LOL....Frank, this must be about the twentieth time you’ve said you’ll ignore postings and won't be responding any further, etc etc. But you always come back to fight another round!
Just a couple of points from one of your previous post that I want to comment on.......
You claimed that Storm’s strategy only became high risk when Storm failed to put in place the inbuilt safety devices that you and they agreed on, and when they failed to take the appropriate action that they should have taken.
And yet in the same post you admit that you would have lost ‘a great deal of money’ even if the trigger points that had been agreed to by you had been activated.
It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that the strategy wasn’t high risk, despite the fact that you admit would have lost ‘a great deal of money’ even if Storm had acted precisely in accordance with your agreement.
Any strategy that could lose you ‘a great deal of money’ sure looks high risk to me.
The strategy was always risky, Frank, irrespective of what Storm did or didn’t do in relation to trigger points.
It was risky because it invested in just one market, rather than spreading the money around between different investment areas.
It was risky because it put the family home at risk at a time in life when most Stormers would have no time to recover if things went wrong.
It was risky because the market chosen for investment is volatile with a history of spectacular crashes, some of which have taken a quarter of a century for the market to recover from.
It was risky because the high level of borrowing greatly magnified losses when the market started falling.
It was risky because a bear market would destroy the strategy, and bear markets are inevitable.
It was risky because if the market had opened 20% lower than its close of the previous day (as happened in ‘87) the safety devices that were supposedly in place would have been completely useless.