Talk:Investment strategy

New lead-in is confusing
"The components of most investment strategies include asset allocation, buy and sell guidelines, and risk guidelines" - this sounds a lot like components of an IPS.

"some investors will prefer to maximize expected returns by investing in risky assets, others will prefer to minimize risk, but most will select a strategy somewhere in between" - this sounds a lot like asset allocation.

I am confused.

--Quebec 07:31, 30 December 2015 (MST)
 * The text from Wikipedia's article, which I used as a starting point. My view is the Wikipedia article is pretty basic, geared more to a general audience not a financial audience like finiki and FWF. I actually think you've nailed it, investment strategy feeds into investment policy statement and asset allocation and that should be worked into the article as it develops. Some of the back story for the creation of this article is in Talk:Investment styles. As I look back through a variety of talk pages, you and I have had the "strategy" vs. "style" question on multiple occasions, without resolution. These possible articles are my attempt as resolution. --Peculiar Investor 07:49, 30 December 2015 (MST)

Combined strategy and style page
I've tried to write an introduction for a proposed combined page about styles and strategies. See if you like it... --Quebec 05:01, 31 December 2015 (MST)
 * "we arbitrarily use a relatively narrow definition of investing style" does not align with a wiki's approach of "all perspectives from a neutral point of view". "arbitrarily" may not work here, as the intent is to educate new investors. What is a broader, authoritative, definition? --LadyGeek 11:15, 31 December 2015 (MST)
 * styles and strategies are sometimes used interchangeably. If we are to deal with both on the same page, we have to define at least one term. I propose to define styles narrowly (value vs growth, small vs large, active versus passive). Then we can deal with everything else under 'strategies'. It's arbitrary, but it's a possible solution to our current confusion (or at least my current confusion). I'm very opened to other suggestions.--Quebec 13:08, 31 December 2015 (MST)
 * Your explanation helped, as I misunderstood the use of "arbitrary" in this context. I reorganized and simplified the introduction further. I intentionally left out the "three dimensions of passive vs. active management", which are details to be provided later. --LadyGeek 14:44, 31 December 2015 (MST)


 * The quotation from Strategy Lab: Three years later, one investing style is victorious should be removed or modified. The section you've quoted states that investing styles are solely dependent on investor behaviour. I disagree, as there may be other factors. Also, those assumptions could be misinterpreted as investing advice, which is not the right intent. Can this article be reworked to fit within finiki / Wikipedia guidelines? --LadyGeek 11:15, 31 December 2015 (MST)
 * I am not attached to this quotation. I like the idea that different investing styles suit different investors though. --Quebec 13:08, 31 December 2015 (MST)
 * I agree. Presentation of the information is the challenge. --LadyGeek 14:44, 31 December 2015 (MST)
 * I disagree completely. Putting strategy and style back together seems to result in the same problem that exists with the and leaves us once again debating what's strategy vs. style. I'm not in favour of this approach. Splitting into two separate, but related articles with links to other related articles is my favoured approach. --Peculiar Investor 14:50, 31 December 2015 (MST)
 * OK. I'll let you work on sepatate pages without further interferance! :-) --Quebec 17:15, 31 December 2015 (MST)
 * Let me interfere, as I disagree on splitting the page. I liked Quebec's new wording and have made some additional changes. It clearly explains why these two topics are always mixed together. Another factor is that several topics can be either strategy or style. The organization here eliminates that issue. --LadyGeek 13:33, 1 January 2016 (MST)

Two separate pages
While still working on the thesis of two separate articles, I've move Quebec's quotation up to the lead-in as it helps introduce the topic. I've worked the Strategy vs. Styles section to try to explain the difference and link in the other article. Does this address the concerns and take the article in the correct direction? --Peculiar Investor 09:10, 12 January 2016 (MST)
 * Asking the audience in . --Peculiar Investor 09:25, 12 January 2016 (MST)
 * I've tried to improve the page a bit (see history). I still don't like the introduction, which goes into risk, asset allocation, etc. I'm still of the POV that you look at strategy after you have an AA. I would perhaps delete everything in the intro, including the quote, except
 * So how should you choose an investing strategy? It comes down to personal fit. This article attempts to cover an number of strategies to give you some background and ideas that might be helpful to you to determine what is the good strategy for you to follow.
 * This way the discussion on strategies versus style arrives much sooner. And we clarify that we are discussing strategies within asset classes.--Quebec 11:34, 12 January 2016 (MST)
 * I'm still strugling with categorizing strategies into passive vs active vs other. Multifactor should perhaps go into passive, using the current definition of passvie (which is not limited to traditional indexing)? Then maybe low-beta can go into 'other'... --Quebec 11:46, 12 January 2016 (MST)
 * Me too on this last point. I've created a PDF and am working it offline for a bit. I find that sometimes reading it on paper helps me clarify/refine my thinking. FWIW, please be careful changing previous discussion points as it changes the history of the discussion. --Peculiar Investor 12:01, 12 January 2016 (MST)

I eliminated the need to categorize strategies by putting everything under a Strategies header. I've revamped other sections as well to try and make the article flow better and address the concerns above. If you review the edit history, I tried to make changes one-by-one to make it clear what I was doing. Hopefully this helps. I'm reasonably happy with the article as it stands now. The FWF poll that I created is set to run for 14 days, which is my internal timeline to get feedback and hopefully wrap this effort up and move the article into the Main article space. I really appreciate the efforts of Quebec and LadyGeek to challenge viewpoints and collaborate to develop and improve this article. --Peculiar Investor 13:38, 12 January 2016 (MST)

Does introducing equity and bond sections make it too complex?
The article was structured in summary style, connecting into the more detailed articles elsewhere in finiki. Is there a danger that it's becoming too complex and too long with the separation/split into equity and bond strategy sections? --Peculiar Investor 18:22, 12 January 2016 (MST)
 * Yes, the split makes the article too complex. For example, indexing applies to both equity and bond strategies. I recommend recombining. --LadyGeek 19:58, 12 January 2016 (MST)
 * Ok, we can get rid of the ladders, bullets, etc. but what about VA & DCA versus, for example, strategies involving selecting stocks based on certain ratios? Isn't it better to at least keep those seperate? (i.e. timing vs selection)?--Quebec 14:29, 13 January 2016 (MST)
 * I think VA, DCA, and buy and hold can be combined into a separate group, as these strategies impact the cash flow into / out of the portfolio. VA and DCA affect "into" the portfolio. "Buy and hold" says when to do the transactions. Compare to the rest of the strategies which affect the portfolio's internal composition. --LadyGeek 17:21, 13 January 2016 (MST)
 * I keep coming back to the what I think is the goal, introduce the concepts and keep it as simple as possible. Remember that it's a summary style article that hopefully directs readers to explore elsewhere in the wiki via the main articles for each 'strategy'. While we could keep packing more and more information into the article, and/or re-organize sections, ask yourself if in the context of a summary style article, does it benefit the reader's understanding of the subject? Or will we lose them in the details? --Peculiar Investor 06:03, 14 January 2016 (MST)
 * I agree with Lady Geek, but the current article is good enough, and we should perhaps move on to investing styles.--Quebec 06:23, 14 January 2016 (MST)
 * I think we've developed a pretty decent article here. I'm ready to move on, already started working the potential new investing styles article.--Peculiar Investor 07:34, 14 January 2016 (MST)

Ready to move into Main namespace?
Following up on Quebec's comment, is this article complete enough to move into the Main namespace? I'd say yes. --Peculiar Investor 07:37, 14 January 2016 (MST)
 * How can this be coordinated with User:Peculiar Investor/Investment style? I think they should be rolled out simultaneously, as the content needs to match. Otherwise, I think a lot of readers will be confused with the "older" Investment style page. The "Strategy vs. style" section on each development page needs to be coordinated. --LadyGeek 13:46, 14 January 2016 (MST)
 * The last paragraph in "Strategy vs. style" discusses investing style, perhaps it should instead discuss investing strategy (what this page is about)? The investing style page discusses style in the same page location. --LadyGeek 19:02, 14 January 2016 (MST)

✅ Further editing to address LadyGeek's concern can occur in Main namespace. --Peculiar Investor 07:42, 15 January 2016 (MST)