A satoshi, or “sat” for short, is the smallest unit of the cryptocurrency bitcoin. “Stacking Sats” is a popular term for gradually accumulating bitcoin by purchasing small amounts of bitcoin at a time. (100 million sats = 1 bitcoin.) The idea is that you should be excited about adding any amount to your stack, focusing on that forward progress instead of the current market price.

If only it would be as trendy for folks to “stack VOO” or “stack VTI”. A low-cost S&P 500 or US Total Market index ETF is a tax-efficient way to build up your ownership of a share of excellent American businesses. Unfortunately, there is always something shinier next to this vanilla product. Factor ETFs, themed ETFs, sector ETFs, and so on. John Rekenthaler of Morningstar has an interesting series of articles comparing the long-term returns of various alternatives to Vanguard index funds. See Vanguard’s Other Index-Fund Invention.

Even way back in 1992, Vanguard started offering “Value” and “Growth” index funds, essentially splitting the US stock market into two halves based on price/book ratios. Essentially, these were the first variation on the plain S&P 500 index fund. You might think one was better than other. (Most academics would have guessed Value would win.) So what happened over the next 20 years? Not very much! (Plus Growth won slightly.)

Of course, I would not be surprised at all to see Value squeak out a slight win over Growth after another 10 or 20 years. One is always going to be winning slightly, but take a step back and you can argue they are effectively tied. Why not just own the S&P 500 index fund and get the average?

(Quick reminder: The Rule of 72 says that 10% annualized means your money will double every 7.2 years. That means $10,000 will have doubled three times in about 21 years. $10k doubled to $20k, then doubled to $40k, then doubled to $80k!)

What if you rebalanced regularly between Value and Growth? If you rebalanced between the two funds every single month, your annual return would have increased by 0.10%. If you rebalanced between the two funds only once every 5 years, your annual return would have increased by 0.28%. But really, who rebalances only once every 5 years? In view, these numbers are still low enough to be in the noise range, and the extra return is not dependable.

What if you bought a low-cost actively-managed fund from Vanguard instead? Due much to Vanguard’s extremely low costs on their active funds, some actively-managed funds did do better, but others did worse. If you chose to buy the funds with the highest trailing returns, or the best Sharpe ratios, or the most popular funds (most assets), all that Ivy League brainpower and decades of investing experience would have still lagged behind a simple index fund portfolio. Only with the power to see the future would you have picked the index-beating funds.

As the saying goes, don’t let the pursuit of perfect be the enemy of the good. As someone sitting on a relatively big pile of VTI after 15+ years of stacking it share by share, I am certainly relieved that I didn’t get too distracted by all of the other shiny objects out there. Instead of remembering your highest portfolio value ever from your monthly statement, remember the number of shares of VTI or VOO that you own. Every $200 saved = 1 share of VTI. But in the end, as long as you get excited about stacking something of high-quality with long-term productive value, you’ll likely end up in a good place.

Inside various financial forums, I am seeing the “anyone else worried?” 😓 posts as most portfolios are down double-digits. For a retiree with a $1 million portfolio, seeing $100,000 or $200,000 of value evaporate is understandably stressful. However, much of this is because you are comparing to your portfolio’s all-time high, or high-water mark, which is a relatively arbitrary number. Just because at one moment in time, there were a few willing buyers of your assets for a given price doesn’t mean you should anchor yourself to that number.

Step back and have some perspective. I would offer up this historical performance chart of the Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund (VFIFX) as evidence that things really aren’t that bad if you take a step back. This chart tracks the growth of a $10,000 investment place in 2012 in this all-in-one Target Date Fund. Taken 5/30/22.

• As of 5/30/22, the 10-year trailing return for VFIFX is 10.28% annualized even after the recent drop. Can you reasonably ask for more than 10% average annual returns for a decade?
• If you invested in January 2020, right before the COVID pandemic started, you are still up 18.7% if you held through today.
• If you invested funds anytime between January and August 2020, those funds are up even more than that!
• The last time your investment value was this low was… March 2021. That’s it.

Things might get much worse, things might get better and never look back, I don’t know the future. This is another reason why I no longer check my portfolio balance on a daily basis. How can I say that, when his whole blog was once based on the idea that I would share my net worth every month?! Back then my savings rate was much more significant than my portfolio performance. Side hustle money made a big difference and I felt in control. These days, the opposite is true. The portfolio movement overwhelms our savings contributions.

Track something better. If you keep staring at that portfolio balance, you’ll get overly excited when you hit an arbitrary number like $50,000 and then get really depressed if it drops below and stays there for a while. You need to track something better. If you are still in the accumulation phase, your metric for success could be:

• Your 401(k) contribution rate. A reasonable target might be 15% or higher.
• Your overall savings rate. Heck, if you are tracking this number at all, you are probably way ahead of the game.
• Your side hustle monthly total. If your day job has a fixed salary, you might focus on the side income instead.
• Your portfolio’s 2-year trailing average or similar. Anything that has a longer time horizon and offers more perspective.

If you are in the spending phase, you could track something like your spending rate as a percentage of portfolio, and if that’s still reasonable then go back to enjoying your life. You may also explore a dynamic spending strategy.

Bottom line. Your quoted portfolio value in November or December 2021 doesn’t matter. If you tell yourself stuff like “I’ve lost $XX,000” since December 2021, you are experiencing the anchoring cognitive bias.

Although I enjoy managing my own investments, I’ve generally avoided managing other people’s money. That always felt like such an important responsibility to take on. Below is the real investment portfolio of an older family member (over 75) that is professionally managed by an large “brand name” financial firm. Understandably, the recent market volatility has hurt the balance and there is some concern, so I took a look.

Before opening up the statement, I joked to myself “There better not be that ARK ETF in there!”…. and there it was. Down 66%! 😱 Deep breaths! My thoughts went to the four basic steps to performing emergency first aid:

1. Assess the situation
2. Plan for interventions
3. Implement first aid
4. Evaluate the situation.

Here are some anonymized screenshots (with permission) that show holdings, balances, performance, and rough asset allocation breakdown.

Why in the world does this portfolio only have 10% in bonds, at least according to the pie chart above? What exactly are those “alternatives”? I created a Google spreadsheet and started collecting more data from Morningstar:

The Goldman Sachs “multistrategy” fund turns out to consist of roughly 50% net stocks and 50% net cash/bonds. So the overall asset allocation is about 80% stocks and 20% bonds. Perhaps they confused the “age in bonds” rule of thumb with “age in stocks”? 🤔

I don’t know all the details and communications that took place before the creation and implementation of this portfolio, but my first impression is not positive. In addition to an overly-aggressive asset allocation, I see a mishmash of high-cost mutual funds. There isn’t a single penny in a low-cost index fund as a core holding! I don’t believe that you need 15 different funds to be “diversified”. While a relatively small holding, the fact that ARK ETF holdings are down 67% also means they decided to buy in after all of the initial outperformance. In other words, performance chasing.

Speaking of performance, the portfolio is down 25% from the initial purchase amounts. That’s seems like a lot for someone in their 70s, and we haven’t even technically hit a bear market in the S&P 500 yet.

Often you’ll hear investment advice like “just buy an index fund and forget about it”, but when a severe crisis occurs, it’s really hard to just forget about it. Substitute advice like “sell now and wait for the dust to settle” may start to sound equally wise. It’s harder to maintain faith in an investment if you don’t understand what you actually own.

As an example, I own real estate investment trusts, and Visual Capitalist just published a handy infographic on The World’s Largest Real Estate Investment Trusts. They are all headquartered in the United States, which makes them also the top 10 holdings of the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (VNQ).

In fact, these ten companies make up about 50% of VNQ. Here’s a quick peek at what specific types of real estate properties these companies own.

• Prologis. This industrial REIT manages things like warehouses and distribution centers. Their largest customers are Amazon.com, Home Depot, and FedEx.
• American Tower. This communications REIT owns communications infrastructure like cellular towers. Their largest customers are AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
• Crown Castle. This communications REIT owns communications infrastructure like cellular towers. Their largest customers are AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
• Public Storage. This self-storage REIT is the largest self-storage brand in the US.
• Equinix. This data center REIT manages internet connection and data centers. Their customers include Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Meta/Facebook, and Nokia.
• Simon Property Group. This mall REIT manages shopping malls, outlet centers, and community/lifestyle centers. The largest of their 200+ properties all around the country is King of Prussia in Philadelphia.
• Welltower. This healthcare REIT owns senior housing (independent living, assisted living and memory care communities), post-acute care, and outpatient care centers.
• Digital Realty. This data center REIT owns “carrier-neutral data centers and provides colocation and peering services” for hundreds of large companies.
• Realty Income. This commercial REIT specializes in free-standing, single-tenant commercial properties that work on triple net lease agreements (the lessee handles property taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the properties). Largest tenants include Walgreens, Dollar General, 7-11, and Dollar Tree.
• AvalonBay Communities. This residential REIT invests in apartment complexes.

REITs own a wide variety of real estate that touch our lives every day. You may live in or drive by an apartment complex, shop at a Walgreens, have your Amazon order shipped from, connect your phone to 4G/5G from, or be browsing a website that pays rent to one of these companies. When the next crisis inevitably occurs, you should remember that your investment in REITs owns a part of all these physical properties. Yes, their stock market price may drop for a while, but you are still owning critical infrastructure for the economy that isn’t going anywhere.

With a market-cap weighting, you will always own the most successful REITs. Would I have invested in data centers on my own? Cell towers? Public storage? The good news is that I don’t need to know.

Here is the historical chart for the Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ). $10,000 invested at inception in 1996 would be worth $130,000 today with dividends reinvested. A traditional rental property would have also appreciated a lot over the last 25 years, but there are also several variables in the mix (leverage via mortgage, interest paid, repair/maintenance costs, time spent, taxes, deprecation, deferred capital gains, etc.) I am still fascinated by the idea, but for now owning real property via REITs suits my lifestyle and personality much better.

The official IRA contribution deadline for Tax Year 2021 is April 15th, 2022. However, I choose to use April 15th as the informal deadline for my same-year IRA contributions (Tax Year 2022). By around April 1st, I have usually finished filing my income taxes and thus have handled any expected tax bills. I also have the first quarter of dividends arrive in my brokerage accounts, so I also have funds ready to re-invest. The optimal time would actually be make my contributions on January 1st, but sometimes we just have to settle for “good enough”.

If your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) exceeds the limits for a direct Roth IRA contribution ($144,000 for singles and $214,000 for married filing joint for tax year 2022), you may still be eligible for the “Backdoor” Roth IRA. Christine Benz of Morningstar has a excellent summary of Backdoor Roth IRA concerns.

A backdoor Roth is simple enough and should be tax-free in many cases. An investor who earns too much to make a direct Roth IRA contribution simply opens a traditional nondeductible IRA–available to investors regardless of income level. Shortly thereafter–and here’s where the backdoor part comes in–he converts it to a Roth IRA, another move unrestricted by income limits. Assuming he has no other IRA assets, the only taxes due on the conversion would be any appreciation in the investments since he opened the account. That taxable amount should be limited, assuming he converts the money promptly and/or leaves the money in cash until the conversion is finalized.

Here’s my even-shorter version of the tips:

• First, check if you have other pre-tax traditional IRA assets such as a rollover IRA. Converting to a Roth IRA may subject these assets to taxes on a pro-rated basis.
• Get rid of these pre-tax IRAs, if possible, by rolling them into an employer 401(k), 403(b), or 457 plan instead. Self-employed business owners can also roll into a Solo 401k.
• Contribute and then convert to Roth quickly. Make the non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, invest for a day or two in cash, and then quickly convert to Roth. The IRS has clarified that no waiting period is required, making it better to do it right away to avoid any tax complications.
• Repeat at the beginning of every year. Just keep doing it every year, as soon as you can, and build up that precious Roth IRA balance that can grow tax-free forever with no required minimum distributions. Ignore news about the option “maybe” going away until it actually goes away.

Here’s our simple three-day process at Vanguard.

Day one: Make non-deductible contribution to a Traditional IRA account. You could fund in various ways, I exchanged from funds within my Vanguard taxable brokerage account. Just put it in Vanguard Federal Money Market temporarily.

Day two: Go to “Balances & Holdings” page and find the “Convert to Roth IRA” link. Complete required steps.

Day three: Your traditional IRA balance is now $0. Invest the funds that are now in your Roth IRA. In this case, I would have a taxable gain of just $0.03, which simply rounds to zero.

Note: There is still some debate about how much time should pass between the non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution and the Roth conversion. Some people believe that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) officially signaled acceptance of this move. Others still want you to wait either for a monthly statement or even a full year in between the steps. I’m not a tax attorney and this is not tax advice. This is just what I did and I don’t lose any sleep over it.

The WSJ article Why Target-Date Funds Might Be Inappropriate for Most Investors (free gift article) discusses new research using “deep learning” artificial intelligence to find the optimal asset allocation over time. There are several interesting insights that also agree with common sense. For example, one size doesn’t fit all. Wealthier investors can withstand the volatility from holding a much higher stock allocation, whereas lower net worth investors need to be more conservative to avoid a hitting zero due to a bad sequence of returns.

Here is how the optimal glide path for the average investor differs between Deep Learning analysis vs. actual Target Date Funds:

Though the primary insight of this modeling is that one size doesn’t fit all, the research did reach one conclusion that does apply to all of us on average: The typical glide path used by target-date funds is too conservative starting at the age of 50. In contrast to an equity exposure level that drops to 50% by retirement age and to as low as 30% during retirement, the average recommended equity exposure in the researchers’ model never falls below 60%.

While I don’t know the details regarding the underlying assumptions of this research, the red AI line caught my eye because I also don’t plan on going below about 60% stocks ever in my lifetime. My reasoning is that I am going for a “perpetual withdrawal rate” scenario where my I just live off a base of growing dividends and interest. (I’m not talking about owning only extreme high-yield products like closed-end ETFs, junk bonds, and leveraged REITs). After reaching the “safe withdrawal rate” number that is based on a very high likelihood of not dying with zero, I wanted even more margin of safety. It can be counterintuitive, but over the long run owning businesses can be “safer” than just own a big bag of cash that is constantly exposed to inflation risk.

One of the perpetual debates in retirement planning circles is withdrawal rates, AKA how much monthly income can you take from a portfolio. Once you nail down a withdrawal rate and retirement spending target, then you get Your Number – how much you need to have saved to retire (after backing out Social Security and other income streams). It’s common to start with the static 4% rule, but that rule also includes some drawbacks. An alternative is a flexible withdrawal rule that adjusts based on market returns. When your portfolio grows, you can spend a little more. If it shrinks, you cut back a little. Sounds reasonable, right?

However, I haven’t seen many real-world examples of flexible withdrawal rules. Schwab has helpfully outlined one proposed method in this memo: Lifetime Adjustable Income vs. the 4% Rule: Can You Spend More in Retirement with Less Risk? This provides the underlying basis behind their robo-advisor feature called Intelligent Income where you can pick a comfort level and the software will tell you how much you can withdraw each year and from which type of account (IRA, Roth IRA, taxable, etc).

In this memo, we compare a flexible withdrawal strategy to the static 4% rule. We recommend a lifetime adjustable income strategy, described in this paper, that can be put into action using an annually updated financial plan, using technology or an advisor. Doing so may help increase spending early in, and over a long, retirement and help ensure your money lasts.

Here’s their example structure for flexible withdrawals:

• Set an initial withdrawal rate that delivers an 80% probability of success (savings lasting).
• Adjust spending amounts after each year based on if the probability of savings lasting falls outside the range you decide: here it is below 75% or above 99%. If these thresholds are crossed, increase or decrease spending by the amount that brings the financial plan back to a 99% probability of savings lasting. This results in fewer but more drastic cuts.
• Add “guardrails”. A minimum and maximum acceptable annual (real) spending amount of $25,000 and $60,000, respectively, meaning that we will always withdraw at least $25,000 (or at most $60,000).

Using these flexible rules, the initial withdrawal rate was about $43,000 instead of $40,000. Across all of the simulated scenarios, the average annual withdrawal was basically 20%, or $10,000 a year, higher: $50,000 a year instead of the $40,000 a year (in today’s dollars). Even better, the likelihood of running out of money dropped.

However, you must look past the averages and see that you are now exposed to the extremes. Look at that wide expanse of grey. A significant number of the scenarios involved some extended deep cuts to spending, hitting and hovering just above the $25,000 minimum guardrail. You’ll have to decided if you like this trade-off between probably getting more income but possibly enduring some big cuts. This is why many financially-conservative people would prefer to simply start out at a lower 3% or 3.5% withdrawal rate and adjust upwards if the portfolio keeps growing.

In any case, I found it interesting that Schwab used the probability of portfolio survival rate as the factor used to adjust withdrawal rate. DIY investors can implement a similar system themselves. Here are some tools to estimate portfolio survival probability:

• Vanguard has a very simple one.
• cFIREsim and FIREcalc allow you to enter a variety of variables manually.
• Personal Capital remembers and tracks my actual portfolio and updates this number automatically. That part is free but also offers an optional paid financial advice tier.

Over time, more and more people are seeing the benefits of investing in stocks and bonds through low-cost index funds. Here is a chart from Morningstar showing the overall flow of assets out of actively-managed and into passively-managed US equity funds over the last 15 years.

For a while, people wondered if low-cost digital advisors that managed a portfolio of index funds for a modest fee would take over. The picture looks a little different today.

Wealthfront was one of the early digital-only startups, promising to manage a diversified portfolio of low-cost ETFs for you for a modest 0.25% of assets, even if you had as little as $500 to invest. They tried a few different things over the years, including changing up their model portfolios, trying to add a in-house risk-parity fund, and even recently adding crypto and individual stock options. Their final move came this week, when they announced they would be sold to UBS for $1.4 billion. This wasn’t exactly a huge exit, given the huge amount of venture capital they had burned through over the years. As usual with such acquisitions, they promise both “nothing will change” and “things will only get better”.

In hindsight, I am relieved that I didn’t let Wealthfront handle my assets. They clearly had no firm guiding principles, tweaking their portfolios with each new trend. Based on the reporting, it looks like they sold their customers to the highest bidder, as UBS is not exactly known for low-cost passive investing. This play is widely seen a way for UBS to obtain young investors that will one day be rich (read: one day will generate lots of wealth management fees). See UBS Buys Wealthfront for $1.4 Billion to Reach Rich Young Americans and Why a Bank for the Super Rich Is Taking Aim at the Younger Merely Rich.

Is this move what is best for Wealthfront’s customers? Or what was best for Wealthfront’s investors? Mark the date. I will be checking to see what Wealthfront clients own in 5 and 10 years, if that is still possible. Keep in mind that any portfolio changes usually result in taxable events.

Funds flowed into index funds for a simple reason: they performed better and made folks more money. Index funds performed better primarily due to low costs and low turnover (low tax costs). However, it doesn’t appear that Wealthfront could operate successfully independently while offering low costs. One way or another, the new owners are going to try and extract more money per client either via portfolio changes or higher fee products.

Unfortunately, I worry that even Vanguard, in its pursuit of growth, is gradually going down the same path as many large nonprofits. Many “nonprofits” are huge bureaucracies that chase money as eagerly as any corporation – more money means bigger salaries to management, more political power, and greater career advancement. (Side note: I thought that Vanguard got away with their huge Target Date fund capital gains distribution with little media attention, but now see: Massachusetts investigating sales of target date funds to retail investors after word of surprise tax bills.)

I don’t write much about robo-advisors any more. They showed promise initially, but apparently the business model just isn’t working.