It's only costly if you have a bad entry point. I was lucky enough to have an entry point that was not bad (beginning of 2014). Of course a few years earlier would have been better! I think it's unfair to blame Craig & MT. All they did was write a book (and post prolifically on the topic for a long time). You're a thinking man, MG. You know there are good and bad entry points into any portfolio.MachineGhost wrote: 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.
And most of us still have a lot of time on our sides. In 30 or 40 years your buy-in point will still matter, but not enough to put you in the poor house.... especially if you are able to add new money along the way.
Man, this PP thing was crap today! Hopefully tomorrow will be better.