Canadian Money Forum banner

381 - 400 of 428 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #381 (Edited)
How do you handle the cash portion of the Permanent Portfolio? Is there a way to earn a little interest without taking on risk and be able to cash out at any time? I keep some of my cash in a GIC, but transferring from the bank's GIC to an online broker often takes days, and there is a risk of missing out on buying shares.
I do this differently than other people. I have my cash buffer (pure HISA) separated, and don't count it as an investment at all. Not part of PP.

Then, inside the PP, I lump together cash + long term bonds into a single XBB holding. This actually doesn't modify the PP much because the average maturity between cash (0 years) and long term bonds (20 years) is in fact 10 years, which is XBB.

Stated another way, XBB = ZFS + ZFL [ignoring the difference in credit quality]

One implementation is
25% ZFS, the BMO short term bonds
25% ZFL
25% stocks
25% gold

And an equivalent implementation (ignoring the addition of corp bonds) is
50% XBB
25% stocks
25% gold

For me, the second form has been easier. In my RRSP, then I can hold just that big XBB position. This does, however, add credit risk due to the corporate exposure and my portfolio crashed a bit in March, whereas the ZFS/ZFL version would not have crashed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
For me, the second form has been easier. In my RRSP, then I can hold just that big XBB position. This does, however, add credit risk due to the corporate exposure and my portfolio crashed a bit in March, whereas the ZFS/ZFL version would not have crashed.
Bah, XBB just dipped a bit in March... Look at a 50/50 ZFS/ZFL against 100% XBB and you'll see that ZFS/ZFL went underwater around -5% to -6% from 2017 to 2019 while XBB was underwater around -2% to -3% during the same period. Meanwhile, you've also had a better performance with XBB. It's also more liquid and very inexpensive.

I'd prefer an investment going underwater by -15% for 2 weeks than an investment going underwater by -5% for 2 years. But that's me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I do this differently than other people. I have my cash buffer (pure HISA) separated, and don't count it as an investment at all. Not part of PP.

Then, inside the PP, I lump together cash + long term bonds into a single XBB holding. This actually doesn't modify the PP much because the average maturity between cash (0 years) and long term bonds (20 years) is in fact 10 years, which is XBB.

Stated another way, XBB = ZFS + ZFL [ignoring the difference in credit quality]

One implementation is
25% ZFS, the BMO short term bonds
25% ZFL
25% stocks
25% gold

And an equivalent implementation (ignoring the addition of corp bonds) is
50% XBB
25% stocks
25% gold

For me, the second form has been easier. In my RRSP, then I can hold just that big XBB position. This does, however, add credit risk due to the corporate exposure and my portfolio crashed a bit in March, whereas the ZFS/ZFL version would not have crashed.
To my understanding, the cash acts 3 functions in a HBPP:
1) a stablizer of the portfolio especially during certain economic conditions e.g. tight money recession(IMO, not very likely in near future);
2) a buffer during peroid of uncertainty (may or may not including emergency living expenses);
3) to buy other assets that have fallen in value.

The goal is to make sure it is always there when you need it. Therefore, it has to be absolutely safe and stable.

I think your XBB approach may serve 1) & 2) since you have cash buffer separated. But how about 3)? Would you put extra money from cash buffer to buy dip of other assets or have to sell some assets within PP first?

In terms of Cash Risks, below is a table from the book <Permanent Portfolio> by Craig Rowland. Currently, I put my cash in Bank CD/GIC and split them in different banks to avoid default risk beyond FDIC insurance limit.

20633


In this book, the author suggested T-Bills as the best way to put cash. But, the interest rate and T-Bill yields are as low as zero now. I am not sure if this is a wise decision. Putting it in GIC, I can still earn ~2% per year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts
For my cash portion I am using CLF. It’s a 1-5 ladder govt bonds, maturity/duration is 3+, so not much rate risk, credit rating is AA (govt), so not much for default risk, and 12mo yield is 2.2%

It took a small loss during the implosion, but bounced back right away.

lots of brokers let you buy/sell this fund for free.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #385 (Edited)
To my understanding, the cash acts 3 functions in a HBPP:
1) a stablizer of the portfolio especially during certain economic conditions e.g. tight money recession(IMO, not very likely in near future);
2) a buffer during peroid of uncertainty (may or may not including emergency living expenses);
3) to buy other assets that have fallen in value.
. . .
I think your XBB approach may serve 1) & 2) since you have cash buffer separated. But how about 3)? Would you put extra money from cash buffer to buy dip of other assets or have to sell some assets within PP first?
I think the single 50% weight bond weight (like XBB) does satisfy these. The way (3) works is by periodic rebalancing. One sells whatever is overweight in the portfolio and buys whatever is underweight. Here, you'd have to sell something within the PP.

If stocks crashed, XBB or gold would end up above the target allocation weight. At rebalancing time (once or twice a year) you would sell some XBB or gold and buy stocks. This is what happens in traditional asset allocation with a bond fund as well, for example 50/50 or 60/40. You sell bonds, buy stocks.

I can show that the two versions I gave in #381 have given equivalent results. I'll use US data because it goes back much further. Link to the back-test in Portfolio Visualizer

Portfolio 1 is the 'proper' PP which separates cash and long term treasuries. Explicit cash, as you are currently doing. Portfolio 2 applies the simplification I discussed, collapsing cash and bonds into a single generic bond fund of a medium term. Here I used IEF which is similar to XGB (pure govt). As noted before, XBB adds corporate exposure, but I like it because of the super low MER and incredibly long track record.

You can see that over 15 years, those two portfolios had virtually the same behaviour. The stats and chart are about the same. That means that although Portfolio 1 was able to use cash to buy depressed assets, and Portfolio 2 sold bonds to buy depressed assets, the result was about the same.

Yes you would think that explicitly having cash separated out would be an advantage, but apparently lumping them together works about as well.

Hmm... but we could have a scenario where stocks crash and bonds are simultaneously very weak. If that were to happen, then the explicit cash version could give superior results instead.

This happened in the 1970s, and here's a link to that backtest for the two PP versions. You can now see that the Portfolio 1 (using cash) has a superior return, outperforming from 1978-1981. But add a few more years and they bounce back to equal performance.

In summary: strictly speaking, the separated cash version is safer and does better during periods of bond market turmoil. However, over the longer term (for the 42 years of data available) they give similar performance.

Faced with ^ that tradeoff, I decided that the benefit of dealing with fewer holdings was worth it. I previously struggled with doing the "cash" part, and this 50% XBB solved that for me. Fewer ETFs, fewer rebalancing trades, and less work overall. I guess the one problem of this method is those bad years in bonds like the 1970s so I might experience worse drawdowns than the ideal PP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I think the single 50% weight bond weight (like XBB) does satisfy these. The way (3) works is by periodic rebalancing. One sells whatever is overweight in the portfolio and buys whatever is underweight. Here, you'd have to sell something within the PP.

If stocks crashed, XBB or gold would end up above the target allocation weight. At rebalancing time (once or twice a year) you would sell some XBB or gold and buy stocks. This is what happens in traditional asset allocation with a bond fund as well, for example 50/50 or 60/40. You sell bonds, buy stocks.

I can show that the two versions I gave in #381 have given equivalent results. I'll use US data because it goes back much further. Link to the back-test in Portfolio Visualizer

Portfolio 1 is the 'proper' PP which separates cash and long term treasuries. Explicit cash, as you are currently doing. Portfolio 2 applies the simplification I discussed, collapsing cash and bonds into a single generic bond fund of a medium term. Here I used IEF which is similar to XGB (pure govt). As noted before, XBB adds corporate exposure, but I like it because of the super low MER and incredibly long track record.

You can see that over 15 years, those two portfolios had virtually the same behaviour. The stats and chart are about the same. That means that although Portfolio 1 was able to use cash to buy depressed assets, and Portfolio 2 sold bonds to buy depressed assets, the result was about the same.

Yes you would think that explicitly having cash separated out would be an advantage, but apparently lumping them together works about as well.

Hmm... but we could have a scenario where stocks crash and bonds are simultaneously very weak. If that were to happen, then the explicit cash version could give superior results instead.

This happened in the 1970s, and here's a link to that backtest for the two PP versions. You can now see that the Portfolio 1 (using cash) has a superior return, outperforming from 1978-1981. But add a few more years and they bounce back to equal performance.

In summary: strictly speaking, the separated cash version is safer and does better during periods of bond market turmoil. However, over the longer term (for the 42 years of data available) they give similar performance.

Faced with ^ that tradeoff, I decided that the benefit of dealing with fewer holdings was worth it. I previously struggled with doing the "cash" part, and this 50% XBB solved that for me. Fewer ETFs, fewer rebalancing trades, and less work overall. I guess the one problem of this method is those bad years in bonds like the 1970s so I might experience worse drawdowns than the ideal PP.
What if I put Cash in a redeemable GIC and earn 2% annualized interest? Will that lift the return of Portfolio 1 a little bit?

The other thing is tax implication. Maybe it's unique to people like me, I have a very limited TFSA account and no RRSP yet. All my investments are in non-registered accounts now. I am paying taxes for all the interests/dividends already. If I have to sell bonds/gold to buy depressed stock, high capital gain tax may apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #387
What if I put Cash in a redeemable GIC and earn 2% annualized interest? Will that lift the return of Portfolio 1 a little bit?
But then you lose the ability to rebalance when needed by using liquid cash to buy whatever asset has dropped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #388
What if I put Cash in a redeemable GIC and earn 2% annualized interest?
I missed the word "redeemable". That's an interesting idea. So then you'd have, in most circumstances, the GIC yield. But in the rare occasion where some asset crashes and you could benefit from cash, I suppose you would do an early redemption and get the cash out? Is that what you're thinking?

You should look into the penalty for early redemption but I think I saw a credit union where the penalty just retroactively cancels the 2% rate and applies a near zero rate instead, which would be fine. So if you really need cash, it retroactively becomes cash. If you go the whole term (perhaps 1 or 2 years) without needing cash, then it's a GIC.

This is an interesting idea :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Yes, that's what I am thinking. I managed to get a 1-year redeemable GIC with RBC which I can do early & partial redemption without any penalty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
The past 3 months were not good for PP with a drop for >3%. While I continued to convert my high portion of Cash(from 50% at the end of July to 39% now) into PP, I only bought bunch of CGL.C and ZFL along the way because I thought the stock market is at very high valuation and risky. Until recently, I realized that I made mistakes.

1) It's a kind of time-the-market to think CGL.C or ZFL will go up;
2) It's a personal bias to think Stock is more over-valued/risky than Gold and Bonds;

This reminds me of one of the quotes from the PP book saying "Only buying the whole PP provides maximum protection". There're things that can't be taught but can only be learned, at a price.

20780
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #391
The past 3 months were not good for PP with a drop for >3%.
No portfolio goes straight up. The permanent portfolio has rallied nearly without pause from November 2018 to July 2020 and I kept waiting for some hiccup. That was a really crazy period of gains.

In a moment, I'm about to make new purchases as I add more to my RRSP (which follows a PP-like allocation).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
No portfolio goes straight up. The permanent portfolio has rallied nearly without pause from November 2018 to July 2020 and I kept waiting for some hiccup. That was a really crazy period of gains.

In a moment, I'm about to make new purchases as I add more to my RRSP (which follows a PP-like allocation).
Yes, a certain period of recorrection should not be a surprise after this long rally. I am planning to finish my PP allocation in the following 1-2 months. This time, I'll buy each part equally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #393 (Edited)
Yes, a certain period of recorrection should not be a surprise after this long rally. I am planning to finish my PP allocation in the following 1-2 months. This time, I'll buy each part equally.
My strategy both as I add and remove money has been to buy/sell whatever is needed to get as close to my target allocations as possible. I find this helps me avoid making predictions on the direction and removes all "discretion". It also automatically achieves 'buy low'.

I added a chunk of money today (link), but I was already overweight on gold since it has performed so well. When I calculated the necessary purchases to get to my allocation targets, I found that I was not supposed to buy any gold. Instead, I only ended buying stocks and bonds, and a larger purchase of Canadian stocks because they have been relatively weak.

When I add money like this, I don't sell any existing positions because that would be inefficient. The goal is to figure out what I have to buy to get as close as possible to my asset allocation target allocations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
[QUOTE="james4beach, post: 2108052, member: 5391
When I add money like this, I don't sell any existing positions because that would be inefficient. The goal is to figure out what I have to buy to get as close as possible to my asset allocation target allocations.
[/QUOTE]

1 - so this mean that you increase the overall size of your PP, since you don't sell anything when you rebalance?
2 - and if you are adding to your RRSP funds this means you do not automatically maximise them every year?
Lots of good things you suggest - just want to make sure I understand correctly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #395
1 - so this mean that you increase the overall size of your PP, since you don't sell anything when you rebalance?
2 - and if you are adding to your RRSP funds this means you do not automatically maximise them every year?
Lots of good things you suggest - just want to make sure I understand correctly.
Happy to clarify...

1. Yes so far I have only added to my RRSP money over the years and have never withdrawn, so it keeps increasing the overall size of my portfolio. I'm basically using the new money (additions) to accomplish rebalancing. Sometimes this means it's kind of approximate.

If I stopped adding new money, then I would do some selling to rebalance. I just don't see the need as long as new money comes in.

2. That's right, I don't automatically maximize my RRSP. My income changes a lot from year to year, and I also moved between countries, which added special complications

Perhaps I should also mention that I have other accounts, also following the PP, and have withdrawn money from those. When I make those withdrawals I follow the same strategy and sell whatever is needed to get [closer] to my target allocation weights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #397
Thx for your clear reply. If you are still adding to your RRSP (which most people do!) then what you describe makes sense.
Yup, I'm about 40 years away from retirement.

Nothing wrong with selling to rebalance though. If I didn't have any money entering or leaving the account, I would rebalance by selling & buying as needed.

Historically speaking the PP has picked up a performance boost through annual rebalancing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
@james4beach I can't stop thinking that most of the assets are all at relative high valuation now. Therefore, I tend to invest gradually, sort of moving with caution. Do you think "dollar-cost-average" investing into PP is also a kind of time-the-market?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #399
@james4beach I can't stop thinking that most of the assets are all at relative high valuation now. Therefore, I tend to invest gradually, sort of moving with caution. Do you think "dollar-cost-average" investing into PP is also a kind of time-the-market?
No harm deploying funds slowly and dollar cost averaging seems fine to me. I didn't make all my RRSP contributions today. I plan to make another large contribution a few months from now.

By the way, I've thought everything is overvalued since the late 1990s. So I've been saying "everything is really expensive" since the day I started investing. Maybe it really has been though :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
No harm deploying funds slowly and dollar cost averaging seems fine to me. I didn't make all my RRSP contributions today. I plan to make another large contribution a few months from now.

By the way, I've thought everything is overvalued since the late 1990s. So I've been saying "everything is really expensive" since the day I started investing. Maybe it really has been though :)
Yes, indeed. Maybe the expected return of most assets will be lower in the upcoming years. At least it's better than holding on to cash and waiting for it to depreciate.
 
381 - 400 of 428 Posts
Top