[1] https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Portfolio-Long-Term-Investm...
25% Stocks
25% 30 year treasury bonds
25% Cash
25% Gold
His book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Fail-Safe-Investing-Lifelong-Financia...
A more recent book: https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Portfolio-Long-Term-Investm...
As in the peer thread on stock funds, this plan is not a great income generator because it's designed more for capital preservation and long term capital gains. (Unless you have half a million dollars in there and interest rates are favorable for the bonds or cash holdings.) But for me it's a great way to carve out savings and get some real compounding going. The longest drawdown in the past 40 years is 2-3 years, so I'm comfortable using it with any savings I don't expect to need to use in the next five or more years.
Implementation could hardly be simpler for the robustness that it offers. You put the money in and divide it into four parts. Once a year take a look at the balances and rebalance if any category is too far out of alignment.
For resources, Harry Browne's book mentioned in [1] is awesome for general investment sense and lays out the basics of the plan. Another book by Roland and Lawson [2] goes into much more of the nuts and bolts of implementation using different account types, tax status, and many other factors in individual situations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-Safe_Investing
[2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Permanent-Portfolio-Long-Term-Inve...
These assets each do well under different economic conditions. The cash asset does well during periods of sharply rising interest rates since it retains its principle and gets higher rates, while all the other assets get wrecked. Because cash’s correlation with the rest of the portfolio assets is 0% or negative, you tend to store some gains from the other assets in the cash section during up years, and then use the cash section to buy other assets once they have down years - in effect buying low and selling high. This is why the permanent portfolio gets pretty good returns with a low standard deviation: the cash protects the downside, but doesn’t significantly hamper portfolio performance due to the rebalancing effect. (It also helps that your cash should be in short treasuries per Harry Browne’s advice, which almost always have better yield than bank accounts with basically no risk).
You could remove or titrate down the cash portion, but then you’re left with three risky assets in stock, gold, and 25- to 30-year bonds. (Anyone who doesn’t think long bonds are risky doesn’t understand interest rate risk). Does this raise the expected return? Yes! But it also raises the risk of extended periods of poor performance, or acute periods of terrible performance. The Permanent Portfolio made 1.8% in 2008. It didn’t have a 10-year rolling period since 1972 with real returns below 3%, with all of them falling between 3 and 6.1%. A 60/40 portfolio achieved better returns but with much higher risk, including full decades of negative real return [0].
Ultimately I think your objection to the portfolio is because you think it’s advantageous to take on more risk. For a young investor with high risk tolerance I agree with you, but for older investors and retirees who need to be mindful of sequence of returns risk, and young investors who can’t stomach volatile portfolios, I think it’s an underrated choice.
Even if you’re not convinced by the rest of the argument, consider that holding half your fixed income in cash and the other half in very long bonds tends to produce similar performance to holding it all in intermediate bonds, which is often the recommended duration for an investor’s bond holdings.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Portfolio-Long-Term-Investm...