Pointedstick wrote:
MachineGhost wrote:
Sophie and PS hit the nail on the head. My PP buttkicking has very little to do about asset allocation per se and everything to do with being able to stick with a ROBUST investment plan super long-term that I can pour income into without another thought.
This is one of the reasons why I like Vanguard's platform so much. You can set up monthly transfers and auto-investments and then completely forget about the whole thing. There's something about a machine doing everything that seems to make it easier, at least for me. I can do 50% or 100% stocks there and not feel the least bit bad.
Yes, that's the next step I'm thinking about. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to do that kind of thing with a tactical PP just yet. Even Schwab doesn't seem to have autoinvestments in ETF's, just autodepoists. Does Vanguard include the ETF's or just their mutual funds?
But one thing I now consider highly irresponsible -- and budd's experience is very reflective -- is this braindead idea of lump sum investing into the PP all at once. It's that kind of braindead crap from Browne, MT and craigr (who are not acknowledged financial experts) that rolls my eyes on top of the "dumbo" portfolio idea from Browne. As Tyler's pixel charts show, the sequence of risk returns can run as long as 2 years, probably 3 if I remember my own stats correctly (I use daily data, Tyler uses yearly). No, you should dollar cost average over a period of time (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly) to get rid of that last remaining sequence of returns risk the all weather PP cannot eliminate. And then you finally have the Top 1% portfolio. Top .5% if you can finagle tactical.
I will be doing weekly deposits of the lump sum investment amount spread out whatever is the correct time frame. I feel this is only sensible. This stuff is highly emotional when you cannot afford to lose your precious capital.
Also, because the Browne Minimum Risk doesn't seem all that far off from the full deal for the bother, I think it'll be better to just carve out the cash for the "savings" from its bigger brother rather than having two portfolios. In that deep 10% (or was 15%?) portion of cash that doesn't get touched during rebalancings. Am I correct that the cash gets eating away at to buy assets that experienced losses which the sold winning asset doesn't completely cover upon liquidation?