I probably did not make my point well. Jim and Zee are statistical outliers. I don't know Z's work that well, but Jim has so much knowledge that he really knocks the ball out of the park. I actually do slightly better than a 60/40 portfolio. Mainly because I learned about preferred stocks on this board, and it beats regular bonds. I also subscribe to a few newsletters that beat the s and p. But I don't do much better than a 60/40.

If I did not enjoy the process of investing, I would be better off with a 60/40 and playing tennis. Since I enjoy investing it is worth spending a lot of time to do slightly better than a 60/40.

As for Saul, I agree that when the cost of capital was a lot lower, growth stocks did a lot better. Also, to quote Ray, there is a time for everything, for 5 years it was a time for Saul's strategy to work. I hope that time returns.

I appreciate you figuring out that AIM does not work that well. I am not sure I could have figured it out myself. You saved me time, and possibly the opportunity cost of using it, when something else could work better.

One other point. AIM was written in the 1970s. I think in that particular market, where the stock market went up and down, but ended where it started, the strategy might have worked very well.