Hi Guys,
A few days ago a distinguished MFOer didn’t understand the logic of an asset allocation plan with an equally weighted partition of its components. The logic might be missing in action but that rather mundane asset allocation has been a part of investing since biblical times. Sometimes it is motivated by an investor without knowledge or preferences; at other times an equal allocation is championed by giants within the industry.
In the Talmud, within the discussion sections pertaining to Jewish customs and history, it is recommended that “Let every man divide his money into three parts, and invest a third in land, a third in business, and let him keep a third in reserve”. Conservative investing wisdom has a long history.
In the last few centuries, the Rothschild’s asset allocation plan was to invest their wealth in three equally weighted parts: securities, real estate, and art. It’s reported that the family did reasonably well.
Today, some portfolios might simply contain equal parts of a total bond index and a total equities index from Vanguard to minimize cost drag and to minimize investment research time commitment. That approach will likely never be a barn burner, but it will often deliver returns in the top quartile of annual rankings.
Another excellent example of an equal allocation policy within the mutual fund industry is the Permanent Portfolio. Initially, the Permanent Portfolio distributed holdings within 4 categories when originally assembled by Harry Browne in 1982. The current management has expanded that mandate to about 6 investment classes today.
Overweighting investment categories can be a hazardous business. Behavioral research finds that we all are mistake prone. Investor performance shortfalls are well documented by numerous academic and industry studies. We frequently fall victim to fast response behavioral pressures that are reflexive driven rather than to invest more slowly, more reflectively.
Daniel Kahneman spent a lifetime studying this human characteristic, and summarized his findings in his classic book "Thinking Fast and Slow”. The lessons documented in that book can guide investors to improve risk control and to avoid big mistakes.
However, that superior book is over 400 pages long, and, although it is a fast read, some investors will choose not to commit the required time for a complete reading. Fortunately, excellent article length substitutes do exist. Here is a Link to one written by Jim O'Shaughnessy of “What Works on Wall Street” fame:
http://jimoshaughnessy.tumblr.com/post/96471085029/behavioral-economics-why-we-know-what-isnt-soThe Link directs you to the first part of a four part series. After reading the first installment, simply click on the “Next Post” box at the bottom of the work to gain access to the next part of this 4-part behavioral piece. Please enjoy.
Earlier I mentioned the Rothschield family to illustrate an equal asset allocation philosophy. In reality that family was quite complex and possessed almost limitless power, especially in Europe. But Baron Nathan Rothschild produced a huge body of simple, quotable investment wisdom. Perhaps his most famous is “ Buy when blood is running in the streets”.
But my favorite Rothschield quote is “ It requires a great deal of boldness and a great deal of caution to make a large fortune, and, when you have it, you require ten times as much wit to keep it”. This quote captures the competing attributes necessary to be a successful investor: boldness, caution, and wit. That’s a challenging trifecta that few investors own.
Better recognizing our Behavioral shortcomings should enhance the odds for investment success.
Your comments are always welcomed.
Best Regards.
Comments
You can still follow the present day members of the family with RIT Capital Partners (which is an investment trust in London, which is sort of like a CEF here) in London, which is chaired by Jacob Rothschild and has investments in both other Rothschild entities as well as in the Rockefeller Co.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/rockefeller-and-rothschild-banking-dynasties-join-forces/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
I do recall did not agree, vesus didn't understand, too. No time to review the thread today.
Heck, even the lowly 50/50 mix of Vanguard Total Stock and Vanguard Total Bond funds are doing fine together; so far, this year. Tis an allocation model, too, eh???
The problem he might have had is why does someone have to open a 7Twelve gas station, when we already have 7Eleven?
Typically at 6Fifteen every Thursday evening he fills gas, drives around a bit and is safely in bed by 8Thirty. All numbers his life in work like a charm. Then 7Twelve comes along and throws a spanner in the works and he starts wondering if the person who's suggesting 7Twelve is a 4Twenty. That's the issue.
It's also a famous portfolio for Bogleheads, affectionately called The Three Fund Portfolio
All off the top of my head, don't quote me.......
I tossed-out my earlier link to the scientific debate as to whether the universe exists in a steady-state or a dynamic/evolving one (just too far afield). However, I sense a doggedly steadfast devotion to principal on the financial question here similar to that many distinguished scientists of the past exhibited on the cosmological issue.
Re your original question. I believe there's good arguments on both sides. I'm not smart enough to say who's right. I will say my oft-repeated aversion to the "goanywhere" funds is based in part to your observations that calling market direction and getting the timing correct is exceedingly difficult.
Regards
Why didn’t I think of that?
Oh, that’s right, I did.
I’ve been suggesting that for maybe the past 15 years
to my investment classes.
And I posted such a plan on this venue a couple of years ago.
I guess that I should have written a book.
Suggesting this portfolio is one thing. Getting people to accept
such a simple concept is another. You’ve got to show this
to investors before the Gotcha Experts snare them with the
complex asset allocation methodology.
In this respect, Mr. Bernstein has succeeded by directing
his booklet at the right demographic – the millennials.
Mr. Bernstein suggests Rebalancing, while I suggest using
a simple moving average to avoid market crashes.
Otherwise, we’re pretty much on the same page – own a very
limited number (three will suffice) of broadly diversified funds
or ETFs and go on with your life.
By the way, here's is Mr. Bernstein's piece:
If You Can:
etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf
I've discussed several moving average strategies in the past.
The simplest strategy for the long term investor was researched
and posted by Charles.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/06/timing-method-performance-over-ten-decades/
I've used this strategy for my long-term-don't-think-about-it portfolio
for maybe 20 years. It's worked just fine.
And yes, I add a wrinkle of my own - shorting the market.
But I don't recommend this for LT investors because they tend to think
it's evil - but then, I've often been s craps Don't better.
Thanks for asking.
I too often “… believe there's good arguments on both sides. I'm not smart enough to say who's right.”
Apparently my postings sometimes don’t fully reflect my uncertainties on many investment issues. Investment issues remain unsettled debates over decades for a solid reason; both sides have merits and shortcomings. It is highly unlikely that my opinions will resolve these imponderables. Some things are unknowable.
I consider myself a very agnostic investor who believes in complete freedom for everyone. I do have a preferred set of investment rules, but even these rules are always subject to revision. I never suggest that whatever rules, theories, or philosophy that I practice are appropriate for anyone else. We’re all different investment animals in many dimensions. And I respect and honor those differences. Whatever you choose to do is right for you, and I wish you total success.
I do believe “that calling market direction and getting the timing correct is exceedingly difficult.” In fact. I might just modify “difficult” to “impossible”.
I also firmly believe that expert advice is often not so expert. It’s more like a fair coin-toss. My source for that judgment is the huge body of research conducted over decades and reported by Phil Tetlock. I also believe that not watching “Bubblevision” is not too bad a policy either.
That’s my own set of “don’t” practices. These are surely not necessarily applicable for all investors. Each gets to choose his own personal operational set that conforms to his investment style and goals.
On the positive side, I do believe that simplicity trumps complexity. I subscribe to Occam’s Razor. Currently, that translates for me to an emphasis on Index mutual funds. But I still own a respectable fraction of actively managed funds. I favor incremental approaches.
Also, I do believe that far too many investors have statistical and probability innumeracy issues. That’s harmful to achieving optimum portfolio performance.
Therefore, many of my posts focus on that shortfall and encourage a more refined understanding of these disciplines. Given market return uncertainties, tools like Monte Carlo analyses help to quantify portfolio risks, and offer guidance on how to reduce those risks.
I certainly am guilty of being a strong advocate for exploiting the statistical data that the market generates. I don’t apologize for this bias. Like most biases, there is another side to this issue. An overload condition can produce “analysis paralysis”. A judicious compromise is often the best approach.
Thank you for your commentary and observations. They permit me to better define my positions on these matters. What’s my cup of tea might well be a poison pill for someone else.
Best Wishes.
Target date funds normally use a fairly "static" allocation to various assets (which might please you) but also change that allocation with age and perhaps to some degree depending whether one is currently in retirement.
I don't think your argument precludes changes in allocations as one progresses through his/her investment years and circumstances inevitably change - or does it?
Admittedly, my tendency to wander off in different directions may have obscured the initial question:)
Thanks for any clarification.
Sorry for my omission. Perhaps I could blame it on the aging process, but the probable cause was my haste to respond to your post. Indeed, I did fail to address your initial question.
My investment philosophy does not “ rule out use of "Target Date" funds (which adjust allocations over time)?”.
Even a dedicated passive Index proponent should never adopt a buy-and-hold-forever policy. Investors need to be flexible since things are in constant motion.
Not to be too dismal on this fine Sunday, but every day brings us a day closer to our mortality. As we age or approach a retirement date, our portfolios should reflect changing needs and risk factors.
Target Date mutual funds are specifically designed to address this reality. Some are better at this task than others, so research, that I have not done, is required. All Target Date funds are not created equally.
I do not consider the time horizon adjustments made by these Target Date funds to be a market timing mechanism. It is made to keep a portfolio inline with its portfolio goal. And everyone defines his own personal portfolio goals and objectives. The option to assemble your own date sensitive portfolio is always present.
One criticism of Target Date funds is that they are not specifically designed to satisfy the very special needs of individual investors. I don’t buy into that critique given the hundreds of Target Date products currently available at very low costs. The big plus for these funds is that they put the investment process on autopilot. That’s an advantage to a large fraction of the savings, but not investment oriented, population.
Every investor must be alert to changing needs, and to a changing market environment. I’m thinking now of major events that potentially impact long-term prospects, not the daily market noise perpetuated by the business news TV channels.
As John Maynard Keynes noted: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Economist Paul Samuelson added: “I hate to be wrong. But I hate more to stay wrong”. So do I.
Target Date funds are fundamentally not market timing operations; they are responding to a time horizon commitment. Nobody consistently can time the markets successfully. Bernard Baruch said it well: “Buying at the bottom and selling at the top are typically done by liars”. I buy into that bit of wisdom.
I hope this helps.
Best Wishes.
Well, just graph, from spring 96, VITSX, VBMFX, and VXUS (lemme know if I have erred), and compare with any longterm balanced fund with or without the same manager(s). like DODBX, GLRBX, FPACX, PRWCX, even FBALX. I know, grapes and grapefruit. Still. I see little advantage to this boglehed fave other than maybe mental health. Check vs FPACX or DODBX (say) for shorter periods, of course; maybe you will be persuaded.