Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-07-2021, 09:38 PM   #81
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markola View Post
See, now y’all have made me pull up Portfolio Visualizer to show that, as far back as that site’s data go, rebalancing or not rebalancing doesn’t make hardly a dime’s worth of difference.

Blue line is a 60/40 portfolio that’s never rebalanced. Red line is a 60/40 balanced mutual fund that rebalances practically daily.

[ATTACH]
Currently, and very recently, stocks are on a run, but that could reverse the two lines back to even at any moment.
I guess I am confused and don't really understand the charts. In an up market, wouldn't an unbalanced 60/40 become say 70/30, and at any point in time, the graph would be above the daily rebalanced portfolio.
RetiredHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-08-2021, 08:24 AM   #82
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 3,274
^^^^^ But that’s exactly what it does if you expand the chart a bit. The unbalanced portfolio becomes stock-bloated, periodically, causing it to crash harder during the next, inevitable downturn than the daily-balanced one. Over time, the two investors end up in the same place, though the one who never rebalances endures more volatility en-route. Investors who rebalance quarterly, yearly, randomly or using rebalance bands end up somewhere between the two, also making no difference in their long-term returns.
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 08:26 AM   #83
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead Jim View Post
^^^
Without rebalancing, you could end up with a very high percentage in equities when you are 80 years old. If the market takes a big drop, or a long decline; what are the odds you would live long enough to see you equities regain their value?

I rebalance for that reason, though I'm not yet that old.

This ignores that your overall balance might be higher after a big drop because you never rebalanced. In that case, what value do you need to regain?
__________________
Eat, Drink and Be Merry.
tulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 08:35 AM   #84
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GTFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,404
One other thing to consider is asset placement. In our portfolio I now have 100% of equities in our taxable accounts and 100% of bonds in tax-advantaged. This has happened over time as I've rebalanced within the 401k/IRAs to increase bonds to stay (roughly) around 60/40. But now I've run out of ways to increase bonds without buying them in the taxable accounts, and for me that means we would have interest gains I don't want (for ACA purposes) in the taxable accounts. It's probably not as big a deal now with the low interest rates, but I've always wanted to keep bonds within tax-advantaged.

So bottom line is that I'm going to let it ride as-is for a while, and accept that the equities % is going to go higher. Given that our portfolio has risen to the point where even a 50% drop in the market doesn't impact how we live, I can live with that risk. And if it crashes worse than that we're all in a world of hurt, IMO.
GTFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 08:56 AM   #85
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: claremont
Posts: 420
The other way to do this is to use tax loss harvesting to reduce concentrated positions. I just read a rather complicated explanation about using Canvas, and a deliberate allocation to wildly volatile small and micro caps. The program did enough rebalances to generate tax losses to transform a single stock portfolio (hyper concentrated due to IPO) to a diversified worldwide portfolio, without taxable gains and without losing value over 2020. Doing this inside a taxable portfolio that was essentially 100% cap gains was quite a coup.

https://canvas.osam.com/Commentary/B...d-stock-puzzle

This is a software trading only approach, plus correlation analysis. Not free. But a plausible approach to de-risking a concentrated portfolio without the tax hit.
indiajust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 09:19 AM   #86
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markola View Post
See, now y’all have made me pull up Portfolio Visualizer to show that, as far back as that site’s data go, rebalancing or not rebalancing doesn’t make hardly a dime’s worth of difference.

Blue line is a 60/40 portfolio that’s never rebalanced. Red line is a 60/40 balanced mutual fund that rebalances practically daily.

[ATTACH]
Currently, and very recently, stocks are on a run, but that could reverse the two lines back to even at any moment.
Well then the answer is obviously to rebalance -one ends up with the same amount of money but with less volatility whats not to like?
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 11:28 AM   #87
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Chicago West Burbs
Posts: 2,355
Anyone who looks at the end of that graph and says they are both virtually the same, please send me that extra $1.5+ million that is the "same" as the balanced fund on to me. The graph is deceiving being a logarithmic scale, Of course, there are periods where the balanced MF exceeds the untouched one. It is cherry picking to look at any one particular point on the graph without looking at the whole including the end data. I like the untouched version myself. It takes no quarterly, or annual extra work. Just sit and watch.
CRLLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 11:56 AM   #88
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS View Post
Anyone who looks at the end of that graph and says they are both virtually the same, please send me that extra $1.5+ million that is the "same" as the balanced fund on to me. The graph is deceiving being a logarithmic scale, Of course, there are periods where the balanced MF exceeds the untouched one. It is cherry picking to look at any one particular point on the graph without looking at the whole including the end data. I like the untouched version myself. It takes no quarterly, or annual extra work. Just sit and watch.
This only makes sense...in a world where equities tend to outperform bonds, a portfolio with more equities will do better.

Of course, that isn't true over every time period, and the future may not look like the past.
mrfeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 12:15 PM   #89
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 3,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejman View Post
Well then the answer is obviously to rebalance -one ends up with the same amount of money but with less volatility whats not to like?

That’s what I think and do, but all of my assets are shielded in tax advantaged accounts. It was also probably a bigger decision in the days when trading fees were higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS View Post
Anyone who looks at the end of that graph and says they are both virtually the same, please send me that extra $1.5+ million that is the "same" as the balanced fund on to me. .

How about if we agree to these terms at the trough of the next stock plunge?
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 02:11 PM   #90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Chicago West Burbs
Posts: 2,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markola View Post
That’s what I think and do, but all of my assets are shielded in tax advantaged accounts. It was also probably a bigger decision in the days when trading fees were higher.




How about if we agree to these terms at the trough of the next stock plunge?
I do believe that I covered that later in my post:

Quote:
Of course, there are periods where the balanced MF exceeds the untouched one. It is cherry picking to look at any one particular point on the graph without looking at the whole including the end data.
Either by using the end balance in the table shown or your proposal of checking back when the market is down, is timing the market IMO. I don't try to do that. Most of us here do not either from reading many of their posts.
CRLLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 03:30 PM   #91
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowballCamper View Post
The question few ask or answer is, "Risk of what?"
I think the risks AA & rebalancing are designed to address are:

1) The risk of emotions triggering bad trading decisions (loss aversion, FOMO)

2) The risk of over-confidence triggering bad trading decisions (Market timing, concentration risk)

I think smart people have tried to analyze the drag these risky behaviours create on long term portfolio performance, but don't ask me for citations.
__________________
Luck is when Preparation meets Opportunity.
Closet_Gamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 09:00 PM   #92
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 3,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS View Post





Either by using the end balance in the table shown or your proposal of checking back when the market is down, is timing the market IMO. I don't try to do that. Most of us here do not either from reading many of their posts.


You wanted to use the end of the graph as the reference point, not me, so I guess you’re the market timer, The point I made, I think soundly, was the similarity of returns over 40 years between rebalancing vs. not rebalancing.
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2021, 09:22 PM   #93
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
street's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 6,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead Jim View Post
^^^
Without rebalancing, you could end up with a very high percentage in equities when you are 80 years old. If the market takes a big drop, or a long decline; what are the odds you would live long enough to see you equities regain their value?

I rebalance for that reason, though I'm not yet that old.
I believe that is a good possibility of that happening. I guess then the positive in that is, that our RMD will be smaller and can reinvest when things are on sale.

After 40 years being in the market I started with a ~74% equity funds and today without me doing any rebalancing my equity funds are at ~78%. That has been doing nothing. At this point in my life that is where I want to be and don't feel the need to shave it back. If I feel later in life that I want to cut that back then I will.
street is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2021, 05:52 AM   #94
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS View Post
Anyone who looks at the end of that graph and says they are both virtually the same, please send me that extra $1.5+ million that is the "same" as the balanced fund on to me. The graph is deceiving being a logarithmic scale, Of course, there are periods where the balanced MF exceeds the untouched one. It is cherry picking to look at any one particular point on the graph without looking at the whole including the end data. I like the untouched version myself. It takes no quarterly, or annual extra work. Just sit and watch.
But it's a "cheat"...or an illusion..or a delusion. You've said you want 60% equities (or whatever) then allow it to go higher and higher citing the higher returns. Why not just go 100% equities at the start and be done with it?

Rebalancing at a set, predetermined point also eliminates the possibility of using that event as a way to time the market.

Either you have a plan with a particular asset allocation or you don't - you can't have it both ways. Or you "can" but you're not being as self-disciplined as you think you are.
reneeh63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2021, 07:07 AM   #95
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Chicago West Burbs
Posts: 2,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
But it's a "cheat"...or an illusion..or a delusion. You've said you want 60% equities (or whatever) then allow it to go higher and higher citing the higher returns. Why not just go 100% equities at the start and be done with it?

Rebalancing at a set, predetermined point also eliminates the possibility of using that event as a way to time the market.

Either you have a plan with a particular asset allocation or you don't - you can't have it both ways. Or you "can" but you're not being as self-disciplined as you think you are.
Well, It is not my choice for using a 60/40 portfolio for comparison, It was Markola's choice he used in his graph in post #80. When I mentioned my Fido analysis back in post #20, he used whatever AA I had at the time.

WRT either I do or I don't, I believe I have already addressed that in:
Quote:
I like the untouched version myself. It takes no quarterly, or annual extra work. Just sit and watch.
meaning I am not focused on AA. I did started out blindly years ago with some AA (probably 60/40) but thru years of not rebalancing I am way off that now. I'm perfectly OK with that. I know that goes against most conventional wisdom. For those with a target AA, I don't believe that everyone of them starts out with an AA and rebalance range and keeps that throughout their lives. Situations change as we get older, knowledge changes, perspective changes, goals change etc. I just have taken that to the extreme. To put it in the different terms, consider my plan is a 60% equities starting AA with a +/- 40% rebalance trigger.
CRLLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2021, 11:12 AM   #96
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS View Post
Well, It is not my choice for using a 60/40 portfolio for comparison, It was Markola's choice he used in his graph in post #80. When I mentioned my Fido analysis back in post #20, he used whatever AA I had at the time.

WRT either I do or I don't, I believe I have already addressed that in:

meaning I am not focused on AA. I did started out blindly years ago with some AA (probably 60/40) but thru years of not rebalancing I am way off that now. I'm perfectly OK with that. I know that goes against most conventional wisdom. For those with a target AA, I don't believe that everyone of them starts out with an AA and rebalance range and keeps that throughout their lives. Situations change as we get older, knowledge changes, perspective changes, goals change etc. I just have taken that to the extreme. To put it in the different terms, consider my plan is a 60% equities starting AA with a +/- 40% rebalance trigger.
The percentage is not important - it is the setting of the percentage based on your objectives and risk tolerance. The rebalancing is a confirmation that your strategy still holds so that rather than "falling into" a higher equities allocation you make a conscious decision.

Changing the allocation is great if your objectives and tolerance for risk have changed - no one ever said that what you wanted at age 20 should hold for when you're 60. If your situation has changed, why not just MAKE the necessary change to your portfolio rather than relying on the meandering market to eventually do it for you?

Maybe you think you're "staying the course" with a completely hands off strategy but the actual consequence is that by failing to take action your strategy has changed. This is what seems a bit disingenuous.
reneeh63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should you rebalance your retirement portfolio nun FIRE and Money 17 05-16-2011 07:43 PM
Poll: How often do you rebalance your portfolio? Lusitan FIRE and Money 7 05-06-2006 11:51 AM
When does FireCalc 'rebalance' ?............... Cut-Throat FIRE and Money 3 04-07-2006 11:26 AM
How Often to Rebalance Portfolio? Gearhead Jim FIRE and Money 7 10-22-2005 09:06 AM
How to rebalance with tax-deferred accounts? soupcxan FIRE and Money 6 11-22-2004 03:06 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.