So did the soothsayers miss the drop

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by Robyn55

Math is important in investing .

FWIW - I took a look at that Harry Browne stuff (it was kind of a blast from the past for me). Two things worth noting. First - the historical numbers on his portfolio aren't correct on his supporters' web sites (don't know if they're overall better or worse - just that a lot of annual returns in his four areas are different from those available on objective websites - the bond figures caught my eye - but that is the area about which I'm most knowledgeable).

Second is a lot of his supporters seem to average annual returns - which is not the way to compute returns. You kind of have to go year by year - adding gains and subtracting losses. It's kind of tedious. But I did it for his mutual fund - which got started in 1997 (when he stopped publishing his newsletter) through the end of 2009. Returns are claimed to be average of almost 8% - but actual compounded rate of return is 6.6% - fully taxable in a taxable portfolio (if you're paying taxes - the real returns would be a *lot* lower - especially since you're buying/selling/rebalanacing once a year).

There are at least some people who have pointed out that he stopped publishing his newsletter due to miserable returns in his suggested portfolio:

Harry Browne Gives Up -- A Little, By Boris Kupershmidt

Anyway - I mention this not to single out Browne - but only because there have been so many "gurus" in the decades I've been investing. And - having seen them come and go (and Browne definitely went the way of all flesh!) - I think all investors have to develop their own approaches to their personal portfolio management. One size definitely doesn't fit all. Robyn

what hurt ole harry was gold sucked for decades..it just fell off the radar as an active investment... it weighed on the portfolio like a rock...

even i stopped following it back in the 80's... although i think harrys books as well as ray lucias books were the biggest influences on my financial thinking. there are many great financial minds out there too but i think harry and ray just influenced my methods the most .

but then gold found its way back on the radar and the markets wild growth of the 80's and 90's was gone....

the long term performance for the fund now for decades has averaged out to over 9% a year or depending whos numbers you use somewhere close.... thats amazing performance for a portfolio who's goal is capital preservation and not growth


by the way cant believe you were familiar with harry browne.. i thought only i knew of him?

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

what hurt ole harry was gold sucked for decades..it just fell off the radar as an active investment... it weighed on the portfolio like a rock...

even i stopped following it back in the 80's... although i think harrys books as well as ray lucias books were the biggest influences on my financial thinking. there are many great financial minds out there too but i think harry and ray just influenced my methods the most .

but then gold found its way back on the radar and the markets wild growth of the 80's and 90's was gone....

the long term performance for the fund now for decades has averaged out to over 9% a year or depending whos numbers you use somewhere close.... thats amazing performance for a portfolio who's goal is capital preservation and not growth


by the way cant believe you were familiar with harry browne.. i thought only i knew of him?

I've been investing since the 70's and am familiar with many so-called "gurus" who are now dead or forgotten.

For what length of time have you actually been doing a Harry Browne permanent portfolio? Like I said - I ran across some data sets (not related to Harry Browne) that suggested that the annual rates of return in his "categories" in web sites related to him were off - some higher - some lower. Really didn't figure out whether the discrepancies made the returns lower - or higher.

Also - very important IMO - even if the gross return numbers on his portfolio were correct - they assume no "friction" from trading costs or taxes paid on gains/losses. I have been doing fixed income since the early 70's - well before ETFs and current on-line trading options for individual fixed income securities - and back then you were generally dealing with 2-3% spreads when buying/selling (you can get similarly screwed today - but if you do a lot of homework - and work with the right brokerage firms - you can diminish the chances of getting screwed) . So simply looking at the return in indices doesn't give you an idea of what your actual "take home" return is. Robyn

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Yesterday was a very significant day for traders. For investors it was just another day. What happened yesterday is not important for investors. What is important is where you portfolio is at when you reach your target date. March 7 was not as big a day in hindsight. With all the hoopla yesterday the Dow is still up almost 4000 points since last March. Not bad when looked at in perspective.

I think you are 100% wrong. Because what happened on Thursday was about 5 standard deviations away from normal - and no one to date can figure out why it happened. The high frequency traders pulled out of the market when it was down about 400 - and if they went to the sidelines - that should alert all of us that something went seriously wrong. And since we don't know what went wrong - well caveat emptor. Robyn

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by Robyn55

I've been investing since the 70's and am familiar with many so-called "gurus" who are now dead or forgotten.

For what length of time have you actually been doing a Harry Browne permanent portfolio? Like I said - I ran across some data sets (not related to Harry Browne) that suggested that the annual rates of return in his "categories" in web sites related to him were off - some higher - some lower. Really didn't figure out whether the discrepancies made the returns lower - or higher.

Also - very important IMO - even if the gross return numbers on his portfolio were correct - they assume no "friction" from trading costs or taxes paid on gains/losses. I have been doing fixed income since the early 70's - well before ETFs and current on-line trading options for individual fixed income securities - and back then you were generally dealing with 2-3% spreads when buying/selling (you can get similarly screwed today - but if you do a lot of homework - and work with the right brokerage firms - you can diminish the chances of getting screwed) . So simply looking at the return in indices doesn't give you an idea of what your actual "take home" return is. Robyn

i started with harry in 1987 right after the crash... stayed until 1990 ... came back in 1993 and stayed since. returns have been supurb from back then to date .. 1/2 my portfolio has been following the fidelity insight newsletter since 1987 as well . i followed the growth model up until 4 years ago when i toned it down to their capital preservation model........

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by Robyn55

I think you are 100% wrong. Because what happened on Thursday was about 5 standard deviations away from normal - and no one to date can figure out why it happened. The high frequency traders pulled out of the market when it was down about 400 - and if they went to the sidelines - that should alert all of us that something went seriously wrong. And since we don't know what went wrong - well caveat emptor. Robyn

Once again we are talking entirely different things so you are right and I am right and have a good night.