Talk on the PP

[Hal]

Financial advisor comments on the PP at the start of this Q&A session.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5BIo38BCKM

All comments welcome

[Matthew19]

Time stamp would be helpful. Can’t sift through 1hr video for a quick mention

[Hal]

Ask & it shall be given

6:30 & 16:40

[perfect_simulation]

He says we've been in a stock/bond bull run for 40 years so the PP did really well. But now stocks and bonds are fully valued so its not a great strategy. Problem is, who knows exactly if (and when) that's true. PP 100% full steam ahead!

[sophie]

He says we've been in a stock/bond bull run for 40 years so the PP did really well. But now stocks and bonds are fully valued so its not a great strategy.

This is the problem with all such critiques of the PP: this statement is absurd. If stocks and bonds are now terrible investments, then the PP wins over conventional portfolios hands down. Because, what do conventional portfolios consist of? 100% stocks and bonds, as opposed to 50% for the PP.

After that - not interested in anything else that party has to say. They're probably next going to advertise their active-management, stock-picking services, which I hope no one here will fall for.

[Smith1776]

He says we've been in a stock/bond bull run for 40 years so the PP did really well. But now stocks and bonds are fully valued so its not a great strategy.

This is the problem with all such critiques of the PP: this statement is absurd. If stocks and bonds are now terrible investments, then the PP wins over conventional portfolios hands down. Because, what do conventional portfolios consist of? 100% stocks and bonds, as opposed to 50% for the PP.

After that - not interested in anything else that party has to say. They're probably next going to advertise their active-management, stock-picking services, which I hope no one here will fall for.

lol so succinct and so true. Great post!

[Hal]

He says we've been in a stock/bond bull run for 40 years so the PP did really well. But now stocks and bonds are fully valued so its not a great strategy.

This is the problem with all such critiques of the PP: this statement is absurd. If stocks and bonds are now terrible investments, then the PP wins over conventional portfolios hands down. Because, what do conventional portfolios consist of? 100% stocks and bonds, as opposed to 50% for the PP.

After that - not interested in anything else that party has to say. They're probably next going to advertise their active-management, stock-picking services, which I hope no one here will fall for.

lol so succinct and so true. Great post!

+1. He advises that we should be 100% cash and then "he" shall divine the bottom (for a fee) and state when to re-enter the market.
Actually he gave a great endorsement to the PP. It has worked well for 40 years.

[mukramesh]

+1 Sophie

[Matthew19]

This boob had to look to Wikipedia for what the PP actually is, meaning he doesn’t understand it and can’t have a properly formed opinion.

Here’s the thing, the PP is based on principles yet financial advisors invest based on circumstance.

A circumstance-based investor can’t comprehend a principle based portfolio. This is the root of all PP critiques.

[Smith1776]

This boob had to look to Wikipedia for what the PP actually is, meaning he doesn’t understand it and can’t have a properly formed opinion.

Here’s the thing, the PP is based on principles yet financial advisors invest based on circumstance.

A circumstance-based investor can’t comprehend a principle based portfolio. This is the root of all PP critiques.

If we had a wiki I'd say this post should be immortalized.