Should HML investors be wary?, page-39

The too good to be true argument is a weak argument, it does not factor in the amount of risk/return the investor is willing to take. HML is a risky play which is (at the moment) paying off. My evidence for this is that Stuart predicted Trump would be elected. This was completely OPPOSITE TO ALL POLLS. That is a ballsy call, regardless of who you are and definatley shows that risks are being taken.

I for instance don't mind a higher risk/reward ratio as the money I have invested in shares is not critical to my finances, it is surplus cash (as all investing should be). If people keep saying it is too good to be true there are plenty of index hugging funds and 1% p.a bank accounts they can put their money into. These funds preform poorly because they are the safe choices. You can't make money following the crowd.

To say this stock is too good to be true, calls the NTA as BS which would be super illegal and unlikely considering Stuarts reputation. So feel free to talk shit about an increasing stock for this reason, i think this is just cynical. Do all the nay-sayers think this stock is in a bubble, doubtful if you look at volume. So what exactly is the problem? Perhaps it just outpreforms because this is a risky investment, which i think even the most pro HML posters can agree with. This is not a blue chip and you'd all agree this is a small cap

So the real question is, what level of risk are you comfortable with?
I am comfortble with Stuarts judgement so i am comfortable with HML & BHD etc. If you cant afford to lose you cant afford to play the stocks