Fail-Safe Investing? Harry Browne’s Permanent Portfolio
Published on - April 20th, 2009 (by J.D. Roth) At the end of March, I asked you what topics you’d like to see covered during Financial Literacy Month. I received many great suggestions, and will continue to fulfill requests not just in April, but for months to come. One comment especially caught my eye. Kenneth F. LaVoie III wrote:
Never again will I be in a position to lose 50% of my money. There must be a way to see the Big Picture and lighten up on areas that are over-valued, but still enjoy an average return at least approaching that of the market as a whole…I’d love to hear some simple strategies that require a little thought, and don’t just focus on keeping a lot of money in cash and short term bonds.
It sounds to me as if Ken is asking about defensive investing, which is actually something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. When I was younger, my investments were mostly speculative. They were gambles. I wanted to earn huge returns — and I wanted them today. Even two years ago, I was investing in Countrywide and The Sharper Image.
But as I’ve built wealth and become better educated about money, I’ve become a defensive investor. I’ve become less interested in quick gains. Last year’s market collapse was another shock to the system, not just for me but for many others. We’ve realized that our risk tolerance isn’t as high as we once thought it was.
More and more, I’ve become a fan of index funds — mutual funds built to track the broad movements of the stock market. They don’t outperform the market, but they don’t underperform it, either. To learn more about index funds, I’ve begun to attend the quarterly meetings of the local Diehards group.
The Diehards are fans of John Bogle, who founded The Vanguard Group, and who is considered the father of index funds. The Diehards mostly hang out in an internet discussion forum, but from time-to-time they meet in groups around the country to discuss investing.
At the last meeting, we took turns describing our current asset allocations and what we’ve done to respond to the faltering economy. It was no surprise that most people hadn’t done much to change their investing strategies. What was surprising is that although everyone was a fan of John Bogle, I was the only one whose portfolio was composed primarily of index funds.
Each member of the Portland Diehards group has his own approach to investing. Many focus on real estate. But one man’s choice especially appealed to me. Craig told the group that he has based his asset allocation on Harry Browne‘s “Permanent Portfolio”.
After listening to Craig’s explanation of the Permanent Portfolio, I picked up Harry Browne’s little book, Fail-Safe Investing. Browne divides investment money into two categories:
- Money you cannot afford to lose.
- Money you can afford to lose.
For the former, Browne recommends investing in a “permanent portfolio” that provides three key features: safety, stability, and simplicity. He argues that your permanent portfolio should protect you against all economic futures while also providing steady performance. It should also be easy to implement. (For the money you can afford to lose, Browne suggests a “variable portfolio”, with which you can do anything you want — even invest in Beanie Babies!)
There are many ways to approach safe, steady investing, but Brown has some specific recommendations for his own Permanent Portfolio:
- 25% in U.S. stocks, to provide a strong return during times of prosperity. For this portion of the portfolio, Browne recommends a basic S&P 500 index fund such as VFINX or FSKMX.
- 25% in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, which do well during prosperity and during deflation (but which do poorly during other economic cycles).
- 25% in cash in order to hedge against periods of “tight money” or recession. In this case, “cash” means a money-market fund. (Note that our current recession is abnormal because money actually isn’t tight — interest rates are very low.)
- 25% in precious metals (gold, specifically) in order to provide protection during periods of inflation. Browne recommends gold bullion coins.
Because this asset allocation is diversified, the entire portfolio performs well under most circumstances. Browne writes:
The portfolio’s safety is assured by the contrasting qualities of the four investments — which ensure that any event that damages one investment should be good for one or more of the others. And no investment, even at its worst, can devastate the portfolio — no matter what surprises lurk around the corner — because no investment has more than 25% of your capital.
To use the Permanent Portfolio, you simply divide your capital into four equal chunks, one for each asset class. Once each year, you rebalance the portfolio. If any part of the portfolio has dropped to less than 15% or grown to over 35% of the total, then you reset all four segments to 25%. That’s it. That’s all the work involved.
Browne’s Permanent Portfolio is unlike anything I’ve ever considered before, but I have to admit: I like it. A lot. It has a distinct “get rich slowly” feel to it. That is, this portfolio is not designed to earn lots of money; it’s designed to not lose money.
What’s more, the Permanent Portfolio is based on the smart investment behaviors we’ve explored before. It’s a passive strategy built on diversification. It doesn’t use market timing. It’s a defensive investment strategy that also happens to produce a decent return. (Crawling Road has posted a table of Permanent Portfolio historical returns.)
All of this is a long way of saying that, like Kenneth F. LaVoie III, I too am interested in reducing my risk while maintaining a decent return. I understand that, in general, risk and return are intertwined. If you want maximum possible returns, you must accept great risk. If you want no risk, you will receive meager returns. But as William Bernstein demonstrates in The Four Pillars of Investing [my review], diversification can lower risk while increasing return.
To read more about the Permanent Portfolio, check out the following articles:
- Bogleheads/Diehards forum: Updated modification of Harry Browne’s Permanent Portfolio
- Crawling Road: A permanent portfolio — Crawling Road is written by Craig, the man who mentioned this investing concept at the Diehards meeting last month
- My Money Blog: The Permanent Portfolio asset allocation
- Investment U: The Permanent Portfolio Fund
I should also point out that there’s actually a mutual fund built around the concept of the Permanent Portfolio. PRPFX has an impressive record, though one based on less than a decade of data.
Note: Just because I am giving serious consideration to the Permanent Portfolio does not mean that you should do the same. Please base your investment decisions on your personal goals and psychology, not on my personal goals and psychology.
This article is about Books, Gurus, Investing, Money Hacks
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES




” MT says:
20 April 2009 at 8:15 pm
@Ryan (#40)
we may be talking apples and oranges here. my viewpoint is skewered a little since i’m probably a lot younger than you and am in prime years to take a little risk (plus, i am a finance grad, so i think his suggested allocation is horribly conservative). the allocation i propose is pretty well balanced overall and would be a good portfolio that all financial planners would put a gold star on(i would be curious to see your ‘30% loss’ math for the year…).”
Interesting, I am 28 years and I’ve been investing Browne-style for a while now with 90% of my savings in the PP, and the other 10% in some risky assets.
I’m a bit surprised that you think of Browne’s allocation as horribly conservative, probably because of only 25% is invested in stocks.
Historically though, it seems that the “traditional” (90′s bullmarket-influenced) 70/30 stocks/bonds is recklessly aggresive and leaves you AND your retirement extremely vulnerable to extreme and unexpected events (which are the norm in history!)
As a history grad I always wonder how so many people in finance have so much faith in paper money, and usually don’t even own a small amount of hard assets ‘because they don’t have a real return’.
But then again, I’m a history grad and I’m from Europe
.
loading....
“Please note that PRPFX is based on the CONCEPT, and the concept ONLY, of Browne’s actual permanent portfolio. He did not endorse it, and it has strayed a long way from his basic idea.”
This is mixed up. Browne was involved in creating the fund and certainly endorsed it (as a second choice – better to manage the portfolio yourself). The 4×25 allocation is a later (1987) simplification of the original allocation used by the fund. The fund remains on the original allocation.
loading....
@Kevin W says:
How exactly did he factor TIPS into a plan developed in the 1970s when they weren’t invented until the 1990s?
Browne’s final book about the portfolio (“Fail-safe investing”) was published in 2001.
He has always kept critically re-evaluating his ideas, so if TIPS would have seemed a good fit with the rest of the portfolio, he’d have added it. But he didn’t.
That doesn’t mean that TIPS are bad. They just don’t fit into the concept of the PP.
loading....
Yeah, I gotta agree with people here. A blanket 25% in each is kinda scary, especially 25% in gold. Gold is insurance – when the dollar drops, you’ve still got the same value in what you can buy. And given our current printing, the dollar will be dropping. But 10% or so for something that doesn’t pay interest or dividends is plenty!
“And no investment, even at its worst, can devastate the portfolio — no matter what surprises lurk around the corner — because no investment has more than 25% of your capital.”
- I really don’t like this – it implies that losing 25% is acceptable! I’d combine this with Trailing Stops, maybe 20% or so, so that you’ll really have to deal with a 5% drawdown ever, even if an asset class tanks.
I mean, imagine if you had been about 60% in various equity assets (stocks, foreign stocks, REITs, etc) at the beginning of this ‘recession’. Everything there is down about 50%, but your stops had cut you out at a 20% drop. 20% of that 60% means you lost 12% of your money (well, this has been an extreme market!),and you’ve been sitting on the side with pretty much all of your money in cash or bonds since then.
Keep in mind that rebalancing over the last two years would have you throwing more money to the stock market since it’s under-represented in your portfolio!
loading....
“A gold miner is nothing more than a liar standing next to a hole in the ground.” – Mark Twain
I love PMs, don’t get me wrong, but how do you effectively reallocate bullion? The problem with bullion is you get eaten alive by the dealer’s commissions. You think the mutual fund industry has high fees, try looking at the bullion dealer’s price over spot.. Ridiculous.
loading....
I think the easy way to handle gold is to keep 80% of it in bullion form and 20% of it in the form of an ETF (like GLD) for easy rebalancing. While I may not trust a gold ETF to perform as it should under all circumstances (and thus wouldn’t hold 100% of my gold in electronic form), I think it is reliable enough to hold a smaller gold position to make portfolio maintenance easier (and cheaper).
loading....
Ryan’s last post about balancing is a good point.
Craigr, I’ve seen the great thread on the PP at bogleheads. God love you, you have patience. Why people get so freaked about 25% gold is beyond me- it must be viewed in the context of the portfolio, and the 35 year history of the PP is pretty darn impressive. People who experienced the 80′s and 90′s but not much else really have a weird view of the markets, talk about the Whig view of history.
loading....
Jork,
“People who experienced the 80’s and 90’s but not much else really have a weird view of the markets, ”
Indeed. The 80s and 90s were the longest stock bull market in US history. It really distorts a lot of the historical data people use. In the 1970s for instance a typical stock and bond portfolio had negative after-inflation growth for the entire decade (the 2000s are repeating that feat so far as of 2009). Yet a portfolio that held hard assets like gold in sufficient quantity profited.
In fact, the period from about the late-60s to the early 80s was basically flat for stock owners after inflation! That’s roughly 15 years of dismal returns for stock/bond portfolios. Couple that with the past 10 years of bad returns in the 2000s and you’re talking about 25 of the past 45 years have been bad for stock owners.
So there is this myth propagated by the investing world that “stocks always win” but the reality is that stocks don’t always win. In fact, they can be losers for very long stretches of time in one’s investment horizon.
A point I brought up over at the Diehards is I didn’t find a significant period of time (like a few years to a decade) where the Permanent Portfolio ever had a negative after-inflation return. It usually falls in the 3-5% real return range with very low volatility. Someone else then went and looked at the data and found the same thing. Over the rolling 10 year periods since the early 1970′s the Permanent Portfolio always had a positive after-inflation return. Stock and bond portfolios of various allocations never did this and had decade long periods of negative after-inflation returns.
So when people criticize the gold allocation, all I can say is: “Wait until bad inflation returns and come talk to me about owning gold.” Inflation is dastardly and I don’t think that assets like TIPS stand a chance of rescuing an entire portfolio being ravaged by bad inflation.
With a knowledge of this history it’s more important than ever for people to realize that you had better have a diversified portfolio. Not just a portfolio that’s stocks and bonds (or even TIPS). But one that has stocks, bonds, cash and hard assets like gold because the markets are not predictable and anything can happen.
loading....
At first the permanent portfolio worried me because of the high allocation to gold. I thought gold’s long term return is 0%, basically only offsetting inflation. But when one looks at its returns since 1972, it is over 11%!
With that in mind, plus the fact that this portfolio has had a roughly 10% nominal return since that time, I am very happy with it, because despite the inflation insurance of gold, the total portfolio return has been great and the volatility very low.
loading....
This thread has demonstrated a microcosm of my experience as an investor. People who defend the PP and Harry Browne’s theory generally seem to be self educated through personal experience and have spent years patiently educating the rest of us to protect ourselves from the unknown. If you have any real experience with socking wealth away, protecting it in some form or helping others to do so, you will be profoundly happy with a 9.7% average return over a long period of time. In fact, if you have the foresight to do so starting at a young age, the steady growth will probably allow you to take on substantially greater risk in later years because you have plenty of assets to take care of more than your generation’s needs. It might not be the 12-15% pie in the sky return enjoyed by small cap stuff, but if I’m not mistaken, Browne was using this for the money he absolutely could not afford to lose. If you are of the mindset that you want your children’s children to come from money earned in your generation, safe normally means low yield and heavy taxation, except when you use the PP.
Ask yourself if your investment scheme is about protecting the spending power of your wealth or about growing it to the point where it creates your wealth a la Richest Man in Babylon. Browne’s theory is meant for the coins in your storage that cannot really be risked, while looking for real investment opportunities to place superfluous coins at both substantial risk and maximum potential proffit. For the business owner who takes a substantial level of risk in his or her daily cash flow system(butcher, baker, candlestick maker or trained forex currency trader ) the PP is a place to stash wealth for use at a time when he is no longer able to work. The permanent portfolio allows him to rest assured that above and beyond his business, he has properly invested cash reserves for any potential storms including but not limited to Inflation, HyperInflation, Fiat Debauchery, Deflation and regular growth markets.
Running out of money after one is no longer able to work but before one dies destroys the intergenerational chain of proper fiscal understanding.
loading....
Very fascinating discussion. I’m in a position where it would be very difficult to hold “hard assets” (gold). What is the next best option for the gold allocation and why is it inferior to holding the actual gold? Thank you.
loading....
Yes, very interesting discussion (and shorter than the one on the Bogleheads forum!).
Like a lot of people I reflexively shudder when seeing the 25% gold allocation. But then, when looking at the historic returns (for example using Simba’s spreadsheet (see Bogleheads)), the steady returns are quite impressive.
Similar to what Glenn asked above, how would you invest in gold in an IRA? I’m thinking GLD etf?
loading....
Could this be the most ideal portfolio in this crazy environment?
loading....
Wow, I’ve read lots of personal finance books, some that I highly recommend, and not one of them mentions the permanent portfolio. I can’t believe I’m just hearing about this.
A permanent portfolio is definitely going to warrant some consideration for my investments. Thanks!
loading....