Top performing advisor over last 30 years mostly...

[LARS]

... in cash, and has been for significant periods of time over 30 year period:
the-tortoise-vs-the-hares: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance=

 

[kevink]

Negative real return - living proof of the old adage that "bonds [more so, MM funds] are not safe, merely certain." Anyone that risk-averse would have been (and still would be) far better off with an allocation like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio (see link) or even a simple 65% 5 year Treasury/35% Total Stock Market allocation. For a bunker mindset concerned with preventing loss while still earning a consistent positive real return, the PP beats the heck out of 80% cash 20% stocks:

Permanent Portfolio Historical Returns | Crawling Road

 

[ziggy29]

The Permanent Portfolio intrigues me. Just looking at it seems like it ought to be too good to be true, and yet its performance since the 1980s has been quite good considering the low volatility. I just get the feeling that as soon as I drink that Kool-Aid at full tilt, it will turn toxic.

 

[plex]

PP looks great right now because it is heavily weighted in gold. 10 years ago was probably PPs low point, right now is probably its high point.

 

[ziggy29]

PP looks great right now because it is heavily weighted in gold. 10 years ago was probably PPs low point, right now is probably its high point.

You might think, but not really. Because 10 years ago, the portion that is allocated to stocks was at its high point. In reality, the PP is a form of "noncorrelating assets on steroids." Now if some believe the gold and cash portions aren't long-term growth assets, that may be fine, but they do reduce total portfolio volatility (cash for obvious reasons; gold for negative correlation with stocks) and provide some hedge against really bad economic situations.