What would you put in a 100-year Portfolio?

A simple question, really. But not one we read much about in today’s world of instant gratification and investments jettisoned at the first signs of stress. So, when we were sent the latest research piece by Chris Cole of Artemis, we dug in (you can read the piece here). Now, Cole loves him some animal metaphors – as evidenced by their deer logo, and title of this piece – the allegory of the hawk and serpent, but it was the subtitle which caught our eye: How to Grow and Protect Wealth for 100 years.

Cole’s premise is quite simple, and comes back to the thing investment managers are always trying to get through to their clients…..judge investments not by their performance this month, this quarter, or even this year – but over a full investment style. Cole sees that bet, and re-raises it 4 or 5 times by saying forget the typical amorphous “investment cycle”. What does a portfolio look like over many, many, many different investment cycles spanning booming growth, nasty drawdowns, inflation, stagflation, and everything in between. What would it have to look like to not just end up erasing all of the boom time gains (the serpent) and in the inevitable busts (the Hawk).

The successful 100-year portfolio must be able to navigate the secular booms of the Serpent (1947-1963, 1984-2007) while not losing capital on either wing of the revolutionary and regenerative eras of the Hawk (1929-1946, 1964-1983). The best portfolio balances assets that profit from either regime. Many investors assemble a varied portfolio of asset classes thinking there is safety in diversification, but in a crisis, the portfolio is exposed as a leveraged long-growth portfolio with no real diversification at all. Another class of investors believes they can always time the wild cycles of risk when, in fact, they can barely manage the demons of their geed and fear. The greatest threat to 100 years of prosperity is neglecting the lessons from long-term financial history and having no true diversification against secular change.

The answer for Artemis is what they call the Dragon portfolio. The Dragon, according to philosopher Pliney the Elder, being a serpent so tightly wound around a hawk that they appear as a single animal, a sort of ‘winged serpent.  Artemis’ Dragon portfolio is designed to have components which profit from both times of secular growth with those of secular decline. Simple enough… but how exactly do you go about this, much less test it going back 100 years.  Artemis did the work, recreating many modern financial portfolio methods like risk parity and the 60/40 portfolio and testing them through multiple generations and one lifetime (90yrs) back to 1928. Here’s what they found:

Assets like Long Volatility, Gold, Commodity Trend, and Discretionary Global Macro should be core portfolio holdings. The optimal portfolio, since 1929, included risk weighted combinations of Domestic Equity (24%), Fixed Income (18%), Active Long Volatility (21%), Trend Following Commodities (18%), and Physical Gold (19%). This allocation is highly unorthodox compared to a Traditional Pension Portfolio dominated by equity Linked Assets (73%) and Fixed Income (21%).

What’s really happening here is that the Dragon is not the Serpent and Hawk mating, it’s everybody’s typical short volatility portfolio (think – stairs up, elevator down movement of stocks) merged with a long volatility portfolio. Artemis is a long volatility manager, after all, and talking up their book, so to speak. But that doesn’t make them wrong.  They are talking about what we’ve covered before – protecting against the Black Swan while capturing the White Moose. A sort of selling options and buying options at the same time. It’s having hurricane insurance that doesn’t just rebuild your house, but leaves it better than it was before the storm – at a compounding non linear rate. Now, we can all say – whatever… we already know that we need some tail risk protection.  Cole would like say, do you really – Mr. Pension. But we’re hopeful the readers of this blog surely know this and research top managed futures, volatility, and global macro managers in our database to provide that long volatility exposure when the stock market (or real estate, or PE, or VC, or the economy as a whole) takes a break.

But Artemis is going the extra mile here. They aren’t just talking their book. They are showing that it’s about more than just active long vol (what they do, essentially providing a long options profile via various methods aimed at doing just that without the implicit cost of doing just that).  It’s about Gold, and Trend, and more to really cover all the path dependencies that exist over 100 years.  Their graphics breaking down performance across 5 different economic eras over the past 100 years are particularly interesting, and none of them show an asset that performs across all of the periods. And that’s the point.  In a twist of the quip – on a long enough timeline, everyone dies…. Artemis shows that on a long enough timeline – every strategy sucks.  The problem us humans have, is that if it has sucked more recently than something else sucked – that’s a particularly hard thing to not do get all panicky about. The question is whether you get scared by that… and jettison everything as soon as it sucks, or keep it in a portfolio despite it being down, flat, or not up as much as the S&P. The question is whether you are playing a 100 week game, or a 100 year game?

Since we wrote this post (and Chris wrote the original piece), volatility has exploded, both during the massive sell-off in March as well as in the shocking market melt-up since then. Simply put, the dragon has been unleashed. The twin risks of the left tail (deflationary deleveraging) and right tail (inflationary deleveraging) loom large. As Chris wrote in his 2020 report, “to thrive, we must embody the cosmic duality between the hawk and the serpent. Watch Chris talk through it all with CIO of Mutiny Fund, Jason Buck.

The performance data displayed herein is compiled from various sources, including BarclayHedge, and reports directly from the advisors. These performance figures should not be relied on independent of the individual advisor's disclosure document, which has important information regarding the method of calculation used, whether or not the performance includes proprietary results, and other important footnotes on the advisor's track record.

The programs listed here are a sub-set of the full list of programs able to be accessed by subscribing to the database and reflect programs we currently work with and/or are more familiar with.

Benchmark index performance is for the constituents of that index only, and does not represent the entire universe of possible investments within that asset class. And further, that there can be limitations and biases to indices such as survivorship, self reporting, and instant history. Individuals cannot invest in the index itself, and actual rates of return may be significantly different and more volatile than those of the index.

Managed futures accounts can subject to substantial charges for management and advisory fees. The numbers within this website include all such fees, but it may be necessary for those accounts that are subject to these charges to make substantial trading profits in the future to avoid depletion or exhaustion of their assets.

Investors interested in investing with a managed futures program (excepting those programs which are offered exclusively to qualified eligible persons as that term is defined by CFTC regulation 4.7) will be required to receive and sign off on a disclosure document in compliance with certain CFT rules The disclosure documents contains a complete description of the principal risk factors and each fee to be charged to your account by the CTA, as well as the composite performance of accounts under the CTA's management over at least the most recent five years. Investor interested in investing in any of the programs on this website are urged to carefully read these disclosure documents, including, but not limited to the performance information, before investing in any such programs.

Those investors who are qualified eligible persons as that term is defined by CFTC regulation 4.7 and interested in investing in a program exempt from having to provide a disclosure document and considered by the regulations to be sophisticated enough to understand the risks and be able to interpret the accuracy and completeness of any performance information on their own.

RCM receives a portion of the commodity brokerage commissions you pay in connection with your futures trading and/or a portion of the interest income (if any) earned on an account's assets. The listed manager may also pay RCM a portion of the fees they receive from accounts introduced to them by RCM.

Limitations on RCM Quintile + Star Rankings

The Quintile Rankings and RCM Star Rankings shown here are provided for informational purposes only. RCM does not guarantee the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of this information. The ranking methodology is proprietary and the results have not been audited or verified by an independent third party. Some CTAs may employ trading programs or strategies that are riskier than others. CTAs may manage customer accounts differently than their model results shown or make different trades in actual customer accounts versus their own accounts. Different CTAs are subject to different market conditions and risks that can significantly impact actual results. RCM and its affiliates receive compensation from some of the rated CTAs. Investors should perform their own due diligence before investing with any CTA. This ranking information should not be the sole basis for any investment decision.

See the full terms of use and risk disclaimer here.