You gotta own some stocks, but how much? I took the Paul Boyer Permanent Portfolio and varied the percentage of stock ownership from 0% to 100% in 5% increments while keeping gold, long term bonds, and cash divided equally among the remaining amount. Then I plotted each portfolios return vs. risk for 1975 through 2009. Take a look at the resulting graph. It turns out that portfolios with less than about 25% stocks were generally the same level of risk or even (surprise) a higher level of risk than holding 25% stock. Each of the numbered portfolios P0 through P100 split their stock ownership between Small Cap Value (VISVX) and Emerging Market (VEIEX). I also plotted the pure Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio and a simulated PRPFX.

It looks like Harry Browne was really onto something with his recommendation of owning 25% in stocks.

Not satisfied with just 2010 Year-to-date results? How about results from January 2008 through September 2010? Here is the graph:

(click for larger graphic)

If you cannot read this, it says that the permanent portfolios are up about 20% since January 2008 and just about everything else is still negative.

Here is a chart plotting the end-of-month returns for the lazy portfolios. Wow, what a roller coaster ride if your portfolio was 100% in stocks. On the other hand, wow, what a nice smooth ride if you were in one of the three permanent portfolios. The Paul Boyer Permanent Portfolio remains in the lead with an amazing 13.1% gain through the first three quarters of 2010. Look at that steady upward blue line! Thank you Harry Browne.

And here is the table of returns through September 2010:

Data on IFA portfolios is courtesy of ifa.com. All other portfolio returns are calculated using Yahoo! Finance historical returns and may not include dividends paid in the most recent month.

How can you properly determine if your investment have met your expectations?

Watch “Proper Benchmarking and Alpha” for a lesson on measuring risk against a complete set of important factors. These videos are based upon IFA’s Quote of the Week Issue #82.

Part 1:

Part 2:

The Permanent Portfolio style lazy portfolios continue to do well. Listed below is a table of YTD results for 25 portfolios or funds that I am tracking. The contents of each portfolio are listed in an earlier post. The Paul Boyer Permanent Portfolio continues its lead, having returned 9.8% so far in 2010. It differs from the Harry Browne PP (up 8.9% YTD) in that instead of a total US Stock Market fund (VTI), it holds half of its stock allocation in US Small Cap (VBR) and half in emerging markets (VWO). Other than that, they both hold 25% in gold (GLD), 25% in long term US Treasury bonds (TLT), and 25% in cash (SHY). The Permanent Portfolio mutual fund (PRPFX) came in third place at 6.0%.

Most all of the other portfolios are stock-centric and while they may own some bonds, they are usually a mixed bond portfolio instead of purely long-term (20- to 30-year) US Treasuries. None of the other own gold.

Here are the individual component YTD results of the Paul Boyer Permanent Portfolio:

• Small Cap (VBR): -0.7%
• Emerging Market (VWO): -0.5%
• 20+ Treasury Bonds (TLT): 23.6%
• Gold (GLD): 13.8%
• Cash (SHY): 2.3%

It is amazing to note that Cash in the form of short term treasuries (SHY) outperformed all but 7 of the 25 lazy portfolios! And who would have thought that long term bonds would be up 23.6% after only 8 months? Not me. And that is why one invests in a Permanent Portfolio: No one can predict the future. So invest in all four economic possibilities: prosperity, inflation, deflation, and recession.

The permanent portfolios continue to do well. See previous posts for full details about the contents of each lazy portfolio. The Paul Boyer Permanent Portfolio has risen 1% per month so far with small volatility. 12.5% VBR, 12.5% VWO, 25% TLT, 25%, GLD, and 25% SHY. You can do it!

We have arrived at mid-year 2010 and can now take a look at the half-year results of the lazy portfolios we have been tracking. It looks like the Paul Boyer Permanent Portfolio has gained 1% per month this year. Just four of the portfolios are positive with three of them based around the Permanent Portfolio concept. Portfolios P2 and P1 used Vanguard mutual funds. If we would have used the recommended ETFs TLT, SHY, VTI, VBR, VWO, and GLD, the results were 6.6% and 6.1%, respectively.

Have you shifted into a Permanent Portfolio yet?

Here are the returns of the individual components of the lazy portfolios:

*Note that these results use Yahoo! Finance adjusted historical returns with the exception of IFA portfolios results from IFA.com that include IFA’s fee.

Dave sent this to me and said I could post it for all of you. Nice analysis of how the Permanent Portfolio did last month.

Permanent Portfolio performance during the very volatile month of May

This May was the worst May since 1940.  The Dow and VTI (total stock market) both had losses of -7.9%.  Volatility has returned to the market!  When the market is volatile, the wisdom of investing in the Permanent Portfolio becomes apparent.  The Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio always has the same four assets: total stock market (VTI), gold (GLD), long term Treasury bonds (TLT) and short term Treasury bonds (SHY).  These assets are rebalanced each year.

Let’s see how the Permanent Portfolios performed on a weekly basis for the very volatile month of May.

Date                Stocks            Gold           Long Bonds     Short Bonds      PermPort
—               VTI               GLD                 TLT                  SHY

May   3 –   7          -7.0%               2.5%              4.1%                  0.3%                     0.0%
May 10 – 14           3.0%               1.8%             -0.7%                  0.1%                     1.0%
May 17 – 21          -4.5%              -4.3%              3.7%                 0.1%                    -1.2%
May 24 – 28           0.7%               3.2%             -2.0%                  0.0%                     0.5%

Total for May       -7.9%               3.1%              5.1%                  0.5%                     0.2%

2010 to May          -0.1%             10.8%              8.9%                  1.4%                     5.5%

The week-by-week returns show that the Permanent Portfolio is much less volatile than the VTI.  The volatility is amazingly low because the VTI and TLT (and GLD) move in opposite directions — they are negatively correlated.  The first week of May provides a good example of the negative correlation of the assets:  the VTI was down -7.0% while GLD was up 2.5%, TLT was up 4.1% and SHY was up 0.3%.  This resulted in a 0.0% change for the Permanent Portfolio.  The returns for each of the other three weeks further demonstrate the negative correlations of the assets.

The final returns for the month of May show that if you had been invested in the Permanent Portfolio you would have been ahead by 0.2% instead of being behind by -7.9% for a VTI investment.  A Permanent Portfolio investor would not think that this May was the worst May since 1940.

The last line in the table shows the year-to-date returns for each of the assets.  The advantage of the Permanent Portfolios over the VTI (total stock market) is obvious.

The main problem with the Permanent Portfolio is that it is just too boring for most investors!

Here are the Year-To-Date returns of the Lazy Portfolios through the end of May 2010. The components of each portfolio are listed at the end. The “Paul Boyer Permanent Portfolio” is my modification of the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio where instead of investing 25% in the total US stock market, we invest 12.5% in US Small Cap Value and 12.5% in Emerging Markets.

Below is a Return vs. Risk Chart for these portfolios from 1985 through 2009 (Note: this chart does not include returns through the end of May 2010). The ideal portfolio would be high return at low risk and thus appear at the top left of the chart. [Chart data is computed using Simba's spreadsheet from the Bogleheads.org forum with the exception of IFA portfolios from ifa.com.]

See how there is almost an invisible boundary line from lower left to upper right? That is the “Efficient Frontier” and shows that returns are correlated with risk over the long term. It is nearly impossible to construct a portfolio that will be above that efficient frontier. So the only question you need to answer is, how much risk are you willing to accept. That is, can you tolerate the downturns in the market in the short term?

Looking at a shorter term, here is a chart showing just the previous ten years from 2000 through 2009.

I like the boost to returns the Paul Boyer Permanent Portfolio got during prosperity and it didn’t hurt too much during recession either.

And to see if you can indeed stomach a bad short term, here is a chart with just the previous three years:

How about a chart of just the recent heyday of stocks from 2003 thru 2006:

Looking at past charts is fun, but should not be the only data you use to make investment decisions. I like the Permanent Portfolio concept because it is so simple, has low fees, and covers the four economic cycles of prosperity, inflation, deflation, and recession. It has been shown to be the lowest in risk among the lazy portfolios while not sacrificing returns. They are the only portfolios to include gold.

Here are the components of each of the portfolios*:

*Note that these results use Yahoo! Finance adjusted historical returns with the exception of IFA portfolios results from IFA.com that include IFA’s fee.

In his MarketWatch article today, Mark Hulbert writes,

Would you be interested in an all-weather portfolio that, despite hardly ever changing its composition, performs creditably in almost all market environments?

Hulbert characterizes the Permanent Portfolio this way:

Browne’s idea was to invest in a basket of asset classes, each one of which has a low correlation with the others. As a result, when any one of the asset classes is performing poorly, there is a good chance that the others will at least be holding their own — if not actually appreciating in value.

He describes Harry Browne’s Permanent Portfolio as an antidote to volatility. He then gives some past performance of the PRPFX fund which somewhat implements Harry Browne’s concept:

This fund over the last 15 years (through Apr. 30) has produced an 8.2% annualized return, which is remarkable given that stocks, gold and bonds did not, individually, do as well: The Wilshire 5000 index gained 7.9% over the same period, the Shearson Lehman Treasury Index produced a 6.3% annualized return, and gold bullion rose at a 7.7% annualized pace.

I might suggest that while the result of the four asset classes is low correlation, that is not the way Harry Browne explained the reasoning. Instead, the portfolio is designed to have one component that does well in each of four different economic circumstances: prosperity (stocks), inflation (gold), deflation (LT Bonds), and recession (cash). Harry said that while you can expect one of the assets to go down, the one that goes up more than makes up for the loser. For example, while one asset may go down 30% or 40%, the winning asset can go up 200% or 300%, more than making up for the loss.

I think the best thing about the portfolio is this: No one can predict the future so we might as well invest in all possibilities.