Showing the right performance numbers in Investment Portfolio Dashboard

[Howard]

Currently, in the Investment Portfolio Dashboard, the performance numbers of the strategy are that of the simulation number instead of the actual performance number. The 3xUIS 1y number is 55% vs the actual historical performance is much higher at 80%+. Shouldn’t this page be showing the actual performance number of the strategy, you are currently showing the actual performance numbers of the benchmark ETFs anyways. The current setup is confusing, at least to me.

[Frank1 Grossmann]

Further down the strategy page you have a link to the actual performance numbers. The backtested performance numbers and charts which we show are from the actual new updated strategies. The idea is that you should see how the actual strategy would have performed in the past. Only this way you can decide if you want to invest in such a strategy. The new version of the strategy is less aggressive as it limits the maximum equity exposure.

[RB]

Frank,

Sorry, I’m still confused on how to read the yearly UISx3 performance numbers:

Year Historical Current
2005 —- 9.4%
2006 —- 27.7%
2007 —- 35.8%
2008 —- 10.3%
2009 —- -40.2%
2010 73.8% 64.9%
2011 80.1% 84.7%
2012 10.5% 26.1%
2013 43.3% 10.4%
2014 73.0% 41.0%
2015 -8.8% -7.5%
2016 22.3% 41.9%
2017 49.1% 55.6%
2018 -3.7% 4.8%
2019 80.5% 54.6%

Is the following correct?
(a) Historical 2010-2019 = Actual results for the old (pre-tweak) strategy.
(b) Current 2005-2009 = Back tested results for the old (pre-tweak) strategy.
(c) Current 2010-2019 = Actual results for the new (post-tweak) strategy.

Also, 2012, 2014 and 2016 have a large difference in performance between the two strategies:
(a) I know the new strategy is less aggressive, but I still wonder if the potential loss in performance is worth sleeping better at night. I know I can invest more aggressively than the strategy signals indicate, but then that defeats the purpose of subscribing to Logical Invest.
(b) Is the CAGR for the old and new UISx3 essentially the same?

Thank you,
Ron

[Frank1 Grossmann]

These are the performance numbers of the actual strategy.
Sure the old strategy did extremely well last year as it could go up to 70% into one single asset and switch 100% between Gold and Treasuries. This however works only well if the market is not volatile and these assets just go up. If you check the 3 year performance, then you will see that the new strategy did much better with much less intermediate drawdowns.
If you think the year 2020 will be another year like 2019 with the S&P 30% up, then probably the old strategy was the better one. However if the market just goes a little bit more sideways, then most probably the new strategy will do better.

[Author]

Posts