Absolutely brutal - 5/5

[mathjak107]

The 10 year CAGR is a good addition, gives more context. I appreciate the weekly updates.

It does kind of show you if you are paying to much in expenses so to speak .

Paying for the insurance of the safety assets and coming in last in the bull and then lagging in the bear market you were buying that insurance for means you may have been sold a bill of good s with features and benefits you didn’t get…

So far Wellesly would have been a better choice all around.

Even 100% total market fund would have left you with a bigger balance despite the drop if one had the tolerance for the volatility.

[Jack Jones]

The 10 year CAGR is a good addition, gives more context. I appreciate the weekly updates.

It does kind of show you if you are paying to much in expenses so to speak .

Paying for the insurance of the safety assets and coming in last in the bull and then lagging in the bear market you were buying that insurance for means you may have been sold a bill of good s with features and benefits you didn’t get…

So far Wellesly would have been a better choice all around.

Even 100% total market fund would have left you with a bigger balance despite the drop if one had the tolerance for the volatility.

Mathjak, as usual, you are trolling, but I’ll bite.

We are looking at one possible future. There were other futures where the insurance of gold would have paid out and your model portfolios would have been wiped out. For example, a German investor during the world wars.

Since I am not an average investor, I am a human being, I have only one life to live, I’d prefer to be protected from tail risks like that.

[mathjak107]

I am not saying it is a good portfolio or a bad one so it isn’t trolling .

The pp is what it is and does what it does and all that matters is what it’s results are over the time frames that mean the most to us .

That is usually when we have maximum dollars invested in it

The last 10 years it has lagged the other conservative choices and it has lagged so far in the downturn too .

So what it did over other time frames is irrelevant unless one had the same dollar commitment to it more than a decade ago.

Then we would have to extend out the comparison

[Kbg]

I've been feeling worse about my paper gold lately. I really question the value of it at all. I fear that I'm largely deceiving myself by thinking my gold allocation is where it is.

If we want the risk/returns of paper assets, then stocks fit the bill. If we want SHTF insurance, an off-the-books-asset, hard money, an asset that is no one else's liability, then that's physical gold. A combination of the two is an abomination and is not needed in modern times. Paper gold is like stocks w/out the upside.

Conspiracy theory: does the existence of paper gold suppress the price of gold? It seems plausible to me. I'm sure there is some degree of fractional reserve going on somewhere in the world, and that reduces the demand for the real thing.

Back to Bitcoin: since it is a digital-native asset, you are never in a position where you have to trust that someone has the Bitcoin they say they do. Reserves can be cryptographically audited:

https://www.kraken.com/en-us/proof-of-reserves

This would be like mathematically proving that all the gold bars are there in the vault, and they are all 100% gold. This is prohibitively expensive in the gold case.

I'm some random dude on the internet, so you know, you get the value you pay for :-) But here are some thoughts.

I have two intellectual interests history/geopolitics and investing. Accordingly, I bring my knowledge of both to the other when I look at something.

Gold: It's a metal in the commodities class of assets that has historically been used as money but no longer is. It has a history and you can derive its properties from that history but you should only do so from the time going forward when it wasn't used as money (obviously we are talking at scale here). I've never bought the SHTF rationale for physical gold. By and large in true SHTF those with power do what they want. You may be lucky and be able to exchange physical gold for a ticket out of wherever or buy something, but you just as easily could have your gold stolen from you at gunpoint/sword point whatever or worse. (Lots of gold has been gathered at concentration camps.) If this is your concern, buy farmland and guns. I way more get being a guns and ammo collector if that is your concern. On paper gold...if you think through what you wrote I think you will realize it's not accurate. First, gold ETFs are audited. Maybe that's not a compelling argument to you, but this one should be. Name me any investment you have that isn't paper backed. ETFs, stocks, bonds, futures, options even real estate you "own"...paper, paper, paper, paper and paper. On real estate...the only reason you "own" it is because there is a paper record at the state and/or county level that states you own it. (And in today's world digital records.) USDs and every other currency on the planet all paper and/or digits. Given all of the above...there's really zero difference between paper gold and any other form of investment that involves record keeping...and they all require record keeping.

So now we come to crux of the issue...what really matters is that the paper or digits that say you "own" something accurately reflect the thing and your ownership of it...and both are in fact most dependent on lawmakers, lawyers, accountants and law enforcement officers. If this structure is good, then your ownership is good. If this structure is bad it is just as capable of taking your physical stuff from you as it is of defrauding you.

If one is actually going to be a doomer, then be a doomer and turn paper into solid physical things that are useful for you when you actually need to survive; Air, water, food, shelter, clothing...and you get bonus points for any of these that you can make with your own hands.

Crytpo: I think my views are pretty well known. Other than the associated accounting technology, it is worth nothing. Bill Gates has it exactly right...it is completely dependent on the greater fool theory.

Crypto vs. gold: Not even hard...at least gold is physical. My personal take is that because gold (and crypto) essentially provide zero return they trend strongly...and...non to minimally correlated is useful in a portfolio.

Final comment...gold has met my minimal standard for it in my portfolio. It has held its own (nominally) while stocks have tubed. Would nicely up be nice/preferred or a positive real return...you bet. I would also point out when the Ukraine/Russian war kicked off it went up just shy of 14% from the Jan start.

[Jack Jones]

Let me spell it out for you. This was the part that was trolling:

Paying for the insurance of the safety assets and coming in last in the bull and then lagging in the bear market you were buying that insurance for means you may have been sold a bill of good s with features and benefits you didn’t get…

It's trolling because you're on a PP forum saying that the insurance we bought was worthless and whoever sold us our portfolio lied to us. It's trolling because you're trying to get a rise out of us. The language you use makes that clear.

Fortunately, you're wrong about how people should think about insurance. When I didn't get cancer this year I didn't say, welp my insurance was worthless, I was sold a lame bill of goods.

[mathjak107]

Well if you found your insurance you bought denied your claims because the cancer you had didn’t fit their guidelines you would feel quite different about what you over paid for .

If there were cheaper policies that paid off better and demonstrated better coverage over the time frame you held that insurance you would look at it very differently.

So far the last 10 years the protection you paid for was not at the level of other policies that were available and so far now that you are sick the policy does not seem to be paying out as planned .


Which is why I intend to track things as time goes on through this mess we are in ….let’s see if you did over pay

[joypog]

Just an awful week

Pp down 12.88% ytd , cagr the last 10 years 4.30%
Fidelity monitor income model down 11.31 , 4.71% the last 10 years
Wellesly 11.67% 40% equities . 5.93% the last 10 years
Ray dalio all weather is doing the worst , down 16.12.. 5.31% the last 10 years .

Vti for comparison 12.38% the last 10 years so one could actually be down 50% and still be ahead of them all..Correction: that being down 50% is from now, which means you would already be down 20% .so huge difference

In fairness to the PP, we are comparing a high risk play (100% stocks in one nation) versus conservative portfolios.

Given America's badassery since 2012 (if not 1812), VTI or even a US-60/40 blend would make all these look fairly weak....even a 40/60 US blend still out performs any of these portfolios.

The story changes a little if you use 60/40 with VT, which is still better than these portfolios, not remarkably so. And when you do a 40/60 VT-BND mix you're right in line with these options.

That said, they are also dropping similarly...but with the US 60-40 only slightly worse YTD. So who knows. It looks like the insurance isn't working great...who knows maybe the story ain't done...or maybe it's time to put on them Red White and Blue Chaps and shoot off some fireworks!

[Jack Jones]

Mathjak, you are missing my point entirely. I think your misunderstanding is rooted in the fact that you believe we hold gold to protect us from a bear market or something. Good day to you, sir.

[doodle]

I think Mathjaks analysis is a bit clouded by recency bias as well as analyzing outcomes specific to one country blessed by exceptionally favorable circumstances and demographics. The performance of the stock market in the United States over the course of Mathjaks lifetime has been truly incredible....demographics, global supply chains, declining corporate taxes, union busting, relative international peace, declining interest rates, debt expansion, declining commodity prices etc etc. Have combined to create the captivating narrative that stocks always and forever outperform. However, there are many indicators that I think point to a strong possibilty that this trend could be ending for the foreseeable future as those former tailwinds now become headwinds.

As to the relative underperformance of PP vs others such as Wellesley again his data set encompasses a very short period of time. As the sands continue to shift over the course of the year there is a good chance I think we see the PP improve it's position compared to other options.

[mathjak107]

And again , when and if things change the. Pp will be credited with doing what its concept is bought on .

Few portfolios are billed as a “safe “ portfolio in all conditions so buyers are willing to buy in to that concept .

Kind of like vanguards premise that fees and indexing are the keys to investor success .

Only to produce a study that show that it is true only under certain conditions and investor behavior .

So far it seems no different then any of the other models I track in loss prevention .

So let’s see where it goes from here .

So far it is down the most as well as produced the smallest returns the last 10 years in the above

[dockinGA]

I think Mathjaks analysis is a bit clouded by recency bias as well as analyzing outcomes specific to one country blessed by exceptionally favorable circumstances and demographics. The performance of the stock market in the United States over the course of Mathjaks lifetime has been truly incredible....demographics, global supply chains, declining corporate taxes, union busting, relative international peace, declining interest rates, debt expansion, declining commodity prices etc etc. Have combined to create the captivating narrative that stocks always and forever outperform. However, there are many indicators that I think point to a strong possibilty that this trend could be ending for the foreseeable future as those former tailwinds now become headwinds.

As to the relative underperformance of PP vs others such as Wellesley again his data set encompasses a very short period of time. As the sands continue to shift over the course of the year there is a good chance I think we see the PP improve it's position compared to other options.

Doodle, seems like it's been a while since I've seen you post, glad to see you back if this is the end of a hiatus.

Also, it seems mathjak is back in full force, which is unfortunately a shame. I have his posts blocked, and now that he's back it's becoming almost impossible (and useless) to follow the threads. Once again, his promises to leave the forum have only held up for a few months, and he's back to thinking it's a vaulable use of his time (and ours) to come back to the forum to spew forth his knowledge.

[mathjak107]

Sorry if facts and truth hurt.. keep me blocked

[doodle]

I don't have an issue with Mathjaks criticism of the portfolios performance as it's mostly just objective performance numbers at this point. What I don't understand though is his unwillingness to consider that perhaps his investing lifetime encompassed an exceptionally prosperperous time for stocks as an asset class. Of course back testing portfolios that are weighted more heavily towards stocks over this period will show outperformance vs a portfolio that allocated less money towards that particular economic outcome. We have been in a bull market for equities unparaleled by any other time in US history. Also, analyzing portfolio performance less than six months into a stock market downturn doesn't indicate one asset allocations success or failure. I appreciate the weekly performance updates but things take time to settle.

Where Mathjak and I disagree mostly is that I view back testing as akin to navigating a mountain road by staring in the rearview mirror. My attraction to the permanent portfolio is not it's past performance but it's premise related to economic cycles and how assets respond to those. Admittedly, stagflation is a bit of a complicated situation and the portfolio is faltering a bit as a clearer picture emerges for investors. We aren't in a classic inflationary environment as rising prices are due to supply issues not necessarily monetary breakdown...the US dollar has been enormously strong through this thus tempering golds rise. We are starting to see signs of an inverting yield curve but the narrative of economic recession has yet to fully take hold and long bonds have been in a bloodbath. Will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward and I'm confident that I will be fine whichever direction things take.

My greater concern is not the six month performance of portfolio but whether the assets it selected fail to respond to inflation, deflation, prosperity and tight money recession. So far I don't see evidence of that...but who knows that could change and then I would have to reevaluate some things

[dockinGA]

I don't have an issue with Mathjaks criticism of the portfolios performance as it's mostly just objective performance numbers at this point. What I don't understand though is his unwillingness to consider that perhaps his investing lifetime encompassed an exceptionally prosperperous time for stocks as an asset class. Of course back testing portfolios that are weighted more heavily towards stocks over this period will show outperformance vs a portfolio that allocated less money towards that particular economic outcome. We have been in a bull market for equities unparaleled by any other time in US history. Also, analyzing portfolio performance less than six months into a stock market downturn doesn't indicate one asset allocations success or failure. I appreciate the weekly performance updates but things take time to settle.

Where Mathjak and I disagree mostly is that I view back testing as akin to navigating a mountain road by staring in the rearview mirror. My attraction to the permanent portfolio is not it's past performance but it's premise related to economic cycles and how assets respond to those. Admittedly, stagflation is a bit of a complicated situation and the portfolio is faltering a bit as a clearer picture emerges for investors. We aren't in a classic inflationary environment as rising prices are due to supply issues not necessarily monetary breakdown...the US dollar has been enormously strong through this thus tempering golds rise. We are starting to see signs of an inverting yield curve but the narrative of economic recession has yet to fully take hold and long bonds have been in a bloodbath. Will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward and I'm confident that I will be fine whichever direction things take.

My greater concern is not the six month performance of portfolio but whether the assets it selected fail to respond to inflation, deflation, prosperity and tight money recession. So far I don't see evidence of that...but who knows that could change and then I would have to reevaluate some things

As I mentioned I have his posts blocked so I have very little idea of what he's blabbering on about now, other than the occasional snippet I see from where someone has quoted him. If he's providing actual performance numbers, that would be a shock, since in the past he has specifically stated he does not keep up with his personal performance numbers.

Also, I agree with you that we're still early days in this economic paradigm. If stocks fall a further 50%, we'll see what happens. For anyone who's interested, here's a link to PP/stock performance for 2007-2009. The PP had a big drawdown during that timeframe as well, roughly equivalent to what we've seen with the recent downturn.

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

Unfortunately the people on this forum who thought the PP was guaranteed to NEVER LOSE MONEY came into this investment with the wrong mindset. All they needed to do was look back a little over a decade to see that it can in fact lose money.

[mathjak107]

Up to now down 5% over a year is about the max that was touted .

So far it is down more than 2x that half way through a year so I would venture to say many are not happy being down more than 2x that going in to the second half of the year

[Kbg]

60/40 on left, PP on right. Since 1987 cuz that's when we have a US Total Bond market index. Things I like to look at are bolded. Comparing with 2022 performance thus far...there is exactly nothing out of the norms

Y'all are arguing over a nothing burger.


Arithmetic Mean (monthly) 0.74% 0.55%
Arithmetic Mean (annualized) 9.23% 6.86%
Geometric Mean (monthly) 0.70% 0.54%
Geometric Mean (annualized) 8.74% 6.67%
Standard Deviation (monthly) 2.73% 1.73%
Standard Deviation (annualized) 9.46% 5.98%
Downside Deviation (monthly) 1.77% 0.98%
Maximum Drawdown -30.72% -13.52%
Stock Market Correlation 0.99 0.58
Beta(*) 0.61 0.22
Alpha (annualized) 2.09% 4.15%
R2 97.05% 33.33%
Sharpe Ratio 0.63 0.62
Sortino Ratio 0.91 1.00
Treynor Ratio (%) 9.79 16.64
Calmar Ratio 0.76 0.80
Active Return -1.68% -3.75%
Tracking Error 6.26% 12.88%
Information Ratio -0.27 -0.29
Skewness -0.83 -0.34
Excess Kurtosis 2.69 2.09
Historical Value-at-Risk (5%) -4.12% -2.17%
Analytical Value-at-Risk (5%) -3.76% -2.28%
Conditional Value-at-Risk (5%) -6.04% -3.17%
Upside Capture Ratio (%) 63.81 29.59
Downside Capture Ratio (%) 57.72 12.95
Safe Withdrawal Rate 7.35% 5.22%
Perpetual Withdrawal Rate 5.54% 3.69%
Positive Periods 287 out of 425 (67.53%) 273 out of 425 (64.24%)
Gain/Loss Ratio 0.96 1.28

[barrett]

Up to now down 5% over a year is about the max that was touted .

So far it is down more than 2x that half way through a year so I would venture to say many are not happy being down more than 2x that going in to the second half of the year

The Permanent Portfolio book (by Craig & MT) from 2012 did show the worst nominal annual loss at 4.9% which was negative 12.6% in inflation-adjusted dollars. But it's been widely discussed on here (though not recently from what I have seen) that if one is not just looking at annual data but data that is more granular, there was a much bigger draw down from some point in 1980 to some point in 1982. I forget the exact amount but including inflation it was over 25%. My recollection is that the portfolio performed very well in early 1980 and again in late 1982 so that the annual data was only bad in 1981.

Bottom line is that this is not something totally new.

[mathjak107]

Forget the late 1970s and early 1980s .

Gold was a different animal back then . It also was exposed to once in a life time events…

Talk about driving and looking in the rear view mirror .

Any comparison to gold back then in those days would likely have little relevance today

[ahhrunforthehills]

Bitcoin is just too young and Harry was wise. Even though he would probably have been fascinated by it, I can’t imagine that he would have recommended crypto to investors depending on his sage advice, let alone telling people to put in in a portfolio of “money you can’t afford to lose.”

Bitcoin supporters (esp those in places like Canada) would say that Bitcoin can be for "money you can't afford to lose" when the government decides to start freezing or seizing financial assets without any due process because you have the wrong views on certain topics.

As opposed to the safety provided by private vendors who lose just a couple hundred mil here and there to the occasional hack.

Well like gold, if you dont hold it in a private vault then you probably dont own it.

Conspiracy theory: does the existence of paper gold suppress the price of gold? It seems plausible to me. I'm sure there is some degree of fractional reserve going on somewhere in the world, and that reduces the demand for the real thing.

There is a belief amongst some that the US Government helped to create the gold futures market to suppress prices. This is largely fueled by some documents pointing to the government doing research about the impact of physical gold if a paper gold market were established. For example, https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974 ... 154_b.html

[Jack Jones]

There is a belief amongst some that the US Government helped to create the gold futures market to suppress prices. This is largely fueled by some documents pointing to the government doing research about the impact of physical gold if a paper gold market were established. For example, https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974 ... 154_b.html

ALSO EXPRESSED WAS THE EXPECTATION THAT LARGE
VOLUME FUTURES DEALING WOULD CREATE A HIGHLY VOLATILE MAR-
KET. IN TURN, THE VOLATILE PRICE MOVEMENTS WOULD DIMINISH
THE INITIAL DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL HOLDING AND MOST LIKELY
NEGATE LONG-TERM HOARDING BY U.S. CITIZENS.

Fascinating. I wonder if the same playbook is going on with Bitcoin. The feds were happy to approve Bitcoin futures ETFs, but not spot ETFs.

[ahhrunforthehills]

There is a belief amongst some that the US Government helped to create the gold futures market to suppress prices. This is largely fueled by some documents pointing to the government doing research about the impact of physical gold if a paper gold market were established. For example, https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974 ... 154_b.html

ALSO EXPRESSED WAS THE EXPECTATION THAT LARGE
VOLUME FUTURES DEALING WOULD CREATE A HIGHLY VOLATILE MAR-
KET. IN TURN, THE VOLATILE PRICE MOVEMENTS WOULD DIMINISH
THE INITIAL DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL HOLDING AND MOST LIKELY
NEGATE LONG-TERM HOARDING BY U.S. CITIZENS.

Fascinating. I wonder if the same playbook is going on with Bitcoin. The feds were happy to approve Bitcoin futures ETFs, but not spot ETFs.

Maybe. I always thought it was interesting that since a lot of crypto is involved in illegal transactions, the government seizes billions and billions worth of it. More levers at their disposal.

[joypog]

Maybe. I always thought it was interesting that since a lot of crypto is involved in illegal transactions, the government seizes billions and billions worth of it. More levers at their disposal.

One benefit of watching foreign films as a teenager was realizing that power usually wins out. Americans love the plucky underdog...but it usually doesn't work out with them.

I suspect Kurosawa's The Bad Sleep Well has had a much longer effect on my worldview than I care to acknowledge.

[ahhrunforthehills]

Maybe. I always thought it was interesting that since a lot of crypto is involved in illegal transactions, the government seizes billions and billions worth of it. More levers at their disposal.

One benefit of watching foreign films as a teenager was realizing that power usually wins out. Americans love the plucky underdog...but it usually doesn't work out with them.

+100

Americans really do!

I have always been confused why people think that Bitcoin could "win" against government's ability to tax/inflate with fiat. If more than half of the population pays no taxes, then that means that the majority benefit from wealth redistribution. If the majority vote typically elects the law makers... how does tax evasion being ultimately routed through an identifiable account at a regulated financial institution become allowable? To me the basic logic has never made sense.

I think crypto is based on the concept of liberty and freedom. But liberty/freedom is an illusion because it is a "feeling" then some type of identifiable right. For example, you can't have the liberty of letting your pet grizzly bear wander around Walmart without infringing on the liberty of people that want to be free to shop without getting mauled. The basic premise is flawed and the real value (blockchain technology) is difficult to invest in directly. It is like trying to invest in the discovery of a new periodic table element... you know it will be beneficial somewhere, but where and how is unclear.

[joypog]

The basic premise is flawed and the real value (blockchain technology) is difficult to invest in directly. It is like trying to invest in the discovery of a new periodic table element... you know it will be beneficial somewhere, but where and how is unclear.

That's my difficulty with block chain. I am am reasonably confident that the technology will play out like the dotcoms and web2.0. In a decade all this gobbldygook could be ubiquitious, even for late adopters like me (I didn't get my first smartphone till 2014 when my company bought one for me).

But I can't tell if BTC is going to be Amazon or Pets.com. (and really, the big juice inside Amazon is AWS, and how the hell do I invest into that?!)

So I sit on the sidelines.

[ahhrunforthehills]

Not an attack or defending anyone here. In fact, let's face it, watching people argue on the internet is kinda fun. But I am serious as a heart-attack when it comes to money.

I have said this before, but please keep in mind there are 2 demographics posting on this forum. One demographic (the vast majority) prescribes to the HB philosophy of a permanent "safe" portfolio. The other demographic (the vast minority) are here SOLELY because of their interest in the asset allocation because they currently have a similar allocation or previously had a similar allocation (and still have an interest in tracking it as a type of benchmark).

The latter does not necessarily prescribe to any idea of a "permanent" portfolio concept (in fact, I think you will find the idea to them is, at least in their opinion, a bit absurd because of the belief that risk levels to certain asset classes cannot remain static as macroeconomic variables change). When the latter group's asset allocation starts to shift away from a 4x25 allocation (or those people simply stop posting here), the former group would be wise to reflect on that and not simply always dismiss it as "performance chasing". Some move temporarily /permanently to a non-4x25 allocation for a better risk-adjusted return. Which, ironically, is the shared goal of everyone on this forum.

There is a VERY REAL CHANCE that the HBPP 4x25 allocation in a falling rate environment is night/day from a near-zero or raising rate environment from a risk-adjusted return basis. This is NOT something that can be backtested since we have been in a falling rate environment for 40 years, gold was different 40 years ago, and even HB himself was a bit of a performance chaser back then as well. Heck, remember when Clinton balanced the budget? Compare that to a current forward looking GAO report!! Staying with a prescribed "system" as the world changes requires FAITH.

IMHO, this causes a conflict on this forum between "faith" in a prescribed system vs. educated guesses based on shifting macroeconomic variables.

I can understand how that can come across as mathjak trolling since he is like an atheist in a church. But even the church makes some bad calls and has to revise their stance on things to keep those pews filled.

In fairness, I do not post here often anymore and have only read a fraction of mathjak's posts. Maybe I am wrong and he kicks puppies and purposely farts in the produce section, but in my experience many of the posts I have read are fairly logical from a risk-adjusted basis. He probably FEELS like he is telling people where they can get a great insurance policy for less money, but they FEEL too comfortable with their current agent (HB) to leave and don't want to rock the boat. Mathjak isn't the only person with Mathjak views, he is just one of the few people that stuck around to try and convince a non-receptive audience.

In the world of startups, you ideally want to offer a product/service that brings 3x more value than current alternatives to really compel people to make a switch. Our brains are hard-wired to instinctually disregard/criticise information that isn't CLEARLY better because of the pain that is involved in switching (from both a time and coping with an altered world-view cost). However, in investing, those types of obvious jumps in value are unheard of. Just something to maybe keep in mind.

Another REAL ISSUE is that many people attracted to the HBPP have serious OCD (most people here have very similar Myers Briggs). They are predisposed to FEEL a need of CONTROL in their life. However, the markets are unpredictable which upsets their world view. So they prescribe to a "system" that makes the unpredictable predictable again making the world feel like christmas morning again. It is also why when the markets go to hell, everyone freaks out around here. It isn't so much the financial losses, it is the feeling of a loss of certainty.

So the "idea" of an investment philosophy is very important. I think the HBPP is great. But I also have always thought that there needs to be a subset of rules that temporarily offsets the 25/25/25/25 allocation in specific situations which logically make it substandard from a risk-reward perspective. IMHO, the HBPP isn't really as "permanent" as the name suggest... but at the same time people here would benefit from having a "system" that gives them the illusion of control in their life.

IMHO, a wiki with a dozen agreed upon guidelines that shift allocations based on alchemy, insanely high/low CAPE, near-zero rates, civil war, etc. would be beneficial and help many people stay within their true risk tolerance as the world shifts under their feet.

Anyways, just by 2 cents. Hope it helps someone.