I’m a big advocate for keeping things simple. In my opinion, it’s essential that your investment strategy be simple enough that you can:
- Understand it, and
- Implement it properly.
If you don’t have a rock-solid understanding of your investments and investment strategy, your exposure to both scams and costly mistakes goes up dramatically.
That said, simplicity sometimes comes with a cost. In such cases, you have to ask: Can I afford it?
Simplicity and Target Retirement Funds
Target retirement funds are the simplest way to put together a diversified portfolio. But they come at a cost.
At many fund companies, the target date fund includes a level of costs in addition to the costs of the underlying funds that it owns. In other words, you’re explicitly sacrificing returns in order to have the fund manager rebalance between the funds for you.
And even at those companies that don’t charge an additional layer of expenses for their target funds (Vanguard, for instance), you take on an additional level of risk by using a target date fund. Specifically, you take on the risk that the fund manager will change the “glide path” without you realizing it. If you don’t pay attention, your portfolio could end up with a very different asset allocation than you’re expecting.
Is it worth taking on risk (and, depending on the company, additional costs) in order to have a simpler portfolio?
Simplicity and Diversification
Outside of target date funds, the simplest index fund/ETF portfolio I can imagine would be something along these lines:
- A total U.S. stock market index fund,
- A broadly diversified international stock index fund, and
- A total bond market index fund.
In terms of number of securities, it’s hard to be more diversified than that. But many people (myself included) would argue that you could improve your diversification by adding some or all of the following to your portfolio:
- A REIT fund,
- A TIPS fund, and
- Small-cap and/or value funds.
Of course, by doing so, you’ve taken the number of funds in your portfolio up from three to six or more. Although, as Larry Swedroe has argued in defense of his 11-fund lazy portfolio, if you’re only rebalancing once per year, adding more funds doesn’t increase the workload by that much.
In this case, I’d vote for better diversification rather than a simpler portfolio.
Simplicity and Annuities
I’ve been writing a lot about single premium immediate annuities lately. In part, it’s because I think they’re an extremely useful tool for retirement planning. But it’s also because I suspect that one of the reasons many people stay away from annuities is that they just don’t understand them.
And that makes sense. Not understanding an investment is a good reason to refrain from buying it. It’s not, however, a good reason to refrain from learning more about it.
What’s the value of simplicity?
All else being equal, I’ll vote for the simpler option every time. But the more I learn about investing, the more I realize that simplicity often (though certainly not always) comes with a cost–whether lower returns or higher risk. And I find that the price I’m willing to pay solely in exchange for simplicity is actually rather low.


Hi. I'm Mike Piper, the author of this blog. I'm 


