Gyroscopic Investing

Heard about the 500% interest rate? No? Shut up then.

can't say i have .

but show us one study pertaining to cash buffers doing a thing  in this country's  retirement planning history .  facts are what counts .

I must have missed that the thread was saving for retirement only. My mistake.

there have been no bad markets to date , only bad planning .

markets have done nothing but go up  over the long term so we can't blame markets for a thing.

but illness-job loss or divorce gets almost all of us at one point or another.

it is the planning we do leading up to these events  that ends up being poor when these events pulverize us .

any solid plan as harry says should allow for these events not rule them out .

that is irrespective of what your investment money is allocated to .  there may never be a good time to hit that in a moment of need no matter what you do .

i use my own example since it is real and not hypothetical where right after i bought the pp gold plunged 8%  .

if i didn't get out right after i bought it i would be 30k in the hole right now.

my 50/50 mix as of yesterday is down only  3k.

had i needed the pp money , well bad timing  ,,  it does not mean the pp is a bad investment idea.

it means my own luck and planning left me short and now i have to use long term investments for short term money , always an investor mistake not the markets .

mathjak107 wrote: i use my own example since it is real and not hypothetical where right after i bought the pp gold plunged 8%  .

if i didn't get out right after i bought it i would be 30k in the hole right now.

my 50/50 mix as of yesterday is down only  3k.

had i needed the pp money , well bad timing  ,,

And if stocks were down 65% and gold went up 450% you would be ruined and PP owners would be up nicely.
See what i did there, your arguments really make no sense whatsoever.

want me to make up my own scenario where pp owners would be down sharply ?  how much you want me to set you back when i create my example ?

keep those visions going in your head . one day one may actually play out here  but until then they are straw man arguments

show us where the usa had a 15 year or longer period your example was true ?

mathjak107 wrote: want me to make up my own scenario where pp owners would be down sharply ?

keep those visions going in your head . one day one may actually play out but until then they are straw man arguments

You just totally proved my point.

(again)

you have nooooooooooooo point.  like i said give us an example  where long term investments played out that way here other than in your head .

I don't have to MAKE up scenarios. As I wrote, I know people who messed up. Of course they planned badly which I try to avoid.

How they planned? They had 100% equity, way to little because compounded growth should make it a fortune long term. They had a house and a mortgage. And not enough liquidity to last without salary.

There are threads about separating emergency buffer, if you really need 25% cash, if you should save while you have a mortgage, if PP "works" outside US, if you should diversify internationally, if any stock market besides Japan could "never" recover etc etc. But THIS is the 100% equity 100% of the time. And there's a lot of exceptions emerging.

dutchtraffic wrote:

mathjak107 wrote: i use my own example since it is real and not hypothetical where right after i bought the pp gold plunged 8%  .

if i didn't get out right after i bought it i would be 30k in the hole right now.

my 50/50 mix as of yesterday is down only  3k.

had i needed the pp money , well bad timing  ,,

And if stocks were down 65% and gold went up 450% you would be ruined and PP owners would be up nicely.
See what i did there, your arguments really make no sense whatsoever.

since 1979 equty's have increased about 15x or more over the price of gold.  pick any time frame you like .

it was 13.5x  when gold was 1430.00. it is far greater when gold is 1100.00 so whatever is in your hypothetical example is a poor example to date .

mathjak107 wrote:

dutchtraffic wrote:

mathjak107 wrote: i use my own example since it is real and not hypothetical where right after i bought the pp gold plunged 8%  .

if i didn't get out right after i bought it i would be 30k in the hole right now.

my 50/50 mix as of yesterday is down only  3k.

had i needed the pp money , well bad timing  ,,

And if stocks were down 65% and gold went up 450% you would be ruined and PP owners would be up nicely.
See what i did there, your arguments really make no sense whatsoever.

since 1979 equies have increased about 15x or more over the price of gold.

it was 13.5x  when gold was 1430.00. it is far greater when gold is 1100.00 so whatever is in your hypothetical example is a poor example to date .

You really don't get it do you..?

what i don't get is the constant bending and twisting of numbers to try to come up with examples where facts here say other wise .

i have no idea what you are even disputing with your examples.


you are giving an example of stocks down 65% and gold up 450% . i say show me where that  would be true over any time frame longer than a blip if it did happen or even meant something in the long term scheme of things . it hasn't .

why do you insist on attacking conventional investing with all your what if's?

in fact what if  the japanese invested in us stocks instead of their own ?  how about that scenario for a what if .

the fact is diversified portfolio's have done fine forever without gold , without long term treasury's and with much higher equity allocations .

they likely will continue to do okay as well and whether the pp will do any better over the long term  under adverse conditions that may hurt conventional investing still needs to be seen .

my feeling is today the climate has shifted and  increasing bond rates which helped the pp will paralyze it sooner than the stocks falling 65% and gold soars 450% scenario .

What if you invested in japanese stocks? 

But a 50jp/50 global is a reasonable allocation. Which did alright over the "icetime". But so did a PP also.

Try 90% S&P and 10% gold, rebalance not too often. You might be surprised.

there was a strategy years ago called the armadillo strategy.

it was 90% 5 year notes and 10% gold.  unfortunately it failed when conditions changed but it looked bullet proof back then.

any plan involving a fair  amount of equity's like 90% s&p and 10% gold could work . in fact if rates rise and inflation picks up it may actually do better than 90% s&p and 10% bonds.

but  more modest allocations to equity's and bonds and reits with 10% gold would likely be a very nice combo , far less volatile and more pleasant to sleep with .

a balanced portfolio can do just fine .  i like wellesley and i like fidelity balanced fund if someone wanted 1 stop shopping  and add a little gold or commodity index if you were so inclined . would i ever make the gold the same allocation as the fund ?  not on your life.

as for me , i see little purpose in owning gold at this point other than a speculation and sale if it rises    . there is plenty of time later if the big picture changes.  my opinion is for what it is worth is no portfolio should be written in stone anymore .

i may add 5 or 10% gold if we hit 1k which may be a possibility soon . but i wouldn't likely hold it long if it went up , just a quick profit .

my advice is only for what i would do and is not intended as investment advice for anyone else . that is up to you to decide what is right .

mathjak107 wrote: as for me , i see little purpose in owning gold at this point .

Then you really do not know anything about finances, and todays economy.

there is plenty of time later if the big picture changes.

I nominate this for LOL of the year. Rethink that comment.

keep speculating in that mnid of yours with your straw man scenario's  , even a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut .  me and the rest of the worlds successful investors will stick to what made money for decades while the chicken little's of the world  lagged  over and over and over and are still waiting for that day gold rules . .,.

mathjak107 wrote: me and the rest of the worlds successful investors will stick to what made money for decades ,.

"successful investors", for god's sake, you followed a newsletter 

and was successful at investing !  i also made far more money in real estate here in nyc than i did investing in markets . the markets did well but my real estate ventures were the cream .

how you do it doesn't matter . whether you use an adviser , the moon and stars or your own research .  it is the end results , the method you chose and the discipline that makes you successful .

peter lynch had analysts , so what . it all boils down to how you go about getting results that matters .

are you not following harry's strategy ?

mathjak107 wrote: and was successful at investing !  i also made far more money in real estate here in nyc than i did investing in markets . the markets did well but my real estate ventures were the cream .

how you do it doesn't matter . whether you use an adviser , the moon and stars or your own research .  it is the end results , the method you chose and the discipline that makes you successful .

It's more a case of being lucky to ride a fed fueled bullmarket.

bull , the long term averages are pretty much the same . the first 15 years were great but all that money hit a wall the last 15 years and had below average returns .

it all equalled out in the end . the long term results were right in the same range of most other time frames that long .  they all regress back to the mean for the most part .

you are grabbing at straws now and just resorting to making comments that are personal attacks instead of facts  .

Not only is 90% equity and 10% gold ok, it has beaten 100% equity in all backtests I've done. Not tested S&P though. Maybe 20-30 points higher CAGR and lower risk.

So we agree about small part in gold being ok. And international stocks if you're not american. And between the lines you approved a cash buffer.

So basically we're disagreeing about bonds. That's ok,
i don't fully agree with myself.

i don't think any of us fully agree with ourselves or even should .  because that means you close your eyes and ears to learning .

i have changed views so many times as powerful studies and data came out of opposing views and now i switched teams .

once you start believing what i call your own bull_sh%t your learning days are over .

as forbes said , what hurts investors the most is they never sleep with the enemy . they only listen to , support and hang with those who take their view and always have a skewed view of reality

mathjak107 wrote: and always have a skewed view of reality

You are the one saying a 100% paper portfolio is just as safe as a portfolio that contains hard assets.

That's not even worth the argument, it's just pointless if that's what you really believe.

to date , that is eactly what i am saying and nothing over the long haul  to date  here  says other wise . even the time frames with the high inflation 70' have done just fne over the long haul .

want hard assets add a little gold  , a commodity fund or reits . in fact a well balanced portfolio should hold a bit  of an inflation hedge .

but there is a limit to how much i feel is way to much of a bet .

mathjak107 wrote: to date , that is eactly what i am saying and nothing over the long haul  here  says other wise .

You can't possibly be serious here...?