Fair enough. People should be more aware of the underlying issues of money management, rather than just dogmatically following the 2% approach.
Ignored
The issue being don't blow your account. And the way you don't blow your account is by dogmatically following the 2% rule because it is considered a 'good rule of thumb'. We can all assume that we all also understand the grade school math behind this no? Or am I assuming too much of some people?
The issue being don't blow your account. And the way you don't blow your account is by dogmatically following the 2% rule because it is considered a 'good rule of thumb'. We can all assume that we all also understand the grade school math behind this no? Or am I assuming too much of some people?
It's more like 11th or 12th grade "pre-calculus" than grade school.
There are some fund managers that consider 2% to be too aggressive. They do not follow MM
dogmatically. All that really matters, as I've explained in a previous post, is that your % is low
enough to survive drawdown.
If you knew your edge varied, and could predict it well-enough, I wonder whether a 3% or 4%
risk would be a better option.
