I have been thinking along these lines for a while now... Many of the "boring" asset classes eg. listed property have been classified as such by an investment industry bent on ensuring that you invest in cyclicals so that they can swing between positions and generate fees. In the fullness of time - it is very difficult to outperform a quality listed property portfolio for instance; as it removes sectoral risk and shifts the stress of chasing inflation to its tenants. It also gives a dividend through thick and thin. I am a firm believer in hitching my horse to a "Rolls Royce" of a trailer. REINET - (although it is far away from the R10 I started whooping at)... Rupert owns half of the thing and must look after his money. He is clever and has access to the kind of advice I can't tap! So climb aboard and go along for the ride. Here too - while the analysts lambast his management fee structure - it is ironically similar to or even cheaper than most of those very same asset managers:; on a 1+1 basis vs typically 1+15to2. Makes you wonder... I stay well away from the professional analysts - they have there own agenda. This I will say: nothing changes - the more you have - the bigger your positions and the more you worry. Your personality type will win out! I feel I must invest in inflation tracking assets that have the ability to pass on inflation without becoming turgid and falling victim to it! Many of the stocks we buy... AGL, IMP, KIO... are good for nothing more than trading. There is no certainty that they will even be there 5 years from now. Some years ago I read an article in the Motley Fool in which they could not stress the value of dividends strongly enough. They were right! Not just because the cash income is necessary and constitutes the bulk of most stocks' yield over the years - but because the dividend is in itself the only real indicator that the cash flows are adequate and consistent. BUT most of all - I believe in investing far away from labour and very far away from South Africa.