I'm with you on the AI investment dilemma. The AI capital investors need to sell me AI-related things to recoup the billions being invested. Or sell them to others who will pass the costs on to me. I don't yet see much I'd pay for, especially since the AI results I get incidentally are either "fluff" or are just wrong. There will be some reckoning, and a shakeout will be what pushes all this flood of spending into a more rational equilibrium. There must be casualties to go along with the winners.
A very good set of suggestions. You don't have to be precise. Don't spend a lot of real time and money to protect yourself against a speculative harm. Simplicity sometimes wins out, for reasons more important than incremental gains. While money is important, there are lots of other things in life that are also important.
If you are interested in donating appreciated investments, and they are only part of a holding, make sure you donate those with the highest gain, usually the ones you have held the longest. For example, if you've been in a mutual fund for decades, you can usually go online to find and designate the exact shares you want to be part of your donation. This will be very important for tax purposes, for the year in which the donation is made, but even more so for the future.
You would enjoy a recent podcast by the Freakonomics people, in the Economics of Everyday Things series, on "Campgrounds". It partly features a guy who owns a campground just outside St. Joe and Benton Harbor.
Some financial moves are fundamental and hugely important. IMHO, once you have selected a place or places to hold your money, set your goals, accepted your level of risk, chosen your desired allocation, and chosen the investments you trust to deliver value for you, only periodic maintenance is needed. You can really do all that yourself. I have found that most financial reporting in magazines and newspapers deals mostly with counting angels on the head of a pin - the issues being written about are going to have minimal impact on your portfolio, if any. You can take more than the RMD minimum without the sky falling, for example, and there are lots or reasons why one might take Social Security before reaching the maximum payout age. But financial advisors exist to "advise", and so they will seize upon even the smallest of small changes to prove to investors why their advice is valuable. An educated and curious investor with a head on his or her shoulders can usually do a pretty good job of ferreting out what is important to them and acting on it if necessary.
IMHO, the real waterfront dream is really "getting up in the morning, drinking your coffee while looking out at the view, and appreciating its ever-changing beauty, every single day." You don't need to be by the ocean. But any waterfront property comes with special risks - erosion, pollution, invasive animals and insects, higher maintenance, noisy or inconsiderate neighbors, higher insurance, and usually some distance from stores and services you need. And one pays a premium for that "dream" anyway. For some, it is worth it. I live about a quarter mile from that view, and I can walk down to a park and appreciate the water. Nevertheless, I might still one day get a condo where I can drink my coffee and look out at that view every single morning.
I've been an accredited investor in real estate, but it was with people I knew and who had good reputations. Even then, there were a couple of surprises, though the investment was ultimately profitable. However, you will never see me put money into today's private equity offerings. I've always looked at public company financials as reflecting "the best that a company could justify". The finance people in these companies have to be willing to prove that their numbers are supported by real money and good decisionmaking. But sometimes even that decisionmaking can be suspect or wrong, or just over-optimistic, and thus the actual financial status of these companies might actually be worse than reported. Private equity doesn't have even that "governor" required by the securities laws. And, like it or not, that old Willie Sutton saying "I rob banks because that's where the money is", sometimes applies to investing, too. "I rob individual investors because that's where the money is." Dishonesty can be well hidden until the damage is done.
I have both Fidelity and Vanguard accounts. I've had issues with each one on occasion, and each one does a couple of things better than the other or has a couple of system idiosyncrasies that work better or worse than the other. On balance, I'm satisfied with each of them. I have noticed recently that Vanguard seems to have lost a bit of its customer intimacy and has kept trying to get me to give it more of my portfolio or to use some services that I believe would be far more profitable for it. Fidelity is fine for things with a clearly-defined path or structure, but has failed me on a couple of one-offs related to my kids' trusts, mainly through human errors. But I still value both relationships, and each helps me keep the other one honest and helps me choose the better of the two options for certain things.
I have no idea about whether the market is overvalued, but I am paying attention to four things: (1) huge investments in AI infrastructure and applications that may or may not pay off, (2) the expansion of cryptocurrencies, (3) the creation of lots of new financial products with their own "hook" but that don't seem to me to have a particularly solid foundation, and (4) institutional endorsements of private equity over public market investments. All of these seem to have the potential to operate like a Jenga tower - they might look great from afar, but they can topple easily.
What made me a humble index investor? I considered myself an expert in one industry, telecommunications, a few decades ago. That was where my job was, and I had lots of exposure to the public companies in that area, and to their top executives. I thought I knew the opportunities and the dangers, and which companies would prosper. But try as I might, my mistakes still outweighed my successes. If I couldn't do well with stocks in an area I knew, I sure wasn't going to be a good stock picker anywhere else. Thank God for indexes.
Comments
I'm with you on the AI investment dilemma. The AI capital investors need to sell me AI-related things to recoup the billions being invested. Or sell them to others who will pass the costs on to me. I don't yet see much I'd pay for, especially since the AI results I get incidentally are either "fluff" or are just wrong. There will be some reckoning, and a shakeout will be what pushes all this flood of spending into a more rational equilibrium. There must be casualties to go along with the winners.
Post: What’s Really on My Mind These Days
Link to comment from November 29, 2025
A very good set of suggestions. You don't have to be precise. Don't spend a lot of real time and money to protect yourself against a speculative harm. Simplicity sometimes wins out, for reasons more important than incremental gains. While money is important, there are lots of other things in life that are also important.
Post: Decision Frameworks
Link to comment from November 29, 2025
If you are interested in donating appreciated investments, and they are only part of a holding, make sure you donate those with the highest gain, usually the ones you have held the longest. For example, if you've been in a mutual fund for decades, you can usually go online to find and designate the exact shares you want to be part of your donation. This will be very important for tax purposes, for the year in which the donation is made, but even more so for the future.
Post: 10 Ways to Give—Without Writing a Check
Link to comment from November 9, 2025
You would enjoy a recent podcast by the Freakonomics people, in the Economics of Everyday Things series, on "Campgrounds". It partly features a guy who owns a campground just outside St. Joe and Benton Harbor.
Post: Coastal Retirement? Have You Considered These Costs?
Link to comment from November 3, 2025
Some financial moves are fundamental and hugely important. IMHO, once you have selected a place or places to hold your money, set your goals, accepted your level of risk, chosen your desired allocation, and chosen the investments you trust to deliver value for you, only periodic maintenance is needed. You can really do all that yourself. I have found that most financial reporting in magazines and newspapers deals mostly with counting angels on the head of a pin - the issues being written about are going to have minimal impact on your portfolio, if any. You can take more than the RMD minimum without the sky falling, for example, and there are lots or reasons why one might take Social Security before reaching the maximum payout age. But financial advisors exist to "advise", and so they will seize upon even the smallest of small changes to prove to investors why their advice is valuable. An educated and curious investor with a head on his or her shoulders can usually do a pretty good job of ferreting out what is important to them and acting on it if necessary.
Post: Optimizer or Satisficer?
Link to comment from November 1, 2025
IMHO, the real waterfront dream is really "getting up in the morning, drinking your coffee while looking out at the view, and appreciating its ever-changing beauty, every single day." You don't need to be by the ocean. But any waterfront property comes with special risks - erosion, pollution, invasive animals and insects, higher maintenance, noisy or inconsiderate neighbors, higher insurance, and usually some distance from stores and services you need. And one pays a premium for that "dream" anyway. For some, it is worth it. I live about a quarter mile from that view, and I can walk down to a park and appreciate the water. Nevertheless, I might still one day get a condo where I can drink my coffee and look out at that view every single morning.
Post: Coastal Retirement? Have You Considered These Costs?
Link to comment from November 1, 2025
I've been an accredited investor in real estate, but it was with people I knew and who had good reputations. Even then, there were a couple of surprises, though the investment was ultimately profitable. However, you will never see me put money into today's private equity offerings. I've always looked at public company financials as reflecting "the best that a company could justify". The finance people in these companies have to be willing to prove that their numbers are supported by real money and good decisionmaking. But sometimes even that decisionmaking can be suspect or wrong, or just over-optimistic, and thus the actual financial status of these companies might actually be worse than reported. Private equity doesn't have even that "governor" required by the securities laws. And, like it or not, that old Willie Sutton saying "I rob banks because that's where the money is", sometimes applies to investing, too. "I rob individual investors because that's where the money is." Dishonesty can be well hidden until the damage is done.
Post: Lessons from First Brands
Link to comment from November 1, 2025
I have both Fidelity and Vanguard accounts. I've had issues with each one on occasion, and each one does a couple of things better than the other or has a couple of system idiosyncrasies that work better or worse than the other. On balance, I'm satisfied with each of them. I have noticed recently that Vanguard seems to have lost a bit of its customer intimacy and has kept trying to get me to give it more of my portfolio or to use some services that I believe would be far more profitable for it. Fidelity is fine for things with a clearly-defined path or structure, but has failed me on a couple of one-offs related to my kids' trusts, mainly through human errors. But I still value both relationships, and each helps me keep the other one honest and helps me choose the better of the two options for certain things.
Post: Disappointed (and annoyed) with Vanguard.
Link to comment from October 27, 2025
I have no idea about whether the market is overvalued, but I am paying attention to four things: (1) huge investments in AI infrastructure and applications that may or may not pay off, (2) the expansion of cryptocurrencies, (3) the creation of lots of new financial products with their own "hook" but that don't seem to me to have a particularly solid foundation, and (4) institutional endorsements of private equity over public market investments. All of these seem to have the potential to operate like a Jenga tower - they might look great from afar, but they can topple easily.
Post: Is The Stock Market Overvalued?
Link to comment from October 18, 2025
What made me a humble index investor? I considered myself an expert in one industry, telecommunications, a few decades ago. That was where my job was, and I had lots of exposure to the public companies in that area, and to their top executives. I thought I knew the opportunities and the dangers, and which companies would prosper. But try as I might, my mistakes still outweighed my successes. If I couldn't do well with stocks in an area I knew, I sure wasn't going to be a good stock picker anywhere else. Thank God for indexes.
Post: How Not To Invest
Link to comment from October 11, 2025