Re: No where to hide
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:35 pm
Why not use the PP but adjust the duration of the T-Bonds?mathjak107 wrote: nope no pp for me in retirement just a plain ole 50/50 mix using less interest rate sensitive bonds .
Gyroscopic Investing
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
No where to hide
Page 25 of 33
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:03 pm
Mentioned it twice already.MachineGhost wrote:Why not use the PP but adjust the duration of the T-Bonds?mathjak107 wrote: nope no pp for me in retirement just a plain ole 50/50 mix using less interest rate sensitive bonds .
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:09 am
because there is no reason to use it in any form if you are not using it 100% in its designed form in my opinion and in fact can create a very very risky retirement mix by doing so because as you drop equity levels retirement success rates are worse and worse. if you cut the fighter cover on those low amounts of equity's by shortening up the bonds you may wreak havoc on the design.buddtholomew wrote:Mentioned it twice already.MachineGhost wrote:Why not use the PP but adjust the duration of the T-Bonds?mathjak107 wrote: nope no pp for me in retirement just a plain ole 50/50 mix using less interest rate sensitive bonds .
anything less than 40% equity's has failed way way to many times over and over to be trusted. the worst case scenario's can't survive the low equity levels since the money never develops the cushion in the good times to support the bad times . 111 rolling 30 year time frames have shown that to be the case over and over and over.
so i put my own model together which i will refine over the near term even more likely ditching all of the the do nothing gold and redistribute that into an extended market fund and international world index fund , i sold half the gold off yesterday and added VEU and VXF to the mix , eventually going to the traditional 50-60% equity mix commonly used for retirement . 50/50 and 60/40 being the industry standard if you want to call it that. it has survived the worst of the worst time frames in retirement over and over including the great depression , the world wars and the high inflation 70's and early 80's.
it works on the same concept as annuities, those that live pay to support those that die. in this case the higher equity positions have always grown enough in the good times to support 4% safe withdrawal rates in the bad times , no exceptions unless you went out to long in bond lengths . that is when the trinity study had issues using 7-10 year bonds vs bengan's 5 year..
but in any case a 1/2 point adjustment in spending which likely happens naturally anyway through retirement has made at least 50% equities work 100% of the time no matter how bad things got.
even 40% held up okay but with some failures . 25% equity's has failed 14% of the time out to 30 years and 33% of the time out to 35 years making it not an option . that is an insane failure rate to attempt as anything under 90% success rates is unacceptable.
so if 50/50 has not failed in 111 rolling 30 year time frames , including the worst ever to me trying to do anything else with a portfolio that is radically different and untested in that regard is very risky
we are no longer preserving assets but spending them down while sequence risk takes control and that makes things very different than just preserving. .
as far as why add the extended market fund when i already own a total market fund ? one thing you have to remember is total market funds are really not total market funds . the s&p dominate them totally and even in the biggest mid cap and small cap run ups there is usually less than a 1% difference between an s&p 500 fund and a total market fund.
an extended market fund is all the other stocks without the s&p 500 so you can combine that with a total market fund or s&p fund and season to taste.
since i believe mid-caps and small caps will be the best place to be for a while i want more coverage in that area.
by the way , i still cannot believe how civil everyone is to someone who hasn't drank the kool-aid ha ha ha . you do not see civil discussions like this any where else when someone bucks the forum ideology.
but that shows everyone really is interested in learning other views which brings up an interesting point
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:53 am
the point is the biggest obstacle to one's financial success is THEY NEVER SLEEP WITH THE ENEMY.
most folks like bogleheads as an example only hang out with , read and support the views that coincide with their own.
they never get in to the enemy's head to learn what they know.
the wise person does exactly the opposite. they infiltrate that enemy camp and learn all there is about their side.
when you can walk away and argue for or against both sides just to play devils advocate only then do you know enough to make a decision about the subject.
i always hated insurance products like annuities and whole life.
i had no idea how useful they can be in a retirement plan and how low cost immediate annuities were .
they can improve success rates by establishing a consistent base of income allowing less equity's to have to be sold off and less power dry in low yielding bonds to achieve the same income goals.
that is another topic i learned by sleeping with the enemy and i can't even count how many times i switched sides over the years on everything from roth vs traditional , when to take social security , utilizing insurance products with your own investing and long term care options as i learned more and more from the other side.
the fact i was profiled in money magazine quite a few years ago as well as fidelity investments magazine gave me the opportunity to see the views of the top pro's vs my own . i went head to head against their team of pros as far as my long term plans and it opened my eyes to the fact there is a whole other side to things that we do not realize since each of us only knows what we know and can not reason with the things we do not know in the mix.,
they totally reversed my thinking about self insuring for that long term care we discussed in another thread here.
as always i am happy to throw out my thoughts on any of those topics but i hate to go off topic since after all this is the permanent portfolio forum and not the retirement forum .
but i will leave that to you all to decide what you want to throw out on the table for discussion.
most folks like bogleheads as an example only hang out with , read and support the views that coincide with their own.
they never get in to the enemy's head to learn what they know.
the wise person does exactly the opposite. they infiltrate that enemy camp and learn all there is about their side.
when you can walk away and argue for or against both sides just to play devils advocate only then do you know enough to make a decision about the subject.
i always hated insurance products like annuities and whole life.
i had no idea how useful they can be in a retirement plan and how low cost immediate annuities were .
they can improve success rates by establishing a consistent base of income allowing less equity's to have to be sold off and less power dry in low yielding bonds to achieve the same income goals.
that is another topic i learned by sleeping with the enemy and i can't even count how many times i switched sides over the years on everything from roth vs traditional , when to take social security , utilizing insurance products with your own investing and long term care options as i learned more and more from the other side.
the fact i was profiled in money magazine quite a few years ago as well as fidelity investments magazine gave me the opportunity to see the views of the top pro's vs my own . i went head to head against their team of pros as far as my long term plans and it opened my eyes to the fact there is a whole other side to things that we do not realize since each of us only knows what we know and can not reason with the things we do not know in the mix.,
they totally reversed my thinking about self insuring for that long term care we discussed in another thread here.
as always i am happy to throw out my thoughts on any of those topics but i hate to go off topic since after all this is the permanent portfolio forum and not the retirement forum .
but i will leave that to you all to decide what you want to throw out on the table for discussion.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:47 am
Lets see, 25% of a 50-year equity duration is 12.5 years. On the run T-Bonds have a duration of 17 years, 25% of that is 4.25 years. Looks like a huge mismatch to me! OTOH, 40% of equity is 20 years duration which would be match nearly perfectly by 25% in T-Bonds. 60% of equity is 30 years and 40% of T-Bonds is 6.8 years. Still a mismatch, just not as gaping.mathjak107 wrote: because there is no reason to use it in any form if you are not using it 100% in its designed form in my opinion and in fact can create a very very risky retirement mix by doing so because as you drop equity levels retirement success rates are worse and worse. if you cut the fighter cover on those low amounts of equity's by shortening up the bonds you may wreak havoc on the design.
What kind of "equity"? Context matters here as the S&P 500 is not necessarily the best way to invest. If all it takes is equalizing market cap exposure so you get in the nano, micro, value, growth, etc. factors without tilting speculation, then the PP may not need 40% vanilla exposure to be successful.anything less than 40% equity's has failed way way to many times over and over to be trusted. the worst case scenario's can't survive the low equity levels since the money never develops the cushion in the good times to support the bad times . 111 rolling 30 year time frames have shown that to be the case over and over and over.
In other words, what is the absolute minimum bottom line that a retirement portfolio needs to have in terms of metrics to be successful? 15-year chunks always above 2% real per year?
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:52 am
How do you feel about 60/40 being killed in the economically bullish GoGo era? And this is using strict LT T-Bonds, not a sloppy bond intermediate term mixture with growth exposure as is commonly used.mathjak107 wrote: so i put my own model together which i will refine over the near term even more likely ditching all of the the do nothing gold and redistribute that into an extended market fund and international world index fund , i sold half the gold off yesterday and added VEU and VXF to the mix , eventually going to the traditional 50-60% equity mix commonly used for retirement . 50/50 and 60/40 being the industry standard if you want to call it that. it has survived the worst of the worst time frames in retirement over and over including the great depression , the world wars and the high inflation 70's and early 80's.
Code: Select all
Rolling 15-Year Real Returns
1928 1942 4.86%
1929 1943 3.82%
1930 1944 4.82%
1931 1945 6.74%
1932 1946 6.28%
1933 1947 5.42%
1934 1948 3.27%
1935 1949 4.22%
1936 1950 3.12%
1937 1951 2.25%
1938 1952 4.45%
1939 1953 2.92%
1940 1954 5.15%
1941 1955 6.76%
1942 1956 7.88%
1943 1957 7.19%
1944 1958 7.88%
1945 1959 7.51%
1946 1960 6.19%
1947 1961 8.80%
1948 1962 8.94%
1949 1963 9.68%
1950 1964 9.35%
1951 1965 8.89%
1952 1966 7.81%
1953 1967 7.72%
1954 1968 7.96%
1955 1969 4.76%
1956 1970 3.67%
1957 1971 4.28%
1958 1972 5.47%
1959 1973 2.56%
1960 1974 0.43%
1961 1975 1.38%
1962 1976 1.42%
1963 1977 1.02%
1964 1978 -0.17%
1965 1979 -1.07%
1966 1980 -1.13%
1967 1981 -1.32%
1968 1982 -0.23%
1969 1983 0.20%
1970 1984 1.45%
1971 1985 3.22%
1972 1986 4.09%
1973 1987 3.13%
1974 1988 5.08%
1975 1989 8.41%
1976 1990 6.86%
1977 1991 7.25%
1978 1992 8.24%
1979 1993 9.41%
1980 1994 9.18%
1981 1995 11.12%
1982 1996 12.51%
1983 1997 12.46%
1984 1998 13.37%
1985 1999 13.31%
1986 2000 11.38%
1987 2001 9.47%
1988 2002 8.88%
1989 2003 9.40%
1990 2004 8.33%
1991 2005 8.88%
1992 2006 7.90%
1993 2007 7.83%
1994 2008 6.65%
1995 2009 7.17%
1996 2010 5.68%
1997 2011 5.84%
1998 2012 4.75%
1999 2013 4.02%
2000 2014 4.94%
2001 2015 2.17%
2002 2016 2.22%
2003 2017 2.41%
2004 2018 2.56%
2005 2019 2.68%
2006 2020 2.93%
2007 2021 3.22%
2008 2022 3.32%
2009 2023 3.57%
2010 2024 3.68%
2011 2025 3.81%
2012 2026 3.75%
2013 2027 3.96%
2014 2028 4.07%
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:59 am
You guys are all in one way or another making the case for 25% in each.
You can tweak this a million different ways and depending on the timeframe some will perform better than others. And everyone has their own personalities and biases to bring as well. Some don't like gold, and want less or no exposure. I'm not that person. Some want more stocks. I'm not that person either.
I can safely say the next 30 years are not going to be like the last 30, or any set of 30 years in any past timeframe. Historical analysis is useless most of the time in my opinion. It would seem an even split across different asset classes has just as decent of a chance of coming out a winner as does any other tweak to that setup.
You can tweak this a million different ways and depending on the timeframe some will perform better than others. And everyone has their own personalities and biases to bring as well. Some don't like gold, and want less or no exposure. I'm not that person. Some want more stocks. I'm not that person either.
I can safely say the next 30 years are not going to be like the last 30, or any set of 30 years in any past timeframe. Historical analysis is useless most of the time in my opinion. It would seem an even split across different asset classes has just as decent of a chance of coming out a winner as does any other tweak to that setup.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:06 am
yes to hold at least 4% inflation adjusted withdrawals you need a min of 2% real return averages over the first 15 years.MachineGhost wrote:Lets see, 25% of a 50-year equity duration is 12.5 years. On the run T-Bonds have a duration of 17 years, 25% of that is 4.25 years. Looks like a huge mismatch to me! OTOH, 40% of equity is 20 years duration which would be match nearly perfectly by 25% in T-Bonds.mathjak107 wrote: because there is no reason to use it in any form if you are not using it 100% in its designed form in my opinion and in fact can create a very very risky retirement mix by doing so because as you drop equity levels retirement success rates are worse and worse. if you cut the fighter cover on those low amounts of equity's by shortening up the bonds you may wreak havoc on the design.
What kind of "equity"? Context matters here as the S&P 500 is not necessarily the best way to invest. If all it takes is equalizing market cap exposure so you get in the nano, micro, value, growth, etc. factors without tilting speculation, then the PP may not need 40% vanilla exposure to be successful.anything less than 40% equity's has failed way way to many times over and over to be trusted. the worst case scenario's can't survive the low equity levels since the money never develops the cushion in the good times to support the bad times . 111 rolling 30 year time frames have shown that to be the case over and over and over.
In other words, what is the absolute minimum bottom line that a retirement portfolio needs to have in terms of metrics to be successful? 15-year chunks always above 2% real per year?
anything better than that adds to the pile of money left at the end if you do not increase spending .
of course just getting that 2 % means if you live longer than 30 years you may be broke as well as have zero for heirs.
but 2% real returns are the min for the income stream to not have to be adjusted .
if you eliminated the two worst time frames ever then a 60/40 mix would actually have sustained a 6.50% swr.
as far as what kind of equity ? the s&p 500 was figured . a mix of mid caps and small caps would have improved performance .
in practice more than 90% of the time a 60/40 mix left you with more than you started with at the end and 67% of the time left you with more than 2x what you started with.
could the pp do that ? we just don't know since we can't run it through the worst cases .
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:15 am
And BTW, if you're saying that reducing duration of T-Bonds is bad for fight cover for just 25% of equity in the PP, then how do you explain the traditionally reduced sloppy duration of 40% for a whopping 60% of equity exposure?
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:17 am
because the reduced equity's need to make a lot of money in the down markets to keep up their average. 60% equities and even cash would be fine because of the added growth in the up markets..
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:53 am
Well the problem is that the even split isn't really agnostic either, since it implicitly assumes that each economic condition is equally likely. Historically, prosperity has been more common than inflation, deflation, or tight-money recession in advanced countries like our own. Will this continue into the future? I have no idea. But an equal split is an implicit bearish bet on the USA. Maybe that's justified; we have lots of problems. But you're still trying to predict the future. Really, I think it's actually sort of impossible to build an asset allocation without predicting the future to a certain extent.Cortopassi wrote: You guys are all in one way or another making the case for 25% in each.
You can tweak this a million different ways and depending on the timeframe some will perform better than others. And everyone has their own personalities and biases to bring as well. Some don't like gold, and want less or no exposure. I'm not that person. Some want more stocks. I'm not that person either.
I can safely say the next 30 years are not going to be like the last 30, or any set of 30 years in any past timeframe. Historical analysis is useless most of the time in my opinion. It would seem an even split across different asset classes has just as decent of a chance of coming out a winner as does any other tweak to that setup.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:11 am
yep , you have to make some assumption about the future.
historically you would have been quite poorer following the pp over most time frames if you made the assumption things would be worse
if you bet on the fact we are historically up 2/3's of the time you would have assumed correctly.
will the future be the same ? if only we knew.
who knows, the pp could be the big champ going forward but in either case assumptions have to be made.
historically you would have been quite poorer following the pp over most time frames if you made the assumption things would be worse
if you bet on the fact we are historically up 2/3's of the time you would have assumed correctly.
will the future be the same ? if only we knew.
who knows, the pp could be the big champ going forward but in either case assumptions have to be made.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:32 am
I really don't think its that hard. Making the PP work better while still retaining the four assets will blow any other portfolio out of the water for robustness. Just be smarter about the 25% equity allocation than using turd market cap index funds. Prosperity is still the primary driver of any portfolio. Here's the real return PP with market cap neutral performance vs market cap weighted:Pointedstick wrote: Well the problem is that the even split isn't really agnostic either, since it implicitly assumes that each economic condition is equally likely. Historically, prosperity has been more common than inflation, deflation, or tight-money recession in advanced countries like our own. Will this continue into the future? I have no idea. But an equal split is an implicit bearish bet on the USA. Maybe that's justified; we have lots of problems. But you're still trying to predict the future. Really, I think it's actually sort of impossible to build an asset allocation without predicting the future to a certain extent.
Code: Select all
Start End MC EW MC W
1928 1942 5.49% 2.96%
1929 1943 5.53% 2.34%
1930 1944 6.85% 2.90%
1931 1945 9.47% 4.85%
1932 1946 8.63% 4.00%
1933 1947 7.06% 2.88%
1934 1948 3.08% 0.54%
1935 1949 2.99% 0.73%
1936 1950 2.29% 0.15%
1937 1951 1.78% 0.11%
1938 1952 2.80% 1.09%
1939 1953 1.98% 0.41%
1940 1954 3.28% 1.71%
1941 1955 3.79% 2.48%
1942 1956 4.47% 3.24%
1943 1957 3.66% 2.76%
1944 1958 3.63% 3.11%
1945 1959 3.23% 3.02%
1946 1960 1.34% 1.62%
1947 1961 3.05% 3.27%
1948 1962 4.01% 4.20%
1949 1963 4.70% 4.82%
1950 1964 4.36% 4.51%
1951 1965 4.42% 4.37%
1952 1966 4.16% 3.92%
1953 1967 5.90% 4.90%
1954 1968 6.53% 5.15%
1955 1969 4.38% 3.28%
1956 1970 3.97% 2.84%
1957 1971 4.69% 3.46%
1958 1972 5.89% 4.79%
1959 1973 5.06% 4.53%
1960 1974 4.88% 4.43%
1961 1975 5.01% 4.20%
1962 1976 4.98% 3.92%
1963 1977 5.09% 3.65%
1964 1978 5.05% 3.37%
1965 1979 6.73% 4.79%
1966 1980 6.36% 4.65%
1967 1981 5.81% 4.03%
1968 1982 5.25% 4.04%
1969 1983 4.70% 3.73%
1970 1984 5.49% 4.47%
1971 1985 6.56% 5.37%
1972 1986 7.01% 6.02%
1973 1987 6.17% 5.14%
1974 1988 6.14% 4.73%
1975 1989 6.60% 5.38%
1976 1990 5.84% 5.15%
1977 1991 5.97% 5.32%
1978 1992 6.01% 5.44%
1979 1993 6.50% 5.96%
1980 1994 4.07% 3.87%
1981 1995 5.04% 5.00%
1982 1996 5.88% 6.05%
1983 1997 4.93% 5.29%
1984 1998 5.18% 6.07%
1985 1999 5.52% 6.19%
1986 2000 4.40% 5.08%
1987 2001 3.67% 3.81%
1988 2002 3.73% 3.66%
1989 2003 4.95% 4.50%
1990 2004 4.82% 4.04%
1991 2005 5.65% 4.60%
1992 2006 5.40% 4.63%
1993 2007 5.66% 5.21%
1994 2008 4.92% 4.70%
1995 2009 6.04% 5.28%
1996 2010 5.97% 4.90%
1997 2011 6.40% 5.37%
1998 2012 6.40% 5.21%
1999 2013 5.96% 4.18%
2000 2014 6.37% 4.78%
Total 369.58% 291.15%
35% into T-Bonds isn't all that bad vs the old standy of 40% sloppy intermediate. The net duration of the FI is only about 6.075 years as budd keeps trying to point out.
Knowing that, it still doesn't make me want to take on the 1-2 year increase in the duration risk. When forthcoming losses are avoidable, it seems stupid to intentionally take them on. But I am a very risk averse investor, probably the most risk averse of the entire forum.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:53 am
I think I've asked this before, MG, but I can't remember your answer. Are there any funds or ETFs out there that you would recommend for your preferred weighting?
It seems to me that if prosperity is the driver, then if we only have 25% of our money in that asset class, we'd better choose really really high-peforming prosperity assets. Like a value tilt and emerging markets.
It seems to me that if prosperity is the driver, then if we only have 25% of our money in that asset class, we'd better choose really really high-peforming prosperity assets. Like a value tilt and emerging markets.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:04 am
There was an article recently on SeekingAlpha that pointed out that the emerging market indices are composed of lots of junk; state owned enterprises and whatnot. Emerging indices and therefore ETFs have been a disappointment since 2011. Maybe you could play with a exclusive, boutique proprietary fund. Sounds costly.
Pointedstick wrote: I think I've asked this before, MG, but I can't remember your answer. Are there any funds or ETFs out there that you would recommend for your preferred weighting?
It seems to me that if prosperity is the driver, then if we only have 25% of our money in that asset class, we'd better choose really really high-peforming prosperity assets. Like a value tilt and emerging markets.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:50 am
I can't say I have any ideas for dealing with an allocation of only 25% other than just what the pp does
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:28 pm
Did you miss this thread? http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/st ... #msg116914Pointedstick wrote: I think I've asked this before, MG, but I can't remember your answer. Are there any funds or ETFs out there that you would recommend for your preferred weighting?
It seems to me that if prosperity is the driver, then if we only have 25% of our money in that asset class, we'd better choose really really high-peforming prosperity assets. Like a value tilt and emerging markets.
I'm very wary of tilting. As for small and emerging, I've described the flaws with that elsewhere. You have to be careful to identify the exact conditions of the past to be assured of such outperformance in the future. What worked then will not work now because the effect has been arbitraged away. If you buy stuff like Vanguard Small Cap value you're really buying stuff after it has long outperformed (assuming it was even investable which is debateable). A stupid simple indexing and weighting scheme that worked in the the past does not work today, i.e. market cap weighted low P/B.
Said another way, size hasn't stood up to the rigors of not being a data mined artifact; they're just sloppy proxies for value and growth. And value only works when its more complex than a simplistic shotgun approach of buying all cheap trash after a Great Depression.
BTW, just as value and growth should not be constrained by market cap or weighting, neither should it be constrained by country. I don't know if you can yet do the latter properly though. There's always fund/index limitations. So you'd probably need direct exposure to frontier markets to get any exposure at all. The $64K question is what is the least amount to have an effect on the portfolio?
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:29 pm
I agree `100% , the pp is as perfect as you can get it as is. do not mess with it. you either accept it for what it is or do something else.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:20 pm
Same old story...eh, what's the point...
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:32 am
I am starting to think long bonds are too volatile for this portfolio.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:41 am
i agree . after the equal of a 350 point drop yesterday ,i see TLT is getting pounded again with am equal of another 285 points as it falls 1.65% on top of the 2% yesterday.
that is a lot of pain to an asset regardless of what it is
that is a lot of pain to an asset regardless of what it is
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:47 am
Isn't one of the points of the PP to hold non-correlated volatile assets?
TLT getting pounded, but VTI nearly making up for it?
Over time with rebalancing, is the magic??
TLT getting pounded, but VTI nearly making up for it?
Over time with rebalancing, is the magic??
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:56 am
Keep holding onto that pipe dream...another down day. What's the opposite of the PP? Now that portfolio is a winner.Cortopassi wrote: Isn't one of the points of the PP to hold non-correlated volatile assets?
TLT getting pounded, but VTI nearly making up for it?
Over time with rebalancing, is the magic??
USD down 1% and Gold down too...
I really think we are starting to fool ourselves here.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:00 am
i track my permanent portfolio i bought two weeks ago . it is down 23k .
the new model i bought the same day before the big drop is only down 6800.00 on the same amount.
my VEU went from down 5% two days ago to down .78% this morning. insane come back.
the new model i bought the same day before the big drop is only down 6800.00 on the same amount.
my VEU went from down 5% two days ago to down .78% this morning. insane come back.
Re: No where to hide
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:06 am
Lowe wrote: I am starting to think long bonds are too volatile for this portfolio.
My goodness. Did no one read the prospectus? Wow, all it takes is three years of ho-hum and everyone is shouting "abandon ship" and leaping off the deck.Ahh well, more deck chairs for me to rearrange.