Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Discussion of the Stock portion of the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Ad Orientem » Mon May 16, 2016 10:30 am

CNBC TV personality and “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer has built a lucrative career as a stock picker, but a new analysis of his charitable fund—a personal stock portfolio he co-manages that the financial website he founded has built a subscription service upon—shows he doesn’t beat the market.

Cramer’s Action Alerts Plus portfolio has underperformed the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.69%  in terms of total cumulative returns since its 2001 inception, according to a working paper released Friday by Jonathan Hartley and Matthew Olson, researchers from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. While the fund outperformed the 500-member index in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis—which Hartley said was partially a reflection of the fund’s previous inclusion of small-cap companies and growth stocks that were outperforming during the pre-recession bull run—things have gotten worse since 2011, with Action Alerts Plus falling 9.5% in that year, when the S&P 500 was unmoved. It rose just 1.3% in 2014, versus an 11.4% increase for the S&P, the study found.

The Wharton researchers released the report Friday to coincide with the release of the new film “Money Monster,” which stars George Clooney as a financial news host with a show similar to “Mad Money.” In the film, a less-sophisticated investor named Kyle Budwell takes Clooney’s character hostage with a bomb vest after losing all of his money because of a bad stock recommendation made on TV.

The Action Alerts Plus portfolio, which is used in part by Cramer and TheStreet.com to sell $15-a-month newsletter subscriptions that provide subscribers information about the fund’s holdings, its buy-and-sell strategy and exclusive market commentary from Cramer, was found to have returned 64.5% cumulatively over the past 15 years, versus 70% for the S&P 500, when adjusted for the reinvestment of dividends, according to the Wharton researchers’ study. The Vanguard Diversified Equity Fund, by comparison, a mutual fund composed of a blend of U.S.-based companies, has underperformed the S&P 500’s total return by 0.8% over the last 10 years, according to Morningstar.
Read the rest here...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jim-cr ... 2016-05-13

I don't think they analyze the additional costs of running a portfolio that involves a lot of buying and selling. So my guess is the underperformance is even worse than what is being reported.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by sophie » Mon May 16, 2016 12:57 pm

I remember someone tracked stock recommendations made on the Mad Money show and came to much the same conclusion.

Jack Bogle and Harry Browne would be completely unsurprised by this, as should the rest of us.  And here's the thing, if a guy who has lived and breathed stocks for 20 years, had a history as a successful hedge fund manager, and has a TV show devoted to stock picking couldn't manage to beat the market, who here is ready to raise a hand to say that they can?

It's a tiny stretch from stock picking to asset class picking, but I fear the outcome is the same.  Regardless, the only VP strategies that make sense to me are a) exploring brand new asset classes like Bitcoin or peer to peer lending, or b) that awesome idea someone had to implement a PP using leveraged ETFs, or maybe a momentum strategy for the PP assets.  I back tested momentum strategies once and it looked awesome, but was highly sensitive to the choice of time horizon for calculating the sell signals, so I gave up on that.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." -- Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Ad Orientem » Mon May 16, 2016 1:17 pm

My idea of a decent vp is to just pick the asset class you think is likely to outperform over the long term. In my case that's stocks. I basically went 80% HBPP and 20% VP. The  VP is just VT I  & VEU. I'm not sure how the  VP has been doing since it's a buy and hold and I haven't looked in a long time.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by dualstow » Mon May 16, 2016 2:53 pm

There's a typically grouchy thread about it at Bogleheads. I've been lurking there more and more while this forum breaks.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by MachineGhost » Mon May 16, 2016 3:21 pm

sophie wrote: Jack Bogle and Harry Browne would be completely unsurprised by this, as should the rest of us.  And here's the thing, if a guy who has lived and breathed stocks for 20 years, had a history as a successful hedge fund manager, and has a TV show devoted to stock picking couldn't manage to beat the market, who here is ready to raise a hand to say that they can?
I am, but it all depends on how you define "beat the market".  The S&P 500 isn't terribly representative of everything possible.  Yet, if you try to do it like everyone else (i.e. avoiding career risk on Wall Street), you'll wind up with performance just like everyone else.  I don't know if Cramer's track record when he was a hedge fund manage was noteworthy, but obviously that skill set didn't apply to everything and the kitchen sink he throws out on his entertainment show.

Asset class picking...  that's completely different because you're talking about essentially global market aggregates that hold 90% of the bad along with the 10% of the good.  For something like that to really become overvalued or undervalued in the aggregate, it has to be a really gigantic force driving it!
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon May 16, 2016 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Pointedstick » Mon May 16, 2016 7:10 pm

And of course 80% PP with an all-stock 20% VP looks a lot like the Golden Butterfly portfolio! :)
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Ad Orientem » Mon May 16, 2016 7:42 pm

Desert wrote:
Ad Orientem wrote: My idea of a decent vp is to just pick the asset class you think is likely to outperform over the long term. In my case that's stocks. I basically went 80% HBPP and 20% VP. The  VP is just VT I  & VEU. I'm not sure how the  VP has been doing since it's a buy and hold and I haven't looked in a long time.
I like that mix.  Basically a long-term bet on world prosperity.  Have you ever thought about just putting all the VP in VT?
Yeah, that was what I started out with but after about a year I changed it to VTI & VEU. I think at the time the overall expense ratio went down very slightly. But I really liked the idea of letting whichever was doing better, i.e. domestic or foreign stocks, just run without the frequent rebalancing that goes on in VT.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by MediumTex » Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:48 pm

dualstow wrote:There's a typically grouchy thread about it at Bogleheads. I've been lurking there more and more while this forum breaks.
Hopefully the breaking is over.

It hurt me as much as it did you.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
ILoveMoney
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:26 pm

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by ILoveMoney » Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:50 pm

Ad Orientem wrote: Yeah, that was what I started out with but after about a year I changed it to VTI & VEU. I think at the time the overall expense ratio went down very slightly. But I really liked the idea of letting whichever was doing better, i.e. domestic or foreign stocks, just run without the frequent rebalancing that goes on in VT.
You think that by letting one of them run without the frequent rebalancing you'll end up doing better than the VT fund which has the frequent rebalancing?

Also... at which point would you rebalance your two stock funds?
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by dualstow » Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:49 pm

MediumTex wrote:
dualstow wrote:There's a typically grouchy thread about it at Bogleheads. I've been lurking there more and more while this forum breaks.
Hopefully the breaking is over.

It hurt me as much as it did you.
Said the dad spanking his son.









;-)
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by MachineGhost » Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:19 pm

This study analyzes the complete historical performance of Jim Cramer’s Action Alerts PLUS portfolio from 2001 to 2016 which includes many of the stock recommendations made on Cramer’s TV show “Mad Money”. Both since inception of the portfolio and since the start of “Mad Money” in 2005 (when it was converted into a charitable trust), Cramer’s portfolio has underperformed the S&P 500 total return index and a basket of S&P 500 stocks that does not reinvest dividends (both on an overall returns basis and in Sharpe ratio). These findings contrast with previous studies which analyzed Cramer’s outperformance in short windows before the 2008 financial crisis. Using factor analysis, we find that Cramer’s portfolio returns are primarily driven by underlevered exposure to market returns and in some specifications tilting toward small cap stocks, growth stocks and stocks with low quality of earnings. These results have broad implications for market efficiency, the usefulness of single name stock recommendations made on television, financial education, and the implementation of academic factors thematic in Cramer’s portfolio.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2778724
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
ILoveMoney
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:26 pm

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by ILoveMoney » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:21 am

ILoveMoney wrote:
Ad Orientem wrote: Yeah, that was what I started out with but after about a year I changed it to VTI & VEU. I think at the time the overall expense ratio went down very slightly. But I really liked the idea of letting whichever was doing better, i.e. domestic or foreign stocks, just run without the frequent rebalancing that goes on in VT.
You think that by letting one of them run without the frequent rebalancing you'll end up doing better than the VT fund which has the frequent rebalancing?

Also... at which point would you rebalance your two stock funds?
A.O.? Could you answers this one, please. ; )
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Ad Orientem » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:45 am

I don't have a firm rebalancing point for my VP. I stick to the 15/35 bands for the HBPP. For my VP I follow my gut when weighing the economic/political climate. That said I don't think I would be comfortable if either of the two components reached a 2:1 ratio relative to the other. Nor would I be comfortable if my VP reached parity with my HBPP. If that happened I'd likely hit the reset button. But I really like Jack Bogle's advice on rebalancing. "Rebalance when you think you need to, not based on a calendar or set of numbers." If your portfolio asset allocation is keeping you awake at night, then you probably should rebalance.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Kbg » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:15 am

Without going into a ton of detail, market cap weighted indexes have a lot of problems, with a couple of advantages. If you want to beat the S&P 500 over the long haul just buy and hold RSP. The only time it doesn't beat the SPY is at the end of expensive bull markets. It will spank the SPY coming out of a bear as well as most of the way up. ( and it's an OK timing signal when compared with SPY...basically if it is doing better over x period than spy it is a good time to be in stocks, when it is doing worse there is danger in the market )
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by MachineGhost » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:34 pm

Kbg wrote:Without going into a ton of detail, market cap weighted indexes have a lot of problems, with a couple of advantages. If you want to beat the S&P 500 over the long haul just buy and hold RSP. The only time it doesn't beat the SPY is at the end of expensive bull markets. It will spank the SPY coming out of a bear as well as most of the way up. ( and it's an OK timing signal when compared with SPY...basically if it is doing better over x period than spy it is a good time to be in stocks, when it is doing worse there is danger in the market )
It's just the size effect. It will get creamed in a bear more so than big bro. Perhaps theres an effective switching strategy?

Incidentally, RSP's been bearish for the last 10 months but I just got a buy signal on Schwab Small Cap the other day. Everything in my breadth portfolio is now bullish except for NASDAQ COMP, S&P 600, Materials and Financial. That sure looks like the dumb money is still not participating.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Kbg » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:45 am

MachineGhost wrote:
Kbg wrote:Without going into a ton of detail, market cap weighted indexes have a lot of problems, with a couple of advantages. If you want to beat the S&P 500 over the long haul just buy and hold RSP. The only time it doesn't beat the SPY is at the end of expensive bull markets. It will spank the SPY coming out of a bear as well as most of the way up. ( and it's an OK timing signal when compared with SPY...basically if it is doing better over x period than spy it is a good time to be in stocks, when it is doing worse there is danger in the market )
It's just the size effect. It will get creamed in a bear more so than big bro. Perhaps theres an effective switching strategy?

Incidentally, RSP's been bearish for the last 10 months but I just got a buy signal on Schwab Small Cap the other day. Everything in my breadth portfolio is now bullish except for NASDAQ COMP, S&P 600, Materials and Financial. That sure looks like the dumb money is still not participating.
I don't disagree that some of it is the size effect. This is clearly the case. There's more to it than that though. The mathematics of scale normally make a cap weighted index under perform the mean of its constituents over the long haul. Companies that are largest have the biggest impact on the index and when the largest companies begin to shrink (as they inevitably will) they have a disproportionate negative impact. It is also highly likely they can't match the growth rates of smaller companies. So forget RSP, pick any random 50 stocks in the S&P 500 and you will likely beat the S&P 500 over time. (theory not necessarily reality...reality means trading costs, discipline, few/no trading errors etc.) Obviously there are times that the biggest companies perform the best and this can last for quite a while. However, over very long periods of time the math is decidedly against you.

Since RSP's creation (May 2003) it has outperformed SPY 10.78 CAGR/-59.92 vs 8.64/-55.17. Additionally, RSP has beat SPY in 10 out of 14 years including the partial years of 2003 and 2016 to date. If we use SPXEW vs. SPX we can extend back to 1/1/90 and the stats are 8.62/-60.81 vs. 6.93/-56.77. Meanwhile, replacing SPY with RSP in the PP since 2005 bumps the CAGR up to 8.21 vs 7.81 while adding slightly over 1% in additional max drawdown.

For the PP I personally believe RSP is a better choice than SPY if one isn't going to diversify the stock component explicitly to small caps. A 2%+ (live ETFs/13 years) and 1.5%+ (Indexes/36 years) CAGR advantage over a long period of time including both major bull and bear markets is pretty compelling evidence to me. The sharpe is better for RSP/SPXEW as well .39/.29 vs. .30/.20...so by the standard definition it's also a better risk adjusted investment. Additionally, within the context of a PP the time when RSP will be not outperforming SPY is exactly when LTTs and Gold are likely stepping up so why not juice the stock component slightly for the times when stocks are outperforming?

I've not found a timing mechanism that beats a buy and hold of RSP vs. SPY after costs. Not saying it can't be done, I just haven't found one nor put a ton of time into it. Not including costs, very short term momentum measures will beat an RSP buy and hold. I do monitor the ratio of RSP to SPY however as one of several market indicators I use. When RSP is outperforming SPY the stock market is usually doing pretty well internally.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by MachineGhost » Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:26 pm

Hmm, that's very interesting! If what you say is true about equal weighting being superior for compounding, then that explains why I could not see any edge over the long-term by focusing on any of the Mega to Micro size categories (they all returned roughly the same). It may also explain why the Wilshire 5000 Equal Weight is so bloody seductive. I had chalked it up to the uninvestable bottom 10% of the bottom 2%.

Since 2003 I get 8.26% and -16.35% using RSP PP vs 7.67% and -15.24% for SPY PP. And 11.75% CAGR and -22.87% using RSP vs 10.81% and -18.56% using SPY and both using trend following.

So is using RSP superior to the Golden Butterfly?

EDIT: I just read Tyler's info about the Golden Butterfly and it seems it has less to do with the SCV and more to do with the strategic allocation. I can't help but think the weights are a data mining artifact because I can't think of a logical basis for why 40/20/20/20 makes sense. Still, it beats the PP on return, MaxDD and time underwater and that's rather unusual!

EDIT EDIT: SCV plays a key role in halving the time underwater. Doing 10%/20%/10% into large, mid and small blends also has the same effect. Still seems to me like its beneficial to get equal market cap exposure, but I don't wanna go down that rabbit hole again. Tyler has size and style time series data that he hasn't put up yet and that should help tell the tale of what is what.

Platinum Butterfly:
Image

Golden Butterfly:
Image

Platinum PP:
Image

Golden PP:
Image

Tired Old PP:
Image
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Mr Vacuum
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Mr Vacuum » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:14 am

It is interesting how similar the effect is across RSP PP, Golden PP, and Platinum PP. (I'd like to see Tyler's lost money and made the average numbers for RSP.) The appeal of RSP is it's just the one symbol to trade. Costs are a little higher, though: 0.40% expense ratio vs. <0.10% for VTI/VB. Tax cost ratio looks ok on morningstar.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Kbg » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:59 am

Mr Vacuum wrote:It is interesting how similar the effect is across RSP PP, Golden PP, and Platinum PP. (I'd like to see Tyler's lost money and made the average numbers for RSP.) The appeal of RSP is it's just the one symbol to trade. Costs are a little higher, though: 0.40% expense ratio vs. <0.10% for VTI/VB. Tax cost ratio looks ok on morningstar.
Costs are certain outperformance is not. However, figures provided include costs. So the outperformance is net not gross. If I recall both the standard broad etfs and RSP have reduced costs. If one was really diligent they could track down historical fees and compare to today's cost spreads. If the spread is greater assume the outperformance will be less and vice versa.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Kbg » Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:05 pm

One important thing I forgot in my first RSP post; if one believes in return to mean or buy low sell high for stocks RSP/equal weight does that. Cap weight does the opposite.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by MachineGhost » Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:43 pm

Mr Vacuum wrote:It is interesting how similar the effect is across RSP PP, Golden PP, and Platinum PP. (I'd like to see Tyler's lost money and made the average numbers for RSP.) The appeal of RSP is it's just the one symbol to trade. Costs are a little higher, though: 0.40% expense ratio vs. <0.10% for VTI/VB. Tax cost ratio looks ok on morningstar.
RSP isn't equal weighted on the size exposure though. PortfolioCharts is all value weight and even if you equalize the size exposure, it won't be that in actuality.

I noticed last night there are equal weight sector ETF's available. An equal weight portfolio of those could be very, very interesting! It might blow RSP out of the water.

Of course, my dream is still to replicate the non-investable Wilshire 5000 Equal Weight which returned 17% a year since the early 70's. O0
There are three potential sources of excess return for an equal-weighted strategy. One is the small size tilt that results from underweighting mega-cap stocks and overweighting smaller stocks. The second is a value tilt that results from underweighting overpriced glamour stocks. The third potential source of excess return is from the contrarian rebalancing. In order to maintain equal weightings, the index must sell stocks that have recently appreciated and buy stocks that have recently declined. We have back-tested performance on the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index going back to 1991. Of the 70 basis-point average monthly return in the equal-weighted index, 55 basis points came from pure market exposure. The equal- weighted index did beat the market-cap-weighted index by about 19 basis points per month over the past 20 years. To examine the source of this outperformance requires a deeper dive into the numbers.

Compared to the market-cap-weighted S&P 500, equal weighting has a greater exposure (beta) to small-cap stocks and value stocks but a much lower exposure to momentum. The lower exposure to momentum is a result of the forced rebalance strategy where past winners are sold off in favor of past losers--the exact opposite of a momentum strategy. Of the 19 basis points of outperformance, we found that the tilt toward small size contributed 6 basis points, the value tilt contributed 9 basis points, while the bet against momentum actually detracted 7 basis points. This leaves about 11 basis points of alpha. A paper by Yuliya Plyakha, Raman Uppal, and Grigory Vilkov demonstrates that the source of the alpha in an equal-weighted strategy is the rebalance.

A monthly alpha of 11 basis points would be great if it could be obtained in practice. Conducting the same analysis on RSP since its inception in mid-2003 shows an alpha of 7 basis points per month. What happened to the 11 basis points we found in backtest? Most of it was likely eaten by trading costs and RSP's 0.40% expense ratio. While the modest outperformance of RSP is nice, it is important to remember that most of RSP's return can be attributed to beta exposures.

http://ibd.morningstar.com/article/arti ... ,%20brf295
So .84% edge per year? Pretty flimsy. But you could probably deal with the negative momentum alpha by using trend following.

I suspect the reason the GB improves things is its putting pseudo-momentum at the top and value at the bottom.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Tyler » Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:03 pm

MachineGhost wrote: RSP isn't equal weighted on the size exposure though. PortfolioCharts is all value weight and even if you equalize the size exposure, it won't be that in actuality.
True. The thing I like about the combination of half large cap fund and half small cap fund (for the stock portion of the GB portfolio) is that the resulting mix is a decent approximation for equal weights across large/mid/small caps. It's certainly not a true equal weight for every individual company, but it also covers many more companies (including small caps) than RSP.
MachineGhost wrote:Tyler has size and style time series data that he hasn't put up yet and that should help tell the tale of what is what.
Yep -- I'll be updating the data on the site soon (adding MCV and MCG and cleaning up a few older series with better data). I'm currently working with the Simba guys to update the master spreadsheet with my new data, and the site tools will follow after that.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by MachineGhost » Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:46 am

Tyler wrote: True. The thing I like about the combination of half large cap fund and half small cap fund (for the stock portion of the GB portfolio) is that the resulting mix is a decent approximation for equal weights across large/mid/small caps. It's certainly not a true equal weight for every individual company, but it also covers many more companies (including small caps) than RSP.
Yes, but that turned out to be a red herring. It is the multi-factor value, concentrated into small, that really drives the GB not the pseudo-equal weighting. Since people can't stick with value investing long-term due to behaviorial reasons, it will continue to endure. All of the market-beating gurus are more or less bottoms up value investors.

Now personally, I think restricting value investing to just small size is probably leaving money on the table, but its just a hypothesis without any empirical support until it is compared to Small Cap Value. And all value may not work in the PP because it relies on beta/momentum to hit rebalancing bands. I'm thinking about taking a flyer on it, though. I got enough other Prosperity exposure that I'm not reliant on stocks alone to deliver the full 25% impact.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Jim Cramer doesn’t beat the market

Post by Kbg » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:27 am

For my VP PP that I post on in the VP section I use SPXL and TNA 50/50 for the stock component. My rationale is very simple for this. As a general rule large cap performs better late stage bull and in bear markets and small cap performs better early stage bull markets.
Post Reply