The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
The Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns has been updated with 2012 data. It can be accessed here:
http://www.callan.com/research/download ... %2f655.pdf
http://www.callan.com/research/download ... %2f655.pdf
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Thanks for the link. I havent seen that before.
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32839
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
"Own the haystack"
Runner26:runner26 wrote:The Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns has been updated with 2012 data. It can be accessed here:
http://www.callan.com/research/download ... %2f655.pdf
Thank you for the update. The Callan Periodic Table is my favorite.
The CPT demonstrates the futility of trying to time the market. It also demonstrates the benefit of investing in the total market.
Mr. Bogle likes to say: "Don't search for a needle in the haystack. Own the haystack."
Best wishes
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Thank you for the update. The winners are ofcourse unknowable in advance as Larry Swedroe and Rick Ferri have reminded us today, yet it is of course so obvious in retrospect and how could you not know that international would do so well? I do wish that the table would include domestic and international REITs though. At the Callan website, those downloads are locked.
-K
-K
Last edited by czeckers on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Espresso portfolio: |
|
20% US TSM, 20% Small Value, 10% US REIT, 10% Dev Int'l, 10% EM, 10% Commodities, 20% Inter-term US Treas |
|
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Thanks for the link. I'd love to have one that covers the next 20 years.
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
One of my favorite charts, and the one of the biggest reasons why I chose a Slide & Dice allocation over Total Market.
4X top-twenty S&P 500 prognosticator. I'd start a newsletter, but it would only have one issue per year. |
dumb investor during 1999 tech bubble, current slice & dicer.
- SpartanFan
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:49 am
- Location: Michigan - MSU
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
And the first shall be last ...
"There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in" - Leonard Cohen (RIP)
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
and the last shall be the first...tommoran2 wrote:And the first shall be last ...
-
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:17 pm
- Location: 27,000 light years from the Galactic Center of the Milky Way Galaxy (the suburbs)
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Not too much Mister-In-Between for EM. EM finished 9 out of 20 years at the top of the heap, and 7 years at the bottom.
Mike
Mike
Time is your friend; impulse is your enemy - John Bogle |
Learn every day, but especially from the experiences of others, it's cheaper! - John Bogle
- Aptenodytes
- Posts: 3786
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm
Re: "Own the haystack"
That's interesting that so many people like the chart. I really hate it. I don't see it as demonstrating the benefit of investing in the total market at all. It obscures a lot of relevant information. Suppose someone thought that investing in emerging markets and value stocks was the key to riches. This chart doesn't dissuade. Or suppose someone thought that you might as well avoid bonds because their average returns are so low. This chart doesn't dissuade from that either.
I think rank orders are a very ineffective way to communicate quantitative information. Consider the 2012 ranks, in which there's very little variance until you get to bonds at the bottom. Then look at a year like 2000, where the variance is enormous. The graphics in the chart imply that the two years are similar (a random ranking) when they are actually quite different (high correlation versus low correlation).
The data behind the chart are relevant for making the point about investing in the total market, but I don't think the chart serves that purpose. I would drop some of the highly correlated funds (drop S&P500 and Russeill 2000, for example, because they correlate so highly with their growth flavors), and focus on the moving averages and variances, not the rank orders.
If I wanted to convince someone of the benefit of owning the market, I'd plot 5-year moving average + variance of the non-redundant funds, on top of a representative whole-market basket.
This table is what I'd call chart junk. It looks pretty and means something to people who already have internalized the message it is trying to convey, but doesn't communicate to others.
I think rank orders are a very ineffective way to communicate quantitative information. Consider the 2012 ranks, in which there's very little variance until you get to bonds at the bottom. Then look at a year like 2000, where the variance is enormous. The graphics in the chart imply that the two years are similar (a random ranking) when they are actually quite different (high correlation versus low correlation).
The data behind the chart are relevant for making the point about investing in the total market, but I don't think the chart serves that purpose. I would drop some of the highly correlated funds (drop S&P500 and Russeill 2000, for example, because they correlate so highly with their growth flavors), and focus on the moving averages and variances, not the rank orders.
If I wanted to convince someone of the benefit of owning the market, I'd plot 5-year moving average + variance of the non-redundant funds, on top of a representative whole-market basket.
This table is what I'd call chart junk. It looks pretty and means something to people who already have internalized the message it is trying to convey, but doesn't communicate to others.
- Aptenodytes
- Posts: 3786
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Sorry, one more thing. For investors in the accumulation phase, what really matters is the cumulative effective of regular investments over time with rebalancing. Categories that sometimes fall down low aren't so bad if you are buying lots of shares during those periods (what we used to call "dollar cost averaging") and those shares then shoot up in value later on, when they are sold at a profit during rebalancing.
So the ideal chart for many investors would compare portfolio returns over time, not just the annualized sector returns.
Knowing that a sector vacillates between top and bottom isn't relevant to a long-term investor. You need to know the mean and variance.
So the ideal chart for many investors would compare portfolio returns over time, not just the annualized sector returns.
Knowing that a sector vacillates between top and bottom isn't relevant to a long-term investor. You need to know the mean and variance.
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32839
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
"The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio"
Bogleheads:
PIMCO has a similar Table for bonds:
The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio
Best wishes
Taylor
PIMCO has a similar Table for bonds:
The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio
Best wishes
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
Re: "Own the haystack"
Unfortunately, the conclusion that my less financially educated friends draw from this diagram is "See, I told you so, this proves you can get a 31% average annual return over the past 10 years by picking sectors!"Taylor Larimore wrote:The CPT demonstrates the futility of trying to time the market. It also demonstrates the benefit of investing in the total market.
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
The annual Callan chart always reminds me about how important it is to invest in a diversified way and stay the course. Thanks for posting.
Part-Owner of Texas |
|
“The CMH-the Cost Matters Hypothesis -is all that is needed to explain why indexing must and will work… Yes, it is that simple.” John C. Bogle
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
I look at that and immediately think "rebalancing bonus."
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
I like how this chart is used to support divergent points of view. One sees support for a total market approach while another sees support for slice and dice.
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Thank you for the link, runner26. I look forward to this chart every year.
All the best,
Maria
All the best,
Maria
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
For comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
I believe there is not an update of the table for 2012.
Keith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
I believe there is not an update of the table for 2012.
Keith
Déjà Vu is not a prediction
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Some call that volatility; I call it 're-balancing bonus', a.k.a. a very cheap lunch.minesweep wrote:Not too much Mister-In-Between for EM. EM finished 9 out of 20 years at the top of the heap, and 7 years at the bottom.
Mike
(if your stomach can keep it down)
4X top-twenty S&P 500 prognosticator. I'd start a newsletter, but it would only have one issue per year. |
dumb investor during 1999 tech bubble, current slice & dicer.
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Thanks for the update. The link is already in the wiki: Research and other Financial Articles
The direct link: Callan Associates | Periodic Tables
epimedium - I would not think to associate Salvador Dali with investing, but somehow it works.
The direct link: Callan Associates | Periodic Tables
epimedium - I would not think to associate Salvador Dali with investing, but somehow it works.
Re: "Own the haystack"
Culture wrote:Unfortunately, the conclusion that my less financially educated friends draw from this diagram is "See, I told you so, this proves you can get a 31% average annual return over the past 10 years by picking sectors!"
Re: "Own the haystack"
So, it's a Rorschach test. It reveals information about those who see it.pingo wrote:Culture wrote:Unfortunately, the conclusion that my less financially educated friends draw from this diagram is "See, I told you so, this proves you can get a 31% average annual return over the past 10 years by picking sectors!"
Keith
Déjà Vu is not a prediction
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Interesting that EM was either first or last in 15 out of 20 years.
- englishgirl
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:34 pm
- Location: FL
Re: "Own the haystack"
Yup, it seems to show different things to different people. It always makes me think how glad I am to have plenty of bonds in my portfolio. In years when bonds are last, at least they're usually putting in a modest positive return. In the rare years when bonds are negative, at least they're only negative by a small amount whereas usually every other sector has really bad negative years every now and then. And in years when bonds are on top of the table, then everything else is sucking really bad. To me, it definitely shows the anchoring effect that bonds have.umfundi wrote:So, it's a Rorschach test. It reveals information about those who see it.pingo wrote:Culture wrote:Unfortunately, the conclusion that my less financially educated friends draw from this diagram is "See, I told you so, this proves you can get a 31% average annual return over the past 10 years by picking sectors!"
Keith
Of course, some years, I'm also thinking "dang, I wish I'd had a lot of emerging markets" or whatever else comes up on top. Old ways of thinking die hard!
Sarah
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
I have the Callan Chart data back to 1980 in Excel.
Some of the older charts showed REIT and they did not include EM (had EAFE only for International).
If you would like to have at the data - included it below in CSV format.
YEAR,LCV,LCB,LCG,SCV,SCB,SCG,REIT,EAFE,BND
1980,23.59,32.50,39.40,25.39,38.83,52.26,24.40,22.60,2.71
1981,0.02,-4.92,-9.81,14.58,2.68,-9.23,6.00,-2.27,6.26
1982,21.04,21.55,22.03,28.52,24.76,20.99,21.60,-1.86,32.65
1983,28.89,22.56,16.24,38.63,29.39,20.14,30.60,23.69,8.19
1984,10.52,6.27,2.33,2.27,-6.79,-15.84,20.90,7.41,15.15
1985,29.68,31.73,33.31,31.01,31.05,30.97,19.10,56.14,22.13
1986,21.67,18.67,14.50,7.41,5.68,3.58,19.20,69.46,15.30
1987,3.68,5.25,6.50,-7.11,-8.80,-10.48,-3.60,24.64,2.75
1988,21.67,16.61,11.95,29.47,25.02,20.37,13.50,28.26,7.89
1989,26.13,31.69,36.40,12.43,16.26,20.17,8.80,10.53,14.53
1990,-6.85,-3.11,0.20,-21.77,-19.48,-17.41,-15.40,-23.45,8.96
1991,22.56,30.47,38.37,41.70,46.04,51.19,35.70,12.14,16.00
1992,10.52,7.62,5.06,29.14,18.41,7.77,14.60,-12.18,7.40
1993,18.61,10.08,1.68,23.77,18.88,13.37,19.70,32.57,9.75
1994,-0.64,1.32,3.14,-1.54,-1.82,-2.43,3.20,7.78,-2.92
1995,36.99,37.58,38.13,25.75,28.45,31.04,15.30,11.21,18.46
1996,22.00,22.96,23.97,21.37,16.49,11.26,35.30,6.05,3.64
1997,29.98,33.36,36.52,31.78,22.36,12.95,20.30,1.78,9.64
1998,14.69,28.58,42.16,-6.45,-2.55,1.23,-17.50,20.00,8.70
1999,12.73,21.04,28.24,-1.49,21.26,43.09,-4.60,26.96,-0.82
2000,6.08,-9.11,-22.08,22.83,-3.02,-22.43,26.40,-14.17,11.63
2001,-11.71,-11.89,-12.73,14.02,2.49,-9.23,13.90,-21.44,8.43
2002,-20.85,-22.10,-23.59,-11.43,-20.48,-30.26,3.80,-15.94,10.26
2003,31.79,28.68,25.66,46.03,47.25,48.54,37.60,38.59,4.10
2004,15.71,10.88,6.13,22.25,18.33,14.31,31.60,20.25,4.34
2005,6.33,4.91,4.00,4.71,4.55,4.15,11.89,13.54,2.43
2006,20.81,15.79,11.01,23.48,18.37,13.35,35.07,26.34,4.33
2007,1.99,5.49,9.13,-9.78,-1.57,7.05,-16.46,11.17,6.97
2008,-39.22,-37.00,-34.92,-28.92,-33.79,-38.54,-37.05,-43.38,5.24
2009,21.17,26.47,31.57,20.58,27.17,34.47,29.58,31.78,5.93
2010,15.10,15.06,15.05,24.50,26.85,29.09,28.49,7.75,6.54
2011,-0.48,2.11,4.65,-5.50,-4.18,-2.91,8.62,-12.14,7.84
2012,17.68,16.00,14.61,18.05,16.35,14.59,17.69,17.32,4.21
CAGR,11.16,11.20,10.90,12.55,10.58,8.13,12.38,9.15,8.55
StDev,16.14,17.15,19.50,18.40,18.98,22.71,17.56,22.85,6.88
1.00=,32.86,33.25,30.42,49.53,27.66,13.19,47.02,17.96,14.97
At the end I have calculation data for CAGR, StDev and Growth of 1.00
To get that in to Excel... do this...
Select the data from the text above, then right-click, copy
Open Excel - select cell A-1, do right-click, paste
Click on column A, then go up to "Data", then text-to-columns, select Delimited (should default), click Next, specify Delimiters (Comma only), click Finish.
You got it at that point.
Trev H
Some of the older charts showed REIT and they did not include EM (had EAFE only for International).
If you would like to have at the data - included it below in CSV format.
YEAR,LCV,LCB,LCG,SCV,SCB,SCG,REIT,EAFE,BND
1980,23.59,32.50,39.40,25.39,38.83,52.26,24.40,22.60,2.71
1981,0.02,-4.92,-9.81,14.58,2.68,-9.23,6.00,-2.27,6.26
1982,21.04,21.55,22.03,28.52,24.76,20.99,21.60,-1.86,32.65
1983,28.89,22.56,16.24,38.63,29.39,20.14,30.60,23.69,8.19
1984,10.52,6.27,2.33,2.27,-6.79,-15.84,20.90,7.41,15.15
1985,29.68,31.73,33.31,31.01,31.05,30.97,19.10,56.14,22.13
1986,21.67,18.67,14.50,7.41,5.68,3.58,19.20,69.46,15.30
1987,3.68,5.25,6.50,-7.11,-8.80,-10.48,-3.60,24.64,2.75
1988,21.67,16.61,11.95,29.47,25.02,20.37,13.50,28.26,7.89
1989,26.13,31.69,36.40,12.43,16.26,20.17,8.80,10.53,14.53
1990,-6.85,-3.11,0.20,-21.77,-19.48,-17.41,-15.40,-23.45,8.96
1991,22.56,30.47,38.37,41.70,46.04,51.19,35.70,12.14,16.00
1992,10.52,7.62,5.06,29.14,18.41,7.77,14.60,-12.18,7.40
1993,18.61,10.08,1.68,23.77,18.88,13.37,19.70,32.57,9.75
1994,-0.64,1.32,3.14,-1.54,-1.82,-2.43,3.20,7.78,-2.92
1995,36.99,37.58,38.13,25.75,28.45,31.04,15.30,11.21,18.46
1996,22.00,22.96,23.97,21.37,16.49,11.26,35.30,6.05,3.64
1997,29.98,33.36,36.52,31.78,22.36,12.95,20.30,1.78,9.64
1998,14.69,28.58,42.16,-6.45,-2.55,1.23,-17.50,20.00,8.70
1999,12.73,21.04,28.24,-1.49,21.26,43.09,-4.60,26.96,-0.82
2000,6.08,-9.11,-22.08,22.83,-3.02,-22.43,26.40,-14.17,11.63
2001,-11.71,-11.89,-12.73,14.02,2.49,-9.23,13.90,-21.44,8.43
2002,-20.85,-22.10,-23.59,-11.43,-20.48,-30.26,3.80,-15.94,10.26
2003,31.79,28.68,25.66,46.03,47.25,48.54,37.60,38.59,4.10
2004,15.71,10.88,6.13,22.25,18.33,14.31,31.60,20.25,4.34
2005,6.33,4.91,4.00,4.71,4.55,4.15,11.89,13.54,2.43
2006,20.81,15.79,11.01,23.48,18.37,13.35,35.07,26.34,4.33
2007,1.99,5.49,9.13,-9.78,-1.57,7.05,-16.46,11.17,6.97
2008,-39.22,-37.00,-34.92,-28.92,-33.79,-38.54,-37.05,-43.38,5.24
2009,21.17,26.47,31.57,20.58,27.17,34.47,29.58,31.78,5.93
2010,15.10,15.06,15.05,24.50,26.85,29.09,28.49,7.75,6.54
2011,-0.48,2.11,4.65,-5.50,-4.18,-2.91,8.62,-12.14,7.84
2012,17.68,16.00,14.61,18.05,16.35,14.59,17.69,17.32,4.21
CAGR,11.16,11.20,10.90,12.55,10.58,8.13,12.38,9.15,8.55
StDev,16.14,17.15,19.50,18.40,18.98,22.71,17.56,22.85,6.88
1.00=,32.86,33.25,30.42,49.53,27.66,13.19,47.02,17.96,14.97
At the end I have calculation data for CAGR, StDev and Growth of 1.00
To get that in to Excel... do this...
Select the data from the text above, then right-click, copy
Open Excel - select cell A-1, do right-click, paste
Click on column A, then go up to "Data", then text-to-columns, select Delimited (should default), click Next, specify Delimiters (Comma only), click Finish.
You got it at that point.
Trev H
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52105
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: "Own the haystack"
My thoughts exactly. To me, the most pernicious thing in investing is to think of it in sports terms--in sports, the athlete wins the same prize whether he beat the runner-up by an inch or a lap.Aptenodytes wrote:I think rank orders are a very ineffective way to communicate quantitative information.
Investing porn is always talking about direction, not magnitude. We are constantly hearing counts--Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust beat the S&P 500 15 years in a row. That completely masks the real picture, which was more like "all but tied for three years, beat it by a lot six years in a row, then all but tied it for six years." The real streak was only six years long. Far too much stress was placed on the fact that he did edge out the S&P during the other nine years, and as he himself observed, that was only true measuring by calendar years--if the years were measured from some day other than January 1st it would not have been true.
I think the emphasis in athletics on who won, not by how much, comes from war; reading the Patrick O'Brian novels, for example, one becomes acutely aware that it is enormously consequential in some sea battles which ship is faster, even by the tiniest amount, or which ship's guns have a longer range, even by the tiniest amount; the outcome of the battle does depend on who's faster, not by how much faster they are.
Precisely. But if you focus on "how often stocks beat bonds," you won't see that.englishgirl wrote:Yup, it seems to show different things to different people. It always makes me think how glad I am to have plenty of bonds in my portfolio. In years when bonds are last, at least they're usually putting in a modest positive return. In the rare years when bonds are negative, at least they're only negative by a small amount whereas usually every other sector has really bad negative years every now and then. And in years when bonds are on top of the table, then everything else is sucking really bad. To me, it definitely shows the anchoring effect that bonds have.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: "The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio"
Taylor, thank you for that link. It is interesting to me that it demonstrates how bond diversification is so important, and yet, the Vanguard "Total" Bond Market Fund does not have 6 of the 13 bond categories on that chart.Taylor Larimore wrote:Bogleheads:
PIMCO has a similar Table for bonds:
The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio
Re: "The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio"
My first thought was:Taylor Larimore wrote:PIMCO has a similar Table for bonds:
The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio
Oh my gosh! Look at the returns on those Emerging Markets bonds!
My next thought was:
Has anyone even captured those returns in an actual fund or are they going to change once enough people start chasing them?
-
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:17 pm
- Location: 27,000 light years from the Galactic Center of the Milky Way Galaxy (the suburbs)
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Actually it's 16 out of 20 years.jon-nyc wrote:Interesting that EM was either first or last in 15 out of 20 years.
Mike
Time is your friend; impulse is your enemy - John Bogle |
Learn every day, but especially from the experiences of others, it's cheaper! - John Bogle
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
I like the Callan Table because it looks like a bingo card.
Put a chip on your favorite color and then they spin the wheel of fortune.
What I see is that EM is either at the top or bottom 16/20 years.
So bet on EM and it will either win or lose big.
I also like the color of EM. For Longhorn fans, it is UT's burnt orange.
So it's got that going for it, also. Hook 'em, horns!
Then I see that when EM is on the bottom, BONDS are often at the top, and vice versa.
One of them is likely to pay off. Bingo!
The Grayfox Tipsheet says equal bets on EM and BND in 2013.
Put a chip on your favorite color and then they spin the wheel of fortune.
What I see is that EM is either at the top or bottom 16/20 years.
So bet on EM and it will either win or lose big.
I also like the color of EM. For Longhorn fans, it is UT's burnt orange.
So it's got that going for it, also. Hook 'em, horns!
Then I see that when EM is on the bottom, BONDS are often at the top, and vice versa.
One of them is likely to pay off. Bingo!
The Grayfox Tipsheet says equal bets on EM and BND in 2013.
Re: "The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio"
I would like to learn more / hear more thoughts on the above quoted post.......mptfan wrote:Taylor, thank you for that link. It is interesting to me that it demonstrates how bond diversification is so important, and yet, the Vanguard "Total" Bond Market Fund does not have 6 of the 13 bond categories on that chart.Taylor Larimore wrote:Bogleheads:
PIMCO has a similar Table for bonds:
The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio
.
.
Do I need to further diversify my bond holdings?
Thanks
Xram
Last edited by xram on Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:50 pm, edited 5 times in total.
VTI, VBR, VTWV, SCHH, VXUS, VEA, VWO, VSS, FM, VNQI, VBTLX, VFITX, SCHP, VWITX, IBONDS, EEBONDS, EF(EverBank), UTAH-529
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
I don't think you can view the bond table in the same way you look at equities. Bonds are debt instruments. You are promised to get back your principal + some interest. Consequently, bonds are rated in terms of the time horizon (date to maturity) and credit worthiness of the issuer. Stocks follow the rise and fall of the company's success.
I'd say you are diversified in terms of owning the whole market, with some extra padding for TIPS.
For perspective, consider that this chart was published by a bond fund issuer.
I'd say you are diversified in terms of owning the whole market, with some extra padding for TIPS.
For perspective, consider that this chart was published by a bond fund issuer.
Re: "The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio"
Which 6 of 13 are not included in total bond market?mptfan wrote:Taylor, thank you for that link. It is interesting to me that it demonstrates how bond diversification is so important, and yet, the Vanguard "Total" Bond Market Fund does not have 6 of the 13 bond categories on that chart.Taylor Larimore wrote:Bogleheads:
PIMCO has a similar Table for bonds:
The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio
Does anybody own these other 6? Why? Via what ETF or mutual fund?
Thanks again
xram
VTI, VBR, VTWV, SCHH, VXUS, VEA, VWO, VSS, FM, VNQI, VBTLX, VFITX, SCHP, VWITX, IBONDS, EEBONDS, EF(EverBank), UTAH-529
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
ThanksLadyGeek wrote:I don't think you can view the bond table in the same way you look at equities. Bonds are debt instruments. You are promised to get back your principal + some interest. Consequently, bonds are rated in terms of the time horizon (date to maturity) and credit worthiness of the issuer. Stocks follow the rise and fall of the company's success.
I'd say you are diversified in terms of owning the whole market, with some extra padding for TIPS.
For perspective, consider that this chart was published by a bond fund issuer.
xram
VTI, VBR, VTWV, SCHH, VXUS, VEA, VWO, VSS, FM, VNQI, VBTLX, VFITX, SCHP, VWITX, IBONDS, EEBONDS, EF(EverBank), UTAH-529
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52105
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: "The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio"
Perhaps it would be better if Vanguard had named it the Vanguard Aggregate Bond Index Fund. In PIMCO's word's, "the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index represents the domestic investment grade fixed rate, taxable bond market." I do not think it is fair to complainxram wrote:Which 6 of 13 are not included in total bond market? Does anybody own these other 6? Why? Via what ETF or mutual fund?mptfan wrote:It is interesting to me that it demonstrates how bond diversification is so important, and yet, the Vanguard "Total" Bond Market Fund does not have 6 of the 13 bond categories on that chart.Taylor Larimore wrote:PIMCO has a similar Table for bonds:
The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio
- that the fund contains only the classes of bond that are included in the index it tracks,
- that an investment-grade bond fund does not include junk bonds, or that
- a domestic bond fund does not include international bonds.
Domestic--U. S. TIPS, municipal bonds, high-yield;
International--"emerging markets," "global (unhedged)," and "foreign (hedged)".
These six are included: long Treasuries, intermediate Treasuries, short Treasuries, investment-grade corporates, mortgages, and of course BAGG (Barclay's Aggregate).
I can't quite figure out whether the Barclay's Aggregate includes Treasury bills or not.
TIPS, incidentally, only amount to something like 3 or 4% of all Treasuries and it wouldn't change things much if they were included.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: "The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolio"
Thanksnisiprius wrote:Perhaps it would be better if Vanguard had named it the Vanguard Aggregate Bond Index Fund. In PIMCO's word's, "the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index represents the domestic investment grade fixed rate, taxable bond market." I do not think it is fair to complainxram wrote:Which 6 of 13 are not included in total bond market? Does anybody own these other 6? Why? Via what ETF or mutual fund?mptfan wrote:It is interesting to me that it demonstrates how bond diversification is so important, and yet, the Vanguard "Total" Bond Market Fund does not have 6 of the 13 bond categories on that chart.Taylor Larimore wrote:PIMCO has a similar Table for bonds:
The Benefits of a Diversified Bond Portfolioxram, of the categories named by PIMCO, these six are not included:
- that the fund contains only the classes of bond that are included in the index it tracks,
- that an investment-grade bond fund does not include junk bonds, or that
- a domestic bond fund does not include international bonds.
Domestic--U. S. TIPS, municipal bonds, high-yield;
International--"emerging markets," "global (unhedged)," and "foreign (hedged)".
These six are included: long Treasuries, intermediate Treasuries, short Treasuries, investment-grade corporates, mortgages, and of course BAGG (Barclay's Aggregate).
I can't quite figure out whether the Barclay's Aggregate includes Treasury bills or not.
TIPS, incidentally, only amount to something like 3 or 4% of all Treasuries and it wouldn't change things much if they were included.
I know past performance does not guarantee future performance ...but... Emerging market bonds have only been negative one time between 2002 and 2012. Even with the higher expense ratio, are they really that risky to not include them? Just asking.....
VTI, VBR, VTWV, SCHH, VXUS, VEA, VWO, VSS, FM, VNQI, VBTLX, VFITX, SCHP, VWITX, IBONDS, EEBONDS, EF(EverBank), UTAH-529
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
runner26 wrote:The Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns has been updated with 2012 data. It can be accessed here:
http://www.callan.com/research/download ... %2f655.pdf
How/where does VSS (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap Index ETF) fit into this table? Thanks
VTI, VBR, VTWV, SCHH, VXUS, VEA, VWO, VSS, FM, VNQI, VBTLX, VFITX, SCHP, VWITX, IBONDS, EEBONDS, EF(EverBank), UTAH-529
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Are these VANGUARD ETFs matched correctly to the appropriate index?
Percentages are not correct yet....
working on a vanguard periodic table.....for my own learnin'
Percentages are not correct yet....
working on a vanguard periodic table.....for my own learnin'
VTI, VBR, VTWV, SCHH, VXUS, VEA, VWO, VSS, FM, VNQI, VBTLX, VFITX, SCHP, VWITX, IBONDS, EEBONDS, EF(EverBank), UTAH-529
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
Good idea. Keep learnin'...
When you're done, can you upload that to Google Docs and share the link?
When you're done, can you upload that to Google Docs and share the link?
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
You might also add VSS (international small), VNQ (real estate), and possibly VNQI (foreign real estate). And if you include non-Vanguard ETFs, TIP (TIPS) is another important asset class missing from the table.xram wrote:Are these VANGUARD ETFs matched correctly to the appropriate index?
Percentages are not correct yet....
working on a vanguard periodic table.....for my own learnin'
Re: The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2012
LOVE the idea of having this Callan Periodic Table info (a) referenced to Vanguard funds and (b) incorporating VNQ and VNQI and TIPs - curious if, per the suggestion, this was ever done and is it referenced somewhere??
BTW I went on the Callan website and note that the 2013 update is on their site. I am not technically savvy enough to copy here!
BTW I went on the Callan website and note that the 2013 update is on their site. I am not technically savvy enough to copy here!
Re: "Own the haystack"
Last year, I went to a seminar conducted by a major investment institution (there was a free dinner involved). One of the first slides put up at the beginning of the presentation was this Periodic Table. I was mildly amazed; I thought that the speaker was about to be frank about the futility of market timing. No, as it turned out the message was that it was futile for us naive individual investors to time the market, but their analysts were way smarter. If I were to turn over all of my investing decisions to their advisory team (for the usual 1%-2% annual fee), they would steer my money into next year's top of the chart sector.Taylor Larimore wrote: The CPT demonstrates the futility of trying to time the market. It also demonstrates the benefit of investing in the total market.
The Callan Periodic Table updated for 2013
Here is the link to the table updated for 2013
http://www.callan.com/research/download ... %2f757.pdf
http://www.callan.com/research/download ... %2f757.pdf