Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

howdy folks,

I had a paper route when I was a boy and kept it until I graduated high
school. There was this one older man on my route, Mr. Higgins, who
liked to talk when I collected. I learned three things from him that
have stayed with me all these years.

One day, sort of musing, he told me he saw religion as this big
mountain with all these different trails and pathways to the top and
that the important thing was getting to the top, not which path you
choose.

Another time he asked me which was the more (or less) moral - the
married man and woman living together and no longer in love or the
unmarried man and woman living together deeply in love.

Lastly, he always tipped well. I collected monthly and he always
tipped me a buck. For Christmas it was $5, and this was back in the
late 50's - early 60's.

The reason why I this comes to mind is that I see investing like Mr.
Higgins mountain. There are many paths and trails to the top, and the
important thing is getting to the top by achieving your investment
goals and objectives. It is NOT which path you choose.
And this is why I get so upset at those dogmatic types who insist there
is only one true way to invest and that all other ways are wrong.
Nonsense! You each have to seek out your own path and follow it until
it leads to the top, or reaches a dead end at which point, you change
paths. You have to find one that suits you and your talents, abilities
and personality. Sure, some paths are harder than others, and some are
more direct. Some of you might have been carried to the top by your
parents or grandparents and your inheritance. However, all that
matters is reaching the top.

Those that insist there is only one true path are not unlike Pat
Robertson insisting there is only one path up Mr. Higgins mountain -
Pat Robertson's path.


rono

Re: Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

rono wrote:
>
> One day, sort of musing, he told me he saw religion as this big
> mountain with all these different trails and pathways to the top and
> that the important thing was getting to the top, not which path you
> choose.
>
Ah, investment as religion. That explains the existence of rampant
false beliefs. One path leads to Nirvana, the other to Waco.

Re: Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

TK Sung wrote,

rono wrote:

> One day, sort of musing, he told me he saw religion as this big
> mountain with all these different trails and pathways to the top and
> that the important thing was getting to the top, not which path you
> choose.

Ah, investment as religion. That explains the existence of rampant
false beliefs. One path leads to Nirvana, the other to Waco.

Howdy TK,

Well, there are literally hundreds of paths to the top of the investing
mountain and indeed, some are dead ends, some are treacherous, some are
steep and difficult.

My point remains that there is no ONE TRUE PATH in investing styles,
just like there is no one true path in religion.

peace,

rono

Re: Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

rono wrote:
> Well, there are literally hundreds of paths to the top of the investing
> mountain and indeed, some are dead ends, some are treacherous, some are
> steep and difficult.
>
> My point remains that there is no ONE TRUE PATH in investing styles,
> just like there is no one true path in religion.

Which is religion as philosophy is to theology as epistemology is to
compromise; which is philosophy as dualism is to sects as ontological
exclusions apart from philosophy, I view, philosophy ceding in order to
remain a broader scholastic purveyance actualism eludes within
indeterminate reality for any sole philosophical purport axiomatically
to epitomize existence. It could be said you philosophically appear to
characterize a pragmatic discipline within forms prudential pragmatic
arguments instill as interest self defines: that one way is but within
a relative set of means to fashion an axiomatic end a mountain top
signifies, as wealth investors successfully actualize. As might Pascal
say, [given] "whenever both probability and utility values are known,
one should choose to do an act which has the greatest expected utility"
-- the accumulation of monetary wealth represents to a capitalistic
belief system. But if it does, why should there be more, rather than
what may be a lessor chance, for any given instance to be true and
apart from the lack of dualism investor beliefs encompass. . . To
argue the converse, because of an emperical substance and rational
methodology investment practises foreshadow. William James says - "A
rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging
certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would
be an irrational rule." So to be contrary to rational investment
practise and for many roads to the mountain's end, that is, that they
should be wayfaring roads, and roads less apt to be travelled. The
rationalism of greater statistical probabilities, then, holds greater
sway over convention, and another form of pragmatism exercises dominion
today, of a peoples acceptance and manner by which they entrust their
livlihood to invest. An arguement for a supportive source and
amassment of numerical wealth, greater in substance committed to
trustees of an omnibus funds convey, than would be disparate investors,
en mass, as stock-holding instruments. If it is human that will be
directed, to presume, such established numbers ought follow.

'Appearances point to a greater power - the all-in-all - of a goodness
yet elusive to tell, whose limits, either power or good grants, is of a
gift hope will direct us, provided it is really beneficial.' (J.S. Mill
-1874)

Re: Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

rono wrote:
>
> My point remains that there is no ONE TRUE PATH in investing styles,
> just like there is no one true path in religion.
>
True. Jesus prefers to save while Buddha, having renunciated
impermanent things like return on investment, remains alike in up
market and down market. The question is, what would Prophet Mohammed
do?

Re: Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

"TK Sung" <> wrote in message
news:
> rono wrote:
>>
>> My point remains that there is no ONE TRUE PATH in investing styles,
>> just like there is no one true path in religion.
>>
> True. Jesus prefers to save while Buddha, having renunciated
> impermanent things like return on investment, remains alike in up
> market and down market. The question is, what would Prophet Mohammed
> do?

Who cares?

Re: Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

There may not be one true path to investing, but there are strategies
that have outperformed the market (and thus, over 80% of all mutual
funds) over long periods.

It's not an art. It's a science.

Ed Wrote:
> "TK Sung" wrote in message
> news:
> rono wrote:
>
> My point remains that there is no ONE TRUE PATH in investing styles,
> just like there is no one true path in religion.
>
> True. Jesus prefers to save while Buddha, having renunciated
> impermanent things like return on investment, remains alike in up
> market and down market. The question is, what would Prophet Mohammed
> do?
>
> Who cares?


--
hoosieradvisor

Re: Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

hoosieradvisor wrote:
> There may not be one true path to investing, but there are strategies
> that have outperformed the market (and thus, over 80% of all mutual
> funds) over long periods.
>
> It's not an art. It's a science.

One such science and discipline of postulates has shown abnormalities
of the brain to be an investment facet during studies conducted from
Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, and the University of Iowa. Various regions
nearby the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, over a survey consisting
of brain-deprived investor subjects, determined subject investors to be
advantageously cognitive of an emotive state responses tenaciously
play, by contrast to a formulative skew of observable controls and
reactive hysterics, at times, broadly representative of ostensibly
sensible market practises. In regard to fear and greed, there is a
rationale for pragmatic sensibility one has to equate acceptance to
risk -- amongst a denizenry of mutual funds, moreover, by an
established form -- in simplified form statistical probability measures
to modulate fear, as such, and sublimate greed to assuage a greater
over lessor end of accountability, than were fear more directly exposed
at odds direct stock manipulatives are apt to qualify. The am of I,
above all while within all else, am existentially follows alone, am
leastwise cannot afford while soundness rejects mollification in a
stance taken amiss. The subjective emotional 'brain-deprived' has no
such assurances, for he neither has the will to deviate.

"I do not resist this pure madness." -Narcissus

Re: Investing styles and Mr. Higgins

Yes, I read the summary of that study. They have a web site.

It just makes my case about quantitative models back tested with clean
research, over long periods.

Flasherly Wrote:
> hoosieradvisor wrote:
> There may not be one true path to investing, but there are strategies
> that have outperformed the market (and thus, over 80% of all mutual
> funds) over long periods.
>
> It's not an art. It's a science.
>
> One such science and discipline of postulates has shown abnormalities
> of the brain to be an investment facet during studies conducted from
> Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, and the University of Iowa. Various
> regions
> nearby the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, over a survey consisting
> of brain-deprived investor subjects, determined subject investors to
> be
> advantageously cognitive of an emotive state responses tenaciously
> play, by contrast to a formulative skew of observable controls and
> reactive hysterics, at times, broadly representative of ostensibly
> sensible market practises. In regard to fear and greed, there is a
> rationale for pragmatic sensibility one has to equate acceptance to
> risk -- amongst a denizenry of mutual funds, moreover, by an
> established form -- in simplified form statistical probability
> measures
> to modulate fear, as such, and sublimate greed to assuage a greater
> over lessor end of accountability, than were fear more directly
> exposed
> at odds direct stock manipulatives are apt to qualify. The am of I,
> above all while within all else, am existentially follows alone, am
> leastwise cannot afford while soundness rejects mollification in a
> stance taken amiss. The subjective emotional 'brain-deprived' has no
> such assurances, for he neither has the will to deviate.
>
> "I do not resist this pure madness." -Narcissus


--
hoosieradvisor