Have a look at this video. It points out the importance of long-term data, the irrelevance of even reliable advice, the emphasis of trading by the financial media, and the wisdom of Nobel prize winners regarding investments.

Oh, and don’t miss THE END-ing!

I have had a number of emails from people trying to get into the Harry Browne investment radio show archives. The links at the original site appear to be down, but fortunately Craig at CrawlingRoad blog has a mirror that you can use. I’ve recently listened to all 44 investment shows and am now going through his political shows starting back from 2002. (I have my own personal mirror of those.)

The voice sounds familiar…

Just a quick post to review the predictions I made and how well they turned out.

• Name: iPad (Ding!)
• Size: 9.7″ (Ding! I said 10″)
• Form Factor: Basically a large iPod Touch (Ding!)
• Home Button? (Ding!)
• Aluminum back? (Ding!)
• Buttons and holes: headphone (Ding), microphone (Ding), volume (Ding), mute (Ding), sleep (Ding)
• USB port? (Bzzzt!) Only has Apple dock. But that serves to connect to your computer. And it does have adapters for cameras.
• Orientation: (Ding! Both portrait and landscape)
• WiFi (Ding)
• Internet connectivity: (Ding? 3G is optional. Nice surprise that it is easy to get 250MB/mo for $14.95)
• Won’t have a phone (Ding!)
• Software: (“It will be like an iPhone with some iWork apps available for download” DING! DING!) It actually runs iPhone apps like I expected.
• Books: (“They will probably start selling books through iTunes.” DING! DING!)
• GPS and big maps (DING!)
• Cameras: (BZZZZZT!) Not three, not two, not even one camera. Maybe version 2?
• Cost? I said $899 dropping to $699. I assumed it would have a 3G card installed. Their price for 3G? $629 to $829. Plus you want to buy the keyboard, case, and adapters. So I give myself a DING! for the price as well.

So I think I got most everything right. Big misses on cameras and USB port. Bottom line is that the iPad is pretty much exactly what I pictured it to be in my mind. I will own one (or more).

Take your pick of names but we are all awaiting the next holy product to be announced from Apple. After “The Jesus Phone” which had people literally weeping in their seats upon its unveiling, the Apple Table is set to be the next  revolutionary gadget that we didn’t realize we couldn’t live without.

I have a small window of time before the official announcement is made before which I can make my own predictions, wish lists, and observations about the new miracle device. Apple is expected to announce it on January 27th at a media event. I guess there is not enough time for them to get all my wish list items incorporated into the thing, but at least they will have my wish list for their 2nd generation of it by 2011.

First, my preferred name for the thing is the Apple iPad. I like the way it rhymes with iPod and it is alliterative with iPhone as well. iSlate is my 2nd choice just because it sounds cool. iBook would be my 3rd choice as it would fit into the MacBook line nicely, but iBook places too much emphasis on this thing being just an eReader and not enough on the other things I want it to do. Read on. iTablet? Sounds like something Dell would call it.

Form factor. The iPad will have the 10” screen everyone is expecting and will basically be a “Honey I Blew Up the iPhone” looking thing. A home button at the bottom and that’s all you see physically. Aluminum back, buttons and holes along the edges. Nice places to put your fingers as you hold it in portrait or landscape orientation.

Buttons and holes will include those found on the iPhone: Headphone/microphone jack, volume buttons, mute switch, sleep button. But it will also include USB. The BIG question is will it include a power hole or a iPod dock hole? You see, it makes a difference in deciding if the iPad will SYNC with a computer or will BE a computer. Will your iTunes library still be on your MacBook and you have to sync it with the iPad, or will the iPad have enough storage to hold all your music by itself? My guess: it will BE a computer and can run iTunes on its own. It could still share music with your MacBook with that family sharing  route and it could share photos and files and so forth. So my money is on it having a nice magnetic power adapter with all kinds of neat accessories we can buy like a car charger and external battery. PLEASE let me use the same magnetic adapter as my MacBook. My guess: they won’t! (They make TONS of money on those things!) And make some kind of adapter that lets me plug it into all my various iPod connectors in the car and external speakers.

The USB adapter will allow commonly needed connections like cameras, flips, and, wait for it… iPhones! And yes, i want to be able to charge my iPhone from the battery of my iPad. You won’t need USB for the external keyboard and mouse because those will connect via BlueTooth. And while you are typing and mousing on your iPad, you will need it to somehow stand up, won’t you? So I’m wondering if this thing will have some sort of picture-frame-like stand on its back that lets you sit it on a desk or table either in portrait or landscape orientation.

I keep harping on orientation. For me this is key to the iPad: being able to read books and long pdfs on it in portrait mode. Already it is more useful than a MacBook for that reason alone. I find reading books in landscape to be too small a window into the text. I don’t know how many others are like me, but the first thing I do on a new computer is move all of those dock or taskbar things from the bottom of the screen over to the left side. That gives me a little more reading room on my MacBook. And I try to trim menu bars and status bars away as well. With the iPad in portrait mode I will be in reading heaven even on a smaller 10” screen.

How will this thing get on the Internet is a key question. Of course it will have Wi-Fi. But will it be on the 3G and EDGE networks as well? Will I have to buy more service from ATT Wireless? Will it tether through my iPhone? Will the iPad BE a phone? My hopes are that it will BE a phone that uses the same phone number as my iPhone, that I can talk on either one, that I can switch between one and the other during a call, that I can surf the net on the iPad while talking on the iPhone, that it can let me make and receive calls with my BlueTooth headset, and that it can act perfectly well as a desktop speakerphone. Not too much to ask, right? If iPhone was the “Jesus Phone” then what would this iPad be, the “GOD” phone?

But my guess of what will actually happen is more limited. I think for this first release it will have Wi-Fi and 3G and EDGE DATA networking only. You will have to add some sort of appendage to your ATT Wireless iPhone plan to get remote internet on the thing. No calls, talking is for iPhones and that is the way we say it will be, says Apple. Maybe in a later release they can figure out if it makes sense to add a phone or not. Perhaps too many people will end up using the data plan to make Skype calls and they will come around.

What about software? Is the iPad a small MacBook or a big iPhone? Wow, this is a tougher one to call. I can make a good case for both. You want to be able to run iWork on the thing, right? But yet Apple wants you to buy 10 billion apps for the thing too. So like a flash it hits me: it runs MacOS but with an iPhone mode so you can do BOTH. But the iPhone OS is all about limiting what you can do. Will Apple want to limit what you can do in the iPad? If so, it will be more like an iPhone with some iWork apps available for download. Actually in that case they will probably throw in some iWork apps for free but you gotta buy all the other cool stuff.

How will you use this thing if you already have a MacBook and an iPhone like I do? You will have your iPhone in your pocket, your MacBook on your desk, and your iPad in your hands. On the couch, in a seat, or in bed. This is the “media comes to me” device. Read a book? Sure, the iPhone already has the Kindle app from Amazon so you can buy thousands of books for $9.99 and start reading. Knowing Apple, they will probably start selling books through the iTunes store. Don’t wanna miss a market, right? But I better be able to get pdfs onto this thing easily and freely or it goes in the trash.

You will also of course watch movies, listen to music, surf the net, and make blog postings. Standard fare. It is the book reading thing that makes the iPad so special. And of course it will be the first successful touch screen computer from Apple. The iPhone set the stage, but now we will have pinch and zoom super-sized. We’ll be using our arms more to see those details from the satellite view. Ah yes, GPS. Big maps finally. Would this thing be appropriate on the dashboard? Not unless it has a camera that can show what is in FRONT of the car! And speaking of cameras, it needs at least two: One on back like normal on the iPhone for taking vids of others and one on front for taking vid of you. Maybe one on the side just to be sly. And I’d really love it if the one on the front is actually UNDER the center of the screen, invisible to us but fully able to see us nonetheless. That way on video calls people will be looking AT YOU instead of somewhere off into space.

Finally, the dreaded question: How much will they want for this thing? Remember when the Jesus Phone first came out how much they charged? Same deal here, waayy more than what we want to pay. They will really put it to those early-adopter guys, hahaha! I expect that early price to be $899. Gasp! With netbooks retailing for $399! Yep, but it will drop after a few months to $699 and everybody will be like, “Whew, now I can afford one at last.”

So prepare for the iPad invasion. Prepare for the weeping, shaking bodies to behold not the iTablet being brought down from the mountain but the iPad being unveiled on Steve’s stage. I can’t wait.

The previous post looked at the effect of gold in a portfolio for the 10-year period 1990-2009. Some may say that 10 years is not statistically long enough to be meaningful. So in this post I take a look at the 38 years from 1972 through 2009.

To start, I selected a widely-followed portfolio of stocks and bonds. The Fund Advice Vanguard Moderate portfolio has the following composition:

(Fund Advice recently split their recommended 12% of VDMIX into 6% VDMIX and 6% VFSVX, the All-World ex-US Small Cap index.)

The Fund Advice portfolio placed 32% in fixed-income and 68% in equities. For the period 1972 through 2009, the portfolio achieved a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.95% with a standard deviation (risk) of 11.6%. This works out to a Sharpe ratio of 0.51.

Let’s now see what would have happened if instead of 100%, we placed 75% of our investment in the Fund Advice portfolio and the remaining 25% in gold. We would have achieved a CAGR of 11.09%, a risk of 10.08%, and a Sharpe ratio of 0.58. So gold did add to the returns for the period while reducing the risk. How could that be since gold itself was very risky over the period? Gold by itself returned only 8.62% while being a whopping 26.88% risky.

How about instead of investing the 25% in risky gold, we had placed the 25% in safe but similarly rewarding Treasury Money Market fund? The Vanguard VMPXX by itself for 1972 through 2009 had a CAGR of 5.66% with a risk of only 3.03%. The resulting combination with the Fund Advice portfolio shows a CAGR of 9.75%, a risk of 8.77%, and a Sharpe ratio of 0.5.

The return vs. risk of the three portfolio mixes and the individual components gold and money market (MM) are shown in the following graph.

So against our intuition, investing in risky gold actually reduced risk in the overall portfolio while adding to the returns. It even beat a comparable portfolio that invested in money markets. This is the power of Modern Portfolio Theory in action showing that while some assets zig, others zag to combine in wonderful ways.

Sources: Vanguard.com, Simba’s spreadsheet (with 2009 data added), Bogelheads.org, FundAdvice.com.

Should a portfolio own gold? I am on the quest to obtain the definitive answer to that question. Here are the results of one exercise in which I take a model Vanguard portfolio and compare it with the same portfolio with a 25% allocation to gold for the time period 1999 through 2009.

Here is the model portfolio composition which is based on the IFA Index Portfolio 25 (source). We will call this the Vanguard 25 portfolio:

I am going to use the time period from 1999 through 2009 for the analysis. Crunching the numbers in Simba’s spreadsheet (Revised with 2009 data added. More info about the spreadsheet at the Bogleheads forum.) I come up with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.6% with a average annualized standard deviation (risk) of 7.1%. This works out to a Sharpe ratio of 0.41 for the time span.

So, what if instead of having 100% of our total investment in the Vanguard 25 portfolio we placed just 75% of our investment in it and placed the remaining 25% in gold? Running the numbers in Simba’s spreadsheet (Simba uses this source for gold’s annual return.)  I come up with a CAGR of 7.5% with a risk of 6.9% resulting in a Sharpe ratio of 0.70. Call this one Vanguard 25 w/ Gold. The following chart plots these two results. As a reference I also show on the following charts the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio which is comprised of 25% each of Total Stock Market (VTSMX), Long Term Gov’t Bond (VUSTX), Money Market (VMPXX), and Gold.

Also shown in the chart is the same exercise but instead of placing 25% in gold we substitute a Treasury bill money market fund (VMPXX) for the 25%. The portfolio with money market fund added resulted in a CAGR of 5.0%, risk of 5.3%, and a Sharpe ratio of 0.41. Call it the Vanguard 25 w/ T-Bills. Note that the Sharpe ratio is the same as the original portfolio because in a Sharpe ratio calculation we subtract out the risk-free rate of return of money markets. So adding money markets to a portfolio does not change the ratio of return vs. risk.

The next chart adds the individual return vs. risk of gold and money market for the same time period showing the higher risk with accompanying higher return of gold for the period.

This next chart adds the individual return vs. risk of all of the other components of the Vanguard 25 portfolio for the same time period.

And for the fun of it, I computed the optimal portfolio for the time span based upon the highest Sharpe ratio and as computed by Excel Solver. This tool allows you to specify an attribute you wish to maximize while varying the percentage amounts of the various funds. In this case, we chose to maximize the Sharpe ratio and allow Excel Solver to pick which combination of which funds achieved it. The following table shows the result.

The OPTIMAL portfolio resulted in a CAGR of 5.8%, a risk of 2.6%, and the resulting Sharpe ratio of 1.12. Its addition to the first chart is shown below.

How about continuing to optimize with a high Sharpe ratio yet obtaining greater return? To do that I subtracted some short-term bonds and added some gold leaving the other two components the same. That is, gold at 35% and bonds at 57%. This resulted in a CAGR of 7.6%, risk of 7.7% and Sharpe ratio of 0.99 and can be seen in the following chart.

Therefore, to answer the original question, “Should a portfolio own gold?” it appears that for the period 1999 through 2009 the answer would have been a resounding “yes.” We find that adding gold to the portfolio resulted in higher returns with less risk.

I caution that this process is called data mining and should only serve as input into future portfolio analysis and not serve as the only decision regarding future investments. In subsequent analysis I will not limit the possibilities to just the Vanguard 25 fund set but will open it up to Vanguard funds available since 1972 and/or 1985.

Sources: Vanguard.com, Bogleheads.org, IFA.com, and http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/curency/goldmarketprice.htm

Let’s go back and gather up the gains for 2005 and 2006 to add to our analysis with this chart.

As you can see, the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio still has the best “top-leftedness” of these select Lazy Portfolios. It had an annualized return of 8% with an annualized standard deviation of 8.8%. That results in a nicely high Sharpe ratio of 0.75, assuming a risk-free rate of return of 1.37% for all 5 years (not likely).

The HBPP’s out-performance is due to the stellar performance of gold through all of these years. I am still not convinced this is the one for all seasons. So I will be performing some analysis of this portfolio for the years that were most favorable to equities and not gold and see how the HBPP would have held up.

Here is a chart that sort of goes with the previous posting’s table. I have taken just a few of the portfolios of interest and computed their standard deviation for the time period of three years. Then plotted their ANNUALIZED return on the Y axis vs. their annualized standard deviation along the X axis.

Remember that you’d want your portfolio to be at the top left of the chart because their you get the higher return with the lower risk.

So for the three year period from 2007 through 2009 the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio showed the best return and the least risk of any of the featured lazy portfolios. More analysis to come…

Here’s an early look at how the professional Lazy Portfolios have performed for the past 3, 2, and 1 years ending 31 December 2009. These are cumulative returns, with dividends reinvested. Data comes from Yahoo! Finance into my spreadsheet. There may be errors in the data. Some funds may not yet have reported dividends for 2009, for example. I have sorted the results by the 3-year performance.

Here are some takeaways from the table:

1. These portfolios have different objectives, different asset class mixtures, and different risk profiles. Simply comparing them on historic returns is not a way to pick one for an investment.
2. Therefore, a better way to view these would be to look at them on a return vs. risk graph where risk is defined as the standard deviation of the portfolio. Then we could see at a glance which portfolio has the more desired “top-leftedness” (meaning it had higher return for its level of risk).
3. Only two of the portfolios invested in gold, the two top performers. Future results may vary.
4. I believe most funds have no load.
5. I changed the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio cash holding from VFISX to SHY which results in a slightly lower return (about 1% less). I would prefer to hold it in a money market fund, but Yahoo! Finance does not give me historical returns for them.
6. Remember, this table probably has errors!

Hey folks, I’m still here. Been doing a lot of golfing, amusement park going, beach combing, etc. I love summer and hot weather and don’t want to waste it by being indoors. This is just a ping to let you know everything is fine and that you can expect a show 161 probably next week. It would help if we got a rain day or two.