
Originally Posted by
christopher leigh
Heathens you're a waffler. You're waffling to divert attention from the crux.I don't appreciate your snide comments either, about my education. You either want to debate properly or you want to waffle.
You stated that diversification is good. I say not necessarily. In other words it might be or it might not be. If I invest in the heroin industry in 3 countries is that good? If I invest in 1 or 2,3,4,5 pubs(diversification) and they all fail is that good?
Now you say that people should know that the government was going to bring in the smoking ban. How do they know? Because they did it in other countries? Why do you think countries have their own laws? They don't always follow suit.
The reason you advocate diversification is precisely because of the above. You don't know what's going to happen next. If you did you'd invest in one company. The most successful one.
To make this clear to anyone interested in this debate, I'll prove my point: If you invest in three companies and we'll assume for the sake of argument, they're all successful. In that case it's very unlikely they'll all succeed to the same degree. Therefore you didn't make the right decision, because if you'd invested in one(the most successful) you'd have got a bigger return than diversifying in three.
Diversification is for gamblers. Like people who play roulette and put five one pound chips on each square, in the belief that that, is better than placing one five pound chip on one square. It's called gamblers fallacy.