Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, Thank You to you, moguldreamer, and anyone else here who has contributed to this thread. When I try finding novel ways to invest I usually wind up not being able to see the trees for the forest. This thread with specific etfs, links, what one should expect, etc. definitely helps.
I started with 10K to see what you have been seeing.
I have done leveraged funds in the past specifically ProFunds when they first came out but lost track of how far things have come with the etf side of these. This is a real eye opener.
Okay, Thank You to you, moguldreamer, and anyone else here who has contributed to this thread. When I try finding novel ways to invest I usually wind up not being able to see the trees for the forest. This thread with specific etfs, links, what one should expect, etc. definitely helps.
I started with 10K to see what you have been seeing.
I have done leveraged funds in the past specifically ProFunds when they first came out but lost track of how far things have come with the etf side of these. This is a real eye opener.
These forums can be fun when new ideas we would never have thought of come in to our heads
mj, at what point do you rebalance?
In other words does only one component have to get out of whack or do you have a way of determining using all 3?
Remember: unlike traditional investing, you do not rebalance to achieve a target asset allocation. You rebalance to achieve a target RISK allocation. It takes a bit to wrap your head around it.
There are several studies published on rebalancing to achieve asset allocation (e.g., monthly, quarterly, twice-yearly, yearly) but I haven't run across a study on rebalancing to achieve a target risk allocation.
Two to four times per year seems to be the sweet spot for rebalancing to achieve a target asset allocation, so I'd start in that range for rebalancing for target risk allocation.
in this case the reaper targets a 60/40 so i stay with the original recommendation..60/40 returns with smaller drops in down turns
As a practical matter that makes sense.
But with risk parity portfolios, the question becomes "what if one of the asset categories contained inside the portfolio has a fundamental change in its risk profile?" This isn't something likely to happen often, and so on a daily basis it doesn't matter. But as we all know, back in 2008, bonds as an asset class fundamentally changed insofar as risk was concerned. Bonds exhibited a risk profile much closer to equities but without the expected return. That was a game-changer in the thinking of what it means to have a diversified portfolio.
And the original target allocation, if I recall correctly, is (correct me if I'm wrong):
But with risk parity portfolios, the question becomes "what if one of the asset categories contained inside the portfolio has a fundamental change in its risk profile?" This isn't something likely to happen often, and so on a daily basis it doesn't matter. But as we all know, back in 2008, bonds as an asset class fundamentally changed insofar as risk was concerned. Bonds exhibited a risk profile much closer to equities but without the expected return. That was a game-changer in the thinking of what it means to have a diversified portfolio.
And the original target allocation, if I recall correctly, is (correct me if I'm wrong):
20% UPRO
13% TYD 3x
67% DBMF
correct , 20% upro and 13% tyd equal the 60/40 and the un leveraged managed futures gets 67% out of every dollar .
it’s funny i started out with 20k in it and now it’s almost 10x that
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.