we are able to tweak what is essentially a simple strategy to suit our particular investment styles and needs as individuals.
I note your comments regarding the potential to 'change tack' at different stages of our investment lifetimes, but I also notice that you recently posted on a 'Centrica' thread regarding how a potential 'alternative strategy', revolving around a more 'growth investment' style, might sometimes be more suitable -
I am of the opinion that not everything worth knowing can be represented numerically. Some useful things are known but cannot be proven. And the ability to perceive that Centrica was a dog before the numbers showed it, was profitably useful.
I think HYP appeals more to left-brained investors, who believe that everything worthwhile can be measured and proven. But there is another whole style of investing that ignores numbers and everything that is published, on the basis that it is priced in and so cannot give you an edge. Rather a qualitative investor relies on less rigid and linear thought processes.
The skills I am describing are perhaps more commonly used with growth investing, where successful analysis is more about where success and growth will be found in the future. Value investing, like HYP, is more a numbers game. But no accountant ever predicted the rise of Apple, Amazon, Facebook etc. That took a different set of skills.
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=18779&p=240634#p240634
Now, there's no denying that you're confident in your ability to use such 'qualitative' processes with which to invest in this way, and I've heard many other investors over the years describe more or less the same thoughts, but what's always been missing from such conversations is anything that we might describe as a 'method', or a 'process', so whilst no-one is in a position to deny that you clearly see some merit in such an approach, it really doesn't help anyone who might be interested in it to actually learn anything about it, or how they might begin to incorporate such a strategy into their investment lives...
There's no blueprint Lootman, just a 'sense of smell' that some people seem to have, and then like to suggest that others go and 'get it'.....
Which brings us back to income as a strategy, because I think that whilst it's got some flaws, and whilst it's got some aspects that may need tweaking for individual investors who might prefer to do things slightly differently, depending on their own personal tastes, it does at least provide a 'good enough' blueprint for most 'interested investors' to get their heads around, even from an almost 'standing start'.
I personally think that the combination of those particular aspects, and the fact that as a strategy it's got *lots* of avenues for additional flexibility, means that it really is the type of strategy that *can* be used from the outset and then onwards throughout an investment lifetime, without the need to have to think about 'jumping ship' at different points, and especially towards 'ships' that sound enticing when we read of other investors using them, but lack the substance that might actually enable such alternative approaches to be described or followed, other than in a relatively 'vague' way...
Cheers,
Itsallaguess