You're just using words wrong.
Did you get a promotion at work to make you think you are hot shit or something? Youre the exact type of person to be moderately succesful in one field then act like you know everything else too
I dont know where you get your confidence fron
No, you guys are both uneducated lmao
I am literally more educated than you.
do you mean like narcissism confidence or what
you should sleep with him if you're going to keep this up
Yes
As evidenced: the guy is incapable of admitting he is ever wrong
"divers" is not even listed within the entire paper you linked dude.
All he does when he is wrong is fire off some dumb irony
You just linked a paper that has NOTHING to do with diversification.
oh ok, i don't think that really is a question, then. they are simply never wrong.
we should have nyte admit a single instance where she was wrong
the level of malignant narcissism that nyte displays, if you found that equivalent in a man, can only be found in maximum security prisons.
-
Irrelevant to what I said
-
The "portfolio" in this case is the total investment basket so the statement is nonsensical - the boglehead is talking about equity/fixed income distribution within that basket and "rebalancing" to keep it at 50/50. Nobody buys index funds but they buy ETFs which can be part of the equity basket.. aka you are not visualizing the hierarchy properly to even understand what the boglehead said, which means you should not be typing at me about investments
Correct definition of rebalancing as I gave it originally, however if I am say 100% invested in US ETFs and I buy another US ETF I have not diversified (debatably)
Nobody uses the word diversify anymore
Jdance prefers people about 1/4th her age.
?
this paper is literally them running a monte carlo of when they call rebalance_portofolio(portfolio) LMAO
It uses the word rebalancing extensively and has enough context that you can understand what it means in finance.. you were arguing with me that my verb definition of rebalancing was not correct and that it was in fact a better description of some strategy in some very specific context where you had encountered it before