Desert Portfolio Question

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

Jeffreyalan
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Jeffreyalan » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:02 am

I have a question for the group. I decided about a year ago to run a Desert Portfolio (60% 10 year Treasury, 30% TSM, 10% Gold) for my savings instead of the traditional 4x PP. It just about broke even last year which is what you would expect given the market

A backtest of this portfolio from 2008 shows a return of 5.71% vs 5.15% for the PP with lower volatility and a 2% lower max drawdown.

I know the lower gold percentage makes the portfolio a bit risker in the case of financial cataclysm. But otherwise, what are the risks of this portfolio that I might be missing? My wife recently got laid off from her job and she is receiving a large severance package. I am thinking of putting all of our savings into the Desert Portfolio and then only drawing from it in the case of emergency. So I am trying to figure out of there are any risks to this portfolio that I am not seeing.
DragonJoey3
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:00 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by DragonJoey3 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:38 pm

Well the obvious risk is rising interest rates, but really the portfolio isn't that far off from the PP. Instead of a Bond-Barbell (25% 30-year, and 25% 1-year) you replace it with 60% mid-range bond (10-year). That puts you slightly overweight on bonds compared to the PP, which means that as interest rates shoot up you are more likely to see higher losses than the PP.

Really the portfolios aren't that different, but that's the only major point of difference.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Kbg » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:21 pm

Agree with DJ3.

Go to portfoliovizualizer and and put in each portfolio and then do the years below instead of the full history.

1972-1986

1986-1999

1999-2012

2012-2018

Gold always adds some volatility, the periods above are cherry picked but you will quickly see gold helps or hurts depending on the time frame. For whatever bond allocation you go with a 55 STT to a 45 LTT percent split will give you pretty much identical results regardless compared to an ITT bullet. The "big" risk is something similar to the 70s where inflation is going through the roof. In any event, mess around with PV using the above time periods. It will give you a good feel for how the assets interact. One thing you may want to do is run all the five year periods from 1972 to 2018 and take notes. 10% gold in a portfolio gets you most of what it can provide in terms of diversification.

Here are the two ports side by side going back to 1978.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... 0&Gold2=25
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Kbg » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:34 pm

OBTW 65ITT/25Stk/10gold is the historical efficient frontier for these assets using PV's data...which is the theoretical most bang for the least bounce portfolio.

Unfortunately you have to reverse engineer a barbell because the calculation to arrive at the efficient frontier will always put in a ton of low vol thereby killing returns. I did that and if we assume the above (or the desert 60%) is our bond allocation but you wanted to be more PP like you would multiply the bond allocation by .55 which using the desert would result in a 33 STT/27LTT bond mix...so I now introduce to all the Desert PP

33 STT/27 LTT/30 Stk/10 Gold :)

8.70% CAGR -10.39% MaxDD 0.64 Sharpe since 1978 which beats the PP on all metrics (but not hugely so)

Personally I've moved more toward the risk parity (desert) type portfolio as it is the same basic concept as a PP to profit in all environments, but the fact is the assets don't behave the same in terms of response (positive or negative). In terms of the Desert PP I like it because you have designated cash allocation which you can more easily integrate into daily real life.

To be sure and by way of full disclosure/caveat it is important to understand that behind risk parity is the assumption the future will be like the past. A saving grace thought is that we know HB backtested to come up with the PP...
Last edited by Kbg on Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jeffreyalan
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Jeffreyalan » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:42 pm

Would most feel comfortable keeping 100% of your savings in the Desert Portfolio? Is it safe enough from major losses and wild swings? In the year I have been invested in it, it has been fairly docile.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Kbg » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:40 pm

Jeffreyalan wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:42 pm
Would most feel comfortable keeping 100% of your savings in the Desert Portfolio? Is it safe enough from major losses and wild swings? In the year I have been invested in it, it has been fairly docile.
Assuming you use intermediate treasury bills for the 60% bonds you are not going to lose that money in nominal terms. Now of course this assumes the US govt remains solvent but there is a reason why the rest of the world believes US debt as the gold standard and basis for measuring all other forms of debt. The best rule of thumb for bonds is your rate of return is the coupon rate of the bond...and that is the case if held to maturity. Your biggest concern/worry is a loss in real terms (e.g. inflation). If we look at the 70s the bond portion of the Desert got crushed, but stocks and bonds were enough to provide a real rate of return. The 70s was the best decade ever for the PP and it returned a CAGR of 15% compared to Desert's. Nominally the worst drawdown ever was 10%.

As compared to the PP it is clear the Desert and the PP alternate outperforming each other and sometimes for quite a while. Over very long periods of time, most all of these portfolios end up in the same place. The optimal portfolios are usually defined as best sharpe or best geometric returns. The former usually has around 65% bonds with the rest in stocks while the latter is usually in the area of 80 stocks/20 bonds.

In short, if history is any guide you are in the area of max sharpe. With 60% in intermediate term treasuries you should be about as safe as you can be while still earning a decent return.
Jeffreyalan
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Jeffreyalan » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:11 am

I am using ETFs for the portfolio:

60% IEF (iShares 7-10 Treasury)
10% IAU (iShares Gold)
15% MGC (Vanguard Large Cap)
15% SLY (SPDR Small Cap)

I use M1 Finance as my broker. They are perfect to run such a portfolio. I can deposit $500 there and they will buy $500 in the exact percentages I specified with no trading fees. Same with selling.

So my intention is to keep all of my funds in that portfolio and then on the 1st of every month, pull out only enough for my budgeted expenses for the entire month. That keeps my money working for me all of the time, makes me stick to a fixed budget and everything goes well...unless the portfolio tanks of course! Then I will have wished I had just kept it in the bank!
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by ochotona » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:22 am

For Desert I would mix IEI and IEF ETFs in order to arrive at a 5 year intermediate average duration.

IEF 7-10 to me seems to be longer than what is meant by "intermediate". Yes, these things are not strictly defined.
Jeffreyalan
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Jeffreyalan » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:43 am

ochotona wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:22 am
For Desert I would mix IEI and IEF ETFs in order to arrive at a 5 year intermediate average duration.

IEF 7-10 to me seems to be longer than what is meant by "intermediate". Yes, these things are not strictly defined.
I thought that the Desert Portfolio specifically called for 10 year Treasuries as opposed to intermediates which could be anywhere from 5-7 years generally. Although even IEF is technically an 8 year duration. To get to 10 years exactly using ETFs you would need to mix TLH and IEF. I settled on IEF just to simplify things a bit. Adding in TLH and bumping the duration from 8 to 10 adds very little for the trouble.
Jeffreyalan
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Jeffreyalan » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:04 am

I think what I am struggling with are the "risk" factors. Now that we are a one-income family, we can less afford to take financial hits. But we also need to make our money grow as much as possible. That is the dilemma. Should I just put our money in the local bank money market account, earn 2.35% and call it a day? Or should I place the funds in the Desert Portfolio and theoretically earn more than that but also put our funds at market or ETF/Counterparty risk?
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by ochotona » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:18 am

Jeffreyalan wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:43 am
ochotona wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:22 am
For Desert I would mix IEI and IEF ETFs in order to arrive at a 5 year intermediate average duration.

IEF 7-10 to me seems to be longer than what is meant by "intermediate". Yes, these things are not strictly defined.
I thought that the Desert Portfolio specifically called for 10 year Treasuries as opposed to intermediates which could be anywhere from 5-7 years generally. Although even IEF is technically an 8 year duration. To get to 10 years exactly using ETFs you would need to mix TLH and IEF. I settled on IEF just to simplify things a bit. Adding in TLH and bumping the duration from 8 to 10 adds very little for the trouble.
Tyler, what duration did you intend?
User avatar
ochotona
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:54 am

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by ochotona » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:23 am

Jeffreyalan wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:04 am
I think what I am struggling with are the "risk" factors. Now that we are a one-income family, we can less afford to take financial hits. But we also need to make our money grow as much as possible. That is the dilemma. Should I just put our money in the local bank money market account, earn 2.35% and call it a day? Or should I place the funds in the Desert Portfolio and theoretically earn more than that but also put our funds at market or ETF/Counterparty risk?
Jeffrey, the only way to answer that is to ask what is the time when you think you're going to spend this money, and for most people there are multiple periods when the money will be used... house, car, college, retirement, etc.

If you have something coming up in the next 10 years, I would not put money into Desert. Look at the Long Term returns chart at
https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/desert-portfolio/

You could have dead money for a decade.

Good lord, where do you get 2.35% at a local bank money market? Marcus online pays 2.05%, Ally online is 2.0%.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by sophie » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:46 am

I thought the Desert Portfolio is going for an average of 5 year bonds, so one proposed strategy was to buy and maintain a 10 year Treasury or CD ladder - nice idea, since it gives you effectively some cash assets and also an ER of zero for 60% of the portfolio. Agree that 7-10 years is too long for "intermediate".

It's a nice portfolio. The main worry is that you'd have 60% of the portfolio devoted to an asset that will often provide zero or negative real returns, especially after taxes (the bonds aren't intended to provide capital gains, unlike the PP's long bond allocation). This has been the case since 2008, and also occurred in the 1970s. If stocks aren't picking up the slack, 10% gold isn't enough - you need closer to 20%.

Image
Jeffreyalan
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Jeffreyalan » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:51 am

ochotona wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:23 am
Jeffreyalan wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:04 am
I think what I am struggling with are the "risk" factors. Now that we are a one-income family, we can less afford to take financial hits. But we also need to make our money grow as much as possible. That is the dilemma. Should I just put our money in the local bank money market account, earn 2.35% and call it a day? Or should I place the funds in the Desert Portfolio and theoretically earn more than that but also put our funds at market or ETF/Counterparty risk?
Jeffrey, the only way to answer that is to ask what is the time when you think you're going to spend this money, and for most people there are multiple periods when the money will be used... house, car, college, retirement, etc.

If you have something coming up in the next 10 years, I would not put money into Desert. Look at the Long Term returns chart at
https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/desert-portfolio/

You could have dead money for a decade.

Good lord, where do you get 2.35% at a local bank money market? Marcus online pays 2.05%, Ally online is 2.0%.
I would say the need for the money is indeterminable. In theory I don't need it right now or for anything in the foreseeable future. However, if something unexpected happened (I lose my job for example) then all bets are off.

My bank is Bay State Savings Bank and they have a MM savings for 2.35% currently.
Last edited by Jeffreyalan on Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Kbg » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:23 am

Intermediate is normally understood to be 6-10. A pure 10 would require significant time managing bonds.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by sophie » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:53 am

Tyler's site has it listed as "intermediate bonds", although true Desert initially said "10 years". Desert - which is it??
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Kbg » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:40 pm

Sophie,

On your chart/discussion on bonds losing to inflation. Not quite true, what treasuries do is lag inflation. If you look at the annual return profile of any treasury you can see this is clearly the case. Investors do not normally lend their governments money for free and they expect inflation+ a bit as a minimum. And as you know, bonds are across the board repriced when interest rates change.

Cash does lose money to inflation, treasuries usually do not as a normal rule of thumb if you stick to 10 years or less. The longer you go out the weaker the connection is, but it’s still there. Dumber than dirt is holding actual cash, one should always hold an interest bearing instrument. (Immediate emergency funds excepted).

I think funds like BIL or SHY are brilliant replacements for cash.

Now if one looks at the data you will see the above is not always true for periods of time because it takes a while for equilibriums to be re-established, but the large majority of time it is.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by sophie » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:12 am

What was not quite true?

If anything pops out of that chart I posted, it's that the relationship between 10 year treasury yields and inflation is not at all straightforward. Your blanket statement that treasuries reliably lag inflation doesn't really capture it.

I posted it to explain my main concern with the Desert Portfolio's large bond allocation, as good as it is otherwise. It may backtest well but it's still a vulnerabilty, if there's a long period where the 10 year treasury is not providing a positive real return, and stocks can't pick up the slack. It's a theoretical worry that may well not pan out, so don't take it as a condemnation of the portfolio.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by D1984 » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:51 am

sophie wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:12 am
What was not quite true?

If anything pops out of that chart I posted, it's that the relationship between 10 year treasury yields and inflation is not at all straightforward. Your blanket statement that treasuries reliably lag inflation doesn't really capture it.

I posted it to explain my main concern with the Desert Portfolio's large bond allocation, as good as it is otherwise. It may backtest well but it's still a vulnerabilty, if there's a long period where the 10 year treasury is not providing a positive real return, and stocks can't pick up the slack. It's a theoretical worry that may well not pan out, so don't take it as a condemnation of the portfolio.
The potential for zero real bond returns is an issue; I would also be concerned about the stock allocation in the Desert Portfolio; it is from all one country and is cap-weighted so it is tilted towards the largest stocks (which could very well end up being the most overpriced ones...think of US large-cap in the late 1990s). What happens if that one country (the United States in this case) has poor equity market returns over the next 10-15 years like happened from 2000 to late 2012; IIRC that is how long it to the market just to get back to even counting reinvested dividends but not even considering inflation from 2000 to 2012 (which would have made it take even longer to get back to even)? This isn't even the worst example of what could happen; what if we get 26 years of 0.41% per year real returns like Switzerland had from year-end 1961 to year-end 1987? Or basically 0% overall real returns like France had from early 1962 to the end of 1987? Or almost 0% real return like Italy had from mid-1996 to today? Or even negative real returns like Japan or Taiwan from 1989 or 1990 to today (granted, we aren't nearly as overvalued as by measures like CAPE, PE, PB, Tobin's Q, Buffet Ratio, P/FCF, etc as those last two countries were but we are still in pretty rich valuation territory....the "bad case" scenario for a portfolio like this is richly valued stocks and richly valued bonds....which we do kind of happen to have at the moment)?

Why not substitute some of that TSM for an equal weighted S&P 500 Index or an S&P 400 Midcap index, and while one is at it, would adding even a little international exposure (GDP-weighted and not cap-weighted so as to avoid bubbles like Japan in the late 80s) in lieu of some of the US exposure hurt either?

Finally, as for the bonds...if one is worried about a long period where the 10-year Treasury is providing little or zero (or negative) real returns why not go half intermediate TIPS and half regular ITTs? We have good synthetic TIPS data back to 1954 if needed.

Again, these are just some potentially helpful suggestions, so Desert, please don't take this as a dig on the portfolio personally; any portfolio that is heavy in US stocks and nominal bonds (say, a 30/70, or 20/80, or Wellesley, or the "original" Larry FTM portfolio) would also not come out too well in a scenario like the one I mentioned above
Phorteun
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:08 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Phorteun » Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:56 pm

D1984 wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:51 am

I would also be concerned about the stock allocation in the Desert Portfolio; it is from all one country and is cap-weighted so it is tilted towards the largest stocks (which could very well end up being the most overpriced ones...think of US large-cap in the late 1990s). What happens if that one country (the United States in this case) has poor equity market returns over the next 10-15 years like happened from 2000 to late 2012; IIRC that is how long it to the market just to get back to even counting reinvested dividends but not even considering inflation from 2000 to 2012 (which would have made it take even longer to get back to even)? This isn't even the worst example of what could happen; what if we get 26 years of 0.41% per year real returns like Switzerland had from year-end 1961 to year-end 1987? Or basically 0% overall real returns like France had from early 1962 to the end of 1987? Or almost 0% real return like Italy had from mid-1996 to today? Or even negative real returns like Japan or Taiwan from 1989 or 1990 to today (granted, we aren't nearly as overvalued as by measures like CAPE, PE, PB, Tobin's Q, Buffet Ratio, P/FCF, etc as those last two countries were but we are still in pretty rich valuation territory....the "bad case" scenario for a portfolio like this is richly valued stocks and richly valued bonds....which we do kind of happen to have at the moment)?

Why not substitute some of that TSM for an equal weighted S&P 500 Index or an S&P 400 Midcap index, and while one is at it, would adding even a little international exposure (GDP-weighted and not cap-weighted so as to avoid bubbles like Japan in the late 80s) in lieu of some of the US exposure hurt either?
If I'm not mistaken Desert once flirted with a more diverse split of the 30% Stock allocation, making it:

10% TSM
10% SCV
10% EM

Someone can find the quote, or maybe Desert himself could give his two cents!
Phorteun
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Xan » Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:46 pm

ochotona wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:23 am
Good lord, where do you get 2.35% at a local bank money market? Marcus online pays 2.05%, Ally online is 2.0%.
A couple of days ago Marcus cranked it up to 2.25%.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Kbg » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:09 pm

I think there is a difference between how assets behave under different economic environments and and how assets will perform going forward. Bond rates in a portfolio lag rate increases and decreases. (I just refined my statement as the earlier was not precise.) They clearly do with the caveat that the lag is increased for longer term bond issues. It's in the data.

With regard to under performing, as has been noted numerous times on the board and it is also in the data, there is almost no substantial difference between an intermediate bullet and a barbell of cash and LTTs. The PP has a full 50% of it's portfolio in a barbell...so by way of comparing apples to apples the only thing we are debating is a 10% allocation to interest bearing instruments. Same for stocks and gold in both ports.

So if we want to have a discussion about if both the PP and the Desert should have more stocks or gold that is a legit debate (and of course we know that topic has reams about it written elsewhere).

Of note...the Desert has 5% more stocks than the PP...so perhaps we are now just down to a gold allocation...

In short...if you are going to take on the Desert for too much in treasuries, you have to levy the same criticism against the PP.

The fact is none of us know what economic conditions we are going to have going forward, the PP will probably do better during high inflation. I don't think that is really debatable. However, if we don't have those conditions then gold is normally a boat anchor on performance.

The bond hand wringing honestly bothers me a bit because it does not take all US economic history into account. We all know about the 30 year bond bull market starting in the early 80s. However, if we go back to 1929 and equate 2008 with it, then we could just as well have low interest rates for 30 more years (1929- early 60s). And then there is Japan...in short assuming inflation is not a good assumption (nor is assuming deflation).
Jeffreyalan
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Jeffreyalan » Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:53 am

Kbg wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:40 pm


I think funds like BIL or SHY are brilliant replacements for cash.
How do you feel about the safety of ETFS that hold Treasuries? I am contemplating keeping a stash of cash there and sucking up the .15 expense ratio instead of having to managing a 1-2 year treasury ladder.
Kevin K.
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Kevin K. » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:01 am

Jeffreyalan wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:53 am
Kbg wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:40 pm


I think funds like BIL or SHY are brilliant replacements for cash.
How do you feel about the safety of ETFS that hold Treasuries? I am contemplating keeping a stash of cash there and sucking up the .15 expense ratio instead of having to managing a 1-2 year treasury ladder.
Vanguard Federal Money Market fund has a current yield of 2.31% and an expense ratio of .11%. That'd be my first choice if I didn't want to do what I've been doing, which is buying 6 and 12 month Treasuries for no fee and just reinvesting when they come due.

William Bernstein and others categorically say there's no reason to ever pay a dime for Treasury bond funds of any duration but I'm not quite that cheap and understand the desire for convenience.

Vis-a-vis the various iterations of the Desert Portfolio, "intermediate" in Treasuries means 5 years, not 10 and that has been the historical sweet spot for risk/return. I understand the logic of the PP barbell but historically 5 year treasuries have offered as good or better a return with far less volatility. And there is no way I would own long treasuries in a rising-rate environment in which the starting point is negative real returns and with Treasuries constantly flirting with inverted yield curves. I'm keeping my entire bond allocation in 6-12 month Treasuries and have been for nearly a year and a half now. ~2.5% positive returns have made the simultaneous tanking of all other asset classes much easier to deal with.

If you can set aside the self-promotion and irritating ads this now 6 year old article by Todd Tresidder does an excellent job of showing just how dangerous bonds can be in a low interest rate/high volatility environment. Larry Swedroe sounds much the same warning in the just-published updated version of his book "Avoiding Black Swans."

https://financialmentor.com/investment- ... ubble/9064
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Desert Portfolio Question

Post by Kbg » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:01 am

Jeffreyalan wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:53 am
Kbg wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:40 pm


I think funds like BIL or SHY are brilliant replacements for cash.
How do you feel about the safety of ETFS that hold Treasuries? I am contemplating keeping a stash of cash there and sucking up the .15 expense ratio instead of having to managing a 1-2 year treasury ladder.
VGSH is .07%. And I think Schwabs is cheaper. That’s pretty cheap for the convenience. I have both treasury funds and a treasury direct account and while I like TD and use it, the fact is you can only buy in $100 increments and you buy at a discount and get full face value back. So for example you buy for 97.50 get 100 back and if you roll then you have 2.50 that you can’t do anything with.

If you go with one of the big ETF companies I wouldn’t have any concerns safety wise and as mentioned it becomes cost vs hassle factor.

For me I like the etf version in a brokerage that reinvests dividends with fractional shares...but I would not argue against TD at all. Really it’s a matter of preference and cost for convenience.
Post Reply