Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7687
That would be known as "changing the goalposts."mathjak107 wrote: what does the 1986 to 2014 show as far as total return ? looking at what was a miserable 10 year period which was after the best 17 year period in history does not tell the story . since i started back then i would be curious .
You definitely got in at the right time. But if today were 1999, you'd be telling us the same amazing stories about all of those Fidelity newsletters.mathjak107 wrote: what does the 1986 to 2014 show as far as total return ? looking at what was a miserable 10 year period which was after the best 17 year period in history does not tell the story . since i started back then i would be curious .
Randomly picked a time frame? The chart shows the performance of the Fidelity Insights Growth model since day 1 of its existence!mathjak107 wrote: Not at all , I didn't pick a goal post , Tyler randomly picked a time frame . It means nothing to me but I am curious what the total return was from day 1 since I owned it and never worked out the cagr on it. I can only tell you in dollars .
A $10k investment on Dec 31st 1986 (in the front end of one of the biggest bull markets in history) became $202k nominal by the end of 2014 and $95k real. That's a nice return, but the claims of never losing money are clearly inaccurate. Perhaps you personally did not because you were pouring new money into the fund over time, but to imply others had the same experience is very misleading.mathjak107 wrote: what does the 1986 to 2014 show as far as total return ? looking at what was a miserable 10 year period which was after the best 17 year period in history does not tell the story . since i started back then i would be curious .
Mathjak: over the last almost 30 years i don't think i ever had two years back to back that were negative . i think 3 years in a row would have me very concerned if it happened . in fsct i just looked , nope , never 2 years in a rowhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met.
Fair enough on your corrected post. I didn't see that.mathjak107 wrote: If you read above I had corrected that statement after I did notice the 2000's had followed the s&p so trying to dispute the above is foolish if you read the post.
But the more conservative models I listed did not have even 2 years back to back that were negative , the conservative capital preservation income model which is 30% equity is more in line with the pp
To be fair, the correction was to a post like three pages ago so nobody saw it.mathjak107 wrote: If you read above I had corrected that statement after I did notice the 2000's had followed the s&p so trying to dispute the above is foolish if you read the post.
Just kidding, MJ. Kind of.you can move 1 years difference and get totally different results most of the time . playing with charts is in the end meaningless if it is not your own time frame .Pointedstick wrote:To be fair, the correction was to a post like three pages ago so nobody saw it.mathjak107 wrote: If you read above I had corrected that statement after I did notice the 2000's had followed the s&p so trying to dispute the above is foolish if you read the post.
Haven't you been extremely critical of the PP partly due to its recent performance? Why not judge on that incredibly successful stretch of years from 1972-2012?mathjak107 wrote: you can move 1 years difference and get totally different results most of the time . playing with charts is in the end meaningless if it is not your own time frame .
we can all pick dates to make something look good or bad . why pick 10 years . why not the last 7 when equitys soared a few hundred percent ?
all that matters is your own results over your own time frame .
The only difference I see between the two portfolios is the PP allocation to Gold. You've decided to allocate this 25% to equities whereas a PP investor has chosen to further diversify in PM's.mathjak107 wrote: for sure , all this back testing means little going forward , no better than driving and looking in the rear view mirror at places you never even went to .. . it is all about your own returns .
think about someone first buying the pp today . odds are they may do very nicely out of the box , relatively quickly if things turn around compared to when i tried it in june .
buying something and getting whacked day one before developing a cushion from an up cycle can be a lot more painful then after you have some gains as a cushion .
my pp fell in a hole day one and i am not convinced it will pull itself out easily from that hole any time soon . i feel a lot more secure , whether it happens or not that i will see the 50/50 mix have the equity portion pull it out before my x pp turns positive again .
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Tyler's chart shows cumulative returns, not consecutive. I.e. Year 1 0% returns, Year 2 -1% returns, Year 3 0% returns is three years of negative cumulative returns, but no two years of consecutive negative returnsPointedstick wrote:Mathjak: over the last almost 30 years i don't think i ever had two years back to back that were negative . i think 3 years in a row would have me very concerned if it happened . in fsct i just looked , nope , never 2 years in a rowhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met.
Tyler: [shows a 3-year period of consecutive negative returns]
Mathjak: what does the 1986 to 2014 show as far as total return ? looking at what was a miserable 10 year period which was after the best 17 year period in history does not tell the story
In the corner, Tyler wrote, "2000-2002: 3 consecutive years of negative returns"dragoncar wrote: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Tyler's chart shows cumulative returns, not consecutive. I.e. Year 1 0% returns, Year 2 -1% returns, Year 3 0% returns is three years of negative cumulative returns, but no two years of consecutive negative returns
It reads cumulative returns left to right. But the first column on the left shows the 1-year returns only, so you can read that up and down to see what happened each year. 2000-2002 were all negative both cumulatively and individually.dragoncar wrote: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Tyler's chart shows cumulative returns, not consecutive. I.e. Year 1 0% returns, Year 2 -1% returns, Year 3 0% returns is three years of negative cumulative returns, but no two years of consecutive negative returns
Frugal,frugal wrote: Hi,
as I remember, a few time ago, our boss MEDIUM TEX said that 3 consecutive losing years would be enough to leave PP strategy.
Is it correct?
Thank you.
This is why I don't get Mathjak's crusade against the PP. There's hardly any difference between a conservative stock/bond portfolio and the PP. If you believe the PP has too much gold just dial it down a bit and put the rest in equities. Or run a 40/20/20/20. No big deal.buddtholomew wrote:The only difference I see between the two portfolios is the PP allocation to Gold. You've decided to allocate this 25% to equities whereas a PP investor has chosen to further diversify in PM's.mathjak107 wrote: for sure , all this back testing means little going forward , no better than driving and looking in the rear view mirror at places you never even went to .. . it is all about your own returns .
think about someone first buying the pp today . odds are they may do very nicely out of the box , relatively quickly if things turn around compared to when i tried it in june .
buying something and getting whacked day one before developing a cushion from an up cycle can be a lot more painful then after you have some gains as a cushion .
my pp fell in a hole day one and i am not convinced it will pull itself out easily from that hole any time soon . i feel a lot more secure , whether it happens or not that i will see the 50/50 mix have the equity portion pull it out before my x pp turns positive again .
Hello,I Shrugged wrote:Frugal,frugal wrote: Hi,
as I remember, a few time ago, our boss MEDIUM TEX said that 3 consecutive losing years would be enough to leave PP strategy.
Is it correct?
Thank you.
We are all going to have to get used to losing years happening more often than in the past. Interest and dividends are an important part of returns. As long as interest rates are 0%, it doesn't take much to have a losing year. We are being screwed.
I'm sure there are people having similar complaints about their "normal" portfolios. And I cannot imagine how investors are making ANY money with full service brokerages, given the high expenses.
I am watching this scene closely. I do not think that reaching for more yield is a good idea. But that is what everyone is being tempted to do.
But then there's nothing to post about.koekebakker wrote: This is why I don't get Mathjak's crusade against the PP. There's hardly any difference between a conservative stock/bond portfolio and the PP. If you believe the PP has too much gold just dial it down a bit and put the rest in equities. Or run a 40/20/20/20. No big deal.