Alaric wrote:
If you have a dodgy selection today, why not look back at how you selected those investments if you are still using the same or similar rules?
Alaric,
How do you square the above statement with the many people here using the same
high-yield selection-criteria, who are actually
happy with their income portfolios?
If you don't answer any other question, then can you please answer that one?
Many of those high-yield income investors have been happy for many, many years, and many are happily retired and continue to use the strategy, or one very similar to it.
A
portfolio approach to income investment helps to mitigate the effects of poorly performing single-investments.
Such cases are
impossible to avoid, and that's a simple fact of personal-investment life, no matter
which strategy we choose to use....
We will never be able to avoid them, but just because a particular strategy might result in picking the odd dud, that does not make the
strategy itself a poor one.
Why do you refuse to see this, and continue to disparage a strategy by pretending that
everyone's income portfolios are chock full of duds?
That is clearly
not the case.....
In addition to the above, can you not see that you're only able to point at companies like Carillion as an example for your criticism of a high-yield strategy, because the strategy itself is known and visible, and this then enables you to see evidence that it's been chosen in the past as an income-investment using it.
You, however, refuse to deliver an alternative strategy that people could use to actually invest at a portfolio level. As this is the case, it's clearly impossible for any criticism of such an invisible strategy, or to see which companies such an invisible strategy might have picked in the past.
As we've said before - pointing backwards is great, we can all do it, but pointing forwards is difficult, and your continued refusal to describe an
actual alternative strategy rather proves that point, wouldn't you agree?
Cheers,
Itsallaguess