
Adam is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. He advocates an evidence-based approach to personal finance. Adam has written more than 400 articles for HumbleDollar.
I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM with a small word. But before I get to that, I’ll start with a little bit of history.
In his book The Success Equation, Michael Mauboussin tells this story: Back in the 1970s, a Spanish man won the country’s biggest national lottery, called El Gordo—the Big One. Awarded annually at Christmastime, it’s the rough equivalent of our Powerball. In this particular year, when the winner was interviewed,
WHEN I WAS IN GRADE school, I remember a field trip to a highflying local company called Prime Computer. At the time—it was the 1980s—Prime was a Fortune 500 company with a popular line of minicomputers and a runaway stock. Today, Prime is long gone and barely remembered. A Wikipedia page is about all that remains.
For a long time, I didn’t understand this. How could a company so successful simply cease to exist?
ON APRIL 14, 1988, Captain Paul Rinn was the commanding officer of the USS Samuel B. Roberts when it struck a mine in the Persian Gulf. The resulting explosion tore a 21-foot hole in the side of the frigate. Almost immediately, the ship began taking on water and multiple fires broke out.
Naval protocol for this situation was clear: Put out the fires first, then worry about patching the hull. But after just a few minutes of firefighting,
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY Chairman Warren Buffett, in his most recent annual report, described an event that occurred at a Berkshire subsidiary last year. Late one night, a fire spilled over from a neighboring business, resulting in significant damage to the Berkshire facility, forcing it to shut down.
Fortunately, no one was injured and, as Buffett notes, the losses will be covered by insurance. Problem is, one of the company’s largest insurers was, as Buffett put it,
LATE LAST YEAR, I described how Bill Gates used to take time out from his job running Microsoft to seclude himself for “think weeks.” For better or worse, many of us today are finding ourselves stuck inside, with more time on our hands than usual. If you’re growing weary of the endless news cycle, below are some ideas to help you make the most of this time.
Looking to build your personal finance knowledge?
FOLLOWING THE STOCK market’s steep decline, sensible investors are faced with three alternatives. The first two are fairly straightforward, but the third option is worth some discussion.
1. Do nothing. If all of your assets are in retirement accounts and you’re comfortable with your risk level, you might choose to tune out the news and do nothing at all. Similarly, if your portfolio doesn’t include any stock market investments, you might opt to watch the market upheaval from a distance,
“HOW BAD WILL IT get—and how long will it last?” In my last article, I mentioned that many people had asked me those two questions. This past week, amid the continuing stock market tumult, some folks have been raising a third question: “Should I even bother investing in the stock market? It just seems crazy.”
It’s a fair question. On Monday, the market was up 4%, before dropping 3% on Tuesday. On Wednesday, it was up 4% again,
AMID THE PAST WEEK’S stock market downturn, many people are asking two questions:
“How bad will it get?”
“How long will it last?”
I can’t answer these two questions, and nor can anybody else. But I have an answer to a third question: “What should I do?” Below are seven thoughts:
1. Ask financial advisors what they recommend at a time like this and most will offer the same advice: “Don’t panic.” While I agree,
“FOLLOWING THE market’s recent banner year, should we just sell everything and get out?” I got that question recently, and it’s entirely understandable. Since hitting bottom in 2009, U.S. share prices are up fivefold, including the S&P 500’s 31.5% total return in 2019.
Individual investors aren’t alone in asking this question. A few weeks back, at an industry conference, James Montier delivered a presentation in which he compared the U.S. stock market to “Wile E.
IT’S NO SECRET THAT mutual fund costs are critically important. In fact, when it comes to the performance of funds in the same category, they’re the single most important differentiator. In the words of Morningstar, the investment research firm, “If there’s anything in the whole world of mutual funds that you can take to the bank, it’s that expense ratios help you make a better decision.”
But how do you go about totaling up a mutual fund’s costs?
TESLA FOUNDER ELON Musk is, to me, the ultimate investment Rorschach test. To his supporters, Musk is a genius without equal. As one Wall Street analyst put it, “If Thomas Edison and Henry Ford made a baby, that baby would be called Elon Musk.” But to his detractors, Musk is an erratic individual and the leader of a money-losing company whose bravado has landed him in hot water with the SEC.
Last week, Tesla’s stock encapsulated those contrasting views. On Monday and Tuesday,
AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK, I run across the sort of portfolio I like to call a “broker’s special.” While each is different, they typically include some mix of the following:
A handful of mutual funds with names like “New Economy” or “New Discovery” or “New Perspectives.”
Some commodity funds.
10 or 20 individual stocks.
Funds with names heavy on buzzwords such as “infrastructure” and “renewable energy.”
And, in some cases, master limited partnerships,
IN BERKSHIRE Hathaway’s 2006 annual report, Warren Buffett devoted several paragraphs to scathing criticism of the hedge fund industry. Their fees, Buffett wrote, were so exorbitant and so stacked against investors that they amounted to a “grotesque arrangement.”
Indeed, Buffett has frequently recommended that individual investors opt for low-cost index funds. To reinforce this point, he issued a public challenge in 2007: He would bet anyone $1 million that, over a 10-year period, a simple S&P 500-index fund would beat the performance of a portfolio of hedge funds.
“THE INVESTOR’S CHIEF problem—even his worst enemy—is likely to be himself.” So wrote Benjamin Graham, the father of modern investment analysis.
With these words, written in 1949, Graham acknowledged the reality that investors are human. Though he had written an 800-page book on techniques to analyze stocks and bonds, Graham understood that investing is as much about human psychology as it is about numerical analysis.
In the decades since Graham’s passing, an entire field has emerged at the intersection of psychology and finance.
JUST BEFORE Thanksgiving, something odd happened on Wall Street. Three of the major brokerage firms issued remarkably similar reports declaring the death of the “60/40” approach to investing. What exactly does this mean—and should you be concerned?
By way of background, 60/40 refers to a traditional and very common strategy for building portfolios: 60% stocks and 40% bonds. Historically, most university endowments, as well as many individuals, have chosen this mix of investments because it offers a reasonable balance,


Comments