Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm skeptical about both MPT and Efficient Frontier. Both depend on unknowable assumptions about the future.

Efficient Frontier assumes that correlations that were true in the past will continue to be true in the future. However, there are certain points of history where correlations have changed drastically (bonds vs. stocks for instance).

Efficient Frontier says that it minimizes "risk"--but in what form? My portfolio is not static; as a young saver/investor I'm constantly adding money to it & buying stuff with dollar cost averaging. So I *want* assets that I'm buying to fluctuate, so that I have a good chance of driving down my average purchase price. I don't care at all about how my portfolio as a whole functions in the short term.

For some people, Strategic Global Asset Allocation might meet their needs; for others Efficient Frontier is the ticket.

Personally, I still haven't seen a compelling argument as to why I should be looking at risk-adjusted returns.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement