Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

[craigr]

I posted a summary of this year's results. Looks like around -2.4% for the year:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160324133 ... 3-results/

In the face of the largest gold market decline in 30 years along with a bond decline, I'm OK with this little of a loss. I remind myself that a year after a loss is often followed by a better year as things settle out. As an investor for some time, I'm also aware that I can't win every year. I just want to avoid really big catastrophic losses if I can. So in this sense, the Permanent Portfolio's diversification is still working for my own goals.

Have a Happy New Year!

[MediumTex]

Only a 2.4% loss?

Wow.  That really is very impressive, given that based upon the day-to-day posts here it often felt like the wheels had completely fallen off of the PP.

[ns2]

When reading the pros and cons of the PP before adopting it a few years ago the major contrary argument seemed to be that the impressive performance over the last decade or so was due to the price of gold and that this was destined to come to an end when the price came back to earth.

Well, I guess that happened this year and if this is the worse hit the PP takes in such a scenario then it buoys my confidence.

Having said that, I do hope we see a repeat of the pattern of good performance following a negative year as I honestly don't think I have the stomach for two negative years in a row.

[buddtholomew]

Only a 2.4% loss?

Wow.  That really is very impressive, given that based upon the day-to-day posts here it often felt like the wheels had completely fallen off of the PP.

A reasonable PP investor would agree with your comment if looking at the PP in isolation. When comparing the annual PP returns to a 60/40 SPY/BND allocation, the results are less impressive. The latter returned 14.2% in 2013 for a difference of 16.6%

During the 2008 time frame, the PP returned 1.5% and the 60/40 allocation -22.1% for a net difference of 23.6%

If we praise the PP for its stellar performance in 2008 when compared to a traditional 60/40 allocation, then we should scrutinize the 2013 returns using the same benchmark.

[Kshartle]

A reasonable PP investor would agree with your comment if looking at the PP in isolation. When comparing the annual PP returns to a 60/40 SPY/BND allocation, the results are less impressive. The latter returned 14.2% in 2013 for a difference of 11.8%

You mean 16.6%

[buddtholomew]

A reasonable PP investor would agree with your comment if looking at the PP in isolation. When comparing the annual PP returns to a 60/40 SPY/BND allocation, the results are less impressive. The latter returned 14.2% in 2013 for a difference of 11.8%

You mean 16.6%

Yes, duh! Thanks, I'll update the original post.

[Kshartle]

A reasonable PP investor would agree with your comment if looking at the PP in isolation. When comparing the annual PP returns to a 60/40 SPY/BND allocation, the results are less impressive. The latter returned 14.2% in 2013 for a difference of 11.8%

You mean 16.6%

Yes, duh! Thanks, I'll update the original post.

NP. It happens!

[goodasgold]

I posted a summary of this year's results. Looks like around -2.4% for the year:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160324133 ... 3-results/

What are the 2013 results in real as opposed to nominal dollars?

[Kshartle]

I posted a summary of this year's results. Looks like around -2.4% for the year:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160324133 ... 3-results/

What are the 2013 results in real as opposed to nominal dollars?

Depends on what you think inflation is. The CPI is up what...1.2% YTD?

M2 is up according to the FED by 4.2% YTD as of 12/16 and M1 is up 8.2%

[goodasgold]

What are the 2013 results in real as opposed to nominal dollars?

Depends on what you think inflation is. The CPI is up what...1.2% YTD?

M2 is up according to the FED by 4.2% YTD as of 12/16 and M1 is up 8.2%

Thanks. CPI is what I look at. M2 And M1 are beyond my knowledge to evaluate.

[Kshartle]

Depends on what you think inflation is. The CPI is up what...1.2% YTD?

M2 is up according to the FED by 4.2% YTD as of 12/16 and M1 is up 8.2%

Thanks. CPI is what I look at. M2 And M1 are beyond my knowledge to evaluate.

See I think those are easy because they are objective. What the heck is the CPI supposed to represent? Why does the computation method change so often?

[Pointedstick]

See I think those are easy because they are objective. What the heck is the CPI supposed to represent? Why does the computation method change so often?

It's supposed to measure the change in prices, not the composition or size of the money supply.

I don't know about you all, but the prices I pay for things didn't increase by 4.2% or 8.2% during 2013.