MSB chart, page-140

"Quiet frankly I think through this conversation I have proven what I set out to prove."

I'm not sure exactly what it was that you had "set out to prove", but what you have ended up demonstrating beyond all doubt is that you fail to see any nexus between RETURN and RISK ... despite that relationship being a fundamental tenet of capital allocation decision making process.

Evidently, you see no qualitative difference whatsoever between the investment returns generated by a portfolio of pristine, high-quality businesses with world-leading business models, and that same level of investment return generated by a basket of highly speculative stocks of dubious quality and possessing all manner of intrinsic and systematic risks.


Hint: You might want learn more about the notion of possible alternative histories.
To that end, NN Taleb's timeless text, Fooled by Randomness - The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in Markets, provides some invaluable insights into the very real, and largely overlooked, threats of risk.

Somewhat presciently, Taleb opines:
“One cannot judge a performance in any given field (war, politics, medicine, investments) by the results, but by the costs of the alternative (i.e., if history played out in a different way).”


[https://www.goodreads.com/work/quot...le-of-chance-in-life-and-in-the-marke?page=1]