[brucealder]

Ha, nice one…and unfortunately very true.

[brucealder]

Thanks Patrick, appreciate the context and definitely makes sense.
Cheers!

[brucealder]

Thank you for the info and confirmation, very helpful!

[brucealder]

Thanks Frank, really appreciate the feedback!

I had a couple minor follow-up questions but I’ll email on the side in order to lighten the Forum traffic.

[brucealder]

Thanks again for looking into this Frank.

With UISx3 shifting entirely out of SPXL for February, the exposure to Bonds increased. The current exposure to Bonds with both UISx3 and USMx2 seems to be very high (and with bond yields essentially at record lows, the likelihood of a bond collapse looks all too likely).

[brucealder]

Thanks for asking, I had the same question.

I use UISx3 and it shifted this month to 60% TMF, 89% GLD (45% UGL) and 10% SPXL…which is overly exposed to the risk of a rate rally and the subsequent collapse in bonds (which is happening today, UISx3 is down 4.75% so far today). With rates as low as they are, there’s really no upside unless they go negative…so the odds are much more likely bonds will collapse.

I can handle tons of risk (which is why I’m in UISx3), but this positioning definitely has me worried.

It would be great to get the team’s perspective on this…thanks in advance Frank, Alex, et al.

[brucealder]

Thanks Frank for the rationale and feedback.

While Logical Invest uses a monthly cadence to rebalance, have there been times when making intra-month adjustments, or non-monthly off-cycle adjustments, would make sense? If there were cases where this would drive improved performance (for UISx3, for example), would Logical Invest adapt the cadence accordingly? Thanks!

[brucealder]

Thanks Frank, that was helpful.

Building on the concern related to the election. When the new allocations come out for November, I’d planned to implement on Monday, Nov 2, the day before the election. Does that sound like the right approach, to implement the day before the election, or hold off and implement after the election? Thanks…

[brucealder]

Thanks Pat, that clarification is super helpful and makes perfect sense.
Thanks,
Bruce

[brucealder]

Hi Patrick,
With the Sept 1st allocation for UISx3 the GLD position was removed in order to avoid using leverage in the account, leaving only SPXL and TMF. Is the plan to go back to including GLD?

Either way, if the backtesting continues to be updated with each allocation, then we should be good. Is it confirmed, then, that whether the mix is SPXL/TMF or SPXL/TMF/GLD that the backtesting is fully updated and reflective for each mix?
Thanks!
Bruce

[brucealder]

Thanks Vangelis, that makes sense. Appreciate it.
Bruce

[brucealder]

(if you right click the screenshot link, hopefully it’ll open for you)

[brucealder]

[brucealder]

Thanks Patrick, makes perfect sense…appreciate it!

[brucealder]

Thanks Patrick and Alex for your help (and looking forward to the updated guidance)

Can you help confirm/clarify the following two points (building on Robininni’s points):

Point 1: Converting the 200% allocation for UISx3 to 100% changes the mix from 150/10/40 to 75/5/20 (where GLD was the first component, which changed from 150% to 75%).

Point 2: Assuming point 1 is correct, in the description for this strategy it mentions that you’ve replaced UGLD by “a leveraged GLD position”. It seems to me it’s simply 75% of the total mix. Can you explain to me how this is considered a “leveraged” position (I’m sure I must be missing something obvious).

Thanks in advance!

[brucealder]

Thanks Frank, really appreciate the clarification…makes perfect sense.

[Author]

Posts