Get new articles by email:

Oblivious Investor offers a free newsletter providing tips on low-maintenance investing, tax planning, and retirement planning.

Join over 24,000 email subscribers:

Articles are published every Monday. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Is Simplicity Overrated in Investing?

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:

  1. Understand it, and
  2. 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:

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.

Index Funds and ETFs: Get the Ticker Right

A reader recently informed me that I was wrong about the commission per trade for ETFs at TradeKing. She told me that she’d been buying ETF shares for the last several months and they’d been charging her $14.95 per trade rather than $4.95.

Turns out she was using the wrong ticker symbol.

She thought she was buying Vanguard ETFs (for which TradeKing charges $4.95/trade), but she was actually buying shares of Vanguard index funds (for which TradeKing charges $14.95/trade). For example, she bought Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) rather than Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI).

End result: She blew through $150 on completely unnecessary commissions. And for her troubles she’s left with the version of each fund that carries higher ongoing annual expenses.

Lesson: Make sure you’re buying what you think you’re buying!

  • The ticker for an open-end mutual fund is usually 5 letters, ending with an X.
  • The ticker for an ETF is usually 2-4 letters.

Successful Trading Techniques

I recently received an email from a reader asking for my advice on trading. He was looking for “a successful trading technique with a good shot at beating the market.”

My reply–and this won’t surprise regular readers–was to ask what reason he has for thinking that an individual investor can reliably outwit the professionals.

His answer: I need a 12% return in order to retire on time. So normal market returns probably won’t cut it.

The Market Doesn’t Care.

Unfortunately, the market doesn’t care that you need a reliable 12% annual return in order to make your retirement plans work. Your need for a given return doesn’t increase your probability of getting it.

To use an analogy: “Going 60 mph won’t get me to work in time” is not a good reason to drive 120 mph. Similarly, “normal market returns aren’t good enough” isn’t a sufficient reason to try to earn above-market returns.

If you have no reason to think that you have a meaningful advantage over the professionals–and I would argue that most investors do not–then the only reasonable answer is to adjust your plans. Figure out a way to make your life work with market returns, whether that means retiring later, working part-time, or cutting your expenses.

Dave Ramsey Gives Bad Investment Advice

Dave Ramsey has helped many people get out of debt. And for that, he’s (rightfully) earned those people’s trust.

After somebody digs his/her way out of debt, the next step is often to start investing. And it’s only natural that people who have come to see Dave as a financial mentor turn to him for investment advice.

That’s unfortunate though, because Dave’s investment advice leaves much to be desired.

Dave Ramsey on Asset Allocation

Ramsey provides the following advice on asset allocation:

“I do not own any bonds and do not suggest them as part of your investment plan.”

He also recommends against CDs, fixed annuities, and REITs. In other words, Dave’s suggesting a portfolio that’s almost 100% stocks, regardless of your age.

He never even mentions the fact that such a portfolio would expose most retired (or soon-to-be-retired) investors to a meaningful risk of running out of money as a result of a poorly timed bear market.

Dave Ramsey on Roth IRAs

In several places on his website, Ramsey makes statements to this effect:

“The best way to start investing is with a Roth IRA.”

There’s no discussion of how to choose between a Roth or traditional IRA. Not even the briefest mention that, for many investors, going the tax-deferred route would be better.

Dave on Financial Advisors

Dave has the following to say about brokers (commission-paid salespeople who sell front-load mutual funds) as opposed to fee-only advisors:

“I do not personally choose fee based planning. (paying 1% to 2.5% annual fees for a brokerage account). With an A share mutual fund, I pay an upfront load of 5% to 6% once. But with a fee based account, also known as a wrap account, you agree to pay a 1% to 2.5% fee every year – forever. As your account grows, the 1% to 2.5% fee will really add up.”

Unfortunately, this is a grossly inaccurate comparison.

First, he ignores the additional ongoing costs of actively managed funds. Typical front-loaded funds (like those Dave recommends) include operating expenses in the range of 0.75-1% per year. In contrast, with a fee-only advisor, you’d have access to index funds and ETFs, which charge in the range of 0.2% per year.

Second, he overstates the cost of a typical fee-only investment advisor. The median fee for registered investment advisors is barely 1%. If you shop around, you can find advisors who charge significantly below that rate.

Dave Ramsey’s Endorsed Local Providers

Many people I’ve spoken with think that Dave’s recommendation of brokers over fee-only investment advisors has more to do with his business model than it does with giving good advice.

If you go to Ramsey’s website, you’ll see that most of his investing articles end with the suggestion to meet with an “Endorsed Local Provider” of investment services. If you fill out the form, your contact info is sent to a broker in your area, and Dave gets a fee for providing that broker with a prospective client.

But why does Dave recommend commission-paid advisors rather than fee-only advisors? Why send people to a broker–where there’s an inherent conflict of interest between the advisor and the client–rather than to an advisor who charges, say, a flat hourly or annual fee?

Best-selling author Eric Tyson puts it this way:

“By referring people to commissioned-based brokers, the referral fees don’t have to be disclosed as they would be with a fee-based advisor. A registered investment advisor would be required to disclose to the client that Ramsey’s company was acting as a solicitor and would have to disclose the fee being paid to Ramsey as the solicitor.”

Why give bad advice?

If I had to guess, I’d say that Ramsey doesn’t find investing to be as interesting or important as the get-out-of-debt side of personal finance. And as a result, he doesn’t spend much time learning about it. And for the record, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with that.

I do think, however, that he does his readers/listeners/followers a disservice by discussing investing without taking the time to learn more about it.

Online Investment Advisors

By pure coincidence, in the last week I’ve encountered two investment advisors who have online-only practices (John from Flat Fee Portfolios and George from Invest it Yourself).

Their businesses are quite different from each other, but in each case, the idea is that client-advisor contact occurs via email only–no face to face consultation, no option to talk on the phone when you have a question. In exchange, the costs are significantly lower than you’d typically pay for investment advice.

Until now, I hadn’t encountered any investment advisors that operated exclusively online. The idea intrigues me.

What do you think?

This type of practice brings up two questions about which I’d be interested to hear your thoughts:

  1. What do you think of the idea of personalized, though online-only investment advice?
  2. What are your thoughts on the value of investment-only advice? (Meaning that there’s no assistance with retirement planning, tax planning, etc.)

(For the moment, let’s set aside discussion of the best way to pay for an advisor–hourly vs. annual vs. percentage of assets, etc.)

Update: No, I’m not pondering starting such a business. My current business keeps me more than busy enough. 🙂 I’m just curious to hear what you think about the concept.

Arbitraging a SPIA and a Life Insurance Policy to Create an Inheritance

This is a guest post by Evan, author of the Blog My Journey to Millions.

Mike recently wrote an interesting post about using a Single Premium Immediate Annuity to protect the inheritance you intend to leave behind. He suggested creating two separate buckets for your assets:

  1. A Single Premium Immediate Annuity (SPIA) for your income needs, and
  2. A portfolio of other investments, intended to be left for your heirs.

Just so I don’t confuse myself I will call them Insurance Bucket (used to buy the SPIA) and Investment bucket (Investments).

But what if we turn what Mike suggested on its head? Can we use the investment bucket to provide income and the insurance product(s) for inheritance?

Note: The following strategy will only work in a small percentage of cases. We need an older person, who has a really good amount of money and is healthy.

SPIA-LI Arbitrage

In this planning technique we play two life insurance companies against one another. One will be betting on the fact that you die and the other is betting on the fact that you’ll live a long life.  Let’s use an imaginary man named Bob:

  • Bob is a really healthy 70 year old male (DOB: 1/20/1940)
  • Bob is living off his investments, but he doesn’t “need” all of them. (That is, he can get by with a withdrawal rate well within the “safe” range.)

In Mike’s plan, we would let the investment bucket be the inheritance and use the SPIA bucket to provide income.  I am flipping that around. We’ll leave enough in the investment bucket to live off of. Then we’ll purchase two competing insurance products with the SPIA Bucket (which, as an example, we’ll assume to be $350,000):

  • $350,000 will buy $2,379/month in income from a 150 year old, AAA Rated Insurance Company;
  • We’ll then use $2,000 of that monthly payout to pay the premiums on a Guaranteed Universal Life Insurance Product which provides a little over  $800,000 in Death Benefit!

Why did I use $2,000 instead of $2,300? To cover income tax on the SPIA’s payments.

Why does this strategy work?

An arbitrage is created because life insurance companies go through medical underwriting on a life insurance contract, but not on an annuity product. On annuity products they just use life expectancy tables based on your age.  So in my example:

  • Life Insurance Company A (knowing about your good health) is betting that you will live for a long time and that they will get to collect your premiums, and
  • Life Insurance Company B (unaware of your good health) is betting that you will die exactly in keeping with typical life expectancy tables, at which point they can stop paying your monthly annuity payment.

But, Evan you stacked the deck!

Of course I did. I said above this is only going to be used in a small amount of cases. If you have a struggling retiree who weighs 285 pounds and has 42 years of smoking behind him…no dice.

Benefits of Creating a SPIA-Life Insurance Arbitrage

We took $350,000 and turned it into $800,000 for heirs – this is the biggest benefit.

Another side benefit that can be looked into (if the numbers were bigger) is that the Life Insurance can be owned by a Trust and then not included in your estate when calculating your estate taxes.

Drawbacks of this Technique

The most obvious downside is that this strategy only works in a small number of cases. The second negative is that once you put this into place, it is very hard to get out of.

Evan is an attorney, admitted to practice in the State of New York and works as a Director of Financial Planning overseeing the firm’s high net worth gift and estate planning. His blog covers topics ranging from Estate Planning, to his personal financial situation, to libertarian views and hatred for big government.

Retiring Soon? Pick Up a Copy of My Book:

Can I Retire Cover

Can I Retire? Managing a Retirement Portfolio Explained in 100 Pages or Less

Topics Covered in the Book:
  • How to calculate how much you’ll need saved before you can retire,
  • How to minimize the risk of outliving your money,
  • How to choose which accounts (Roth vs. traditional IRA vs. taxable) to withdraw from each year,
  • Click here to see the full list.

A Testimonial from a Reader on Amazon:

"Hands down the best overview of what it takes to truly retire that I've ever read. In jargon free English, this gem of a book nails the key issues."
Disclaimer: By using this site, you explicitly agree to its Terms of Use and agree not to hold Simple Subjects, LLC or any of its members liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information made available on this site. The information on this site is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

Copyright 2026 Simple Subjects, LLC - All rights reserved. To be clear: This means that, aside from small quotations, the material on this site may not be republished elsewhere without my express permission. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

My Social Security calculator: Open Social Security