Golden Butterfly

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Golden Butterfly

Post by vnatale » Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:30 pm

In my time here I've seen many references to the Golden Butterfly.

It was not until now that I finally even went this far to see what it is:

https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/golden-butterfly/

Is it simply the Permanent Portfolio with one modification? Each of the four have 5% taken away from them and that 20% is allocated to Small Cap Value?

All else is basically the same? Except I assume instead of 15% / 35% bands, those must be modified? Guessing 12% / 28%?

How many here using the Golden Butterfly with no modifications as opposed to the classic Permanent Portfolio?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by Tyler » Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:04 am

The short story is that the Golden Butterfly is a simple iteration of the Permanent Portfolio that I came up with when exploring what to do with my variable portfolio. Here's the original thread that tracks the first idea through many pages of discussion: viewtopic.php?t=7700
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by Smith1776 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:31 am

A post I made way back when which I will repeat here as I believe it is relevant!

---------------

I really do think the Golden Butterfly is where it's at in terms of the optimal "default" choice for people getting into investing. The ideal starting point that people can deviate from as they wish. A sort of centre of gravity for portfolio composition.

It's got all the elements of, in my opinion, the most sound arguments that have been made on this board and the broader investing world:

1) low cost indexing
2) risk parity
3) alternative/hard assets
4) factor diversification
5) asset class diversification
6) allocation based on economic conditions
7) modern portfolio theory
8) passive buy and hold approach
9) No credit risk on bond side (uncompensated risk via Swedroe)

I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head. No other portfolio allocation integrates all of the soundest thinking quite like the GB IMHO.
Pretty much all of the other popular portfolios misses the mark on at least one of the above points.

My only very minor nitpick is that I think the equities should have an international component by default. That may be down to personal taste, to be fair.

---------------
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by WiseOne » Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:57 am

Nice to re-read that Golden Butterfly thread!

I was quite skeptical at first because I thought there was a good bit of recency bias leading to the increase in stock allocation, and I definitely think it resulted in a lot of the enthusiasm for it. What finally convinced me was the observations (my own, and Machine Ghost's) that gold and bonds tend to be more volatile than stocks - especially gold. In other words, as gold/bonds sink and stocks increase, the stocks don't quite pull their weight when they're only 25% of the portfolio. And, that there are structural reasons why recessions (the worst case scenario for the GB) comprise a much smaller proportion of years than prosperity.

I spent quite a bit of time puzzling it out but finally decided to convert from PP to Golden Butterfly myself. I figured that would immediately usher in a major stock market correction :-).

As far as rebalance bands - the 40% bands that work well for the PP won't work as well here, because 8% of any one asset is too little. So I set mine for 30% bands (14-26%).
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by flyingpylon » Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:20 am

I was PP + a single-stock VP. The VP was the result of option exercises from a previous employer, I don't have any particular need to trade or speculate anymore. When the company was acquired in an all-cash transaction I took a closer look at the GB and decided it was a good fit for me.

I am still in the accumulation phase and because of the way my contributions come in, I tend to let cash build up. So about once a year or so I'll rebalance things. I have been wondering what others use for rebalancing bands so I appreciate the discussion about that.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by Smith1776 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:13 pm

My only other bone to pick with the Golden Butterfly is the name...

...I'd prefer something less... "ornamental" sounding?

Like, Permanent Portfolio sounds authoritative, for instance.

Maybe we should shall the GB the Super Permanent Portfolio. I mean, that's really what it is. O0
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by dualstow » Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:37 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:13 pm
My only other bone to pick with the Golden Butterfly is the name...

...I'd prefer something less... "ornamental" sounding?

Like, Permanent Portfolio sounds authoritative, for instance.

Maybe we should shall the GB the Super Permanent Portfolio. I mean, that's really what it is. O0
I love the name. I have a portfolio called the Sleepy Phoenix. I'm just not sure what the components and proportions are yet. Got the name down, though.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by Smith1776 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:53 pm

dualstow wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:37 pm
Smith1776 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:13 pm
My only other bone to pick with the Golden Butterfly is the name...

...I'd prefer something less... "ornamental" sounding?

Like, Permanent Portfolio sounds authoritative, for instance.

Maybe we should shall the GB the Super Permanent Portfolio. I mean, that's really what it is. O0
I love the name. I have a portfolio called the Sleepy Phoenix. I'm just not sure what the components and proportions are yet. Got the name down, though.
Honestly, it sounds like we're talking about Pokemon now... LOL. ;D
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by dualstow » Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:13 pm

haha O0
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by Tyler » Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:30 pm

I'm definitely not hung up on only using domestic assets in the Golden Butterfly. On the one hand, I do naturally have a Browne-influenced perspective on economic diversification that focuses more on the cycles of the local economy and the importance of diversifying outside of stocks entirely rather than simply diversifying stock markets. But on the other hand, I'm always fascinated by portfolios that also did well in Japan, and a GB with the 40% stocks subdivided into domestic/international was pretty impressive in any country. As I continue to add more data, that's a general theme I'm still exploring.

Interestingly, one of the more unique criticisms I've read of the Golden Butterfly is that the name is just too catchy and draws more attention than they think it deserves. :) While not my intention, I take that as a badge of honor and am happy that the memorable name helps people find more info.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by D1984 » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:03 pm

Tyler wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:30 pm
I'm definitely not hung up on only using domestic assets in the Golden Butterfly. On the one hand, I do naturally have a Browne-influenced perspective on economic diversification that focuses more on the cycles of the local economy and the importance of diversifying outside of stocks entirely rather than simply diversifying stock markets. But on the other hand, I'm always fascinated by portfolios that also did well in Japan, and a GB with the 40% stocks subdivided into domestic/international was pretty impressive in any country. As I continue to add more data, that's a general theme I'm still exploring.

Interestingly, one of the more unique criticisms I've read of the Golden Butterfly is that the name is just too catchy and draws more attention than they think it deserves. :) While not my intention, I take that as a badge of honor and am happy that the memorable name helps people find more info.

How did the 50/50 foreign/Japan golden butterfly do CAGR-wise in real terms in Japanese Yen (since this would be from the perspective of a Japanese investor who would have his portfolio and his spending denominated in that currency) from 1990-2011?

Also, what would you be using for the "rest of the world" in this case? EAFE ex-Japan? US + EAFE ex-Japan? ACWI ex-Japan (which works fine starting in 1990 but can't be backtested much beyond the late 1980s--say, to 1970--since the late 1980s is when MSCI ACWI data starts)? Finally, while I presume you were using the Nomura SCV data for Japan (since it goes all the way back to 1980 IIRC) but what were you using for the "rest of the world" SCV data? World stock index data going back to the 1970s and 80s is fairly easy to find; world SCV return data going back that far is not.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by Tyler » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:29 pm

D1984 wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:03 pm
How did the 50/50 foreign/Japan golden butterfly do CAGR-wise in real terms in Japanese Yen (since this would be from the perspective of a Japanese investor who would have his portfolio and his spending denominated in that currency) from 1990-2011?

Also, what would you be using for the "rest of the world" in this case? EAFE ex-Japan? US + EAFE ex-Japan? ACWI ex-Japan (which works fine starting in 1990 but can't be backtested much beyond the late 1980s--say, to 1970--since the late 1980s is when MSCI ACWI data starts)? Finally, while I presume you were using the Nomura SCV data for Japan (since it goes all the way back to 1980 IIRC) but what were you using for the "rest of the world" SCV data? World stock index data going back to the 1970s and 80s is fairly easy to find; world SCV return data going back that far is not.
The site has evolved a lot over the years, and if you haven't visited in a while you should check it out. Try the My Portfolio tool and set it to Japan. That automatically converts everything to Yen and Japanese inflation, and you can explore all of the numbers for yourself. ;)

For "International" from the perspective of an investor outside of the US, right now I just use data for the developed world. Sure there's a little overlap with the home country, but really the US is the only country that's large enough where it makes a big difference. I may eventually expand those ex-domestic international options for a few larger countries like Japan, but right now my priority is to add more home countries first.

Regarding data sources, I can model SCV for Japan and a World fund going back to 1970 using a few different sources. First there's my own calculations using Fama French source data. Then there's a cool collection of older IIA data I found. And finally I have a homegrown asset replacement system that fills in older data with something similar and checks to make sure the replacement asset models the desired one closely enough. You can read about that here: https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/tools-data/
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by Smith1776 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:59 am

I originally was not a fan of the GB that much -- I really liked the idea of being totally agnostic to the future and having all asset classes in equal proportion.

I am not the smartest guy around by any stretch, but I am inspired by the intellectual flexibility of Lord Keynes:
Legend says that while conferring with Roosevelt at Quebec, Churchill sent Keynes a cable reading, “Am coming around to your point of view.” His Lordship replied, “Sorry to hear it. Have started to change my mind.“
Tilting towards prosperity (the most common economic condition) seems eminently practical. The factor tilting helps to ameliorate the equity risks somewhat, too.

It may be worth mentioning that the GB at least partially has Browne's blessing. I recall in Best Laid Plans he said that maintaining a strict 25% holding for each asset was not necessary. A range of 20% to 35% for the target percentages was acceptable. The GB breaks that slightly since the equity is at 40%. However, that's understandable given that 20% and 35% aren't numbers that play nice together and add up to 100%.

Close enough in my book. The Golden Butterfly is still the Permanent Portfolio in my view.
🛞 The All-Terrain Portfolio 🛞
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by mathjak107 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:46 am

being a dirty lil market timer myself , i like the idea of going with the butterfly after a correction , and back to the pp after a recovery and new highs .
like now , after wracking up such amazing gains this year and being 11 years in , i would go pp and in fact did . ....

if we see at least a correction or worse i would migrate back a little at a time to the gb .

but that is just the desire for more alpha in me
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by dualstow » Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:10 am

The whole point of these lazy portfolios, these couch portfolios, is that you don’t need to switch, ever.
Right?

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Lazy_portfolios

If you “rack up amazing gains”, all you need to do is rebalance.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by WiseOne » Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:49 am

Smith1776 wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:59 am
IIt may be worth mentioning that the GB at least partially has Browne's blessing. I recall in Best Laid Plans he said that maintaining a strict 25% holding for each asset was not necessary. A range of 20% to 35% for the target percentages was acceptable. The GB breaks that slightly since the equity is at 40%. However, that's understandable given that 20% and 35% aren't numbers that play nice together and add up to 100%.

Close enough in my book. The Golden Butterfly is still the Permanent Portfolio in my view.
Yup, that's exactly how my thought process went too. It was also my rationale for using 30% rebalancing bands. That reinforces a lower limit of 14% for all the non-stock assets, which fits comfortably within the Permanent Portfolio's parameters (which allows assets to drop to 15% if you're using 40% bands).
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by mathjak107 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:03 am

dualstow wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:10 am
The whole point of these lazy portfolios, these couch portfolios, is that you don’t need to switch, ever.
Right?

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Lazy_portfolios

If you “rack up amazing gains”, all you need to do is rebalance.
40% equities will certainly give up a lot of gains rebalancing or not than 25% equities will in a downturn ... so riding 40% equities up from a correction will certainly produce different results than riding it down , regardless .

i know in our case we are talking 6 figures difference in gains given back if we fall from here using the pp vs gb . rebalancing only effects things within that allocation range ...
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by dualstow » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:40 am

But a mistake in timing, which is more common than perfect timing, also results in giving up a lot of gains.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by mathjak107 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 10:44 am

well I look at it this way
I reaped huge gains for 11 years in a 50/50.. locking them in 11years later is a good idea with less aggressive models. Giving up the difference I may get vs watching them evaporate is likely small
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:33 pm

WiseOne wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:57 am
Nice to re-read that Golden Butterfly thread!

I was quite skeptical at first because I thought there was a good bit of recency bias leading to the increase in stock allocation, and I definitely think it resulted in a lot of the enthusiasm for it. What finally convinced me was the observations (my own, and Machine Ghost's) that gold and bonds tend to be more volatile than stocks - especially gold. In other words, as gold/bonds sink and stocks increase, the stocks don't quite pull their weight when they're only 25% of the portfolio. And, that there are structural reasons why recessions (the worst case scenario for the GB) comprise a much smaller proportion of years than prosperity.

I spent quite a bit of time puzzling it out but finally decided to convert from PP to Golden Butterfly myself. I figured that would immediately usher in a major stock market correction :-).

As far as rebalance bands - the 40% bands that work well for the PP won't work as well here, because 8% of any one asset is too little. So I set mine for 30% bands (14-26%).
You have five assets? And, your allocation to each is?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:43 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:33 pm
WiseOne wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:57 am
Nice to re-read that Golden Butterfly thread!

I was quite skeptical at first because I thought there was a good bit of recency bias leading to the increase in stock allocation, and I definitely think it resulted in a lot of the enthusiasm for it. What finally convinced me was the observations (my own, and Machine Ghost's) that gold and bonds tend to be more volatile than stocks - especially gold. In other words, as gold/bonds sink and stocks increase, the stocks don't quite pull their weight when they're only 25% of the portfolio. And, that there are structural reasons why recessions (the worst case scenario for the GB) comprise a much smaller proportion of years than prosperity.

I spent quite a bit of time puzzling it out but finally decided to convert from PP to Golden Butterfly myself. I figured that would immediately usher in a major stock market correction :-).

As far as rebalance bands - the 40% bands that work well for the PP won't work as well here, because 8% of any one asset is too little. So I set mine for 30% bands (14-26%).
You have five assets? And, your allocation to each is?

Vinny
Now as I kept reading I realize it must be the classic Golden Butterfly - each are 20% each with the classic four plus small cap value as the fifth?

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
LittleDinghy
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:44 am

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by LittleDinghy » Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:43 am

WiseOne wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 7:57 am
As far as rebalance bands - the 40% bands that work well for the PP won't work as well here, because 8% of any one asset is too little. So I set mine for 30% bands (14-26%).
WiseOne wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:49 am
Yup, that's exactly how my thought process went too. It was also my rationale for using 30% rebalancing bands. That reinforces a lower limit of 14% for all the non-stock assets, which fits comfortably within the Permanent Portfolio's parameters (which allows assets to drop to 15% if you're using 40% bands).
I don't understand the following statements in the above two quotes:
1st quote: "...because 8% of any one asset is too little." By 8% I think you mean the difference between 12% and 20%, and between 20% and 28%. But what do you mean by "is too little?"
2nd quote: "lower limit of 14% for all non-stock assets." Are the lower limits for the 20% Total Stock Market and 20% Small Cap Value portions of your GB different than 14%?

I too use the GB but decided to use rebalancing bands of 12% and 28% for each of the five asset classes to conform to the 40% PP rebalancing band. Obviously you chose a tighter rebalancing band for your GB of 30% instead of 40%, but I don't yet understand your reasoning for doing so. Would you mind explaining your reasoning more thoroughly? I'd really like to understand. Perhaps I should tighten the rebalancing bands on my GB as well.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by dualstow » Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:30 pm

I’m glad LittleDinghy asked, as I puzzled over that as well. I don't get it.

In Fail-Safe, Harry Browne suggests rebalancing bands of 15%-35% meaning in plain English that no single asset of the four should rise above 35% of the total portfolio nor fall below 15%. If it does, you should rebalance, at least by year end or 12-months-end.

Before you even get to the Golden Butterfly, WiseOne, you mention 40% bands for the pp. As you mentioned, the numbers are not written in stone. I guess that just means a 40% upper limit, to let your winners run a little bit more before pruning them back to 25% or something close to that?

As for the G.B....what Dinghy said.

If the G.B. has five assets of ~ 20% each, I think "8% of any one asset is too little" refers to one asset's drop from 20% to 12% of the total(?) Or a drop to 8% of the total?
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
Pet Hog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by Pet Hog » Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:24 pm

I believe WiseOne means "40% bands" for the PP as 0.25 ± 40% (or 0.25 ± 0.10, from 0.35 to 0.15). And "30% bands" for the GB as 0.20 ± 30% (or 0.20 ± 0.06, from 0.26 to 0.14).
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly

Post by dualstow » Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:11 pm

Pet Hog wrote:
Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:24 pm
I believe WiseOne means "40% bands" for the PP as 0.25 ± 40% (or 0.25 ± 0.10, from 0.35 to 0.15). And "30% bands" for the GB as 0.20 ± 30% (or 0.20 ± 0.06, from 0.26 to 0.14).
So in plain English, the 40% refers to swings, not bands? I posted something about that above and then swiftly deleted that part, plagued by self-doubt. :-[
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
Post Reply