> As Motley Fools [1] like to point out, the most you can loose is 100% whereas the upside is unbounded.
Reminds me of the gamblers ruin paradox. In some games even if the expected payout from each round is positive, it can be shown that the gamblers wealth goes to 0 over suffiently large time scales with probability 1.
> it can be shown that the gamblers wealth goes to 0 over suffiently large time scales with probability 1.
In real life, the time scales are not long enough and the number of N samples in one’s life is too small.
This is why retirees over age 60 are concerned with “sequence risk”. That is, you get unlucky VTI/VOO/S&P returns for 5 years, but you don’t live long enough for the average to come back to 8-10%.
Downside risk becomes more important than average return.
I have the same sequence risk when I gamble. I know the average is that I should lose, but I also know I'll never play enough in my lifetime to get enough samples. So I play games that are more likely to have sequences -- hand shuffled blackjack -- and more likely to win quickly and loose slowly -- the don't in craps.
Reminds me of the gamblers ruin paradox. In some games even if the expected payout from each round is positive, it can be shown that the gamblers wealth goes to 0 over suffiently large time scales with probability 1.
reply