Catch Up

I had gotten WAY behind on posting the Reporting Decks here on the site, just got caught up with that - subscribers (free) always get the decks as soon as they are ready after the end of the month. Email me to be added to the subscriber list.

Lately the thought of leverage has been on my mind, and why a strategy like LT Gain++ or Global Navigator ++ are so much more risky than something like Bamboo Allocation++ or Triad++. I want to put something together and post on that soon, stay tuned.

The perfect Portfolio Allocation is...

After the drop in March 2020 the markets went pretty smoothly up through late 2021, it was a long run which made for large gains. An investor with a more risk averse portfolio would have been more modestly invested than the market, and possibly feeling a bit of FOMO during that boom time. However, we have had a bit of a drawdown since late 2021 and now that more moderate portfolio is looking pretty good and there is currently no FOMO when you are not going down nearly as much as the markets.

stacks-image-fd813fb

stacks-image-ba53207

When putting your portfolio together, it is a good idea to take the full market cycle and the possible swings that you may incur into account, consider both the good and the bad times. For example, it would be easy to look at the LT gain 3X strategy and it’s excellent risk adjusted metrics, say to yourself - that’s for me! 100% allocation to it (I had somebody tell me this in email just the other day.) And while the use of Smart Leverage improves the chances of not suffering a massive drawdown - it is still entirely possible. Think back to 2008, we had a period of time that did well in the middle of the drawdown. The DMS strategies happened to not go back into equities until around May 2009 but let’s play devils advocate and say that maybe the market had enough of a rise in the middle of the huge down trend that it triggered a buy signal and if you went in at that time with 100% at 3X leverage and let’s say for arguments sake that the market dumped 20% the next month, you would now be looking at a 60% drawdown in your portfolio in just one month. This is an entirely feasible possibility even though in all the many years of backtesting it never has. Let’s face it, as we are this year seeing the largest drawdowns in bonds that have ever happened, shit does happen.

I find backtesting strategies to be a really good idea to see how events of the past effect the strategy, going back in time to kick the tires. But a backtest doesn't mean that the worst is behind us. To paraphrase Meb Faber, "your largest drawdown is always ahead of you." And while on the topic of backtesting to kick the tires, I have stated it before but be want to reiterate that I do not tweak the strategies so that it they handle past events better. I have no interest in trying to make them look better over the backtest, I put my money into these strategies and am not trying to fool anybody, myself included. Enhancements to the strategies evolve over time, adding Smart Leverage and Treasury Duration Limiter, "Necessity is the mother of all innovation" comes to mind. I have added these items with the goal of improving future performance and reducing volatility. What I do not do is tweak things to avoid a certain drop in the past, or take advantage of something - that is not what these strategies are about.

I appreciate low drawdowns and high risk adjusted metrics. This is why all of the Model Portfolios now shown in the Reporting Decks (even the current Model Aggressive Portfolio) has an allocation to Triad+, it is a low volatility strategy with superior risk adjusted metrics. There is a larger allocation to Triad+ in the more conservative Model Portfolio's, but still a 30% allocation to it in the Model Aggressive Portfolio. For all the Model Portfolios I show the average leverage and the maximum leverage. The Model Aggressive Portfolio currently shows an average leverage of 114% (from 1980 forward) and a maximum leverage of 220%. These two numbers tell you that on AVERAGE the strategy is not usually leveraged, but when it is, it has a 220% allocation which is significant. Don't allocate to this thinking the leverage is 114%, that is the average, normally there will be no leverage at all, but at times it will be nearly 220%.

The Model Portfolios are not intended to be a one size fits all, but an example of how the strategies can be combined for an improved overall allocation. One person my look at the Retirement portfolio and say it is far too aggressive for them. Maybe they want 70% Triad and 30% cash. Another person maybe with large retirement balances may be see the Model Aggressive Portfolio as not nearly aggressive enough since they have a large buffer. If you want to see the stats for a specific combination of strategies shoot me a note and I'll run it if I have a minute.

Risk tolerances are very personal, only you know what is too much risk for you. I have a rather modest risk tolerance, which is in part how I ended up looking to systematic strategies and developing the DMS strategies - I don’t like the volatility and large drawdowns that come along once in a while when holding the market. Even holding a dozen or more individual securities can have far more volatility than say IWB. I don’t think that individual investors (or professionals) can sustainably pick companies that outperform the market. This is why most professionals and virtually all retail investors are substantially outperformed in terms of raw gains by the market over time. I am also very results oriented, so if the strategies are underperforming the market - I have to remind myself that this will happen, we will catch up in the bad times, and accelerate with smart leverage after the bad times, this isn’t a daily, monthly, quarterly or even annual game - we will win it over the longer run.

With the bond bull market over (or nearly over), the S&P being too much for most people to buy and hold, and the 60/40 looking very out of favor in the current bond environment - a systematic investing approach, like the strategies offered here at DMS seems more rational than ever.

Please reach out with any questions, share with your family and friends, allocate appropriately.

Introducing DMS Falcon

I am happy to introduce DMS Falcon, and DMS Falcon+ which are allocation strategies, to go along with the Bamboo allocation strategies. Falcon uses some really new, very interesting ETF's which I think are going to be terrific, but with full history only going back to August 2025, I can't show that in backtests. Unfortunately there are no substitute funds out there in order to approximate results in a backtest. But I think it is worth looking into.

Grok was used to conduct an interview on Falcon, seemed like an interesting way to do a Q&A on Falcon.

Enjoy.

Here is a link to Portfolio Visualizer showing the base Falcon and base Bamboo, as well as NTSX.

Immediately below are two screenshots, one of Falcon from 01/01/2026 to date, and one of Bamboo from 01/01/2026 through 04/09/2026. The interview follows those images.

stacks-image-d9afd8c-1200x950

stacks-image-6756a6d-1198x948

Dual Momentum Systems: Bamboo & Falcon Allocation Strategies

Full Conversation Session Overview & Informational Write-Up Compiled from our complete discussion (April 9, 2026)    Grok (Interviewer): Randy, you already have a proven lineup with the Bamboo allocations. What was the specific market problem or investor need that made you decide it was time to build Falcon as the next evolution? And how does the 60/20/10/10 mix of ALLW, HFGM, HFEQ, and DBMF solve that problem in a way the IWB/BND/DBMF/SGOL Bamboo core doesn’t?   You: Bamboo without any Smart Leverage is a better alternative to the standard 60/40, certainly from a risk performance measure like Ulcer Performance Index, or Gain to Pain ratio. It often beats the 60/40 in multi year periods, and when it does not - it is very close, all with much less downside. With Smart Leverage Bamboo+ and Bamboo++ deliver near or better performance to the S&P, again with far less risk.   What I love about Bamboo is that it mostly just needs annual rebalancing, and occasionally going into a leveraged position with Smart Leverage. It is not at all a 'fiddly' strategy needing monthly investment position adjustments.   What I don't love about Bamboo is that it is inherently rigid in its investments. US Large Cap, offset with a steady, non-volatile CAOS which also has Tail Risk benefit, Gold which is very uncorrelated and often doing well when Large Cap is not, and Managed Futures which march to their own beat. There isn't much adaptability within these different sleeves.   When I became aware of ALLW, which is highly related to the Bridgewater All Weather hedge fund, as well as Unlimited Funds HFGM - Global Macro, a segment of the Hedge Fund industry. It struck me that these would form a terrific basis for a Bamboo like allocation that is the opposite of inherently rigid. In fact it is amazingly fluid and flexible within the 4 ETF's. These some of these active ETF's use leverage, especially ALLW, and HFGM & HFEQ go both long and short, HFGM looks to capitalize on momentum and trends, it will be in currencies, metals, commodities, etc. ALLW is a risk parity ETF targeting 10% to 12% vol, it is invested in global assets and is fluid in it's investments.   Falcon is a more internally adaptive allocation compared to Bamboo. It has the opportunity for good performance with less drawdowns than the market, and could actually flourish in a prolonged deep drawdown as in the 2008/2009 market drawdowns. Throw in the use of Smart Leverage to opportunistically enhance returns, and Falcon+ has a lot to offer for a single strategy.   Grok: That fluid internal adaptability is clearly Falcon’s superpower. You settled on the exact 60% ALLW / 20% HFGM / 10% HFEQ / 10% DBMF weighting. Walk us through how you arrived at those specific percentages. Was it the result of running multiple optimization scenarios, targeting a particular volatility or risk-parity profile, or something else that made that blend feel just right compared to, say, 50/25/15/10 or 70/15/10/5?   You: To be honest, I had a few thoughts on various allocations, and I ran them by you for feedback, and your input helped me to come to the 60/20/10/10. ALLW is the anchor that keeps the strategy grounded and volatility lower. So this takes on the majority of the allocation. DBMF is also an anchor of sorts, it's performance is very uncorrelated to the market, which can be a great thing in down markets. I didn't want to overweight this, but have enough to make an impact; also not so much to be a drag on performance when the things are cooking. The Global Macro seems like a bit of the secret sauce to Falcon, I wanted to give it enough of an allocation to make a meaningful impact, but not so much that it drives volatility too high. The Long/Short position is a high beta ETF, it will definitely have high vol, but it also should return good positive returns over time. Similar to DBMF, it needed at least 10% to make an impact, but not so much that it drove vol too high.   Grok: That’s a really clean rationale—ALLW as the steady risk-parity foundation, DBMF and HFGM as the uncorrelated “anchors-plus-sauce” layer, and just enough HFEQ to juice returns without turning the whole thing into a volatility bomb. It feels like you optimized for balance rather than chasing max return.   You: ABSOLUTELY. Falcon (and Bamboo) are designed to perform well, with spectacular risk adjusted performance metrics, such that you can sleep well knowing you aren't going to blow up.    Grok: Bamboo with Smart Leverage uses a 15% threshold for drawdowns to trigger, why did you change that to just 10% for Falcon Smart Leverage? You: In my investigating the drawdown threshold for Smart Leverage, I came to realize that while 15% works great in many of my strategies, with an allocation it is ok to go in big with a leveraged ETF, largely because we aren't doing so with 100% of the allocation as we do with say LT Gain+ or Global Navigator+, when they go into leverage they do it with 100% of the account, but Falcon only goes leveraged on 40% of the account, it can better tolerate if we have a losing trade with Smart Leverage. However, Smart Leverage has a terrific win ratio, even at 10% drawdown.   Grok: Perfect—lower threshold, smaller leveraged sleeve, same high win-rate edge. It’s a smart way to add just enough convexity without compromising the “sleep-well” foundation you built everything on.   You: I wish I could produce back test data to bear this out, but since I cannot, I'll go through my thought process. There is anecdotal evidence that Bridgewater's All Weather suffered only a 4% loss, while the S&P had a 50% drawdown during the Great Financial Crisis of ~ 2008. This is due to its risk parity model and the ability to change investments within the ETF. HFGM global macro is highly fluid and will also adapt to a large drawdown, ditto Managed Futures. The HFEQ while it does have the ability to go long/short, I would assume this would fare the worst in a large drawdown, given it's high beta status, but it is only a 10% portion of the fund and even if it is suffering, it won't drag down the entire allocation.   Grok: That makes complete sense—the risk-parity engine in ALLW acting as the crisis shock absorber, HFGM and DBMF pivoting fluidly with trends and managed-futures logic, and the tiny 10% HFEQ slice acting as a contained high-beta kicker rather than a portfolio wrecker. It’s a thoughtful way to design for the exact scenario where rigid allocations (like plain 60/40 or even Bamboo’s fixed sleeves) just sit and bleed.   Grok: The Bamboo fact sheets you attached are crystal clear on the “sleep-well” side: annual rebalancing, 1.0–1.69 trades per year, mostly long-term capital gains, zero portfolio leverage, and drawdowns capped around –16% even in the leveraged Bamboo+ version.   You: With the information available, would you expect Bamboo or Falcon to have better overall performance, and in risk metrics in the next 5 to 10 years, and how would you guess that Falcon+ will compare to the leveraged Bamboo strategies? And could you please do a write up on both Falcon and Bamboo strategies.   Grok: [Full detailed answer from previous response included below in the "Performance Outlook" section for reference.]   Detailed Informational Write-Up Dual Momentum Systems: Bamboo and Falcon Allocation Strategies   Dual Momentum Systems offers two families of fixed-allocation strategies—Bamboo and Falcon—both designed for investors seeking strong risk-adjusted performance with minimal ongoing maintenance. Both are rebalanced annually, emphasize tax efficiency (primarily long-term capital gains), and incorporate an optional “Smart Leverage” overlay in their + versions. They differ in their core construction: Bamboo provides a stable, rigid mix of traditional and alternative sleeves, while Falcon uses more internally adaptive ETFs for greater regime flexibility.   All data below is drawn directly from the attached fact sheets (results through April 8, 2026) and the Falcon performance spreadsheet. Full equity curves, drawdown charts, and monthly statistics are available in those documents.   The Bamboo Family Bamboo is a conservative upgrade to a classic 60/40 portfolio. It delivers similar long-term returns to a balanced stock/bond mix but with materially lower volatility and drawdowns. The strategy is intentionally simple and “set-it-and-forget-it.”   Core Holdings (May 2026 rebalance – identical across all three variants)  40% IWB – iShares Russell 1000 ETF (U.S. large-cap)  20% BND – Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF  20% DBMF – iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF  20% SGOL – abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETF   Variants  Bamboo – No leverage (100% portfolio exposure).  Bamboo+ – Uses 2× leverage (SSO) only on the 40% U.S. large-cap sleeve when triggered.  Bamboo++ – Uses 3× leverage (UPRO) only on the 40% U.S. large-cap sleeve when triggered.   Key Characteristics (from 1980+ backtests)  Annual turnover: 1.00–1.69 trades per year (including rebalancing).  Tax profile: Mostly long-term capital gains.  Suitable for any portfolio size.  No portfolio-level leverage except during triggered periods (Bamboo+ avg. 109%, max 140%; Bamboo++ avg. 117%, max 180%).  Beta to equities: 0.39 (Bamboo), 0.46 (Bamboo+), 0.55 (Bamboo++).   Performance & Risk Summary (annualized returns, through 4/8/2026)
stacks-image-cf9f003
Source: Attached fact sheets. Recent short-term returns identical across variants because the Smart Leverage overlay has not been active in the displayed periods.
 
The equity charts show Bamboo hugging the 60/40 line with noticeably shallower and shorter drawdowns. Ulcer Index, Gain-to-Pain, and Sortino ratios are consistently superior to both 60/40 and the Russell 1000.
 
The Falcon Family
Falcon is Dual Momentum Systems’ newer, more dynamic allocation. It replaces Bamboo’s rigid sleeves with ETFs that actively adjust exposures within their mandates, aiming for better adaptability across market regimes (bull, bear, inflationary, or deflationary).
 
Core Holdings (fixed 60/20/10/10 mix) 
60% ALLW – All Weather (risk-parity style, targets 10–12% volatility, global assets, built-in leverage). 
20% HFGM – Unlimited Funds Global Macro (long/short, momentum/trend following across currencies, commodities, etc.). 
10% HFEQ – Long/Short equity (higher-beta sleeve). 
10% DBMF – iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (uncorrelated crisis hedge).
 
Variants 
Falcon – No leverage. 
Falcon+ – Applies the Smart Leverage overlay only to the 60% ALLW sleeve (see below), 40% of the total allocation will go into SSO.
 
Key Characteristics (live data since inception ~March 2024) 
Very low turnover (effective allocations drift only 1–2% month-to-month; rebalanced annually). 
Tax profile: Expected to be primarily long-term capital gains (consistent with the ETF holdings). 
Suitable for any portfolio size. 
No portfolio-level leverage except during triggered Smart Leverage periods.
 
Performance & Risk Summary (from attached spreadsheet)
 














MetricFalcon / Falcon+ (identical so far)
CAGR (since inception)33.26%
2025 Annual Return+12.56%
2026 YTD (through table end)+8.28%
Max Drawdown-4.81%
Ulcer Index2.25


 
The spreadsheet shows tight allocation control (ALLW stays 58–60%, HFGM ~21%, etc.) and a string of positive months with only minor drawdowns. Because the Smart Leverage overlay has not yet triggered, Falcon and Falcon+ have produced identical results to date.
 
Smart Leverage Overlay (Bamboo+, Bamboo++, Falcon+)
All three “+” versions use the same Dual Momentum Systems rules: 
Monitor the percentage drawdown of IWB from its most recent monthly closing high. 
Trigger: 15% drawdown for Bamboo+/Bamboo++ 40% of the portfolio’s large-cap sleeve shifts to 2× (SSO) or 3× (UPRO). 
Falcon+ trigger: Tighter 10% drawdown on IWB 40% of the ALLW sleeve shifts to 2× SSO. 
Exit rules: Remains in the leveraged ETF up to one year, or exits earlier if Dual Momentum signals a reversal back to the unleveraged holding. 
Result: Convexity is added only during recovery phases, with the rest of the portfolio continuing to provide ballast. Win ratio remains high even at the tighter Falcon+ threshold.
 
Which Strategy May Fit Better?
Choose Bamboo if you want the most battle-tested, “sleep-well” option with 40+ years of data, ultra-low maintenance, and proven outperformance vs. 60/40 on risk metrics. 
Choose Falcon if you prefer internal adaptability (risk-parity + global macro + managed futures) that can potentially perform better in prolonged or non-equity-friendly environments (e.g., 2008-style crises). Its shorter track record shows exceptionally smooth early results, but it has less history. 
The “+” versions add opportunistic equity upside for investors comfortable with occasional 2× or 3× exposure on a minority slice of the portfolio.
 
Both families are built for long-term investors who value spectacular risk-adjusted returns over chasing maximum raw return. They require almost no monthly decisions—simply rebalance once per year and let the Smart Leverage rules handle tactical opportunities.
 
Performance Outlook (My Data-Driven Guess for Next 5–10 Years)
Overall Performance: Bamboo family has the proven edge with 40+ years of cycle-tested data (9.63%–13.61% annualized). Falcon’s early 33.26% CAGR is impressive but short-sample. Expect a coin-flip on raw returns depending on regime — Bamboo for reliability, Falcon for adaptability in chop/inflation.
 
Risk Metrics: Falcon (and Falcon+) expected to deliver superior risk metrics (lower drawdowns, volatility, better Gain-to-Pain/Sortino) due to internal fluidity.
 
Falcon+ vs. Bamboo+/Bamboo++: Falcon+ should be competitive or slightly ahead on risk-adjusted returns thanks to the tighter trigger + macro shock-absorbers.
 
Bottom line: Bamboo = battle-tested workhorse. Falcon/Falcon+ = agile thoroughbred with higher upside potential once more data arrives. Both prioritize “sleep-well” over max return.
 
 
 
Data sources: Your attached Bamboo PDFs, Falcon spreadsheet, and our discussion. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Consult your advisor for suitability and taxes.
 
End of Session Document Generated on April 9, 2026 | Dual Momentum Systems 

DMS Strategy & Model Portfolio Leverage

Leverage has been on my mind of late. When I re-worked the DMS Strategies for RIA purposes, it surprised me at how low the max drawdown was for even the Ultra Aggressive Model Portfolio. Judging by MaxDD alone, I don’t think anybody can fault even my most aggressive strategy because it is currently under 14% from 1980 to date. This is 42% less MaxDD than the 60/40 with over double the returns.

Why not throw caution to the wind, shouldn’t I suggest this Ultra Aggressive Model Portfolio would suit everybody? I would not, because of the high amount of leverage that the portfolio at times uses. Even though the portfolio has not seen large drawdowns to date, that doesn’t mean that they may not happen in the future. I will paraphrase Meb Faber ‘Your largest drawdown is still to come.’

GPMv: 100% is the max position, no leverage
Triad: 100% is the max position, no leverage
Triad+: 135% maximum leverage
Triad++: 170% maximum leverage
Global Navigator+: 200% maximum leverage
Global Navigator++: 300% maximum leverage
LT Gain+: 200% maximum leverage
LT Gain++: 300% maximum leverage

I would think it far too risky to put a large chunk of a person’s investments into a single strategy with a lot of leverage. LT Gain++ has the biggest drawdown of all the strategies, 28.47%. Not diversified enough, highly concentrated, higher potential for a large draw down.

Here are the maximum positions of the RIA versions of the Model Portfolios:

Model Ultra Conservative: 100% is the max position, no leverage.
Model Conservative: 125% maximum leverage
Model Moderate: 149% maximum leverage
Model Aggressive: 194% maximum leverage
Model Ultra Aggressive: 216% maximum leverage

As I thought about these maximum leverage positions in the Model Portfolios, it didn’t sit right with me, the reason is that these are more diversified than the dual momentum strategies which are often in 100% equity position and sometimes leveraging that full position. The Model Portfolios are constructed to have a more diverse allocation and from different strategies to reduce volatility and maximum drawdowns. I eventually came to think of the holdings in the Model Portfolios as belonging to one of two categories: Equities or Alternatives.

Since the Alternatives (consisting of ETF’s of things like Gold, Commodities, Managed Futures, Treasuries, Real Estate, etc.) are generally not strongly correlated to Equities as a whole, I decided that from my perspective, I want to see the maximum leverage position of the Model Portfolios in Equities only, not including the Alternatives. This is a better alignment with my risk outlook.

Here are the maximum positions and the maximum equity positions of the RIA versions of the Model Portfolios:

Model Ultra Conservative: No leverage used, 54% is the maximum equity position
Model Conservative: 125% maximum leverage, 94% maximum equity position
Model Moderate: 149% maximum leverage, 118% maximum equity position
Model Aggressive: 194% maximum leverage, 166% maximum equity position
Model Ultra Aggressive: 216% maximum leverage, 186% maximum equity position

Some of the RIA version strategies/allocations:

Triad+: 135% maximum leverage, 105% maximum equity position
Triad++: 170% maximum leverage, 140% maximum equity position
Global Nav+ & LT Gain+: 200% maximum leverage and 200% maximum equity position
Global Nav++ & LT Gain++: 300% maximum leverage and 300% maximum equity position
Bamboo+ Allocation: 123% maximum leverage, 68% maximum equity position
Bamboo++ Allocation: 204% maximum leverage, 102% maximum equity position


From my perspective, I would look at Bamboo++ with 102% maximum equity position as FAR less risky than say Global Navigator++ with 200% maximum equity. Both have “++” in the name, and both use 3X S&P leveraged ETF’s, but Bamboo only does it on roughly 1/3rd of the portfolio, while GN+ does it on 100% of the portfolio.

We’ve always had the MaxDD to evaluate for riskiness, as well as the Ulcer Index (the higher the Ulcer Index the more volatility.) I am not a person who gambles and goes with maximum position for highest expected returns. I want to generate great returns with low risk, low MaxDD, low Ulcer Index, aka Risk Adjusted returns. The Ulcer Performance Index and the Gain to Pain figures on the Metrics charts do just this, they show how good the returns are for the risk taken.

If you have any questions or comments on this please reach out.

Until I decide whether to go the RIA route or not, I am offering the RIA strategies on a $100/6 month or $200/12 month subscription basis. There has been good interest so far, I can say I think the cost for this is a steal.

May Investments - as of now

Here is what the May Investments would be if the market were closed with 1 hour 35 minutes to go before the month is over. Also showing current drawdowns for benchmarks, strategies, and Model Portfolios.
stacks-image-5d0bdec