Yay PP!

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:29 pm

Eh just forget about it. Not worth even mentioning.
Pathetic as usual, always has been for me.
Last edited by buddtholomew on Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4203
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:05 pm

Gold and long term treasuries were no help today in the sell off

nothing stood up today …gold , bitcoin , commodities,all down .

But I am surprised TLT didn’t respond better , everything else I am not surprised about..

I mean the markets and commodities are fearing a slow down from the fast moving covid virus .

This should have been a 2% move for Tlt just on fear alone ….instead it is now down about .80%
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:12 pm

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:05 pm
Gold and long term treasuries were no help today in the sell off

nothing stood up today …gold , bitcoin , commodities,all down .

But I am surprised TLT didn’t respond better , everything else I am not surprised about..

I mean the markets and commodities are fearing a slow down from the fast moving covid virus .

This should have been a 2% move for Tlt just on fear alone ….instead it is now down about .80%
More money is lost trying to avoid equity volatility than just being invested in stocks through thick and thin. That is the takeaway from the PP for me. A lot of smoke and mirrors but ultimately nothing in the end. What a waste of time and energy.

Investors have been painted into a corner and the PP will not save you, it may even hurt you more.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4203
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:26 pm

Well I have a different view of things .

Pretty much I have just a slightly higher equity allocation at this stage than the pp .

Not really much difference there and in between the pp and the gb .

But our differences are that i weight my protective assets heavier for inflation…..the pp weights for lower rates and lower inflation putting more emphasis on recession and depression then I do with rate sensitive long term bonds .

My gold budget is split between bitcoin , gold and commodities…. Plus I have 10% of the portfolio in a strategic real return fund .

Both are a gamble despite what one wants to believe about the pp ..the only question is who is ultimately right …betting higher on inflation or higher on recession/depression .

As long as inflation is not going way high gold does not respond much which is why i diversified that part of things

So far this year I was right about inflation …but with covid the wild card the pp may take the lead next year …

In any case I am not aggressively invested in stocks , it is the protective assets where we differ
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:40 pm

Laughable I say the same thing year after year, it’s now time for the PP to shine. Yet it doesn’t shine at all. If it does, it’s for maybe 1 or 2 trading sessions and then back to sell off mode. There’s no safety in the PP, it’s very misleading.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4203
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:58 pm

Time will tell ..personally I think it’s time came and went as new ways of investing came on the scene and a 40 year old bull in bonds and falling inflation reversing maybe it’s Waterloo.

In Harry’s day investing in commodities was very difficult and not for the average investor….. we had no crypto like bitcoin ,etc.

Not that he may have used even mature crypto ,being the freak he was about who has control of those assets .

I am a believer in There is no such thing as anything that stands forever with no changes …the buggy whip makers found that out.

It took a long time but eventually what they did became out of sync with the times
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:09 pm

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:58 pm
Time will tell ..personally I think it’s time came and went as new ways of investing came on the scene and a 40 year old bull in bonds and falling inflation reversing maybe it’s Waterloo.

In Harry’s day investing in commodities was very difficult and not for the average investor….. we had no crypto like bitcoin ,etc
Couldn’t agree more, come and gone.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 12843
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by dualstow » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:14 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the Statler and Waldorf of our forum. O0
Let 2022 be the year of GOLD
Salman Rushdie is expected to live
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:17 pm

dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:14 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the Statler and Waldorf of our forum. O0
Haha, that’s great although I’m not that old though.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7255
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by vnatale » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:26 pm

dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:14 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the Statler and Waldorf of our forum. O0


Had no idea who they were until I did a Bing search ....
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4203
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:30 pm

vnatale wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:26 pm
dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:14 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the Statler and Waldorf of our forum. O0
Had no idea who they were until I did a Bing search ....
Me too
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 12843
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by dualstow » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:34 pm

buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:17 pm
dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:14 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the Statler and Waldorf of our forum. O0
Haha, that’s great although I’m not that old though.
I know, I remember your weightlifting video, which was awesome btw.
Let 2022 be the year of GOLD
Salman Rushdie is expected to live
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3249
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Yay PP!

Post by Cortopassi » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:46 pm

buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:40 pm
Laughable I say the same thing year after year, it’s now time for the PP to shine. Yet it doesn’t shine at all. If it does, it’s for maybe 1 or 2 trading sessions and then back to sell off mode. There’s no safety in the PP, it’s very misleading.
My returns here. Shining ok for me.

Image

And second, look at the PP (blue) allocation vs a 60/40 split for the past number of years (Portfolio Visualizer). Which one would let me sleep better at night? Easy to tell, right? And the ultimate $ difference over 16 years isn't that different.

Image
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:49 pm

dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:34 pm
buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:17 pm
dualstow wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:14 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the Statler and Waldorf of our forum. O0
Haha, that’s great although I’m not that old though.
I know, I remember your weightlifting video, which was awesome btw.
Thanks DS!
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:52 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:46 pm
buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:40 pm
Laughable I say the same thing year after year, it’s now time for the PP to shine. Yet it doesn’t shine at all. If it does, it’s for maybe 1 or 2 trading sessions and then back to sell off mode. There’s no safety in the PP, it’s very misleading.
My returns here. Shining ok for me.

Image

And second, look at the PP (blue) allocation vs a 60/40 split for the past number of years (Portfolio Visualizer). Which one would let me sleep better at night? Easy to tell, right? And the ultimate $ difference over 16 years isn't that different.

Image
Attaching my annual returns for reference over the same time period (globally diversified 60/40 portfolio, including REITs). It adds up Corto.

14.22%
6.57%
14.85%
21.77%
0.46%
25.10%
20.33%
8.79%
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3249
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Yay PP!

Post by Cortopassi » Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:58 pm

But you're on a PP forum, budd!

I don't have issues if you aren't crazy about individual holdings, or how gold sucks, at least at times, but it is incessant! Why bother?

This is like me on the politics forum eventually opting out because I was getting my head bitten off for being too liberal!

Are you trying to convince us to change our portfolios, or do you just like complaining? ;)
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:13 pm

I actually think of it more as community service.

I feel duped and I’m bitter because I wasted 10 years investing in 4x25 when I could have just stayed with a conventional portfolio and reaped the rewards. Veer off course and get burned. And what do you ask is the main differentiator between the PP and a conventional BH portfolio? Why, of course it’s GOLD.

I know I’m a broken record but I don’t want some young investor following in my shoes. 25% in gold is senseless, I know that now.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by D1984 » Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:14 pm

buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:13 pm
I actually think of it more as community service.

I feel duped and I’m bitter because I wasted 10 years investing in 4x25 when I could have just stayed with a conventional portfolio and reaped the rewards. Veer off course and get burned. And what do you ask is the main differentiator between the PP and a conventional BH portfolio? Why, of course it’s GOLD.

I know I’m a broken record but I don’t want some young investor following in my shoes. 25% in gold is senseless, I know that now.

If the "conventional BH portfolio" you are comparing the PP against is a 60/40 stock/bond or a 100/0 stock/bond then you are playing a game with loaded dice.

No one with even two brain cells to rub together expects a portfolio with only 25% in equities to do as well as a portfolio with 60% (or 100%) in equities....at least not if the equities in all of said portfolios are of roughly equal risk and expected return.

If you want to compare apples to apples you need to compare the 4x25 PP against a classic BH portfolio that is only invested 25% in stocks (i.e. a 25/75 portfolio with 25% in stocks and the rest--the remaining 75%--either wholly in ITTs or split 50/50 in a barbell of LTTs and STTs or cash). This lets the only "variable" you are changing be "gold" i.e. the percentage of gold in the portfolio.

Here is that comparison from the earliest PV goes back to (1992 since VFITX and VFISX didn't exist until late 1991):

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion8_1=25

Portfolio 1 is the PP; portfolio 2 is the 25/75 using VFINX and ITTs; portfolio 3 is the 25/75 using VFINX, VUSTX, and VFISX in a 25/37.5/37.5 ratio. Not a whole lot of difference in performance between the 4x25 PP and the two versions of the 25/75 classic BH.

You should probably stop blaming gold for the difference in performance which is in actuality almost entirely caused by comparing an equity-heavy portfolio with one that only has 25% of its holdings in equities.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4203
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:15 pm

I think buds premise is that 25% equites is no way to build wealth especially with assets that can drag the traction down . …..what I use in retirement is conservative because I built the wealth with 100% equities for decades in my accumulation stage .

Like I say , there is little financial logic to mitigating short term dips as a long term investor and permanently reducing your long term gains .

If one needs to do that because of pucker factor, perhaps they would be better served letting someone else handle their money .

Once one is Ready to start the decent into retirement I can see these mitigating portfolios useful …

We don’t insure against everything in our lives ….we pick the things most likely to be devastating to us and weigh the odds and decide what to insure .

In fact at different times of our lives we may choose to insure for different things as the bigger picture changes ..it is always about the odds and none of us likely insure against everything that can happen to us .


.
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by murphy_p_t » Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:27 pm

buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:12 pm
mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:05 pm
Gold and long term treasuries were no help today in the sell off

nothing stood up today …gold , bitcoin , commodities,all down .

But I am surprised TLT didn’t respond better , everything else I am not surprised about..

I mean the markets and commodities are fearing a slow down from the fast moving covid virus .

This should have been a 2% move for Tlt just on fear alone ….instead it is now down about .80%
More money is lost trying to avoid equity volatility than just being invested in stocks through thick and thin. That is the takeaway from the PP for me. A lot of smoke and mirrors but ultimately nothing in the end. What a waste of time and energy.

Investors have been painted into a corner and the PP will not save you, it may even hurt you more.
After the next stock reversion to mean (assuming it's in the next 3 years), I suspect the doubters will look more favorably on the pp... At which time it will be optimal to switch heavier into stocks and or metal.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4203
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Yay PP!

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:29 pm

More than likely they may look to more conservative portfolios but populated with different assets , no different then what I do.. it doesn’t mean that they are going to give equal dollars to all outcomes which are anything but equal in odds of play out like the pp , or they may not even want gold.

Personally i wouldnt want more than 5% in long term treasuries at this stage …

Who says weighting for low inflation and low rates is the proper course to follow ?

So you can’t think that if one wants a More conservative portfolio that they have to insure for the same outcomes the pp does .

At different times one flavor may not be the best choice.

Same equity level used with other assets weighted for higher inflation and rising rates can be just as correct as the pp weighting for lower rates and lower inflation …..both are betting heavy on certain outcomes in their own way ….
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by buddtholomew » Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:22 pm

D1984 wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:14 pm
buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:13 pm
I actually think of it more as community service.

I feel duped and I’m bitter because I wasted 10 years investing in 4x25 when I could have just stayed with a conventional portfolio and reaped the rewards. Veer off course and get burned. And what do you ask is the main differentiator between the PP and a conventional BH portfolio? Why, of course it’s GOLD.

I know I’m a broken record but I don’t want some young investor following in my shoes. 25% in gold is senseless, I know that now.

If the "conventional BH portfolio" you are comparing the PP against is a 60/40 stock/bond or a 100/0 stock/bond then you are playing a game with loaded dice.

No one with even two brain cells to rub together expects a portfolio with only 25% in equities to do as well as a portfolio with 60% (or 100%) in equities....at least not if the equities in all of said portfolios are of roughly equal risk and expected return.

If you want to compare apples to apples you need to compare the 4x25 PP against a classic BH portfolio that is only invested 25% in stocks (i.e. a 25/75 portfolio with 25% in stocks and the rest--the remaining 75%--either wholly in ITTs or split 50/50 in a barbell of LTTs and STTs or cash). This lets the only "variable" you are changing be "gold" i.e. the percentage of gold in the portfolio.

Here is that comparison from the earliest PV goes back to (1992 since VFITX and VFISX didn't exist until late 1991):

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion8_1=25

Portfolio 1 is the PP; portfolio 2 is the 25/75 using VFINX and ITTs; portfolio 3 is the 25/75 using VFINX, VUSTX, and VFISX in a 25/37.5/37.5 ratio. Not a whole lot of difference in performance between the 4x25 PP and the two versions of the 25/75 classic BH.

You should probably stop blaming gold for the difference in performance which is in actuality almost entirely caused by comparing an equity-heavy portfolio with one that only has 25% of its holdings in equities.
PP has been compared to a 60/40 on countless occasions and is a reasonable benchmark for a conservative portfolio.
whatchamacallit
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by whatchamacallit » Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:27 pm

D1984 wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:14 pm
buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:13 pm
I actually think of it more as community service.

I feel duped and I’m bitter because I wasted 10 years investing in 4x25 when I could have just stayed with a conventional portfolio and reaped the rewards. Veer off course and get burned. And what do you ask is the main differentiator between the PP and a conventional BH portfolio? Why, of course it’s GOLD.

I know I’m a broken record but I don’t want some young investor following in my shoes. 25% in gold is senseless, I know that now.

If the "conventional BH portfolio" you are comparing the PP against is a 60/40 stock/bond or a 100/0 stock/bond then you are playing a game with loaded dice.

No one with even two brain cells to rub together expects a portfolio with only 25% in equities to do as well as a portfolio with 60% (or 100%) in equities....at least not if the equities in all of said portfolios are of roughly equal risk and expected return.

If you want to compare apples to apples you need to compare the 4x25 PP against a classic BH portfolio that is only invested 25% in stocks (i.e. a 25/75 portfolio with 25% in stocks and the rest--the remaining 75%--either wholly in ITTs or split 50/50 in a barbell of LTTs and STTs or cash). This lets the only "variable" you are changing be "gold" i.e. the percentage of gold in the portfolio.

Here is that comparison from the earliest PV goes back to (1992 since VFITX and VFISX didn't exist until late 1991):

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion8_1=25

Portfolio 1 is the PP; portfolio 2 is the 25/75 using VFINX and ITTs; portfolio 3 is the 25/75 using VFINX, VUSTX, and VFISX in a 25/37.5/37.5 ratio. Not a whole lot of difference in performance between the 4x25 PP and the two versions of the 25/75 classic BH.

You should probably stop blaming gold for the difference in performance which is in actuality almost entirely caused by comparing an equity-heavy portfolio with one that only has 25% of its holdings in equities.
Good post. If you consider gold money, then take it out of your bond allocation.

If you want to have a 60/40 portfolio but have your bonds insured with real money gold, then put 13% in gold, 27% in bonds, 60 % in stocks.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by D1984 » Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:47 pm

buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:22 pm
D1984 wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 5:14 pm
buddtholomew wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:13 pm
I actually think of it more as community service.

I feel duped and I’m bitter because I wasted 10 years investing in 4x25 when I could have just stayed with a conventional portfolio and reaped the rewards. Veer off course and get burned. And what do you ask is the main differentiator between the PP and a conventional BH portfolio? Why, of course it’s GOLD.

I know I’m a broken record but I don’t want some young investor following in my shoes. 25% in gold is senseless, I know that now.

If the "conventional BH portfolio" you are comparing the PP against is a 60/40 stock/bond or a 100/0 stock/bond then you are playing a game with loaded dice.

No one with even two brain cells to rub together expects a portfolio with only 25% in equities to do as well as a portfolio with 60% (or 100%) in equities....at least not if the equities in all of said portfolios are of roughly equal risk and expected return.

If you want to compare apples to apples you need to compare the 4x25 PP against a classic BH portfolio that is only invested 25% in stocks (i.e. a 25/75 portfolio with 25% in stocks and the rest--the remaining 75%--either wholly in ITTs or split 50/50 in a barbell of LTTs and STTs or cash). This lets the only "variable" you are changing be "gold" i.e. the percentage of gold in the portfolio.

Here is that comparison from the earliest PV goes back to (1992 since VFITX and VFISX didn't exist until late 1991):

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion8_1=25

Portfolio 1 is the PP; portfolio 2 is the 25/75 using VFINX and ITTs; portfolio 3 is the 25/75 using VFINX, VUSTX, and VFISX in a 25/37.5/37.5 ratio. Not a whole lot of difference in performance between the 4x25 PP and the two versions of the 25/75 classic BH.

You should probably stop blaming gold for the difference in performance which is in actuality almost entirely caused by comparing an equity-heavy portfolio with one that only has 25% of its holdings in equities.
PP has been compared to a 60/40 on countless occasions and is a reasonable benchmark for a conservative portfolio.
"Has been compared"? Nice weaselly use of passive voice there.

Specifically who compared it to that? If they did, they were wrong and if you believed them, you were mistaken for believing them. Why would you believe a portfolio with 25% stocks was anywhere near equal in expected return to one with 60% in stocks? In what universe does that even begin to make sense?

Also, I'm not sure if you were saying that the PP was a reasonable benchmark for a conservative portfolio or that the 60/40 was but if the latter........

Sorry to break it to you, but 60/40 isn't a benchmark for a conservative portfolio....maybe for a moderate one.

Two points come to mind:

One, there's a reason Morningstar breaks down "conservative allocation" and "moderate allocation" funds into discrete categories like "Allocation--15% to 30% Equity, "Allocation--30% to 50% Equity", "Allocation--50% to 70% Equity", "Allocation--70% to 85% Equity", and "Allocation--85%+ Equity". It's so when you are trying to judge or choose between two different blended or allocation funds you aren't comparing apples and oranges by comparing two funds that are wildly different in stock allocation percentages.....yet by comparing the PP with the 60/40, this is exactly the mistake you are making.

Two, almost all (around or just under 92% to be exact; see https://thehedgefundjournal.com/the-ris ... -stocks-2/ ) of a 60/40 portfolio's actual risk contribution comes from stock performance and not bond performance; any portfolio that has nearly 19/20ths of its risk coming from equities can hardly be called a "conservative" portfolio.

Don't be angry at the PP just because you chose a portfolio that wasn't high enough in equities to suit you and then got pissed because said portfolio wasn't equaling or outperforming the high-equity allocation (and thus higher expected return) portfolio you otherwise could've chosen.

Harry Browne himself (you know, the guy who invented the PP) stated that it was meant mostly to be a wealth preservation portfolio, not a capital growth portfolio; he believed that you grow your wealth through working hard at your career and diligently saving money, not by investment.
ppnewbie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri May 03, 2019 6:04 pm

Re: Yay PP!

Post by ppnewbie » Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:03 pm

Just to echo what I believe Mathkak said, I moved to a PP in order to protect the wealth already created as I hopefully glide towards retirement. I would probably not choose this earlier in life. In fact I’m trying to decide the investing strategy for my kids. Is it better to limit losses with a golden butterfly. Or is it better to swing for the fences dollar cost averaging into 100 percent VTI over the next 25 years for them.
Post Reply