to me those things are very exclusive. its hard to think how they would intersect for an average skilled investor like me. sure, some would say, there are countless example of good managers that picked the right companies with a value approach. you are able to achieve a margin of safety thereby reducing chances of an investment gone bad.

i believe there are some will develop this talent. i also believe there are alot of average joe like me who despite our hardwork and diligence, seldom comes close to achieving that.

It is even more difficult in my case. I would not say that i am under the category of risk adverse. at the same time i am uncomfortable with my pf going to deep red.

Mark, commented abt the difference between the 2 in the title. building wealth requires an investor to take additional risk for that added return. that we all learnt from the books. however, when you are risk adverse, wealth preservation figures some what in ur goals. this would typically result into a few things.

1) u are less informed abt financial shit. thus you are likely to stick to a balanced fund.

2) you follow the finance shit like i do. these conflict will confuse you such that ur pf looks like a abstract representation of a zoo.

if you are those who belong to cat (1), gd for you, i guess you are doing a gd job. stay out of those noise (i can’t. its drilled into me already. its like cigeratte and lup sup bar to some) and you will do alright.

if you are like me, then i suggest we sort this one out. comments on how we should go abt doing this are always welcome.