That is how I would sum up the comments replying to a Barron's article that suggested looking at Permanent Portfolio style allocation of 25% each into stocks, long bonds, gold and cash. This is right in our strike zone of fun things to look at.
Like with many articles/commentaries, as opposed to taking it literally at face value, it is far more constructive to try to pull something that could be useful to dig in on. Lately we've used terms like Permanent Portfolio inspired (I think Jason Buck came up with that one) and quadrant-ish which I came up with.
To the comments, yes having just 25% in equities won't be optimal for most people. In the quest for more resilient outcomes in times of market turmoil, having 100% equities as many of the commenters implied they had is certainly valid for the long term but very difficult to endure in the short term. The periods of difficult to endure is when mistakes happen.
Clearly, no attempt at resilience can be infallible but I do think being reliable most of the time is possible.
It might be debatable whether we've gone through a full cycle from the start of 2020 but it certainly has been a full five and a half years. Neither PRPFX nor client personal holding BLNDX has as much equity exposure as VBAIX but there are signs of resilience over the course of the period studied.
As strong as I think BLNDX has been for most of its existence, there obviously have been long sideways periods and this year certainly has been a stinker relative to its history which is a great example that nothing is infallible.
Crazy busy few days here so short post tonight.
The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment