Growth Stocks vs Total Market

[Smith1776]

*COUGH*small cap value*COUGH*

[pmward]

There is absolutely no way Harry meant small-crap value. Harry meant the stocks that benefit the most in prosperity... ie bubble stocks. Only after he looked at market regime did he look for the most volatile asset in that regime. I also agree that "growth" as is defined in growth index funds isn't really "growth" it's just the most expensive stocks. It's a very poor wording choice. Price has some correlation to "growth" but it's not direct. Either way, QQQ or MTUM is much closer to what Harry was looking at, imo. Small caps could be used, but it would not be small-crap value, it would be highly leveraged small cap companies that are in a hyper revenue growth phase. Small-crap value is the last thing I would invest in as a prosperity hedge. "We have so much prosperity, let's go invest in the worst most miserable, low quality, low growth, close to bankrupt small cap companies we can find!" Yeah that is not what he meant at all. In times of prosperity and excess you want to be in the TSLA's of the world, especially since you have 75% of your portfolio hedging this allocation. After 20 years of SCV non-existence (and 0 out-performance since SCV as a concept was made public), can't we just finally have the SCV funeral and be done with it? I've heard the SCV arguments for 20 years now, and never seen any evidence of its mythical existence in real life. Are people still going to be arguing for SCV another 20 years from now when it is still underperforming? SCV has proven to not be consistent enough, powerful enough, reliable enough, nor dependable enough to be seriously considered as a core long term holding.

[dualstow]

From Fail-Safe Investing

30742139-FB8C-4A7E-AB4D-8BC4992BA19D.jpeg (599.87 KiB) Viewed 4465 times

EEE8D57A-87FF-49BC-9CBF-C331CA546727.jpeg (733.52 KiB) Viewed 4465 times