Originally Posted by
Left field
Interesting to debate Diversification.
Warren Buffett is quoted as saying, “Diversification is protection against ignorance - it makes little sense if you know what you are doing.”
In my case, from 2013 to present, ATM grew from 20% to over 60% of my portfolio and I was happy with that. Overall my total portfolio benefitted greatly from my not being too diversified (i.e. biased to ATM) While ATM has grown by over 1200% in that time, as a result my TOTAL portfolio has averaged 108% pa growth from 2013 to present, (i.e. non-taxable unrealized capital gain.)
I wonder if I would have achieved this result if I had stayed fully diversified with no stock counting for more than 10% of my portfolio?