Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that PRPFX will be a great performer long-term despite any monetary policy changes. Look at the past history for the fund during years of interest rate increases and performance was still average. I think this fund is a great way to not only hedge your portfolio, but also to obtain some growth.

I recently sold my position in ADVDX. When I bought it it was NTF at Fidelity. It soon changed to a transaction fund and no way will I pay $75 to add to that fund. I looked for a replacement. It came down to JARFX Janus Global or PRPFX. I ended up choosing the Janus fund. I felt the global enviroment has further to go. I might be wrong. Time will tell.

I've followed PRPFX for some time, and and have a small position I'm DCA into.  I'm not expecting a long-term, shoot your lights out, double digit return, but I believe PRPFX will be a good hedge against inflation with a fairly steady return. 

That is not to say that I'm not pleased with their holding in PCX and it's 237% ytd return. 

helmut 

JARFX vs PRPFX... ?

These appear to be 2 different types of Funds..All Stock vs Balanced

Thus Aren't they 2 different animals? One is all Aggressive  stock fund and the other being conservative bal. fund aren't they?

Being in my top 5 Bal. Funds list..( and owing them )

Now a FPACX/OAKBX/PRWCX/would be to me..

Fund     past 10 yr apy

FPACX     10.6%

OAKBX    11.8%

PRWCX     9%

PRPFX     9.8%

I found a FPACX was far better performer in the last 3 yr  Bear Market ( tpt 43%= 14% apy )

Vs  PRPFX. 24%/8% apy

 

 

Nobody should be investing in this fund.  Since the fund's inception in 1982 through 2002, the fund had a 20-year annualized return of about 4% - effectively a zero real return after inflation.  You could have gotten more out of CDs or zero coupon bonds.  The fund simply never made any money.  It's only during the recent spike in gold prices that the fund has done anything interesting.  

This fund is basically a costly and extremely indirect way to get exposure to gold, a commodity that has a zero expected real return.  Even if you want exposure to gold, there are more direct and cheaper ways to do so. 
 

Best,
Oildog

You can get the performance information from the fund website here: link

I agree with the Dog here... the attention this fund gets when the market goes south is amazing... as is the expense ratio when you consider that there is no manager asset allocation... you are paying him essentially to pick a few stocks and hold your cash...

As with all of the more interesting and unique balanced funds, you can take some inspiration from how you use non-correlated assets to build a balanced portfolio, which you can then take and use in your own overall portfolio design... but if you really want a well managed balanced portfolio, look to Leuthold or similar companies... at least they will get you in and out of various asset classes in ways that has truly enhanced long term returns... PRPFX is essentially a static mix of gold, silver, foreign and domestic bonds and a few stocks... its so easy to replicate using ETF's these days that to pay a manager to do this is bordering on obscene

Ajw

I have had a smallish position for about 3 years and have made just about 1% per month in that time, with low volatility,

But it is tough to recommend. You simply can't rely on it as some sort of near riskless fund that will consistently beat CDs or money market funds. Can you say HSGFX?? I knew you could.

It has a 30% position in precious metals. If you aren't on the right side of that, it is highly unlikely to be worthwhile. I just got lucky and bought when gold was around 500 and enjoyed the ride up to 1000. If gold had moved from 500 to only 600 or gone down, I would be singing a different tune.

I would buy it only to the extent you are confident in the precious metals outlook. If you are confident in the precious metals outlook, why not buy gold? If you aren't confident in the precious metals outlook, why consider it? It simply isn't a sure thing.

Unless you bite off a major chunk of it---20% or more of portfolio--it isn't likely to have a major impact on your overall return. I don't want to bet a major portion of my portfolio on what gold is going to do. 

This is all aside from the high expense ratio.

I have drawn a line in the sand at the 200 day moving average. If it's hit, I'm gone and out with maybe a 10% per year return. It has broken that trendline only once and very briefly in the last few years and is currently about 80 cents above it. In spite of my misgivings, I'm perfectly willing to continue to hold it, subject to the 200 day line.

It is excellent for a taxable account if you want to own it. If you are considering a buy, I personally wouldn't do it until and unless precious metals had been seriously pounded for an extended period. That hasn't happened lately.

 

Scott,

I concur with the gentlemen who posted above.  This fund makes no portfolio adjustment depending on market conditions - hence the name "permanent".  You will be paying a fee for a static portfolio allocation, including a huge exposure go precious metals and Swiss francs.  If the US dollar recovers - which it probably will sooner or later - PRPFX will suffer.

The PRPFX recent performance looks terrific because gold has been rising.  As Oildog points out, the long-term real return of the fund is poor. 

IMHO it's worth paying a proven fund manager (who eat his own cooking) for his services. Look elsewhere.

Norbert 

Now everyone is thinking about asset allocation so they can get a piece of action in commodities. This probably signals a market top for commodities.

norbertc:

The PRPFX recent performance looks terrific because gold has been rising.  As Oildog points out, the long-term real return of the fund is poor. 

IMHO it's worth paying a proven fund manager (who eat his own cooking) for his services. Look elsewhere.

Norbert,

One could get the impression you are saying that Michael Cuggino, the fund manager, is not invested in his own fund.  I had that impression myself, no doubt due to reading other messages on these boards.

That impression, however, is false.

According to the Statement of Additional Information (SAI) for The Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds dated May 30, 2008, Mr. Cuggino owned "Over $100,000" in PRPFX. 

William

THE reason I never invested in PRPFX was manager had no ownership in any fund. I'm glad to see that has been corrected.

However, I dunno if at this time I would invest in this fund. I am DCAing in FPACX.