Hi
@jerry and others,
I don't track a 60/40 but the 50/50 Index mix that I do track has had the following returns. They follow: 20
12/9.96% ... 20
13/
17.3
1% ... 20
14/5.60% ... 20
15/0.54% ... 20
16/7.04% ... 20
17(ytd)/
10.87%. The cumulative return for this period is 53.85% with the average being 8.98%.
The reason I use the 50/50 mix is that now in retirement I only move my equity allocation +/- 5% from its neutral position of 50% unless market conditions warrant otherwise. Years back I'd go +/-
10% from the neutral position thus a 60/40 mix might be a better allocation for this adjustment range.
My cumulative return on my own portfolio for the above period has been 57.47% with the average being 9.58%. Some will ask ... Has it been worth it to be active? For me, it has been as it has put a good bit of extra cash in my pocket vs. running with a static 50/50 mix. Plus being a student of the market has been rewarding in of that itself.
In addition, I use American Funds' Capital Income Builder (CAIBX), my third largest holding, as my global hybrid fund bogey because of its global allocation and yield. Its cumulative return is 49.55% for the period with the average being 8.26%. My return over the 50/50 mix is about 6% and over CAIBX about
16%. Generally, I have found, higher yielding hybrid funds offer lower returns. And, my portfolio does kick off a good yield and has a global orientation. I also, use the Lipper Balanced Index as another standard.
In looking at a sampling of some of the funds listed in the article the two I looked at GSOFX & USMYX did not have the history necessary for a compairson. However, I did do one against KCMTX listed by Morningstar as a multialternative fund. I found it's cumulative return for the period to be 67.0
1% with the average being
11.
17%. KCMTX is co-run; and, one of its managers Parker Binion has started posting on our board. Parker's handle is
@PBKCM in case you did not, and would like to, know. Interestingly, I was asked (in another thread) by another poster as to why I'd be a buyer of this fund? It is pretty simple ... in spite of its expense ratio ... it is putting up some good numbers for a multialternative fund plus it is currently carrying 5 stars by Morningstar. Folks, it cost money to actively engage the markets. It also reminds me of two other funds I invested in early on (but, no longer own) one being Ivy Asset Strategy and the other being Marketfield. They got to the size where they could no longer effectively position in a timely manner with the ever changing market conditions. So, I let them go as their performance waned.
Below is a link to the Morningstar report on Parker's fund.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/KCMTX/quote.htmlNotice it is ranked in the top
1% on the rolling
1 year return period ... top 2% on year-to-date returns ... top 2% on the 3 year period ... and, top
1% for the 5 year period.
For me, the big question is ... How did a good skilled seasoned writer such as John Waggoner miss by not including Parker's fund? Perhaps, Mr. Waggoner reads the board? And, will kindly make comment.
And, so it goes.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
