As of Monday, the value of Alaska's Permanent Fund was almost $30.3 billion. Even short memories can recall it had dropped more than two billion dollars below that a few months ago.

That's testimony to the long-range strategy that has made Alaska's savings account a rock -- battered, for sure, but enduring.

Thinking like that should underlie whatever the fund's board of trustees and managers gain from their two-day meeting this week in Anchorage. The meeting will focus on investment strategies.

We don't pretend to be financial advisers. But we hope the fund will continue to be a prudent investor with a mix of solid, investments in stocks, bonds and real estate, a portfolio long on blue chips, short on creative alternatives. That simple, unexciting blend has served Alaska well for more than a generation. It requires knowledge, nimbleness and sharp analysis -- and the nerve to remain prudent when tempted by maximum return.

One thing Alaska should continue to do is resist calls to treat the Permanent Fund as a source of "investment" for politically favored development initiatives, such as an in-state gas line or renewable energy. At a conference in Anchorage this week, Colorado renewable energy advocate Hunter Lovins suggested the latter possibility. Renewable energy and energy efficiency may be smart bottom-line investments these days, as she asserted, but it's inappropriately risky to mandate the fund invest in particular sectors or projects.

And while we do support divestment from companies doing business with Sudan so as not to contribute a penny to genocide, by and large trustees and managers should check political considerations at the door and invest for financial return. That's the job.

One departure from the status quo that still makes sense is the POMV proposal. POMV stands for percentage of market value. Instead of drawing Alaskans' dividends and making inflation-proofing reinvestments from a five-year average of earnings, POMV would allow the Legislature to appropriate up to 5 percent of the market value of the fund every year. That or a similar formula is used by most endowment funds in the country.

Efforts to adopt POMV through a constitutional amendment have gone nowhere in the Legislature. Is the need to change urgent? No. The formula we have now works under most circumstances; POMV would give us a steadier, more predictable return and smaller fluctuations in our dividend checks.

How best to manage and use the Permanent Fund has been debated since before Alaskans voted to create the fund in 1976. It's a great debate to have, because we're arguing over a success story, even in these uncertain times.

Let's keep our nerve for the long haul and our wariness of financial creativity. That way we can continue the success story.

BOTTOM LINE: Permanent Fund should stay the course with long-term investments, and resist calls for radical moves.

ADVERTISEMENT