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…
A good observation.
I think they key here is that what is likely of most use to the poster is not some stock tips and tickers, no matter how good they are.
What is more needed is a general approach to investing which suits the writer’s situation.
Not that I have one to propose.
A good answer to that question would require some more inputs, not suited to a public board.
How many years more of saving does the person reasonably expect, and how many years of retirement?
What other assets are there? How is the balance between expenditure and income going?
How much time might be available, and suitable, to devote to learning and practising prudent investing?
Absent that, all one can spout is homilies, which would be of limited use.
The homilies you get depend primarily on who you ask, not what you ask.
I’d probably spout things like this:
No bonds, or bond-like things. Don’t reach for yield.
No cash “substitutes”. Don’t reach for yield.
Don’t own things you yourself believe are overvalued.
The same old blather that I ramble on about.
So much for the good advice. What about bad advice? That’s more fun.
Is there a prudent way to be speculative and greedy? Maybe.
I don’t have any problem with wildly speculative positions, but they should in aggregate be a position size commensurate with their likelihood of going poof.
For some people, a “barbell” strategy works well.
The absolute extreme of a “barbell” strategy would be something like 99% T-bills and 1% lottery tickets.
Preferably lottery tickets with a positive central expected return! (upside return times upside probability > downside loss times downside probability)
Certain call options might fall into that category.
There’s a nice fellow on the Mechanical Investing board who runs a separated portfolio like that, and has run essentially the same method for over 22 years.
(he did go to all cash for a short while, I believe, and later on added a basic market timing signal for when to be more conservative)
He aims for 2/3 cash and 1/3 out-of-the-money call options against stocks picked mechanically.
Each month he invests 1/9 the portfolio value in positions to be held for 3 months.
Frequently the call options expire worthless, causing huge drawdowns, which is what the cash is for.
But even with most of the allocation to cash, the portfolio has had a CAGR of 16.7% since inception.
The average return on a single option position held for 3 months has been about 20% in three months, non annualized, across about 900 positions.
That sounds great, but an average hides wild variability. A few dozen positions were -100%, and they weren’t randomly distributed through time.
But…16.7% for over 22 years is pretty good. Especially as it started in November 1999.
That’s about 10%/year better than the S&P, enough to put him in the superinvestor category;
that portfolio has about 8 times the balance that it would have had invested in SPY.
Again: an average can hide wild variability. It was NOT an easy ride.
The reason I mention this approach is the potential utility of a barbell approach.
Sometimes a mix of a lot of super-conservatism (cash) and a little bit of craziness is more useful, overall, than 100% conventionality.
Jim