It's fine to cherrypick the time period, but at least show a comparison of 70/30 BND vs GLD: https://testfol.io/?s=5xC5w902ucL. Meh. Now how do we think the last 30 years looks?You're tying your entire portfolio to two volatile assets. They've been uncorrelated in the past. They have not moved consistently in opposite direction, uncorrelated means only that they have moved independently. And they are still both volatile. And 30% is lot. I'd like to know your opinion, i.e. why you are doing this. Are you relying on some prediction about how gold moves relative to stocks?
In the past, it's been reasonably true that, in inflation-corrected real value, gold has returned roughly 0% over periods of time of a century or more. For this reason, gold seems relevant to preservation of wealth in the very long term. I have never been clear what function it serves short-term.
The Harry Browne "Permanent Portfolio" has gone through more than one version, but has never been just stocks and gold. The current version is half bonds, split between long-term and short-term.
Admittedly I've picked the worst time period for gold in my lifetime to show you, but do you have the whole history of gold prices, over a reasonable number of decades, in your head? Like gold versus stocks for the 22-year period 1980-2001? Are you consciously accepting the possibility of a period like this? I.e. did you already understand that this can happen? And continue for 22 years?
Source
Statistics: Posted by will23 — Tue Jan 27, 2026 12:11 pm — Replies 26 — Views 1006