Talk:Asset allocation

What is dynamic asset allocation? If it's mentioned here, the rationale for why (more probably why not: Dynamic asset allocation) should be explained. --LadyGeek 20:12, 17 February 2012 (CST)


 * The citations are broken, I don't know what to replace them with.


 * Dynamic asset allocation

--LadyGeek 21:03, 13 February 2014 (CST)

Asset allocation is essential
The first occurence of this text:

is here: Risk and return: an introduction Revision as of 14:23, 4 April 2012 by Kevin M, which represents a Bogleheads consensus. I don't see a need for a citation.
 * But it isn't indicated as a Bogleheads' consensus. And there is nothing to suggest it comes from reliable sources. I realize that the BH wiki isn't held to the same standards as Wikipedia, but I would suggest that strong statements such as "one of the most important decisions" in a notice infobox should be held to a higher standard. --Peculiar Investor 17:14, 5 January 2015 (CST)
 * OK. I'm looking for a source - or at least where it's paraphrased from. --LadyGeek 20:46, 5 January 2015 (CST)
 * It gets mentioned in many places as a consensus opinion, without a specific citation. Template:Asset allocation assertion is how I approached the issue on finiki, citing William F. Sharpe. --Peculiar Investor 21:00, 5 January 2015 (CST)
 * I have respectfully disagreed with the wording in finiki: finiki:Template:Asset allocation assertion. While the citation might be appropriate, it's out of place in context of the message. New investors will be totally confused. Instead, I recommend reverting to the original text and then provide an explanatory footnote (if needed). --LadyGeek 16:18, 6 January 2015 (CST)


 * google search,--Blbarnitz 16:27, 6 January 2015 (CST)
 * I have added a tutorial link: Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing.
 * The Investopdia citation does not appear in the Notice template, but appears later in the text where the topic is discussed. --LadyGeek 19:06, 6 January 2015 (CST)
 * Is Investopedia the best or only source for a citation to support the statement? Isn't there something from Bogle, Ferri or Bernstein that would be a source? I circle back to my comment above, I realize that the BH wiki isn't held to the same standards as Wikipedia, but I would suggest that strong statements such as "one of the most important decisions" in a notice infobox should be held to a higher standard and should be supported with a citation. Building on an comments above, I would suggest this is even more critical for new investors to understand the source of the statement. An alternative might be to remove the infobox and just keep the statement being made in the lead-in section. --Peculiar Investor 07:16, 8 January 2015 (CST)
 * Working through Asset allocation on Wikipedia, I found Bogle's The Riddle of Performance Attribution July 20, 1997, where he states "Happily, I think I rectified that shorthand summary by coming up with the correct conclusion: "[L]ong-term fund investors might profit by concentrating more on the allocation of their investments between stock and bond funds and less on the question of which particular stock and bond funds to hold." I stand by that conclusion today. ". Might Bogle's quote (cited of course) better serve the wiki reader? --Peculiar Investor 07:36, 8 January 2015 (CST)
 * Good find, as I'm never fully confident of Investopedia's sources. However, Investopedia uses concise easy-to-understand wording and makes the reader take notice. Is there a way to utilize Investopedia's wording and say it's relevant to Bogle's article? --LadyGeek 16:26, 8 January 2015 (CST)

The discussion continues on Template talk:Asset allocation assertion (page deleted --LadyGeek 13:40, 1 March 2015 (CST)) --LadyGeek 15:25, 26 January 2015 (CST)

Remove use of Notice template
From the forum discussion I thought the direction was towards not using Notice, but instead just including the text as part of the Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead section is intended to introduce the key concepts and to me the Notice just becomes overkill and distracting. --Peculiar Investor 21:50, 3 February 2015 (CST)


 * I have taken a stab at a major edit of the page by:
 * 1. Removing the heavy use of the second person voice (frowned upon by mediawiki style convention as unencyclopedic). I left the second person voice in the Swedroe section, since this is summarizing the article series.
 * 2. Better (I hope) integrating the page elements by shifting some of the opening statement and notes; expanding some definitional text; and including a fuller summary of table content. --Blbarnitz 03:40, 4 February 2015 (CST)


 * 1. I moved the "new investor encouragement" back to the introduction, where I think it is most helpful.
 * 2. I removed the tactical asset allocation "See also" template as it suggests this section is a subset of tactical asset allocation. The link is now part of the explanation. --LadyGeek 19:12, 4 February 2015 (CST)