Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi Doug
Consider including comparisons to constant weighted as well, 50/50 (or 80/20) yearly rebalanced back to 50/50 (80/20).
Where AIM shines is in its guidance against human nature. Left to your own and often investors will not profit take when high due to greed, nor buy when low due to fear. Comparing using AIM with not using AIM and after a few rounds of AIM having said 'I told you so' ... that's where its real benefit lies.
I recall AIM shouting BUY BUY! at/near the 2009 lows ... whilst on many other boards there were those capitulating out of stocks in fear of compounding the great 'losses' they'd already endured. I believe research shows that 'average' investors on average lag the 'average' by 2% annualised due to such bad behaviour. Obviously someone taking the counter side of such actions stands to benefit by 2% annualised (assuming like for like opposite trading).
Compared mathematically and as a broad average ... not much difference apparent. Its the in practice where the difference becomes much more evident.
Regards. Clive.
Hi Doug. I'm going to shamefully (but I might add, not without discomfort) play devils advocate here (if you use NoScript then you'll have to deactivate it to correctly view that web link content)
A point of note is that bonds achieved 5.3% annualised over that period whereas your AIM used a 2% assumed 'cash' rate. I believe your AIM indicates around 32% average cash over the total period (at least for the 2014 spreadsheet version that I have locally stored), so that's around a 1% annualised 'understatement' of AIM's rewards compared to 50/50. i.e. 2% x 0.32 versus 5.3% x 0.32 As-is comparing that web link to your own AIM results sees comparable total rewards, at least to the end of July 2016.
In fairness (i.e. factoring in higher bond returns than what you accounted for) AIM was better than 50/50 initial buy and hold, but it was less better than 50/50 yearly rebalanced. Much of that additional AIM benefit arose out of moving deeply into stocks, light on cash during the 2008/9 financial crisis. Down to around 6% cash reserve remaining at the 2009 lows. Nicely 'timed', but I recall all too well myself considerable concern at such low cash levels at that time. Had things continued on downwards from there !!! By contrast 50/50 is the more comfortable of the two. The more aggressive stance taken by AIM can yield higher rewards, as indeed is apparent in your spreadsheets case. Whether that extra volatility/risk warrants the higher reward ??? I think Robert Lichello came to understand that in later years and hence moved to 80/20 as, if you're going to be up at that or higher stock weightings at the lows anyway, might as well maintain that sort of risk exposure level at other times as well.
Please take this as intended - as constructive criticism. Your web pages are great, very well written/constructed, and appreciated. If you were considering extending them however a evaluation of 80/20 (AIM-HI) would IMO be worthwhile. 80/20 is more akin to being 100% stock, but with some 'trading' mixed in that helps reduce risk (portfolio volatility) whilst generally providing similar overall reward. With 80/20 and if stocks drop 30% and cash is expanded by interest and cash dividends, then the ratio might be more like getting on for 30% cash reserves in hand and available to be deployed into stocks.
Thanks again for your updates and sharing.
Regards. Clive.
This might work - dosbox turbo for androids http://android.wonderhowto.com/how-to/play-retro-pc-games-android-with-dosbox-turbo-0155457/
In Debian KDE I've set it up so when I mouse into the top left corner it brings up desktop switcher - a 3D 'model' of your desktops that you can drag around and then mouse back into the top left corner to focus in on the desktop in view.
Placing Newport window off a single screen edge and then switching to desktop view mode ... sees the Newport windows 'bent around' both desktop edges
Once you've installed DOSbox which many systems support (Mac, etc.) then the download runs inside that ... i.e. is a form of virtual dos box. No need for other emulators such as XP virtual machine or whatever.
In Linux (Debian) as easy as a "apt-get install dosbox" command. And with a bit of tweaking you can have it as a desktop/menu icon/entry, so no different to opening up any other program. The only odd thing is that it locks the mouse to the window once you've clicked inside the newport window and have to press Ctrl-F10 to release the mouse. There are ways I believe however to add/configure mouse integration (I can't however outline the details here, as I don't know how to do that myself).
Hi Toofuzzy. In a sense XIV is somewhat like capturing that little bit extra.
Instead of 50/50 stock/bonds, 10/90 XIV/Bonds, that broadly track each other reasonably. Simulating XIV data using 5x daily Dow changes over the 2008/9 financial crisis period indicates that monthly rebalanced 10/90 XIV/cash would have maxDD (maximum drawdown from prior highest peak to lowest point), since mid 2008, drawn down around 25% for both. Which if taken as the additional amount of 'cash' that had to be injected to maintain target weightings still >50% of cash reserves. Given the relatively likelihood of not having to call upon 50% of cash for liquidity it can be invested elsewhere (tied up) for likely higher reward than if potentially needed at any point in time (for liquidity). Or even be used to support other AIM's (loans of sort) when they might be shouting loudly for cash to invest.
That aside and there's little other benefit of using XIV over holding stocks, excepting perhaps costs/taxes, one or the other might be the more 'efficient' holding. A risk is that XIV has to be treated with respect, 10/90 XIV/cash instead of 50/50 stock/cash type mindset, it could however be enticing for some to over-do it (leverage inappropriately).
The previous downloads of Newport are now inaccessible - a little free space (30MB) that the provider of some years has recently ceased to support/provide. So I've uploaded copies to googledrive
DOSBox-Win31-Newport.zip
newport_stock_npt_date.htm
8.7MB zip filesize !!! (Under 21MB when extracted)
I'm running Debian Jessie KDE AMD64 (x86 64 bit Linux) at present, downloaded and extracted the zip file content to a folder (directory), installed DOSBox from the Debian repository (I used Synaptic to search for and install Dosbox) and then ran that DOSBox. Presented with the Z:\> dos prompt and issued commands to mount where the extracted files C sub directory was located, in my case something like
mount c /mnt/sda2/DOSBox-Win31-Newport/C
i.e. I had opted to extract the .zip file content to my /mnt/sda2 (the root level of my second hard disk partition)
and then ...
c:
within the dosbox window to change directory to that c:
and run
windows
to start Newport (i.e. run the windows.bat file)
Clicking in the dosbox window locks the mouse cursor into that dosbox window, using Ctrl-F10 which is supposed to release that captured mouse cursor caused a crash of the Newport session for me, repeating the process but running as root instead and it worked fine i.e. looks like its a issue if run as a 'user' under Debian/linux. i.e. in my case run dosbox using kdesu dosbox
Fundamentally 50/50 is a good broad choice. If stocks do well they float you, if stocks perform poorly bonds float you. Thick or thing, expansion or contraction, likely that will do OK. Vanguard published a paper some time back highlighting the similarities in returns across periods of contraction and expansion for 50/50.
Whether you hold that in practice as a more 'conventional' 50/50, or go along Zvi Bodie type lines (he uses Options for 10x type scaling) ... is a matter of personal choice - whichever is the more cost/tax efficient.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=1985&firstMonth=1&endYear=2016&lastMonth=12&endDate=08%2F10%2F2016&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&showYield=false&reinvestDividends=true&symbol1=XIV&allocation1_1=10&symbol2=SPY&allocation2_2=50&symbol3=BND&allocation3_1=90&allocation3_2=50
PS Zvi Bodie likes 90% inflation bonds, 10% Options (LEAPS), which he considers to be 10x, so in practice he's more of a 100% long stock type position player. But if reviewed once yearly and if you count bonds as being safe, then your maximum single year loss is < 10% in nominal terms (assuming bonds earn a positive yield).
Hi Allen
Once you get your head wrapped around derivations you can toy with different asset allocations that might broadly yield similar reward. Potentially using deviations in those as a indicator of assets that might be relatively cheap/expensive.
Consider for example 50/50 stock/gold barbell. That's like two far extremes with a fulcrum that's like a bond bullet. So instead of 50/50 stock/bond you might hold 75/25 stock/gold to similar effect (75/25 stock/gold does however tend to have higher interim volatility).
Taking that a step further instead of 75% stock, holding 15% XIY/60% bonds is similar ... and instead of 60% bonds perhaps hold 30/30 stock/gold barbell.
Such that 50/50 stock/bond might instead be held as 15% XIV, 30% stock, 55% gold. If the stock pays no dividends, such as BRK-A, then collectively that 15/30/55 XIV/BRK-A/Gold might yield similar reward to 50/50 stock/bond, but with little/no regular income flows that might otherwise have been taxed. And comparing that with a conventional 50/50 along the way might at times indicate when one or the other was relatively cheap/expensive (and by further inspection that might reveal one or another of the individual assets to be 'out-of-kilter' and perhaps actionable (rearrange portfolio to potentially benefit from such deviations)).
Hi Steve
If you held 17% VIXY, 83% S&P500 then that's somewhat like being long stock 83% (SPY) and short stock 5x times 17% (VIXY) = 85% short stock like. Net near neutral. Might as well just held bonds (or thereabouts).
Turning it around and holding XIV instead which benefits from Contango/Cost of Carry, if instead of 50/50 stock/bonds you held 10% XIV (which might be considered 5x leveraged stock = 50% stock like) and 90% bonds then both are 50/50 stock/bond like, but with just 10% XIV your maximum downside assuming bonds to be safe is 10% between rebalance points. I'd suggest that's broadly a better choice overall than using VIXY
A more conservative investor open to 30/70 stock/bond, might instead hold 6% XIV, 94% bonds and if rebalanced perhaps once yearly, and assuming bonds earned something, say 3%, then the potential worst year might be something around a -3% loss, whilst broadly rewarding of the order of a 30/70 stock/bond like return. That said note that that 6/94 XIV/BND example link indicates a -4.38% max drawdown since 2011 (worst calendar year -0.5%)
Also note that my 5x like assumption is just a personal historical observational thing. Fitted in the past (and has continued to do so since I made the observation a couple/few years back).
Regards. Clive.
Of the two XIV (inverse VIX) is more correlated to stocks. Like a massively leveraged (typically around 5x) form. If you look at where the Wilshire blipped up or down a little on your chart, you'll see that XIV tended to be a amplified version of those moves.
Whilst VIXY isn't leveraged, it behaves as though it is, around 5x times or so. And has a tendency to be more like a 5x leveraged short stock. That said, when stocks dive quickly so the VIX will rise quickly, such that it is a short term hedge (similar perhaps if you'd held a 5x short stock position at a time when stocks were diving). Of the two, XIV (inverse VIX) is more like long stock, better for buy and hold, but a massively leveraged case - 20% in that 80% cash is more like a 1x stock type exposure.
RE: Long VIX vs short VIX
Zvi Bodie approximates Options on the SPY as being around 10x type exposure. On page 18 of this PDF
Most people are dissuaded from using leveraged products. There tends to be considerable hostility if you even just mention the name to many. In the US they're (SEC) tightening up on them even further, limiting to 1.5x but where some may still be able to maintain their 2x products with a bit of hoop jumping. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-11/leveraged-etfs-face-sec-squeeze-in-plan-to-rein-in-derivatives
Some of that has been reflected over here in the UK. Some time back when I went to trade a LETF with one broker I had to go through a online questionnaire and disclaimer type process to 'prove' I was a 'sophisticated investor' that was aware of the risks ... in order to reduce some of the LETF holdings I already held!!!
Sooner or later I suspect they might fade from being available to retail investors. Which would be a shame as used sensibly and they are another means to diversify. And would be daft considering that alternatives such as Options, Futures, Spreadbets ...etc cater for far more leverage potential.
Hi Allen
Nothing in particular. I just liked that search engine and how it spelt things out and corrected typing errors :) Thought I'd share it.
I like to do a AIM search once in a while just to see if anything new is on the block.
I like to run one of these every now and then http://tinyurl.com/hn4oown :)
RE: Leveraged ETF's
As good a time as any, provided you use them appropriately. Half in 2x S&P500, half in 3 month T-Bills during the 2008/9 decline http://tinyurl.com/h9mcn5r (compared to SPY).
Do you think you can better T-Bill returns? Hmm! then if so !!!
Need to rebalance periodically to realign back to 50/50 weightings to keep things more aligned to 100% 1x. But you have the added benefit that 'cash' can be left as-is - enabling it to be 'locked up' for longer terms and likely earn a higher return in the process.
Consider if you have 60% stock exposure target and hold that as 20% 1x, 20% 2x paired with 20% cash and a further 40% in cash. Combined 20% 1x, 20% 2x, 60% cash. If AIM of whatever indicates buy $D more stock then sell $D of 1x and buy $D of 2x ... cash if left unchanged - but you've revised your stock exposure to your target level. If AIM indicates sell $D then do the opposite and sell $D of 2x and buy $D of 1x. Leaving you to lock up cash to earn a potentially higher return and add value. Depending upon where 'cash' is actually deposited/invested, if that earns 8% when T-Bills earn 0% then 50% or whatever in 'cash' might bolster total portfolio reward by 4%. Personally I'm very loose with what 'cash' actually represents and focus more upon boosting 'cash' rewards than on trying to pick better stock holdings. Ask me to pick outperforming stocks and .... nah! More likely I'd get it wrong. Target instead improving 'cash' rewards ... and with some flexibility of being able to include other assets such as small amounts of stocks, gold .... etc and there's greater potential to beat 'cash'.
The other main benefit of leveraged ETF's is that with perhaps $10,000 in 2x, $10,000 in cash, a hard/fast/large decline means that the most you can lose is $10,000 (assuming cash to be safe). $20,000 in 1x in contrast could lose $20,000.
I believe its Zvi Bodie who suggests a more extreme version of that. 90% in safe (TIPS of whatever), 10% in Options. You can level the Options to provide comparable to 100% 1x stock exposure, but your worst case loss is limited to the 10% in Options. Potential similar reward, for lower risk.
Clive
Hi Allen
AIM-Hi in Retirement?
AIM HI targets 80/20 stock/bonds (cash). Is that wise if you're in retirement? Short answer looks to be Yes!
Consider a 33 year horizon. You might construct a 33 rung ladder loading 3% into each rung for spending each year. Ideally each rung would pace (or better still exceed) inflation so as to maintain purchase power - provide a 3% Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR = where the value of the $ amount drawn at the start of the first year is inflation adjusted as the withdrawal amounts in subsequent years). Given that stocks over 20+ years tend to do well, typically providing inflation or better total returns, its not unreasonable to load rungs 20+ with stocks. Given that over the shorter term stock volatility can be wild load the lower rungs with TIPS/Bills/Notes/Bonds.
Starts with 44% stock, 56% bonds, and progressively moves towards being 100% stocks as bonds are spent in earlier years. Over the total 33 years that averages 78% stock (22% bonds). Or rather than laddering you could just use constant weighting 78/22 likely to similar effect. The Ladder in effect has you time average relatively more into stocks as time passes (stock % weighting relatively increases with time), constant weighting averages stock via rebalancing.
Historically over the last 120+ years instead of drawing down to zero, a 3% SWR from 78/22 still had 100% of the inflation adjusted start date amount remaining after 30 years in the worst case. On average it had 3.3 times as much inflation adjusted start date value after 30 years.
This portfoliovisualizer test indicates that since 1972 a 78/22 provided a 5.68% annualised real (hover your mouse over the "i" next to the nominal CAGR figure in the 'Portfolio Returns' section) i.e. the portfolio grew more/faster than a 3% inflation adjusted withdrawal rate.
RE i-AIM. Here's a interesting i-AIM run K. I set it so the share price starts at $10/share, repeatedly drops 10% until it gets down to $1/share and then repeatedly rises 10% until it had doubled up from that $1/share price to $2/share price.
At the low the value of the portfolio was around 23% of the start date amount i.e. -90% share price decline, -77% portfolio value decline. After recovering to $2/share which is 80% below the start date share price, the portfolio value was down around -58%. After a recovery back to $6.66 type share price level the portfolio value was 66.6% of the start date amount. Thereafter however it had sold all of shares so that loss was locked in. Vealie's however might have avoided selling all shares. i.e. i-AIM definitely seems to need to include Vealies to be more well-rounded overall.
Combine i-AIM with a Vealie variant so that you never run out of shares and i-AIM looks most impressive. I've run a couple of comparisons to Ben-Graham and others and its scaling seems to be superior
The following doesn't include Vealie's - is just a straight i-AIM
Share Price
Stock Purchase Power of available cash (AIM Stock Value)
SAFE (10% of the previous above)
# Actual Shares Held
Available Cash $
Portfolio Control
AIM raw advice # Shares
Actual Market Order # Shares
Market Order $ Value
Total Value
10.00 500 50 500 5000 500 10000
9.00 556 56 500 5000 500 56 0 0 9500
8.10 617 62 500 5000 500 117 56 450 9050
7.29 624 62 556 4550 500 124 62 450 8600
6.56 625 62 617 4100 500 125 62 410 8150
5.90 625 62 680 3691 500 125 62 369 7704
5.31 625 62 742 3322 500 125 62 332 7266
4.78 625 62 805 2989 500 125 62 299 6838
4.30 625 62 867 2690 500 125 62 269 6423
3.87 625 62 930 2421 500 125 62 242 6023
3.49 625 62 992 2179 500 125 62 218 5639
3.14 625 62 1055 1961 500 125 62 196 5271
2.82 625 62 1117 1765 500 125 62 177 4920
2.54 625 62 1180 1589 500 125 62 159 4587
2.29 625 62 1242 1430 500 125 62 143 4272
2.06 625 62 1305 1287 500 125 62 129 3973
1.85 625 63 1367 1158 500 125 62 116 3692
1.67 625 63 1430 1042 500 125 63 104 3427
1.50 625 63 1492 938 500 125 63 94 3178
1.35 625 63 1555 844 500 125 63 84 2944
1.22 625 63 1617 760 500 125 63 76 2726
1.09 625 63 1680 684 500 125 62 68 2522
0.98 625 63 1742 615 500 125 63 62 2331
1.08 511 51 1805 554 500 11 0 0 2509
1.19 465 46 1805 554 500 -35 0 0 2704
1.31 423 42 1805 554 500 -77 -35 -46 2919
1.44 416 42 1770 600 518 -101 -60 -86 3151
1.59 433 43 1710 686 547 -115 -72 -113 3398
1.74 458 46 1638 800 583 -125 -79 -138 3658
1.92 489 49 1559 938 623 -134 -85 -164 3930
2.11 522 52 1474 1101 665 -144 -92 -193 4213
2.32 558 56 1382 1295 711 -154 -98 -227 4504
2.55 596 60 1284 1522 760 -164 -105 -267 4803
2.81 637 64 1180 1789 813 -176 -112 -315 5104
3.09 681 68 1068 2104 868 -188 -120 -370 5404
3.40 728 73 948 2474 928 -201 -128 -435 5697
3.74 778 78 820 2909 992 -214 -137 -511 5976
4.11 831 83 683 3420 1061 -229 -146 -601 6231
4.52 889 89 537 4021 1134 -245 -156 -707 6452
4.98 950 95 381 4728 1212 -262 -167 -831 6625
5.48 1015 102 214 5559 1295 -280 -178 -977 6731
6.02 1085 109 36 6536 1385 -299 -191 -1149 6751
6.63 1160 116 -155 7685 1480 -320 -204 -1351 6657
10.00 =E3/A3 =B3*0.1 =5000/A3 5000 =B3 =E3+(D3*A3)
=A3*0.9 =E4/A4 =B4*0.1 =D3+H3 =E3-I3 =IF(H3<0,F3-(H3/2),F3) =IF(B4>F4,B4-F4,-(F4-B4)) =IF(ABS(G4)>C4,IF(G4<0,G4+C4,G4-C4),0) =H4*A4 =E4+(D4*A4)
Perhaps helps to think of i-AIM in stock purchase power of cash terms. Share price 10, falls to 8, then former 500 stock purchase power of cash rises by 10/8 x 500 = 625. That's up so AIM perhaps indicates to sell (reduce) some of that stock purchase power (reduce cash to buy more shares) .... etc.
I fog over pretty quickly trying to track that trade activity however. Seems like a milder form of AIM. You wont run out of cash, could run out of shares to sell, somewhat like a Ben Graham hold 50/50 stock/bonds varying between 25/75 and 75/25 according to valuations ... but potentially hitting 0/100 stock/cash.
RE: i-AIM Hi K. I think you meant post 36906
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=90395215
Cameron promised a EU referendum to vote grab from UKIP (UK independence party, who wanted out of the EU) at the 2015 General Election. Frankly I don't think he believed his party even had any chance of winning the election, but a Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) took considerable numbers of votes away from the main UK national competitor (Labour - similar to Democrats - but who use red as their colour), resulting in a Conservative (Tory - similar to Republican but use blue as their colour) election majority that had Cameron back in again for a second term.
So voted into power with a EU referendum pledge, Cameron called the referendum. He worked hard to convince that we should reject the exit EU choice, adopting scare stories galore and despite polls running at 50/50 for months provided no assurances for what a actual OUT (Brexit) vote meant in practice. Now that's been voted for the only guidance the markets have are based on the Remain camps threats of what Brexit could mean, and volatility has been very high.
So from being re-elected that Cameron hadn't expected, to call a referendum that he hadn't anticipated would be called, to fight and lose that referendum having really slagged off the counter side ... the Pound and stocks are seeing negative volatility that could have been so much lower had things been managed better.
To put some context on the declines, the FT100 (largest 100 UK stock listings) earn around 80% from foreign business activity/earnings. With the Pound down around 10% and the FT100 down too, in effect foreign currency can buy more Pounds to domestically buy a diverse range of international/foreign earnings at modest discount with those Pounds. i.e. events indicate clear 'fear' over fair valuations.
After a period, perhaps not too long (days maybe) fear will subside. The UK has one of the strongest structured debts, is #1 ranked as a global financial hub and is the 5th largest economy despite being home to less than 1% of the global population. The EU demanded open borders such that mass migration from high unemployment EU areas into the UK put a strain on UK jobs and wages, made worse by Germany bilaterally welcoming mass migration from outside of the EU, upsetting many/most of all other EU states (in having free movement of people between member states).
We have a problem with wealth distribution over here, wealth gaps widening with the bottom end being pushed down. Seeing no financial benefit from immigration nor technology the bottom end have in effect revolted towards restricting free movement. With better migration controls redistributing wealth more fairly will be easier. As a example the Swiss had a recent vote as to whether each adult citizen should be paid $2800/month by the State ... one and all, no matter what. They also had a vote to restrict migration that they voted for. Now however the EU are blocking such migration restriction such that the Swiss have also rejected the $2800/month vote in fear of it being a migration magnet.
The Euro needs financial and political integration, free movement across all member states (transform into a single United States of Europe entity). With many distinctly different countries contained within that group there are conflicts. The EU however is pushing on no matter, and the UK, that had retained its own currency, had no desire for that single state single currency objective. With the UK out of the EU the EU might push ahead quicker towards its single state target.
The UK is beneficial for the EU and vice-versa. I'd guess that once politicians calm down business needs will drive through more common sense agreements, providing access to the UK market from the EU and vice-versa. But early days yet so no doubt lots of threats and anger etc. yet to be expressed politically.
A key feature of AIM in addition to price appreciation, income and volatility capture is overriding human emotion.
Whilst many will grocery shop in a buy more when cheaper manner, when it comes to the stock market many do the complete opposite. The realities is that can add a further 2% lag factor through having sold when scared, bought when greedy.
8% nominal, deduct perhaps 2% for costs/taxes, another 2% through bad trading, and another 4% for inflation and many investors take on 100% of risk for zero personal reward (they're investing and taking on considerable risk for the benefit of others).
AIM is more likely to have you trade in an appropriate manner of adding when low, reducing when high in practice. Such that your actual gains are more aligned to mathematical rewards - that many tend to lag.
Clive.
50/50 stock/bonds is a common withdrawal phase blend.
The Trinity study indicated that if you're withdrawing a 4% SWR (safe withdrawal rate) then that has a good chance of surviving 30 years. i.e. 50/50 total return with dividends/interest reinvested, but taking 4% of the original start date value and withdrawing that as income, and then adjusting that amount by inflation each year as later years withdrawal amount.
There are variations of how 50/50 stock/bonds might be held, for instance
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&allocation2_3=30&allocation4_1=33&endDate=05%2F09%2F2016&symbol5=BND&allocation6_3=30&symbol4=GLD&lastMonth=12&allocation4_3=10&symbol6=SSO&symbol1=SPY&endYear=2016&symbol3=SHY&frequency=4&symbol2=TLT&inflationAdjusted=true&annualAdjustment=0&showYield=false&startYear=1985&rebalanceType=1&timePeriod=4&annualPercentage=0.0&allocation1_1=67&allocation3_3=30&allocation1_2=50&allocation5_2=50&annualOperation=0&firstMonth=1&reinvestDividends=true&initialAmount=10000
Of those three I'm fond of the first, 67% stock/33% gold as a proxy for 50/50 stock/bond as that eliminates taxflation risk - where you're taxed on nominal 'gains' where the gain might be no more than a inflation pacing amount. Something like BRK-B/Gold has no periodic income (no dividends nor interest) and as such taxflation risk is eliminated. In the UK we also have options to eliminate capital gains tax risk.
Robert Lichello started with 50/50 being described and ended at 80/20. Both are still as valid today as ever. 50/50 is good for later life/withdrawal, 80/20 is good for during accumulation (younger) years. But not exclusively. If you have "enough" then even during later years you might hold some 50/50 (for income) and some 80/20 (for growth/heirs). Each to their own.