At my old school, the Rattlesnake U School of High and Low Finance; from what I can gather from a far( not to be confused with the word fire even though they are pronounced the same) is that the standard deviants are some of our best friends. Sort of like how many people have been bit since 1960 while handling rattlesnakes snakes. Although I do get your drift, it may depend on the length on the relative weighted average of the length of the individual reptile in question.
Your email pal,
Tom L.
JayHecht at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/17/99 8:17:22 PM Central Daylight Time, TLEHMAN at lor.net
> writes:
>
> << Let's say your late 40's or early 50's
> and you have socked away a considerable amount in a 401-k. Even with a
> balanced portfolio you realize that the equity portion of the portfolio has a
> considerable downside risk---when does it make sense to shift out of equities
> and take a nice safe 5 3/4% or more return. If that option is available to
> you. If business planning is strictly a short term global shell game; maybe
> you ought to hold on to your pea. >>
>
> Tom the problem is that the "data" suggest a new paradigm:
>
> If you look at the:
>
> standard deviation / mean ( a very, very simple measure of relative
> riskiness)
>
> for the S&P 500, its value from 1989-1998 is about 1/3 its 1960-1998 value.
>
> Everybody has CURRENTITIS!!!!
>
> Jason