- The number one goal is to not lose money. Protecting principal is job #1. For instance, 20% returns for 4 consecutive years can be almost completely erased with a -50% return in the 5th year. I must try my hardest to avoid harsh negative returns. I will define this in more detail in a later post.
- I am benchmarking myself against the S&P 500, and thus intend to beat it over the long term. My assumption is that the default investing strategy for normal people should be to invest in a broad market index fund. Deviating from that strategy should result in improved returns otherwise why bother?
- I also want to benchmark myself against my own financial advisor. If I can't beat my financial advisor on a net basis, I am better off paying him to manage my funds. Historically, my advisor has consistently outperformed the S&P 500, as his strategy already mostly adopts Graham's "defensive, dollar-cost-averaging strategy" with slight tactical allocations to favorable sectors. Beating him will actually prove a fairly high water mark, since I'm competing against a version of my own strategy. I will discuss this in more detail in a later post.
- I want to double my money in 5 years. That would require nearly a 15% year over year return over 60 months. Common sense says that this is quite a stretch, but it doesn't hurt to aim high so long as I don't allow myself to take stupid risks in order to reach this goal.
** Updated on 2012-02-13 **
Are all of these goals consistent with II principles?
ReplyDeleteThat discussion will be a post unto itself. The short answer is, "yes, I believe so."
ReplyDelete