Great article and it also made me recall the Charles Ellis article, My Total Portfolio. But I do like your commentary here and found the table to be a nice visual for how including "bond-like" assets can help one rethink their investment allocations with more clarity.
Has your company looked into trading based on politicians' stock purchases? I remember seeing an app that made it easier for people to see the stocks politicians purchased, but I never seriously considered looking into it further because I've always been an index investor. I'm more curious than anything if your company has looked into that. In theory, it seems like it would be a good way to invest but then again, with the delayed timing of politicians' stock disclosures I imagine the benefit of copying them might be limited.
For an active (vs passive) investor, asset selection obviously is the most important. But clearly most of us on this forum are not active investors, and for good reason. To find alpha, you must possess an informational or analytical edge that nobody else has - a massive challenge in a hyper-connected world. You are effectively competing against multi-billion-dollar hedge funds, supercomputers, and insider networks. You might try to solve this by investing in actively managed funds you think have the right tools and skillsets to find your alpha. While it is easy to look backward and find funds that generated massive alpha over the last three or five years, data shows that past performance does not predict future results because alpha lacks persistence. According to the widely cited S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) scorecards, which track the performance of active fund managers against their benchmarks:
• Over a 10-year horizon, roughly 85% to 90% of all large-cap active managers fail to beat the S&P 500.
• Over a 20-year horizon, that failure rate climbs closer to 95%.
• The Persistence Trap: Studies tracking top-quartile winning funds show that within a few years, those same "elite" funds routinely drop into the bottom quartiles. True skill is virtually indistinguishable from a temporary streak of good luck in a random distribution. I will stick to my low-cost index funds and continue to believe that asset allocation is far more important than asset selection given my passive investing philosophy.
People like the idea that US companies bringing in revenue from foreign markets mean they don't need International investments. That's simply not supported by any data. Revenue vs. True Diversification
Geographic vs. Economic Exposure: While you technically gain exposure to foreign consumers and economies through overseas sales, research from Dimensional Fund Advisors shows that multinational U.S. stocks still move in sync with the U.S. market and domestic economic sentiment.
Lack of Diversification Benefit: Owning U.S. companies with global revenue does not replicate the risk-reduction or return-diversification benefits of owning actual foreign-domiciled stocks (which have different regulatory, currency, and sector dynamics).
Mark, I like you're unfazed staying at 80:20 throughout a long bull market. You seem to feel plenty secure with this after considering other sources of income outside this portfolio. Charles Ellis wrote a good article five years back about many over-allocating to bonds because they didn't consider their "total portfolio." https://humbledollar.com/2021/10/my-total-portfolio/ In any case, I agree that the real mistake is not enjoying the ride and hopping off early.
401k account balances alone are an incomplete measure of "average" retirement preparedness. However, I agree that lower median net worth among people in their 50s and 60s is concerning. But to suggest that this is evidence people need financial advisors is invalid. There are real reasons retirement preparedness is low, and it has nothing to do with the choice between DIY personal finance or using an advisor - people who aren't accumulating enough wealth because of inadequate income, inconsistent employment, limited retirement benefits, or competing financial obligations. Financial advice won't solve these problems. But the part of my comment you glossed over is, "if they’re willing to consistently devote a moderate amount of effort." These people may have the financial capacity to save but aren't making optimal decisions. They have the choice to first seek out information which is widely available on the Internet, such as sites like Humble Dollar. I agree it is fine to seek professional help if you have tried to do something yourself and aren't making progress, particularly if it is not an assets under management model, but instead a flat fee or hourly model that gets one on the right track. The greater point is that no one should assume a financial advisor is necessary.
Yes, really. DIY is a fine and achievable way to set a proper financial path. Most people, if they're willing to consistently devote a moderate amount of effort, do not need a financial advisor and will be better off financially due to the fee savings. Also, the personal satisfaction from managing one's finances is incredibly empowering.
I've come to agree that limiting my bond allocation to short-term bonds is best for me. They're much more stable and predictable than longer duration bonds, which is exactly what I want. But there are still so many choices for how to invest in bonds. A mix of various duration ETF's, individual bonds, TIPS ladders, etc. It just feels rather cumbersome and tiring to think about. I want something that's easy to manage while maintaining full liquidity. This second point - liquidity - is especially important to me, because it allows me to draw upon a larger amount than I otherwise would over some bond investing strategies, and not just for one-off expenses, but for opportunities to buy large quantities of stocks during severe market downturns. To that end, I've moved all of my fixed-income allocation to iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF (SGOV). I get that something like a mix of short-term treasury, intermediate-term treasury, and short-term TIPS index funds (as Adam suggests) *could* offer a better long-term return. But looking at the past several years, SGOV actually holds up quite well compared to these funds and was positive during the bondpocalypse of 2022. Perhaps I will revisit this "ultra short" bond strategy in the future, but for now it seems right for me. Regardless of where you fall on how to invest in bonds, I think the bigger picture is important to keep in focus. If you have an aggressive allocation to stocks, this will be the most significant driver of your portfolio's return, and having the "best" bond strategy will have only a minimal impact.
I think there is such a mix of perspectives within these comments that it's still hard to distill a simple "total return" meaning. When people use the term "total return" it's usually directly compared to a dividend-focused investment strategy, which is probably why you've seen it come up recently. A total return approach means you fund spending from the portfolio’s overall return—interest, dividends, and capital gains—rather than trying to live only off income distributions. You invest for the best risk/return mix instead of emphasizing high-dividend or high-yield investments just to generate cash. When you need money, you can use dividends and interest plus sell some appreciated investments. This lets your asset allocation be driven by your financial goals rather than by how much income each holding produces.
Thanks for the reminder on umbrella insurance. We're a pretty low-risk household for the moment so we've chosen not to purchase coverage, but it's a decision I plan to revisit when our daughters begin driving.
Comments
Great article and it also made me recall the Charles Ellis article, My Total Portfolio. But I do like your commentary here and found the table to be a nice visual for how including "bond-like" assets can help one rethink their investment allocations with more clarity.
Post: Bond Lookalikes
Link to comment from November 13, 2026
Has your company looked into trading based on politicians' stock purchases? I remember seeing an app that made it easier for people to see the stocks politicians purchased, but I never seriously considered looking into it further because I've always been an index investor. I'm more curious than anything if your company has looked into that. In theory, it seems like it would be a good way to invest but then again, with the delayed timing of politicians' stock disclosures I imagine the benefit of copying them might be limited.
Post: Do insiders know something when they buy their own company’s stock?
Link to comment from November 3, 2026
For an active (vs passive) investor, asset selection obviously is the most important. But clearly most of us on this forum are not active investors, and for good reason. To find alpha, you must possess an informational or analytical edge that nobody else has - a massive challenge in a hyper-connected world. You are effectively competing against multi-billion-dollar hedge funds, supercomputers, and insider networks. You might try to solve this by investing in actively managed funds you think have the right tools and skillsets to find your alpha. While it is easy to look backward and find funds that generated massive alpha over the last three or five years, data shows that past performance does not predict future results because alpha lacks persistence. According to the widely cited S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) scorecards, which track the performance of active fund managers against their benchmarks: • Over a 10-year horizon, roughly 85% to 90% of all large-cap active managers fail to beat the S&P 500. • Over a 20-year horizon, that failure rate climbs closer to 95%. • The Persistence Trap: Studies tracking top-quartile winning funds show that within a few years, those same "elite" funds routinely drop into the bottom quartiles. True skill is virtually indistinguishable from a temporary streak of good luck in a random distribution. I will stick to my low-cost index funds and continue to believe that asset allocation is far more important than asset selection given my passive investing philosophy.
Post: Do I really need International funds in my portfolio? I say no.
Link to comment from November 1, 2026
People like the idea that US companies bringing in revenue from foreign markets mean they don't need International investments. That's simply not supported by any data. Revenue vs. True Diversification
Post: Do I really need International funds in my portfolio? I say no.
Link to comment from October 31, 2026
Mark, I like you're unfazed staying at 80:20 throughout a long bull market. You seem to feel plenty secure with this after considering other sources of income outside this portfolio. Charles Ellis wrote a good article five years back about many over-allocating to bonds because they didn't consider their "total portfolio." https://humbledollar.com/2021/10/my-total-portfolio/ In any case, I agree that the real mistake is not enjoying the ride and hopping off early.
Post: Doubling the Bear Market Low
Link to comment from October 22, 2026
401k account balances alone are an incomplete measure of "average" retirement preparedness. However, I agree that lower median net worth among people in their 50s and 60s is concerning. But to suggest that this is evidence people need financial advisors is invalid. There are real reasons retirement preparedness is low, and it has nothing to do with the choice between DIY personal finance or using an advisor - people who aren't accumulating enough wealth because of inadequate income, inconsistent employment, limited retirement benefits, or competing financial obligations. Financial advice won't solve these problems. But the part of my comment you glossed over is, "if they’re willing to consistently devote a moderate amount of effort." These people may have the financial capacity to save but aren't making optimal decisions. They have the choice to first seek out information which is widely available on the Internet, such as sites like Humble Dollar. I agree it is fine to seek professional help if you have tried to do something yourself and aren't making progress, particularly if it is not an assets under management model, but instead a flat fee or hourly model that gets one on the right track. The greater point is that no one should assume a financial advisor is necessary.
Post: Your Financial RPE
Link to comment from October 17, 2026
Yes, really. DIY is a fine and achievable way to set a proper financial path. Most people, if they're willing to consistently devote a moderate amount of effort, do not need a financial advisor and will be better off financially due to the fee savings. Also, the personal satisfaction from managing one's finances is incredibly empowering.
Post: Your Financial RPE
Link to comment from October 17, 2026
I've come to agree that limiting my bond allocation to short-term bonds is best for me. They're much more stable and predictable than longer duration bonds, which is exactly what I want. But there are still so many choices for how to invest in bonds. A mix of various duration ETF's, individual bonds, TIPS ladders, etc. It just feels rather cumbersome and tiring to think about. I want something that's easy to manage while maintaining full liquidity. This second point - liquidity - is especially important to me, because it allows me to draw upon a larger amount than I otherwise would over some bond investing strategies, and not just for one-off expenses, but for opportunities to buy large quantities of stocks during severe market downturns. To that end, I've moved all of my fixed-income allocation to iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF (SGOV). I get that something like a mix of short-term treasury, intermediate-term treasury, and short-term TIPS index funds (as Adam suggests) *could* offer a better long-term return. But looking at the past several years, SGOV actually holds up quite well compared to these funds and was positive during the bondpocalypse of 2022. Perhaps I will revisit this "ultra short" bond strategy in the future, but for now it seems right for me. Regardless of where you fall on how to invest in bonds, I think the bigger picture is important to keep in focus. If you have an aggressive allocation to stocks, this will be the most significant driver of your portfolio's return, and having the "best" bond strategy will have only a minimal impact.
Post: Structuring Bonds
Link to comment from September 19, 2026
I think there is such a mix of perspectives within these comments that it's still hard to distill a simple "total return" meaning. When people use the term "total return" it's usually directly compared to a dividend-focused investment strategy, which is probably why you've seen it come up recently. A total return approach means you fund spending from the portfolio’s overall return—interest, dividends, and capital gains—rather than trying to live only off income distributions. You invest for the best risk/return mix instead of emphasizing high-dividend or high-yield investments just to generate cash. When you need money, you can use dividends and interest plus sell some appreciated investments. This lets your asset allocation be driven by your financial goals rather than by how much income each holding produces.
Post: Total portfolio approach?
Link to comment from September 16, 2026
Thanks for the reminder on umbrella insurance. We're a pretty low-risk household for the moment so we've chosen not to purchase coverage, but it's a decision I plan to revisit when our daughters begin driving.
Post: Financial Choices
Link to comment from September 12, 2026