PRPFX + 10% Long Term Treasuries = Good Alternative?

[MiniB]

100% of my money is tax sheltered as of now.  I get free trades into PRPFX through my IRA brokerage.  Would it be reasonable to do 90% PRPFX and 10% TLT?  I see the downside to PRPFX is:

1) Not enough Long Term Treasuries
2) High Expense Ratio
3) Doesnt let you physically own the gold
4) Not as tax efficient as splitting assets

To me, the High Expense ratio is partially offset by getting free trades into the fund and only having to deal with trades from a single ETF. 

The fact that it doesnt let me physically spit the gold portion out into my taxable account is fine because I dont own any taxable money so my only alternative is really a gold ETF.  I think PRPFX physically owns the gold, so it may be safer than a gold ETF.

Not enough LT Bonds can be offset by splitting 10% of TLT in the mix.

Tax efficiency doesnt matter if I am 100% tax sheltered.

My biggest scare is that Cuiggino got a lot of money pouring in recently and when the equity market bursts and people get out of PRPFX it may cause problems for some of the stock picking that Cuiggino does.

[Lone Wolf]

MediumTex came up with the idea of using 10% EDV and 90% PRPFX.  EDV invests in long-term zero-coupon treasuries, and thus has even more volatility than TLT.  He figured out that the extra volatility makes it an even better counterweight for PRPFX's light long-term bond holdings.  Zero-coupon treasuries have some really unpleasant tax treatment but since you have everything in a non-taxable account this should be no problem.

This is discussed a bit here.