ppnewbie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 23, 2025 1:54 pm
I guess the only counterpoint to having too much cash is that this is really about portfolio dynamics. It dampens the volatility of the entire portfolio. So if you want the HBPP / GB low ulcer index you would need the cash component, in the specified allocation range.
With regard to my proposed "Golden Dragon" portfolio with 10% cash: if I recall correctly, its ulcer index came out very well on Tyler's portfolio visualizer tool (slightly higher than the Golden Butterfly, but not by much). However, I don't recall the specifics right now and I'll need to study the matter in more depth before getting serious about a switch.
More generally, here are two other considerations I've been pondering...
First, as Tyler explained in his posts at Portfolio Charts, the Golden Butterfly is designed to take advantage of the fact that periods of prosperity are much more common than periods of deflation / disinflation (when long-term bonds are supposed to shine) or tight-money recession (when cash is king). By allocating 25% to long-term bonds and cash, one might be over-insuring against infrequent scenarios.
Second, Harry Browne defined the Permanent Portfolio as the place to park the investable assets one can't afford to lose. Thus another way to think about variations on the PP (such as the Golden Butterfly and Golden Dragon) is that they park X% of total investable assets in the PP and Y% in a Variable Portfolio containing something else (for both GB and GD that "something else" is more equities). However, mentally it becomes hard to keep track of things that way (off the cuff, does GB = 80% PP and 20% VP containing SCV or whatever?). Furthermore, assigning such a portfolio a nice name like "Golden Butterfly" gives people something to hang their hat on, makes it easier to remember and visualize and discuss and compare, etc.