Because allocation decisions that cause poor results at the end of 10 years cause investors to lower their stock
allocations at bad times for doing so.
Not exact matches
The question that I am trying to answer is — If someone lowered his stock
allocation in 1996, as advised by Shiller in his congressional testimony of July 1996, what are the chances that the regret he would have experienced when stocks went up dramatically in the late 90s would have caused him to jump ship on a theoretically appealing investing approach
at the
worst possible
time to do so?
Those going with a zero stock
allocation took an emotional risk that they would become frustrated with «missing out» on those great short - term returns and would abandon the strategy just
at the
worst possible
time for doing so.
For example, willingness determines whether you can stick with your chosen
allocation and not abandon it
at the
worst possible
time (a bear market).