This a very popular idea but I don't fully accept it. Goals and desires are not static. They are path dependent and adaptive. I want a funding scheme that's able to fund that.
I never said I "think [I am] entitled to returns just because [I] took a risk". There is no entitled, it's simply a trade-off.
It's a basic precept of investing. In a very simplified way - higher returns require higher risk of invested capital - why else would you invest in something higher risk unless the return justifies it? And likewise, people will accept lower returns if they know the risk is low.
Nobody is doing payday loans at prime because the risk isn't justified by the return.
When you start looking at portfolio allocation across multiple investments, it gets more complicated because you can actually achieve the same return at lower risk through diversification across classes of assets.
But to answer your original question - the only way to guarantee short-term and long-term positive returns (as you put it "if my goals change, I don't want to lose money") is to invest in low risk investments. Low risk investments mean low returns.
You said "This a very popular idea but I don't fully accept it. Goals and desires are not static. They are path dependent and adaptive. I want a funding scheme that's able to fund that."
Which I interpret as "I reject the idea of setting some financial goal decades into the future. I want a scheme that is flexible and can accommodate changes to how I want to use my money."
How is that different than "If my goals change, I don't want to lose money."?
The best sort of discussions are those where each is happy with the other's rewording of their position. I certainly do not reject setting financial goals decades into the future. I do not like ('like' and 'reject' aren't synonyms) investment discipline that are strictly fixated on some goal I had in the past. I would rather have an adaptive trade off of risk to return depending on where I am right now financially. Some goal I had ten years ago may not be as relevant in my current state. I wouldn't want to let go of a favorable opportunity by pulling out the money, just because a goal that I had set in the past has been met.
> How is that different than "If my goals change, I don't want to lose money."?
… and I don't see at all how they are equivalent. I might be willing accept the possibility of losing some money if there is a notable increase in the possibility of meeting my updated goal.
I doubt that we have any fundamental disagreement. You have a good day.
The core problem here is that nobody understood your original comment or the follow ups. It isn't clear what you are criticizing or what alternative you want.
