Gyroscopic Investing

The GEM portfolio doesn't really have a place for gold, as it rotates between US equities, ex-US equities, and Total Bond Market. But I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to throw it into the rotation, and if gold pops up as the top performer, at least let it have a 25% maximum allocation, and let the other 75% be dictated by the conventional GEM model. And since this is a trading system, it should be gold ETF based. You might have to get rid of it quickly, without frictional losses.

Proprietary "Enhanced GEM" Dual Momentum Portfolio by Gary Antonacci.

I also took a close look at the Mebane Faber IVY-5 inspired portfolios offered by the AlphaArchitects. I even spent a long time on the phone today with someone in the C-suite there. But, they don't come close to E-GEM for what I want to do over the next decade. They do have a nice, low-cost tactical robo advisor, with different levels of risk offered, so that could be a good option for retirement, but a $50,000 minimum.

ochotona wrote: I also took a close look at the Mebane Faber IVY-5 inspired portfolios offered by the AlphaArchitects. I even spent a long time on the phone today with someone in the C-suite there. But, they don't come close to E-GEM for what I want to do over the next decade. They do have a nice, low-cost tactical robo advisor, with different levels of risk offered, so that could be a good option for retirement, but a $50,000 minimum.

AA sucks.  They clearly don't understand the concept of correlated risk parity, but they had to differentiate themselves.

MachineGhost wrote:

ochotona wrote: I also took a close look at the Mebane Faber IVY-5 inspired portfolios offered by the AlphaArchitects. I even spent a long time on the phone today with someone in the C-suite there. But, they don't come close to E-GEM for what I want to do over the next decade. They do have a nice, low-cost tactical robo advisor, with different levels of risk offered, so that could be a good option for retirement, but a $50,000 minimum.

AA sucks.  They clearly don't understand the concept of correlated risk parity, but they had to differentiate themselves.

It's clear AA wanted to springboard lightly off of Meb Faber's IVY-5, but not land too far away. They want to land near the anchored concept in people's mind of "diversification". They think that doing so will give them a more sellable product. I think it's the right commercial decision, but not the very optimum investment decision. But it's not a wrong approach... what they do is transparent. I am sure they will do much better than 60/40 in the next bear market. I hope they get a lot of business.

But you end up with lots of cash drag, like the PP, or even worse at times.