06-28-2016, 01:38 PM
(06-28-2016, 01:23 PM)navyasw02 Wrote: Nice analysis. I think your numbers are skewed however because you assume no additional investments beyond your initial principal in your back tests. I rarely see any analyses that do include periodic investments, but they would significantly increase total return had the theoretical investor continued investing in that max drawdown period.
I don't pretend to have the right answer for what AA should be, but I see it largely depending on time remaining in the market. For me, I'm 100% stocks because I have at least 20 years of continued investments before I start to drawdown.
You are correct. And with 20 to go I would (and was) 100% stocks.
Here is the DG61 (blue) DG61/38Bond (red) and 60/40 (yellow) with contributions of $458/month ($5500/year) vs S&P 500 Total Return in green:
There are people who use up their entire lives making money so they can enjoy the lives they have entirely used up
Frederick Buechner
Frederick Buechner