Template talk:Asset allocation assertion

Sharpe citation

Continuing the discussion from the Bogleheads wiki: bogleheads:Talk:Asset allocation -

I respectfully disagree on the use of William Sharpe's quote directly in the template. 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).

The Bogleheads version:

Notes

--LadyGeek 15:18, 6 January 2015 (MST)

This issue arose because I suggested the need to have a citation for statement in the infobox. I don't disagree with the statement, it just needs to be supported by a proper citation. Wikipedia suggests the need for reliable sources. I realize that the our wikis are not 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 have reliable sources. Google turns up many instances that state this is "commonly accepted" without attribution or proof. I've attempted to address this by added a Further reading section with the scholastic studies that are commonly used to underpin this point. --Peculiar Investor 17:57, 6 January 2015 (MST)

I recommend the Investopedia citation and text as later discussed in bogleheads:Talk:Asset allocation. --LadyGeek 18:09, 6 January 2015 (MST)

Is there any disagreement if I changed the template to agree with result of the Bogleheads wiki discussion (bogleheads:Talk:Asset allocation)?

Notes

--LadyGeek 18:17, 7 January 2015 (MST)

Yes I would disagree. For completeness I'll repeat my reasoning from the BH talk page, 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.

Bogle version

Also discussed on bogleheads:Template talk:Asset allocation assertion:

I think the Bogle version is much easier for new investors to understand. It also makes a strong point to get your attention. --LadyGeek 14:34, 26 January 2015‎ (MST)

Not sure I understand the paraphrasing, the word insignificant isn't even in the cited material. From the cited material, I'd be focusing on

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.

— John Bogle

Even then, the more I research how to support the statement one of the most important decisions that investors can make, the more muddied the waters become. I find I cannot draw such a simplified conclusion after reviewing the Further reading section. For the retail investor, Ibbotson's The Importance of Asset Allocation might be the closest to helping. So how do we resolve this? I'll start a new section to discuss. --Peculiar Investor 18:29, 26 January 2015 (MST)

Proposal on how to resolve

It seems clear to me that LadyGeek and I are getting close to agree to disagree on this matter. That doesn't resolve the issue however.

First thought is about the format or layout of this template. From {{Notice}} "This template should be used sparingly in articles, and it is used to mainly to emphasize a point to the reader. Less important comments should as usual be put as text instead." Personally I find that the Notice template is being overused, definitely not sparingly, and distracts from the contents of the articles. As stated previously in this discussion, an alternative might be to remove the infobox and just keep the statement being made.

Secondly and much more important, the more I research how to support the statement one of the most important decisions that investors can make, the more muddied the waters become. I find I cannot draw such a simplified conclusion after reviewing the papers in the Asset allocation Further reading section, or anything else I've found on the subject via Google. For the retail investor, Ibbotson's The Importance of Asset Allocation might be the closest to helping.

I would therefore propose that we open a discussion topic on both FWF and BH to marshall the forum resources for help determining suitable wording and supporting citation(s). The benefit to this approach is we'd probably develop additional material to improve the asset allocation (finiki) and asset allocation (BH wiki) articles. In line with my first thought above, one of the my goals would be to remove the use of the {{Notice}} and just have the lead-in section summarize the concept and it's importance.

A side effect, I'd be examining whatever articles use this template, again with the first goal to put the information as text rather than inside a Notice infobox, unless a very clear and concise summary statement, supported by citation, can be determined.

--Peculiar Investor 19:09, 26 January 2015 (MST)

The forum discussions can be found at Wiki input requested: The importance of asset allocation (FWF) and Wiki comments requested: The importance of asset allocation (BH). The consensus from the BH discussion is removing the notice and re-working the introduction. Giving the FWF discussion a bit longer to run before determining a course of action. --Peculiar Investor 05:57, 2 February 2015 (MST)