Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
alex123711
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 5:01 am

Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by alex123711 »

A lot of resources say you should rebalance your allocation e.g 70/30 stocks/ bonds quarterly or annually etc. However how necessary is this? Is holding a few years worth of cash/ bonds a viable alternative? As rebalancing a portfolio incurs brokerage fees and taxes on any capital gains
sailaway
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by sailaway »

We do our rebalancing within our tax sheltered accounts. Once you no longer have this option, it gets touchier.

As to why it is important, you chose a certain AA for a reason. If you don't rebalance, you no longer have the same AA and have changed the risk you are exposed to.
User avatar
dwickenh
Posts: 2009
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:45 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by dwickenh »

Re-balancing is often done in tax deferred accounts(no capital gains) or with added contributions(no capital gains).

It is preferable to re-balance to control risk, but it is not necessary.
The market is the most efficient mechanism anywhere in the world for transferring wealth from impatient people to patient people.” | — Warren Buffett
theorist
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2019 11:39 am

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by theorist »

This deserves more than a one line reply. Happily, Vanguard has a very readable short report about protocols for and costs/benefits of rebalancing:

https://www.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGPORE.pdf

Short answer: when you set your asset allocation, hopefully it wasn’t random, but based on some calculation of acceptable risk. Rebalancing maintains your pre-planned risk level.

Edit: and I see I agree perfectly with sailaway & dwickenh, who just said this!
Last edited by theorist on Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
Call_Me_Op
Posts: 7984
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by Call_Me_Op »

The word "necessary" is too strong. Is it necessary for you to invest at all? Maybe not - depends upon what you want out of life.

What you should be asking is what are the pros and cons of rebalancing. Rebalancing keeps the expected risk level of your portfolio at or close to the target value. It does not necessarily improve returns. In a taxable account, you may wish to be careful how you rebalance in order to minimize taxable events.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein
KlangFool
Posts: 17780
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by KlangFool »

OP,

It is very simple.

If you cannot rebalance, you should not use the 3-funds portfolio. Go with a LifeStrategy fund.

"Buy, Hold, and Rebalance" is required for a 3-funds portfolio.

KlangFool
flaccidsteele
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:42 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by flaccidsteele »

alex123711 wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:54 am A lot of resources say you should rebalance your allocation e.g 70/30 stocks/ bonds quarterly or annually etc. However how necessary is this? Is holding a few years worth of cash/ bonds a viable alternative? As rebalancing a portfolio incurs brokerage fees and taxes on any capital gains
If the investor needs a specific allocation to sleep well at night then they should rebalance

I started investing in the 90s and have never rebalanced
The US market always recovers. It’s never different this time. Retired in my 40s. Investing is a simple game of rinse and repeat
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 42002
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: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by nisiprius »

This is a frequent topic of spirited discussion.

1) If you are just rebalancing in order to maintain keep your risk fairly steady and reasonably aligned with your risk tolerance, decide how much difference is important. Given that Vanguard only thinks it's necessary to have four LifeStrategy funds--80/20, 60/40, 40/60, 20/80--they clearly think that ±10% in the stock allocation is not important. I personally agree.

Well, contrary to the impression you might get, if you are holding something like a three-fund portfolio, it doesn't drift that much or that fast. Even during a sustained bull market, if you are OK with ±10%-of-portfolio from your target allocation, you don't need to rebalance every year, or anything close to it.

People who go in for MPT-inspired portfolios that combine highly volatile asset classes that are supposed to offset each other through low correlation will see more need to rebalance.

2) Some people believe in the existence of a "rebalancing bonus." And some believe firmly that rebalancing can actually manufacture extra return out of pure random volatility. I think this is not so, but I've never managed to convince anyone who believed it, so let's not go down that rabbit hole. If asset classes display robust, reliable mean reversion, then there will be a rebalancing bonus... but that's a big if, and the size of that bonus is not necessarily big.

It is easy to form an incorrect mental model in which the rebalancing rule magically fires near the bottom. The fantasy is that rebalancing during 2008-2009 would have led to one big purchase near the very bottom. In reality, frequent rebalancing during 2008-2009 would have created buy-high-sell-low losses all the way down as well as buy-low-sell-high profits all the way up, and the losses and profits roughly balance. How it nets out depends on the luck of the draw as to where the rebalancing rule actually fires.

3) Even if there is mean reversion and a rebalancing bonus, you only get it if your rebalancing interval roughly matches the time period over which mean reversion occurs. For stocks, that has been several years. According to William J. Bernstein, who popularized the phrase "rebalancing bonus,"
Is there any reason to believe that, on average, rebalancing will help more than it hurts? Not if we believe that market movements are random. After all, we rebalance with the hope that an asset with past higher/lower than average returns will have future lower/higher than average returns.

Is this actually true? Probably. Recall that over short periods of time asset classes display momentum, but that over periods of time over a year or longer tend to mean-revert....

Rebalance your portfolio approximately once every few years; more than once per year is probably too often. In taxable portfolios, do so even less frequently.
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.
rkhusky
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by rkhusky »

Rebalancing scratches my “fiddling” itch.
Lee_WSP
Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:15 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by Lee_WSP »

It is only necessary when the risk ratio escapes your acceptable parameters.
prairieman
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by prairieman »

I have gradually come to realize that there are other ways to manage a portfolio than by keeping a constant AA. At retirement I set my AA to 50:50 stocks:bonds. I valued safety over earnings potential.
Now several years later, I have three years less to live (and to fund) and my stocks and bond funds have both increased in value. As my AA drifts upward towards 60:40, I think I’ll let it go to wherever it goes. The bond fund safety net is still the same size as it was before, and it actually could be smaller (since I am older).
“As long as the roots are not severed, all is well.” Chauncey Gardner
obgraham
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by obgraham »

I started investing in the 90s and have never rebalanced
Well when you reach the stage where you are living off that portfolio, you might not be as happy with the AA. Especially if the market does a 2008-9 on you.

So then,
It is only necessary when the risk ratio escapes your acceptable parameters
becomes more logical.
KlangFool
Posts: 17780
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by KlangFool »

OP,

Let's say your targeted number is 25X. And, you do not rebalance. Eventually, your portfolio drifts to 90/10 right when you hit your number (25X). But, you do not rebalance. You are about to retire in one year. The market drops 50% right then. You could not retire anymore. How would you feel then?

KlangFool
Dandy
Posts: 6357
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by Dandy »

You try to set your allocation to align with your risk tolerance -- it's a rough guess. Since equities, over time, usually far outperform fixed income the portfolio equity allocation and associated risk will tend to rise. A small rise in equity allocation beyond your original limit is usually not a major deal.

It isn't like the "check engine" light went off and you need to pull the car into the next service station. It is more like you want to change your oil every 3k miles and now it is 3.3k miles -- time to make a review and possible action reasonably soon. If you set a 5% tolerance -- e.g. equity allocation of 50% +/- 5% it will be relatively rare to need to rebalance.

I focus on the overall portfolio allocation and pay less attention to the sub allocations. For many allocations the sub allocations are even less of a concern -- how much does it matter if your overall allocation to equities is fine but you have 1% more in international equities than domestic equities? To me not much. The big risk issue is the amount of equity exposure to fixed income -- or your overall allocation.
garlandwhizzer
Posts: 2994
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:42 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by garlandwhizzer »

Rebalancing in practice is done largely to reduce risk. In long running strong bull markets equity allocation rises progressively relative to bonds which can make the portfolio value as a whole more volatile to the downside when the next bear market comes calling. Rebalancing in this circumstance moves money from risk assets to safe assets while risk assets are doing well, in effect reducing equity risk in preparation for the next bear market. Few investors have the guts to do the opposite in practice, to rebalance from bonds into equity during severe bear markets, but if done it has a good chance to improve long term returns.

Whether rebalancing in general is necessary or not is a matter of opinion. Most agree that it should be done. There are many smart outliers however, like Mr. Bogle himself, who didn't think rebalancing was necessary or advisable as a routine practice. Personally, I rebalance annually my stock/bond allocation in line with my goals and risk tolerance which by the way gradually change slightly/modestly over time as you move from the accumulation phase to the withdrawal phase. That is the most important part of rebalancing, the stock/bond mix. On the other hand I do not automatically rebalance within the differing components of my equity or my bonds unless I see a good reason to do so. Long term, no rebalancing is expected to increase portfolio returns because equity tends to to gradually increase relative to bonds and equity is expected to outperform bonds long term. On the other hand increasing equity exposure also increases volatility and risk and may produce more behavioral mistakes like panic selling in bear markets. In sum, you have to know yourself and your own financial circumstances in order to make the proper rebalancing decision.

Garland Whizzer
pascalwager
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by pascalwager »

For the broad categories of stocks and bonds, if you take a total return approach when making withdrawals, then you probably want to limit volatility using historical data such as provided by Vanguard. Then re-balancing would be necessary, as it would also be if you were using a specific AA selected from the Javier Estrada studies.

But Estrada doesn't like to rebalance when stocks have done poorly, but withdraws only from bonds and waits for the next annual withdrawal and better stock returns. So that's a modification of the basic rule.

If you decide not to rebalance, then you should probably draw your initial AA "out of a hat", I guess. And much later, how do you make withdrawal decisions?

OTOH, I guess you could just ignore bonds and simply invest in a total market stock fund. The Estrada studies show that this is a valid approach.
longinvest
Posts: 4433
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:44 am

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by longinvest »

alex123711 wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:54 am A lot of resources say you should rebalance your allocation e.g 70/30 stocks/ bonds quarterly or annually etc. However how necessary is this? Is holding a few years worth of cash/ bonds a viable alternative? As rebalancing a portfolio incurs brokerage fees and taxes on any capital gains
Holding "a few years worth of cash/bonds" is called a bucket approach which is based on a well-known investing bias called mental accounting. To see it, one simply needs to realize that there's no law that forces stocks to recover before the cash/bond bucket is depleted.

I think that the more fundamental question is: Why include bonds in a portfolio? Those seeking to maximize potential (not guaranteed!) returns should probably hold a 140% stocks portfolio (that's an all-stocks portfolio with leverage), if I remember the Kelly Criterion correctly. Bonds are not included in a portfolio to maximize its potential returns; bonds are included to reduce risk, and rebalancing goes logically along with that.

Really! Once bonds are included into a portfolio, it's illogical not to rebalance it. Here are links to posts which explain this in details: Rebalancing is one of those things where emotions and logic don't always agree. That's why I think that many investors would benefit from adopting an automatically-rebalanced and broadly-diversified One-Fund Portfolio.
Last edited by longinvest on Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bogleheads investment philosophy | One-ETF global balanced index portfolio | VPW
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 21627
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by abuss368 »

Depends who your ask as the opinion are all over the place. Generally if the asset allocation moves by 5% or more, the portfolio may (or may not) take on additional risk. I direct new money to any funds under the target allocation.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
Financologist
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 11:16 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by Financologist »

It depends on your objectives and time horizon.

If you want to maintain a particular AA, or at least stay in a range, then rebalancing will become necessary. If you have a satisfactory cash/bonds safety net (this would be 8 years spending for me personally) then perhaps rebalancing is not necessary going forward.

What are your objectives?
Topic Author
alex123711
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 5:01 am

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by alex123711 »

longinvest wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:23 pm
alex123711 wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:54 am A lot of resources say you should rebalance your allocation e.g 70/30 stocks/ bonds quarterly or annually etc. However how necessary is this? Is holding a few years worth of cash/ bonds a viable alternative? As rebalancing a portfolio incurs brokerage fees and taxes on any capital gains
Holding "a few years worth of cash/bonds" is called a bucket approach which is based on a well-known investing bias called mental accounting. To see it, one simply needs to realize that there's no law that forces stocks to recover before the cash/bond bucket is depleted.

I think that the more fundamental question is: Why include bonds in a portfolio? Those seeking to maximize potential (not guaranteed!) returns should probably hold a 140% stocks portfolio (that's an all-stocks portfolio with leverage), if I remember the Kelly Criterion correctly. Bonds are not included in a portfolio to maximize its potential returns; bonds are included to reduce risk, and rebalancing goes logically along with that.

Really! Once bonds are included into a portfolio, it's illogical not to rebalance it. Here are links to post which explain this in details: Rebalancing is one of those things where emotions and logic don't always agree. That's why I think that many investors would benefit from adopting an automatically-rebalanced and broadly-diversified One-Fund Portfolio.

A one fund/ lifecycle makes sense to me, however there are not many available here (Australia) and the ones that are have a high local stock market bias which I would like to avoid.

Also the accounts I am referring to are not tax advantaged, that's why I'm worried about rebalancing causing capital gains tax and eating into returns.
Last edited by alex123711 on Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unladen_Swallow
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:12 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by Unladen_Swallow »

Rebalancing is a method folks use to manage risk. There is no reward.

Rebalancing of done, should be done in tax advantaged accounts. If you have a taxable account, I suggest tax efficient stocks.

Instead of an asset allocation that you periodically balance, you could hold a few years in fixed income if you like. Any strategy works...if it works for you.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong." - Richard Feynman
kiss
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:44 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by kiss »

If you invest in Index funds and need an easy way to find out if you need to rebalance and if so how much and in which accounts - taxable, Roth IRA, Traditional IRA, 401(k), I have created this simple spreadsheet which calculates target allocation based on your age and recommends required changes. It can be used with Google account or downloaded for offline use with Excel. You can access the spreadsheet here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1664105126
Last edited by kiss on Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Unladen_Swallow
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:12 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by Unladen_Swallow »

alex123711 wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:54 am A lot of resources say you should rebalance your allocation e.g 70/30 stocks/ bonds quarterly or annually etc. However how necessary is this? Is holding a few years worth of cash/ bonds a viable alternative? As rebalancing a portfolio incurs brokerage fees and taxes on any capital gains
People do it both ways. You can decide which makes most sense to you.

Also, most people rebalance in tyeirvtax advantaged accounts. So taxes are not an issue.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Ferdinand2014
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by Ferdinand2014 »

No, it is not necessary. I never rebalance. I keep $X of T-bills and would never risk rebalancing them into stocks in order to reduce volatility with an arbitrary allocation. I do not care what percent my T-bills represent in my allocation. I do care that it is a minimum $X amount that I never go below. If my $X is $350,000 and I have $3,500,000 invested, that represents 10%. If my $X is $350,000 and I have $700,000 invested it represents 50% of my allocation. The important number for me is $350,000 not 10% or 50%
“You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.“ — Warren Buffett
retiredjg
Posts: 41946
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:56 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by retiredjg »

alex123711 wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:54 am A lot of resources say you should rebalance your allocation e.g 70/30 stocks/ bonds quarterly or annually etc. However how necessary is this?
The reason to rebalance your portfolio is so that it does not wander into a riskier portfolio than you want or into a portfolio that has less risk than you want. Rebalancing one a year or two years should take care of most of this except during times on great market movement.

If you want to maintain a certain level of risk, yes it is necessary.

Is holding a few years worth of cash/ bonds a viable alternative?
I can't see what this has to do with whether you rebalance or not.

As rebalancing a portfolio incurs brokerage fees and taxes on any capital gains
You should not be paying brokerage fees to purchase your investments in this day and age. You should also not need to sell in a taxable account to rebalance (unless that is the only account you have...in which case, you probably need to fix that).
Ferdinand2014
Posts: 1694
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by Ferdinand2014 »

retiredjg wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:29 pm
alex123711 wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:54 am A lot of resources say you should rebalance your allocation e.g 70/30 stocks/ bonds quarterly or annually etc. However how necessary is this?
The reason to rebalance your portfolio is so that it does not wander into a riskier portfolio than you want or into a portfolio that has less risk than you want. Rebalancing one a year or two years should take care of most of this except during times on great market movement.

If you want to maintain a certain level of risk, yes it is necessary.

Is holding a few years worth of cash/ bonds a viable alternative?
I can't see what this has to do with whether you rebalance or not.

See my post above. It has everything to do with it. I keep years of cash, not percent of cash.

As rebalancing a portfolio incurs brokerage fees and taxes on any capital gains
You should not be paying brokerage fees to purchase your investments in this day and age. You should also not need to sell in a taxable account to rebalance (unless that is the only account you have...in which case, you probably need to fix that).
“You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.“ — Warren Buffett
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 5981
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by watchnerd »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:24 pm OP,

Let's say your targeted number is 25X. And, you do not rebalance. Eventually, your portfolio drifts to 90/10 right when you hit your number (25X). But, you do not rebalance. You are about to retire in one year. The market drops 50% right then. You could not retire anymore. How would you feel then?

KlangFool

But if it dropped -50% in retirement +1 year, you can stay retired?

I think a 45% portfolio hit (.50 * .90) is potentially dangerous at any point for retirees.
Last edited by watchnerd on Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
70% Global Market Weight Equities | 15% Long Treasuries 15% short TIPS & cash || RSU + ESPP
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 5981
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by watchnerd »

longinvest wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:23 pm Really! Once bonds are included into a portfolio, it's illogical not to rebalance it. Here are links to posts which explain this in details:
The need to rebalance a given type of bonds with stocks is proportional to the negative correlation between the two.

My long Treasuries are up +22% YTD and have already blown past their relative (+25%) rebalancing band, and are approaching the +5% absolute overweight threshold.

Letting long Treasuries get too big without pruning them back adds significant risk to my portfolio.

This is not true of my low negative stock correlation short TIPS, nor of my zero correlation cash/MM allocations.

If I only had low volatility bonds I could be complacent.

But because half my bonds are highly volatile, my rebalancing for that portion of my bond allocation needs to be more aggressive.

This is one the downsides of using a risk parity approach and will likely cause me to incur short term cap bond gains.
70% Global Market Weight Equities | 15% Long Treasuries 15% short TIPS & cash || RSU + ESPP
MathWizard
Posts: 4346
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by MathWizard »

If you are 100% stocks, there is nothing to rebalance, so during much of my investing career I did not rebalance

Outside of those years, I only needed to rebalance 5 times, 4 times in recessions/corrections
2001, 2003, 2008 and 2009, and once outside, in late 2019.
tesuzuki2002
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:40 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by tesuzuki2002 »

I have not done much rebalancing at all.. but with bonds pushing all time highs... and stock a down... I’m going to sell off all my bonds and put them in stocks for now and will pick some bonds back up when stocks come back up.,.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 66456
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by LadyGeek »

kiss wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:41 pm If you invest in Index funds and need an easy way to find out if you need to rebalance and if so how much and in which accounts - taxable, Roth IRA, Traditional IRA, 401(k), I have created this simple spreadsheet which calculates recommended allocation based on your age and required changes. It can be used with Google account or downloaded for offline use with Excel. Please see my blog post.

https://kissmoneyblog.blogspot.com/2020 ... n-and.html
Thank you! I have added your spreadsheet to the wiki. See: Rebalancing (External links).
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
kiss
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:44 pm

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by kiss »

If you are looking for an automated way to calculate allocation and required rebalancing for a 3-fund portfolio consisting of US stocks, International stocks and Bonds, please click the link below to Google Sheet that allocates across taxable and non-taxable accounts based on age. It also considers any new cash to invest and recommends required rebalancing (increase/decrease) based on your actual allocation. You can use it with Google Sheets (requires Google login) or download it to use with Excel.

Simple Portfolio Allocation and Rebalancing spreadsheet

The spreadsheet is also available in the Spreadsheets section at the bottom of the Rebalancing wiki here:

Rebalancing Spreadsheets
Last edited by kiss on Sun Oct 25, 2020 2:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.
avidlearner
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:51 am

Re: Is Rebalancing Necessary?

Post by avidlearner »

rkhusky wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:44 pm Rebalancing scratches my “fiddling” itch.
Exactly for me too :mrgreen:
Post Reply