Math -mathjak107 wrote: except why look at just the last 15 years when equity's had a sluggish run . how about the last 20 or 30 where the balance is 2 to 3x higher than the pp . or even the 5 year .
the fact is all that counts is your own results and what you are averaging with any portfolio over the time frame you have it
OK, so from 1/1/95 through yesterday, here is what I get on Peaktotrough.com (annual rebalances & dividends reinvested):
PP - 7.51% CAGR with a maximum drawdown of 14.18% and no other drawdowns greater than 10%. Total ending balance is $41,756.
60/40 S&P 500 & 10-year treasuries - 8.46 CAGR with a maximum drawdown of 29.91% and another of 23.39%. 8 total drawdowns of 10% or greater. Total ending balance is $53,728.
So greater volatility for a better ending bottom line. Back to what you wrote a few months ago, one needs a high "pucker factor" with a more volatile portfolio. Can you accept that most of us that implement a PP or something that is even PP-ish just aren't interested in the drama that comes with riding out those storms? We get that you have done well and you have added a lot to this forum in other areas. As for the PP, maybe its Waterloo is in fact here. We shall see. Maybe stocks are about to plunge or go to the moon. If the latter happens, well at least we own some stocks (and will be overbalanced in them much of the time, so holding more than 25%).
I guess rather than us reading posts that are so similar (I know, I know, I can just ignore them if I like), maybe you should just post the Mathjak 16 (5? 3?) Golden Rules Of Investing somewhere on here.