==========================================START OF PAGE 1======

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Securities Act of 1933
Release No.  7379 / January 13, 1997

Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 38160 / January 13, 1997

Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Release No.  1604 / January 13, 1997
 
Investment Company Act of 1940
Release No. 22460 / January 13, 1997 

Administrative Proceeding File Number 3-9218

     PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS
     INSTITUTED AGAINST TERENCE MICHAEL COXON, ALAN MICHAEL
     SERGY, WORLD MONEY MANAGERS AND WORLD MONEY SECURITIES, INC.

     The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted public
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Terence
Michael Coxon ("Coxon"), Alan Michael Sergy ("Sergy"), World
Money Managers ("Investment Adviser") and World Money Securities,
Inc. ("Broker") (collectively "Respondents").  

     The Order Instituting Proceedings alleges that the
Respondents violated numerous provisions of the securities laws. 
In particular, for fiscal years 1989 through 1992, the
Respondents defrauded actual and potential investors in the
Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds (the "Fund") in violation of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
and Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.  The
Fund's prospectuses and registration statements contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions concerning (a) the
allocation of Fund operating expenses; (b) the allocation of
certain Fund distribution expenses; and (c) the Fund's investment
policies.  

     In addition to violating the antifraud provisions, the Order
alleges violations of a number of other provisions of the
securities laws.  For instance, the Order alleges that the Broker
entered into a selling agreement with the Investment Adviser to
offer and sell shares of two portfolios of the Fund.  As a
result, a third portfolio of the Fund incurred the distribution
expenses of the other two portfolios in violation of Section
17(d) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17d-1 thereunder.  
In addition, the Order alleges that the Fund's Board of Directors
did not fulfill its duties to properly evaluate the Fund's 12b-1
expenses and that from approximately August 1990 through July
==========================================START OF PAGE 2======

1992, the Board of Directors did not have the required number of
disinterested directors.

     A hearing will be scheduled to determine: (1) whether the
allegations against the Respondents are true, and, if so, what
remedial action, if any, is appropriate; (2) whether a cease-and-
desist order should issue against the Respondents; (3) whether
disgorgement should be ordered against any of the Respondents;
(4) whether an accounting should be ordered against any of the
Respondents; and (5) whether civil penalties should be imposed
upon the Respondents.