Maybe I've missed the thread, but I'm curious as to why there hasn't been more discussion of the "Permanent Portfolio" advocated starting in the 70's by Harry Browne, especially since it appears to be among the few backtested portfolios to have not only generated 10% average annual return since 1970 but also the only one to have generated positive numbers in 2008:
Mad Money Machine Podcast and Blog
I guess I spent too much time reading modern portfolio theory and missed this guy's extensive body of work. Shame on me. Meanwhile there is a very lengthy thread over on Diehards about this very topic that I found well worth wading through:
Bogleheads :: View topic - Updated Modification of Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio
In a nutshell, isn't it interesting that the most intricate slice-and-dice portfolios engineered by the best minds Harvard et al have produced have lost at least 20% of their value in the meltdown while the absurdly simple PP has never lost more than 4% (and that was in '81)? As an ER looking for a steady ~8% return with few or no negative years I went the slice-and-dice route a la Bob Clyatt's intricate RIP portfolio, but now wonder if I wouldn't have been better served by this absurdly simple allocation. Anyone else?
Mad Money Machine Podcast and Blog
I guess I spent too much time reading modern portfolio theory and missed this guy's extensive body of work. Shame on me. Meanwhile there is a very lengthy thread over on Diehards about this very topic that I found well worth wading through:
Bogleheads :: View topic - Updated Modification of Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio
In a nutshell, isn't it interesting that the most intricate slice-and-dice portfolios engineered by the best minds Harvard et al have produced have lost at least 20% of their value in the meltdown while the absurdly simple PP has never lost more than 4% (and that was in '81)? As an ER looking for a steady ~8% return with few or no negative years I went the slice-and-dice route a la Bob Clyatt's intricate RIP portfolio, but now wonder if I wouldn't have been better served by this absurdly simple allocation. Anyone else?