MachineGhost's Research Resort

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

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

MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:46 pm

[align=center]Image[/align]

Yes, it's a bit tongue in cheek, but this thread will be to centralize all of the fixes to the various flaws I've identified in the Browne PP over the years.  I will be posting in this thread and editing this first post whenever inspiration and a resulting solution strikes.  To that end, here is the latest patch (which I think is the fourth in the series?):

[align=center]Image[/align]

The stocks should be self-obvious.  Now you can deal with the problematic T-Bonds in two ways.  You can either reduce the weight as proscribed above or you can keep the weight the same and buy a lower duration Treasury.  Depending on what you want to target (6.6 to 10.75 years portfolio duration is the historical "safe zone") that would be 10-year Treasury Note / IEF or a 20-year Treasury Bond.  I would suggest the more conservative target as interest rates did peak at 200% in the late 1800's. ;)  I need to update this with the proper stock duration as well as when the Fed reasserted its monetary policy independence.

Here's the Correlated Risk Parity thread which I believe was the third patch of the series:

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/pe ... msg122844/

And the fifth patch is the Equal Weight Style Box Portfolio (formerly known as the Equal Weight MarketCap Portfolio):

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/pe ... #msg146497
Last edited by MachineGhost on Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:36 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
lordmetroid
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:53 pm

Re: The MachineGhost Fortress Portfolio

Post by lordmetroid » Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:32 am

I definitely do not understand the table. Could you please explain it?
Reub
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3158
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:44 pm

Re: The MachineGhost Fortress Portfolio

Post by Reub » Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:56 am

It looks to me that the data is showing that both stocks and bonds are tremendously overvalued right now by historical standards. Am I correct?
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: The MachineGhost Fortress Portfolio

Post by mathjak107 » Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:59 am

not only are you correct but they have  both never been this over valued at the same time with rates so low.  bonds are considered to be far more over valued than stocks . stocks are just a tad more than fully valued.
Last edited by mathjak107 on Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
iwealth
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: The MachineGhost Fortress Portfolio

Post by iwealth » Sat Jul 11, 2015 10:09 am

Can't say I understand that table either. And I don't see any gold data. Also, still unsure how you calculate duration for anything but bonds. Hope you are willing to explain, I'm sure it's all quite interesting.
bedraggled
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:20 am

Re: The MachineGhost Fortress Portfolio

Post by bedraggled » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:00 am

MG,

If you can explain this post as well as you showed and explained other info, we will all benefit.

Thanks.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: The MachineGhost Fortress Portfolio

Post by Cortopassi » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:47 am

Glad to see I was not the only one who did not understand the chart!
Test of the signature line
Reub
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3158
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:44 pm

Re: The MachineGhost Fortress Portfolio

Post by Reub » Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:59 pm

Wouldn't a stock duration of 51 years indicate a vastly overpriced equity market?
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: The MachineGhost Fortress Portfolio

Post by MachineGhost » Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:59 pm

Whoops, I forgot all about this thread!

The numbers in the chart are the asset class durations.  It was another attempt to manage a PP portfolio to a duration target.  I've since abandoned that for the PP Jr and the Multi-Fortress Portfolio, mostly because I don't know what the heck to do about gold and I'm a long way from official retirement anyway.

So you can see the current PP portfolio duration was 17 years at the time at 25%x4.  If you were more than 17 years to retirement that is okay from that perspective.  But if not, the PP is too risky for you and you should up your cash to get it down.

But to survive a period of rising interest rates, the portfolio should never go past 11 years.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:06 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
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: MachineGhost's Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:33 pm

Thanks to the genius Tyler for the inspiration!  I've upgraded the Equal Weight MarketCap Portfolio to the Equal Weight Style Box Portfolio.  Unlike just the size factor before, now risk is equalized (as best as possible) among size, value and growth!

Image

The above exposures are by using these free Schwab ETF's:

SCHB 47.16%
SCHA 29.19%
RSP 13.06%
WMCR 10.59%
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:44 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
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:34 pm

Here is the correlated risk parity PP with patch #5 as explained in the previous post:

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/KpKCo7B.png[/img]

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/Jt08HLK.png[/img]

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/ImJfChw.png[/img]
Last edited by MachineGhost on Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:47 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!
Laker
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:35 pm

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by Laker » Fri Apr 08, 2016 11:24 am

MG, is it me or does 12+2+2+7+3+35+9+20+11= 101? Not being snarky just does not add up.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by Tyler » Fri Apr 08, 2016 11:51 am

Laker wrote: MG, is it me or does 12+2+2+7+3+35+9+20+11= 101? Not being snarky just does not add up.
The tools he's using don't display decimals.  It's probably just rounding error. 
Laker
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:35 pm

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by Laker » Fri Apr 08, 2016 11:54 am

Ok, thank you. BTW, love your calculators.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:05 pm

Yeah, its a rounding error.  The exact weights are: 11.79% TM, 1.70% LC blend, 1.52% MC blend, 7.35% SC blend, and 2.65% MC blend.  It takes more funds to use Vanguard's than the free ones available at Schwab.

BTW, for the Correlated Risk Parity PP asset weights used to derive the MaxDD, I ran the correlations for all PP assets back to 1950.  So this is as good risk control as you're ever going to see for the PP until we have a another bond bear market while 30-years T-Bonds exist.  There is a way to estimate what the 30-year yield would have been with linear regression using 20-year T-Bonds and other inputs, but I don't currently have the mental or software setup to do things like that.  Anyone want to take on the job?

Also, I will try my hand once again today at coding up working rebalancing bands (they don't work at the peak2trough backtester with non-orthodox weights).  Annual rebalancing has a risk/reward ratio similar to 30/20 rebalancing bands but with worse risk.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:21 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
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:56 am

I removed the dynamic correlated risk parity PP weight directions because I realized last night it didn't make any conceptual sense.

If you look at the forward-looking volatility of stocks at the moment, it is higher the average, resulting in a lower weight than normal.  But just scaling that down even further as part of a portfolio isn't the right way to go.  The proper way would be to plug-in these new values into a pre-existing correlation matrix, but that requires complex math and is anything but simple.

You can certainly use the directions to compose a naive risk parity portfolio though, but then that will result in the problem Dalio experienced: too much exposure to interest rate risk.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Sun Apr 10, 2016 10:00 am, 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
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:17 pm

Image

Venture capital investing didn't take off until 1978 when the Prudent Man Rule reform was instigated under ERISA.  So between that and the forthcoming Regulation CF+, I expect the size anomaly that is only present among microcaps (lowest decile) could completely disappear.

Image
"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: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:19 am

Here's the latest stats on the Browne PP and Correlated Risk Parity PP (CRPPP):

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/2PcZ87q.png[/img]

Gold is a whopping 50% of the risk exposure of the Browne PP!  Notice also that forward-looking volatility and trailing-volatility are essentially the same.

Two things have changed.  The London Gold Pool did not collapse until March 1968, so I start on April 1968 from now on when gold starting moving.  1968 to 1977 uses 20-year bonds, then 30-year bonds thereafter (except during the brief discontinuation).  The mismatch in durations bugs me, so I will be redoing this with 20-year bonds all the way through.  I may have already done that before and didn't notice a significant difference, but doubt is the mother of all...
"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: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:19 pm

So here we can see that 20-yr T-Bonds are not superior.  I've also accounted for T-Bills to see the Browne PP risk contribution which reduces gold from almost 50% to 38%!  That makes much more sense.

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/kVgw8Yl.png[/img]
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:37 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
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:36 pm

Here's the latest revision.  Everything on the "to do" list is done short of reblancing bands.  But for now, I rest.

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/rDYLCLw.png[/img]
"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: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:09 pm

Yep, time for another update!  Any questions?  :D

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/6CcBetc.png[/img]
"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
InsuranceGuy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by InsuranceGuy » Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:48 pm

[deleted]
Last edited by InsuranceGuy on Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:40 am

InsuranceGuy wrote: So you said you are using cleaner data, you mind sharing?  I am curious how the Top3 came out so well.  Are you doing anything different or still just once a year rebalance?  The returns (10.37% vs 8.55%) seems really good as I'm only seeing about a +0.2% increase in return for the Top3 best case in my results.
Nothing different.  The data is better because it is dividend adjusted all the way back to 1950.  Took me 20 years to finally get that and I had to do it myself.  As usual. ::)
Last edited by MachineGhost on Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:45 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
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by MachineGhost » Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:29 pm

That's was a sweet party while it lasted!  Turns out the S&P 500 dividends were in real terms, not nominal.  Corrected.

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/iTY2AtP.png[/img]
"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
InsuranceGuy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Re: MachineGhost's Research Resort

Post by InsuranceGuy » Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 pm

[deleted]
Last edited by InsuranceGuy on Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply