Page 1 of 1
LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:47 am
by johnnywitt
Doug Casey was a friend of Harry's and he has a great YouTube Channel with Michael Smith that would be of interest to many subscribers here. Doug opines on the LTT component of the PP here on Youtube:
Doug Casey's Take (ep. #41) Friday AMA:
Ayahuasca, Most Exotic Country, Buying Property...
The bit about LTT & just replacing the LTT component of the PP with T Bills is in the first 6:00 of the VLOG.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:23 pm
by PrimalToker
johnnywitt wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:47 am
Doug Casey was a friend of Harry's and he has a great YouTube Channel with Michael Smith that would be of interest to many subscribers here. Doug opines on the LTT component of the PP here on Youtube:
Doug Casey's Take (ep. #41) Friday AMA:
Ayahuasca, Most Exotic Country, Buying Property...
The bit about LTT & just replacing the LTT component of the PP with T Bills is in the first 6:00 of the VLOG.
I believe Doug was also an advisor to the Permanent Portfolio fund when it was formed back in 82
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:00 am
by AdamA
johnnywitt wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:47 am
Doug Casey was a friend of Harry's and he has a great YouTube Channel with Michael Smith that would be of interest to many subscribers here. Doug opines on the LTT component of the PP here on Youtube:
Doug Casey's Take (ep. #41) Friday AMA:
Ayahuasca, Most Exotic Country, Buying Property...
The bit about LTT & just replacing the LTT component of the PP with T Bills is in the first 6:00 of the VLOG.
Can you post a link?
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:38 pm
by Kevin K.
The part about switching out LTT’s for T bills starts at 3 minutes in.
https://youtu.be/GI5iUvrHhQ0
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:36 pm
by johnnywitt
Yeah, so I was constrained for time. He also elaborates more towards the end of the VLOG as well, but it is pretty much a reiteration.
My motive was just to get it out there for informational purposes for those that might be interested.
Guys like Casey are in short supply & might not be around for much longer, so I always try to catch Doug anytime he speaks. Personally, I'm sticking with LTT & a PP. But, Doug Casey AND pmward
are probably right about the avoidance of LTT and the substitution of STT instead.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:23 pm
by pmward
johnnywitt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:36 pm
Yeah, so I was constrained for time. He also elaborates more towards the end of the VLOG as well, but it is pretty much a reiteration.
My motive was just to get it out there for informational purposes for those that might be interested.
Guys like Casey are in short supply & might not be around for much longer, so I always try to catch Doug anytime he speaks. Personally, I'm sticking with LTT & a PP. But, Doug Casey AND pmward
are probably right about the avoidance of LTT and the substitution of STT instead.
When did I say anything about replacing LTT with STT in a PP??? LOL
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:46 pm
by Kbg
Personally, I think switching from LTTs is a no-brainer, but each to his own.
Switch to what? Reasonable people could differ here.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:30 am
by I Shrugged
Didn’t Casey in the same interview say we could turn into Japan? If so, wouldn’t I want to own LTTs ahead of time?
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:09 pm
by Kbg
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:31 pm
by Kriegsspiel
It was an interesting video, I'll have to watch more with him. A lot of the articles on his website are good reads as well. I saw that he also recommended selling all your bonds
back in 2016.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:08 pm
by I Shrugged
That a Japanese investor would have done well to have held LT government bonds earning 1.6%
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:36 pm
by Kevin K.
This is getting silly. Current S & P dividend is 1.80%.
Casey recommends T-bills as a substitute for LTT’s and I’m sure Browne would agree if he were still alive.
Casey is just verifying what many others have said here. The principles behind the PP are permanent. The PP itself is an artifact of particular times, interest rates, market conditions and limited investment options that no longer exist.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:22 am
by mathjak107
i always felt rising rates as a trend were the pp's kryptonite... we have not had that in 40 plus years
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:14 am
by dualstow
Kevin K. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:36 pm
...
The PP itself is an artifact of particular times, interest rates, market conditions and limited investment options that no longer exist.
I take it you mean the limits no longer exist, i.e. there are many more options now.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:27 am
by Kbg
I know this is just semantics/word parsing but I think a relatively important point.
There is nothing to suggest the PP has lost it's mojo and there is nothing to suggest the LTT component is not acting exactly as would be expected. It has stood and still is standing the test of time. If i-rates go up, LTTs are going to lose value. That's a feature of the PP not a bug. The expectation is cash and gold will compensate and stock may or may not compensate depending on correlation going forward.
So really what we are discussing is departing from the PP to something else that may be inspired by the PP but ISN'T the PP. You are then making an active bet that you can call interest rates correctly. If they go down or if they stay where they are at in both cases tossing LTTs will have been a performance mistake.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:44 pm
by Kevin K.
dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:14 am
Kevin K. wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:36 pm
...
The PP itself is an artifact of particular times, interest rates, market conditions and limited investment options that no longer exist.
I take it you mean the limits no longer exist, i.e. there are many more options now.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant, but more specifically I'm referring to Doug Casey's statement that Browne's recommendation of LTT's was a product of what they were yielding during his time as an investor. The dominance of "paper" gold vs. physical, Chinese government bonds paying double the U.S. LTT rate, the rise of cryptocurrencies are other relatively recent developments I'd have loved to have heard Mr. Browne's take on.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:51 pm
by Kevin K.
Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:27 am
I know this is just semantics/word parsing but I think a relatively important point.
There is nothing to suggest the PP has lost it's mojo and there is nothing to suggest the LTT component is not acting exactly as would be expected. It has stood and still is standing the test of time. If i-rates go up, LTTs are going to lose value. That's a feature of the PP not a bug. The expectation is cash and gold will compensate and stock may or may not compensate depending on correlation going forward.
So really what we are discussing is departing from the PP to something else that may be inspired by the PP but ISN'T the PP. You are then making an active bet that you can call interest rates correctly. If they go down or if they stay where they are at in both cases tossing LTTs will have been a performance mistake.
No disagreement from me about LTT's behaving as expected but as has been pointed out by everyone from Ray Dalio to Doug Casey and any number of others they don't offer much deflation protection now unless rates go negative.
There's a difference between "tossing" LTT's and saying they have to be 25% of one's holdings or one has broken the PP (not that I'm accusing you of saying that, but some here do view the 4 x 25% allocation as somewhat of a religion). I for one am not going to say that someone who tilts the allocation towards prosperity as the Golden Butterfly does, or who reduces the LTT's to 10 or 15% for the short term while holding more T-bills, or who diversifies the equities beyond TSM, is somehow guilty of breaking the PP.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 7:17 pm
by Kbg
Well diverting from the classic PP is heretical by definition. LOL.
I've never done the PP in it's classic form, but I do think it is exceedingly well thought out and simplistically elegant. You don't see that much in a popularized portfolio.
As I mea culpa'd up front, I'm word parsing. However, I do think once you completely ditch an asset class of the four for something else the conversation should go to the VP section of the board. :-)
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:42 am
by mathjak107
Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:27 am
I know this is just semantics/word parsing but I think a relatively important point.
There is nothing to suggest the PP has lost it's mojo and there is nothing to suggest the LTT component is not acting exactly as would be expected. It has stood and still is standing the test of time. If i-rates go up, LTTs are going to lose value. That's a feature of the PP not a bug. The expectation is cash and gold will compensate and stock may or may not compensate depending on correlation going forward.
So really what we are discussing is departing from the PP to something else that may be inspired by the PP but ISN'T the PP. You are then making an active bet that you can call interest rates correctly. If they go down or if they stay where they are at in both cases tossing LTTs will have been a performance mistake.
Well rates on the 10 year have gone up 100% from the March lows and the 30 year is up substantially too.....short term rates have not moved up .....gold is lower as well ... so only stocks ran with the ball ...
The point is we can’t assume a rise in bond rates effects short term rates too ....
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 9:57 am
by Kriegsspiel
Good bump. I saw that he recently talked with John Robb (EDIT:
here), who used to write the excellent Global Guerrillas blog. It was because of GG that I discovered two of the best fiction authors I've read, John Twelve Hawks and Daniel Suarez. Their books are even more topical today than they were when I read them.
Suarez
Daemon
Freedom
Kill Decision (stand alone)
JTH
Traveler
The Dark River
The Golden City
Spark (stand alone)
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:50 am
by dualstow
Suarez'
Daemon was a lot of fun to read.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:13 pm
by Kriegsspiel
Did you read Freedom?
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:56 pm
by dualstow
Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:13 pm
Did you read Freedom?
I haven't, nope.
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:32 pm
by Kriegsspiel
Well... if you liked Daemon, you should!
Re: LTT & HARRY BROWNE: Doug Casey Opines
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:02 am
by dualstow
Kevin K. wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:51 pm
No disagreement from me about LTT's behaving as expected but as has been pointed out by everyone from Ray Dalio to Doug Casey and any number of others they don't offer much deflation protection now unless rates go negative.
There's a difference between "tossing" LTT's and saying they have to be 25% of one's holdings or one has broken the PP (not that I'm accusing you of saying that, but some here do view the 4 x 25% allocation as somewhat of a religion). I for one am not going to say that someone who tilts the allocation towards prosperity as the Golden Butterfly does, or who reduces the LTT's to 10 or 15% for the short term while holding more T-bills, or who diversifies the equities beyond TSM, is somehow guilty of breaking the PP.
At some point, if you deviate far enough and long enough beyond the reblancing bands, ie not 20% but 12% or 35% in an asset, you have broken the PP. But so what? What does that mean? If you’ve made a conscious decision based on careful calculations and thoughtul strategizing, you may have a perfectly good portfolio.
For me, it just means that if things go sour you can’t turn around and say that the pp doesn’t work. Is that fair? It’s not about religion (blind dogma) or maintaining the pp name.