The Desert Portfolio
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Hey Edward,
Two questions...
Do you use 63 trading days because there are roughly that many in a quarter?
Also, what is your current asset allocation using the x/y/y formula?
Thanks.
Two questions...
Do you use 63 trading days because there are roughly that many in a quarter?
Also, what is your current asset allocation using the x/y/y formula?
Thanks.
Re: The Desert Portfolio
barrett,
Hi. I use 63-trading days because there is literature that 63-days is a good measure of current trend/momentum. As of June 30, 2015, my allocation is:
VTI - 26%
TLT - 19%
GLD - 23%
SHY - 32%
If I updated it today, the allocation would be:
VTI - 24%
TLT - 24%
GLD - 21%
SHY - 31%
Hi. I use 63-trading days because there is literature that 63-days is a good measure of current trend/momentum. As of June 30, 2015, my allocation is:
VTI - 26%
TLT - 19%
GLD - 23%
SHY - 32%
If I updated it today, the allocation would be:
VTI - 24%
TLT - 24%
GLD - 21%
SHY - 31%
Re: The Desert Portfolio
You could get over the asset per unit price influencing the weight if you used the ratio of beginning and end prices.
So if the asset is $50 at the beginning, and $55 at the end, you have a ratio 55/50 = 1.1. It would remove the asset price totally from the calculation. If the asset were $25 and ended at $27.50, you'd still get 1.1.
The question is, what kind of behavior do you want that 1.1 to correspond to? Do you want to use 1.1 itself as a relative weight, or square it, or cube it, or multiply it by a constant, or take the "e" exponent? Then after you do those operations on the individual assets, you'd form them into weights adding to 100%.
Those would be cool backtests, actually.
So if the asset is $50 at the beginning, and $55 at the end, you have a ratio 55/50 = 1.1. It would remove the asset price totally from the calculation. If the asset were $25 and ended at $27.50, you'd still get 1.1.
The question is, what kind of behavior do you want that 1.1 to correspond to? Do you want to use 1.1 itself as a relative weight, or square it, or cube it, or multiply it by a constant, or take the "e" exponent? Then after you do those operations on the individual assets, you'd form them into weights adding to 100%.
Those would be cool backtests, actually.
Last edited by ochotona on Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14284
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: The Desert Portfolio
A potentially novice question: why does the Desert Portfolio have such a long drawdown when it has such a small allocation to stocks?
This morning, I was looking at three portfolios: the pp, Larry's min fat tails, and Desert.
At Tyler's portfolio charts, we see the longest drawdowns for those are 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years respectively.
The worst year for Desert is a nice small -10% and I still find the DeP attractive, but why the protracted drawdown?
This morning, I was looking at three portfolios: the pp, Larry's min fat tails, and Desert.
At Tyler's portfolio charts, we see the longest drawdowns for those are 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years respectively.
The worst year for Desert is a nice small -10% and I still find the DeP attractive, but why the protracted drawdown?
Re: The Desert Portfolio
For what time period do you see that long drawdown? When I run it on Peaktotrough for the 1975 to 2015 period, I really only see 1981 and 1994 as negative years. 1977 and 2001 (and 2015 so far) are also in the red but with losses that are virtually zero. For the bond portion I am just using 10-year treasuries, which is just my own simplification but close enough I think.dualstow wrote: A potentially novice question: why does the Desert Portfolio have such a long drawdown when it has such a small allocation to stocks?
This morning, I was looking at three portfolios: the pp, Larry's min fat tails, and Desert.
At Tyler's portfolio charts, we see the longest drawdowns for those are 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years respectively.
The worst year for Desert is a nice small -10% and I still find the DeP attractive, but why the protracted drawdown?
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Desert Portfolio
It looks like 10-year treasuries didn't have a good run in the 70s. Also, TSM underperformed sliced-and-diced stock allocations during that time. Try swapping the 30% TSM out for for 10% each in large, medium, and small value stocks and see the difference. Also try turning the bullet bond allocation into a barbell. That helps a bit too.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14284
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Will do, PS, thank you!
http://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/desert-portfolio/
I don't know, but it's in Tyler's chart at the right. Says, "10 yrs, Longest drawdown."barrett wrote: For what time period do you see that long drawdown?
http://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/desert-portfolio/
Last edited by dualstow on Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Yeah, I see it there on the chart for the ten years starting in 1972. It's due to the crappy performance of stocks and bonds in the 1970s (big generalization, I realize). The lower gold allocation wasn't enough to pull them up into positive territory.dualstow wrote: Will do, PS, thank you!
I don't know, but it's in Tyler's chart at the right. Says, "10 yrs, Longest drawdown."barrett wrote: For what time period do you see that long drawdown?
http://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/desert-portfolio/
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14284
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Yeah, that's it. Top line.barrett wrote: Yeah, I see it there on the chart for the ten years starting in 1972. It's due to the crappy performance of stocks and bonds in the 1970s (big generalization, I realize).
But the other portfolio mentioned in my question is Larry Swedroe's, and it has no gold. Maybe TIPS {hypothetically would have} worked back then?The lower gold allocation wasn't enough to pull them up into positive territory.
Re: The Desert Portfolio
I don't know Swedroe's stuff but a quick glance shows 40% short-term bonds. That would be more or less like holding a lot of cash and cash had huge nominal returns in some of those years. In the summer of 1981 I was briefly getting 16% or so on a money market fund. A strong return in 40% of a portfolio is usually enough to avoid a losing streak. Hope that helps.dualstow wrote: But the other portfolio mentioned in my question is Larry Swedroe's, and it has no gold. Maybe TIPS {hypothetically would have} worked back then?
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Dualstow, Hope I am not getting in the way in your search for truth! I just wanted to suggest having a look at the return of a portfolio that was 100% in one-year T-Bills from 1/1/72 to 1/1/82. That "portfolio" had a a CAGR of 7.78 and was especially juicy the last three years. This is all in nominal terms, of course, but with the choppy stock market of the 1970s (some years were terrific, others horrible), it would have been very helpful to be able to park some of your stock winners in a cash fund that was cranking out solid gains.
I will now crawl back into my hole.
I will now crawl back into my hole.
Last edited by barrett on Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14284
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Not at all; you're very helpful.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14284
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: The Desert Portfolio
But, are you using a different tool than Tyler's? Whether I focus on short-term treasuries or the treasury money market (there is no T-Bill choice) I still get plenty of red in the 1970s.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14284
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Thank you for that comprehensive reply! I never messed much with backtesting until Tyler's site came along. Before that, I mainly just looked at snapshots of what other people did with Simba's work at Bogleheads. Now, I put on ambient music and can't stop messing with these calculators.
With regard to what you said about gold, yes, the days of Harry's 'Coming Devaluation' book are long gone. But since 'Best Laid Plans' and 'Fail-Safe' came so much later, and he still recommended about 25% in gold in those, he must have still seen it as playing an important role . Assets and portfolios continue to surprise, and gold may become The Great Multiplier Again. It was simply easier to think and talk about it when it was at 1700/oz. In the meantime, I like your idea of starting in '75 for simulations.
Ah, it seems like just yesterday many people were talking about how the miners were "on sale" and how it would be a great time to jump in. These days, nearly everything seems like it's on sale, and at the same time it doesn't feel like much of a bargain.
With regard to what you said about gold, yes, the days of Harry's 'Coming Devaluation' book are long gone. But since 'Best Laid Plans' and 'Fail-Safe' came so much later, and he still recommended about 25% in gold in those, he must have still seen it as playing an important role . Assets and portfolios continue to surprise, and gold may become The Great Multiplier Again. It was simply easier to think and talk about it when it was at 1700/oz. In the meantime, I like your idea of starting in '75 for simulations.
Ah, it seems like just yesterday many people were talking about how the miners were "on sale" and how it would be a great time to jump in. These days, nearly everything seems like it's on sale, and at the same time it doesn't feel like much of a bargain.
Re: The Desert Portfolio
I am thinking in particular about Newmont Mining (NEM), it has never been lower in inflation-adjusted price than right now, but my quotes only go back to the late 1970s. Schwab Equity Ratings has it as an "A" rated stock in an "F" rated industry. I think I'll buy some this week. It has been beat down -77% since its 2011 peak.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14284
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Be careful. It can always be beaten down further.
Re: The Desert Portfolio
Sounds like many people here have had that experience!dualstow wrote: Be careful. It can always be beaten down further.