Newsletter Advisories Ranked (Hulbert Honor Roll)

[MachineGhost]

The Honor Roll is the best risk-adjusted newsletters for the past 15+ years.

[dualstow]

No Louis Navellier Emerging Growth or Family Trust?

[MachineGhost]

Nope, they don't make the cutoff, either because the return is too low and/or the risk is too high.  Assuming its being tracked by Hulbert.

[Reub]

How would these rankings take into account special advisory alerts that many of these newsletters put out in between issues?

[MachineGhost]

How would these rankings take into account special advisory alerts that many of these newsletters put out in between issues?

Well, I would think that only applies to the two market timers.  The rest are just basically giving you a list of stocks every month and maybe some "top picks" to buy or a model portfolio to follow.  Investment Quality Trends, for instance, has a special portfolio tracked by Hulbert which contains over 150 positions, but otherwise its just textural vomit every month for you to pick and choose your poison from.

Outstanding Investments is just a fluke due to the energy sector and I think the guy got arrested or fired for taking kickbacks under the table anyway.  This is the 2014 list and I don't expect it to make it onto the 2015 list after this year.

I think its important to point out that it is unfailing consistency and discipline as to why these newsletters are tops; they don't change strategies or model portfolios when the going gets tough.  If the subscriber did not exhibit the same exact behaviors, then the results are going to be worse.

I checked out a couple of top newsletters and my impression is they are behind what ETF's can offer for cheaper and with less work involved.

The #1 newsletter -- but not on a risk-adjusted basis -- for 20, 25, 30 and almost 35 years is The Prudent Speculator at 15%/year which focuses on value stocks.  I don't know what the beta risk was but it did lose like 66% during 2007-2009.

EDIT: Prudent also lost nearly 60% in the 1987 crash.  Imagine that!

[mathjak107]

fidelity investor and fidelity insight  usually battle it out every year for the top listings . one year  fidelity  insight takes  it and one year it is  fidelity investor .

i  tried fidelity investor  years ago and i found their models more aggressive then insights most of the time . they both are very good and have excellent track records with few fund swaps per year . . i have not seen the models from fidelity investor in years .

they have no sample newslettrer posted  , i think insight does have an older one up there .

the current betas for the insight moels are:

growth model  is 1.09

growth and income model .75

income and capital preservation model ,34

[MachineGhost]

It's too bad none of the Fidelity Select Sector fund switching newsletter made it.  Sector switching has the most outperformance if it is implemented correctly.  I don't know about since 2000, but since 1992 or so, I get about 15% CAGR in a backtest.

[mathjak107]

actually it is one of  the models in the fidelity insight newsletter .

they have been having a rough time of it this year . 

they are down 6.27%  because healthcare and industrials  had gotten hit so hard . i was never a sector fan . they are great when things are up but if you don't time them just right they get you on the way down .


they run 2 highly speculative models for those who want it .  the select models and a model called unique opportunity which tries to capture the fads in investing , down 3.45% .  needless to say also hit pretty hard ,.

but you can see how little the diversified  models got crushed . they may actually be positive in one more good up day .  they had gains so much higher than the s&p  so the slid merely wiped out what they were a head .

select had some great years though so even though they fell a lot they are still higher in dollars then the other models .

2008 down 38% , 2009 up 36%, 2010 up 12%  , 2011 up 2% ,  2012 up 20% ,2013 was up up 38%  ,  2014 up 15%

[MachineGhost]

Here an update where I've added 2014 as well as trend following.  The Investment Reporter dropped off and was replaced with The Blue Chip Investor for 2014.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/va ... #msg131469

[MachineGhost]

No Louis Navellier Emerging Growth or Family Trust?

Emerging Growth 0.3% CAGR last 15 years.  13.6% CAGR since 12/31/1984 beating the Wilshire 5000 by 2.4% CAGR.  Beta is very high at 183!  Obviously, it is worse than buy and hold on a risk-adjusted basis.

[MachineGhost]

actually it is one of  the models in the fidelity insight newsletter .

The Select Model in that has beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis for last 10, 15 years and since inception in 1987, but has underperformed on a 1 and 5 year basis.  However, it's beaten the index on a non-risk adjuted basis in all time frames, so I'm thinking its probably a short-term aberration from QEternity distorting markets.

If you had invested in the Growth Model since 1987, it has not outperformed buy and hold on a risk-adjusted basis except between inception in 1987 and 2000.  It's made only 5.4% CAGR last 15-years, the worst of all their models, but it still beat the market.

My gut feel is the Select Model would probably have made you richer by an order of magnitude for the same risk-adjusted score as the Growth Model.

It looks to me like the Income Model is the best risk-adjusted portfolio beating on 1,5,10,15 year and inception basis.  However, that's probably because it has fixed income and comes at cost of lower returns.  In fact, same exact return as the Growth Model last 15-years but with less risk.

[MachineGhost]

These two portfolios from PaulMerriman.com has beat market on a risk-adjusted basis last 1,5,10,15 years and since inception in 1996.

Vanguard Emergency Fund Portfolio

Fund
Symbol Allocation
Vanguard Prime Money Market VMMXX First three to six months worth of living expenses
Vanguard Short Term Investment Grade VFSTX Funds in excess of three to six months of living expenses

Vanguard Monthly Income Portfolio

Fund
Symbol Allocation
Vanguard Short?Term Investment?Grade VFSTX 25%
Vanguard Interm?Term Invmt?Grade VFICX 25%
Vanguard GNMA VFIIX 25%
Vanguard High?Yield Corporate VWEHX 25%

[MachineGhost]

Market-beating portfolios on a risk-adjusted basis with their 15-year scores:

No-Load Mutual Fund Selections & Timing Income Portfolio (.26)
https://www.selectionsandtiming.com/abo ... -holdings/

Utility Forecaster Income Portfolio (.33)
http://www.investingdaily.com/utility-and-income/

The Investment Reporter Portfolio of Very Conservative Stocks (.23), Average Risk Stocks (.20)
https://www.investmentreporter.com/
(This one is interesting since its Canadian stocks).

Investment Quality Trends Lucky 13 Portfolio (.21)
http://www.iqtrends.com/the_lucky13.htm

Bob Brinker's Markettimer Portfolio III: Balanced Portfolio (.22), Income Portfolio (.34)
http://bobbrinker.com/

InvesTech Research Portfolio Strategy Model Fund Portfolio (.19)
https://www.investech.com/

No-Load FundX Class 4: Total Return Funds (.19)
https://www.fundx.com/

Personal Finance Income Portfolio (.21)
http://www.investingdaily.com/personal-finance/login/

Fidelity Monitor & Insight Income Model (.20)
http://www.fidelityinsight.com/

BTW, a 60% bond, 40% stock portfolio has a risk-adjusted score of .18 last 15 years, .21 since 1993.  60% stocks, 40% bonds .13/.17.

[MachineGhost]

Unlike Brinker, InvesTech's market timing only since inception in 1987 does not beat the risk-adjusted index.  But their market timing in combination with their specific fund suggestions does do so.  However, Brinker did not call the 2007 top and called a bear market rally in late 2000 that never happened.  InvestTech also screwed up by being light on stocks during the 90's.  Both mistakes severely penalized their performance.  InvesTech's asset allocation recommendations are also very low risk.

[mathjak107]

Market-beating portfolios on a risk-adjusted basis with their 15-year scores:

No-Load Mutual Fund Selections & Timing Income Portfolio (.26)
https://www.selectionsandtiming.com/abo ... -holdings/

Utility Forecaster Income Portfolio (.33)
http://www.investingdaily.com/utility-and-income/

The Investment Reporter Portfolio of Very Conservative Stocks (.23), Average Risk Stocks (.20)
https://www.investmentreporter.com/
(This one is interesting since its Canadian stocks).

Investment Quality Trends Lucky 13 Portfolio (.21)
http://www.iqtrends.com/the_lucky13.htm

Bob Brinker's Markettimer Portfolio III: Balanced Portfolio (.22), Income Portfolio (.34)
http://bobbrinker.com/

InvesTech Research Portfolio Strategy Model Fund Portfolio (.19)
https://www.investech.com/

No-Load FundX Class 4: Total Return Funds (.19)
https://www.fundx.com/

Personal Finance Income Portfolio (.21)
http://www.investingdaily.com/personal-finance/login/

Fidelity Monitor & Insight Income Model (.20)
http://www.fidelityinsight.com/

BTW, a 60% bond, 40% stock portfolio has a risk-adjusted score of .18 last 15 years, .21 since 1993.  60% stocks, 40% bonds .13/.17.

since i know fidelity insight  very well  the difference in balances between the income model which started on 12/31/91 with a 100k invested  and beta of .25  is about 352k as of  10/1
the growth and income model started 12/31/93 and has a balance of 522k as of 10/1  with a beta of .75 

not sure how they arrive at a risk adjusted value  in hulberts rating since allocations can vary . there were years the income model used zero equity's when bonds were booming and used high yield and emerging market bonds as stock proxies with far less volatility than stocks . .


so i think the risk rating is not going to accurately reflect over the long haul when allocations changed and  stay changed  .

the income model ran at 40% equity's many years ago , eventually hitting zero equity's for quite a few years since bonds had similiar gains as stocks , then finally at about 25% today .

o

[MachineGhost]

not sure how they arrive at a risk adjusted value  in hulberts rating since allocations can vary . there were years the income model used zero equity's when bonds were booming and used high yield and emerging market bonds as stock proxies with far less volatility than stocks . .

so i think the risk rating is not going to accurately reflect over the long haul when allocations changed and  stay changed  .

It's just beta vs the reference index which is Wilshire 5000.  They track all portfolio, allocation and hotline/special alert changes.  Obviously, the best risk-adjusted return isn't necessarily going to be the highest return or what is enough growth to reach a retirement goal.  Since stocks have sucked for the last 15-years due to the two bubbles, it has favored fixed income.

[MachineGhost]

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

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/63vsTww.png[/img]
Only 9 have survived the full 35 years out of (I think) a couple hundred.