CIO, SignalPoint Asset Management, 2008 to 2024, Retired
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 Jake, Re: Scoring the v-Wave and AIM-Cash relative to market risk...................
I did a similar study some years ago on the MRI (idiot wave) and created this table. This one has the higher risk events as well as the lower risk ones scored. The MRI was better at calling out low risk events where the excess returns were better using that end of the spectrum. I think this is because Bull Markets can go on far longer than logic would assume. Nobody wants to call the end of the party and turn out the lights. Here's how they looked when I compiled them. They're not up-to-date, but should serve as a guide. (last updated through 2020)
There were 16 high risk events between 1982 and 2000. A total of 18 low risk events were signaled over that same period of time. The % Success column represents the rate at which the "call" of high or low risk was correct out of all the signals given. I also recorded the length of the "signal events" in weeks and they varied from as short as two weeks to as long as 24 consecutive weeks. One week signals I ignored as "noise." The MRI data is weekly in nature. I took the elapse time in weeks after the first signal and measured the change in the NASDAQ Composite and compared it to the long term average over time for those intervals.
I hope this helps in analyzing the the v-Wave info. I've never done a similar study for the Value Line info. Also, the VL data is collected 'weekly' where I think the AIM-Cash data was monthly. That might help explain the mis-alignment to some extent. I look forward to your analysis. I'm going to hazard a guess that the low risk data will also be favorable for the v-Wave in signaling better returns. When mapping both the MRI and v-Wave they tend to move in the same directions at the same times. Duration of the signals might vary as well as the start dates. The MRI always seemed a bit more reactive.
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
The 50 basis point "Happy Pill" seems to have made the markets happy this AM.
I wonder how long it will be before it wears off.........
Best wishes,
OAG
Q) - Hi Tom, Would you mind reposting your "Black Swan Rule" for dealing with a stock that has dropped and depleted its cash supply?
Thanks
Adam
A) - Hi Adam, Re: Black Swan Rule......................
I think I first used this idea back during the 2008-09 Financial Crisis. There are times when we do run out of cash in our AIM accounts. The price/share can then move downward or maybe our AIM buying has been solid and the price just seems to stall at that low level. That's never fun when we're AIMing for profits.
The idea is to use our lowest buy price as the base for "black swan" trading. We take that price and divide it by 0.80. That will give us the price target at which we will willingly sell our minimum share allotment. This price may be significantly below what AIM would like for our target. That's okay as AIM will adjust accordingly. It will also be a profitable trade based upon our lowest/last buy price (approx +20% profit).
If/When we get a Sale at that price, we then revert to AIM's next target after that trade is entered. Should the stock price again cycle downward, we'll re-use the last Buy trade price as our buy target. If/When the price drops to trigger that black swan buy, we'll again buy the shares back. We'll again use the 0.80 divisor which should give us a target very close to the previous Black Swan selling price. Rinse, Repeat.
While the stock price is bouncing and bottoming we'll possibly be able to capture some profits with those moves even if the price/share doesn't reach AIM's target for selling. As stated, once the first sale has occurred, we switch AIM back on and use its suggested next sell target price. Once we've worked AIM out of being cash strapped, we just follow AIM's target prices again.
Hope you don't have to use it, but it's nice to have a plan!
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Buy from the Scared; Sell to the Greedy.....
Hi Adam, Re: Black Swan Rule......................
I think I first used this idea back during the 2008-09 Financial Crisis. There are times when we do run out of cash in our AIM accounts. The price/share can then move downward or maybe our AIM buying has been solid and the price just seems to stall at that low level. That's never fun when we're AIMing for profits.
The idea is to use our lowest buy price as the base for "black swan" trading. We take that price and divide it by 0.80. That will give us the price target at which we will willingly sell our minimum share allotment. This price may be significantly below what AIM would like for our target. That's okay as AIM will adjust accordingly. It will also be a profitable trade based upon our lowest/last buy price (approx +20% profit).
If/When we get a Sale at that price, we then revert to AIM's next target after that trade is entered. Should the stock price again cycle downward, we'll re-use the last Buy trade price as our buy target. If/When the price drops to trigger that black swan buy, we'll again buy the shares back. We'll again use the 0.80 divisor which should give us a target very close to the previous Black Swan selling price. Rinse, Repeat.
While the stock price is bouncing and bottoming we'll possibly be able to capture some profits with those moves even if the price/share doesn't reach AIM's target for selling. As stated, once the first sale has occurred, we switch AIM back on and use its suggested next sell target price. Once we've worked AIM out of being cash strapped, we just follow AIM's target prices again.
Hope you don't have to use it, but it's nice to have a plan!
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Good day Clive, Re: Naming Error.................
Sorry for that, I meant Talmud, but had Permanent Portfolio on the brain, I guess!
It certainly seems to help reduce sleepless nights.
Best wishes,
Tom
Thanks Clive for the further look-see,
I've also been circling back to your thoughts on permanent portfolio. Some years ago I suggested to a friend the general concept and was asked to create something in that nature. What I chose was VNQ (real estate) VUG (growth stocks) and IAU (gold surrogate). Further, after looking at longer histories of these three it appeared that rebalancing the three over time would build a nice, low worry long term portfolio.
I set up some "drift" values for them that would trigger rebalances rather than using a calendar date. This requires a bit more attention and effort on the part of the user but seemed to look worthwhile. But, I found one thing I didn't appreciate. Sometimes the rebalancing occurred when all three were "up" or "down" but not the same amounts, which then had some internal conflict relative to potential capital gain sales tax. I "solved" this issue by changing the makeup of the portfolio from 33% each to 30% each and holding 10% in money funds. In this way, many of the rebalances could be done with no selling of the over-weight component. The cash reserve was used to fatten the under-weight component(s). All dividends and interest collected in the money fund, so at times it was over 10%. That also served the portfolio management well.
This histogram illustrates how the three components moved over time. Please stretch the X-Axis to the fullest extent (Sept, 2004; 5022 days) to see the various times of divergence and drift.
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?IAU,VUG,VNQ&n=2516&O=011000
Through the financial crisis and all the way to around 2011 the gold portion would have done a nice job of funding purchases of both real estate and growth. From around 2011 through 2016 those two components would have funded a 'restocking' of the gold component. Not much would have occurred except keeping the three components generally at around 30% each with use of the Cash up until Covid (2020). Again gold would have offered to fund rebalancing of the other two components if the money fund wasn't enough to do the job. The growth run-up through 2022 would have mainly repaid gold as it was somewhat flat and real estate was climbing, but at a slower pace. Since the start of 2023, growth would have been funding real estate to a greater degree than gold.
In recent history we've had enough inflation that real estate could again be a sanctuary for investors hoping to avoid further debasement of currency. Maybe that component will be the next HERO to fund the growth side if we see a stock market correction. So far the 30/30/30/10 portfolio has been easy for them to maintain with relatively small capital gain tax burden. Without checking, I think I'd told them to use 5% drift from the model. That meant than any of the three components that drifted from 30% to either 25% or 35% should trigger a rebalance regardless of date. Annually I suggested they tweak the ratios back to the model using mostly the cash reserve to fund the weakest of the three. Cash has floated up to around 15% of total off and on. So, spreading it around to rebalance meant essentially no capital gain tax.
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Hi Jake, Re: Assessing Market Risk directly vs indirectly....................
AIM does a magnificent job of moderating market risk by selling into market strength (tempering irrational exuberance) and buying into weakness (shopping for bargains) when applied to broad market indexes. Clive's work shows this well with AIM's performance being quite close to Buy and Hold's over multiple investor lifetimes. AIM manages this with far better Return on Capital at Risk (ROCAR).
Further, Clive's work takes into account regular withdrawals for "Living Expenses (SWR)." This is something that Mr. Lichello's examples never attempted to do. For those of us who are still employed, this isn't probably what we're doing, however. For those of us who no longer have a source of earned income (retired), Clive's work adds a heavy dose of reality to an AIMer's goals.
Another aspect that Clive's work presents is the unavoidable aspect of governmental debasing of currency over time. Referred to as "inflation" doesn't change its meaning or nature. A quote from a famous AIM user, (Me!) serves as the underlying root of this problem:
Never, ever, has there been a government that, given enough time, didn't debase its own currency."
- Thomas Meldrum Veale
Something I've meant to examine in Clive's work is the annual rebalancing of an AIM Portfolio back to the Equity/Cash ratio suggested by the AIM-Index Portfolio. Where does the divergence occur? Is it driven by currency debasement alone? Is it a combination of debasement and withdrawal rate for living (SWR)? Or is it mostly driven by withdrawal for living (SWR)? I think the answer is that it varies over time in relationship to inflation. High inflation rates would drive the need for the Equity/Cash ratio to be modified during those years and the SWR would be the driving force in other times. It would be interesting to know what the average annual Equity/Cash realignment has been over the test period. In other words, how well did AIM do all on its own compared to the AIM-Index Portfolio?
Using the AIM-Index Portfolio as a risk measure for suggesting starting and ongoing cash levels in a real time investment could be compared directly to the v-Wave and the MRI (formerly Idiot Wave) for the data since January of 1982. That's the earliest we have for these data streams. If there was a 'problem' with Mr. Lichello's original AIM, it was the One Size Fits All cash reserve (actually three different One Size Fits All guesses).Further, AIM's Equity/Cash ratio of an ongoing investment was not sensitive to the performance of the Equity side vs the performance of the Cash side. During times of higher cash yields, AIM's reserves of cash appear to contribute nicely to overall performance. However, that's offset by whatever the inflation rate is during that same period. This negates or washes out this apparent yield advantage. AIM can be a good judge of Market Risk. AIM Cash's value is only realized when it's put to use rebuilding investment inventories. Having an non-AIM based opinion of market risk for verification of AIM's assessment can add significant comfort to an investor's mind. Plotting the three measures
1) AIM-Index Portfolio Cash
2) MRI Cash
and
3) v-Wave Cash
side by side could be telling in confirmation and accuracy for the last 40+ years.
AIM's Equity side can only perform as well as the underlying investment during times of no AIM designated trades. AIM only has the chance to out-perform the underlying investment by inventory adjustment (buys and sells) over time. The Portfolio's total performance is the combination of the Equity side performance and the Cash side performance. If the Cash side underperforms the Equity side then it acts as a performance dilutant (upward sloping market performance). If the Cash side is outperforming the Equity side, it acts as a buffer as long as it lasts (downward sloping market performance).
I think Clive's work has enhanced the understanding of AIM's long term performance as compared to Buy and Hold. Buy and Hold isn't what a retired person will do if the Withdrawal rate (SWR) is necessary for living expenses. So, his work is far closer to reality than simple Buy/Hold comparison. Our Equity Warehouses are a combination of businesses - Warehouse Inventory Management and Savings & Loan. Like any business, it has fixed costs that should be recognized (such as living expenses) which Clive represents well with his SWR. Our Warehouses operate in the Real World, so are sensitive to disruptive influences such as Inflation (currency debasement). Luckily, the warehouse's inventory can offset some or all of the inflation over time through growth.
Going back to a book report I wrote some decades ago helps to flesh out our Warehouse activities:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120830055138id_/http://www.aim-users.com/books.htm#b6
Best regards,
OAG Tom
So far in September, most of my investments are still at or above their 26 week Moving Average prices. There are some exceptions, however!
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Hi JD, Re: Calculator....................
It looks similar to the one provided by TooFuzzy years ago..................
https://web.archive.org/web/20120609073103id_/http://www.aim-users.com/calculator.htm
Best wishes,
OAG
September Markets
are treated like boogymen.
Not always harmless....
September Markets
are treated like boogymen.
Not always harmless....
OAG
Divergence between
the Short and Long v-Wave Risk
This might not end well.........
It's rare that the shorter term risk measure drops as the longer term risk is rising. I guess for shorter term traders this is okay, but longer term investors should note this as a possible bear trap. The 3-5 year risk is at the Caution level now.
Hi Clive, Re: AIM Cash Reserve levels....................
My U.S. Sector ETF portfolio was started at the end of May in 2009. It started at 8% Cash Reserve. Here's the cash track record as of the 1st of the year each year since:
Year Start Cash Reserve Previous Year Gain
2010 26% +24.6% (financial crisis)
2011 12% +17.2%
2012 13% - 0.7%
2013 21% +13.2%
2014 30% +24.6%
2015 27% + 3.2%
2016 27% - 5.2%
2017 17% + 9.9%
2018 21% +16.2%
2019 15% - 5.9%
2020 14% +25.2%
2021 21% +13.6%
2022 18% +15.4%
2023 10% -11.6%
2024 12% +16.2%
To Date 2024 16% +11.0%
Just for fun. A Dad Joke ................
Knock knock
Who's there?
Hike
Hike who?
................................
Unsuspecting son.
Dad waiting with bated breath.
Sets the Perfect Trap!
Hi Clive, Re: AIM History.................
Something I've noted over the years and is demonstrated in your two histories is that AIM's recovery is generally faster and better than the S&P 500 benchmark. When the markets do tumble, there's a longer time to recover to the previous high for the index than with AIM. This is because AIM is being proactive during those downturns and rebuilding inventory where the index is not.
This can be seen in the period of time around Year 2000. It appears that the S&P 500 required until nearly 2005 to fully recover from the DotCom and WTC downturns. AIM, by comparison looks to have fully recovered by 2002-03. A similar experience seems to have occurred with the 2008 Financial Crisis. AIM recovered far more quickly and was 'ahead' by the time the S&P500 returned to previous highs. This "Time To Recover" is an interesting aspect of how AIM works.
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Thank you Clive, Re: Year End Cash Suggestions with the Risk Indicators................
I really didn't think 2022 was that harsh a period, but the returns indicate it was far worse than it felt at the time when compared to other periods. It appears to be the 3rd worst drawdown in this 40+ year history. As you mentioned, it was the follow-up to the rather rapid gains seen just prior to this downturn. That run-up was in reaction to the Covid collapse and kneejerk reaction. It also coincided with the zealous period of New Issues that occurred at that time.
When I started working as an investment advisor in 2008 and founded SignalPoint Asset Management with my partners, I had to give up the i-Wave and my weekly reports here and on my web site for AIMers. I didn't like having to do that, so created the v-Wave for such gauging of market risk. A variety of people have been tending to that effort ever since. A big Thank You to them all, past and present. At the time I wasn't sure whether it would be as solid a gauge as the i-Wave, but has been better than I had guessed.
The original intent of these scaled market risk indicators was to assist AIM and Mr. Lichello's "One Size Fits All" cash reserve percentages. I think they've served that purpose. Using AIM's actual cash reserve levels based upon a market index would also, as you've shown, work to gauge a more appropriate cash reserve starting point than just an arbitrary, fixed percentage. Psychology has such a staggeringly heavy influence on investors when there are no consistent demarcations of risk. Getting caught up in either a bull run or a bearish nightmare usually has investors making very bad decisions. The "Cool Hand" of these two market risk indicators and/or AIM's ongoing cash level do a good job of benchmarking where the markets are compared to the average bipolar stock trader.
This has been a revealing exercise that you've done and I very much appreciate the time and energy spent.
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Hi Clive, Re: Risk as measured by the v-Wave and the MRI over the last 4 decades................
Here's a list of those values in their "Single Stock" risk amount. These should be divided by 1.5 to get the "Diversified" value.
Year v-Wave MRI (old IW)
January
82 12.58 34.2
83 32.16 44.7
84 36.35 46.1
85 32.16 31.7
86 43.34 42.0
87 43.34 40.5
88 34.95 17.2
89 37.75 30.2
90 40.55 36.8
91 32.16 21.1
92 36.35 39.3
93 43.34 38.7
94 46.14 47.4
95 41.95 36.3
96 46.14 43.8
97 47.54 52.6
98 50.33 48.4
99 44.74 40.6
2000 43.34 49.7
01 36.35 34.6
02 44.74 40.3
03 39.15 22.2
04 50.33 34.6
05 51.73 43.1
06 50.33 50.1
07 51.73 49.4
08 46.14 39.8
09 20.97 3.0
10 46.14 27.0
11 48.94 34.0
12 40.55 27.3
13 46.14 27.0
14 53.13 41.0
15 53.13 41.0
16 47.54 30.0
17 53.13 44.0
18 54.53 48.0
19 39.15 24.0
20 50.33 39.0
21 53.13 57.0
22 51.73 58.0
23 43.34 48.0
24 48.94 44.0
Hi Clive, Re: Gold...............
I've always used a gold surrogate like IAU or GLD as its own AIM engine. I've never really considered using it as the "cash" side of an entire AIM portfolio. Since IAU and GLD are easily traded these days, they could possibly be used as a cash substitute. I have my IRA history that I could use as a model of reasonable length to see how it works. Gold seems to march to its own drumbeat from casual observation. So, testing it against a portfolio of known performance could prove instructive.
I've read of your blended cash substitute many times here but have never really studied it all by itself. When cash interest rates are 'above' the measured inflation rate I see less potential for the "gold cash" substitution. However, for most of the New Millennium interest on cash has been below inflation and therefore, as you stated, has suffered a loss of purchasing power. When AIM's cash side is low, that loss is smaller, but is still there. When AIM's cash content is higher the loss in purchasing power is greater.
Thanks for stirring up my neurons this AM.
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Re: AIM and Gold.....................................
What's the appropriate level of Cash to hold in an AIM Engine designed around Gold?
Looking back at the last 25 years we see gold has had drawdowns of at least 20% six times. Some of those drawdowns were in the 30% to 50% range. Thinking of how the Buy side of AIM works, with relatively standard settings one would need a 30% to 50% cash reserve near peaks to be able to buy with AIM signals all the way down these slides.
I don't feel the v-Wave or the MRI relate to gold, so letting AIM seek its own level of cash might be best. But, if you still like the idea of capping max cash, you could use 'vealies' at some cash percentage. Maybe 30%, 40% or 50% would keep this engine in tune and offer some comfort.
https://schrts.co/vBHtcIGj
Note the "Accumulation" pressure on IAU since around the start of 2020 (bottom of graph image). This might be symptomatic of the last 4 year's inflation. IAU shares rose roughly 50% over that time frame.
Holding 50% IAU (no yield) and 50% MMFs (5% yield) would render an approximate annual yield of 2.5% for the entire engine while idling. So, maybe a cap at 50% cash (then vealies) would make some sense.
Best wishes,
OAG
No haiku in sight
confusion is everywhere
AI and Robots..........
While the 18 Month risk forecast did drop with the market "Upset" the 3-5 year risk profile didn't change much. Those fishhook shaped activities at the right end of the graph for the S&P 500 and NASDAQ Composite make would make a Rainbow Trout nervous.
I think that the AI Programs need to take some classes in Fundamental Investing before they 'adjust' their portfolios again.
Risk seems to keep bubbling up like a pot of overheated spaghetti noodles. It spilled over a couple of weeks ago but you would not know it by looking at last Friday's close.
Hi Clive, Re: Growth vs Value ratio.....................
This image shows the Vanguard Growth ETF divided by their Value ETF. Up until last week's stumble, Growth had been growing faster than Value so the ratio was climbing. That hiccough last week created a quick reversal but didn't last the whole week.
Is there more to come in this shift? Or was that just a bit of fanny spittle?
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Hi Clive, Re: Negative Cash Reserve occurring periodically.......................
After years (Decades) of marveling AIM's ability to buy from those willing to let their fears push them to liquidating positions with poor timing, I've daydreamed of letting AIM have access to Margin buying. I'd consider this only with well diversified holdings, not individual company stocks where other risks can occur.
Since AIM taps the Cash Well dry only when there's been a significant decline in the markets it would seem to be an ideal time to "borrow" some money in the form of margin buying. I've NEVER used Margin and abhor debt in general. That doesn't prevent me from day dreaming about such action. Since AIM also gets back to selling shares based upon its deepest and lowest share purchase price, it seems reasonable to assume AIM will close out that Margin position with a reasonable LIFO gain as markets recover. As your histories show, Margin expense could continue for years, however. That's why I've never done it. I'd need an alternate source of income to cover the margin expense for that ugly time.
As an alternative, I have used my Black Swan Sale with deep divers and markets. When the cash runs dry, I use the last purchase price and divide it by 0.80. That gives me the "Next Sell Price" target. It's maybe lower than the AIM directed Next Sell, but it would generate a reasonable LIFO gain. So, maybe the markets bump along at or near these new bottom prices for a while. If the price would rise to the Black Swan target, I sell the appropriate shares. Now there's at least some cash on hand. I re-use that previous low purchase price as the "Next Buy Price" target. Should the dead cat continue to bounce for a while, I might see that cash recycled into buying back those shares. Once again I'd use that Black Swan Sell target and slip in a GTC Limit Order. I've had two or three round trips with such activity in the past.
Once the first Black Swan Sale has occurred, I revert to AIM to get the next Sale target. Sometimes that new target is quite a bit higher than the Black Swan price/share. In time, if the markets recover, AIM gets back to normal activity and the Black Swan trades are history. This method allows us to at least keep our pencils sharp during market bottoming processes. I'll take a more detailed look at your spreadsheet history and see if those long stretches of zero cash might have been able to turn some profitable LIFO gains with the BSS idea.
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
1971 was when I started investing in stocks (Nifty Fifty Era). I was fresh out of college and had only two nickels to rub together, but invested what I could, when I could. Those first few years were more Dollar Cost Averaging than anything and all those $$$ showed essentially no gain for a very long time. Through being stubborn, I kept putting more $$$ into those stocks and eventually my holdings started to look better.
So, your chart and the spreadsheet have extra meaning for me!
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Good day Clive, Re: AIM Performance against a broad index...................
AIM's performance compared to the S&P 500 (inflation adjusted?) and used as a cash cow is quite good. Consider that most professional money managers at mutual funds don't achieve equity with the index makes the AIM results all the more pronounced. Many investors talk of beating the "market" as a goal. Considering how hard it is to just match the market, they may be setting their goal too high. Matching the S&P Index with significantly less principle at risk seems to be a quite satisfactory achievement.
One of the reasons I came up with the R.O.C.A.R. idea (Return On average Capital at Risk) was to highlight AIM's risk adjusted return over time. In your example, to have achieved near parity with the S&P 500 Index over decades while having only around 60% of the average risk exposure seems a far better outcome than essentially all mutual funds. Fund managers might achieve better returns once in a while, but there aren't any that have been consistently that good. And, they've had to risk essentially all the capital to achieve their infrequent successful outcomes.
Thanks again for highlighting AIM's strengths over time.
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Good day MS44, Re: Robert Lichello's AIM Book availability....................
The book is available in electronic form from Amazon.com for their Kindle readers. Other than that, you'll have to find a used copy.
I've used AIM and his Twinvest since January of 1988. There are others here who've used AIM even longer.
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
My U.S. Business Sector ETF portfolio continues to do well over time. It's comprised of business sectors the same as the S&P 500 plus a Real Estate (REIT) ETF and a large cap growth ETF. The sector ETFs are invested in "Equal Weight" ETFs provided by Invesco. They give a greater exposure to small and mid cap stocks than do the S&P 500 cap weighted sector funds. All in all performance has been pretty good over the years.
ETFs are:
RSPC
RSPD
RSPF
RSPG
RSPH
RSPM
RSPN
RSPR
RSPS
RSPT
RSPU
XLG
Each sector fund is managed as a separate AIM engine with its own reserve of cash. Reasonable yields from these funds contribute to the cash reserves over time while AIM manages inventory through buying and selling incremental amounts of each position.
Best wishes,
OAG
Safe Travels!!
OAG
v-WAVE 3.0* (While JD is playing hookie!)
Week of August 9th
_________________________
Short Term (18 Months)
Individual Stocks: 57% (Down 8 points from previous week)
Diversified Mutual Funds or Portfolio: 38% (Down 5 from previous week)
__________________________
Long Term (3-5 Years)
Individual Stocks: 48% (Down 1 from previous week)
Diversified Mutual Funds
or Portfolio: 32% (Down 1 from previous week)
Oscillator: -0.59 (Down 2.75 from previous week)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggested Starting Cash Value For New AIM Accounts/Positions
Individual Stocks
High Risk: At or above 51%
Neutral: Between 37 and 50%
Low Risk: At or below 36%
Diversified Funds
High Risk: At or above 34%
Neutral: Between 25 and 33%
Low Risk: At or below 24%
*See posts #44585 and #44588
-------------------------------------------
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
Thanks Clive,
Nice chart! Those zero cash times were few and far between. The interest on cash would have been pleasant through most of that history.
I note that the "financial crisis" of 2008-9 didn't last long enough to suck too hard on the Cash Straw. That was true of my own activities as well. The "30 Day Rule" kept me from making follow-up buys and so cash dipped but didn't disappear.
The 1968 to 1974 market bottoming with the "Nifty Fifty" is when I was a novice investor just starting off. EVERYTHING I bought went down first!
Best wishes,
OAG Tom
....and in the wink of an eye, AB's effective yield is back above 9%/yr!!
https://schrts.co/YzvXemhM
Best wishes,
OAG
.....and just like that, EPD's yield is back above 7.3%/yr............