I think it’s potentially very dangerous to advise somebody who just lost 75% of his wealth (with SaaS, as Chompin found).
Especially to tell him it’s not impossible SaaS might become a multi-bagger again or that more general investing in young growing companies often results in those.
Or to point him to the falling knifes board and the results with DLTR, DG etc. Or to tell him GOOG should become…
Etc. etc.
This is no criticism on the facts King, Tecmo or others present. Of course factually they are totally right, and I understand they are saying that mainly in response to the poster’s option 2:
I think I would put 3/4 into the option 1, and allot 1/4th into option 2.
I mean it simply psychologically, trying to put myself in his shoes. Even if saying nicely and apparently absolutely reasonable this:
While the 3/4th portion of the portfolio would hopefully provide a solid foundation for my children after 20 years, I am praying that the 1/4th helps me to a faster recovery, and just about help me to gain back my self belief
there will be the tendency to violate those good intentions to recover faster from such a Desaster — especially when that nice sounding strategy seems to fail for a longer time, to use force and to “double down”, with the 1/4th becoming more and more etc. Good intentions are one thing but…
I might be wrong as my English is not native and not that great, but the 2nd part of “to gain back my self belief” seems to be linked to the speculative 1/4th. If this interpretation is correct and having success with that part mentally is required, it’s evidence for “fatal attraction”, a recipe for doom.
Giving financial advice comes with a huge responsibility and one should be extremely careful (see Jim’s post) and also sceptical towards nice words and intentions. It’s human to have illusions about one’s own nature and about what one will do in this or that case.
Sorry if this sounds harsh.