I’m often asked questions about substituting some asset X for one of the other assets in the Permanent Portfolio. I think this is a bad idea because you could introduce a potentially weaker investment for one of the time-tested assets the portfolio holds.

Now, as a recap we know that the Permanent Portfolio holds four core assets:

1) Stocks in an inexpensive broadly based index fund like the Total Stock Market Wilshire 5000 or Russell 3000
2) US Treasury Long Term Bonds
3) Cash in a US Treasury Money Market fund
4) Gold bullion

So why does the Permanent Portfolio hold these specific assets? Why not some of the new stuff being sold by Wall Street each year? Or some of that other stuff being pawned off as the hottest new fad by some academic and the book they’ve written?

Well, this is primarily because the goal of the portfolio strategy is to grow money when it can and protect that money when it can’t. To do this, the Permanent Portfolio owns a variety of assets which are best in their class for each particular economic condition (prosperity, inflation, deflation and recession) and do not take any risks outside of the area they specialize in. These assets have proven themselves a number of times in the past to do exactly what they say they will do. This lessens the chance that you’ll be surprised by some unforeseen risk.

What is meant by this is that the portfolio holds stocks in a cheap and broadly diversified index fund free and clear with no margin (leverage). Broadly based stock index funds have an excellent track record compared to actively managed funds and do well when prosperity is driving the markets. This means you are only taking market risk with the stocks and not additional risks of being unable to service your margin loan forcing you to liquidate your portfolio for a margin call in an emergency. Nor are you taking on risk that a stock fund manager may have you out of the market when there is a big rally going on forcing you to miss the gains.

For bonds we are taking on interest rate risk by owning long term Treasuries. However we are not taking on credit and call risk present in other bonds. This means if a deflation situation hits we can profit from the rise in Treasury prices but not have to be concerned with the resulting bad economy that could cause non-Treasury bonds to default. Neither do we need to worry about the low interest rates that could make bond issuers recall their bonds and sell new ones that are cheaper for them. It also means that during times of prosperity we have a nice steady income stream from the bond interest to add to our stock gains.

For our cash we hold only a Treasury Market Fund because they also have no credit risk. But they also eliminate needing to rely on FDIC insurance limits and liquidity issues that could affect non-Treasury securities and money market funds as we experienced in 2008. You will always be able to access your cash if you own Treasury bills in a money market fund because they are the most liquid paper investment on the planet. You never have to worry about a non-Treasury money market fund freezing redemptions because they broke the buck due to their bad investment decisions (also happened in 2008). Nor do you need to worry about your bank going under and wondering how long it will take FDIC to clean up the mess and allow depositors to access their money.

Finally we have gold which can suffer malaise during times of a good market but is the most powerful asset you could possibly own during a period of bad inflation. Gold also functions as an ultimate insurance policy in case something truly awful were to happen to the US Dollar.

These assets were chosen for specific performance reasons because they tend to combine in a way where risks in one are cancelled out by benefits of another. Interest rate risk in bonds are cancelled out by the inflation performance of gold. Gold price declines are cancelled out by stock and bond price gains. Stock market losses can be countered by gold or bond price increases. Etc. Risks are taken where they should be taken and avoided where they should be avoided.

When you substitute a lesser quality asset for one of the rock stars the portfolio already owns you can seriously damage the diversification potential in unpredictable ways. So my advice is to leave the core portfolio alone. The only real exception to this are for foreign users of the portfolio strategy who should be holding their cash, bonds and probably more stock in their home country to be sure their portfolio is in sync with their local economic climate and not tied so close to the US and US dollar.

If you want to add other assets then you can do it by holding them in your variable portfolio for money you can afford to lose. But I think changing around the core assets is not a good idea.

At this point we have about 40 years of data showing the strategy has been working. A full thirty years of that data is actual empirical evidence. This is because this portfolio strategy was conceived in the late 1970s with only minor tweaks into the 1980s and largely unchanged since. The worst loss the portfolio had was about -4-6% in 1981. There are no guarantees going forward of course because the past does not predict the future, but the portfolio theory works as designed so far and has a really solid record of performance and safety. So why do you want to go in and mess around with something that has been shown to work in good markets, inflationary markets, deflationary markets and everything in between?

I say if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Keep it simple.

  • Share/Bookmark