How to build a portfolio you don't have to babysit
Step 1: Find your portfolio's true north
Give due consideration to your asset allocation. That decision will have the biggest impact on how your portfolio behaves in the future.
The tricky part about asset allocation, even a hands-off approach, is that the 'right' asset allocation is often a moving target as retirement approaches.
Target-date funds elegantly address this issue by transitioning to a more conservative stance as the years go by. If you're OK with an asset allocation that's not necessarily customized to your particular situation, your quest for a low- or no-maintenance portfolio could begin and end with a good-quality target-date fund.
If you'd like to have more control over your asset allocation, think through your risk capacity and risk tolerance.
Target-date funds' asset allocations can be a decent starting point when deciding how to allocate assets depending on life stage. You can also tailor your mix of aggressive and conservative investments, which is particularly valuable if you're retired and actively spending from your portfolio.
Also give some thought to how your asset allocation will change over time. A good-quality target-date fund can help you visualize your portfolio's glide path.
Step 2: Eliminate redundant accounts
If your aim is to reduce complexity and oversight in your portfolio, you can slim down your number of accounts. Multiple rollover IRAs from previous employers, as well as straggler 401(k) assets, can create unnecessary complexity.
Just remember that the consolidation process can only go so far because some of your accounts will need to remain distinct for tax purposes.
You can combine multiple IRAs in your name, for example, but you won't typically be able to combine your 401(k) with those IRAs unless you've retired or left your employer. Taxable nonretirement assets will need to remain distinct from IRAs and company retirement plans.
If you and your spouse each have assets in your own names, those accounts will need to remain distinct, too.
Step 3: Identify low-cost, well-diversified building blocks
Now, you can turn your attention to identifying the building blocks to populate the portfolio(s).
For your long-term investments, broad 'total market' index funds and exchange-traded funds are the lowest-maintenance choices. The best aspect of these products is that a single fund will provide all (or almost all) of the exposure you need to a given asset class.
One fork in the road is whether to obtain your total market exposure via a traditional index fund or exchange-traded fund.
For your cash holdings, focus on products that are low-cost, well-diversified, and low-maintenance, like online savings accounts and money market mutual funds.
Step 4: Document your maintenance regimen
If you've followed the steps above, a thorough annual review should be enough.
This will be essential if you're already retired because you'll need to figure out how to extract cash for living expenses from your portfolio, and to take required minimum distributions from your tax-deferred accounts once you hit age 73.
I like the idea of using an investment policy statement that documents the basic outlines of your portfolio, how often you'll check on your portfolio, and how you'll do it.
If you're retired, maintaining your portfolio will be a bit more complicated: Not only will you need to determine where you'll go for cash to meet your living expenses, but you'll also have to ensure that your portfolio withdrawals aren't so rich that you risk early depletion of your portfolio. A retirement policy statement can help ensure that you're thinking through and documenting all of these issues.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump hiked tariffs on US imports. Now he's looking at exports – sparking fears of ‘dangerous precedent'
Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the White House bearing an unusual gift. 'This box was made in California,' Cook reassured his audience in the Oval Office this month, as he took off the lid. Inside was a glass plaque, engraved for its recipient, and a slab for the plaque to sit on. 'The base was made in Utah, and is 24-karat gold,' said Cook. Donald Trump appeared genuinely touched by the gift. But the plaque wasn't Cook's only offering: Apple announced that day it would invest another $100bn in US manufacturing. The timing appeared to work well for Apple. That day, Trump said Apple would be among the companies that would be exempt from a new US tariff on imported computer chips. The Art of the Deal looms large in the White House, where Trump is brokering agreements with powerful tech companies – in the midst of his trade war – that are reminiscent of the real estate transactions that launched him into fame. But in recent days, this dealmaking has entered uncharted waters. Two days after Cook and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang had a closed-door meeting with Trump at the White House. The president later announced Nvidia, along with its rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), will be allowed to sell certain artificial intelligence chips to Chinese companies – so long as they share 15% of their revenue with the US government. It was a dramatic about-face from Trump, who initially blocked the chips' exports in April. And it swiftly prompted suggestions that Nvidia was buying its way out of simmering tensions between Washington and Beijing. Trade experts say such a deal, where a company essentially pays the US government to export a good, could destabilize trading relations. Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that it creates 'the perception that export controls are up for sale'. 'If you create the perception that licenses, which are supposed to be determined on pure national security grounds, are up for sale, you potentially open up room for there to be this wave of lobbying for all sorts of really, dangerous, sensitive technologies,' Chorzempa said. 'I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set.' Though the White House announced the deal, it technically hasn't been rolled out yet, likely because of legal complications. The White House is calling the deal a 'revenue-sharing' agreement, but critics point out that it could also be considered a tax on exports, which may not be legal under US laws or the constitution. The 'legality' of the deal was 'still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce', White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week. Nvidia and AMD's AI chips are at the heart of the technological arms race between the US and China. Nvidia, which became the first publicly traded company to reach a $4tn valuation last month, creates the essential processing chips that are used to run and develop AI. The US government has played a role in this arms race over the last several years, setting regulations on what AI chips and manufacturing equipment can be sent to China. If China has less computing power, the country will be slower to develop AI, giving a clear advantage to the US. But despite the restrictions, China has been catching up, raising questions on how US policy should move forward. 'They haven't held them back as far as the advocates had hoped. The US has an enormous computing advantage over China, but their best models are only a few months behind our best models,' Chorzempa said. For US policymakers, 'the question they've had to grapple with is: Where do you draw the line?' The AI chips Nvidia and AMD can now sell to China aren't considered high-end. While they can be used for inference on trained models, they aren't powerful enough to train new AI models. When announcing the deal with Nvidia and AMD, Trump said the chip is 'an old chip that China already possesses … under a different label'. This is where a major debate on AI policy comes in. Those who take a hardline stance on the US's relationship with China say that allowing Chinese companies to purchase even an 'old chip' could still help the country get an advantage over the US. Others would say a restriction on such chips wouldn't be meaningful, and could even be counterproductive. To balance these two sides, the Trump administration is asking companies to pay up in order to export to China – a solution that people on both sides of the AI debate say is a precarious one. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance AI capabilities,' said John Moolenaar, a Republican US representative from Michigan, in a statement. But Trump's gut-reaction to dealmaking seems focused on the wallet. On Wednesday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent praised the arrangement and suggested it could be extended to other industries over time. 'I think that right now this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it?' he told Bloomberg. Julia Powles, executive director of the Institute for Technology, Law and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the deal opens up questions of whether similar pressure can be applied to other tech companies. 'What other quid pro quo might be asked in the future? The quid pro quo that would be of great concern to the [tech] sector is anything that reduces their reputation for privacy and security,' Powles said. 'That's thinking of government like a transactional operator, not like an institution with rules about when, how and for what it can extract taxes, levies and subsidies.' But that seems to be how the White House runs now. When explaining to the press how he made the deal, Trump said he told Huang: 'I want 20% if I'm going to approve this for you'. 'For the country, for our country. I don't want it myself,' the president added. 'And he said, 'Would you make it 15?' So we negotiated a little deal.'
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
US-India trade talks scheduled for August called off, source says
Aug 16 (Reuters) - A planned visit by U.S. trade negotiators to New Delhi from August 25-29 has been called off, a source said, delaying talks on a proposed trade agreement and dashing hopes of relief from additional U.S. tariffs on Indian goods from August 27. The current round of negotiations for the proposed bilateral trade agreement is now likely to be deferred to another date that has yet to be decided, the source with direct knowledge of the matter said. The U.S. embassy in New Delhi said it has no additional information on the trade and tariff talks, which are being handled by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). India's trade ministry did not immediately reply to a Reuters email seeking comments. Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, citing New Delhi's continued imports of Russian oil in a move that sharply escalated tensions between the two nations. The new import tax, which will come into effect from August 27, will raise duties on some Indian exports to as high as 50% - among the highest levied on any U.S. trading partner. Trade talks between New Delhi and Washington collapsed after five rounds of negotiations over disagreement on opening India's vast farm and dairy sectors and stopping Russian oil purchases. India's Foreign Ministry has said the country is being unfairly singled out for buying Russian oil while the United States and European Union continue to purchase goods from Russia.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
I used to go to Vegas four times a year like clockwork - there are two reasons why the city is dying
A former Las Vegas regular has revealed why they believe Sin City is dying amid falling tourist numbers. Vegas tourism is down 11 percent and overall visits to Las Vegas are down more than 6 percent this year, figures from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority show. This week the oldest casino - The Golden Gate Hotel & Casino - announced a huge sweeping change. It will no longer have live table dealer games and instead replace human dealers with electronic games. A former Vegas regular took to Reddit explaining they believe the tourist boycott is down to two things; 'the pandemic' and 'corporate greed'. 'I booked a trip and was on the strip the day some of the casinos reopened (after the pandemic) and it was dead, of course, but it was on it's way back,' the user wrote. As companies attempted to claw their way back into the green following the Covid-19 shut down, the user blamed the city's decline on corporations relying on 'the common man' to recoup their losses. After having been a 'Vegas regular for over 20 years', they saw how prices were soaring following the pandemic. 'Resort fees. They started implementing them and every year they go up,' the user took issue with first. 'Even if you are getting comped rooms, some of these places have nightly resort fees ranging from about 40-80 bucks. That gives you access to Wi-Fi and usually the spa. Both things that were previously free.' The user said that food prices also took a noticeable increase, where buffets used to be served at around $20 to $30. 'Now there are fewer buffets to be had and they are all around 50 and up,' they wrote, noting that 'most are brunch only so forget about a full dinner buffet'. The gambling tables also had increased minimum bets if you wanted to sit and play. 'Pre-pandemic you could walk into most strip casinos and find 5-10 dollar tables and most would be full day and night,' they wrote. 'Now you find a rare low minimum table anywhere on the strip and most have jumped to 25-50 minimum.' But the gambling tables came with another issue as staffing numbers were also reduced, according to the user. With fewer staff comes slower service, which they said is a 'huge problem' when gambling. 'Most gamblers like to take advantage of the free drinks, but if they have to wait 20 minutes or more for a waitress to even come by and notice them, then another 20 for her to make it back around, that's a problem,' they wrote. Yet, even if gambling is not your cup of tea, other forms of entertainment have also seen a prices 'skyrocket'. 'Shows and events, prices have just skyrocketed for shows,' the user wrote. 'Prices everywhere have gone up but most people can't justify paying 2-300 a ticket for a show per ticket.' They also noted that parking fees can cost a driver around 30 to 50 dollars per day if they wanted to 'park at hotel where they were actually staying.' After having spent the last 20 years going to Vegas 'four times a year like clockwork', the user has since cut their trips down to two and even considered skipping their second trip for this year. 'People need to just avoid Vegas until they realize they have to adjust prices that reflect what middle America are willing and able to pay,' they said. Another frequent visitor said they had been 'five times since 2012, always for business', but agreed that corporate greed was a major issue. 'The first time I came, I was pleasantly surprised that I could just wander from casino to casino, having a beer here and there and some nice food in between. Enjoy the spectacle, hang out with colleagues and watch the crazy people,' they wrote on the Reddit thread. 'And at the end, I wasn't completely broke, or maybe even won a couple $$. Now, it seems like the only reason to go to a certain casino is if you have a hankering for a specific restaurant. 'Everything else is generified and looks the same. The prices for food are astronomical... the corps have realized that people will pay anything, because once they are on the Strip for an event, they have no other options.' Another user chimed in and agreed that corporate greed has been one of the biggest factors keeping Vegas from coming back to life. 'I live in Vegas... this is 100 percent what I've heard the locals say is the problem too,' they said. '[Big companies] talk about how they're optimizing for the high rollers now but [there] just aren't that many. And as they lose money they continue to raise prices to make up the difference but that just locks out even more people.' But Vegas has not only struggled financially following the pandemic, but also due to a steady decline in tourism which has been attributed to the president's rigorous immigration efforts. The same user claimed that 'Trumps anti immigrant stuff is really hurting international tourism'. 'I've heard people say that we used to get a lot of Canadian tourism here but not anymore. The strip is super empty.' Another user added: 'Finally, someone has said it. People I know from other countries who used to come to the US regularly (especially Vegas and Florida) say they are boycotting us. Some of this is due to the spike in cost, some is out of fear and some is political.' 'We're all starting to freak out,' Charlie Mungo, 36, a tattoo artist in downtown Las Vegas told the Wall Street Journal. Mungo further told WSJ that Trump's new policy was positive, but it doesn't help the root of the problem. 'No tax on tips, that's a rad thing,' the tattoo artist said. 'But it doesn't really do us much good if there isn't any people to get tips from.' Mungo said he now makes about $1,500 a month and has lost nearly a third of his clients after Canadian tourists who used to represent 30 percent of his business stopped coming. But the employees are not the only ones feeling the loss of tourism, as companies are also reporting major losses. Caesars Entertainment, which runs eight casino resorts and one non-gaming hotel on the Strip, reported a 3.7 percent year-over-year decline in net revenue in the second quarter of 2025, according to SEC filings. From April to June, the company brought in $1.054 billion in Las Vegas, down from $1.095 billion in the same time period in 2024.
