Hi Gary, thanks for your comment. You're right, backtests with a few data points aren't significant. This is why we've studied the performance of our macroeconomic algorithm back 100 years.
Hi Mark, thanks for your comment. We don’t unfortunately provide an investment signal service, nor advice on how individuals should diversify their portfolios with respect to asset classes. The most we can do as a wholesale fund is tell you what we’re seeing and what we’ve decided to do with the money that our investors have entrusted to us. These are legal restrictions which are enforced by ASIC. Even without those restrictions, however, we’d never tell individuals what to buy and sell. We’d get no thanks for getting it right and all the blame if it goes wrong. But what you do get from my article is a view of the economic outlook which is based on many years of model/algorithm development...for free. That’s no too bad at all.
Hi Ricky, thanks for your question. From the data I've looked at, I can't see the inversion itself creating the effects in line with the theory you're suggesting. The theory itself is fine, I've just seen no evidence to back it up as far. As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can bring some analysis to my attention. In terms of the 'better sources of data', I don't normally go into exactly what we use or how we use it. As you would expect, we save our best IP for our investors. But generally speaking, there are 3 data sources we look at before waving the red warning flags. i) Money supply ii) Debt/interest rate stress iii) Employment levels Only 1 variable (money supply) has triggered a warning sign as far. We're cautious on markets because the other two aren't far from triggering.