I tried to put into context the "hysteria" I personally felt. Obviously this comment was overlooked or completely ignored.jco wrote: There results are all pre-dividend too aren't they? Rates/dividends on equal quads come to 1.4% (0.9% cash, 2.8% bond, 1.9% stock, 0% gold)... So PP was down probably less than 1.99%.
Maybe there was some anomalie that made Jan1 entries especially good?... Otherwise I can't understand the hysteria that went on here... Perhaps it is just the pain of "missing out" on being 100% stocks in such a ridiculous year.
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.