Absolutely brutal - 5/5

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:49 am

All that matters is the time frames that apply to you and the time frame you have the most money in the investment pool .

The last 10 years are most important to me since they represent me retiring and setting my draw rate off that balance and the fact the money effected by that time frame was at its max
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:54 am

dockinGA wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:45 am
jalanlong wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:05 pm
Jack Jones wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:59 am
mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:43 am
I mean , it is no different then the fact that even 100% equities can loose way more at this point and still be ahead balance wise of the pp so you need to look at a complete cycle .
False. Consider someone who is about to retire. The returns of a complete cycle are less relevant to said individual.

Ain't it funny: now that we're in a recession and equities are being beaten down, Mathjak changes his tune to say that we weren't making enough money during the bull market. It's always trolling with this guy.
I don’t believe Mathjak has changed his tune at all. If you have been reading his posts over his time here, he has pointed out (correctly) that if you just invest in 100% stock portfolio, after a cycle you will be so far ahead of the PP that even the worst stock drawdown will leave you with more money than the PP. There is a cost to safety or the perception of it. Depending on your definition of safety the PP may not provide it.
This is assuming that you invest at the right time of a cycle, and stay invested throughout the cycle and don't abandon ship when things start looking bad. Mathjak may not have changed his tune, but as usual, he has spouted an overly simplistic view of things built off a bull market of historic proportions that is in no way shape or form guaranteed to continue in the future.

Just as evidence, see the following link for a comparison of PP (modified to include 50% 10 year treasury instead of bond barbell so that data can go back to 1972) compared to 100% stocks, starting in January of 1972 and running for 40 years. PP loses out by a whopping 0.12% CAGR, but has a far superior Sharpe ratio, drawdown, etc. Yes, the 100% stock investor would've ended up with $21k more dollars ($463k vs $441k). Big deal. Long story short, we don't know what the future holds. Anyone who's been invested in 100% stocks for the last 10-15 years has done very well. That could possibly mean the next 10-15 years won't be so good. And if it isn't, will a 100% investor, especially a new 100% investor with no bear market experience, be able to stomach the ride? I can say for sure that myself individually could not, and I learned that lesson in 2008 (thankfully with not a whole lot of money).

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion5_1=50
2008 was pretty close to a non event for retirees as those who retired are no different in risk of failing as any other of the 129 rolling 30 year cycles we have had that have passed the litmus test .

It takes an extended period of poor returns to effect the swr ….since 2008 has a quick recovery it was not a worst case outcome at all .

On the other hand the last 10 years for those who retired in 2012 may be in danger of not holding with the pp since the last 10 years have now held only about a 2% real return average .

The same is true with the insight income model but it is NOT recommended that that be a one stop shopping as your portfolio.

It is designed for money no longer then 5 years out or so for a medium risk tolerance level ..for low risk it is recommended you use it for No more then 5-10 years

https://www.fmandi.com/about/models.php

Mathematically it takes 2% real returns over the first 12-15 years to hold 4% …that may end with a buck so it is to close for comfort and requires cuts well before 15 years

https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-has-the ... al-crisis/
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dualstow » Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:02 pm

I mean there are people who don’t want the ride of a 100% stocks even if they know the returns will be inferior. That’s not an attack on mathjak, that’s just- well, it’s why the Ulcer Index exists
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:57 am

dualstow wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:02 pm
I mean there are people who don’t want the ride of a 100% stocks even if they know the returns will be inferior. That’s not an attack on mathjak, that’s just- well, it’s why the Ulcer Index exists
I agree but in the accumulation stage most of those people would be better served letting someone else ride herd on their money.

unless they have incomes that don’t require the power of compounding to take the bits and pieces most of us manage to save and turn it in to substantial amounts.

There is no financial logic for mitigating temporary short term dips for A long term investor and permanently hurting long term gains .

Emotions are the biggest financial killer and like vanguard said in their study , many would benefit from having someone else manage their investments if they are to emotional to invest efficiently themselves .
dockinGA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 9:29 am

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dockinGA » Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:57 am

mathjak107 wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:54 am
dockinGA wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:45 am
jalanlong wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:05 pm
Jack Jones wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:59 am
mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:43 am
I mean , it is no different then the fact that even 100% equities can loose way more at this point and still be ahead balance wise of the pp so you need to look at a complete cycle .
False. Consider someone who is about to retire. The returns of a complete cycle are less relevant to said individual.

Ain't it funny: now that we're in a recession and equities are being beaten down, Mathjak changes his tune to say that we weren't making enough money during the bull market. It's always trolling with this guy.
I don’t believe Mathjak has changed his tune at all. If you have been reading his posts over his time here, he has pointed out (correctly) that if you just invest in 100% stock portfolio, after a cycle you will be so far ahead of the PP that even the worst stock drawdown will leave you with more money than the PP. There is a cost to safety or the perception of it. Depending on your definition of safety the PP may not provide it.
This is assuming that you invest at the right time of a cycle, and stay invested throughout the cycle and don't abandon ship when things start looking bad. Mathjak may not have changed his tune, but as usual, he has spouted an overly simplistic view of things built off a bull market of historic proportions that is in no way shape or form guaranteed to continue in the future.

Just as evidence, see the following link for a comparison of PP (modified to include 50% 10 year treasury instead of bond barbell so that data can go back to 1972) compared to 100% stocks, starting in January of 1972 and running for 40 years. PP loses out by a whopping 0.12% CAGR, but has a far superior Sharpe ratio, drawdown, etc. Yes, the 100% stock investor would've ended up with $21k more dollars ($463k vs $441k). Big deal. Long story short, we don't know what the future holds. Anyone who's been invested in 100% stocks for the last 10-15 years has done very well. That could possibly mean the next 10-15 years won't be so good. And if it isn't, will a 100% investor, especially a new 100% investor with no bear market experience, be able to stomach the ride? I can say for sure that myself individually could not, and I learned that lesson in 2008 (thankfully with not a whole lot of money).

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion5_1=50
2008 was pretty close to a non event for retirees as those who retired are no different in risk of failing as any other of the 129 rolling 30 year cycles we have had that have passed the litmus test .

It takes an extended period of poor returns to effect the swr ….since 2008 has a quick recovery it was not a worst case outcome at all .

On the other hand the last 10 years for those who retired in 2012 may be in danger of not holding with the pp since the last 10 years have now held only about a 2% real return average .

The same is true with the insight income model but it is NOT recommended that that be a one stop shopping as your portfolio.

I accidentally viewed this thread without being logged in, so that means I've also accidentally directly viewed one of your posts.

Anyway, let's just do a little thought experiment. You say that 2008 was a non-event, which is undoubtedly true to this point. But what happens for someone that retired Jan 2007 and has been withdrawing 4% of their portfolio since then (most likely even increasing it due to the incredible returns over the last decade or so) in the case of the 10 yr CAPE ratio dropping back down to more historic levels representing an approximately 50% drop from where we are today. If that drop happened immediately, that would put us at a 1.45% real growth rate since Jan 2007 by my calculations. Also, that would put the retiree's current portfolio value at approximately $650k in 2007 dollars. Is that person in danger? Probably not, assuming a 30 year retirement. But the point is that these good returns can be erased really really quickly. The past decade or so of stock returns has been abnormal, and would've been practically impossible to accurately predict ahead of time, and therefore does not represent actionable information for the future.

PV information is in the link below. I also added the PP and the GB for comparison. Note that the PP/GB retiree was better off until 2018 (11 years) and once again pulled back ahead in the covid crash.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion5_3=25
Jack Jones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by Jack Jones » Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:36 am

dockinGA wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:57 am
I accidentally viewed this thread without being logged in, so that means I've also accidentally directly viewed one of your posts.
Yeah, the trouble w/ everyone blocking his posts is that the FUD he spreads just sits there w/out being challenged. There is an energy imbalance at play. Regular people get tired of it all and disconnect, while the troll feeds on it. It's a problem as old as USENET, at least.

I'm going to take a break from the forum. I wish you all the best.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dualstow » Mon Jul 11, 2022 8:13 am

I learned a new acronym - Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.
Take care, Jack.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:59 am

dockinGA wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:57 am
mathjak107 wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:54 am
dockinGA wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:45 am
jalanlong wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:05 pm
Jack Jones wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:59 am
mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:43 am
I mean , it is no different then the fact that even 100% equities can loose way more at this point and still be ahead balance wise of the pp so you need to look at a complete cycle .
False. Consider someone who is about to retire. The returns of a complete cycle are less relevant to said individual.

Ain't it funny: now that we're in a recession and equities are being beaten down, Mathjak changes his tune to say that we weren't making enough money during the bull market. It's always trolling with this guy.
I don’t believe Mathjak has changed his tune at all. If you have been reading his posts over his time here, he has pointed out (correctly) that if you just invest in 100% stock portfolio, after a cycle you will be so far ahead of the PP that even the worst stock drawdown will leave you with more money than the PP. There is a cost to safety or the perception of it. Depending on your definition of safety the PP may not provide it.
This is assuming that you invest at the right time of a cycle, and stay invested throughout the cycle and don't abandon ship when things start looking bad. Mathjak may not have changed his tune, but as usual, he has spouted an overly simplistic view of things built off a bull market of historic proportions that is in no way shape or form guaranteed to continue in the future.

Just as evidence, see the following link for a comparison of PP (modified to include 50% 10 year treasury instead of bond barbell so that data can go back to 1972) compared to 100% stocks, starting in January of 1972 and running for 40 years. PP loses out by a whopping 0.12% CAGR, but has a far superior Sharpe ratio, drawdown, etc. Yes, the 100% stock investor would've ended up with $21k more dollars ($463k vs $441k). Big deal. Long story short, we don't know what the future holds. Anyone who's been invested in 100% stocks for the last 10-15 years has done very well. That could possibly mean the next 10-15 years won't be so good. And if it isn't, will a 100% investor, especially a new 100% investor with no bear market experience, be able to stomach the ride? I can say for sure that myself individually could not, and I learned that lesson in 2008 (thankfully with not a whole lot of money).

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion5_1=50
2008 was pretty close to a non event for retirees as those who retired are no different in risk of failing as any other of the 129 rolling 30 year cycles we have had that have passed the litmus test .

It takes an extended period of poor returns to effect the swr ….since 2008 has a quick recovery it was not a worst case outcome at all .

On the other hand the last 10 years for those who retired in 2012 may be in danger of not holding with the pp since the last 10 years have now held only about a 2% real return average .

The same is true with the insight income model but it is NOT recommended that that be a one stop shopping as your portfolio.

I accidentally viewed this thread without being logged in, so that means I've also accidentally directly viewed one of your posts.

Anyway, let's just do a little thought experiment. You say that 2008 was a non-event, which is undoubtedly true to this point. But what happens for someone that retired Jan 2007 and has been withdrawing 4% of their portfolio since then (most likely even increasing it due to the incredible returns over the last decade or so) in the case of the 10 yr CAPE ratio dropping back down to more historic levels representing an approximately 50% drop from where we are today. If that drop happened immediately, that would put us at a 1.45% real growth rate since Jan 2007 by my calculations. Also, that would put the retiree's current portfolio value at approximately $650k in 2007 dollars. Is that person in danger? Probably not, assuming a 30 year retirement. But the point is that these good returns can be erased really really quickly. The past decade or so of stock returns has been abnormal, and would've been practically impossible to accurately predict ahead of time, and therefore does not represent actionable information for the future.

PV information is in the link below. I also added the PP and the GB for comparison. Note that the PP/GB retiree was better off until 2018 (11 years) and once again pulled back ahead in the covid crash.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion5_3=25


simple enough .

lets take bill and bob .

bill has 1 million and retires in 2007 and sets a 40k draw .

bob waits a year , has the same million and takes a haircut.

he has 600k left and a 24k draw .


so one of two things will have to happen .

if markets bounce back bob has to take an increase over just inflation adjusting .

if bill hits extended down years he will have to take a pay cut .

kitces recommends every 3 years you look at your portfolio balance . if you are still above your original starting point then take a 10% increase over and above inflation adjusting.

repeat every 3 years
dockinGA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 9:29 am

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dockinGA » Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:17 am

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:59 am
dockinGA wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:57 am
mathjak107 wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:54 am
dockinGA wrote:
Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:45 am
jalanlong wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:05 pm
Jack Jones wrote:
Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:59 am
mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:43 am
I mean , it is no different then the fact that even 100% equities can loose way more at this point and still be ahead balance wise of the pp so you need to look at a complete cycle .
False. Consider someone who is about to retire. The returns of a complete cycle are less relevant to said individual.

Ain't it funny: now that we're in a recession and equities are being beaten down, Mathjak changes his tune to say that we weren't making enough money during the bull market. It's always trolling with this guy.
I don’t believe Mathjak has changed his tune at all. If you have been reading his posts over his time here, he has pointed out (correctly) that if you just invest in 100% stock portfolio, after a cycle you will be so far ahead of the PP that even the worst stock drawdown will leave you with more money than the PP. There is a cost to safety or the perception of it. Depending on your definition of safety the PP may not provide it.
This is assuming that you invest at the right time of a cycle, and stay invested throughout the cycle and don't abandon ship when things start looking bad. Mathjak may not have changed his tune, but as usual, he has spouted an overly simplistic view of things built off a bull market of historic proportions that is in no way shape or form guaranteed to continue in the future.

Just as evidence, see the following link for a comparison of PP (modified to include 50% 10 year treasury instead of bond barbell so that data can go back to 1972) compared to 100% stocks, starting in January of 1972 and running for 40 years. PP loses out by a whopping 0.12% CAGR, but has a far superior Sharpe ratio, drawdown, etc. Yes, the 100% stock investor would've ended up with $21k more dollars ($463k vs $441k). Big deal. Long story short, we don't know what the future holds. Anyone who's been invested in 100% stocks for the last 10-15 years has done very well. That could possibly mean the next 10-15 years won't be so good. And if it isn't, will a 100% investor, especially a new 100% investor with no bear market experience, be able to stomach the ride? I can say for sure that myself individually could not, and I learned that lesson in 2008 (thankfully with not a whole lot of money).

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion5_1=50
2008 was pretty close to a non event for retirees as those who retired are no different in risk of failing as any other of the 129 rolling 30 year cycles we have had that have passed the litmus test .

It takes an extended period of poor returns to effect the swr ….since 2008 has a quick recovery it was not a worst case outcome at all .

On the other hand the last 10 years for those who retired in 2012 may be in danger of not holding with the pp since the last 10 years have now held only about a 2% real return average .

The same is true with the insight income model but it is NOT recommended that that be a one stop shopping as your portfolio.

I accidentally viewed this thread without being logged in, so that means I've also accidentally directly viewed one of your posts.

Anyway, let's just do a little thought experiment. You say that 2008 was a non-event, which is undoubtedly true to this point. But what happens for someone that retired Jan 2007 and has been withdrawing 4% of their portfolio since then (most likely even increasing it due to the incredible returns over the last decade or so) in the case of the 10 yr CAPE ratio dropping back down to more historic levels representing an approximately 50% drop from where we are today. If that drop happened immediately, that would put us at a 1.45% real growth rate since Jan 2007 by my calculations. Also, that would put the retiree's current portfolio value at approximately $650k in 2007 dollars. Is that person in danger? Probably not, assuming a 30 year retirement. But the point is that these good returns can be erased really really quickly. The past decade or so of stock returns has been abnormal, and would've been practically impossible to accurately predict ahead of time, and therefore does not represent actionable information for the future.

PV information is in the link below. I also added the PP and the GB for comparison. Note that the PP/GB retiree was better off until 2018 (11 years) and once again pulled back ahead in the covid crash.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion5_3=25


simple enough .

lets take bill and bob .

bill has 1 million and retires in 2007 and sets a 40k draw .

bob waits a year , has the same million and takes a haircut.

he has 600k left and a 24k draw .


so one of two things will have to happen .

if markets bounce back bob has to take an increase over just inflation adjusting .

if bill hits extended down years he will have to take a pay cut .

kitces recommends every 3 years you look at your portfolio balance . if you are still above your original starting point then take a 10% increase over and above inflation adjusting.

repeat every 3 years
I have no idea what your story about bob and bill has to do with the previous posts. You seem to be describing withdrawing money in retirement and when to increase that, instead of discussing the relative performances of the PP/GB vs 100% stocks or discussing the impact of a return to normal valuations on a 2007 retiree.

As an aside, if the 2007 retiree had increased his withdrawal rate due to outsized returns since 2008, as you suggest with the Kitces recommendation, he would have less money in my hypothetical crash than I hypothesized and be even more likely to have issues in the future. This being in spite of the fact that the first 10+ years of his retirement was way way way better than a 2% real return.

Anyway, back to making sure I'm logged in when I pull up the page.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by Smith1776 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:24 am

We might as well go one step further then and simply advocate an approach that is 200% stocks via leverage. That will surely give even better long-term results.

We don't do that though because of the very human elements that are inextricably attached to investing... and also because we simply don't know whether the next 10 years will be like the last in ten in the U.S. equity markets. Instead, they could end up like the decade of the 30's. Who knows.

A lot of this also depends on how safe your labour income is too.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:56 am

There is a point investing turns in to speculation

Also leveraged funds are not suitable as long term holds because of how they reset daily
dockinGA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 9:29 am

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dockinGA » Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:24 am

Smith1776 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:24 am
We don't do that though because of the very human elements that are inextricably attached to investing.
According to mathjak, this means all humans should give a flunky money manager 1% of their portfolio every year so they can dump them into a simplistic 'one size fits all' portfolio that has performed well during the greatest bull market in history.
Smith1776 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:24 am
and also because we simply don't know whether the next 10 years will be like the last in ten in the U.S. equity markets. Instead, they could end up like the decade of the 30's. Who knows.
Mathjak seems to know.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by Smith1776 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:38 am

I will also add that one of the other reasons why I prefer a conservative portfolio is not just because of my ignorance of future economic events, but also due to my ignorance of my own future internal state.

How do I know I won't want that money in 5 years to start a business? Or an economic dependent comes along? Or I need to fall back on it to meet some other crazy calamity?

Just too many unknowns.

I'd agree that 100% stocks would be appropriate if I had so much money that my marginal utility for extra dollars was negligible.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
dockinGA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 9:29 am

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dockinGA » Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:34 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:38 am
I will also add that one of the other reasons why I prefer a conservative portfolio is not just because of my ignorance of future economic events, but also due to my ignorance of my own future internal state.

How do I know I won't want that money in 5 years to start a business? Or an economic dependent comes along? Or I need to fall back on it to meet some other crazy calamity?

Just too many unknowns.

I'd agree that 100% stocks would be appropriate if I had so much money that my marginal utility for extra dollars was negligible.
Excellent point. Money saved (even money in retirement accounts) can be used for things other than retirement. In fact, it's not just that it can be used, but in some cases it may HAVE to be used. And the time when you need to access the money could very well be a time when the economy is in the crapper.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:02 pm

There are a million scenarios people come up with to justify a poor or mediocre investment plan including totally avoiding investing

The reality is most investors have long term and short term money

As well as it is pretty likely if someone needed the dough in a down turn there balance would likely be higher even with the downturn


You all got to make your own investment plan but I wouldn’t play the conservative game during my accumulation years I never let the head games get me not to take advantage of the power of compounding over time and screw me over with what ifs

When I was raising a family I just invested less for the long term but what I could was always 100% diversified stocks equity funds
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by Smith1776 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:10 pm

Well, I'm convinced. I'm putting 100% of my money into an index of micro cap bubble tea companies.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
dockinGA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 9:29 am

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dockinGA » Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:38 pm

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:02 pm
There are a million scenarios people come up with to justify a poor or mediocre investment plan including totally avoiding investing

The reality is most investors have long term and short term money

As well as it is pretty likely if someone needed the dough in a down turn there balance would likely be higher even with the downturn


You all got to make your own investment plan but I wouldn’t play the conservative game during my accumulation years I never let the head games get me not to take advantage of the power of compounding over time and screw me over with what ifs

When I was raising a family I just invested less for the long term but what I could was always 100% diversified stocks equity funds
I'm so proud of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now go back and run the numbers, with actual investments, actual dates that you made those investments, etc. and compare with if you'd put the money into the PP or something similar at the same dates and times, and come back and tell us actually how big of a difference it made. And then tell us what your outcome would've been if you'd maybe not been so lucky as to invest during such a great run for stocks that's clouding your judgment of what being 100% stocks is like. Then MAYBE, just maybe, people on this site will start to listen to the investing 'advice' of some internet troll drummer/photographer dude that never brings any actual data to the table and admits that he doesn't keep track of his investment results.
dockinGA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 9:29 am

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dockinGA » Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:55 pm

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:02 pm


As well as it is pretty likely if someone needed the dough in a down turn there balance would likely be higher even with the downturn
Also, this is not likely to be true for someone in the early part of their accumulation phase, as I was in 2008. Good paying job, lots of money going in to the market, and it all disappeared in a flash. Then, I almost lost my job during the recession. With a nice big mortgage on a house whose price had dropped quite a bit. The investments I had made were worth way way less than the amount of money I'd put in up to that point, and I almost needed to tap in to it.

Anyway, if you'd bothered to read any of the other posts I'd made today, or look at any actual data, you would see that there are plenty of scenarios IN RECENT history where the PP/GB was ahead during the 2008 crash or even the COVID crash, even after significant periods of time. But here's another one for you to look at, representing someone in their accumulation phase no less. And if you're incapable of envisioning a world where the performance difference is wiped out in the not too distant future, then I can't help you there.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion5_3=20
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by Smith1776 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:28 pm

In principle, we shouldn't even be having a debate about what portfolio is best -- regardless of life stage or goals etc. Theoretically we should all agree on the best portfolio. This would be the tangency portfolio that intersects with the efficient frontier. Of all the popularized portfolios out there the GB is probably the closest to this ideal portfolio in general terms, and without overfitting the data.

For those that want less risk (less return) than this portfolio they'd add cash. For those that want more risk (more return) they'd lever up.

Of course, leverage aversion and inability to access institutional level leverage prevents many individuals from really doing this. So we substitute concentration risk (heavy equities) for leverage risk to get the increased risk/return. This is suboptimal but necessary in many cases.

I don't think either side of this debate is really right or wrong, but I do think that mathjak in particular should recognize that there's a reason why investor risk questionnaires exist. The psychological element of investing and the "sleep point" are concepts that shouldn't be ignored.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:32 pm

Investor behavior has been the biggest factor and most small investors have shot themselves in the foot based on their own behavior .

Almost all funds have ended up with higher fund returns then the investors in them according to morningstars small investor tracking and vanguards study .

So even conservative investors are exhibiting the same poor investor behavior …they just have lower trigger points .

Most would do better having their money managed by a third party, first because of their behavior and second because of their weak allocations with the more conservative investors ,hurting them
dockinGA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 9:29 am

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dockinGA » Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:54 pm

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:32 pm
Investor behavior has been the biggest factor and most small investors have shot themselves in the foot based on their own behavior .

Almost all funds have ended up with higher fund returns then the investors in them according to morningstars small investor tracking and vanguards study .

So even conservative investors are exhibiting the same poor investor behavior …they just have lower trigger points .

Most would do better having their money managed by a third party, first because of their behavior and second because of their weak allocations with the more conservative investors ,hurting them
And what's the relevance here? Where's your evidence that there's some PP/GB portfolio advocates on this forum that are performing worse than the PP/GB as a whole? Again, you're spouting absolutely useless information (that everyone here already knows, I might add) on this forum and providing zero benefit to anyone.
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:55 pm

You mean like most of your comments are just useless arguing and bull shit.. wait let me correct that ..I find all your comments useless insulting and arguing and just bull shit
dockinGA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 9:29 am

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by dockinGA » Mon Jul 11, 2022 4:14 pm

mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:55 pm
You mean like most of your comments are just useless arguing and bull shit.. wait let me correct that ..I find all your comments useless insulting and arguing and just bull shit
Well, if you weren't around, there'd be no need for me to argue incessantly with somebody.

Look, I think I've figured you out. You're a person of middling intelligence, made a middling income, took a lot of extra risk in your investments and ended up with more money than your peers who knew nothing about investing. Your gamble paid off. Little do you know, if you looked at actual peformance of your investments vs millions of others (even ones that less risk) you'll find negligible differences in the grand scheme of things. But you don't and or won't look at that data, even when confronted with it repeatedly just in my comments today, much less other peoples comments through the years, because if you realized that millions of other people did well with their investments too it would eliminate your grandiose visions of your investing genius.

Now, buzz off again so the rest of us can have discussions about things other than you.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by Smith1776 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:38 pm

Wow.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Absolutely brutal - 5/5

Post by mathjak107 » Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:41 pm

dockinGA wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 4:14 pm
mathjak107 wrote:
Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:55 pm
You mean like most of your comments are just useless arguing and bull shit.. wait let me correct that ..I find all your comments useless insulting and arguing and just bull shit
Well, if you weren't around, there'd be no need for me to argue incessantly with somebody.

Look, I think I've figured you out. You're a person of middling intelligence, made a middling income, took a lot of extra risk in your investments and ended up with more money than your peers who knew nothing about investing. Your gamble paid off. Little do you know, if you looked at actual peformance of your investments vs millions of others (even ones that less risk) you'll find negligible differences in the grand scheme of things. But you don't and or won't look at that data, even when confronted with it repeatedly just in my comments today, much less other peoples comments through the years, because if you realized that millions of other people did well with their investments too it would eliminate your grandiose visions of your investing genius.

Now, buzz off again so the rest of us can have discussions about things other than you.
Same to you ……stay the fuck off my posts
Post Reply