simba wrote:edge,
I updated the links. Can you try it again?
Works fine!
simba wrote:
Based on the work done by Jeff (Cb/Gnobility) at http://gnobility.com/Syn_Comm/CCF_1972-2006_san.xls
He calculated the returns as follows:
Collaterallized Chase Index 1972-1990
DJ-AIJ plus T-Bills 1991-1996
DJ-AIG plus Yahoo's IPS 'category' returns 1997-2001 (prior to VIPSX)
DJ-AIJ plus VIPSX - 2001-2002
Pimco PCRIX 2003-2007
Best Regards,
Simba
schwarm wrote:If you were using index results (pre-PCRIX) would it make sense to take off .75% to estimate PCRIX results? The further back you go, the more sketchy the comparison to PCRIX, but it seems worthwhile to estimate the investable fund's earlier performance.
Cb wrote:schwarm wrote:If you were using index results (pre-PCRIX) would it make sense to take off .75% to estimate PCRIX results? The further back you go, the more sketchy the comparison to PCRIX, but it seems worthwhile to estimate the investable fund's earlier performance.
Schwarm,
Here's a link to the updated Excel spreadsheet that shows how I constructed CCF returns prior to the inception of PCRIX.
http://gnobility.com/ER/CCF_1972-2007_san.xls
I included the 0.74% expense ratio (or it's 'compliment' when combining ^DJC with the Vanguard TIPS fund result which already carry a .20% ER)
I think this is about as good as we can do to assemble a dataset similar to PCRIX. A lot of the credit really shoud go to raddr.
Cb
schwarm wrote:Cb wrote:schwarm wrote:If you were using index results (pre-PCRIX) would it make sense to take off .75% to estimate PCRIX results? The further back you go, the more sketchy the comparison to PCRIX, but it seems worthwhile to estimate the investable fund's earlier performance.
Schwarm,
Here's a link to the updated Excel spreadsheet that shows how I constructed CCF returns prior to the inception of PCRIX.
http://gnobility.com/ER/CCF_1972-2007_san.xls
I included the 0.74% expense ratio (or it's 'compliment' when combining ^DJC with the Vanguard TIPS fund result which already carry a .20% ER)
I think this is about as good as we can do to assemble a dataset similar to PCRIX. A lot of the credit really shoud go to raddr.
Cb
So PCRIX level expenses are included in pre-2003 estimates.
Thanks.
RobertH wrote:Simba,
You asked for clarification on the issue with the Sortino ratios. Check out this thread, where Sortino ratios were calculated using your spreadsheet. The ratios for Gibson's Medium Return portfolios don't look right to me.
And thanks for the great work on this spreadsheet.
Robert
P.S. You might consider adding the unhedged global bond returns shown in the thread linked to above, for everyone's benefit.
Cb wrote:Thanks Simba - got it this time!
I know adding the option to subtract appropriate ER's from the pre-fund inception data must have taken quite a bit of effort.
Cb 8)
MossySF wrote:The formula in the "Compare 5 portfolios" section appear to be slightly different from the main section. For example:
1972-2007 TSM = 10.96/17.24
Compare 5 TSM = 11.08/17.25
1985-2007 TSM = 12.22/16.03
Compare 5 TSM = 12.29/15.69
jmFightSpam wrote:Hi,
Simba, TrevH, or to whom it may concern:
Where did you get the data from to populate the spreadsheet?
Thanks.
financialguy wrote:jmFightSpam wrote:Hi,
Simba, TrevH, or to whom it may concern:
Where did you get the data from to populate the spreadsheet?
Thanks.
There is a data sources tab in the spreadsheet that explains for each asset class.
Webfoot wrote:What does nominal and real mean or MAR?
This is a truly amazing piece of work.
What a great tool! Just for fun, I tried to see what the highest Sharpe ratio I could get on the 1972-2007 data. I found that a portfolio of:
30% SCV
20% EM
10% REIT
40% Commodities
Produces a Sharpe ratio of .82
A high allocation to commodities really bumps up the Sharpe ratio of a portfolio.
Random Musings wrote:mbrasher1 wrote:What a great tool! Just for fun, I tried to see what the highest Sharpe ratio I could get on the 1972-2007 data. I found that a portfolio of:
30% SCV
20% EM
10% REIT
40% Commodities
Produces a Sharpe ratio of .82
A high allocation to commodities really bumps up the Sharpe ratio of a portfolio.
Fun to play, but past performance is just that, in the past. With commodities being such a hot topic, I expect disappointment in this arena coming up relatively soon (next few months, at most). If one would run this model 1972-2000, commodities allocation would probably be more muted.
RM
ddb wrote:Something I've found interesting through backtesting is that combining the *riskiest* stocks with the *safest* bonds produces some really neat results
Yup, I agree. One of my favorite asset allocations is something along the lines of 70% TIPs and 30% international small-company stocks (better yet, international emerging small-company stocks). Huge tracking error relative to any common benchmark (obviously), but it has a very interesting risk-return profile.
- DDB
DP wrote:Hi,
Thanks so much for posting this spreadsheet! Very helpful.
I came in with respect for the Permanent Portfolio (search these forums for separate discussion on this) but thinking it was a little conservative and perhaps a little out of balance. I was thinking that a portfolio equally balanced among diverse (as much as possible) asset classes would outperform. The spreadsheet confirms: equal allocations to US Stocks, Int''l Stocks, REIT, Commodity, LT US Bonds, Global Bonds does very well, outperforming well known allocations such as Coffeehouse, Permanent Portfolio, and others. Following this a logical breakdown for US stocks would be Small Cap Value and LC Growth (arguably the best performing sub-class and the most uncorrelated subclass), and a similar breakdown for Int'l stocks would be Emerging Markets and Int'l Value. This yields a portfolio with a sortino of nearly 10 since 1985 and substituting Tips for Global bonds, a sortino of 1.81/sharpe .79 since 72.
One other comment, I have seen disparaging remarks on the outlook for commodities and rarely see this incorporated into a portfolio. Being virtually the only asset class with negative correlation and yet strong historical returns it would seem essential to include this in any balanced portfolio, and to exclude it based on expectations of future performance seems to go against the whole concept - creating a balanced portfolio precisely because it is so difficult to predict what asset class will outperform in the future.
Don
I don't think commodities have performed well except in the very recent past. .... The estimated real return from commodities is very low.
Do not expect the current trend of performance to continue.
zhiwiller wrote:Sorry for resurrecting an ancient thread, but has anyone updated Simba's spreadsheet with 2008's returns? It should make for some interesting backtests.
stratton wrote:zhiwiller wrote:Sorry for resurrecting an ancient thread, but has anyone updated Simba's spreadsheet with 2008's returns? It should make for some interesting backtests.
I did a quick look, but I think its "locked" in certain rows. It might help if I read the instructions page.
Paul
Paul Douglas Boyer wrote:I have attempted to make this spreadsheet web-enabled by importing it into Google Spreadsheets. It appears to work. I did detect some bugs in the formulas that I tried to fix.
I have added data for 2008 from https://flagship.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/FundsByType.
I also added Gold so that we can try calculating the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio. Not sure if I picked the right bond funds.
Here's the link:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pOjc3ot10vgs0eml-DJZKcw&newcopy
I believe you need a Google account to open a Google Docs spreadsheet. This link will open the template as a new document that you own. This means that you will not get updates automatically. That's too bad.
Let me know if it works for you. Let me know of better ideas.
Let me know if it works for you. Let me know of better ideas.
Cb wrote:Paul,
Have you got an Excel version of the spreadsheet?
If so, I could host it...
thanks,
Cb
simba wrote:Sorry Folks, I have been out of pocket for sometime.
I've updated the spreadsheet and for those interested, You can download the Excel Spreadsheet [rev7h] and OpenOffice version [rev7h]
This includes the 2008 returns and some minor updates.
Best Regards,
Simba
grayfox wrote:What happened to gold? I thought gold was added to the spreadsheet so that Harry Browne permanent portfolio could be compared.
Return to Investing - Theory, News & General
Users browsing this forum: Bracket, longview, SnowSkier, teacher, zotty and 37 guests