<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Recent Portfolio Actions</title> <atom:link href="http://alephblog.com/2009/09/29/recent-portfolio-actions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://alephblog.com/2009/09/29/recent-portfolio-actions/</link> <description>Helping Institutions and Ordinary People Invest Better by Focusing on Risk Control</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:05:33 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Brian Powers</title><link>http://alephblog.com/2009/09/29/recent-portfolio-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-23543</link> <dc:creator>Brian Powers</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:24:25 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=2046#comment-23543</guid> <description>David, I am curious about your rebalancing threshold.  Do you calculate this 20% threshold using a formula like this:
= Target Size / Current Size - 1
I have a small portfolio of twenty securities.  A full position size in the portfolio is 8% (position size would be 1 for an 8% holding).  The position size targets are based generally on .25 increments (so a position target of .25 is 2% of the portfolio and there are 12.5 slots “available”).  I used that formula above for a while, but I found that it was biased towards smaller positions.
Instead I began using this formula:
= (Target - Current Size) / .25
So a .50 sized holding and a full sized holding may have both been 2% below the target (using the first formula), but using the second formula, they would be 8% and 16% below the target respectively.  I found this showed me the true deviation from the portfolio target size and put my holdings on an equal footing for rebalancing.
I was curious how you calculated your threshold, or if it was less of an issue because you tended to have full sized positions.  For me, I tend to start small and build positions over time.  There are certain positions I hold that I know will stay in the .25-.50 range because they either carry more risk, they are funds/ETFs, or they are paired with a similar holding that together give me the weight I want in a particular sector.
Thank you for your time and your writings.  I have truly enjoyed and learned from your work for many years.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, I am curious about your rebalancing threshold.  Do you calculate this 20% threshold using a formula like this:</p><p>= Target Size / Current Size &#8211; 1</p><p>I have a small portfolio of twenty securities.  A full position size in the portfolio is 8% (position size would be 1 for an 8% holding).  The position size targets are based generally on .25 increments (so a position target of .25 is 2% of the portfolio and there are 12.5 slots “available”).  I used that formula above for a while, but I found that it was biased towards smaller positions.</p><p>Instead I began using this formula:</p><p>= (Target &#8211; Current Size) / .25</p><p>So a .50 sized holding and a full sized holding may have both been 2% below the target (using the first formula), but using the second formula, they would be 8% and 16% below the target respectively.  I found this showed me the true deviation from the portfolio target size and put my holdings on an equal footing for rebalancing.</p><p>I was curious how you calculated your threshold, or if it was less of an issue because you tended to have full sized positions.  For me, I tend to start small and build positions over time.  There are certain positions I hold that I know will stay in the .25-.50 range because they either carry more risk, they are funds/ETFs, or they are paired with a similar holding that together give me the weight I want in a particular sector.</p><p>Thank you for your time and your writings.  I have truly enjoyed and learned from your work for many years.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: DaveinHackensack</title><link>http://alephblog.com/2009/09/29/recent-portfolio-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-23402</link> <dc:creator>DaveinHackensack</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:04:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=2046#comment-23402</guid> <description>Couldn&#039;t you be adequately diversified with half as many names? Or do you feel you need this many?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t you be adequately diversified with half as many names? Or do you feel you need this many?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Kieran</title><link>http://alephblog.com/2009/09/29/recent-portfolio-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-23401</link> <dc:creator>Kieran</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:54:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=2046#comment-23401</guid> <description>It sounds as if you&#039;re more bearish now than in 2003.  Why?  It is doubtful that the Fed will remove liquidity any time soon.  While there may be headwinds in terms of value, the consumer, and real estate, the appetite for junk bonds keeps growing.  As long as that&#039;s the case, the likely-to-become-insolvent crowd will be able to meet short-term payments, and asset bubbles could continue to grow.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It sounds as if you&#8217;re more bearish now than in 2003.  Why?  It is doubtful that the Fed will remove liquidity any time soon.  While there may be headwinds in terms of value, the consumer, and real estate, the appetite for junk bonds keeps growing.  As long as that&#8217;s the case, the likely-to-become-insolvent crowd will be able to meet short-term payments, and asset bubbles could continue to grow.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
