[fantasticshower]

I think we're agreeing that you need a strategy and you need to stick to it. Where we differ (I think) is you think my strategy is objectively bad and yours is objectively good. I don't think we really know what each others strategies are though.

I'll assume you're a proponent of B&H SPY and continuing to buy $X/month of SPY until you retire. I'm just saying there are other ideas than that that you can use that have smaller drawdowns and comfortable returns to risk. You could B&H 60/40 SPY/treasuries for example.

Is it active management if you rebalance 60/40 once a year? What if you rebalance quarterly? At what point is it active management and therefore bad?

[Zetice]

This isn’t up for debate; it’s been shown, time and time again, that timing the market is a bad long term investment strategy.

[fantasticshower]

For the curious thread-reader, here are some websites that offer ideas that might make you question whether all "timing the market" is the same and equally bad long term.

- https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolios/ (one step up in activity from B&H one ETF forever)

- https://allocatesmartly.com/blog/ (another step up in activity from sticking to one asset allocation that you simply rebalance periodically)

- https://qoppac.blogspot.com/p/systematic-trading-start-here.... (several steps up in complexity and activity)

[Zetice]

Note, dear thread-reader, how these links are all blogs, none of them are actual academic literature, unlike the dozens of citations in even an introductory book such as A Random Walk Down Wall St.

If pablum on the Internet is your preferred method of investing advice, by all means care about a blog. If understanding finance as it operates is your preference, I recommend staying far, far away from the Internet blogosphere.

[fantasticshower]

I don't believe the EMH is settled nor that markets follow a random walk. There is academic literature to back up both sides of both of those beliefs.

Things aren't as settled as you make them out to be, and that's OK. What's important is that you have enough confidence in your methods, whatever they are, to stick with them. In the end, the stickwithitness may be more important than what you stick to.

[Zetice]

EMH being settled isn't of issue here, and I did not claim the markets followed a random walk. It's the name of a book, not a theory pushed by the book itself. The fact that you haven't even heard of the book speaks volumes as to your education in personal finance.

The basics of investing are settled for individuals, and you are not operating at a level of sophistication to rise into the areas of finance that are debated.

These aren't "my" methods, they're the methods. You either do these basic things as a retail/individual, or you lose money. Period.

[fantasticshower]

I'll admit I haven't read the book completely or in a long time but is it not about how the EMH is true and so anything other than B&H low-cost index funds is a fruitless pursuit? Doesn't he back that up with the random walk theory of asset prices?

Instead of me assuming I know what you mean by the methods, would you mind stating what they are?

I think we could agree that some of them are:

* Have a sound plan (I'm sure we could debate what makes a plan sound)

* Stick to the plan

[fantasticshower]

I'm not sure why I feel the need to convince you. I think your confidence in the face of contradictory evidence that I've seen triggers something on an emotional level for me. I also feel confident I am correct but you disagree.

Hopefully you, someone reading this thread, or I get something beneficial out of this, though! I hope you are successful with your investments and they give you peace of mind.