Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
craigr
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2544
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:26 pm

Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by craigr » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:51 pm

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!
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9078
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by MediumTex » Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:15 pm

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.
Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.
-Dwight Eisenhower
ns2
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:39 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by ns2 » Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:59 pm

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.
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2132
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by buddtholomew » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:19 pm

MediumTex wrote: 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.
Last edited by buddtholomew on Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool" --Feynman.
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by Kshartle » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:21 pm

buddtholomew wrote: 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%
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2132
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by buddtholomew » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:27 pm

Kshartle wrote:
buddtholomew wrote: 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.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool" --Feynman.
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by Kshartle » Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:55 pm

buddtholomew wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
buddtholomew wrote: 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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by goodasgold » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:11 pm

craigr wrote: 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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by Kshartle » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:18 pm

goodasgold wrote:
craigr wrote: 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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by goodasgold » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:43 pm

Kshartle wrote:
goodasgold wrote:
craigr wrote:

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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by Kshartle » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:48 pm

goodasgold wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
goodasgold wrote: 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?
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8783
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Permanent Portfolio 2013 Results.

Post by Pointedstick » Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:49 pm

Kshartle wrote: 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.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Post Reply