Out of balance

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Out of balance

Post by ochotona » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:30 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
ochotona wrote:We're in a little equity melt-up here. If you are somewhat close to rebalancing, I'd take my stocks back to policy percentages soon, before the opportunity is lost. Be fearful when others are greedy, be greedy when others are fearful.
The question I have to address is, are we looking at balances often with an eye to rebalancing, or willing to let them exceed limits for the short term?

I'm over 35% on stocks, but if they have a correction, I'm probably back under 35%. Not being a market timer, I won't try to guess the short term. But I will have to decide whether to do something now or kick the can down the road.

I suppose I should view the 35% as a hard limit, and once I know it's been topped, do something about it.
Several active market timing strategies only check once a month (Faber's Ivy, GEM, AlphaArchitect). Choose the same day of the month every time, or maybe every 4th week, like Saturday morning with your cup of coffee. Continuous checking would wear you down.
steve
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:06 pm

Re: Out of balance

Post by steve » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:05 am

If I hit the 35% band I would re-balance.
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2464
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Out of balance

Post by buddtholomew » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:38 am

buddtholomew wrote:No alternative options available like offsetting gains/losses on select purchases or contributing to lagging assets to restore the balance.

Maybe we can put some figures together on a 100K gain taxed at 20% or not rebalancing and equities falling 10%.

200000 initial investment
100000 gain x .2 = 20000 taxes, 80000 net
Remaining investment 100000 loses .1 = 90000
80K + 90K = net 170K

200000 loses 10% = 20000, net 180K

Hardly seems worth the trouble to sell for 10K savings if I didn’t mess up something in the calc.
Anyone have a different perspective? Calc wrong?
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Out of balance

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:43 pm

I don't have any new money going in. I have high unrealized gains. My non-US stock fund is about 50% gains, my SP500 is 70% gains. (I tax-loss-harvested big time in 2009.)

On one hand, Budd, I'm inclined to let it ride because as you say, the tax hit is just about as bad as what would likely happen in a bear market. But on the other, it's already grown its way out of the PP , and into GB territory. And my plan is to be PP, not GB.


I think I'll sell enough to get back down to 35%. After I do some research on tax rates and phaseouts and all that crap.
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2464
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Out of balance

Post by buddtholomew » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:31 pm

MangoMan wrote:
buddtholomew wrote:
buddtholomew wrote:No alternative options available like offsetting gains/losses on select purchases or contributing to lagging assets to restore the balance.

Maybe we can put some figures together on a 100K gain taxed at 20% or not rebalancing and equities falling 10%.

200000 initial investment
100000 gain x .2 = 20000 taxes, 80000 net
Remaining investment 100000 loses .1 = 90000
80K + 90K = net 170K

200000 loses 10% = 20000, net 180K

Hardly seems worth the trouble to sell for 10K savings if I didn’t mess up something in the calc.
Anyone have a different perspective? Calc wrong?
The math looks good, but I'm not sure about the logic. You only actually come out ahead in the above scenario if you NEVER actually pay taxes on the shares you decided not to sell.

Weren't you also giving someone a hard time in another thread for quoting themselves? ::)
The point is to defer taxes in taxable and not sell to rebalance. My goal is to only sell if I can offset gains with losses. I realize this is not always possible but a 20%+ Tax hit seems like something to avoid.

Yes, I did mention quoting yourself and I was wrong so I deleted the post. Let me know if you still see it.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Out of balance

Post by Kbg » Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:22 pm

Budd,

Calculating the tax impact is perfectly fine. Ok, now that is done where is your tax adjusted rebalance line?

If you adjust based on tax impact great, if it’s an excuse not to have a disciplined approach/no actual rules in execution not great.
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2464
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Out of balance

Post by buddtholomew » Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:51 pm

Kbg, my views will most likely change as I get closer to retirement. Selling stocks now in taxable and paying the taxes isn’t as appealing when you expect stocks to be much higher in 10-15 years.

Personally I stay within rebalance bands and contribute to cash then add to lagging asset to maintain AA. I haven’t had to sell in taxable to rebalance yet.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Out of balance

Post by sophie » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:59 am

My lagging asset is bonds, and I'm having real difficulty doing the hold your nose and buy thing. Especially with the flat yield curve and promised 3 interest rate boosts this year by the Fed.

I'm doing the annual Roth & HSA contributions/conversions/etc, and that means I have a slug of new cash but not quite up to 35%. I'm thinking of just leaving well enough alone, and not buy anything until I hit a band and need to rebalance. If something drops like a rock, that cash will be put to very good use.
Post Reply