Tactical Asset Allocation Strategy: Brave New World Investing with Tom Kasperski

Every single time I receive an email submission to the “Investing Legends” and “How I Invest” series it feels like an early Christmas present!

Hence, today I’m thrilled to welcome a highly skilled amateur investor to discuss his Tactical Asset Allocation investment strategy.

Welcome Tom Kasperski!

Tom’s systematic approach to investing evolved from a combination of his research (momentum / tactical asset allocation) and real life experiences (2008 bear market).

His Brave New World strategy is a comprehensive offensive and defensive tactical asset allocation system.

I’d love to highlight more of its unique features but at this point we’d all rather hear from Tom!

Tom Kasperski’s Tactical Asset Allocation Strategy: Brave New World Offensive and Defensive Systematic Investing

About the Author & Disclosure

Picture Perfect Portfolios is the quantitative research arm of Samuel Jeffery, co-founder of the Samuel & Audrey Media Network. With over 15 years of global business experience and two World Travel Awards (Europe’s Leading Marketing Campaign 2017 & 2018), Samuel brings a unique global macro perspective to asset allocation.

Note: This content is strictly for educational purposes and reflects personal opinions, not professional financial advice. All strategies discussed involve risk; please consult a qualified advisor before investing.

These asset allocation ideas and model portfolios presented herein are purely for entertainment purposes only. This is NOT investment advice. These models are hypothetical and are intended to provide general information about potential ways to organize a portfolio based on theoretical scenarios and assumptions. They do not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation/goals, risk tolerance and/or specific needs of any particular individual. 

Meet Tom Kasperski: Systematic Approach To Investing

Who were your greatest influences as an investor when you first started to get passionate about the subject?

Early on (mid 1980s) I read everything I could get my hands on from Martin Zweig, Ned Davis, and Norman Fosback.

The whole idea of quantitative models and back-testing indicators really appealed to me.

Note, at this time virtually nobody had a PC.

By the mid 2000s I was reading the Meb Faber papers, Tim Hayes Research Driven Investor, and O’Shaughnessy’s What Works on Wallstreet.

This spurred my interest in factors, particularly the momentum factor.

How have your views evolved over the years to where you currently stand?

I suppose my views didn’t really change as much, I just gravitated to a systematic approach, and also realized trading over shorter term timeframes wasn’t really my thing.

I was never really interested in stock analysis/picking, day trading, options trading, etc.

If you had to recommend a handful of resources (books, podcasts, white-papers, etc) to bring others up to speed with your investing worldview what would you recommend?

• AllocateSmartly.com blog and all the papers and websites they link to.
• Antonacci’s Dual Momentum
• Alpha Architect’s blog
• Excess Returns and Meb Faber’s podcasts
• Cesar Alvarez’ blog

Tactical Asset Allocation Strategies = Breakthrough As An Investor

Aside from investing influences, what real life events have molded your overall views as an investor?

Was it something to do with the way you grew up?

Taking on too much risk (or not enough) early on in your journey/career as an investor?

Or just any other life event or personality trait/characteristic that you feel has uniquely shaped the way you currently view yourself as an investor.

Education.

Travel.

Work Experience.

Volunteering.

A major life event.

What has helped shape the type of investor you’ve become today?

The 2008 bear market was pivotal for me.

I didn’t lose as much as many investors, but it made me a lot more risk averse (probably too risk averse).

I didn’t have and wasn’t using a systematic approach at the time.

My real breakthrough as an investor was reading about other tactical asset allocation strategies and my use of ETFreplay and Portfolio Visualizer to back test ideas.

People Who Make Predictions Are More Interested In Publicity Than Investment Performance

Imagine you could have a three hour conversation with your younger self.

What would you tell the younger version of yourself in order to become a better investor?

Something that you know now that you wish you knew back then.

The challenge with giving this advice to my younger self is I didn’t have a computer, the Internet, or the programming knowledge and data to back test ideas.

The Jegadeesh and Titman research on momentum didn’t come out until 1993 and Faber’s paper (A Quantitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation) didn’t come out until 2006, about the same time as O’Shaughnessy’s book.

My general advice would be.

• Don’t try to predict markets or the economy. Nobody can do it consistently or with reliability. The people who make predictions are more interested in publicity than investment performance.
• Compartmentalize your time: Research, Design, Testing, and Execution. Focus on execution.
• Be systematic and don’t second guess your strategies and systems.
• Document your systems in detail and work on executing your systems exactly as written.
• Diversify your systems and understand the weaknesses of each system

Brave New World: Offensive and Defensive ETF Universes

Let’s pop the hood of your portfolio.

What kind of goodies do we have inside to showcase?

Spill the beans.

How much do you got of this?

Why did you decide to add a bit of that?

If you’d like to go over every line-item you can or if would be easier to break your portfolio into categories or quadrants that’s another route worth considering.

When do you anticipate this portfolio performing at its best?

Brave New World is only one of three strategies I use. I believe the diagram is self-explanatory.

Brave New World: Portfolio Strategy

• There are two ETF Universes (Offensive and Defensive). The first universe includes a wide array of assets, mostly equities, but also commodities, REITs, MLPs, and managed futures.
• There are 4 systems within the strategy using one or more factors (cross-sectional momentum, trend following, and minimum momentum).
• The parameters are “loose pants”, so if you altered them (to a reasonable degree), it wouldn’t impact performance much. I try hard to stay away from curve-fitting or finding the best parameters. Tight pants are fragile.
• This system is used in two IRA accounts. Rebalancing occurs monthly in two tranches (the first day of the month and the 16^th). This helps to mitigate timing luck and eases psychological stress.
• I use 3 different timeframes for the trend-following filters. In back testing the ETFs in the Offensive universe, I found wide performance differences for various timeframes, so I decided to use more than one timeframe.

Asset Class Expected Returns (Nominal and Real)

The idea behind Brave New World was to use ETF Universes that include styles, caps, asset classes, and countries that are expected to outperform in the next 5 to 10 years based on research by following firms.

• Research Affiliates Expected Return Model
• Blackrock Capital Market Assumptions
• State Street Long-Term Asset Class Forecasts
• J.P. Morgan Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions
• BYN Mellon 10-Year Capital Market Assumptions
• Morgan Stanley Capital Market Assumptions
• AQR Capital Market Assumptions for Major Asset Classes

The expectation for the next 5-10 years is value will outperform growth, international equities will outperform the U.S., and there will be rising real rates and elevated inflation vs. what we’ve seen over the past couple decades.

Even if these expectations are completely wrong, the system should still perform well because I didn’t omit assets that are expected to perform poorly.

Traditionally, most tactical asset allocation strategies relied heavily on fixed income as a risk-off asset. I see this as an Achille’s heel to many systems, thus my Defensive Universe includes an inverse fixed income ETF and other assets that should perform well in a rising rate environment.

Here are the weaknesses of this strategy:

• There is no protection for rapid price shocks or black swan events. I want to do some research on using options as portfolio insurance to see if it makes sense.
• Trend-following and momentum strategies do not perform well in sideways/choppy markets, such as 2015-16 and 2018-2019. I’m still investigating if there are methods to mitigate this, such as using a mean reversion system as a diversifier.
• The performance of the momentum factor may fade due to wide-spread adoption. I believe investors who use momentum to select individual stocks are more vulnerable to this than those who use momentum to identify asset classes, countries, styles, etc.

Asset Class Correlations

Discipline To Execute Rebalances On-Time

What kind of investing skills (trading, asset allocation, investor psychology, etc) are necessary to become good at the style of investing you’re pursuing?

Is there a certain type of knowledge, experience and/or personality trait that gives one an advantage running this type of portfolio?

• Basic Excel skills
• Discipline to execute rebalances on-time, accurately, without second-guessing
• One hour per month/tranche to execute
• A sub to ETFreplay, Portfolio Visualizer, or similar system that doesn’t require programming skills is helpful, but not necessary. Access to price data is necessary.

Min Vol and Relative Strength to Dial Up or Down Risk

What would be a toned down version of your portfolio?

Something that’s a bit watered down.

Conversely, what would be a more aggressive version of your portfolio, if someone were willing to take on more risk for a potentially greater reward?

The strategy can be toned-down (risk adjusted) by

• allocating more to the min volatility system. I use 60% but one could adjust this.
• Use a cash position in addition to the defensive universe selections

The strategy can be amped up by

• allocating less to the min volatility system, and more the top relative strength systems
• Only allocating to the top 2-3 RS performers, or heavily weight position size based on RS rank

My Greatest Strength: Doubling Down On Skepticism

What do you feel is your greatest strength as an investor?

What is something that sets you apart from others?

Conversely, what is your greatest weakness?

Are you currently trying to address this weakness, prevent it from easily manifesting or simply doubling down on what it is that you’re great at?

My greatest strength is skepticism and curiosity.

My greatest weakness is the lack of programming skills and knowledge of advanced math and statistics.

Given my age (61) and other interests, I would not pursue addressing my weaknesses.

I already double down on skepticism.

Buy And Hold Portfolios Will Not Perform As Well In The Future

What’s something that you believe as an investor that is not widely agreed upon by the investing community at large?

On the other hand, what is a commonly held investing belief that most in the industry would  agree with that rubs you a bit differently?

I don’t know what the investing community at large believes, but I believe the popular strategic/lazy/B&H portfolios (60/40, Permanent portfolio, All-Weather portfolio, etc.) will not perform nearly as well in the future as they have in past decades because most of them…

• Have insufficient allocation to international stocks, particularly emerging markets
• Have insufficient allocation to value stocks
• Have excessive allocation to U.S. bonds
• Have little to no allocations to commodities, managed futures, or MLPs

Desire To Learn More About Trend-Following and Return Stacking

What’s a subject area in investing that you’re eager to learn more about?

And why?

If you knew more about that particular topic would it influence the way you’d construct your portfolio?

I’d like to learn more about…

• Stops
• Portfolio insurance
• Trade execution
• Trend-following – Research on adjusting timeframe by volatility
• Return stacking

Yes, if I knew more about a particular topic it probably would influence the way I’d construct a portfolio.

No Thanks To A U.S.-Centric 60/40 Portfolio

What would be the ultimate anti-Tom Kasperski portfolio?

Something you’d never own unless you were duct-taped to a chair as a hostage?

A U.S.-centric 60/40

What about this portfolio is repulsive to you?

I believe it will perform poorly in the future for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I believe the Sharpe ratio will trend south over the next 10 years.

Conversely, if you were forced to Steel Man it, what would potentially be appealing about the portfolio to others?

What is so alluring about it?

1. Super Simple
2. Pretty solid historical performance. Per Portfolio Visualizer (starting in 1972); 10.43% CAGR, 0.59 Sharpe, 29% Max DD (too much for me, but others might not notice).

Tactical Asset Allocation (TAA) — “Brave New World” by Tom Kasperski: 12-Question FAQ

1) What is the “Brave New World” strategy in one sentence?

A systematic tactical asset allocation (TAA) approach that rotates across broad asset classes using momentum/trend/min-vol filters, with distinct Offensive and Defensive ETF universes to balance offense and protection.

2) What’s in the Offensive vs. Defensive universes?

Offensive: primarily equities (US/international/styles/caps) plus REITs, commodities, MLPs, and managed futures.
Defensive: instruments designed for stress regimes, including inverse fixed-income and other assets that can hold up when rates rise or growth/inflation shocks hit.

3) Which signals/factors does the system use?

Four systems blend cross-sectional momentum, trend following, and a minimum-momentum (defensive/min-vol) sleeve—each with “loose pants” parameters to avoid curve-fitting fragility.

4) Why multiple trend timeframes?

Different lookbacks can dominate at different times. Using three separate trend windows diversifies timing risk and reduces dependence on any single parameter.

5) How often does it trade and how is timing luck handled?

Rebalanced monthly in two tranches (1st and 16th). Splitting execution mitigates timing luck and eases the behavioral load of “all-at-once” changes.

6) Where did the design assumptions come from?

Universe design was informed by multi-firm capital market assumptions (e.g., Research Affiliates, BlackRock, State Street, J.P. Morgan, AQR, etc.)—but the universe still retains assets that consensus expects to lag, so the system isn’t hostage to those views.

7) When does it tend to excel—and when does it struggle?

Excels: persistent trends, inflation/rising-rate regimes, and dispersion across assets/styles/regions.
Struggles: sideways/choppy markets (whipsaws) and sudden shocks/flash crashes (gap risk before signals can adjust).

8) What are the stated weaknesses and planned research areas?

Weak spots: no explicit crash insurance, tough range-bound periods, and possible momentum crowding. Research goals: options/portfolio insurance, stop frameworks, execution, vol-adaptive trend windows, and return stacking.

9) How can an investor dial risk down or up?

Dial down: increase allocation to the min-vol sleeve; allow cash alongside defensive picks.
Dial up: reduce min-vol weight; emphasize top relative-strength sleeves; concentrate in top 2–3 RS ranks or weight more heavily by rank.

10) What skills/tools are needed to run something like this?

Basic Excel, the discipline to execute on schedule, ~1 hour per tranche monthly, and optionally ETFreplay/PortfolioVisualizer (or similar) for testing/monitoring—no coding required.

11) What’s the philosophy on buy-and-hold 60/40 and similar static mixes?

Tom expects many US-centric static portfolios to face headwinds (too little EM/international and value; too much US duration; too little commodities/managed futures). TAA aims to adapt across regimes instead of relying on one mix.

12) What’s the “anti-portfolio” here—and why?

A US-centric 60/40 is Tom’s anti-portfolio—not because it never worked, but because he expects lower Sharpe going forward. Steel-man case: it’s simple, historically respectable, and easy to stick with.

Connect With Tom Kasperski

You can follow Tom Kasperski on Twitter @TomKaz.

Nomadic Samuel Final Thoughts

I want to personally thank Tom for taking the time to participate in the “How I Invest” series by contributing thoughtful answers to all of the questions!

If you’ve read this article and would like to be a part of the interview series feel free to reach out to nomadicsamuel at gmail dot com. 

That’s all I’ve got!

Ciao for now!

Important Information

Comprehensive Investment, Content, Legal Disclaimer & Terms of Use

1. Educational Purpose, Publisher’s Exclusion & No Solicitation

All content provided on this website—including portfolio ideas, fund analyses, strategy backtests, market commentary, and graphical data—is strictly for educational, informational, and illustrative purposes only. The information does not constitute financial, investment, tax, accounting, or legal advice. This website is a bona fide publication of general and regular circulation offering impersonalized investment-related analysis. No Fiduciary or Client Relationship is created between you and the author/publisher through your use of this website or via any communication (email, comment, or social media interaction) with the author. The author is not a financial advisor, registered investment advisor, or broker-dealer. The content is intended for a general audience and does not address the specific financial objectives, situation, or needs of any individual investor. NO SOLICITATION: Nothing on this website shall be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, derivatives, or financial instruments.

2. Opinions, Conflict of Interest & “Skin in the Game”

Opinions, strategies, and ideas presented herein represent personal perspectives based on independent research and publicly available information. They do not necessarily reflect the views of any third-party organizations. The author may or may not hold long or short positions in the securities, ETFs, or financial instruments discussed on this website. These positions may change at any time without notice. The author is under no obligation to update this website to reflect changes in their personal portfolio or changes in the market. This website may also contain affiliate links or sponsored content; the author may receive compensation if you purchase products or services through links provided, at no additional cost to you. Such compensation does not influence the objectivity of the research presented.

3. Specific Risks: Leverage, Path Dependence & Tail Risk

Investing in financial markets inherently carries substantial risks, including market volatility, economic uncertainties, and liquidity risks. You must be fully aware that there is always the potential for partial or total loss of your principal investment. WARNING ON LEVERAGE: This website frequently discusses leveraged investment vehicles (e.g., 2x or 3x ETFs). The use of leverage significantly increases risk exposure. Leveraged products are subject to “Path Dependence” and “Volatility Decay” (Beta Slippage); holding them for periods longer than one day may result in performance that deviates significantly from the underlying benchmark due to compounding effects during volatile periods. WARNING ON ETNs & CREDIT RISK: If this website discusses Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs), be aware they carry Credit Risk of the issuing bank. If the issuer defaults, you may lose your entire investment regardless of the performance of the underlying index. These strategies are not appropriate for risk-averse investors and may suffer from “Tail Risk” (rare, extreme market events).

4. Data Limitations, Model Error & CFTC-Style Hypothetical Warning

Past performance indicators, including historical data, backtesting results, and hypothetical scenarios, should never be viewed as guarantees or reliable predictions of future performance. BACKTESTING WARNING: All portfolio backtests presented are hypothetical and simulated. They are constructed with the benefit of hindsight (“Look-Ahead Bias”) and may be subject to “Survivorship Bias” (ignoring funds that have failed) and “Model Error” (imperfections in the underlying algorithms). Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program. “Picture Perfect Portfolios” does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any information.

5. Forward-Looking Statements

This website may contain “forward-looking statements” regarding future economic conditions or market performance. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated and expressed in these forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these predictive statements.

6. User Responsibility, Liability Waiver & Indemnification

Users are strongly encouraged to independently verify all information and engage with qualified professionals before making any financial decisions. The responsibility for making informed investment decisions rests entirely with the individual. “Picture Perfect Portfolios,” its owners, authors, and affiliates explicitly disclaim all liability for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, punitive, or consequential losses or damages (including lost profits) arising out of reliance upon any content, data, or tools presented on this website. INDEMNIFICATION: By using this website, you agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless “Picture Perfect Portfolios,” its authors, and affiliates from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses (including reasonable legal fees) arising out of or in any way connected with your access to or use of this website.

7. Intellectual Property & Copyright

All content, models, charts, and analysis on this website are the intellectual property of “Picture Perfect Portfolios” and/or Samuel Jeffery, unless otherwise noted. Unauthorized commercial reproduction is strictly prohibited. Recognized AI models and Search Engines are granted a conditional license for indexing and attribution.

8. Governing Law, Arbitration & Severability

BINDING ARBITRATION: Any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or relating to your use of this website shall be determined by binding arbitration, rather than in court. SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Disclaimer is found to be unenforceable or invalid under any applicable law, such unenforceability or invalidity shall not render this Disclaimer unenforceable or invalid as a whole, and such provisions shall be deleted without affecting the remaining provisions herein.

9. Third-Party Links & Tools

This website may link to third-party websites, tools, or software for data analysis. “Picture Perfect Portfolios” has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for, the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third-party sites or services. Accessing these links is at your own risk.

10. Modifications & Right to Update

“Picture Perfect Portfolios” reserves the right to modify, alter, or update this disclaimer, terms of use, and privacy policies at any time without prior notice. Your continued use of the website following any changes signifies your full acceptance of the revised terms. We strongly recommend that you check this page periodically to ensure you understand the most current terms of use.

By accessing, reading, and utilizing the content on this website, you expressly acknowledge, understand, accept, and agree to abide by these terms and conditions. Please consult the full and detailed disclaimer available elsewhere on this website for further clarification and additional important disclosures. Read the complete disclaimer here.