I ONCE JOINED a book club led by an amazingly smart guy. We were reading a challenging book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the philosopher, investor and probabilities expert. Our discussion leader was a Chartered Financial Analyst who had solved one of the most enduring riddles at Vanguard Group, where I worked at the time.
For many years—decades, really—Vanguard hadn’t offered an international bond fund. Our founder, Jack Bogle, wasn’t a fan of international investing in general.

HI, MY NAME IS MIKE and I’m a stock picker. Actually, I stopped picking a few years ago after I hit rock bottom and finally realized I had a problem. But there’s no such thing as an ex-stock picker.
I still frequent Seeking Alpha, read the occasional Barron’s article and, every now and then, have the urge to buy an individual stock. I still occasionally fall off the wagon, but nothing like the ol’ days.

COULD I BE WRONG about indexing?
Every investor soon learns that being wrong is a frequent malady, particularly on the day-to-day decisions of when to buy. Those minor errors are, as we also learn, part of the “game” of investing and are best ignored. But what if there’s evidence that conflicts with your longer-term thinking and expectations? What if evidence conflicts with your central beliefs?
I suspect it could happen to me.
After 60 years of experience and study of investing,

JUST HOURS INTO the new year, I received an email from a concerned investor. His worry: the state of the market—the S&P 500, in particular. With hundreds of constituent companies, the S&P index has the veneer of broad diversification. But scratch the surface, and it seems to carry more risk than investors might like. The issue: It’s top heavy.

As a group, the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 account for more than 30% of its overall value.

ONE OF THE GREAT pleasures of having grown children is seeing them do things better than you ever did.
My son, who’s in his mid-20s, is already well beyond me in terms of investments. When I was his age, I was still bouncing around in grad school, living off teaching stipends and dreaming of one day being a novelist. I had no concept of what a mutual fund was, how to trade stocks and bonds,

“WHEN THE FACTS change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Those words are sometimes attributed to Paul Samuelson, one of the the 20th century’s most influential economists. Due to a litany of cognitive biases—especially status quo and confirmation bias—letting go of cherished beliefs is easier said than done.
Which brings me to the topic of bonds and, more specifically, their role in the classic balanced portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds.

AMONG THE MANY people around the world who can impact our success as investors, two rank as the most important to know and understand. Yet many investors fail to recognize this reality.
Sure, Warren Buffett and Janet Yellen and Burt Malkiel are well worth listening to and learning from. There are also many others at home and abroad who are important. But all serious students of investing would agree that the two I have in mind are much more important.

QUANTITATIVE EASING, or QE, has been the Federal Reserve’s policy of choice since interest rates reached their lower bound of 0%. The brainchild of then-Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, QE was launched in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis. Quantitative easing is simply a euphemism for bond purchases—Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities—by the Federal Reserve.
In theory, QE should lead to lower interest rates, as reflected in bond yields. Bond prices are, of course,

LAST WEEK, I REFERRED to the stock market as a hall of mirrors. That was perhaps too kind. With its erratic and often illogical movements, the market also has elements of a pinball machine, a rollercoaster and maybe a clown car. This has always been the case, but it feels especially true this year. There’s one silver lining, though. The market’s recent behavior highlights many of the behavioral biases we read about in textbooks.

LAST WEDNESDAY, the Federal Reserve’s policymaking committee concluded its quarterly meeting with two big announcements. First, the Fed is going to scale back its monthly purchases of Treasury securities. Because these multi-billion-dollar purchases have helped keep interest rates low, the Fed’s objective here is to let interest rates begin to rise. That was the first announcement.

The second is that the committee expects to raise its benchmark rate by nearly a full percentage point next year.

I WAS WRITING magazine stories back in 1996, recommending stocks and mutual funds. Privately, I worried that readers might think I had some genuine insight—and they might even invest in the ways I suggested.
Propelled by that fear, I favored safe stories, like the best electric utility stocks or the outlook for U.S. savings bonds. I ransacked the library, looking for sure-fire, can’t miss investments. Surprisingly, I found one—something called an index fund.
Twenty-five years ago,

INVESTMENT RESEARCH has overwhelmingly shown that active stock strategies perform poorly over long periods compared to buying index funds and simply collecting the market’s return.
There’s still some debate about whether the best active managers are a smart bet—and whether we can count on them continuing to perform well. But there’s no question that active stock management, on average, has destroyed value for clients.
Yet active strategies remain popular with both individual investors and their wealth managers.

INTEREST RATES HAVE been low for years, with 10-year Treasury notes now yielding some 1.4%. How about dividend-paying stocks instead? Many pay twice what Treasurys currently yield, though obviously with more risk. My strategy: Instead of a classic 60% stock-40% bond mix, I’ve landed at roughly 70% stocks, with another 15% to 25% in individual stocks against which I’ve written call options.
By selling call options, I give the buyers the right to purchase the underlying stock from me at a specified price—the so-called strike price—at any time between now and when the options expire.

TIME IS IMPORTANT in investing—far more important than most of us seem to appreciate when we structure our portfolio’s asset mix.
Regular readers may remember that I believe we tend to focus too much on one part of our total portfolio, the securities we own. We often ignore other important parts of our total portfolio, such as Social Security, any pension plan, our homes and—particularly for the young—the present value of our future earning power.

TIME TO PLAY MARKET strategist. Trying to figure out what sort of U.S. stock returns we can expect over the next 10 years? Nobody knows for sure, of course. But we can at least think about it in a reasonably logical way—by using what some folks call the Bogle method.
What’s that? In a 1991 article for the Journal of Portfolio Management, Vanguard Group founder John Bogle—who died in January 2019—laid out a relatively straightforward method for estimating stock returns.