Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:02 pm

Tyler wrote: Take the PP out of the equation for a moment, and I can say that my calculations for SWRs using stocks and bonds with various start years reasonably match those found in multiple retirement studies.  That gives me confidence that the methodology is sound.  Once that's set, switching portfolios shouldn't break anything.  You might also try calibrating that way to see what happens.
Great idea!  I just did that with 100% stocks but no matter what the WR is, the balance never goes to zero except near 2014 when it is at 19.50%.  Any ideas?  This reminds me of Russian dolls.

This is my formula to calculate the running balance:

=SUM($W13:$AQ13)/(1+SUM($AV13,$AW13))

Where W:AQ are the weighted asset returns, AV is yoy inflation rate and AW is the WR.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
dutchtraffic
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:28 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by dutchtraffic » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:13 pm

ochotona wrote:
Jack Jones wrote:
My understanding of timing is that it's a way to reduce volatility (not increase returns). So why go through all the trouble with a portfolio that already has low volatility?
This is a key point... volatility does not equal risk. You might say, volatility is one kind of risk. But you can have a low volatility portfolio that has very smooth "returns", but those "returns" might be zero, or negative.

My Dad used to say his 1960s Buicks had nice smooth rides, they made he feel safe. He also could not control it in an emergency situation.

Market timing Trend following gets you out of positions, a bit late, before they take you around in back of the woodshed. They get you back in, a bit late, in order to catch most of the next upswing. They do head fake you sometimes.

It gets you out of gold early 2013, back in after a big tumble.

It gets you out of S&P500 November 07... it gets you out Sept 2015. We'll see where that goes.

It gets you out of TLT late 2012, back in early 2014... just in time for a big rally. 2014 was great for long bonds.

Just run the 200 day moving average on any asset you like. That's the indicator. It's pretty simple, but not easy. Can you follow the indicator, and not second-guess it. It's tough!
Simply following a 200 day MA will get you stopped out all over the place.
Dmilligan
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:49 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Dmilligan » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:39 pm

Tyler wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: My understanding was he didn't want the ending balance to fall below the inflation-adjusted beginning balance, ignoring year by year undershoots.  The PP doesn't offer enough growth not to be depleted by inflation + withdrawals to stay above initial principal, which is a rather oddly strict rule.
Yep -- my understanding as well.  When I use "sustainable" withdrawal rate that's exactly the definition I use.  Whereas the "safe" withdrawal rate is where the end balance was exactly 0 (not lower).  The Safe WR for the PP (since 1972) is about 5%, and the Sustainable WR is about 4%.
Correct, I'm looking to try to establish a number based on Tyler's sustainable withdrawal rate methodology but with MG's extrapolated data going earlier than 1972.

The reason I'm asking is that I'm still experimenting with models for living in FIRE out of the portfolio. If the portfolio is needed for 50 years, then I've still been trying to establish a sustainable withdrawal rate. Further, I've been trying to establish an annual withdrawal percentage that still allows the portfolio to somewhat grow with inflation. I recognize that there will be years when the portfolio will be less and more, and the annual draw from the portfolio will also be less or more than the previous year draw (i.e., 4% of less or more). But, I'd like to take as high of a percentage as possible each year, but not take so much that the annual draw amount on a year-by-year basis starts to get eroded by inflation. Does this make sense?

To complicate a little more, I've also been modeling whether the sustainable withdrawal rate is raised (and by how much), if the annual withdrawal percentage draw is taken from the cash portion. Using the sequence of returns since 1972, drawing from cash seems to raise the sustainable withdrawal rate verses taking from the portfolio as a whole. To me, this is a real advantage of the PP for an early retirement portfolio. Also, seems a lot less complicated to manage in retirement.

MG, I'm hoping the .31% number is incorrect. Because that would mean that my annual percentage sustainable draw off a $1M PP is only $3,100! I was planning on the annual draw being closer to $40K!
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3214
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by ochotona » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:44 pm

dutchtraffic wrote: Simply following a 200 day MA will get you stopped out all over the place.
One key point is to only check 1x per month, same day of the month. It will cause some excess trades, for sure. Small price to pay for potential benefits. But it's not a lazy portfolio.
dutchtraffic
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:28 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by dutchtraffic » Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:10 pm

ochotona wrote:
dutchtraffic wrote: Simply following a 200 day MA will get you stopped out all over the place.
One key point is to only check 1x per month, same day of the month. It will cause some excess trades, for sure. Small price to pay for potential benefits. But it's not a lazy portfolio.
Once a month will be very risky, and just randomly looking at some charts, that creates some MAJOR losses.
User avatar
MWKXJ
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:33 pm

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MWKXJ » Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:25 pm

ochotona wrote: One key point is to only check 1x per month, same day of the month. It will cause some excess trades, for sure. Small price to pay for potential benefits. But it's not a lazy portfolio.
Tried rebalancing once a month when following 200 day moving averages via an Ivy portfolio in my VP and failed miserably; could not tear my eyes off of stockcharts.com.  This was doubly the case when the trendlines were moving strongly one way or another in the period immediately before the allotted day for rebalancing.  In such a situation, it is far too tempting to wait "one more day", and then, inevitably, one will begin picking and choosing which days to rebalance for each asset class, and soon after, checking charts all the time.

A hands-off automated rebalancing service might be the solution if such a service exists, however, the idea of a third party tapped in one's various brokerage accounts can itself be another---major---source of anxiety.
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3214
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by ochotona » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:09 pm

MWKXJ wrote: Tried rebalancing once a month when following 200 day moving averages via an Ivy portfolio in my VP and failed miserably; could not tear my eyes off of stockcharts.com.  This was doubly the case when the trendlines were moving strongly one way or another in the period immediately before the allotted day for rebalancing.  In such a situation, it is far too tempting to wait "one more day", and then, inevitably, one will begin picking and choosing which days to rebalance for each asset class, and soon after, checking charts all the time.

A hands-off automated rebalancing service might be the solution if such a service exists, however, the idea of a third party tapped in one's various brokerage accounts can itself be another---major---source of anxiety.
Meb Faber warns that it's emotionally tough to do this kind of work, for exactly the reasons you cite. It's like "training for a marathon", he writes. I agree. But the risk reduction benefits are so strong, I just can't let it go without trying.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:30 pm

Dmilligan wrote: MG, I'm hoping the .31% number is incorrect. Because that would mean that my annual percentage sustainable draw off a $1M PP is only $3,100! I was planning on the annual draw being closer to $40K!
Yes, I now believe it is wrong.  I just can't figure out why.  I see no obvious errors.  50% of a previous value is half then it splits again and again into infinity and never actually reaches zero.  So I must be calculating this WR wrong.  Lets see what Tyler says.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:35 pm

MWKXJ wrote: A hands-off automated rebalancing service might be the solution if such a service exists, however, the idea of a third party tapped in one's various brokerage accounts can itself be another---major---source of anxiety.
None of them exist yet for simplistic trend following, but more sophisticated risk management does.  If you're interested, see the Hedgeable thread (ask Reub for an invite so he gets the reward points, as well as some yourself).  There's also another service that I'm watching but it is still in beta.  Both are run by Bridgewater alumni.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Jack Jones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Jack Jones » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:48 pm

ochotona wrote:
Jack Jones wrote:
My understanding of timing is that it's a way to reduce volatility (not increase returns). So why go through all the trouble with a portfolio that already has low volatility?
This is a key point... volatility does not equal risk. You might say, volatility is one kind of risk. But you can have a low volatility portfolio that has very smooth "returns", but those "returns" might be zero, or negative.

My Dad used to say his 1960s Buicks had nice smooth rides, they made he feel safe. He also could not control it in an emergency situation.
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your point (and you said it was key, so I'd like to understand!)

I was saying that the Permanent Portfolio already has low volatility so market timing isn't likely to reduce it by much. Why not apply SMA trendfollowing to a more volatile portfolio with higher returns and bring the volatility down to PP levels but keeping the higher returns:

Image
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:51 pm

Jack Jones wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not following your point (and you said it was key, so I'd like to understand!)
He meant low volatility isn't the same thing as low MaxDD.  Low volatility porfolios tend to have infrequent left bell curve fat tail spikes that wind up "surprising" everyone.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2653
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think

Post by Cortopassi » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:55 pm

I've tried timing before, failed miserably.  Stressed out constantly.  PP removed all that.  No way am I a timer in any fashion!  My timing will either be annual or the bands.
Test of the signature line
Post Reply