≡ Menu

The Permanent Portfolio

The Permanent Portfolio divides your assets into four portions.

The Permanent Portfolio is a strategy for diversifying your wealth. It’s an asset allocation that looks like it was lifted from the Old Testament:

  • 25% in cash
  • 25% in gold
  • 25% in shares
  • 25% in long-term government bonds

Okay, so you’re not shipping corn in a Phoenician galley or laying down shekels at the local moneylender. You’re investing in stock market listed companies and government debt.

Nevertheless, for an asset allocation the Permanent Portfolio is about as back-to-basics as diversified gets – the 25% slug of gold giving it an especially Old World tang.

The portfolio’s roots lie in the high inflation era of the 1970s, when investing was simpler. Forget robot advisors or quant funds1 – the only thing most people used computers for was playing Pong or Pac-Man.

Back then people still held active funds and shares for decades. They phoned up their stockbroker to do trades – or visited them in-person!

A gloomy minority even buried gold coins in their garden or stashed them under floorboards, before hunkering down to wait for the inevitable nuclear conflict.

Plus c’est change

Nearly 50 years on – it’s a different world. (Well, sort of…)

You might well wonder then what the rather presumptuously named Permanent Portfolio offers us 21st Century investors.

Surely we’ve nothing to learn from an approach you could write on a fag packet? (If we still smoked…)

Well, I believe it’s worth pondering the Permanent Portfolio, and its deceptive simplicity. While it’s too straightforward for an investing stamp collector like myself, I recognise it as a thing of investing beauty.

The Permanent Portfolio’s returns have historically been pretty special, too.

Not the highest returns, granted. But that’s not the only way to judge how well a portfolio performs.

The history of the Permanent Portfolio

The Permanent Portfolio was the brainchild of Harry Browne, a US writer and politician.

Browne’s life was quite a journey – he wrote a classic of the US libertarian movement and ran for president – but it’s his evolution as an investor that’s relevant to us.

Beginning his investing career as a gold bug and newsletter writer, Browne morphed into a proto-passive investor. He came to believe nobody knew much about the direction of markets or the economy.

Expansions and recessions were inevitable but impossible to time. Investors should be fearful of inflation as well as deflation, and also of government interventions.

Cheap index trackers were the investments of choice. Why pay a fund manager when nobody knows anything?

This all resulted in the Permanent Portfolio – the pioneering all-weather asset allocation I outlined above.

The science bit

The Permanent Portfolio is extremely simple, but designed to preserve an investor’s wealth whatever fortune throws at it:

  • In good times, the equities should do well.
  • In retrenchments, long-term government bonds should shine.
  • Gold protects you from calamities – as well as, hopefully, the sort of stagflation that prevailed in the 1970s.
  • And cash, well it never hurts to have a supply of the folding stuff to call upon.

Rebalance annually and you might benefit from automatically selling high and buying low. More importantly, you keep your ship on an even keel.

Historical returns from the Permanent Portfolio

Here’s how a Permanent Portfolio, denominated in GBP, would have performed from 1970 against World equities and the 60/40 portfolio:

The Permanent Portfolio's growth from 1970 to 2025 versus 100% World equities and the 60/40 portfolio

Permanent Portfolio = World equities, long gilts, UK money market, and gold priced in GBP. 60/40 portfolio = 60% World equities GBP / 40% medium gilts – up to 10-year maturities. Portfolios are annually rebalanced. Fees are not included. Data from Alan Stocker2, British Government Securities Database, A Millennium of Macroeconomic Data for the UK, The London Bullion Market Association, FTSE Russell, and MSCI. November 2025

Note: All returns in this post are inflation-adjusted GBP total returns.

Here’s the trend lines in the graph broken down into their risk and reward elements:

Portfolio Annualised return (%) Volatility (%) Sharpe ratio
Permanent 4.2 6.8 0.62
60/40 4.1 9.3 0.44
100% equities 5 14.7 0.34

What’s most noteworthy about the Permanent Portfolio is its very low volatility:

  • The average 4.2% return from the Permanent Portfolio came with a standard deviation of just 6.8%. That’s calm.
  • By contrast, a 60/40 portfolio (World equities / medium gilts) delivered a 4.1% return and it ladled on more volatility – a standard deviation of 9.3%.
  • 100% equities offered the best returns of all but upped the risk quotient yet again, subjecting owners to 14.7% annualised volatility.

Let’s now draft in the Sharpe ratio to help us make sense of that risk versus reward trade-off.

Risk rewarded

The higher your Sharpe ratio, the better your risk-adjusted returns. In other words, the more return you get per unit of risk, as measured by volatility.

On that score, the Permanent Portfolio’s 4.2% average return is achieved with far less grief than the other two portfolios dished out.

An allocation of 100% equities may offer the prospect of higher returns. But they’ll likely come with much more drama attached.

Meanwhile, you can see the Permanent Portfolio’s steady approach at work in the growth chart above. Its green line waggles, for sure. But it doesn’t feature the sickening cliff-drops that punctuate the 100% equities’ blue line or even the concave wilderness years that afflict the 60/40 portfolio (orange line).

Downside protection

The Permanent Portfolio’s relative chill makes it particularly well-suited to retirees and those derisking their portfolios before retirement.

Investors focused on wealth preservation need to avoid devastating losses. That’s exactly what Browne’s asset mix is designed to avoid:

The Permanent Portfolio drawdown chart.

The Permanent Portfolio has only suffered one bear market drawdown greater than 20% in the past 55 years. Compare that with the free falls experienced by more conventional load-outs:

    • The chart that shows the Permanent Portfolio is less volatile than the 60/40 portfolio or 100% equities

The Permanent Portfolio’s extremely low 25% equities holding reduces the severity of dips when the stock market crashes.

Nicer nightmares

Even the nightmare scenarios tend to be less terrifying:

Portfolio Deepest drawdown (%) Longest drawdown
Permanent -21.5 6 years, 6 months
60/40 -45.8 11 years, 11 months
100% equities -56.1 13 years, 9 months

In inflation-adjusted terms, a 60/40 portfolio lost nearly half its value during its most abysmal run. 60/40 investors also had to endure almost 12 years underwater in the worst case before their portfolio reclaimed its old highs.3

In contrast, at worst the Permanent Portfolio declined less than halve the amount of the 60/40. And its longest bear market recovery time was 45% quicker.

As the table shows, running with 100% equities was hairier still when the brown stuff hit the fan.

Take a walk on the mild side

One of the dilemmas facing investors – whether we recognise it or not – is that long-term average returns conceal some colossal landmines. Monumental blow-ups that can wreak havoc with your plans.

This is known as ‘tail risk’ and you can assess a portfolio’s susceptibility to such extreme unpleasantness by checking its annual return distribution.

The more often a portfolio deep-dives into negative territory, the riskier it is: 100% World equities annual returns distribution chart.

A portfolio comprising 100% World equities has lost nearly 40% of its value – in a single year – twice in the last 50 years. And drawdowns of between 15% and 30% in a single year are standard.

On the other hand, double-digit advances are common, too.

In short, a 100% equities portfolio is an Oblivion-grade rollercoaster.

Contrast that with the more regular 60/40 portfolio:

The 60/40 portfolios annual returns distribution chart.

Eye-watering losses are fewer and shallower. But by the same token, blistering gains are also less frequent. Annual returns are more likely to land in a middling comfort zone.

If you like the sound of that then you’ll love the Permanent Portfolio’s track record:

The Permanent Portfolio's annual returns distribution chart.

The Permanent Portfolio hardly ever racks up a double digit loss. In the vast majority of years it makes steady progress and conserves what you have.

Why the Permanent Portfolio works

The key to the Permanent Portfolio’s stabler returns is its diversification, especially its out-sized allocation to gold:

Asset class correlation matrix: monthly real total returns 1970-2025 

Gold World equities Long gilts Money market
Gold 1 0.01 -0.02 0.04
World equities 0.01 1 0.14 0.1
Long gilts -0.02 0.14 1 0.39
Money market 0.04 0.1 0.39 1

Quick correlation recap:

  • 1 = Perfect positive correlation: when one asset goes up so does the other
  • 0 = Zero correlation: the two assets being measured have no influence upon each other
  • -1 = Perfect negative correlation: when one asset goes up, the other goes down

These are extremely good numbers. Low and near-zero figures indicate the portfolio’s assets are exceptionally diversified.

Permanently at odds

Even well-differentiated equity sub-asset classes typically have correlations ranging from 0.8 to 0.9+. The highest here is 0.39 betwixt long gilts and money market (which stands in for cash in the mix).

Even 0.39% is a moderately low correlation as it goes, while the other – still better – numbers go a long way to explaining the low-volatility nature of the Permanent Portfolio. Basically when one of its asset is face-planting then the others usually trot on, relatively unbothered.

Of course, by the same token if World equities are on a tear, then it’s also likely that others among the assets will be dragging their heels.

Hence, during bullish times it’s important to focus on the Permanent Portfolio’s goal of balance. Otherwise you’ll be forever grousing about how some laggard or another is cramping your style.

Diversification and gold

Here’s an illustration of how gold in particular has historically proved a diversifier for UK equity investors:

The chart shows how well gold counteracted falls in World equities. Exactly when you’d most want to see a non-stock asset go up – to offset the pain of plunging share prices!

It’s especially notable because in a crash correlations increase. That is, most assets tend to fall together. So if you can own something that doesn’t, you’ll someday probably be glad of it.

Bottom line: the big allocation to gold is the oddest but perhaps also the most important aspect to the Permanent Portfolio.

What have you done for me lately?

The Permanent Portfolio regained popularity between the stock market crash of 2008 and the peak of the gold market bull run in 2011. Scarred by memories of the still-recent global equity rout and attracted by the allure of gold, new adherents flocked to its defensive asset allocation.

With hindsight that was poor timing. This particular golden age didn’t last long – the yellow metal nose-dived 40% from late 2011 until the end of 2015.

Gold has since bounced back with a vengeance, however. And stock markets have soared too.

Yet Permanent Portfolio investors had to cope with their worst ever drawdown of -21.5% in 2023, as all four assets struggled with the post-Covid inflation and interest rate double-whammy.

Survivor’s gilt

No asset was more of a liability in 2022 and 2023 than long gilts. They suffered a dreadful 61% decline from their peak at the outbreak of Covid.

Despite that shock, I’d say the Permanent Portfolio coped reasonably well. Its 21.5% loss in 2023 is no more than a bad cold in comparison to the worst maladies that can befall a stock-heavy asset allocation.

And since then the Permanent Portfolio has recovered its losses and resumed its forward march.

Do recent events mean that long gilts are broken? No. They’re no more broken than equities or gold right after they crash. Those assets are just as capable, if not more so, of delivering an appalling performance.

The real learning point is that although the Permanent Portfolio looks outwardly dull, it actually invests in three highly unpredictable assets. Each one can punch the lights out or punch you in the face.

The genius of Harry Browne is that he chose these volatile assets because they can cover for each other.

One of them is usually charging forward, while another is heading for the field hospital.

Meanwhile cash plods along keeping up the rear.

It’s hard to credit, but highly-volatile individuals can create a surprisingly harmonious environment even though all appears to be churn and chaos.

Think The Expendables, but with Sharper ratios.

Investing in the Permanent Portfolio

The Permanent Portfolio is a self-reliant DIY investors’ dream.

Not as simple as the very simplest global shares and bond mix, admittedly. But a Permanent Portfolio shouldn’t take more than half an hour to set up, and the same again once a year to rebalance.

My co-blogger The Accumulator gave an example setup in his review of model portfolios for DIY investors.

Needless to say you should be investing in ISAs and SIPPs to avoid your portfolio being ravaged by tax.

Permanently a place for the Permanent Portfolio

Active investing is my passion. At times I’ve approached 100 holdings. I’ll also accept higher volatility for hopefully higher returns.

So the Permanent Portfolio is too simple for me. And realistically, I can’t imagine putting 25% in gold.

All that said, compared to when I first learned about the strategy a couple of decades ago – back when I was happily all-in on equities – my need to diversify has increased. The absolute amount I have invested has grown a lot, and my time horizon has shrunk.

The Permanent Portfolio – and its history of decent returns with minimal volatility – is a useful reminder that well-considered diversification need not be a recipe for stagnation.

Those looking to reduce volatility in their portfolios – especially around retirement D-Day – could do worse than spend a few minutes thinking about what it has to teach us.

  1. Yes, I know there were a handful of pioneering quant funds and already some use of computers. But nothing like the algorithmic trading that dominates activity today. []
  2. Stocker AJ. 2024. “Total Returns for UK Gilt Sectors of Different Maturities from 1870 Onwards.” []
  3. This assumes no new savings. []
{ 79 comments }

Weekend reading: Redistribution, sooner or later

Our Weekend Reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

There’s a growing sense – I’d argue a reality – of intergenerational inequity in the UK, as with many other developed countries.

Whether the old having so much more than the young is an inevitable consequence of late capitalism, a comorbidity of a broken housing market, the demographic bulge bracket baby boomers not paying their way, or just what happens when an economy is no longer booming like it did in the 1950s and 1960s is hard to tell.

Probably it’s a bit of everything. But in any case, assuming we don’t want to transition permanently into neo-feudalism, the next question is what’s to be done?

One option is to directly favour the young with government largesse. For various reasons, mostly political, we’ve triple-locked away that solution for now.

The other obvious redress, redistribution, is even more controversial. At least outside of the editorial meetings of Socialist Worker.

Redistribution – taxing those with more to give to those with less, obscured by so many smoke and mirrors – at least treats the thing directly. Handy if the age aspect is a red herring, and really we’re just looking at greater wealth inequality.

The big snag though is that redistribution tends to infuriate those whose stuff is being redistributed.

As the UK tax take of GDP soars, statistics showing the top 1% already pay 30% of all income tax imply they have a point – even if income tax is not everything.

The bank of grandmother and grandad

There’s one kind of redistribution that both the richest and the rest of us tend to support though.

And that’s inheritance passing wealth down the generations.

True, long-time readers know that this is where I’d personally position the nation’s best tax-collecting apparatus.

On both moral grounds and in light of my neo-feudalism fears, I’d far prefer to tax dead people who can’t feel the pain than young people working, saving, and still not having enough money for a house deposit or a proper pension.

But hey, I’m in a minority. Inheritance tax is widely considered to be the UK’s most unpopular tax. Most people hate it.

And yet it exists – and from the perspective of its critics, it gets in the way of the frictionless redistribution from the father to the son.

(And the mother and daughter of course, but as we’re in the realms of neo-feudalism here, let’s have all the trimmings!)

How soon is now?

By far the best and easiest way to avoid inheritance taxes tithing such wealth transfers is for the eventually-to-be-deceased to give their money away sooner.

Currently no tax is due on anything given away if you live for seven more years.

To me, this longevity lottery seems a bit ridiculous – if again entirely in keeping with the same medieval thinking that makes inheritance taxes so unpopular.

Why should a family be penalised because a beloved elder gets an unexpected cancer or meets the wrong end of a bus?

Nevertheless, encouraging the rich to pass down their wealth sooner does have one undeniably huge benefit, as Jonathan Guthrie outlines in a (paywalled) article in the Financial Times this week.

As things stand, Guthrie writes:

…the most striking feature is how little we decumulate. Most folk die with more than 60 per cent of their peak lifetime assets.

Adult offspring are therefore liable to inherit large sums when they themselves are approaching retirement, when the utility of the money may be lower.

Giving sooner improves the lives of heirs earlier, and in material ways. Perhaps the chance for a parent to take a few years off to care for young children, or for a family to buy a house with bedrooms for all the kids from the start. Compare such uses to the money simply sitting in a septuagenarian’s bank account, maybe with a bit of the interest funding one more Caribbean cruise that gilds the lily.

Earlier inheritance might even help with the housing market, if it reduces the tendency for older generations to rattle around in big houses full of rooms they don’t use while young families grin and bear an open-plan kitchen-diner-hallway-sofa-bedroom.

Well, solves it for the moneyed classes at least. But that’s neo-feudalism for you…

An age-old story

Guthrie suspects traditional inheritance practices have yet to adjust for extended longevity, writing:

When lives were shorter and child-rearing began earlier, legacies from dead parents materialised closer to the point of greatest utility for heirs.

This must be right. Even oligarchs in the Middle Ages were lucky to make it to 60.

Naturally we all want to live longer lives. But if it means ever more wealth piling up at the right-hand of the curve where it’s unlikely to ever be spent, then something – literally – has to give.

I’d suggest if we’re to avoid a ‘Gen Z Uprising’ in the history books alongside the First Baron’s War, the Peasant’s Revolt, the Boston Tea Party, and the Bolshevik Revolution then more efficiently keeping it in the family isn’t going to be enough in the long run.

But getting wealth redistributed sooner – to where it will do the most good for those who are fortunate enough to inherit – is at least a start.

Have a great weekend.

p.s. Thanks to everyone who entered our Christmas sweatshirt competition. I’ll contact the winners this weekend to make sure they’re not Russian chatbots or whatnot, and announce the ‘lucky’ recipients next Saturday!

[continue reading…]

{ 82 comments }

Surviving system meltdowns and cyber attacks

Photo of melting ice to represent a system meltdown

New contributor and perma-worrywart The Engineer is back with a new concern: how to survive system meltdowns or other malicious goings-on at your financial services provider.

These days, my biggest financial worry isn’t losing my money in the markets.

It’s losing access to it altogether.

Beyond investment risk, my concerns range from technology failures through corruption, cockups and business failures, right up to the overthrow of governments and the collapse of society. (Yet somehow, I sleep soundly at night.)

That’s quite a spectrum, so I’ll leave the zombie apocalypse for another day.

From power failures to hack attacks to system meltdowns

For now I’ll focus on something much more mundane but also far more likely than the walking dead swamping Clapham: losing access to my investments because of an operational or technology failure.

How can trouble at your financial services provider fail thee?

Let me count the ways.

Glitches

System hiccups and upgrade mishaps causing a few hours outage are common at investment platforms (and everywhere else) but they are rarely a cause for panic.

It might even be a good thing for some of us. You could go out and play in the sunshine for a while rather than sitting inside hitting refresh on your portfolio valuation.

Migrations

System migrations can sometimes cause longer outages.

In 2018, both the Aviva investment platform and TSB Bank suffered painful transitions to new technology. In each case, whilst the full outage only lasted around a week, some customers struggled for a lot longer.

If you’re living off your investments then that sort of lockout could sting.

Cyber attack

Then there are cyber attacks.

Earlier this year, both M&S and Jaguar were hit by ransomware attacks that knocked out key systems for around six weeks. For retailers, that’s painful. For an investment platform it could be terminal.

Financial services companies have no tangible product. All they do is move data around. If investors no longer trust the company to look after their data, then the business is effectively dead.

Personally, I’ll admit that life wasn’t easy without my online orders for M&S Oscietra Caviar, but I suspect having no access to my money would be tougher.

What’s the worst that could happen?

It can surely only be a matter of time before a big financial firm is hit by a major cyber attack. (Indeed I’ve heard unsubstantiated rumours that it’s already happened, but allegedly the consequences were so scary that the hackers were paid off.)

I doubt investor data records would vanish entirely – that would require a monumental series of cascading failures – but it’s quite easy to imagine an outage running into months.

With the reputational fallout, the firm might just throw in the towel. Once in receivership everything would slow to a glacial pace. You might not see your money for years.

My emergency cash wouldn’t touch the sides of that sort of funding gap.

Shouldn’t somebody do something?

The industry is far from blind to the risks.

In the last few years, the FCA has pushed for better operational resilience and information security. All the trade bodies seem to have specialised working groups on best practice and the platforms themselves generally seem engaged.

So we can all relax, right? Well, no.

Which platforms should we avoid?

I can’t give you a list of the safe platforms and the dodgy ones. That’s partly because Monevator doesn’t seem keen on being sued, but mostly because in my experience none are perfect and none are terrible.

They all have rather more bits of string and Sellotape holding things together than you might hope, but invariably they also have some good people trying to do the right thing.

Some practical steps we can take

A few simple precautions:

  • Keep records. Save a recent statement. It’s unlikely your provider will lose all data. But equally, it doesn’t take much effort to click save on a PDF. Just in case.
  • Choose big companies. Deep-pocketed parents are less likely to abandon a damaged subsidiary.
  • Invest through multiple platforms. Losing access to half or a third of your money would be alarming. But it would be a whole lot less alarming than losing access to all of it.

However, diversifying across platforms isn’t as straightforward as it sounds.

Eggs and baskets

Let’s say that after reading this article you are overcome by anxiety. With an abundance of caution, you spread your investments across four platforms: Vanguard, AJ Bell, Barclays Smart Investor, and Aviva.

Unfortunately, all your investment eggs would still be in the same technology basket: FNZ.

FNZ is the biggest technology provider in the UK platform market. It runs the underlying systems for many household names. So even if your assets are spread across different brands, they may all share the same machinery.

Note: I’m definitely not saying there’s anything wrong with FNZ. Indeed it’s clearly doing something right.

But if the goal is to reduce systemic risk, you need to use entirely different systems.

Investment platforms don’t usually highlight which technology they run on, but you can find out. The easiest way is to ask your favourite AI chatbot. It will work it out by trawling through old supplier press releases announcing new clients.

Beyond platforms

It’s not just the investment platforms we depend on. There’s a whole network of other organisations that also need to be functioning for us to turn our investments back into hard cash.

Should we worry about the fund managers we use? And what about the transfer agent that handles trading for them?

Instinctively these feel like lesser risks. They don’t need a public-facing web presence to function, and so may be less susceptible to attack.

Still, a risk.

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

We could go deeper and unearth yet more organisations to worry about.

What about the fund accountants and the payment services? What caterers do these organisations use? What if they all get food poisoning at the same time?

But there’s a time to stop digging for even the most paranoid investor.

Time to decide

I pretty much live off my money now and consequently tend to worry about these things more.

I use multiple platforms with different technology and invest with multiple fund managers (who coincidentally use different transfer agents but that wasn’t deliberate).

Of course, this isn’t just about cyber attacks. There are other reasons to spread your investments around – such as the regulatory compensation limits – but it’s good to understand these risks to help work out the best approach.

There’s no perfect answer, only whatever helps you sleep at night. Once you have an approach that works for you, stop stressing and move on to something else.

Keep records, use stable companies, spread your risk – and then relax.

Peaceful dreams!

{ 40 comments }

What derisking your portfolio looks like [Members]

Image of three planes gliding in to land

If you need to derisk your portfolio before retirement, what should your portfolio look like?

Once upon a time we got by with rules-of-thumb like:

This article can be read by selected Monevator members. Please see our membership plans and consider joining! Already a member? Sign in here.
{ 22 comments }