Gyroscopic Investing

Hello PPeers,

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?

frugal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2026 7:06 am 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?

Yes. Gold is all you need for real assets in the PP.

Hi,

what do you think to have 2,5% on Bitcoin and 2,5% on COMMODITIES ?

frugal wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2026 11:05 am Hi,

what do you think to have 2,5% on Bitcoin and 2,5% on COMMODITIES ?

Seems reasonable. Personally, I don't invest in either (besides gold).

In my view, a 2.5% allocation to any asset isn't really worth the effort. It adds unnecessary complexity to the portfolio without providing significant protection. To have a noticeable impact, I believe any individual position should be at least 5-%10%.

i agree on everything being at least 5-10% but i never exceed 2% in bitcoin

its to volatile and un predictable for my taste .

currently i own just 1.50% and am still down 16k or so

the guys who would recommend 5-10% bitcoin (myself and BitcoininthePP) were saying it 6-7 years ago.

Hi

we can say that BTC from 0-5% is VARIABLE PORTFOLIO

VP

frugal wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2026 1:36 pm Hi

we can say that BTC from 0-5% is VARIABLE PORTFOLIO

VP

But where a VP - with no fiat/stocks/Treasury's could yield similar characteristics to a PP. US assets and Treasury's are losing their luster, many in the EU/UK and elsewhere are starting to realise that Russia/China are potentially better trade partners than the US (much of the high cost of living is a consequence of being aligned to the US). Perhaps the same is thought in Australia, Japan and Canada, which would leave a US/fiat system isolated. 3% bitcoin/3% monero might replace 25% stock, lending/staking can yield more than Treasury's relatively safely (loan to value arrangments have collateral assets typically liquidated if they get anywhere near not being able to repay the lender), physical gold is very tax efficient in some locations - or if held as crypto can also generate income. In Portugal crypto held for more than a year is tax free. Fundamentally on/off ramping (converting to/from fiat) restrictions are predominately a US fiat competitor matter, absent such concerns and the Portuguese way may rise to commonly predominate. Trump is helping that all along, often deeply insulting closest allies even more than others. In the UK there is dual legal tender, fiat Pounds and gold legal tender (gold/silver) coins, it wouldn't take much in the way of legislative changes to transition over to a trio layered system and there's rising appeal to do so.

Looking at a 4x25 PP where 10 of the 25 stock allocation were allocated to bitcoin (or a 3x leveraged tech stock), synthetic data from 1932, and the results look impressive. More reward (1.5% annualized more), increased volatility (similar Sharpe Ratio) but where yearly drawdowns were still relatively short lived and inclined to be <10%, better 30 year SWR outcomes. Holding 10% in the likes of CoinBase also provides the ability to quickly trade/move that value at any time (24/7 and potentially to off-radar), is somewhat closer to being like physical gold in your own possession except that you hold the private keys (that are easier to move across international borders). The low-downs saw 2022 as a exception, where the PP declined -12% versus the 10/15/25/25/25 3x/stock/gold/cash/LTT being down -18%. Jan 2017 - Mar 2026 annualised outcomes of 8.5% for the PP, 13% for the 10/15/25/25/25 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... 0OBEQgzS7h. The PP had 30 year 4% SWR failures in 1936/7/9 and 1940, in contrast to the 10/15/25/25/25 supporting a 4.25% in all cases (calendar year granularity).

The Golden Ratio portfolio holds commodities through managed futures and has a higher SWR than the PP or GB. I’ve been listening to risk Parity Radio podcast for a while, and Frank makes a good case for managed futures. I appreciate how they haven’t been accessible until recently so may not have been a part of earlier risk parity portfolios. Although I wish he’d give now credit to Harry Browne.

Matthew19 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 10:30 am The Golden Ratio portfolio holds commodities through managed futures and has a higher SWR than the PP or GB. I’ve been listening to risk Parity Radio podcast for a while, and Frank makes a good case for managers futures. I appreciate how they haven’t been accessible until recently so may not have been a part of earlier risk parity portfolios. Although I wish he’d give now credit to Harry Browne.

He gives a nod to Harry in his intro by referencing the easy-chair.

Jack Jones wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:49 am

Matthew19 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 10:30 am The Golden Ratio portfolio holds commodities through managed futures and has a higher SWR than the PP or GB. I’ve been listening to risk Parity Radio podcast for a while, and Frank makes a good case for managers futures. I appreciate how they haven’t been accessible until recently so may not have been a part of earlier risk parity portfolios. Although I wish he’d give now credit to Harry Browne.

He gives a nod to Harry in his intro by referencing the easy-chair.

From what I've heard he's never said Harry's name, even when talking foundational topics.

Matthew19 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2026 6:46 pm

Jack Jones wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 7:49 am

Matthew19 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 10:30 am The Golden Ratio portfolio holds commodities through managed futures and has a higher SWR than the PP or GB. I’ve been listening to risk Parity Radio podcast for a while, and Frank makes a good case for managers futures. I appreciate how they haven’t been accessible until recently so may not have been a part of earlier risk parity portfolios. Although I wish he’d give now credit to Harry Browne.

He gives a nod to Harry in his intro by referencing the easy-chair.

From what I've heard he's never said Harry's name, even when talking foundational topics.

On his portfolio's page, after clicking Accelerated Permanent, he mentions Harry:

https://www.riskparityradio.com/portfolios wrote:The Accelerated Permanent Portfolio is an aggressive and experimental portfolio that is designed to take advantage of leveraged funds that offer multiples on returns, but is based fundamentally on Harry Browne's original Permanent Portfolio.

You should try backtesting it. Not sure how far back you can go. I would do it but portfoliovisualizer seems to not be as good as it was and I don’t think portfoliocharts has that functionality for free anymore.

portfoliocharts is $5/month (I believe you can cancel any month) and has a 7 day free trial period.