Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6849
Unlike salt which is critical to stay alive and thus endears a positive return over time, a shiny lump of gold has no use at all. None!barrett wrote: That's a very good point. Let's also remember that the long-term expected return of salt is zero. It could over-perform in certain baking conditions but it's basically just a chuck of white stuff that pays no dividends
MachineGhost wrote: Unlike salt which is critical to stay alive and thus endears a positive return over time, a shiny lump of gold has no use at all. None!
Get used to it...the portfolio lets you down constantly.ochotona wrote: Red all across the board today, all four components. What a PITA.
buddtholomew wrote:Get used to it...the portfolio lets you down constantly.ochotona wrote: Red all across the board today, all four components. What a PITA.
I'm more interested in portfolio performance 2010-2020. Plus, did you even see what Becky was wearing? Omgstuper1 wrote: Gee, but if you just step back a little bit, gold, stocks, and bonds are all up since Jan 1, and the portfolio as a whole is up 1.5% in the first 6 weeks of 2015. What's the problem? You guys are like teenage girls constantly clicking on the latest news about the Kardashians.
If you want a little homework, check out the performance of the PP since 1/1/2000 versus any other portfolio. How do they stack up?
That makes no sense. Cash cannot go down in real terms if the other three are. It is the unit of account.ochotona wrote: Red all across the board today, all four components. What a PITA.
stuper1 wrote: What's the problem? You guys are like teenage girls constantly clicking on the latest news about the Kardashians.
MachineGhost wrote: That makes no sense. Cash cannot go down in real terms if the other three are. It is the unit of account.
So what's with the top posting? It's jarring, mostly because nobody else does it.ochotona wrote: ST Bond Fund, not real Cash.
MachineGhost wrote: That makes no sense. Cash cannot go down in real terms if the other three are. It is the unit of account.
Xan wrote:So what's with the top posting? It's jarring, mostly because nobody else does it.ochotona wrote: ST Bond Fund, not real Cash.
MachineGhost wrote: That makes no sense. Cash cannot go down in real terms if the other three are. It is the unit of account.
Better than interior posting.
We ran the numbers in January to see how good 2014 was to us for both halves of our portfolio, but fluctuations within a month or six are complete noise. I also say this with having just re balanced down some of our bonds and stocks The PP does not include assets that are negatively correlated - it includes assets that each react in a predictable fashion to specific long term economic conditions, each increase over time, and are all close to uncorrelated. If the 3 volatile assets were exactly uncorrelated it would mean that the 8 possible daily fluctuations (up-up-up, up-up-down, up-down-up, etc.) would all be equally probable. This means you would expect all three of the volatile assets to go down (or up) about 1 out of 8 days. Of course, stocks, long term bonds, and gold aren't exactly uncorrelated - but they're pretty darn close, see http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/0adhoc/harry.htm .ochotona wrote: I guess risks are more correlated than we think
buddtholomew wrote:Get used to it...the portfolio lets you down constantly.ochotona wrote: Red all across the board today, all four components. What a PITA.
