Talk:Global diversification
Administrative
I modified the description of the first efficient frontier graph to help those unable to see the graph colours (for reasons of display limitations, or someone having colour blindness). I also described the meaning of the line markers. The graph's "Constant SD" label has truncated the last character to appear as "SC", can you please update the graph? --LadyGeek 16:58, 18 January 2015 (MST)
Done Graph updated. --Quebec 14:50, 29 January 2015 (MST)
Asset class correlation
I don't understand:
The two bond-stock pairs (B-S1 and B-S2) have hypothetical correlation coefficients of zero, whereas the two stock classes have hypothetical correlations ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 (derived from an examination of historical data).
If the stock-bond pairs have a hypothetical correlations of zero, why is the stock-stock pair partially correlated based on historical data? The intent is to justify the assumptions of the previous section; supporting sources are needed. Or, I missed the point somewhere? I really don't know, as I got stuck trying to understand the assumptions. --LadyGeek 20:47, 18 January 2015 (MST)
- I've added the correlation matrix to make things more explicit. Does that help? Why these specific numbers: look at the 1993-2013 correlation matrix here, in particular the numbers in the "All Can Bonds" column (correlations with all types of stocks near zero) and the numbers in the "TSX comp" column (correlation with other stock classes generally between 0.4 and 0.8). I think it is becoming clear that just adding the two graphs, without a lot of explanations, will be hazardous!--Quebec 06:55, 19 January 2015 (MST)
- Yes, much better! I moved the derivations to the Notes section which allowed me to provide your explanation. The link is broken until the page is moved into the main namespace (remove the "User:Quebec/" prefix). I forgot to mention earlier that your explanation of the efficient frontier graph was very clear and easy to understand. Well done. --LadyGeek 18:32, 19 January 2015 (MST)
Replacing "home country bias" with "Global diversification"?
I'm done for now with this article. In my opinion this article should replace "home country bias", as it includes this topic but also discusses global diversification more generally. Is there a consensus on this proposal? --Quebec 18:17, 5 February 2015 (MST)
- Can this page be moved "live"? Two pages link to "Global diversification", Diversification and Canadian equities.
- The links are found by using a Special pages report Wanted pages, which lists all the pages with broken links. --LadyGeek 15:30, 10 February 2015 (MST)
- We need to decide if this page can replace "home country bias" first. --Quebec 16:58, 10 February 2015 (MST)
- Can we hold for a few days? I'd like to review, particularly in the context of replacing home country bias, but I don't have the cycles available to provide a quality review and comments. --Peculiar Investor 17:42, 10 February 2015 (MST)
- No problem, we can wait!--Quebec 18:04, 10 February 2015 (MST)
- I haven't forgotten about this, just been busy with the FWF software upgrade. Should be able to get to it this week. --Peculiar Investor 08:26, 16 February 2015 (MST)
- I would suggest keeping the Home country bias article, which focuses a bit more on the behavioral site. I'd then shorten the Home country bias section to just the first paragraph and use
{{Main|Home country bias}}. For the next two major sections, I'd change the order, equities, then fixed income, for two reasons. First, consistency with the order of the Reducing portfolio volatility and second, retail investors then to think global equities before global fixed income so the flow is more natural. I have some other smaller editing ideas, but they can wait until the article is in the main article space. --Peculiar Investor 16:50, 19 February 2015 (MST)- The "idea" entry under "External links" is not intended for the main namespace; I recommend review and clean-up. --LadyGeek 18:05, 19 February 2015 (MST)
- If we keep Home country bias as a separate article, won't there be a lot of duplication between "Global diversification" and the "Home bias" page? Arguments in favour of a strong home bias are usually arguments against global diversification... (and the other way round too). Wouldn't it be ultimately easier for us (and better for the reader) to fully integrate the articles in a single presentation on global diversification? (this is what I've been attempting to do...) --Quebec 06:19, 20 February 2015 (MST)
- There will definitely be some overlap of information, but that's OK. I see the home country bias article about the behavioral aspects and this article more about what to do about it, so more operational. Overlap between content is OK, excessive duplication is not. Also factor in the objective to keep article length manageable for the reader. I've got a bit of the same issue with Diversification and this article, but I rationalize it as different key focus points. --Peculiar Investor 07:44, 20 February 2015 (MST)
- Would you keep the home bias page as is, or rework it so that it focusses on the behavioral aspects?--Quebec 08:29, 20 February 2015 (MST)
- Once this article goes live, then perhaps the Home country bias page could be reworked. The current state of that page shouldn't stop this article from going live. They both will likely evolve over time, particularly as we solicit and receive FWF feedback. --Peculiar Investor 09:29, 21 February 2015 (MST)
- Would you keep the home bias page as is, or rework it so that it focusses on the behavioral aspects?--Quebec 08:29, 20 February 2015 (MST)
- There will definitely be some overlap of information, but that's OK. I see the home country bias article about the behavioral aspects and this article more about what to do about it, so more operational. Overlap between content is OK, excessive duplication is not. Also factor in the objective to keep article length manageable for the reader. I've got a bit of the same issue with Diversification and this article, but I rationalize it as different key focus points. --Peculiar Investor 07:44, 20 February 2015 (MST)
- If we keep Home country bias as a separate article, won't there be a lot of duplication between "Global diversification" and the "Home bias" page? Arguments in favour of a strong home bias are usually arguments against global diversification... (and the other way round too). Wouldn't it be ultimately easier for us (and better for the reader) to fully integrate the articles in a single presentation on global diversification? (this is what I've been attempting to do...) --Quebec 06:19, 20 February 2015 (MST)
- The "idea" entry under "External links" is not intended for the main namespace; I recommend review and clean-up. --LadyGeek 18:05, 19 February 2015 (MST)
- I would suggest keeping the Home country bias article, which focuses a bit more on the behavioral site. I'd then shorten the Home country bias section to just the first paragraph and use
- I haven't forgotten about this, just been busy with the FWF software upgrade. Should be able to get to it this week. --Peculiar Investor 08:26, 16 February 2015 (MST)
- No problem, we can wait!--Quebec 18:04, 10 February 2015 (MST)
- Can we hold for a few days? I'd like to review, particularly in the context of replacing home country bias, but I don't have the cycles available to provide a quality review and comments. --Peculiar Investor 17:42, 10 February 2015 (MST)
- We need to decide if this page can replace "home country bias" first. --Quebec 16:58, 10 February 2015 (MST)
Now in main space
The article is now in main space. I've posted an announcement in Financial Wisdom Forum post: "Global diversification on finiki". --Quebec 12:00, 21 February 2015 (MST)
Reader feedback: Good article. Some sugested...
70.80.180.56 posted this comment on 21 February 2015 (view all feedback).
Good article. Some sugested edits:
-"According to [s]the[/s] a recent survey from the International Monetary Fund"
-"so there is no need to venture elsewhere -> so there may not be a need to venture elsewhere." I would suggest we don't know for sure.
-"Readers will have to decide IF such a small potential diversification benefit is worth it"
Any thoughts?
Peculiar Investor 15:14, 21 February 2015 (MST)