Sure.. I probably have discussed various kinds of ways to combine strategies, but I doubt that I am suggesting that a hybrid approach is preferable to a non-hybrid approach - and surely some folks might not be in a position to take any kind of hybrid approach until they get their finances in order,. so there may well be some preferences and/or benefits to building up an emergency fund and other cash reserves prior to becoming aggressive, and then maybe my own proclamation has been that guys should attempt to be as aggressive as they are able to be without over doing it.. so the devil can be in the details regarding figuring out the extent to which someone might be being sufficiently aggressive without going too far.. and also a guy might not realize that he went too far until he has some kind of an emergency that ends up testing his own set up.
If I'm getting your point correctly.
You're saying that a non-hybrid approach is a lot more preferable to a hybrid approach, but if one must decide to deploy the hybrid approach, they must first keep their finances in check.
And that the secret and key to am effective hybrid approach is finding a way to strike a balance between investment flexibility and financial discipline, by considering a framework the can be able to combine one's investment growth, one's financial stability and being overly prepared for emergencies that may possibly arise.
First building an emergency fund that'll possibly cover one's living expenses for at least 3 to 6 months as well as building other reserves funds, in a liquid and low risk asset.
Is that it, or am I still missing the point?