Is there a such thing as "overdiversification"?

Of course.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/051601.asp

>>1619026
Ask Germany

people who diversify at all are old men and uneducated millennials

>>1619172
kek not an argument.

if you can't properly keep track of everything or the fees start impacing your profits because you put so little money into every position.

given enough manpower and money there is no such thing as overdiversification. look at the world's biggest state-owned funds. they invest in everything and their mother.

yes.

when gains drop below inflation rate.

Then of course the strict case assuming you had infinite money to be infinitely diversified you introduced systemic risk and collapsed your currency.

Money is in flux and that shifting of value is what creates wealth changes and distribution.

Always remember poverty is the natural state of man. Natural forces always drive to poverty faster than they drive to wealth. You are over-diversified when your adoption of more varied assets overwhelms your growth.

The whole game of the stock market is diversification. Notice all the indices perform yet they limit the damage
The 4381 stocks in the US are narrowed down to the Top 100/500/2000 because most companies fail.

Then of course you're only narrowly exposed to the 45,359 public companies of the world.

Then of course you're only exposed to public companies. Go private and you've got way more.
Then of course you've got to expose yourself to the forex to avoid transfer costs between nations.
Then of course you've got to expose yourself to bonds to remove forex risk. Then all of a sudden you have to expose yourself to insurance in case of failure and Reinsurance in case of compound failure.
Land and natural rights to hedge against insurance failure.

Assuming no hands had to be greased between all these you're going through a momentous effort in order reduce risk. Ultimately your risk is zero and your gains are losses b/c global deflation is the current trend as discussed.

>>1619258
>>1619316
What both of these guys are saying is that as long as you have enough money within the portfolio/fund/whatever then you can always benefit from diversification through multiple asset classes. Just don't ignore those risk-free assets mate, easy way to increase your returns while not adding anymore risk to your current positions.

>>1620157

>risk-free assets

Why not ignore something that doesn't exist?

>>1619172
savage

A wagie who job hops constantly never escaping entry level. Do this for 5 years. Congrats you have no experience in anything. Good day

>>1619026
Yes. I'll give you an obscure example... Recently I was going to play Marijuana stocks by purchasing a basket that I had made. I only wanted to trade 2k USD, but had a large number of stocks in the basket. Come to find out that I would already lose 500 dollars on the trade if I executed it, due to commissions. Not a useful example, because not very common though lool

>>1621984
You should use Robbin Hood

>>1619136

>article has literally no argument how "overdiversification" is bad except that fund managers suck, which has nothing to do with diversification

diversification is just a meme
index funds are babies first stocks

>>1622291
>index funds are babies first stocks
And yet you're going to wind up mowing baby's estate and washing baby's yacht.

File: 1465158074931.jpg (194KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1920x1080px

>>1619172

>>1619172
>ask germany

what did he mean by this?