Building on the Browne vs. Dalio comparison, I’ve been thinking about the "Commodities" gap.
In Dalio’s All Weather, commodities are a core structural component (7.5%) to hedge against supply-shock inflation. However, in Browne’s Permanent Portfolio, he famously excluded them, arguing that Gold was sufficient for monetary inflation and that the PP should only contain "clean" assets with no carrying costs or decay.
Browne’s rule was: if you want to speculate or tilt towards a specific sector (like Energy or Ags), do it in your Variable Portfolio (VP).
My question to you all:
Does it make sense to keep the Permanent Portfolio "pure" (25/25/25/25) and only hold a broad Commodities ETF (or specific plays like Uranium or Oil) in a Variable Portfolio?
Pros: You don't mess with the proven rebalancing math of the PP, and you only take the "commodity volatility" with money you can afford to lose.
Cons: You might miss out on structural protection during a 1970s-style supply shock that Gold alone might not fully cover.
Do any of you treat Commodities as a "Satellite" (VP) rather than a "Core" (PP) holding?
