Permanent Portfolio Spreadsheet

I created a Permanent Portfolio Spreadsheet which tracks various investment metrics for four ETFs, the Vanguard Total Stock Market (VTI), iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT), SPDR Gold Trust (GLD), and iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Treasry Bond Fund (SHY).  They were selected to reflect a Harry Browne-esque Permanent Portfolio. The spreadsheet is accessible at the top of the home page.

There are numerous indicators on the sheet, including long-term moving averages  (both 10 month and 200 day), momentum, and absolute momentum (i.e. TLT, VTI, and GLD returns versus SHY). I will probably add to it as time progresses, I don’t yet have a final vision for it but if you have any input let me know.

I realize having anything other than an equal weight flies in the face of Browne’s original Permanent Portfolio strategy of an equal weight allocation. However, I have written several articles on the Permanent Portfolio with some simple twists that have, in some cases, improved historical performance.  Some of those articles are listed below.  And if you need another reason: It is fun creating spreadsheets….

Creating a Permanent ETF Portfolio
Building a Permanent ETF Portfolio, Part 2
Tactical Applications of the Permanent Portfolio
Testing a Harry Browne Permanent ETF Portfolio

Follow me on  Twitter!
Like what you read? Consider a Paypal donation.

Disclaimer: Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author is not a financial adviser. Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author does not offer recommendations or personal investment advice to any specific person for any particular purpose. Please consult your own investment adviser and do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Please read the full disclaimer at the bottom of www.scottsinvestments.com

Weekend Readings

Posts have been lighter than usual this month. I am focusing on creating some more relevant, albeit less frequent, content that will offer long-term value for readers. More to come as things develop but if you have feedback and what you would like to see more or less of please share it with me.

Below are a few articles for this weekend, end of month updates will be posted on Sunday.

Applied Quantitative Value (Part 4 of 4) – Turnkey Analyst

The Permanent Portfolio Turns Japanese – Advisor Perspectives

Saving and Investing For Retirement Part 1Part 2, and Part 3 – Portfolioist

 The Coming Dividend Tax Hike – Mebane Faber

What if the Fed Has it All Wrong? (pdf) John Mauldin

Restoring the Legitimacy of the Federal Reserve – The Baseline Scenario

Fed Pulls Out the Bazooka and Fight the Fed by Owning Gold - Bill Fleckenstein

 Dow will repeat 2007-2008 peak-crash cycle – Marketwatch

Follow me on  Twitter!
Like what you read? Consider a Paypal donation.

Disclaimer: Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author is not a financial adviser. Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author does not offer recommendations or personal investment advice to any specific person for any particular purpose. Please consult your own investment adviser and do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Please read the full disclaimer at the bottom of www.scottsinvestments.com

Three Permanent Portfolios for the Long-Run

Last week different tactical approaches (momentum, moving average) to the Permanent Portfolio were detailed here. Harry Browne proposed a “Permanent Portfolio” allocation in his 1998 Fail-Safe Investing: Lifelong Financial Security in 30 Minutes.  The portfolio is an equal-weight portfolio of stocks, long-term bonds, cash, and gold. One approach to replicate the Permanent Portfolio is to hold a stock, long-term bond, cash, and gold position.

Another alternative is to hold a mutual fund or ETF that replicates the entire Permanent Portfolio strategy.  Two “one-stop” options presently exist,  the Permanent Portfolio Mutual Fund (PRPFX) and the Global X Permanent ETF (PERM).

Forbes Special Situation Survey did 4 times better than the S&P 500 over the past 5 years. Subscribe now: save $400 and get 2 free gifts.

PRPFX invests 20% of its assets in Gold, 5% of its assets in Silver, 10% of its assets in Swiss franc assets, 15% of its assets in Stocks of U.S. and foreign real estate and natural resource companies, 15% of its assets in Aggressive growth stocks, and 35% of its assets in Dollar assets. This allocation is similar to the one proposed by Browne, but does differ in its allocation weightings and its exposure to real estate, silver, natural resource companies, and the Swiss franc.

In February Global X Funds launched the Permanent ETF (PERM). This ETF seeks to replicate, net of expenses, the Solactive Permanent Index. The index tracks the performance of four asset class categories that are designed to perform differently across different economic environments. They include stocks, U.S. Treasury bonds (long-term), U.S. Treasury bills and bonds (short-term), and gold and silver.

Since its inception in February, PERM has failed to gather significant assets, with total assets currently listed at less than $15 million. It also has thin volume, with average daily volume less than 15,000 shares and its current expense ratio is .49%. The thin volume makes trading more difficult than more widely held ETFs and could lead to larger bid-ask spreads.

In March I compared the early performance of PERM to an equal-weight portfolio of four ETFs: SPY (SPDR S&P 500 ETF), TLT (iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury), SHY (iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Treasury Bond Fund), and GLD (SPDR Gold Trust). Below is an update to the two portfolio’s relative performance. Portfolio A is 100% invested in PERM while Portfolio B uses the four ETF allocation. Returns include dividends (PERM has yet to pay a dividend), data courtesy of ETF Replay:

Since its inception PERM has under-performed a 4 ETF strategy.  The 4 ETF strategy has no exposure to silver, while PERM maintains exposure to silver. As you can below, silver (using the ETF SLV as a proxy) has underperformed gold since February 7th (PERM’s inception date). Date courtesy of Yahoo Finance:

Thus, part of the short-term underperformance of PERM could be related to its silver exposure. The performance difference between gold and silver will fluctuate in the long-term, and at times PERM’s silver exposure could aid its performance.

The expense ratio of PERM is also worth considering when evaluating performance. The expense ratio of .49% compares to the SPY expense ratio of .09%, TLT expense ratio of .15%, GLD expense ratio of .40%, and SHY expense ratio of 15%. In an equal weight portfolio these expense ratios average  .20%. However, additional commissions could be generated when each ETF is bought or sold, while a single Permanent allocation to PERM only creates one transaction.

PRPFX is another viable alternative for investors looking for a Permanent Portfolio strategy. However, as detailed above this mutual fund’s allocation strays further than the Harry Browne allocation. Its performance since February in relation to PERM:

PRPFX has an expense ratio of .84%, higher than its ETF counterpart. However, it may offer an alternative allocation preferred by some investors.

The three Permanent Portfolios detailed here all share similar strategies.  However, as we can see, even small (or in the case of PRPFX, moderate) differences in allocations and expense ratios can lead to differences in performance over a relatively short time period. For the long-term investor, identifying these differences and then allocating accordingly will  impact returns in the long run.

 

Follow me on  Twitter!
Like what you read? Consider a Paypal donation.

Disclaimer: Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author is not a financial adviser. Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author does not offer recommendations or personal investment advice to any specific person for any particular purpose. Please consult your own investment adviser and do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Please read the full disclaimer at the bottom of www.scottsinvestments.com

Tactical Applications of the Permanent Portfolio

Harry Browne proposed a “Permanent Portfolio” allocation in his 1998 Fail-Safe Investing: Lifelong Financial Security in 30 Minutes.  Browne proposed an equal-weight portfolio of stocks, long-term bonds, cash, and gold. One of the major appeals of the portfolio is its simplicity and the low correlation between the assets. Today an investor could create this portfolio using as little as four ETFs: SPY (SPDR S&P 500 ETF), TLT (iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury), SHY (iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Treasury Bond Fund), and GLD (SPDR Gold Trust). Holding four low-cost ETFs and re-balancing periodically can help minimize trading costs and potential tax implications while also providing diversity.

Top 50 Trending Stocks

In February 2012 I back-tested the Permanent ETF Portfolio (SPY, TLT, SHY, and GLD) and some minor variations of the portfolio, with the results available here. The conclusion reached then was “the portfolio has had relatively low drawdown and volatility with recent returns outpacing equity markets. The 10 month moving average system lowered the volatility of the portfolio…but had slightly lower overall returns than simply buying and holding the portfolio.” The moving average system also results in higher trading costs and potential tax implications.

Today we will re-examine the same strategies detailed in February as well as additional tactical applications of the Permanent Portfolio. The time-frame for all tests is January 3rd 2005 to August 23rd, 2012. All tests were conducted using ETF Replay.

First, buying the ETF version of the Permanent Portfolio on January 3rd, 2005 with no re-balance has resulted in the following returns:

If we bought the portfolio and re-balanced annually, total returns decreased slightly versus the “no re-balance” portfolio but volatility decreased, resulting in a higher sharpe ratio and lower max drawdown:

The 10 month simple moving average system has been popularized in recent years by Mebane Faber in The Ivy Portfolio: How to Invest Like the Top Endowments and Avoid Bear Markets. For the tests below when an ETF in the portfolio was below its 10 month moving average at month-end, the position was sold and held in “cash” (SHY was used as a substitute for cash). When it closed the month above its 10 month moving average, the ETF was purchased at the stated allocation.

The performance for the 10 month moving average system within the 4 ETF permanent portfolio is below. GLD did not have adequate trading history at the start of 2005 to generate a 10 month moving average, so the results are slightly skewed until GLD generated a signal in mid 2006.

The moving average system has resulted in lower total returns but lower volatility, resulting in a slightly higher sharpe ratio than the first two strategies. However, this comes at potentially higher trading costs and tax implications. There were 37 trades since 2005 using the 10 month moving average, which equates to roughly 5 trades per year. When compared to an annual re-balance strategy that potentially requires 4 year end trades, the moving average system still has relatively low turnover for an active strategy.

A potential momentum strategy for the Permanent Portfolio is to purchase the top 1 or 2 ETFs of the 4 based on relative strength.  For the tests below the ETF with the top 6 month relative strength is purchased and held for a month. The returns when purchasing the top 1 ETF each month are below:

The returns for the top 1 ETF strategy has resulted in substantially higher volatility and comparable returns to a buy-and-hold strategy. In addition, the strategy had 61 trades since 2005.

However, the historical results for purchasing the top 2 ETFs are much more promising:

A relative strength system that purchased the top 2 ETFs has resulted in substantially higher returns versus the top 1 system. The strategy resulted in 50 trades or an average of  6-7 trades per year.

Additional strategies an investor could use would be to allocate a percentage of funds to each strategy. For example, if we allocate 50% of a portfolio to the 10 month moving average system and 50% to the 6 month top 2 relative strength system, the results are below:

As you can see, returns and the sharpe ratio were better than buy-and-hold but again it comes at higher turnover.

Below is a table comparing the various strategies tested above:

System Total Return % Volatility % CAGR % Sharpe Max Drawdown %
Buy and Hold 107.70 9.30 10.00 0.76 -16.71
Buy and Hold, Annual Rebalance 102.00 7.70 9.60 0.85 -14.03
10 Month SMA 89.70 6.70 8.70 0.87 -7.1
6 Month Relative Strength Top 1 111.20 19.00 10.30 0.46 -24.3
6 Month Relative Strength Top 2 213.90 12.40 16.10 1.04 -14.2
Combined Systems (10 month SMA + top 2) 145 9.3 12.4 1.01 -10.7

Simple tactical approaches like the ones detailed above offer viable alternatives to investors nervous about buying-and-holding the portfolio over the long run. For example, someone may be nervous about the direction of long-term rates and the potential for losses in TLT in the coming years.  A simple moving average system and relative strength system could help reduce exposure to asset classes when they display weakness.

These systems come at potentially higher trading costs and tax implications. Also, a systematic approach can be difficult for some investors to follow –  we may allow the outside “noise” to interfere with the signals of our investment system.  In doing so, we can actually hurt our long-term returns when compared to the original system or a buy-and-hold approach.

Key takeaways are threefold, 1) Buying and holding the Permanent Portfolio the past 8 years has resulted in strong risk-adjusted returns 2) Tactical approaches have offered slightly higher risk-adjusted returns and in some cases total returns, but with higher trading costs, 3) There is no guarantee any of the systems detailed above will perform well in the future. For example, a rise in long-term interest rates coupled with an equity market malaise or a collapse in the price of gold combined with either of the two could impact the strategy’s ability to outperform in the future.

Follow me on Stocktwits and Twitter!

Follow me on  Twitter!
Like what you read? Consider a Paypal donation.

Disclaimer: Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author is not a financial adviser. Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author does not offer recommendations or personal investment advice to any specific person for any particular purpose. Please consult your own investment adviser and do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Please read the full disclaimer at the bottom of www.scottsinvestments.com

Permanent Portfolio Smack-Down

In February Global X launched a Permanent Portfolio ETF, symbol PERM.  The fund’s fact sheet states it “seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Solactive Permanent Index.”

Follow me on Stocktwits and Twitter

The Solactive Permanent Index “tracks the performance of four asset class categories that are designed to perform differently across different economic environments, as defined by the index provider. On each rebalance, the Underlying Index allocates 25% each to four asset class categories: Stocks, U.S. Treasury Bonds (Long-Term), U.S. Treasury Bonds (Short-Term), and Gold and Silver.”

This allocation closely correlates to Harry Browne’s proposed allocation in his 1998 Fail-Safe Investing: Lifelong Financial Security in 30 Minutes.  Browne proposed an equal-weight portfolio of stocks, long-term bonds, cash, and gold. Today an investor could create this portfolio using as little as four ETFs: SPY (SPDR S&P 500 ETF), TLT (iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury), SHY (iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Treasury Bond Fund), and GLD (SPDR Gold Trust).  I recently posted some historical results on this allocation here.

How closely has PERM correlated to the 4-ETF Browne Permanent Portfolio referenced above?  PERM has a very short trading history, so these results are very preliminary.  However, this type of comparison could be useful to periodically monitor for investors weighing an all-in-one Permanent Portolio solution (PERM) versus a self-managed, multi-ETF Permanent Portfolio.

Click here for MarketClub’s Top 50 Trending Stocks

As expected, an equal weight portfolio of SPY/TLT/SHY/GLD (Portfolio A) has been highly correlated with PERM (Portfolio B) since February 8th, 2012. The results using ETF Replay are below.  It is important to note that PERM has not yet paid a dividend, while SPY, SHY, and TLT have all paid dividends since February 8th. These dividends are reflected in the returns for Portfolio A, which helps explain the small out-performance to date.  I will revisit the comparative results once PERM has paid a dividend, which will give us a more accurate total return comparison for both portfolios:

No positions in stocks mentioned

More on this topic (What's this?)
Quick Tidbit
Read more on Permsin Steel at Wikinvest
Follow me on  Twitter!
Like what you read? Consider a Paypal donation.

Disclaimer: Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author is not a financial adviser. Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author does not offer recommendations or personal investment advice to any specific person for any particular purpose. Please consult your own investment adviser and do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Please read the full disclaimer at the bottom of www.scottsinvestments.com

Testing the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio with Emerging Markets

In response to my Harry Browne Permanent ETF Portfolio article from last week, David Jackson of Seeking Alpha wondered if the portfolio had been tested with Emerging Markets ETFs as opposed to US equities. His theory is the Emerging Markets have added beta over US stocks and may perform better in the future due to higher expected GDP growth.

Follow me on Stocktwits and Twitter!

I created a second Harry Browne Permanent ETF Portfolio in ETF Replay and then used their platform to test the results.  The portfolio consists of a 25% equal allocation to EEM (MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund), TLT (iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury), SHY (iShares Barclays 1-3 Year Treasury Bond Fund), and GLD (SPDR Gold Trust).   This allocation is identical to the portfolio in my “original” Harry Browne portfolio with one exception: EEM has been substituted for SPY (SPDR S&P 500 ETF).

If an investor bought the Emerging Markets Permanent Portfolio on January 3rd, 2005 and held until February 17th, 2012, the total return was 128.4% (12.3% CAGR) and 12.7% volatility (all returns discussed exclude commissions, taxes, and slippage). The original Harry Browne Portfolio (SPY/SHY/TLT/GLD) would have returned 105.6% (10.7% CAGR) at 9.3% volatility:

The max drawdown on the Emerging Market Permanent portfolio was 26.15% versus 16.17% for the original version.  The increased volatility and drawdown of the Emerging Market version is not surprising since emerging market equities have traditionally had higher volatility than large cap US equities.

In my original article I also tested the 10 month moving average system popularized in recent years by Mebane Faber in The Ivy Portfolio: How to Invest Like the Top Endowments and Avoid Bear Markets. When an ETF in the portfolio was below its 10 month moving average at month-end, the position was sold and held in “cash” (SHY was used as a substitute for cash). When it closed the month above its 10 month moving average, the ETF was purchased at the stated allocation.

To properly test the moving average system I had to begin the test at the beginning of 2006 since GLD did not have adequate trading history to generate a 10 month moving average in 2005.  In order to properly compare strategies (moving average vs. buy and hold) we first need to show the results for buying and holding the portfolios over the same time period of 2006-present (portfolio A is the Emerging Markets version, Portfolio B is the original):

We see that the Emerging Markets version had a total return of 90.5% (11.1% CAGR). .63 sharpe ration, and 12% volatility. The original version had a total return of 81.1% (10.2% CAGR), .73 sharpe ratio, and 9.2% volatility.

For the first 10 month moving average test we will revisit the original Harry Browne ETF Portfolio (SPY/SHY/TLT/GLD). When we test the 10 month moving average system we see is that the moving average system decreased volatility and returns while increasing the sharpe ratio:

Below are the annual performance statistics which include no down years (2012 is down year to date):

When we apply the 10 month moving average system to the Emerging Markets version(EEM/SHY/TLT/GLD), we see the same impact, a decrease in returns and volatility and an increase in the portfolios sharpe ratio:

The annual statistics include no losing years (2012 is down year to date):

The table below summarizes the returns of each strategy for comparison purposes:

 

Time Period 2006-present
Portfolio Strategy Total Return CAGR Volatility Sharpe Max draw down
“Original” Permanent Portfolio (SPY/SHY/TLT/GLD) Buy & Hold 81.10% 10.20% 9.20% 0.73 -15.85%
“Emerging Mkt” Permanent Portfolio (EEM/SHY/TLT/GLD) Buy & Hold 90.50% 11.10% 12.00% 0.63 -23.12%
“Original” Permanent Portfolio 10 month SMA 69.30% 9.00% 7.10% 0.79 -7.10%
“Emerging Mkt” Permanent Portfolio 10 month SMA 83.30% 10.40% 9.10% 0.75 -11.80%
SPY Buy & Hold 23.90% 3.60% 24.40% 0.12 -55.20%
SPY 10 month SMA 60.30% 8.00% 13.20% 0.38 -18.70%

There are some important caveats in these tests. The time period covered is relatively short by historical standards so it is difficult to draw significant conclusions.  The period tested includes 2008, a particularly volatile period for equities and fixed income securities. Commissions, taxes, and slippage (the price you would actually get filled at when placing a real order versus the historical data used for the tests) will impact results.

Follow me on  Twitter!
Like what you read? Consider a Paypal donation.

Disclaimer: Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author is not a financial adviser. Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author does not offer recommendations or personal investment advice to any specific person for any particular purpose. Please consult your own investment adviser and do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Please read the full disclaimer at the bottom of www.scottsinvestments.com

Global X Launches Permanent ETF

Global X launched its “Global X Permanent ETF” trading under the ticker PERM.  The ETF sports a .49% expense ratio. The fund fact sheet states “The Global X Permanent ETF seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Solactive Permanent Index.”

The Solactive Permanent Index “tracks the performance of four asset class categories that are designed to perform differently across different economic environments, as defined by the index provider. On each rebalance, the Underlying Index allocates 25% each to four asset class categories: Stocks, U.S. Treasury Bonds (Long-Term), U.S. Treasury Bonds (Short-Term), and Gold and Silver.”

In other words, the ETF’s goal is to hold an equal weight of stocks, long-term US Treasuries, short-term US Treasuries, and precious metals. This strategy and allocation is not new, Harry Browne proposed this allocation in his 1998 Fail-Safe Investing: Lifelong Financial Security in 30 Minutes. I found a site/blog which has tracked the historical performance of Browne’s Permanent portfolio strategy (here and here) dating back to 1972 and updated annually.

I will be posting some follow-up analysis on this “permanent” allocation, along with some minor adjustments which may or may not enhance historical returns. However, this will have to wait until after a weekend of ice fishing…

Follow me on  Twitter!
Like what you read? Consider a Paypal donation.

Disclaimer: Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author is not a financial adviser. Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author does not offer recommendations or personal investment advice to any specific person for any particular purpose. Please consult your own investment adviser and do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Please read the full disclaimer at the bottom of www.scottsinvestments.com

Creating a Permanent ETF Portfolio

The Permanent Portfolio mutual fund, ticker PRPFX, is a popular mutual fund from the Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds with the stated investment objective “to preserve and increase the purchasing power value of its shares over the long term”. The fund has performed relatively well in recent years when compared to the S&P 500 and has underperformed the S&P 500 since the funds inception (12/1/82). For full performance statistics visit the fund’s site or view the fact sheet here (opens pdf file)

The fund’s “portfolio structure” shows the Target Percentages for the Permanent Portfolio:

Gold 20%
Silver 5%
Swiss Franc Assets 10%
U.S. and Foreign Real Estate and Natural Resource Stocks 15%
Aggressive Growth Stocks 15%
U.S. Treasury Bills, Bonds and Other Dollar Assets 35%

This portfolio structure helps explain the fund’s performance in recent years as Gold, Silver, and US Treasuries have performed relatively well.  According to the fund’s fact sheet the top 10 holdings, as of 12/31/11, were:

Gold Coins 13.88%
Cash and Cash Equivalents 7.09%
Gold Bullion 5.34%
Swiss Franc Bank Account 5.46%
Silver Bullion 4.08%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 6.00% 2-15-26 1.17%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 6.25% 8-15-23 1.16%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 5.25% 11-15-28 1.12%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 4.50% 2-15-36 1.06%
U.S. Treasury Notes 7.25% 5-15-16 1.04%

I read on World Beta the other day that Global X had filed for a Permanent Portfolio ETF. It will be interesting to see how this new ETF looks once it is launched.  However, an investor could also look at the stated portfolio structure of PRPFX and try to replicate it using ETFs.

Now you can follow me on Stocktwits and Twitter!

I created an “Permanent ETF Portfolio” using ETFReplay.com.  It is not possible to exactly replicate PRPFX, since its holdings change frequently and it holds individual stocks.  However, I did use its stated portfolio structure to create an ETF portfolio with the following allocation:

Ticker Name Allocation
FXF Swiss Franc CurrencyShares 10.00%
GLD SPDR Gold Shares 20.00%
HYG iShares iBoxx High-Yield Corp Bond (4-5yr) 5.00%
IEF iShares Barclays 7-10 Yr Treasury (7-8yr) 5.00%
IGE iShares S&P N. Amer Nat. Resources 5.00%
VUG Vanguard MSCI U.S. LargeCap Growth 7.50%
IWO iShares Russell 2000 Growth 7.50%
LQD iShares iBoxx Invest Grade Bond (7-8yr) 5.00%
RWX SPDR DJ International Real Estate 5.00%
SHY Barclays Low Duration Treasury (2-yr) 5.00%
SLV iShares Silver Trust 5.00%
TIP iShares Barclays TIPS (4-8yr) 10.00%
TLT iShares Barclays Long-Term Trsry (15-17yr) 5.00%
VNQ Vanguard MSCI U.S. REIT 5.00%

I then tested this portfolio as a buy and hold portfolio since 1/1/2008.  Any backtest using ETFs is limited by the trading history of the ETFs themselves; thus, I started this backtest in 2008 since some of the ETFs listed began trading in 2007.  It is difficult to draw significant long-term conclusions from such a short test, but it is interesting to compare the results to PRPFX. The results from 1/2/08 – 2/2/12

A then ran a 3 year test from 12/31/08 – 12/30/11.  The 3 year return statistics are similar when compared to the data provided on the fact sheet for PRPFX which showed a 3-year return before taxes of 13.21%:

 

I then decided to add a twist to my hypothetical “Permanent ETF Portfolio”. What if, like some of my other momentum and tactical portfolios, we only held the ETFs in the portfolio when they were above their 10 month moving average?  My expectation was that the portfolio drawdown and volatility would be reduced, since the “Permanent ETF Portfolio” had a drawdown of -26.52% (still significantly better than SPY’s 51.88% over the same period) and volatility of 12.1%.

When an ETF in the portfolio was below its 10 month moving average at month-end, the position was sold and held in “cash” (SHY was used as the cash position). When it closed the month above its 10 month moving average, the ETF was purchased at the stated allocation. This is a similar strategy to that used in Faber’s Ivy Portfolio. The results for this added test, for 2008-2011, are below:

 

Note: HYG was excluded from the first month of this test (January 2008) since it did not have sufficient trading history to generate a 10 month moving average until the following month.

As you can see, returns were similar to our previous test but volatility and drawdown both decreased.  The strategy returned a modest 7.9% annually but did so at 8.1% volatility and a max drawdown of -9.2%. It also posted a 1.8% return in 2008, when SPY returned -36.8%. However, during SPY’s bull run of 2009 when it returned 26.4%, this Permanent ETF Portfolio returned a modest 10.7%.

Please note all results are hypothetical and commissions and taxes were not included in the results. No positions in securities mentioned

Follow me on  Twitter!
Like what you read? Consider a Paypal donation.

Disclaimer: Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author is not a financial adviser. Stock Loon LLC, Scott's Investments and its author does not offer recommendations or personal investment advice to any specific person for any particular purpose. Please consult your own investment adviser and do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions. Please read the full disclaimer at the bottom of www.scottsinvestments.com