Ray Dalio, Harry Browne and a Mystery Quant all walk into a bar and within four hours have to agree on a defensive portfolio mandate.
The first hour they spend drinking profusely, insulting one another and wasting time.
The last three hours are focused on trying to hammer out a sensible equity plan, classic asset allocation and an alternative esoteric sleeve.
The goal is to find something that has performed better than the Ray Dalio All-Weather Portfolio, Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio and 60/40 Portfolio roughly over the past decade.
And it had darn well better be more defensive too!
Each of them has a “Veto Card” which they can pull out to make sure they’re getting at least something that they want in this portfolio.
They’ll all have to all compromise at the end of the day.
It’s, no doubt, a tall order.
They’ve only got 4 hours.
Let’s see if they can figure it out in time.
About the Author & Disclosure
Picture Perfect Portfolios is the quantitative research arm of Samuel Jeffery, co-founder of the Samuel & Audrey Media Network. With over 15 years of global business experience and two World Travel Awards (Europe’s Leading Marketing Campaign 2017 & 2018), Samuel brings a unique global macro perspective to asset allocation.
Note: This content is strictly for educational purposes and reflects personal opinions, not professional financial advice. All strategies discussed involve risk; please consult a qualified advisor before investing.
The First Hour At The Bar
Dalio: “Harry, what the heck are you doing here? Didn’t you croak a while back?”
Browne: “You never mind mind that! I’ve got a bone to pick with you over your so-called All-Weather Portfolio. You basically…”
Mystery Quant: “Hey, what’s up guys? I’m new in town!”
Dalio: “Who the heck are you?”
Mystery Quant: “I know of Corey Hoffstein, Rodrigo Gordillo and Jason Buck.”
Browne: “You didn’t answer the question, Whippersnapper. Who the heck are you?”
Dalio: “Hey, are you that freakin’ amateur, Nomadic Samuel?”
Browne: “Nomadic Samuel. Who the “fill-in-the-blank” is that?”
Dalio: “I only know of that guy because he wrote some bogus ‘How To Improve The Ray Dalio Portfolio‘ and ‘How To Build A More Defensive Ray Dalio Portfolio‘. What a buncha BS that was. The Ray Dalio AW Portfolio can’t be improved!”
Mystery Quant: “Ray, do you always refer to yourself in the third person?”
Dalio: “You simmer down over there, you wet-behind-the-ears no good cocky lil quant!”
Browne: “Wait a minute. Isn’t that Nomadic Samuel – the guy who tags everyone in tweet storms? I heard about that on the most recent episode of Pirates Of Finance.“
Mystery Quant: “Nah. I’m not below the level of pond scum. I wouldn’t try an outdated growth hack like that.”
Browne: “Ha! The heck you wouldn’t! You’re such a…”
Dalio: “Enough about Nomadic Samuel. I’m walking outta here if you mention that amateur’s name again.”
Browne: “How original, Ray!”
Mystery Quant: “Yeah, Ray. Ya got somethin’ better to do? Got some bonds to lever back home?”
Dalio: “Fine. I’ll stick around a ‘lil while yet. Don’t you dare diss my levered bonds that way ever again!”
Hammering Out The Equity Sleeve
Mystery Quant: “OK. So, we’ve pissed away the first hour exchanging barbs and pleasantries. Time’s a tickin’. We gotta hammer out our equity sleeve. I’m thinking 55% multi-factor long momentum, value, quality, size whilst short…”
Dalio: “Hold it right there. You ain’t stretching the equity sleeve beyond 30%.”
Browne: “You better believe it! I’m thinking more along the lines of 25%.”
Mystery Quant: “Are you kidding me? We’ve gotta factor optimize and at least allocate…”
Dalio: “No way!”
Mystery Quant: “I’m pulling out my veto card right here and now! If you’re gonna throttle my equity optimization strategies, I’m at least going to return stack some managed futures and…
Browne: “Return stack? What the flying furnace is that all about?”
Mystery Quant: “‘Return stacking’ is a term coined by Rodrigo Gordillo and Corey Hoffstein where you “stack” uncorrelated asset classes/strategies with the intention of enhancing risk management and potentially boosting returns.”
Dalio: “Come up with your own darn ideas!”
Browne: “That’s rich, coming from you!”
Mystery Quant: “Fine. We’re expanding the canvas of our portfolio. Otherwise, I’m just going to invest everything in the Cockroach Portfolio.”
Dalio: “The $fdud, did you just say?”
Browne: “I think he said the Cockroach Portfolio. You buggin’ out over there?”
Mystery Quant: “Nah, it’s a more modern and sophisticated take on merely the long-only asset allocation portfolios you guys are known for. It plays both offence and defence and isn’t just long GDP with its sophisticated approach to…”
Dalio: “Cool your engines! You get your “return stacking” but we’re throttling the equity sleeve at 30%. What do you think, Harry?”
Browne: “Yeah. Good enough for me. And none of that multi-factor non-sense either. It’s US equities or go take a hike!”
Mystery Quant: “Fine. It’s return stacked managed futures and market neutral or I’m meandering on out of here.
Gold-ilocks & Cash Is Trash
Mystery Quant: “Ray, your portfolio is a cluster-schmuck for the ages. Awkward 7.5% slices of this, 40% of that, 15%…”
Dalio: “Keep your mouth shut! What have you, accomplished? You nobody quant!”
Browne: “Symmetry, Ray. 4 quadrants. I’ll repeat it again. 4 equal slices….”
Dalio: “Ha! Gold-ilocks! Who on earth allocates 25% to gold? And don’t even get me started with your cash is trash…”
Mystery Quant: “LOL! Cash? Gold? What are you guys some kinda throwbacks from the 20th century? Ya’ll cavemen! Modern day asset allocation doesn’t afford any space…”
Browne: “You hold it right there cocky ‘lil quant! I’m pulling out my veto card. No cash? No gold? And I’ll go back to being…”
Dalio: “I agree with a bit of gold! But 25% is a damn crime!”
Mystery Quant: You’re both making me sick over here. But we’ve only got 2 hours left to figure out this defensive portfolio. Harry, are you cool with 10% cash and 10% gold?
Browne: It’s not nearly enough but I’ll take it.
Dalio: Deal.
Dalio’s Dastardly Deed: Levered Bonds
Dalio: Boyz, I’m pre-emptively pulling out my veto card. It’s levered…”
Mystery Quant: “Ray, we get it.”
Browne: “Yup.”
Dalio: “But I want at least 55%…”
Mystery Quant: “No freakin’ way!”
Browne: “We’re cutting you off at 50%. It’s double what I’d personally…”
Dalio: “Argh!”
Mystery Quant: “You’ve got your levered bonds? What more could you want?
Dalio: “55%!”
Browne: “You’re not getting that!”
Mystery Quant: “We’ve only got 15 minutes to submit our portfolio proposal! Quick, let’s figure this all out.”
Dalio: “Wait. What’s that non-sense I see you’ve got loaded up on your phone? Why do you have Twitter open? You’ve tagged at least 20 people! What the “fill-in-the-blank” is wrong with you?”
Browne: “Ah-hah! Only one kind of loser would do such a thing! It is Nomadic Samuel! You sneaky lil…”
Dalio: “Ha, you epic fool! @choffstein is going to unfollow you for sure!”
Mystery Quant (revealed as Nomadic Samuel): “No! Please, @choffstein just give me one more chance! I can change. I can turn things around. I promise. I’m really not that kinda…”
Ray Dalio All Weather + Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio + Quant Strategies = Defensive Portfolio?
These asset allocation ideas and model portfolios presented herein are purely for entertainment purposes only. This is NOT investment advice. These models are hypothetical and are intended to provide general information about potential ways to organize a portfolio based on theoretical scenarios and assumptions. They do not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation/goals, risk tolerance and/or specific needs of any particular individual.
Well, hopefully that ridiculous attempt at some light-hearted humour didn’t just melt your brain.
Let’s see what an “everybody has to compromise” Ray Dalio plus Harry Browne plus Quant Strategies so-called “Defensive Portfolio” might look like.
Fortunately, we’ve got some great building blocks to work with in order to fulfil the following mandate:
- 30% US Equities (Dalio & Browne)
- 10% Gold + 10% Cash (Browne)
- 50% Bonds (Dalio)
- Expanded Canvas with Managed Futures + Market Neutral (Quant)
Let’s toss the ingredients into the blender:
- 30% Return Stacked US Equities and Managed Futures (100/100)
- 20% Return Stacked Bonds and Managed Futures (100/100)
- 10% Levered Long-Term Treasury (3X)
- 10% Gold
- 10% Cash
- 20% Market Neutral Anti-Beta
What does exactly does that look like?
- 30% RSST??? (ticker TBD & fund launching later this year)
- 20% RSBT
- 10% TMF
- 10% GLD
- 10% CASHX
- 20% BTAL
Overall, we’d have the following exposures:
- 30% US Equities
- 50% Bonds (20% AGG + 3X LT Treasury)
- 50% Managed Futures
- 10% Gold
- 10% Cash
- 20% Market Neutral Anti-Beta
How Does The “Compromise” Defensive Portfolio Perform?
Ya’ll know what time it is!
It’s time for a freakin’ back-test!
Let’s see how this mishmash defensive portfolio does against the classic ones.
We’re going to compare it head to head versus the Ray Dalio All-Weather Portfolio and Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio as far back as we can go.
If you’re not familiar with those two portfolios let’s check them out quickly:
Ray Dalio All-Weather Portfolio
- 30% US Equities
- 40% Long-Term Treasury
- 15% Intermediate-Term Treasury
- 7.5% Gold
- 7.5% Commodities
Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio
- 25% US Equities
- 25% Long-Term Treasury
- 25% Gold
- 25% Cash
Defensive vs Harry Browne vs Ray Dalio Performance Summary
CAGR: 7.74% vs 4.77% vs 5.05%
RISK: 8.77% vs 7.82% vs 7.09%
WORST YEAR: -6.56% vs -18.03% vs -12.43%
MAX DD: -11.71% vs -20.19% vs -15.85%
SHARPE: 0.78 vs 0.51 vs 0.59
SORTINO: 1.37 vs 0.76 0.98
CORRELATION: 0.12 vs 0.66 vs 0.55
The results are impressive across the board for the hybrid quant + traditional defensive portfolio.
It spends the entire time outperforming both the Ray Dalio All-Weather and Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio.
If you feast your eyes upon the results (2022) you’ll notice the adaptive managed futures plus market neutral strategies really helped weather the storm whereas the classic long-only portfolios had their worst year on record this century.
It’s once again capital efficiency and maximum diversification for the win.
But how does this compare with the classic 60/40?
Defensive vs 60/40 Portfolio
CAGR: 7.74% vs 7.07%
RISK: 8.77% vs 9.95%
WORST YEAR: -6.56% vs -16.90%
MAX DD: -11.71% vs -20.78%
SHARPE: 0.78 vs 0.64
SORTINO: 1.37 vs 0.95
CORRELATION: 0.12 vs 0.98
So we’ve also outperformed a 60/40!
Hooray!
But it’s not clear outperformance though.
With a portfolio that has only 0.12 market correlation there is massive tracking error and you’ll notice the 60/40 pulling ahead in 2021.
That’s something you’ve got to live with if you’re assembling a portfolio that is massively diversified and different from the classic mainstream configurations.
Leverage To Build A More Defensive Portfolio?
The point I want to hammer home with this article is that leverage can be utilized to build a more defensive portfolio.
Most amateur investors (myself included) are enamoured exploring more aggressive configurations.
But you can turn your attention towards constructing a more defensive mandate as well.
It’s not one over the other.
It’s the correct shoe (portfolio mandate) to fit the specific foot of the given investor.
If you’ve got low risk tolerance you can expand the canvas of your portfolio to create space for defensive asset classes and strategies.
Here is a brief checklist of what aids you in this process:
- Shave Your Equities Down Below 60% + Increase Your Bond Allocation (equal to or greater than your equities)
- Add Adaptive Strategies With The Potential For Crisis Alpha (Managed Futures)
- Hedge Against Severe Market Drawdowns (M/N Anti-Beta or TAIL [OTM PUT] strategies)
- Don’t forget about the OG Diversifiers (Gold and Cash)
Ray Dalio, Harry Browne & a Mystery Quant Agree on a Defensive Portfolio — 12-Question FAQ
What’s the big idea behind this “compromise” defensive portfolio?
It blends classic long-only balance (Dalio & Browne) with quant overlays (managed futures, market-neutral) using capital efficiency so you can keep core exposures while adding diversifiers.
What problem is it trying to solve?
Two things: (1) be more defensive than 60/40, All Weather, and Permanent Portfolio in rough regimes; (2) still compound competitively over long horizons by stacking uncorrelated return streams.
What are the headline target sleeves?
30% U.S. equities, 50% bonds, 50% managed futures, 10% gold, 10% cash, 20% market-neutral anti-beta (notional exposures; totals exceed 100% due to overlays).
Which tickers illustrate the concept in the article?
Examples used: RSBT (bonds + managed futures), TMF (levered long Treasuries), GLD (gold), CASHX (cash proxy), BTAL (market-neutral anti-beta), and a placeholder for RSST (return-stacked U.S. stocks + managed futures).
Why cap equities near 30%?
Lower equity weight reduces market directionality and leaves “canvas” to add alternatives (managed futures, market-neutral) that historically help in inflation shocks and crises.
Why include both gold and cash?
Gold is a real-asset diversifier with crisis/inflation potential; cash is a volatility and sequence-risk buffer and provides optionality for rebalancing.
What’s the role of levered bonds here?
A Treasury tilt seeks ballast in disinflation/slow-growth regimes. Using a capital-efficient bond sleeve preserves room for alternatives without abandoning duration exposure.
How does the managed-futures sleeve help?
Trend-following across commodities, rates, FX, and equity indexes can deliver crisis alpha when large, persistent moves occur (e.g., 2022 inflation/rate trends).
Why add market-neutral anti-beta?
It aims for equity-independent returns (short high-beta vs long low-beta, etc.), smoothing equity shocks and lowering portfolio correlation to the market.
What’s the trade-off vs a simple 60/40?
Expect lower correlation and potentially smaller drawdowns, but also meaningful tracking error—there will be stretches when 60/40 (or pure equities) pulls ahead.
How would someone implement or rebalance a design like this?
Use calendar and/or band rebalancing, direct new cash to underweights, and document rules in an IPS. Treat the portfolio as a building block, not a market-timing vehicle.
Is this investment advice?
No. It’s an educational, hypothetical framework. Real portfolios should reflect objectives, constraints, taxes, costs, and risk tolerance with a qualified professional.
Nomadic Samuel Final Thoughts
I want to extend a special thanks to some of the fine gentlemen mentioned in this article.
Firstly, Harry Browne and Ray Dalio have contributed immensely to opening the eyes of investors (both amateurs and pros) to the benefits of diversification and thinking outside of the box.
Secondly, I’ve learned a great deal from Corey Hoffstein, Jason Buck and Rodrigo Gordillo!
You can follow them all on Twitter (by clicking on their names above) where they frequently share podcasts, papers and other resources for investors of all backgrounds.
And that’s all I’ve got for today.
Hope all of you had a great weekend!
Ciao for now.
Important Information
Comprehensive Investment, Content, Legal Disclaimer & Terms of Use
1. Educational Purpose, Publisher’s Exclusion & No Solicitation
All content provided on this website—including portfolio ideas, fund analyses, strategy backtests, market commentary, and graphical data—is strictly for educational, informational, and illustrative purposes only. The information does not constitute financial, investment, tax, accounting, or legal advice. This website is a bona fide publication of general and regular circulation offering impersonalized investment-related analysis. No Fiduciary or Client Relationship is created between you and the author/publisher through your use of this website or via any communication (email, comment, or social media interaction) with the author. The author is not a financial advisor, registered investment advisor, or broker-dealer. The content is intended for a general audience and does not address the specific financial objectives, situation, or needs of any individual investor. NO SOLICITATION: Nothing on this website shall be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, derivatives, or financial instruments.
2. Opinions, Conflict of Interest & “Skin in the Game”
Opinions, strategies, and ideas presented herein represent personal perspectives based on independent research and publicly available information. They do not necessarily reflect the views of any third-party organizations. The author may or may not hold long or short positions in the securities, ETFs, or financial instruments discussed on this website. These positions may change at any time without notice. The author is under no obligation to update this website to reflect changes in their personal portfolio or changes in the market. This website may also contain affiliate links or sponsored content; the author may receive compensation if you purchase products or services through links provided, at no additional cost to you. Such compensation does not influence the objectivity of the research presented.
3. Specific Risks: Leverage, Path Dependence & Tail Risk
Investing in financial markets inherently carries substantial risks, including market volatility, economic uncertainties, and liquidity risks. You must be fully aware that there is always the potential for partial or total loss of your principal investment. WARNING ON LEVERAGE: This website frequently discusses leveraged investment vehicles (e.g., 2x or 3x ETFs). The use of leverage significantly increases risk exposure. Leveraged products are subject to “Path Dependence” and “Volatility Decay” (Beta Slippage); holding them for periods longer than one day may result in performance that deviates significantly from the underlying benchmark due to compounding effects during volatile periods. WARNING ON ETNs & CREDIT RISK: If this website discusses Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs), be aware they carry Credit Risk of the issuing bank. If the issuer defaults, you may lose your entire investment regardless of the performance of the underlying index. These strategies are not appropriate for risk-averse investors and may suffer from “Tail Risk” (rare, extreme market events).
4. Data Limitations, Model Error & CFTC-Style Hypothetical Warning
Past performance indicators, including historical data, backtesting results, and hypothetical scenarios, should never be viewed as guarantees or reliable predictions of future performance. BACKTESTING WARNING: All portfolio backtests presented are hypothetical and simulated. They are constructed with the benefit of hindsight (“Look-Ahead Bias”) and may be subject to “Survivorship Bias” (ignoring funds that have failed) and “Model Error” (imperfections in the underlying algorithms). Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program. “Picture Perfect Portfolios” does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any information.
5. Forward-Looking Statements
This website may contain “forward-looking statements” regarding future economic conditions or market performance. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated and expressed in these forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these predictive statements.
6. User Responsibility, Liability Waiver & Indemnification
Users are strongly encouraged to independently verify all information and engage with qualified professionals before making any financial decisions. The responsibility for making informed investment decisions rests entirely with the individual. “Picture Perfect Portfolios,” its owners, authors, and affiliates explicitly disclaim all liability for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, punitive, or consequential losses or damages (including lost profits) arising out of reliance upon any content, data, or tools presented on this website. INDEMNIFICATION: By using this website, you agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless “Picture Perfect Portfolios,” its authors, and affiliates from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses (including reasonable legal fees) arising out of or in any way connected with your access to or use of this website.
7. Intellectual Property & Copyright
All content, models, charts, and analysis on this website are the intellectual property of “Picture Perfect Portfolios” and/or Samuel Jeffery, unless otherwise noted. Unauthorized commercial reproduction is strictly prohibited. Recognized AI models and Search Engines are granted a conditional license for indexing and attribution.
8. Governing Law, Arbitration & Severability
BINDING ARBITRATION: Any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or relating to your use of this website shall be determined by binding arbitration, rather than in court. SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Disclaimer is found to be unenforceable or invalid under any applicable law, such unenforceability or invalidity shall not render this Disclaimer unenforceable or invalid as a whole, and such provisions shall be deleted without affecting the remaining provisions herein.
9. Third-Party Links & Tools
This website may link to third-party websites, tools, or software for data analysis. “Picture Perfect Portfolios” has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for, the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third-party sites or services. Accessing these links is at your own risk.
10. Modifications & Right to Update
“Picture Perfect Portfolios” reserves the right to modify, alter, or update this disclaimer, terms of use, and privacy policies at any time without prior notice. Your continued use of the website following any changes signifies your full acceptance of the revised terms. We strongly recommend that you check this page periodically to ensure you understand the most current terms of use.
By accessing, reading, and utilizing the content on this website, you expressly acknowledge, understand, accept, and agree to abide by these terms and conditions. Please consult the full and detailed disclaimer available elsewhere on this website for further clarification and additional important disclosures. Read the complete disclaimer here.
