Gyroscopic Investing

What are people's opinions on changing the stock portion of the PP to something like 20% S&P, 5% miners?

I know we've had this discussion before with dividend paying stocks, tech stocks, foreign stocks, etc., but the miners seem to non-correlate enough that you might be able to squeeze a little bit of a rebalancing premium out of them in the context of the PP.

Thoughts?

Yes I have recently become aware of the low correlation between miners, and oil companies, versus other stocks.  As a result have been adding to a UK commodities investment trust (closed end fund) BRCI which is currently undergoing a period of weakness.

Regards

I personally wouldn't do it.  Most of the miners are heavily leveraged.  Maybe I could stomach 5% (at most) in my VP, but not my PP. 

IMHO individual stocks or sector specific indexes belong in the VP. Miners are very volatile and can be affected by a lot of things beyond the price of metals. It could also significantly skew the performance of the equities part of your PP which should do well in times of prosperity but mining stocks might take a hit in such times.

Ad Orientem wrote: IMHO individual stocks or sector specific indexes belong in the VP. Miners are very volatile and can be affected by a lot of things beyond the price of metals. It could also significantly skew the performance of the equities part of your PP which should do well in times of prosperity but mining stocks might take a hit in such times.

Yeah...I think you're right.

AdamA wrote: What are people's opinions on changing the stock portion of the PP to something like 20% S&P, 5% miners?

'

Bad idea.  Gold miners don't align with any factor that outperforms the market average.

how did that mix perform in Q1?