Talk:How to build a lazy portfolio

From Bogleheads
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I think that "Slice and dice" should be used where possible, as "Slice and dice" is a term I commonly see in the forum. "Multifactor" is correct, but it might not be recognized. Consider that Slice and dice does not contain any mention of a "multifactor portfolio," except as a reference to multifactor investing.

On the spelling of "multifactor," I see it with and without the hyphen (multi-factor). For investing, I think "multifactor" is more appropriate.

I don't think a separate page for new investors is necessary (Total market vs. multifactor approach).

--LadyGeek 20:12, 24 September 2013 (CDT)

I actually dislike the "For New Investors" and "For Experienced Investors" because the implication is that we are encouraging more experienced investors to slice and dice more. In actuality, the 3-fund portfolio can serve both new and experienced investors. Perhaps state "For Slice-And-Dice Investors". I just don't like the assumption that one should have a more complicated portfolio as one becomes more experienced, or as one gathers more wealth. --Assumer 16:49, 1 October 2013 (CDT)

I changed headers and descriptions to more neutral verbiage --Blbarnitz 19:41, 1 October 2013 (CDT)

I inserted links to "Slice and dice" so investors will see the warning at the top of the page. You may also dislike this warning, but perhaps it could be changed to something along the lines of "The slice and dice portfolio intentionally deviates from investing in the total market- a Bogleheads' approach to managing your portfolio. Past performance does not guarantee future performance."

The "beginner" and "advanced" investor notices are attempts to help new investors steer clear of investing in something they may not understand. IOW, this is not a Bogleheads approach and there is additional risk involved. --LadyGeek 20:35, 1 October 2013 (CDT)

Alternate version

Alternate version, eliminating choosing funds before choosing asset allocation as implied in present page version.

I removed the categories from the above (removes them from the Talk page). --LadyGeek 20:00, 27 September 2013 (CDT)

More Enumeration

Okay I think a lot of the information is there, but a more "step-by-step" method may be preferred to new investors. This may be as simple as changing the bullets to an enumeration.

Here's an example of an enumeration (in which each section could be expanded upon):

  1. Determine overall AA.
  2. Gather ER for each fund in each account.
  3. If some accounts do not offer an asset class, or close alternative, then the accounts which do have that asset class should be filled first, with lower ER's taking priority.
  4. Fill in remainder of your total AA with the lowest expense ratios from each account.
  5. Add up the total amount for each asset class and ensure that your AA is as desired.

All of this seems better than, "Select whichever asset class indexed funds are available in the employer retirement plan to fill these allocations and use other accounts to fill out the allocation" if we are giving a "How-to" on this page.

Thoughts? --Assumer 19:38, 2 October 2013 (CDT)

It depends on the level of expertise. The "Select whichever asset class indexed funds..." could be worded better, but I think adding steps would make it more complicated. Approximating Vanguard target date funds shows the details. --LadyGeek 20:05, 2 October 2013 (CDT)

Structure

The structure of the following 3 (recent) sections feels wrong

  • Target date retirement funds[edit]
  • Using a target date fund to approximate a lazy portfolio
  • Inflation-protected securities[edit]

BeBH65 16:35, 7 July 2016 (EDT)

I think the problem is with the outline hierarchy of those sections. I modified the level of the section titles. Does this help? --LadyGeek 21:23, 7 July 2016 (EDT)