Gyroscopic Investing

Okay here's an out-of-left-field suggestion that came up on (of all places) the Bogleheads forums:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... CMryVLBwXi

I guess you could call this "The Three Fund Portfolio" Harry Browne-style.

I see nothing but advantages here: you eliminate the tail risk of the 30 year Treasuries, have oodles of liquidity due to the cash-like nature of the short-term Treasuries and plenty of gold for SHTF insurance. Replacing the VTI with VT would make it into even more of a bunker. I mean if the PP is for money you can't afford to lose.....

I would personally make it intermediate-term treasury bonds instead of short-term, but this is a perfectly valid approach too.

33% gold is more than i would want . i like gold but not that much

Agree with Mathjak

I do like long bonds less than I did when I was younger. Even so, “simplifying” by removing them seems like simplifying one’s hand by lopping the thumb off.

mathjak107 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 30, 2026 12:40 pm 33% gold is more than i would want . i like gold but not that much

It works even better with only 25% gold and more stocks - and trounces the regular PP even more thoroughly:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... Krp1br6tiF

that i can see

This is what I have been doing for a while now. 33% stocks, 33% treasury bills, 33% gold.

I got lucky and just rebalanced out of gold before the latest crash.

I believe it was the belangp videos that first got me comfortable with 33% gold with his 67% stocks, 33% gold allocation.

https://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10777



The longer duration treasuries do back test better but that is from higher rates on the longer duration bonds.

I am not chaining myself to using treasury bills but plan on using the Swedroe 20 basis point rule that I see you posted about on bogle heads yourself. Thank you very much. I have it bookmarked.

https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=350803


The bonds need to make it worth it.