KISS reduced the size of historical losses in this comparison, but annual rebalancing earned more. That tradeoff is the main result of the original KISS 2.0 reconstruction.
The study covers January 2, 2018 through December 31, 2025. It predates the later confirmation and signal-construction changes. The figures below are a record of that study, not the current performance page.
Return and drawdown
| Portfolio | CAGR | Maximum drawdown | Ending value of $100,000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| KISS 2.0, confirmed-close policy | 11.6% | −10.4% | $240,470 |
| Annual 60% stocks / 30% gold / 10% bitcoin | 17.3% | −29.2% | $359,129 |
| Annual 60% VT / 40% AGG | 7.2% | −22.3% | $173,982 |
KISS finished ahead of the stock/bond benchmark and behind the portfolio with the same strategic stock, gold and bitcoin weights. Its maximum peak-to-trough loss was smaller than either benchmark’s. Lower drawdown came with periods spent out of assets that subsequently rose.
What the comparison measured
The original comparison record uses adjusted ETF total returns, Treasury-bill cash accrual and modeled transaction costs and slippage. Inputs start in 2013 to warm up the indicators. Signals are confirmed before the following session’s allocation takes effect.
The reconstruction recorded 262 allocation events, approximately 2.74 per month. An event can involve several trades. It should not be read as a count of individual orders.
Execution conventions matter. The older engine’s next-session target bookkeeping used a prior-close price proxy. A later comparison using actual next-session closes explicitly tested that difference. Its numbers should not be spliced into this older sample.
What changed after this study
A confirmation-policy comparison reduced the number of allocation changes by waiting longer to add risk. Later work also corrected the way signal baskets and neutral observations were counted. Those decisions change the reconstructed history, which is why these frozen results differ from newer KISS articles.
This was a retrospective application of a specified model to historical data. It was not a contemporaneously traded record. Revised macro data, public proxies, trading assumptions and hindsight limit the claim. The study also did not reproduce a commercial provider’s proprietary portfolio or exact signals.
For an allocation decision, compare the cost of missed upside with the reduction in drawdown. This sample supports that tradeoff; it does not establish that KISS dominates annual rebalancing.