Stock scream room

Discussion of the Stock portion of the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2393
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by Kbg » Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:18 pm

Too funny...why does someone care who's not in the portfolio?
Jack Jones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by Jack Jones » Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:46 pm

I think when Budd is mad at the PP, an inanimate object, he needs to release the pressure somewhere so takes it out on us. Personally, I’m okay with it.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 12767
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Stock scream room

Post by dualstow » Mon Jun 13, 2022 1:04 pm

I like to think of him as one of the FBI agents in the original Twin Peaks. The one played by Miguel Ferrer, not Kyle Maclachlan.
Budd’s path is a difficult one.
let 2022 be the year of GOLD
Thinking of a few pp forum members as I read about the sound of pickleball annoying the neighbors O0 (WSJ)
There’s also an amusing article about buying iBonds in the WSJ
User avatar
buddtholomew
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by buddtholomew » Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:22 am

I was ridiculed for years because I didn’t ascribe to the philosophy that one or more assets would buoy the portfolio in times of economic distress. We are now witnessing this distress first-hand and the PP has proven it does not have the ability to overcome an inflationary environment with rising interest rates. Moreover, the one asset that differentiates the portfolio from other conservative allocations and was selected for this very economic climate (Gold) is wavering in the wind with inflation at 40 year highs. If this does not give you pause then I don’t know what to tell you. The portfolio just isn’t what others have made it out to be. Period.

YTD Returns:
SPY -21.84
IAU +.58
TLT -23.86
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4918
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Stock scream room

Post by pugchief » Tue Jun 14, 2022 2:56 pm

buddtholomew wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:22 am
I was ridiculed for years because I didn’t ascribe to the philosophy that one or more assets would buoy the portfolio in times of economic distress. We are now witnessing this distress first-hand and the PP has proven it does not have the ability to overcome an inflationary environment with rising interest rates. Moreover, the one asset that differentiates the portfolio from other conservative allocations and was selected for this very economic climate (Gold) is wavering in the wind with inflation at 40 year highs. If this does not give you pause then I don’t know what to tell you. The portfolio just isn’t what others have made it out to be. Period.

YTD Returns:
SPY -21.84
IAU +.58
TLT -23.86
I guess that depends on perspective. If you had all stocks or a 60/40 BH, you would be down 22% YTD, whereas a PP is down a bunch less.

Isn't that the whole point?
User avatar
mathjak107
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4156
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
Location: bayside queens ny
Contact:

Re: Stock scream room

Post by mathjak107 » Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:59 pm

But had you had 60/40 or all stocks your balance over the years would have been way higher too.

So being down more maybe only part of the story
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by joypog » Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:09 pm

I took a look on Portfolio Visualizer comparing the PP, GB, and a 60/40 (with World-TSM and ITT as bond). Starting 2010 (after the last crash) with $100k, and monthly 1k contributions. All of them were creamed by the Classic Jack Bogle Vanguard 60/40 portfolio (the green benchmark line).

America kicked serious ass over the past decade.
Attachments
Screenshot 2022-06-14 160513.png
Screenshot 2022-06-14 160513.png (153.87 KiB) Viewed 450 times
I have no clue. Ask me next May.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Stock scream room

Post by glennds » Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:49 pm

Joypog, something doesn't look right. There's no way the PP would be returning a CAGR of 12.59% for that time period. It should be closer to 6% or a little less.
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by joypog » Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:12 pm

glennds wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:49 pm
Joypog, something doesn't look right. There's no way the PP would be returning a CAGR of 12.59% for that time period. It should be closer to 6% or a little less.
Hmm I reran the test and here are the settings and results.

I'm a n00b with PV, so I may well be wrong. Is there a setting that's off?
Attachments
Screenshot 2022-06-14 171125.png
Screenshot 2022-06-14 171125.png (15.36 KiB) Viewed 437 times
Screenshot 2022-06-14 171047.png
Screenshot 2022-06-14 171047.png (59.67 KiB) Viewed 437 times
I have no clue. Ask me next May.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by D1984 » Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:15 pm

joypog wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:12 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:49 pm
Joypog, something doesn't look right. There's no way the PP would be returning a CAGR of 12.59% for that time period. It should be closer to 6% or a little less.
Hmm I reran the test and here are the settings and results.

I'm a n00b with PV, so I may well be wrong. Is there a setting that's off?
I don't think anything was wrong with what you did....IIRC PortfolioVisualizer counts contributions when calculating CAGR; even if you had a hypothetical asset with an exact 0% return that you were kicking in, say, $1K a month to (in order to buy $1,000 of this zero-return asset each and every month of the year) PV would still show a positive CAGR for this portfolio because the contributions would increase the total amount of assets above what it was when the portfolio started.

EDITED TO ADD:

PP in PV while starting with $100K on 1-1-2010 and adding an inflation-adjusted $1K each month:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion4_1=25

PP in PV simply starting with $100K on 1-1-2010 and never adding anything else:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion4_1=25

Notice the wildly different CAGRs?
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Stock scream room

Post by glennds » Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:36 pm

D1984 wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:15 pm
Thank you for clarifying that. On the one hand I get it, they're giving you the total portfolio growth whether that came from investment returns or contributions. On the other hand, if you start with a $10,000 portfolio and contribute $1000/month, it will give you a CAGR of over 29% in the summary box Joypog shared. If you scroll down to Trailing returns, it gives you a performance number that would be more appropriate for the conversation here.
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by joypog » Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:38 pm

OK thanks! I'm still got another 10-20 years of accumulation phase so I always throw in some contributions into the calcs cause it's closer to my circumstances. But yeah I could see that getting really messy. Sorry for the confusion.

Ultimately I think the main point is that the US 60/40 was just destroying everything out there for this most recent period. The PP is naturally going to bad against that. My big surprise was how the World TSM portfolio was much closer to the PP than the Jack Bogle special.

I totally get tracking error regret, but in light of that, it seems unfair to kick oneself too hard by comparing oneself to the ideal portfolio of the past decade.
I have no clue. Ask me next May.
Jack Jones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by Jack Jones » Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:19 am

joypog wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 7:38 pm
Ultimately I think the main point is that the US 60/40 was just destroying everything out there for this most recent period. The PP is naturally going to bad against that. My big surprise was how the World TSM portfolio was much closer to the PP than the Jack Bogle special.

I totally get tracking error regret, but in light of that, it seems unfair to kick oneself too hard by comparing oneself to the ideal portfolio of the past decade.
Also, don't forget, these comparisons can't show the additional tail-risk benefits you get from holding gold:

- survival of $USD devaluation
- war at home
- confiscation of on-the-book assets
- estate tax
- FAFSA calculation
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2393
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Stock scream room

Post by Kbg » Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:51 am

buddtholomew wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 10:22 am
I was ridiculed for years because I didn’t ascribe to the philosophy that one or more assets would buoy the portfolio in times of economic distress.
No, people gave you a hard time for railing on (investing in?) something you didn't believe in and thoroughly disliked. Your gold rants were/are epic.

For example, it's ok not to like gold. But rather than blowing one's top on a down day, much better to say something like..."I don't think gold is a great holding and here's my evidence/thoughts on why." Or...here's how I invest/my allocation and these are the reasons why.

In short, bringing value added is, well, bringing value added vs. a text explosion that does you no actual good and annoys others when it is done repeatedly.

Peace brother...gold is not Satan. It's a metal that is shiny and yellowish and goes up and down in the price people are willing to pay for it. Some think there is money to be made investing in it, others believe it provides no productive value or intrinsic return and is therefore not worth buying. These views can coexist peacefully in our universe.
Post Reply