Golden Butterfly Portfolio

[mathjak107]

that is the issue spending down from the pp.

all well and good you have 25% cash but now that you spent it down  below your rebalance point you have to rebalance and refill selling volatile assets . it may be  no different from leaving the cash and spending it down equally from the  other parts  right from the get go ..

in a typical bucket system you exhaust the cash , then refill from short and  intermediate term bonds which are no where near as volatile as stocks would be like long term bonds are. finally many years later sell equity's to refill bonds and cash

so instead of refilling from short and intermediate term  bonds which may be down a little you are selling long term bonds which are  something as volatile as the stocks  or selling stocks or gold which run an equal chance of being down as much you are trying to avoid selling at a bad time .

with the pp you do not really have a non volatile 2nd line of defense to draw from if rates rise . .

i think anyone spending down from the pp has to examine this and find away to provide a secondary source for spending without selling assets as volatile as stocks are .

perhaps an income annuity may add time to allow other assets to  at least recover before they are needed  and prolong rebalancing to cash .

i don't know , how it would shake out as i never looked at the pp in that regard .

Follow all you say here....however the part of "later sell equity's"....why "many years later"?

What if the cash bucket has depleted and there is also not much left in the next bucket and you have to sell equities? Are you not in the same position as regarding your criticism of the Permanent Portfolio System.

My understanding of the bucket system is that you have 3 years worth of spending in the cash bucket, 5 years in the next bucket, with the remainder in equities. And, as each year goes by you have to shift from the higher bucket to the lower bucket. Therefore, isn't the bucket system even worse in that it's guaranteed selling of equities each year while the Permanent Portfolio system is, on the average, once every two years?

Vinny

In practice each bucket is refilled over those years as assets are in a good position to do so ....

In practice one system uses 7 years safe money in bucket 1 ...that is basically cash instruments and annuities as well as other income sources ...bucket 2 has 7 years in assorted bond funds , income funds , reit income ,etc , durations are matched to need ———bucket 3 is equities ......

You have as much as 15 years before equities need to be sold ..... you likely don’t want to spend down buckets 1 and 2 and be 100% equities at age 80 prior to refilling .....so users tend to refill at different points along the way

[LittleDinghy]

Last night I just did my end-of-month adding up of our GB portfolio (our whole nest egg for retirement - 2-1/2 years away for me and 7 years away for my spouse) and was pleasantly surprised to find it had hit a new high, a little larger but essentially the same as its previous high the end of January (I usually only check at month-end). And we never quite hit a re-balancing limit and the only change was the automated paycheck additions to the equity part of our portfolio over Feb, Mar and April, which over the three months is probably not more than 1% of portfolio value (I'll check this weekend). The lowest value I calculated over the last three months (on March 21) was down about 11.8% as compared to our previous highest value ever at the end of Jan.

I have at best a surface understanding of how all this works but my spouse and I are so appreciative of Harry Browne, Craig Rowland, J.M. Lawson and Tyler for making this sufficiently understandable that even we, as ignorant as we are about investing, could implement it. Also, I'm so appreciative of this forum, especially Sophie, pmward, and Smith1776, for their responses to my and other's questions that have helped us so much.

For grins, below are some charts of our portfolio dynamics from Jan 31, the previous maximum value of our portfolio. Looking at the charts it seems that LTTs and gold increased in value enough from 1/31 to 3/20 or thereabouts to partially offset the equity losses during that period. And then as equity values have risen since 3/20 or thereabouts, LTT and gold values have held their values sufficiently such that they, in combination with the equity increases in value since 3/20 have enabled the entire portfolio to recover all of its losses from 1/31 to 3/20.

[gull1]

I know this is the cardinal sin but anyone else thinking about switching back to PP from GB? I am just having a hard time seeing how stocks are going to perform much better in the upcoming several years in real terms. They'll prob go sideways. Then again, they seem to be doing OK and the world is a basket case, so is there all upside? My gut tells me the current stock market is a potemkin village.

[mathjak107]

I run the pp and I run a 25% equity model of another type too ..I am holding for now at the 25% level in both

[pp4me]

I know this is the cardinal sin but anyone else thinking about switching back to PP from GB? I am just having a hard time seeing how stocks are going to perform much better in the upcoming several years in real terms. They'll prob go sideways. Then again, they seem to be doing OK and the world is a basket case, so is there all upside? My gut tells me the current stock market is a potemkin village.

Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention.

I switched from the pure PP to the GB a few years back because it seemed like a good idea looking at Tyler's chart when stocks were doing well. Will that turn out to be a bad decision in the long run based on current events?

How the hell do I know and neither do you or any of the "experts". I try to make it a habit not to look at my portfolio very often but when I do I see that SCV is not doing so well right now. Is that going to hold true in the future? Again, how the hell do I know? My attitude is that you just make the best decisions you can based on available information at the time. What more can you really do?

[whatchamacallit]

By my calculations IWN is up 40% from its lows this year.

I was moving slowly into GB and I have been buying SCV because it was my lagging asset. I have made some nice percentage gains on my latest contributions because of this.

I was so close to hitting a re balance band right before it reversed course going back up. I was about back up the truck and missed it.

I will keep buying it while it is my lagging asset.

[gull1]

I know this is the cardinal sin but anyone else thinking about switching back to PP from GB? I am just having a hard time seeing how stocks are going to perform much better in the upcoming several years in real terms. They'll prob go sideways. Then again, they seem to be doing OK and the world is a basket case, so is there all upside? My gut tells me the current stock market is a potemkin village.

Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention.

I switched from the pure PP to the GB a few years back because it seemed like a good idea looking at Tyler's chart when stocks were doing well. Will that turn out to be a bad decision in the long run based on current events?

How the hell do I know and neither do you or any of the "experts". I try to make it a habit not to look at my portfolio very often but when I do I see that SCV is not doing so well right now. Is that going to hold true in the future? Again, how the hell do I know? My attitude is that you just make the best decisions you can based on available information at the time. What more can you really do?

Found this random article which seems reassuring https://osam.com/Commentary/a-historic- ... -small-cap

[Tyler]

I was moving slowly into GB and I have been buying SCV because it was my lagging asset. I have made some nice percentage gains on my latest contributions because of this.

Anyone continuing to buy SCV in the downswing is feeling pretty good today. (It's up about 5.5% as I write this).

But in all seriousness, no matter how you invest I think it's important to find a portfolio you're comfortable sticking with through both good times and bad. Constantly second-guessing yourself will make you miserable and will likely also cost you money in the long run as you repeatedly change strategies. Pick a good plan, let it do its thing, and focus your energy on saving more. You'll be a lot happier and wealthier in the long run!

[pmward]

I know this is the cardinal sin but anyone else thinking about switching back to PP from GB? I am just having a hard time seeing how stocks are going to perform much better in the upcoming several years in real terms. They'll prob go sideways. Then again, they seem to be doing OK and the world is a basket case, so is there all upside? My gut tells me the current stock market is a potemkin village.

Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention.

I switched from the pure PP to the GB a few years back because it seemed like a good idea looking at Tyler's chart when stocks were doing well. Will that turn out to be a bad decision in the long run based on current events?

How the hell do I know and neither do you or any of the "experts". I try to make it a habit not to look at my portfolio very often but when I do I see that SCV is not doing so well right now. Is that going to hold true in the future? Again, how the hell do I know? My attitude is that you just make the best decisions you can based on available information at the time. What more can you really do?

You obviously haven't looked at things this week. SCV is up over 15% this week alone...

[sophie]

And it's up 20% since I rebalanced. And my GB is up over 4%.

I was a bit terrified to be buying such a crazy amount of SCV at the time. It always goes against the grain to buy low and sell high - almost by definition it's the opposite of what everyone else is doing, and thus what every bone in your body is telling you to do. This is what's happening to you now, pp4me.

But, as hard as it is, it's exactly what you need to do to succeed in the investing game. If you can't do it, you're better off buying a single target date/lifestrategy/balanced fund and forgetting the whole portfolio maintenance bit. Jumping between portfolios trying to chase returns is a really bad idea. It's just another way to buy high and sell low.

[pmward]

And it's up 20% since I rebalanced. And my GB is up over 4%.

I was a bit terrified to be buying such a crazy amount of SCV at the time. It always goes against the grain to buy low and sell high - almost by definition it's the opposite of what everyone else is doing, and thus what every bone in your body is telling you to do. This is what's happening to you now, pp4me.

But, as hard as it is, it's exactly what you need to do to succeed in the investing game. If you can't do it, you're better off buying a single target date/lifestrategy/balanced fund and forgetting the whole portfolio maintenance bit. Jumping between portfolios trying to chase returns is a really bad idea. It's just another way to buy high and sell low.

Human psychology really is setup to buy high and sell low. All successful investing/trading strategies are all about different ways to counter or minimize this one fundamental flaw we all possess. It really is the hardest and most unnatural thing in the world to buy low and sell high.

[Kevin K.]

A chorus of wise advice here I must say - or rather, ruefully admit, since I sold my SCV at a loss a few weeks back and reverted to the PP from the GB. My (dubious) "logic" was that the GB tilt towards prosperity makes sense almost all the time, with a global pandemic being an obvious exception. And we all know what's been happening to the stock market in general and SCV in particular in recent days.

I am probably one of those people who ought to have just put everything into Wellesley or Vanguard Target Retirement Income and called it a day. But I still believe in the logic behind the PP and GB and am just going to stop looking at the markets so often. I have a feeling I'm far from alone in letting too much time indoors and online during this lockdown lead to way too much news consumption - including financial "porn" from CNBC and the like that I used to know better than to read.

[Tyler]

I have a feeling I'm far from alone in letting too much time indoors and online during this lockdown lead to way too much news consumption - including financial "porn" from CNBC and the like that I used to know better than to read.

You're definitely not alone. We're all human. And cabin fever affects us all in different ways.

When it comes to portfolio jitters, taking a break from the news definitely helps. Writing down the reasons you invested in something so that you can refer to it later also comes in handy. And maybe most importantly, I have a hard rule that I never trade when I'm overly excited or fearful. Things almost never work out the way you think they will when you're worked up.

[sophie]

Kevin, don't beat yourself up about it. It's understandable. Rebalancing my GB was simple in terms of entering orders, but psychologically I had to really force myself to do it.

This forum is an invaluable support group - if you're feeling those sort of jitters, help is just one post away. In retrospect, we should have had a thread entitled "Rebalancing Support Room" or something like that.

Watch old Harry Potter movies, or the Indiana Jones flicks, or old Star Trek reruns. Anything but cable news. I was devouring that in the first few weeks and tracking reported COVID cases, but eventually I realized I was simply letting not so smart people parrot their latest stupid ideas into my head. Don't let that happen! (Also the fun part about old movies & shows: count how many times a character says or does something that would get them arrested today. Even in the socially liberal Star Trek next generation shows, that was about 1-2 times per episode.)

[pmward]

A chorus of wise advice here I must say - or rather, ruefully admit, since I sold my SCV at a loss a few weeks back and reverted to the PP from the GB. My (dubious) "logic" was that the GB tilt towards prosperity makes sense almost all the time, with a global pandemic being an obvious exception. And we all know what's been happening to the stock market in general and SCV in particular in recent days.

I am probably one of those people who ought to have just put everything into Wellesley or Vanguard Target Retirement Income and called it a day. But I still believe in the logic behind the PP and GB and am just going to stop looking at the markets so often. I have a feeling I'm far from alone in letting too much time indoors and online during this lockdown lead to way too much news consumption - including financial "porn" from CNBC and the like that I used to know better than to read.

The stock market performs the BEST going forward when the news is the worst and people are the most fearful. It performs the WORST when the news is the best and people are the most excited about the market/economy. Really let that sink in and digest for awhile. Most people refuse to accept this, and this is why their behavior causes them to habitually underperform. I know because I've been there myself.

Warren Buffet isn't Warren Buffet because he is a "value investor". His methodology is not what made him successful at all. People that try to worship and copy his methodology are missing the boat entirely. He has become as successful as he is purely because he has super human levels of discipline. When the media are fear mongering and fear is at extremes he is the only person in the room putting large sums of money into the markets. When we are in a meltup and the media is saying there is nowhere to go but up, he is the only person in the room sitting on a pile of cash. This is not natural, and it is not easy at all. Matter of fact, it's almost impossible for anyone to do this.

[mathjak107]

It also has given him pretty poor returns now for 15 years compared to many mutual funds ...I mean fidelity contra beat Berkshire every time frame the last 15 years ....what ever he had, that mojo seems to be gone for a long time .

The poor choices he made the last decade in investments is pretty bad

[Kevin K.]

Kevin, don't beat yourself up about it. It's understandable. Rebalancing my GB was simple in terms of entering orders, but psychologically I had to really force myself to do it.

This forum is an invaluable support group - if you're feeling those sort of jitters, help is just one post away. In retrospect, we should have had a thread entitled "Rebalancing Support Room" or something like that.

Watch old Harry Potter movies, or the Indiana Jones flicks, or old Star Trek reruns. Anything but cable news. I was devouring that in the first few weeks and tracking reported COVID cases, but eventually I realized I was simply letting not so smart people parrot their latest stupid ideas into my head. Don't let that happen! (Also the fun part about old movies & shows: count how many times a character says or does something that would get them arrested today. Even in the socially liberal Star Trek next generation shows, that was about 1-2 times per episode.)

Thank you Sophie for your kind words, Tyler for the same and for your brilliant work on Portfolio Charts, and pmward for your consistently insightful posts.

As you say Sophie this forum is indeed an invaluable support group, and I'm certainly going to take advantage of it before making any future moves. I learn so much from all of you. I'm most grateful.

[Kevin K.]

Another question for GB fans here is to what extent people consider it heretical to use something other than SCV for the second 20% of the stock allocation. I understand Tyler's well thought-out recommendation of SCV or SCB as complementing the TSM allocation. And he has mentioned that perhaps a slice of international could be OK, but not really needed in a portfolio that holds 20% gold.

The sea change (if that's not too dramatic a phrase) I'm seeing is captured in this recent NY Times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/busi ... tocks.html

The trends talked about in that article, which is from late April, have only increased since. Even my least-favorite stock market talking head seems to get this one right:

"The coronavirus pandemic and corresponding lockdown made way for “one of the greatest wealth transfers in history,” CNBC’s Jim Cramer said Thursday.

The stock market is rising as big business rebounds from state-ordered stoppage of nonessential activity, while small businesses drop like flies, the “Mad Money” host said.

“The bigger the business, the more it moves the major averages, and that matters because this is the first recession where big business … is coming through virtually unscathed, if not going for the gold,” he added."

So the juxtaposition I'm seeing is mainstream firms like Vanguard and DFA predicting that international and value are going to soar based purely on valuations (as they've been predicting - incorrectly - for many years now) while the NYT article is talking about STRUCTURAL changes to the stock markets that got underway during the Great Recession and have been launched into hyperspace by the pandemic. It kind of looks like QQQ might be a better call than VBR going forward.

Thoughts?

[Tyler]

So the juxtaposition I'm seeing is mainstream firms like Vanguard and DFA predicting that international and value are going to soar based purely on valuations (as they've been predicting - incorrectly - for many years now) while the NYT article is talking about STRUCTURAL changes to the stock markets that got underway during the Great Recession and have been launched into hyperspace by the pandemic. It kind of looks like QQQ might be a better call than VBR going forward.

I understand the argument that current conditions may disproportionately harm small caps. But there's more to the structural makeup of the stock market than company size.

For reference, the thing that eventually pushed me over the top on my own SCV vs SCB debate (I settled on SCV) was when I realized just how different the sector makeup is for SCV vs LCB. Large caps are dominated by tech and healthcare, while small cap value is heavily weighted towards financials and industrials (SCB is a lot more similar to LCB in sector makeup than you'd think). Balance them equally and you get a nice amount of sector diversification on top of the other economic diversification in the portfolio.

Will tech and healthcare do better than financials and industrials in the near term? Sure - it's very possible. But having my bases covered in a methodical rebalancing structure gives me the confidence to stick with the plan no matter what industry takes the lead next.

[Kevin K.]

So clear, so well-reasoned, so helpful! Thanks - again! - Tyler. The GB is so well thought-out.

It seems like the only real obstacle to "staying the course" with the GB or PP is the one William Bernstein wisely pointed out years ago: tracking error regret, which in turn is only a danger to the degree that one insists on following stock market news.

[pmward]

Another question for GB fans here is to what extent people consider it heretical to use something other than SCV for the second 20% of the stock allocation. I understand Tyler's well thought-out recommendation of SCV or SCB as complementing the TSM allocation. And he has mentioned that perhaps a slice of international could be OK, but not really needed in a portfolio that holds 20% gold.

The sea change (if that's not too dramatic a phrase) I'm seeing is captured in this recent NY Times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/busi ... tocks.html

The trends talked about in that article, which is from late April, have only increased since. Even my least-favorite stock market talking head seems to get this one right:

"The coronavirus pandemic and corresponding lockdown made way for “one of the greatest wealth transfers in history,” CNBC’s Jim Cramer said Thursday.

The stock market is rising as big business rebounds from state-ordered stoppage of nonessential activity, while small businesses drop like flies, the “Mad Money” host said.

“The bigger the business, the more it moves the major averages, and that matters because this is the first recession where big business … is coming through virtually unscathed, if not going for the gold,” he added."

So the juxtaposition I'm seeing is mainstream firms like Vanguard and DFA predicting that international and value are going to soar based purely on valuations (as they've been predicting - incorrectly - for many years now) while the NYT article is talking about STRUCTURAL changes to the stock markets that got underway during the Great Recession and have been launched into hyperspace by the pandemic. It kind of looks like QQQ might be a better call than VBR going forward.

Thoughts?

Another variation as well would be QQQ/SCV instead of SPY/SCV. I think QQQ/SCV has a greater juxtaposition than SPY/SCV. I'll admit, I'm not a big believer in value long term, as I think value indexes contain mostly worthless zombie companies, but they do still have periods (like the last couple weeks) of severe outperformance whenever you get a massive crap big. And generally speaking, the times when SCV out performs are usually the times when QQQ underperforms, and the reverse. So I think QQQ/SCV would be something to think about, especially since you're bullish on QQQ.

[pmward]

It also has given him pretty poor returns now for 15 years compared to many mutual funds ...I mean fidelity contra beat Berkshire every time frame the last 15 years ....what ever he had, that mojo seems to be gone for a long time .

The poor choices he made the last decade in investments is pretty bad

Oh I agree with you. Though I don't think that his choices in investments necessarily were bad on the whole (aside from maybe Wells Fargo), but the fact that value itself has been such a poor performer for 18 years now. Any true blue value guy has underperformed over the last 18 years now. Eventually that pendulum will swing back again, but who knows how long that will be? Odds are Buffet won't be in charge of Berkshire anymore at that time, and they likely will no longer be pure value. But yes, any actual fund manager would have been fired with his poor performance over the last dozen years or so. But that's the difference between a fund and a company. A fund is forced to chase current trends (plenty of value managers have loaded up on growth stocks in the last decade simply to keep their jobs), a company has a bit more room to stick to their formula and wait out the inevitable swing back into favor. Value out performed growth for many decades, so there are still another couple decades of potential mean reversion in growths favor to bring both back to even on the longest timeframe.

[LittleDinghy]

A chorus of wise advice here I must say - or rather, ruefully admit, since I sold my SCV at a loss a few weeks back and reverted to the PP from the GB.

We have a similar story. Earlier this year my wife and I moved SCV-invested money from our employer-provided individual HSA accounts to new HSA accounts at Fidelity. The HSA companies requested that we first sell the SCV so we would be transferring cash. By the time the move was complete (it took over a month), equities had bottomed and were heading back up. My wife and I continued to think that equities would take another dive, which they never did. And each of our Fidelity HSA accounts still hold that money in cash. So, we've lost out on some significant gains on that money.

I think our lesson is to stick to the allocation plan; that is, we should have immediately reinvested the money in SCV as soon as the transfer occurred. But maybe we still haven't learned that lesson because with SCV prices being up a lot, we are now reluctant to buy high. So, even now, we aren't sticking to the plan.

Fortunately the HSA amounts are less than 10% of the total SCV investment allocation in our GB portfolio. But still, I think there is a lesson here.

Would love any others' thoughts on this.

[pmward]

I think our lesson is to stick to the allocation plan; that is, we should have immediately reinvested the money in SCV as soon as the transfer occurred. But maybe we still haven't learned that lesson because with SCV prices being up a lot, we are now reluctant to buy high. So, even now, we aren't sticking to the plan.

Just because something is up does not mean it is "high". Can you see your emotional bias coming forth there in that wording? SPY is 5% away from all-time highs. SLYV is still 25% away from all-time highs. Relatively speaking, there's still a lot of room left for SCV to play catch up. If your allocation is to hold 20% SCV, I would just plug your nose and do it. I mean it sounds like you would still be buying in cheaper than you sold, so that should be something you should celebrate and not want to risk missing out on! There are rules in the portfolio for a reason. It's almost a sure bet that whenever you break or bend the rules of your portfolio you're going to live to regret it eventually.

[LittleDinghy]

Can you see your emotional bias coming forth there in that wording? SPY is 5% away from all-time highs. SLYV is still 25% away from all-time highs. Relatively speaking, there's still a lot of room left for SCV to play catch up. If your allocation is to hold 20% SCV, I would just plug your nose and do it. I mean it sounds like you would still be buying in cheaper than you sold, so that should be something you should celebrate and not want to risk missing out on! There are rules in the portfolio for a reason. It's almost a sure bet that whenever you break or bend the rules of your portfolio you're going to live to regret it eventually.

Thank you for pointing out my emotional bias in my language. And you're right, it probably is still worth less than when we sold it. We'll take a look.