Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
LittleDinghy
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:44 am

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by LittleDinghy » Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:46 am

Thank you both, Tyler and vnatale. One tax planning question I have is what my target should be for asset location in tax deferred, taxable and tax free accounts. Right now we’re stuck with having to put the bulk of our equity investments in my 401k and my wife’s 403b, 401a and 457 ( no gold or treasury offerings available in them). But when I retire in 2-3 years and when she retires in 6-7 years we’ll be able to rollover these accounts to IRAs and will have more flexibility as to asset location to minimize taxes. Also even now every year we’re transferring 401k money to a Roth IRA to the limit of our tax bracket, so have some opportunities every year to shift asset location to reduce taxes. A good tax advisor could help us with establishing our target asset location to work towards. Vnatale have you used the advisor you’re recommending?

The other more urgent question and the reason for my being in this thread is how to decide when to rebalance. I’m guessing now that when my GB bond %, which is now at 22.1%, hits 25 or 26% (I’m not sure which) then that’s when I should do my first GB portfolio rebalance. There is some talk on other threads of bond values really going up a lot more and maybe very soon.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by vnatale » Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:47 am

LittleDinghy wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:46 am
Thank you both, Tyler and vnatale. One tax planning question I have is what my target should be for asset location in tax deferred, taxable and tax free accounts. Right now we’re stuck with having to put the bulk of our equity investments in my 401k and my wife’s 403b, 401a and 457 ( no gold or treasury offerings available in them). But when I retire in 2-3 years and when she retires in 6-7 years we’ll be able to rollover these accounts to IRAs and will have more flexibility as to asset location to minimize taxes. Also even now every year we’re transferring 401k money to a Roth IRA to the limit of our tax bracket, so have some opportunities every year to shift asset location to reduce taxes. A good tax advisor could help us with establishing our target asset location to work towards. Vnatale have you used the advisor you’re recommending?

The other more urgent question and the reason for my being in this thread is how to decide when to rebalance. I’m guessing now that when my GB bond %, which is now at 22.1%, hits 25 or 26% (I’m not sure which) then that’s when I should do my first GB portfolio rebalance. There is some talk on other threads of bond values really going up a lot more and maybe very soon.
I have not used the advisor I am recommending. I was thinking of recommending him to someone with whom I do work for. But, in that case, it would for a long-term basis. And, that would be my only reason for not going with him as he does not seem to be that young and he seems to be a one man show. Aside from that, he's probably fine and excellent for a one-time consultation.

In my endless research on my own in finally embracing the Permanent Portfolio I am wrestling with the same questions as you regarding asset location for optimal tax treatment. If I ever come to a conclusion I will certainly let you (and all else) know what I decided is optimal for me.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
williswine
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:23 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by williswine » Thu Apr 02, 2020 4:40 pm

Tyler: in the GB portfolio, you do not consider SV as a VP and the other four assets as a PP, i.e. when rebalancing, you take profits from what would be considered PP assets and rebalance into the SV slice if that is in need of a refill, correct?
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by Tyler » Thu Apr 02, 2020 4:44 pm

williswine wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 4:40 pm
Tyler: in the GB portfolio, you do not consider SV as a VP and the other four assets as a PP, i.e. when rebalancing, you take profits from what would be considered PP assets and rebalance into the SV slice if that is in need of a refill, correct?
While one can break it down into its permanent and variable subcomponents if they like and balance them according to their needs, personally I think of the GB as one large portfolio from a rebalancing perspective.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by Smith1776 » Thu Apr 02, 2020 5:13 pm

Personally, I've simply resigned myself to the idea that rebalancing bands in the GB might just be a little too complicated. Rather, I'd just rebalance annually or (in a non-taxable account) just whenever I feel like it.
I still find the James Rickards portfolio fascinating.
CJ043332
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:52 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by CJ043332 » Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:13 pm

Agreed, it is crazy how much more a pain rebalancing appears to be in a PP vs a GB just by adding 1 more asset.

But since I am a glutten for punishment...

For quite a while now (well, pre-coronavirus anyways) I have been planning on implementing a portfolio that tries to take the best of the PP/GB worlds that re-balances based on the Shiller CAPE (https://www.gurufocus.com/shiller-PE.php).

To be honest, the GB made me a little skeptical that it may suffer from recency bias with its tilt towards prosperity. So I was hoping to solve some of that personal worry.

Anyways, imagine a sliding scale. On one end you have an under-priced stock market which would look similar to a GB that has an extra allocation to Small Cap Value. On the other end you have an over-priced market where your asset allocation would look similar to a PP.

Basically, Shiller CAPE doesn't have a very strong predictability over a 10 year period... but it isn't exactly a very weak predictability either. Or in other words, it certainly appears to offer SOME value in assessing equities risk (43% predictability from 1926 to 2012).

Note: 43% does NOT mean it was wrong 57% of the time. If it had 0% predictability it would be completely random. If it had 100% predictability it would be a sure thing. AFAIK, at 43% you have valuable insight, but not enough to bet the barn on.

Obviously, the trick is to never be so deep into equities to really get burned. Afterall, even Graham said you should never be outside of 25%/75% equities. That is why it is important that even when stocks are undervalued you still don't get too crazy in over-weighting them. As we all know, no ratio can predict a plane flying into a building or a pandemic.

The problem is that this type of portfolio is no longer a "simple" portfolio to manage. Knowing exactly what to rebalance and by how much is a lot harder than a vanilla PP or GB because your actual target allocations are changing in response to changes in the CAPE ratio. Hence my need to create some type of "GB/PP Current Weather Setter" tool that would automatically adjust/notify accordingly.

Even from a tax standpoint it really shouldn't change much of anything. Over time, you would essentially be selling out of your Small Cap Value positions as equities overall went from underpriced to overpriced. You would had to sell those equities anyways just to rebalance in a regular GB or PP.

You could probably achieve it by "shooting from the hip". However, I think that the beauty of the PP is its psychological rebalancing that prevents your emotions (and greed) from making decisions. That is why an automated tool seems necessary to really achieve the above hybrid in a lazy-portfolio kind of way.
CJ043332
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:52 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by CJ043332 » Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:28 pm

Here is a very rough example:

Overpriced market:

25% S&P 500
25% Tbills
25% Long Term Treasuries
25% Gold

Fairly priced market:

20% S&P 500
12.5% Small Cap Value
22.5% Tbills
22.5% Long Term Treasuries
22.5% Gold

Underpriced market:

25% Small Cap Value
15% S&P 500
20% Tbills
20% Long Term Treasuries
20% Gold

As the investing climate changes, so too would the rebalancing bands (obviously, since the asset allocations all start to vary)

You can see that the allocations adjust based on how "cheap" the overall stock market it. As it heats up, more automatically gets allocated to the other asset classes as insurance since the risk is higher. Nobody knows for sure what will happen... but that doesn't mean that statistically the predictability is at zero either.

Keep in mind that these are not intended to be rigid "tiers". Instead, it is my hope to make something that has "fluid" asset allocations that are constantly changing. This obviously makes keeping an eye on it a little more demanding as well. However, this is why I want it to be a little more than a basic spreadsheet. I feel like it would be necessary for it to send an email alert once a threshold has been crossed.
Last edited by CJ043332 on Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by pmward » Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:51 pm

CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:28 pm
Here is a very rough example:

Overpriced market:

25% S&P 500
25% Tbills
25% Long Term Treasuries
25% Gold

Fairly priced market:

20% S&P 500
12.5% Small Cap Value
22.5% Tbills
22.5% Long Term Treasuries
22.5% Gold

Underpriced market:

25% Small Cap Value
15% S&P 500
20% Tbills
20% Long Term Treasuries
20% Gold

You can see that the allocations adjust based on how "cheap" the overall stock market it. As it heats up, more automatically gets allocated to the other asset classes as insurance since the risk is higher. Nobody knows for sure what will happen... but that doesn't mean that statistically the predictability is at zero either.
The problem, as it always is with valuation based investing, is that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. There is also the problem of "overpriced", "underpriced", and "fairly priced" being completely arbitrary. Over the years I have seen the "fairly priced" marker get quoted over a wide range of numbers. Picking one fundamental metric is arbitrary, and all fundamental metrics are relative. They also place no emphasis on timing at all. I mean Warren Buffet has underperformed the S&P 500 for what... 17 years now? Can you really handle that kind of underperformance? Is that even acceptable? Every fund manager alive would be fired for that kind of performance, yet WB is still looked at as a hero/genius/etc. If someone wants to be tactical in their allocations then they need some kind of a technical or quantitative basis behind it. Otherwise, people are just going to wind up juggling their portfolio based purely on feelings, and that tends to get people in to trouble. I would just be careful with trying to time the market based on your perception of what the market valuation is. Valuations tend to only really matter over very long multi-decade time frames. You're likely to get chopped up and capitulate long before you reap any valuation premium.
CJ043332
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:52 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by CJ043332 » Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:05 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:51 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:28 pm
Here is a very rough example:

Overpriced market:

25% S&P 500
25% Tbills
25% Long Term Treasuries
25% Gold

Fairly priced market:

20% S&P 500
12.5% Small Cap Value
22.5% Tbills
22.5% Long Term Treasuries
22.5% Gold

Underpriced market:

25% Small Cap Value
15% S&P 500
20% Tbills
20% Long Term Treasuries
20% Gold

You can see that the allocations adjust based on how "cheap" the overall stock market it. As it heats up, more automatically gets allocated to the other asset classes as insurance since the risk is higher. Nobody knows for sure what will happen... but that doesn't mean that statistically the predictability is at zero either.
The problem, as it always is with valuation based investing, is that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. There is also the problem of "overpriced", "underpriced", and "fairly priced" being completely arbitrary. Over the years I have seen the "fairly priced" marker get quoted over a wide range of numbers. Picking one fundamental metric is arbitrary, and all fundamental metrics are relative. They also place no emphasis on timing at all. I mean Warren Buffet has underperformed the S&P 500 for what... 17 years now? Can you really handle that kind of underperformance? Is that even acceptable? Every fund manager alive would be fired for that kind of performance, yet WB is still looked at as a hero/genius/etc. If someone wants to be tactical in their allocations then they need some kind of a technical or quantitative basis behind it. Otherwise, people are just going to wind up juggling their portfolio based purely on feelings, and that tends to get people in to trouble. I would just be careful with trying to time the market based on your perception of what the market valuation is. Valuations tend to only really matter over very long multi-decade time frames. You're likely to get chopped up and capitulate long before you reap any valuation premium.


Any long term investor that invests in a PP or GB would needs to be able to stomach under-performance. Besides, at 40% equities it is unlikely you will go insolvent.

Furthermore, the CAPE was not chosen by random. A study by Vanguard showed that P/E 10 and PE/1 were basically the only metrics that amounted to anything. As stated above,
Shiller CAPE doesn't have a very strong predictability over a 10 year period... but it isn't exactly a very weak predictability either.
Are you attempting to state:

1. CAPE literally has a 0% predictability rate.

or

2. CAPE has some predictability rate, however that rate should be disregarded entirely for investing purposes even in the smallest of ways.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by pmward » Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:10 pm

CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:05 pm
pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:51 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:28 pm
Here is a very rough example:

Overpriced market:

25% S&P 500
25% Tbills
25% Long Term Treasuries
25% Gold

Fairly priced market:

20% S&P 500
12.5% Small Cap Value
22.5% Tbills
22.5% Long Term Treasuries
22.5% Gold

Underpriced market:

25% Small Cap Value
15% S&P 500
20% Tbills
20% Long Term Treasuries
20% Gold

You can see that the allocations adjust based on how "cheap" the overall stock market it. As it heats up, more automatically gets allocated to the other asset classes as insurance since the risk is higher. Nobody knows for sure what will happen... but that doesn't mean that statistically the predictability is at zero either.
The problem, as it always is with valuation based investing, is that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. There is also the problem of "overpriced", "underpriced", and "fairly priced" being completely arbitrary. Over the years I have seen the "fairly priced" marker get quoted over a wide range of numbers. Picking one fundamental metric is arbitrary, and all fundamental metrics are relative. They also place no emphasis on timing at all. I mean Warren Buffet has underperformed the S&P 500 for what... 17 years now? Can you really handle that kind of underperformance? Is that even acceptable? Every fund manager alive would be fired for that kind of performance, yet WB is still looked at as a hero/genius/etc. If someone wants to be tactical in their allocations then they need some kind of a technical or quantitative basis behind it. Otherwise, people are just going to wind up juggling their portfolio based purely on feelings, and that tends to get people in to trouble. I would just be careful with trying to time the market based on your perception of what the market valuation is. Valuations tend to only really matter over very long multi-decade time frames. You're likely to get chopped up and capitulate long before you reap any valuation premium.


Any long term investor that invests in a PP or GB would needs to be able to stomach under-performance. Besides, at 40% equities it is unlikely you will go insolvent.

Furthermore, the CAPE was not chosen by random. A study by Vanguard showed that P/E 10 and PE/1 were basically the only metrics that amounted to anything. As stated above,
Shiller CAPE doesn't have a very strong predictability over a 10 year period... but it isn't exactly a very weak predictability either.
Are you attempting to state:

1. CAPE literally has a 0% predictability rate.

or

2. CAPE has some predictability rate, however that rate should be disregarded entirely for investing purposes even in the smallest of ways.
CAPE has 0 predictability when it comes to timing. Like I said, valuation premiums are a multi-decade kind of thing. Most investors do not go multiple decades without tinkering with their portfolio. I see no reason for a long term investor to skew their portfolio up or down based on CAPE. If someone wants a tactical portfolio allocation then it should be based using more technical or quantitative measures. Otherwise, it's probably best to just pick the portfolio allocation and rebalance over time, letting the rebalancing help you buy low and sell high.
CJ043332
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:52 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by CJ043332 » Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:05 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:10 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:05 pm
pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:51 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:28 pm
Here is a very rough example:

Overpriced market:

25% S&P 500
25% Tbills
25% Long Term Treasuries
25% Gold

Fairly priced market:

20% S&P 500
12.5% Small Cap Value
22.5% Tbills
22.5% Long Term Treasuries
22.5% Gold

Underpriced market:

25% Small Cap Value
15% S&P 500
20% Tbills
20% Long Term Treasuries
20% Gold

You can see that the allocations adjust based on how "cheap" the overall stock market it. As it heats up, more automatically gets allocated to the other asset classes as insurance since the risk is higher. Nobody knows for sure what will happen... but that doesn't mean that statistically the predictability is at zero either.
The problem, as it always is with valuation based investing, is that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. There is also the problem of "overpriced", "underpriced", and "fairly priced" being completely arbitrary. Over the years I have seen the "fairly priced" marker get quoted over a wide range of numbers. Picking one fundamental metric is arbitrary, and all fundamental metrics are relative. They also place no emphasis on timing at all. I mean Warren Buffet has underperformed the S&P 500 for what... 17 years now? Can you really handle that kind of underperformance? Is that even acceptable? Every fund manager alive would be fired for that kind of performance, yet WB is still looked at as a hero/genius/etc. If someone wants to be tactical in their allocations then they need some kind of a technical or quantitative basis behind it. Otherwise, people are just going to wind up juggling their portfolio based purely on feelings, and that tends to get people in to trouble. I would just be careful with trying to time the market based on your perception of what the market valuation is. Valuations tend to only really matter over very long multi-decade time frames. You're likely to get chopped up and capitulate long before you reap any valuation premium.


Any long term investor that invests in a PP or GB would needs to be able to stomach under-performance. Besides, at 40% equities it is unlikely you will go insolvent.

Furthermore, the CAPE was not chosen by random. A study by Vanguard showed that P/E 10 and PE/1 were basically the only metrics that amounted to anything. As stated above,
Shiller CAPE doesn't have a very strong predictability over a 10 year period... but it isn't exactly a very weak predictability either.
Are you attempting to state:

1. CAPE literally has a 0% predictability rate.

or

2. CAPE has some predictability rate, however that rate should be disregarded entirely for investing purposes even in the smallest of ways.
CAPE has 0 predictability when it comes to timing. Like I said, valuation premiums are a multi-decade kind of thing. Most investors do not go multiple decades without tinkering with their portfolio. I see no reason for a long term investor to skew their portfolio up or down based on CAPE. If someone wants a tactical portfolio allocation then it should be based using more technical or quantitative measures. Otherwise, it's probably best to just pick the portfolio allocation and rebalance over time, letting the rebalancing help you buy low and sell high.
A 2012 research study funded by Vanguard authored by Joseph Davis, Ph.D., Roger Aliaga-Diaz, Ph.D., and Charles J. Thomas, CFA appear to have concluded something quite differently. They did an analysis of several popular metrics and back-tested their predictability.

Do you have any research studies to support your claim of zero predictability over a 10 year period for CAPE?

Now, is there a chance that those Ph.D.'s got it wrong? Sure. Is it also possible that a GB is a worse allocation than a PP? Sure. Worst case scenario you end up with basically a PP or a GB. Back where you started.

What if they are right?

If I play roulette and 40% of the numbers are red and 60% are black (no green on this imaginary wheel)... my investment allocation should not be 50/50. Granted, if I was playing only 1 hand (i.e. a 1 year investment time-frame), I would be crazy to make a huge bet. But the longer you play, the more the true odds have a real impact. If you want to have the highest chance of breaking even over a long horizon (i.e. over a 10 year period), you better be sure you have a 40% red and 60% black allocation.

I would also point out that it appears that the vast majority of Permanent Portfolio investors have in fact adjusted their asset allocations to a GB allocation as equities (over the past 10 years) have become more expensive based on CAPE. Surely, you must see the irony in that.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by pmward » Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:17 pm

CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:05 pm
pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:10 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:05 pm
pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:51 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:28 pm
Here is a very rough example:

Overpriced market:

25% S&P 500
25% Tbills
25% Long Term Treasuries
25% Gold

Fairly priced market:

20% S&P 500
12.5% Small Cap Value
22.5% Tbills
22.5% Long Term Treasuries
22.5% Gold

Underpriced market:

25% Small Cap Value
15% S&P 500
20% Tbills
20% Long Term Treasuries
20% Gold

You can see that the allocations adjust based on how "cheap" the overall stock market it. As it heats up, more automatically gets allocated to the other asset classes as insurance since the risk is higher. Nobody knows for sure what will happen... but that doesn't mean that statistically the predictability is at zero either.
The problem, as it always is with valuation based investing, is that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. There is also the problem of "overpriced", "underpriced", and "fairly priced" being completely arbitrary. Over the years I have seen the "fairly priced" marker get quoted over a wide range of numbers. Picking one fundamental metric is arbitrary, and all fundamental metrics are relative. They also place no emphasis on timing at all. I mean Warren Buffet has underperformed the S&P 500 for what... 17 years now? Can you really handle that kind of underperformance? Is that even acceptable? Every fund manager alive would be fired for that kind of performance, yet WB is still looked at as a hero/genius/etc. If someone wants to be tactical in their allocations then they need some kind of a technical or quantitative basis behind it. Otherwise, people are just going to wind up juggling their portfolio based purely on feelings, and that tends to get people in to trouble. I would just be careful with trying to time the market based on your perception of what the market valuation is. Valuations tend to only really matter over very long multi-decade time frames. You're likely to get chopped up and capitulate long before you reap any valuation premium.


Any long term investor that invests in a PP or GB would needs to be able to stomach under-performance. Besides, at 40% equities it is unlikely you will go insolvent.

Furthermore, the CAPE was not chosen by random. A study by Vanguard showed that P/E 10 and PE/1 were basically the only metrics that amounted to anything. As stated above,
Shiller CAPE doesn't have a very strong predictability over a 10 year period... but it isn't exactly a very weak predictability either.
Are you attempting to state:

1. CAPE literally has a 0% predictability rate.

or

2. CAPE has some predictability rate, however that rate should be disregarded entirely for investing purposes even in the smallest of ways.
CAPE has 0 predictability when it comes to timing. Like I said, valuation premiums are a multi-decade kind of thing. Most investors do not go multiple decades without tinkering with their portfolio. I see no reason for a long term investor to skew their portfolio up or down based on CAPE. If someone wants a tactical portfolio allocation then it should be based using more technical or quantitative measures. Otherwise, it's probably best to just pick the portfolio allocation and rebalance over time, letting the rebalancing help you buy low and sell high.
A 2012 research study funded by Vanguard authored by Joseph Davis, Ph.D., Roger Aliaga-Diaz, Ph.D., and Charles J. Thomas, CFA appear to have concluded something quite differently. They did an analysis of several popular metrics and back-tested their predictability.

Do you have any research studies to support your claim of zero predictability over a 10 year period for CAPE?

Now, is there a chance that those Ph.D.'s got it wrong? Sure. Is it also possible that a GB is a worse allocation than a PP? Sure. Worst case scenario you end up with basically a PP or a GB. Back where you started.

What if they are right?

If I play roulette and 40% of the numbers are red and 60% are black (no green on this imaginary wheel)... my investment allocation should not be 50/50. Granted, if I was playing only 1 hand (i.e. a 1 year investment time-frame), I would be crazy to make a huge bet. But the longer you play, the more the true odds have a real impact. If you want to have the highest chance of breaking even over a long horizon (i.e. over a 10 year period), you better be sure you have a 40% red and 60% black allocation.

I would also point out that it appears that the vast majority of Permanent Portfolio investors have in fact adjusted their asset allocations to a GB allocation as equities (over the past 10 years) have become more expensive based on CAPE. Surely, you must see the irony in that.
I do not have any "PhD studies", and I personally do not care about these things as academics are always getting these things wrong. A PhD means absolutely nothing in the markets. Case in point, look at the famous Fama-French studies. They pretty much called the top on the "value premium" as soon as they published their research. The value factor has substantially underperformed for 18 years straight now. Small caps have also been much weaker, especially in the last 10 years. I would take these research studies with a grain of salt. Pretty much everyone who ever took Fama-French seriously has lost. CAPE metrics have been better for international than U.S. for over 10 years now, and the "undervalued" international stocks seem just find new ways to become more "undervalued". There are much better ways to be tactical than using valuation metrics.
CJ043332
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:52 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by CJ043332 » Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:23 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:17 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:05 pm
pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:10 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:05 pm
pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:51 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:28 pm
Here is a very rough example:

Overpriced market:

25% S&P 500
25% Tbills
25% Long Term Treasuries
25% Gold

Fairly priced market:

20% S&P 500
12.5% Small Cap Value
22.5% Tbills
22.5% Long Term Treasuries
22.5% Gold

Underpriced market:

25% Small Cap Value
15% S&P 500
20% Tbills
20% Long Term Treasuries
20% Gold

You can see that the allocations adjust based on how "cheap" the overall stock market it. As it heats up, more automatically gets allocated to the other asset classes as insurance since the risk is higher. Nobody knows for sure what will happen... but that doesn't mean that statistically the predictability is at zero either.
The problem, as it always is with valuation based investing, is that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. There is also the problem of "overpriced", "underpriced", and "fairly priced" being completely arbitrary. Over the years I have seen the "fairly priced" marker get quoted over a wide range of numbers. Picking one fundamental metric is arbitrary, and all fundamental metrics are relative. They also place no emphasis on timing at all. I mean Warren Buffet has underperformed the S&P 500 for what... 17 years now? Can you really handle that kind of underperformance? Is that even acceptable? Every fund manager alive would be fired for that kind of performance, yet WB is still looked at as a hero/genius/etc. If someone wants to be tactical in their allocations then they need some kind of a technical or quantitative basis behind it. Otherwise, people are just going to wind up juggling their portfolio based purely on feelings, and that tends to get people in to trouble. I would just be careful with trying to time the market based on your perception of what the market valuation is. Valuations tend to only really matter over very long multi-decade time frames. You're likely to get chopped up and capitulate long before you reap any valuation premium.


Any long term investor that invests in a PP or GB would needs to be able to stomach under-performance. Besides, at 40% equities it is unlikely you will go insolvent.

Furthermore, the CAPE was not chosen by random. A study by Vanguard showed that P/E 10 and PE/1 were basically the only metrics that amounted to anything. As stated above,
Shiller CAPE doesn't have a very strong predictability over a 10 year period... but it isn't exactly a very weak predictability either.
Are you attempting to state:

1. CAPE literally has a 0% predictability rate.

or

2. CAPE has some predictability rate, however that rate should be disregarded entirely for investing purposes even in the smallest of ways.
CAPE has 0 predictability when it comes to timing. Like I said, valuation premiums are a multi-decade kind of thing. Most investors do not go multiple decades without tinkering with their portfolio. I see no reason for a long term investor to skew their portfolio up or down based on CAPE. If someone wants a tactical portfolio allocation then it should be based using more technical or quantitative measures. Otherwise, it's probably best to just pick the portfolio allocation and rebalance over time, letting the rebalancing help you buy low and sell high.
A 2012 research study funded by Vanguard authored by Joseph Davis, Ph.D., Roger Aliaga-Diaz, Ph.D., and Charles J. Thomas, CFA appear to have concluded something quite differently. They did an analysis of several popular metrics and back-tested their predictability.

Do you have any research studies to support your claim of zero predictability over a 10 year period for CAPE?

Now, is there a chance that those Ph.D.'s got it wrong? Sure. Is it also possible that a GB is a worse allocation than a PP? Sure. Worst case scenario you end up with basically a PP or a GB. Back where you started.

What if they are right?

If I play roulette and 40% of the numbers are red and 60% are black (no green on this imaginary wheel)... my investment allocation should not be 50/50. Granted, if I was playing only 1 hand (i.e. a 1 year investment time-frame), I would be crazy to make a huge bet. But the longer you play, the more the true odds have a real impact. If you want to have the highest chance of breaking even over a long horizon (i.e. over a 10 year period), you better be sure you have a 40% red and 60% black allocation.

I would also point out that it appears that the vast majority of Permanent Portfolio investors have in fact adjusted their asset allocations to a GB allocation as equities (over the past 10 years) have become more expensive based on CAPE. Surely, you must see the irony in that.
I do not have any "PhD studies", and I personally do not care about these things as academics are always getting these things wrong. A PhD means absolutely nothing in the markets. Case in point, look at the famous Fama-French studies. They pretty much called the top on the "value premium" as soon as they published their research. The value factor has substantially underperformed for 18 years straight now. Small caps have also been much weaker, especially in the last 10 years. I would take these research studies with a grain of salt. Pretty much everyone who ever took Fama-French seriously has lost. CAPE metrics have been better for international than U.S. for over 10 years now, and the "undervalued" international stocks seem just find new ways to become more "undervalued". There are much better ways to be tactical than using valuation metrics.
I see... the CAPE is wrong AND the Ph.D's that backtested the CAPE at Vanguard are ALWAYS wrong... oh wait, but wouldn't your argument than make the CAPE right (since their argument was that the CAPE was not a predictor in the short term)? :o

I kid, but seriously...

TLDR, "You have no real evidence to support your claim of 0% predictability of CAPE, and dislike people with PhDs." :)

No judgement... I have no PhD, so I am not offended.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by pmward » Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:46 pm

CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:23 pm

I see... the CAPE is wrong AND the Ph.D's that backtested the CAPE at Vanguard are ALWAYS wrong... oh wait, but wouldn't your argument than make the CAPE right (since their argument was that the CAPE was not a predictor in the short term)? :o

I kid, but seriously...

TLDR, "You have no real evidence to support your claim of 0% predictability of CAPE, and dislike people with PhDs." :)

No judgement... I have no PhD, so I am not offended.
Haha, yeah I'm just a skeptic. While I do tactical investing, I use multiple indicators so I don't put all my eggs in one basket, and I do not use valuation metrics at all. I mean, who even knows what valuations really are? S&P 500 aggregate corporate profits peaked all the way back in 2012, but earnings per share kept going up. How does this happen? Financial engineering. It's companies levering up to do buybacks. I would say the market is more "overvalued" than it appears for this reason.
CJ043332
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:52 pm

Re: Golden Butterfly rebalancing bands

Post by CJ043332 » Mon Apr 06, 2020 11:23 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:46 pm
CJ043332 wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:23 pm

I see... the CAPE is wrong AND the Ph.D's that backtested the CAPE at Vanguard are ALWAYS wrong... oh wait, but wouldn't your argument than make the CAPE right (since their argument was that the CAPE was not a predictor in the short term)? :o

I kid, but seriously...

TLDR, "You have no real evidence to support your claim of 0% predictability of CAPE, and dislike people with PhDs." :)

No judgement... I have no PhD, so I am not offended.
Haha, yeah I'm just a skeptic. While I do tactical investing, I use multiple indicators so I don't put all my eggs in one basket, and I do not use valuation metrics at all. I mean, who even knows what valuations really are? S&P 500 aggregate corporate profits peaked all the way back in 2012, but earnings per share kept going up. How does this happen? Financial engineering. It's companies levering up to do buybacks. I would say the market is more "overvalued" than it appears for this reason.
I hear ya. I definitely think that we have really drifted from fundamentals. Fundamentals can really be distorted by psychology and manipulation.

The only metric that is always guaranteed is that almost everyone is chasing a quick buck, making short-term movements impossible to predict.

That Vanguard study showed every single indicator had basically no predictability over 1 year and over 85% of them had practically no correlation over 10 years. The remaining were still not "very strong". So you definitely don't seem wrong in your views.

I view the CAPE as a drunk weatherman that is pretty good at saying it will snow in winter and rain in the spring. He has no clue what the weather will be tomorrow or the next day. In fact, it might not even snow at all during the winter. So although I am not going to migrate to Florida, it doesn't really hurt me to put a snow brush in my car just in case. Just balancing that little extra risk with a little extra preparedness.

If you think about it, it is really logical. As long as some people pay attention to P/E (which any Graham/Buffett follower would do), P/E will continue to at least be a whisper of reason in equity prices. After-all, lot's of people in the world still see a stock with negative P/E as bad luck :) Their choosing not to buy that stock still affects the price, even if others don't care about it. It isn't that fundamentals have NO SAY, it is that they are drowned out by all the other factors. However, those fundamentals are always there acting as a drag to some extent (even if it is a small drag when faced with massive fed intervention and speculation). That's also what the data seems to reflect.

I think it would also explain how both you and those PhD's can both be right in your views :)
Post Reply