ray lucia refined strategy

[Nords]

Originally Posted by sgeeeee

or 10 buckets.

Careful... Ray may already have copyrighted that phrase for his blockbuster third book "Ten Little Buckets"...

[sgeeeee]

Originally Posted by Nords

Careful... Ray may already have copyrighted that phrase for his blockbuster third book "Ten Little Buckets"...

I heard the next book was going to move away from the bucket term. I think the new title was about a "Steaming Croc of Something".

[HFWR]

Don't make me post Mr. Creosote again... :P

[bosco]

Originally Posted by sgeeeee

So . . . if you want to know if the 3 bucket method offers any advantage, you have to establish formal rebalance rules. Once you've done this, you could concievably back-test those rules using a historical data base.

I seriously doubt that Lucia will ever establish anything resembling back-testable rules. That would remove the ambiguity mystery from his product. Definitive, verifiable rules would basically remove the emporer's clothes.

[sgeeeee]

Originally Posted by bosco

I seriously doubt that Lucia will ever establish anything resembling back-testable rules. That would remove the ambiguity mystery from his product. Definitive, verifiable rules would basically remove the emporer's clothes.

Yes. I think you are correct.

Some of the problems with the 3 bucket model:

Why 3 buckets? Why not 2? or 4? It seems to me that a 2-bucket model might be more reasonable. As I've mentioned, this is basically a bond ladder approach. Although the bond ladder approach sounds pretty reasonable, I've never seen a detailed simulation that proves it would have always worked better than strict asset allocation. I've also never seen a rigid set of rules applied to when and how to rebalance a bond ladder. Until I've seen a reasonable proof that the 2-bucket approach is superior to asset allocation, I hesitate to accept that adding another bucket helps.

The only way a bucket model varies from basic asset allocation and rebalance approaches if if you choose to change your rebalance targets based on market performance -- dynamic asset allocation. Such a rebalance approach has another name -- market timing. While some people may be successful timing the market, most are not. As far as we know, no one has been able to derive a formula that works consistently, long term to beat the market. If a bucket model algorithm exists that accomplishes this, why hasn't someone published and presented this long ago? Do we really believe that Ray has discovered the holy grail?

[Nords]

Originally Posted by bosco

I seriously doubt that Lucia will ever establish anything resembling back-testable rules. That would remove the ambiguity mystery from his product. Definitive, verifiable rules would basically remove the emporer's clothes.

Place your pre-orders now for his blockbuster investing sequels:
"How I Made $2,000,000 in Buckets",
"Rich Bucket, Poor Bucket",
"The Only Bucket Guide You'll Ever Need",
"The Bucket-Head's Guide to Investing",
"The Four Pillars of Buckets", and, of course,

"The Intelligent Bucket Allocator".

I'm sure the FCC is watching his radio show closely in case he slips up and says "Aw, bucket all."

[mathjak107]

i like the 10 little ,9 little, 8 little buckets.......

[donheff]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

i like the 10 little ,9 little, 8 little buckets.......

It feels like waking up after binge drinking (the bucket koolaid). Suddenly none of it makes any sense

And then I read about the pie shop on another thread and remember that I already decided thats how I would do my allocations.