60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Topic Author
Kevin K
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:47 pm

60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Kevin K » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:57 pm

I looked for discussion of this article here and didn't see anything; my apologies if I missed it.

The author has a piece in Forbes that's getting a lot of media play, but this longer version on his own site is more detailed:

http://charlessizemore.com/60-40-is-dead/

Obviously the comments about equity valuations and bond returns are correct, and I thought the Harvard endowment allocations were interesting but otherwise, for me anyway, lots of alarm bells going off here regarding expenses, volatility and much else. Curious to hear people's thoughts.

invst65
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:04 am

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by invst65 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:05 pm

I didn't read the article but I took one look at the pie chart and thought what a nightmare. I don't even know what half the pieces represent.

Whakamole
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:59 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Whakamole » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:06 pm

As of 2015, the Harvard endowment fund had only 33% of its funds in stocks. It has another 18% in private equity and 12% in real estate. The rest is spread across everything from timberland to absolute returns hedge funds. Let’s stop and ask an obvious question: If it’s good for trustees of Harvard, would it not also be good for you?
No? I think "no" is a perfectly valid answer considering the needs of the Harvard Endowment (and a very long-term vision) versus what most of us are looking at, not to mention Harvard's ability to buy into presumably better private equity than the average investor has access to.

User avatar
oldcomputerguy
Moderator
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:50 am
Location: In the middle of five acres of woods in East Tennessee

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by oldcomputerguy » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:11 pm

What the heck is "alpha-cloning"?
"I’ve come around to this: If you’re dumb, surround yourself with smart people; and if you’re smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." (Aaron Sorkin)

User avatar
celia
Posts: 9987
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by celia » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:24 pm

invst65 wrote:I didn't read the article but I took one look at the pie chart and thought what a nightmare. I don't even know what half the pieces represent.
+1. If this was my portfolio, I wouldn't be able to prepare my own taxes. I was doing taxes for a relative until he invested in Limited Partnerships MLP). The K-1 statements (which I couldn't read) didn't arrive until after April 15 and he had to go to a paid tax preparer to amend his return. And that's not counting Options and Medical Accounts Receivables. Is there that big a market out there to buy/sell them?

I wonder what kind of commissions this kind of portfolio generates!
A dollar in Roth is worth more than a dollar in a taxable account. A dollar in taxable is worth more than a dollar in a tax-deferred account.

peppers
Posts: 1395
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by peppers » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing Kevin.

Of course, if I had $36 billion to play with I might be inclined to try something "different".
"..the cavalry ain't comin' kid, you're on your own..."

livesoft
Posts: 69615
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by livesoft » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:32 pm

His estimates for the expected returns of the new different things are quite the joke. He has a disclaimer, but his disclaimer does not discuss the costs and fees of these things which will eat up quite a lot of the expected returns.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

User avatar
whodidntante
Posts: 7130
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:11 pm
Location: outside the echo chamber

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by whodidntante » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:34 pm

It's all so complicated! If only there were someone I could pay to manage it for me.

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 13427
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Toons » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:38 pm

60/40 is Dead.
I feel better.
I will be ok then.
I am 70/30 :happy
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 4637
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:42 pm

hmmm...associated with Harry Dent I see...

http://charlessizemore.com/about/
Charles Lewis Sizemore, CFA is the Chief Investment Officer of Sizemore Capital Management LLC, a registered investment advisor based in Dallas, Texas, and the Editor of Dent 401k Advisor."
http://www.dentresearch.com/dent-401k-advisor/
Image

Just sayin!
"May you live as long as you want and never want as long as you live" -- Irish Blessing | "Invest we must" -- Jack Bogle

GoldenFinch
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:34 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by GoldenFinch » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:44 pm

Toons wrote:60/40 is Dead.
I feel better.
I will be ok then.
I am 70/30 :happy
Exactly what I was thinking, but I'm 77/23 (on most days). :D

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 13427
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Toons » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:45 pm

GoldenFinch wrote:
Toons wrote:60/40 is Dead.
I feel better.
I will be ok then.
I am 70/30 :happy
Exactly what I was thinking, but I'm 77/23 (on most days). :D
:sharebeer
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

TonyDAntonio
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by TonyDAntonio » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:50 pm

Why would you need anything more than the Treasury Profits Accelerator?
arcticpineapplecorp. wrote:hmmm...associated with Harry Dent I see...

http://charlessizemore.com/about/
Charles Lewis Sizemore, CFA is the Chief Investment Officer of Sizemore Capital Management LLC, a registered investment advisor based in Dallas, Texas, and the Editor of Dent 401k Advisor."
http://www.dentresearch.com/dent-401k-advisor/
[image from post being quoted removed by moderator prudent]

Just sayin!

livesoft
Posts: 69615
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by livesoft » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:51 pm

I don't think I need to see ads posted multiple times.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 12977
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by nedsaid » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:09 pm

I am on a roll here posting like crazy so I will take a stab at this.

Medical Accounts Receivable? Is that a new asset class? Who comes up with this stuff? Another form of a bond.

Closed-End Bond Funds. Not an irrational choice, particularly if you can get one trading at a good discount. Problem is, some of these utilize leverage. Who knows what risks are under the hood. A non-leveraged fund purchased at a discount is a good idea. Larry Swedroe suggested buying FDIC Insured Certificates of Deposit on the secondary market (brokered CDs) and held to maturity, you can squeeze maybe an extra 50 basis points in yield over a CD at your bank.

Preferred stock. Really a stock/bond hybrid. I read Larry Swedroe's book on Alternative Investments and he does not recommend them. An ETF of Preferred Stocks might be okay but you are taking on more risk. Like the Closed-End Bond idea, this smacks of reaching for yield.

Real Estate. I like REITs but they are not good value here. Again, this is yield chasing. Perhaps he is recommending some form of privately-held real estate. Sounds too much like non-traded REITs.

Select Master Limited Partnerships. Hmmm. These are actually stocks with high dividend yields. If held in a taxable account, you get a K-1 and this can be a nightmare during tax time. They don't always get these to you by April 15th. These can work. It seems a lot of these were energy plays of some time and we all know how energy has been doing lately. A family member had one of these blow up. Again, yield chasing. These can be good investments. There are also rare occasions where these throw off enough UBTI income that in an IRA that the IRA would have to pay the tax. If your account has MLPs that throw off over $1,000 in UBTI income, the IRA will file a tax form. In most cases, the brokerage company will do this for you.

Private Equity. Isn't this just another form of Equity Investment? Stocks in drag. Higher risk, potentially higher return. Problem is that retail investors tend to get the leftovers.

Dividend Growth Stocks. This has been a great strategy. Problem is that popular strategies tend to underperform when they get too popular. Not too long ago, I saw that Vanguard Dividend Growth yielded 1.97% and Vanguard Total Stock Market yielded 1.79%. Both are investor class. You get 18 more basis points. Performance chasing and yield chasing.

Options writing. My broker explained the covered call strategy to me and then my eyes glazed over. A way of generating income.

Okay. Big picture now. Medical A/R 6%, Options writing 7%, Select MLPs 6%, Cash 6%, Closed-End Bond Fund 7%, Preferred Stock 8%. Hmm. Bonds in drag are 40%. Hmmm.

Real Estate 14%, Dividend Growth 32%, Private Equity 14%. Hmmm. Equity is 60%.

Shoot. This is nothing more than a traditional 60/40 portfolio in drag. In drag with yield and performance chasing. Somehow, I am not too impressed.

I am much more impressed with the Ray Dalio All-Weather Portfolio.
A fool and his money are good for business.

wolf359
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by wolf359 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:12 pm

Some points:

1) His target audience is accredited investors only. Some of his asset class choices are only open to accredited investors. His advice is targeted only to wealthy people who will hire his firm to manage this for them.

2) His alternative to a 60/40 portfolio is an 81/19 portfolio. I'd consider the accounts receivables, bond funds, and cash to be fixed income investments. Dividend Growth Stocks, Options, MLPs, REITs, Dividend growth stocks and private equity are all equity. So maybe it has nothing to do with the particular assets he's selecting, and more that he's picking a riskier portfolio.

I don't think his advice is relevant to someone who isn't going to pay him, and doesn't already have a lot of assets. I'm not sure it's relevant to someone who DOES have a lot of assets. I think there's a reason he flagged his post as PHYSICIAN CAPITAL. Physicians aren't that discerning about investment strategies. His choices aren't very tax friendly, and he doesn't have to be a fiduciary in a taxable account.

chx
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:52 am

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by chx » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:21 pm

Toons wrote:60/40 is Dead.
I feel better.
I will be ok then.
I am 70/30 :happy
This needs to be haikuized.

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 12977
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by nedsaid » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:33 pm

The percentages I gave of equity to fixed income can vary according to how you classify them.

A Master Limited Partnership traded on an exchange is an equity investment. I showed it as a "bond in drag" asset for a couple of reasons. First, most of your return from these will be from the dividend yield. The capital appreciation is secondary. Second, he clearly (at least to me) was using these as a bond substitute. From my understanding, options writing is an income strategy though options are probably better classified as an equity investment. But I saw this as a "bonds in drag" strategy. Again, a bond substitute. Preferred stocks are a hybrid instrument but they are purchased for their yield and I saw this as a clear bond substitute.

I called this a 60/40 portfolio in disguise but in terms of risk, it is really more like an 80% stock and 20% bond portfolio. This portfolio should generate pretty good income, better than a traditional 60/40 portfolio but with a lot more risk. The extra income generated gives an illusion of safety.
A fool and his money are good for business.

BigJohn
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:27 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by BigJohn » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:37 pm

I agree with all the comments above about his more exotic asset classes. Even his claims about his stock portion are very suspect. In the chart "60/40 is dead" he says stock return will give you 4.5%. Then in table of expected returns of his portfolio the value/dividend stocks will return 3-5% dividends and 5-10% capital gains. So with his expert help you can easily double the avg return of the total market? How is this different from the claims of any other active fund manager? The data is fairly clear that his ability to deliver this performance on a sustained basis has a very low probability.

I think this guy is marketing his stuff in a very smart way (for him at least). Lots of people are worried about low returns going forward and are anxious to find some way to get higher returns. Here come Charles Sizemore with an answer to all your worries but it takes his secret formula to deliver these higher returns. I'd love to know what his fee structure is but I'm sure he can hook a lot of high net worth people into paying it with this sales pitch.

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 12977
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by nedsaid » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:39 pm

Another issue with this portfolio is that the income stream could be more volatile than what his investors would realize.
A fool and his money are good for business.

User avatar
oldcomputerguy
Moderator
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:50 am
Location: In the middle of five acres of woods in East Tennessee

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by oldcomputerguy » Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:02 pm

chx wrote:
Toons wrote:60/40 is Dead.
I feel better.
I will be ok then.
I am 70/30 :happy
This needs to be haikuized.
How's this?

(<ahem>)

"He says slice 'n' dice.
Index funds are Bogle's way.
I will stay the course."

:happy
"I’ve come around to this: If you’re dumb, surround yourself with smart people; and if you’re smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." (Aaron Sorkin)

protagonist
Posts: 6092
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by protagonist » Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:43 pm

Is Harvard beating the market? (curious....)

If not, with their influence and tens of billions of dollars to hire only the best, that certainly says something. If they can't, I certainly shouldn't be able to.

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 12977
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by nedsaid » Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:47 pm

protagonist wrote:Is Harvard beating the market? (curious....)

If not, with their influence and tens of billions of dollars to hire only the best, that certainly says something. If they can't, I certainly shouldn't be able to.
The Charles Sizemore portfolio isn't the Harvard portfolio.
A fool and his money are good for business.

The Wizard
Posts: 13356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by The Wizard » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:23 pm

wolf359 wrote:Some points:

1) His target audience is accredited investors only...
What exactly are accredited investors?
Are they basically high net worth folks ($10M+) who somehow find it exciting to pay higher than average management fees while getting lower than average total return?
Attempted new signature...

User avatar
oldcomputerguy
Moderator
Posts: 6861
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:50 am
Location: In the middle of five acres of woods in East Tennessee

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by oldcomputerguy » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:40 pm

The Wizard wrote: What exactly are accredited investors?
Are they basically high net worth folks ($10M+) who somehow find it exciting to pay higher than average management fees while getting lower than average total return?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acc ... vestor.asp
An accredited investor is a term used by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Regulation D to refer to investors who are financially sophisticated and have a reduced need for the protection provided by certain government filings. Accredited investors include individuals, banks, insurance companies, employee benefit plans, and trusts.
"I’ve come around to this: If you’re dumb, surround yourself with smart people; and if you’re smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." (Aaron Sorkin)

chx
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:52 am

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by chx » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:43 pm

smartinwate wrote:
chx wrote:
Toons wrote:60/40 is Dead.
I feel better.
I will be ok then.
I am 70/30 :happy
This needs to be haikuized.
How's this?

(<ahem>)

"He says slice 'n' dice.
Index funds are Bogle's way.
I will stay the course."

:happy
Nicely done! :sharebeer

juanovo
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:57 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by juanovo » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:55 pm

"Let’s stop and ask an obvious question: If it’s good for trustees of Harvard, would it not also be good for you?"
How about because I don't have the dedicated staff to trade on a daily basis my individualized allocation to alternative investments, the ability to do so tax free, huge source of donations to replace my losses, and an infinite timeline to manage my investment like the trustees if Harvard do.

"Let's stop to ask an obvious question: if David Swensen the manager of Yale's endowment doesn't believe that individuals should invest like his endowment does, why would you trust someone who does?"

User avatar
neurosphere
Posts: 3383
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by neurosphere » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:58 pm

The Wizard wrote:
wolf359 wrote:Some points:

1) His target audience is accredited investors only...
What exactly are accredited investors?
Are they basically high net worth folks ($10M+) who somehow find it exciting to pay higher than average management fees while getting lower than average total return?
$10M+?

Hardly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investor

Net worth of one million dollars, or salary of $200,000 ($300k if married). I'm not sure that a joint income of $300,000 or a net worth os $1M all of a sudden makes one a savvy investor who needs to look for alternative portfolio strategies.
If you have to ask "Is a Target Date fund right for me?", the answer is "Yes".

avalpert
Posts: 6313
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by avalpert » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:00 pm

The Wizard wrote:
wolf359 wrote:Some points:

1) His target audience is accredited investors only...
What exactly are accredited investors?
Are they basically high net worth folks ($10M+) who somehow find it exciting to pay higher than average management fees while getting lower than average total return?
$1m in net worth excluding your primary residence or $200k in income for consecutive years.

leonard
Posts: 5993
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:56 am

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by leonard » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:01 pm

That portfolio looks suspiciously like one that would "require" MR Sizemore's services - or those of another stock Broker....I mean financial advisor.

Keep it simple.
Leonard | | Market Timing: Do you seriously think you can predict the future? What else do the voices tell you? | | If employees weren't taking jobs with bad 401k's, bad 401k's wouldn't exist.

User avatar
JamalJones
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm
Location: Virgo Super Cluster

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by JamalJones » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:10 pm

I had the same thought as nedsaid: "Medical Accounts Receivable"??? What on earth? This portfolio looks complicated and expensive---AND it'll likely under perform the S&P 500 over the next 10 years (and probably beyond).
TSP + Vanguard Roth IRA + Vanguard Taxable: 80% equities / 20% bonds | "Yap, yap, yap, yap, - the bottom line is ya gotta buckle up the chin strap!" --R. Lewis

sixtyforty
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by sixtyforty » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:41 pm

When you see so called experts saying something is "dead", it's the very reason why it will continue just fine.
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo Da Vinci

Retired1809
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Retired1809 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:48 pm

Sizemore's "advice" should come with a warning label: "Snake Oil"

Solo Prosperity
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Solo Prosperity » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:35 pm

Favorite line: "Expected returns based on historical data and estimates made by Sizemore Capital Management."

So good.

Also love the fact that he says stocks in a 60/40 will yield 4.5%, but somehow his value/dividend stock picks will yield a total return of 8-15%...

Crazy stuff.

User avatar
JamalJones
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:53 pm
Location: Virgo Super Cluster

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by JamalJones » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:50 pm

arcticpineapplecorp. wrote:hmmm...associated with Harry Dent I see...

http://charlessizemore.com/about/
Charles Lewis Sizemore, CFA is the Chief Investment Officer of Sizemore Capital Management LLC, a registered investment advisor based in Dallas, Texas, and the Editor of Dent 401k Advisor."
http://www.dentresearch.com/dent-401k-advisor/
Image

Just sayin!
That fact alone should make people run!!
TSP + Vanguard Roth IRA + Vanguard Taxable: 80% equities / 20% bonds | "Yap, yap, yap, yap, - the bottom line is ya gotta buckle up the chin strap!" --R. Lewis

NMJack
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:22 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by NMJack » Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:36 am

Just for fun, I poked around on the website a bit. It says that Boom and Bust Elite is a $4247 value that is now available for $1295. You will "never pay anything ever again," (except for a "small administrative charge of $29 a year"). There is also a "100% risk free guarantee," (minus a 10% restocking fee). There was also suggestion that this is a limited offer (no more than 300 new "members").

This is simply amazing! :oops:

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 13427
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Toons » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:59 am

smartinwate wrote:
chx wrote:
Toons wrote:60/40 is Dead.
I feel better.
I will be ok then.
I am 70/30 :happy
This needs to be haikuized.
How's this?

(<ahem>)

"He says slice 'n' dice.
Index funds are Bogle's way.
I will stay the course."

:happy

Kudos :sharebeer
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 12977
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by nedsaid » Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:46 am

juanovo wrote:"Let’s stop and ask an obvious question: If it’s good for trustees of Harvard, would it not also be good for you?"
How about because I don't have the dedicated staff to trade on a daily basis my individualized allocation to alternative investments, the ability to do so tax free, huge source of donations to replace my losses, and an infinite timeline to manage my investment like the trustees if Harvard do.

"Let's stop to ask an obvious question: if David Swensen the manager of Yale's endowment doesn't believe that individuals should invest like his endowment does, why would you trust someone who does?"
The essential difference is the scale. Yale has billions and I do not. Yale has extensive connections that I do not have. They can do things like buy lots of timberland or many income producing properties and form their own management company. If they want to invest in Private Equity, they have access to the best deals. If they want to do hedge funds, the best managers will return their calls.

Another essential difference is time horizon. I am 56 years old. . .well you can do the math. Presumably, Yale has a time horizon of forever. They can have substantial illiquid holdings as they have a very long time horizon and don't have the need for liquidity that individuals have. A big institution should have more ability to weather crisis and not have to sell illiquid investments for pennies on the dollar.
A fool and his money are good for business.

User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 4637
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:12 pm

60:40 is dead.
Long live 60:40.
"May you live as long as you want and never want as long as you live" -- Irish Blessing | "Invest we must" -- Jack Bogle

User avatar
IlikeJackB
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by IlikeJackB » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:02 pm

double post
Last edited by IlikeJackB on Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Do what you will, the capital is at hazard." Justice Samuel Putnam, Harvard College vs Amory, 1830. The "Prudent Man Rule."

User avatar
IlikeJackB
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by IlikeJackB » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:12 pm

IlikeJackB wrote:Check out what Bill Bernstein has to say about 60:40 being dead and "alternative" investments ….. at about 4:00 on the video.

http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videoc ... ?id=756779
"Do what you will, the capital is at hazard." Justice Samuel Putnam, Harvard College vs Amory, 1830. The "Prudent Man Rule."

User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 12977
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:33 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by nedsaid » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:32 pm

IlikeJackB wrote:
IlikeJackB wrote:Check out what Bill Bernstein has to say about 60:40 being dead and "alternative" investments ….. at about 4:00 on the video.

http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videoc ... ?id=756779
Pretty much Sizemore says 60/40 is dead and then substitutes it with a portfolio that gives an impression of a conservative portfolio because it generates more income than a traditional 60/40. The problem is that in risk terms, it really is more like a 80/20 portfolio and that income stream will be more volatile than people realize. Nothing but yield chasing.

Jack Bogle's advice to stretch for yield but not by much is good. He recommends replacing a slice of your stocks with dividend stocks and adding more investment grade corporate bonds to a bond portfolio. He thinks the Total Bond Market is too Government Bond heavy with 70% or so in Treasury and Agency Bonds. But he doesn't suggest anything wild.
A fool and his money are good for business.

Volkdancer
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:37 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Volkdancer » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:35 pm

Why do Bogleheads even bother with this kind of stuff? It is simply the case of a writer having to produce or perish, not unlike in academe.

Karl V

azanon
Posts: 2633
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:34 am

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by azanon » Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:55 pm

What, so no Crypto-Currency like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, or Litecoin?!? That guy needs to catch up! Cabbage-patch dolls might be a good value play.

cottonseed1
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:14 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by cottonseed1 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:29 am

I would heard the following joke, " You know what they call alternative medicine that works????....Medicine"

I feel the same thing applies to "alternative" investments.

cottonseed1
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:14 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by cottonseed1 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:39 am

But seriously, people love throwing around graphics like the following without taking into account the rate of inflation.

http://sizemorecapital.com/wp-content/u ... Slide3.jpg

Yes the implied portfolio return in 1980 was around 12.5%, BUT inflation was running at 12-14% at the time. Inflation was tamed and valuations in hindsight appeared to be "cheap", however history could have certainly taken a different path. If inflation would have continued at a very high rate those valuations would have been appropriate.

From the data I have seen, inflation is running around 1%-1.5%. Using the numbers in the graphic a boring 60/40 portfolio has a higher implied real return than the 1980s portfolio.

User avatar
Munir
Posts: 2567
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Munir » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:06 pm

Yes, 60/40 is dead. Long live 40/60 (for retirees anyway)- maybe even 30/70.

NMJack
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:22 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by NMJack » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:50 pm

cottonseed1 wrote:But seriously, people love throwing around graphics like the following without taking into account the rate of inflation.

http://sizemorecapital.com/wp-content/u ... Slide3.jpg

Yes the implied portfolio return in 1980 was around 12.5%, BUT inflation was running at 12-14% at the time. Inflation was tamed and valuations in hindsight appeared to be "cheap", however history could have certainly taken a different path. If inflation would have continued at a very high rate those valuations would have been appropriate.

From the data I have seen, inflation is running around 1%-1.5%. Using the numbers in the graphic a boring 60/40 portfolio has a higher implied real return than the 1980s portfolio.
Thank you. I had the exact same thought but didn't take the time to look up the numbers.

Lobster
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by Lobster » Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:27 pm

This article is toxic garbage. Other posters have made some of these observations, but I feel compelled to list them out.
  • Asset class correlation is dynamic. Sizemore treats it as static which is a critical misunderstanding.
  • Sizemore ignores inflation in his 1980 'comparison'. Real returns are the only returns that matter.
  • The opacity and illiquidity of alternatives makes them products that are good for selling, not buying. Only multi-billion endowments or other extremely high net worth individuals have access to the relationships and opportunities that can make these products viable.
  • His portfolio ignores tax efficiency. Even a small marginal tax rate cuts deeply into returns when an investor pays STCG.
  • Sizemore asks: 'Let’s stop and ask an obvious question: If it’s good for trustees of Harvard, would it not also be good for you?' Answer: David Swensen doesn't think so.
Submit to the relentless rules of humble arithmetic and avoid the tyranny of compounding costs.

User avatar
steve roy
Posts: 1735
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: 60:40 is dead: Charles Sizemore

Post by steve roy » Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:36 pm

Toons wrote:60/40 is Dead.
I feel better.
I will be ok then.
I am 70/30 :happy
And I'm 30/70, so I'm good.

What a freaking RELIEF!

Post Reply