Re: Scott Burns' Co on the PP
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:32 pm
The article seems to be entirely about a single 30-year period. This guy badly needs to visit Tyler's site.
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8574
The stagflationary 70's didn't happen for everyone. Essentially, the Baby Boomers have been driving the market consistently upwards into Overvaluation Nirvana since 401K funds became practical in 1989. The problem is the normal investing horizon is far too short to prioritize tank-like safety ala the PP to reach investment goals, unless you're already got a high paying job that makes saving have more than a marginal future impact or you already have a lot of financial assets.Xan wrote:The article seems to be entirely about a single 30-year period. This guy badly needs to visit Tyler's site.
Yeah, good ol' Greg Rowland. Damn financial writers and their lack of attention to detail. If stocks repeat their performance from 1987 to present (or 1982 to present) for the next 30 years, then, yes, a heavy bet on stocks will have delivered a superior return. But the PP isn't built on the hope that the economy will grow evenly and forever. In fact apathy seems to be the best emotion for a PP'er.MangoMan wrote:Written by Burn's colleague Andrew Hallam, the article give kudos to Craigr and MT [although refers to Craig as Greg] on their 'excellent' book and the PP concept, but then shows how return suffers in the name of stability.
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-cent ... go-haywire
No kidding. Picking a single particularly favorable start date to "prove" a financial point is so passé.Xan wrote:The article seems to be entirely about a single 30-year period. This guy badly needs to visit Tyler's site.
From 2005 to yesterday using ETFs...9.63 CAGR/-19.47 Max DDjason wrote:I'm not sure it's really fair to compare the returns of a 60/40 portfolio (without cash) to the PP when cash is yielding around zero. Has anyone run numbers on a 33.3/33.3/33.3 PP without cash (maybe there is an existing thread on this forum about this)? I'm also curious about what the optimal re-balancing bands would be for that.
Well, since you're not greedy for gains like we were everything should be all right then.MachineGhost wrote:Xan wrote: As a Gen Xer, I'm very acutely aware of the irreparable damage that the absolutely spoiled Baby Boomers have done and continue to do to the U.S. economy and political system. Their greedy gains over the past 27 years is my permanent loss of capital risk.
Thanks! Where did you get that figure? How does it compare to a regular PP with cash? What re-balance rules did you use? I'd be interested to see it going all the way back to 1972. It can be done with peaktrough, but re-balancing options are limited. Perhaps 43/23 or 40/20 would work well?Kbg wrote:From 2005 to yesterday using ETFs...9.63 CAGR/-19.47 Max DDjason wrote:I'm not sure it's really fair to compare the returns of a 60/40 portfolio (without cash) to the PP when cash is yielding around zero. Has anyone run numbers on a 33.3/33.3/33.3 PP without cash (maybe there is an existing thread on this forum about this)? I'm also curious about what the optimal re-balancing bands would be for that.
Well, since you're not greedy for gains like we were everything should be all right then.MachineGhost wrote: As a Gen Xer, I'm very acutely aware of the irreparable damage that the absolutely spoiled Baby Boomers have done and continue to do to the U.S. economy and political system. Their greedy gains over the past 27 years is my permanent loss of capital risk.
+1000curlew wrote:Well, since you're not greedy for gains like we were everything should be all right then.MachineGhost wrote: As a Gen Xer, I'm very acutely aware of the irreparable damage that the absolutely spoiled Baby Boomers have done and continue to do to the U.S. economy and political system. Their greedy gains over the past 27 years is my permanent loss of capital risk.
You're a GenXer? I thought you were at least 75!MachineGhost wrote:The stagflationary 70's didn't happen for everyone. Essentially, the Baby Boomers have been driving the market consistently upwards into Overvaluation Nirvana since 401K funds became practical in 1989. The problem is the normal investing horizon is far too short to prioritize tank-like safety ala the PP to reach investment goals, unless you're already got a high paying job that makes saving have more than a marginal future impact or you already have a lot of financial assets.Xan wrote:The article seems to be entirely about a single 30-year period. This guy badly needs to visit Tyler's site.
As a Gen Xer, I'm very acutely aware of the irreparable damage that the absolutely spoiled Baby Boomers have done and continue to do to the U.S. economy and political system. Their greedy gains over the past 27 years is my permanent loss of capital risk. It's a very dangerous time right now as we zoom closer and closer to The Great Unwinding.
I really don't know what is going to happen to the "all weather" concept, but when you have 50% of the portfolio returning cash-like returns but with orders of a magnitude more risk, it doesn't really make rational sense to be in anything other than cash and gold. Short term gains are irrelevant because its how much you ultimately keep and not make in the interim while everyone is still partying it up. Recall, the PP had a -25% maximum drawdown in 1981 on "Fight Inflation" ballyhoo and the situation is now far beyond that in terms of destructive potential.
Did I just talk myself out of the PP again? I guess the real problem at this point is there's just not enough assets to invest in that are priced to deliver long-term returns to justify taking the risk. It's very frustrating.
The rebalance is HB's annual recommendation vice bands. I used Amibroker and Norgate data for the backtest with TLT, SPY and GLD as the ETFs.jason wrote:Thanks! Where did you get that figure? How does it compare to a regular PP with cash? What re-balance rules did you use? I'd be interested to see it going all the way back to 1972. It can be done with peaktrough, but re-balancing options are limited. Perhaps 43/23 or 40/20 would work well?Kbg wrote:From 2005 to yesterday using ETFs...9.63 CAGR/-19.47 Max DDjason wrote:I'm not sure it's really fair to compare the returns of a 60/40 portfolio (without cash) to the PP when cash is yielding around zero. Has anyone run numbers on a 33.3/33.3/33.3 PP without cash (maybe there is an existing thread on this forum about this)? I'm also curious about what the optimal re-balancing bands would be for that.
I miss visiting that site, Gerlwng Road.barrett wrote:Yeah, good ol' Greg Rowland...MangoMan wrote:Written by Burn's colleague Andrew Hallam, the article give kudos to Craigr and MT [although refers to Craig as Greg]
...
I thought I had him pegged at 60.Reub wrote:You're a GenXer? I thought you were at least 75!MachineGhost wrote: ...
As a Gen Xer, I'm very acutely aware of the irreparable damage that the absolutely spoiled Baby Boomers have done...
Gen X birth years start in the early to mid '1960s, so he might not be under 40.MG I also would never have guessed you were under 40.
If this Boglehead were smart, instead of holding 20% cash and 32% intermediate bonds which entirely changes the risk/return profile of the intended 60/40, they'd hold 20% long bonds and 20% cash. This achieves the risk/return of the 60/40 while holding 5 years of cash. This compares much more favorably with the PP over the time period you tested. There's still a good dinging in 2008, but that was never in dispute.sophie wrote:The comparison of the 60/40 returns to the 25x4 PP indeed isn't fair, because the owner of the 60/40 needs to hold cash. How much isn't clear, but most would recommend a sizeable enough chunk that it's a significant fraction of the stock/bond portfolio. Similarly, the 60/40 owner has to decide when to liquidate volatile assets during the drawdown phase.
Let's assume that our hypothetical Boglehead retiree holds 5 years expenses in cash, which is a common recommendation, and 20 years expenses in the 60/40 investment, as opposed to our hypothetical PP owner who simply holds 25 years expenses in the 25x4 PP. The actual Boglehead portfolio, then, is 20% cash, 48% stocks, and 32% bonds.
And/or 30ish using base 16....flyingpylon wrote:Gen X birth years start in the early to mid '1960s, so he might not be under 40.MG I also would never have guessed you were under 40.
Kbg wrote:MG,
I have one small quibble on your DD stats for 1981...the hellaciously good returns the two years before. What was the max intraday DD not counting 1981?
Quite the contrary, but y'all priced me out of the market. I've had to resort to desperate measures!curlew wrote:Well, since you're not greedy for gains like we were everything should be all right then.
I am very wise beyond my years.Reub wrote:You're a GenXer? I thought you were at least 75!
So, because a 60% stock, 30% bonds and 10% cash portfolio is currently priced to deliver less than 2% nominal returns over the next 10-12 years, that means the PP is now relying on gold to drive any further growth from this point on. Hence, why I'm having trouble pulling the trigger on unhedged overvalued equity and 5000-year lows in bond yields.sophie wrote:The comparison of the 60/40 returns to the 25x4 PP indeed isn't fair, because the owner of the 60/40 needs to hold cash. How much isn't clear, but most would recommend a sizeable enough chunk that it's a significant fraction of the stock/bond portfolio. Similarly, the 60/40 owner has to decide when to liquidate volatile assets during the drawdown phase.