Is it time for investors to ditch the minimum five-year plan? Fink Money's DAVID BELLE has his say
When it comes to investing, financial advisers often recommend a minimum time frame of five years.
This conventional investment wisdom is based on the idea that longer-term investments tend to deliver higher returns while smoothing out short-term market ups and downs.
Historically, this approach has merit: over extended periods, markets generally trend upward, rewarding patience with growth.
However, this one-size-fits-all advice isn't always the best fit for investors.
By sticking rigidly to a five-year minimum, investors will often miss out on shorter-term opportunities that could offer significant gains or better align with their financial needs.
This issue can be framed as an 'opportunity cost' problem, where the potential benefits of alternative investment choices are sacrificed for the sake of a long-term strategy.
What is opportunity cost?
Opportunity cost is a basic idea in economics that when you choose one option, you give up the potential benefits of the alternatives.
In investing, if you commit your money to a five-year plan, the opportunity cost is the profit or flexibility you lose by not pursuing shorter-term investments instead.
Long-term strategies can offer stability and growth, but they tie up your funds — potentially keeping you from jumping on market trends or unique opportunities that don't fit the traditional five-year mould.
Why do advisers push the five year timeframe?
For starters, advisers aren't wrong to suggest a 5-year horizon—there's hard logic behind it.
Firstly, as we've seen since Trump announced his tariffs, markets can be a rollercoaster in the short term.
Stocks might drop suddenly, and if you need to cash out during a dip, you could lose money.
A five-year window gives investments time to recover and grow, lowering the chance of selling at a bad moment.
Secondly, there's the magic of compounding where, over time, your returns can earn returns of their own.
The longer you stay invested, the more this effect kicks in. Third, there's no doubt that short-term market swings can spook investors into rash moves, like selling low after a crash.
A longer time frame, by contrast, encourages you to ride out the storm rather than panic.
Fourth, some investments — like certain mutual funds or bonds — charge you for pulling out early.
Advisers might suggest five-year time frames to dodge those costs. All these points make sense for a long-term approach, but not every investor's situation fits neatly into this box.
The hidden cost of longer investment timeframes
By locking your money into a five-year plan, you might miss shorter-term opportunities that could pay off faster or suit your goals better.
For example, some industries explode with growth over a short period. Think AI and renewable energy.
If you spotted the rise of electric vehicles early, investing in a company like Tesla or a related start-up could have brought big returns in just a couple of years.
But if your money was tied up in a diversified five-year portfolio, you may have missed that window. Sector booms don't always need five years to play out and waiting that long could mean missing the peak entirely.
Also, markets don't always move slowly. A market correction — when stock prices drop 10 per cent or more — can be a golden chance to buy low.
Look at the Covid-19 crash in March 2020: stocks tanked as the pandemic hit but many bounced back within months. Investors with cash on hand scooped up bargains and saw gains by the end of the year.
If your funds were stuck in a five-year investment, the opportunity cost was the chance to profit from that rapid recovery.
Then there's the fact that most people's lives don't always follow a five-year schedule.
Maybe you're saving for a house deposit in two years or your children's university fees in three.
Tying up your money for five years could leave you scrambling when those deadlines hit. It blocks you from meeting real-world needs.
Meanwhile, some investments — like initial public offerings (IPOs) or venture capital — can skyrocket in value fast.
When Airbnb went public in December 2020, its stock nearly doubled on the first day. Investors who got in early made a killing in weeks, not years.
But if you're locked into a long-term plan, the opportunity cost is the chance to cash in on a quick win.
Old-school investment rules don't work for all
Financial advisers can deliver real value for certain investors, but it's important people are aware that their old school, conventional advice can amplify opportunity cost issues — and cause some investors to lose out.
Advisers may also be incentivised by longer term time frames. Some will earn a percentage of your assets under management (AUM) or commissions on products like mutual funds.
The longer your money stays invested, the more they make. A five-year lock-in keeps their income steady, even if it's not ideal for you.
Advisers certainly aren't villains, they're often just following what's worked historically.
But their generic approach can blind them to shorter-term possibilities that may suit you better.
Mix the long-term with the short-term
What I'm categorically not saying is that people should ditch long-term investing entirely.
Instead, they should implement a strategy that has some flexibility built in, one that bends to their needs and reacts to the markets.
To this end, people should review their investments every few months rather every year.
Are there new trends or personal goals to adjust for? Staying proactive keeps you ready for change.
While it's important to put some money in long-term assets for stability, consider keeping a chunk in shorter-term options — like treasury bills or cash accounts — for quick moves. Maybe 70 per cent long-term, 30 per cent short-term, depending on your risk profile.
Also, be sure to line up your investments with when you'll need the money.
Short-term goals get short-term strategies; long-term goals like retirement can handle the five-year stretch.
Finally, don't rely on one adviser. Talk to others with different specialties to spot opportunities your main adviser might miss.
Short-term is not always a gamble
Many will argue that shorter-term investing is too risky, as markets are unpredictable and jumping in and out can backfire.
They're not wrong: timing the market is tough and frequent trades can rack up costs or taxes. But not all short-term options are wild gambles.
Short-term bonds or CDs (Certificates of Deposit) offer steady returns with low risk. Plus, with research and a robust plan, you can cut down on reckless moves.
The real risk might be sticking to a five-year plan that doesn't fit your life.
The financial world isn't what it was decades ago. Technology, global events and instant information mean opportunities pop up — and vanish — faster than ever.
A five-year horizon made sense when markets were slower, but these days, agility matters.
A mix of short- and long-term investments can keep you sane and in the game.
Carpe diem
To wrap up, while a five-year timeframe has its benefits — less risk, steady growth — it's not perfect.
The opportunity cost can be missing a tech boom or a market rebound.
Advisers mean well, but their long-term bias or incentives can keep you from exploring all your options.
Instead of blindly following the five-year rule, aim for a strategy that flexes with your goals and the market.
Check your portfolio often, blend short- and long-term investments, and don't be afraid to shop around for advice.
That way, you're not just playing it safe, you're playing it smart, balancing stability with the chance to seize the moment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
A winter wine deal worth savouring - how to snap up 12 bottles of premium wine for under $8 a bottle with FREE delivery
Daily Mail journalists select and curate the products that feature on our site. If you make a purchase via links on this page we will earn commission - learn more Cosy nights call for great wine and Naked Wines has an unmissable deal you won't want to miss. Whether you're hosting friends, pairing it with a hearty meal, or enjoying a quiet night in, winter is the perfect season to wind down with a quality glass of red or white. Enter Naked Wines, the viral wine club that's shaking up the industry. They work with over 90 independent winemakers to bring premium bottles straight to your door, all at a fraction of the price you'd normally pay in-store. This season, Naked Wines is offering its customers $100 off their first 12 wines to make sipping your way through winter hassle-free. Oh, we almost forgot, they are spoiling shoppers even more with free shipping. Pour us a glass (or five!). Whether you are an avid wine drinker or not, Naked Wines has loads of variation from their makers to their flavors. The high-end brand takes pride in working with some of the best winemakers around the country, including Silver Oak and Mondavi. They offer something for every taste bud, with reds, whites, rosés, and more listed on their website. You can explore their curated crates and learn more about the wineries they come from on their site, too, before choosing your unique 12 bottles! What we love about Naked Wines is that it makes hosting a breeze. No more worrying about what to bring or stressing about what to serve with these luxury wines delivered right to your doorstep, you do not have to do a thing. With 12 bottles delivered right to you, the possibilities are endless for hosting from charcuterie nights to backyard barbecues. By going through Naked Wines, you not only get the best of the best, but you also save 30 percent compared to what you would pay in mass retailer shops. The brand is on a mission to connect sippers with real, raw, talented winemakers at price points that don't break the bank, because they believe everyone deserves to enjoy good wine, even on a dime. We have a feeling once you start drinking Naked Wines selections, you will not want to stop, which works out because they offer a subscription plan that is tailor-made to each sipper. When you sign up for a plan, you complete a quiz that matches you to a case of wine, and from there, it learns your evolving preferences! So what are you waiting for?! Snag your curated 12-bottle case of wine ASAP while you can save $100 off.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
1.4M of the nation's poorest renters risk losing their homes with Trump's proposed HUD time limit
Havalah Hopkins rarely says no to the chain restaurant catering gigs that send her out to Seattle-area events — from church potlucks to office lunches and graduation parties. The delivery fees and tips she earns on top of $18 an hour mean it's better than minimum-wage shift work, even though it's not consistent. It helps her afford the government-subsidized apartment she and her 14-year-old autistic son have lived in for three years, though it's still tough to make ends meet. 'It's a cycle of feeling defeated and depleted, no matter how much energy and effort and tenacity you have towards surviving,' Hopkins said. Still, the 33-year-old single mother is grateful she has stable housing — experts estimate just 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rental assistance get the benefits. And now Hopkins is at risk of losing her home, as federal officials move to restrict HUD policy. Amid a worsening national affordable housing and homelessness crisis, President Donald Trump's administration is determined to reshape HUD's expansive role providing stable housing for low-income people, which has been at the heart of its mission for generations. The proposed changes include a two-year limit on the federal government's signature rental assistance programs. At a June congressional budget hearing, HUD Secretary Scott Turner argued policies like time limits will fix waste and fraud in public housing and Section 8 voucher programs. 'It's broken and deviated from its original purpose, which is to temporarily help Americans in need,' Turner said. 'HUD assistance is not supposed to be permanent.' But the move to restrict such key subsidies would mark a significant retreat from the scope of HUD's work. Millions of tenants moved in with the promise of subsidized housing for as long as they were poor enough to remain qualified, so time limits would be a seismic shift that could destabilize the most vulnerable households, many unlikely to ever afford today's record-high rents. New research from New York University, obtained exclusively by The Associated Press, found that if families were cut off after two years, 1.4 million households could lose their vouchers and public housing subsidies — largely working families with children. This would lead housing authorities to evict many families, the report said. A broad time limit would cause 'substantial disruption and dislocation,' the it said, noting the policy is largely untested and most of the few housing authorities to voluntarily try it eventually abandoned the pilots. A break from HUD's long-held purpose of helping house the poor could also jeopardize its contracts with private landlords, who say they're already feeling the uncertainty as public housing authorities from Seattle to Atlanta announce they're scaling back in anticipation of federal funding cuts. Critics fear the restriction could derail those working towards self-sufficiency — defeating the goal time-limit supporters hope to achieve. HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett pushed back on the NYU study. 'There is plenty of data that strongly supports time limits and shows that long-term government assistance without any incentive disincentivizes able-bodied Americans to work,' Lovett said in a statement. She primarily cited statistics suggesting low employment among HUD-subsidized tenants. Hopkins said the policy would likely leave her and her son homeless in an economy that often feels indifferent to working poor people like her. 'A two-year time limit is ridiculous,' she said. 'It's so disrespectful. I think it's dehumanizing — the whole system.' Working families are most at risk Researchers from the Housing Solutions Lab at New York University's Furman Center analyzed HUD's data over a 10-year period and found about 70% of households who could be affected by a two-year limit had already been living on those subsidies for two or more years. That's based on 2024 estimates and doesn't include elderly and disabled people who wouldn't be subject to time limits. Exempted households make up about half of the roughly 4.9 million households getting rental assistance. In the first study to examine the proposed policy's possible impacts, the NYU researchers found time limits would largely punish families who are working but earning far below their area's median income, which would ultimately shift federal rental assistance away from households with kids. 'Housing assistance is especially impactful for children,' said Claudia Aiken, the study co-author and director of new research partnerships for the Housing Solutions Lab. Their health, education, employment and earnings potential can "change in really meaningful ways if they have stable housing,' she said. It would affect people like Hopkins, whose family was on a years-long waitlist in the expensive region where she grew up. In July 2022, she and her son moved into a two-bedroom public housing unit in Woodinville, Washington. She pays $450 a month in rent — 30% of her household income. A market-rate apartment in the area costs at least $2,000 more, according to the King County Housing Authority, which in June announced it would pause issuing some new vouchers. Hopkins knows she could never afford to live in her home state without rental assistance. It was a relief they could stay as long as they needed. She had been struggling to scrape together hundreds of dollars more a month for her previous trailer home. 'There's no words to put on feeling like your housing is secure,' Hopkins said. 'I feel like I was gasping for air and I'm finally able to breathe.' She credits the housing subsidy for her ability to finally leave an abusive marriage, and still dreams of more — perhaps her own catering business or working as a party decorator. 'We all can't be lawyers and doctors — and two years isn't enough to even become that,' Hopkins said. Since learning of Trump's proposal, Hopkins said she's been haunted by thoughts of shoving her possessions into a van with her son, upending the stability she built for him. 'Difficult to do well' The average household in HUD-subsidized housing stays about six years, studies show. HUD funds local public housing projects where nearly 1 million households live and the Section 8 vouchers that about 4 million households use to offset their private rentals. There's been little guidance from HUD on how time-limited housing assistance would be implemented — how it would be enforced, when the clock starts and how the exemptions would be defined. Both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the potential for time limits to help curb HUD's notorious waitlists. Hard-liners contend the threat of housing loss will push people to reach self-sufficiency; others see limits, when coupled with support and workforce incentives, as a means to motivate tenants to improve their lives. Yet there are strikingly few successful examples. NYU researchers identified just 17 public housing authorities that have tested time limits. None of the programs were designed for only two years and 11 abandoned the restriction — despite being able to use federal dollars for services to help people achieve self-sufficiency. Several agencies that dropped the limits said tenants still struggled to afford housing after their time was up. 'These policies are complex and difficult to monitor, enforce, and do well,' NYU's Aiken said. The city of Keene, New Hampshire, tried five-year time limits starting in 2001, but terminated the policy before fully enforcing it to avoid kicking out households that would still be 'rent burdened, or potentially homeless,' said Josh Meehan, executive director of Keene Housing. In California, Shawnté Spears of the Housing Authority of San Mateo County said the agency has kept its five-year time limit in tandem with educational programs she says have 'given folks motivation' to meet their goals. It also gives more people the chance to use vouchers, she said. NYU's Aiken acknowledged HUD's long waitlists make the current system 'a bit of a lottery," adding: "You could say that time limits are a way of increasing people's odds in that lottery.' The landlord's dilemma HUD's Section 8 programs have long depended on hundreds of thousands of for-profit and nonprofit small business owners and property managers to accept tenant vouchers. Now, landlords fear a two-year limit could put their contracts for HUD-subsidized housing in limbo. Amid the uncertainty, Denise Muha, executive director of the National Leased Housing Association, said multiple landlord groups have voiced their concerns about HUD's next budget in a letter to congressional leaders. She said landlords generally agree two years is simply not enough time for most low-income tenants to change their fortunes. 'As a practical matter, you're going to increase your turnover, which is a cost," Muha said. 'Nobody wants to throw out their tenants without cause.' It's always been a significant lift for private landlords to work with HUD subsidies, which involve burdensome paperwork, heavy oversight and maintenance inspections. But the trade-off is a near guarantee of dependable longer-term renters and rental income. If that's compromised, some landlords say they'd pull back from the federal subsidy programs. Brad Suster, who owns 86 Chicago-area units funded by HUD, said accepting subsidies could become risky. 'Would we have the same reliability that we know has traditionally come for countless years from the federal government?' Suster said. 'That's something landlords and owners want to know is there." The diminishing housing stock available to low-income tenants has been a brewing problem for HUD. Between 2010 and 2020, some 50,000 housing providers left the voucher program, the agency has reported. Chaos and trade-offs, critics say It's up for debate whether lawmakers will buy into Trump's vision for HUD. This week the U.S. House appropriations committee is taking up HUD's 2026 budget, which so far makes no mention of time limits. HUD's Lovett noted the Senate's budget plans for the agency have not yet been released, and said the administration remains focused on future implementation of time limits. 'HUD will continue to engage with colleagues on the hill to ensure a seamless transition and enforcement of any new time limit,' Lovett said in a statement. Noëlle Porter, the director of government affairs at the National Housing Law Project, said Trump's fight for time limits is far from over, noting that legislative and rule changes could make them a reality. 'It is clearly a stated goal of the administration to impose work requirements and time limits on rental assistance, even though it would be wildly unpopular,' Porter said. Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina says there's no evidence time limits would save HUD money. 'This doesn't help families who already are working multiple jobs to become self-sufficient,' Clyburn said at a June hearing. 'Instead, it creates chaos, financial uncertainty and pushes these families into more severe trade-offs.' Time limits could imperil Aaliyah Barnes' longtime dream of graduating college and becoming a nurse, finding a job and a home she can afford. The 28-year-old single mom in Louisville, Kentucky, this year joined Family Scholar House, which provides counseling and support for people pursuing an education — and, to Barnes' relief, housing. Her apartment is paid for by a Section 8 voucher. In March, Barnes moved in and her 3-year-old son, Aarmoni, finally got his own room, where she set up a learning wall. Previously, she had struggled to afford housing on her wages at a call center — and living with her mom, two sisters and their kids in a cramped house was an environment ridden with arguments. The stable future she's building could disappear, though, if she's forced out in two years when her schooling is expected to take three years. 'I'd be so close, but so far away,' Barnes said. ___ Kramon reported from Atlanta. ___
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Inside the high-stakes battle to win a New York City casino license
A Caesars Palace casino in the heart of Times Square. A sprawling gambling hall along Coney Island's iconic boardwalk. A Hard Rock casino complex next to the home stadium of baseball's New York Mets. Eight projects are bidding for a state license to operate a casino in the lucrative New York City market, each dangling the prospect of generational investment in America's largest metropolitan region. But one — a Bally's casino proposed on a Bronx golf course once run by President Donald Trump's company — may have already run out of luck, after city lawmakers denied it a key approval this week. All of the proposed casinos, in application materials submitted in recent days, promise to create thousands of new jobs, flashy new community amenities in the form of hotels, shops, restaurants and entertainment venues and billions of dollars a year in taxable gambling revenues for the state's coffers. How realistic those promises are, though, is an open question, given the proliferation of casinos in the northeast and the explosion of online gambling in recent years, casino experts say. Gambling industry spending big, but some locals aren't sold The arrival of full-fledged casino resorts in New York City has been years in the making. The gambling industry spent mightily to secure approval from New York voters in a referendum authorizing the licensing of up to seven full casinos with live table games back in 2013. But the state initially allowed upstate venues a head start. The state's Gaming Commission says it hopes to finally award up to three downstate licenses in December. But before then, community advisory committees appointed by lawmakers and local officials will weigh community opinions of each plan. Nearly all the casino proposals face some degree of local push back. On Monday, the New York City Council denied Bally's a needed rezoning change following local resident concerns about the environmental impact of its $4 billion proposal, which also calls for a 500-room hotel and a 2,000-seat event center. Bally's, which bought the former Trump Links course in 2023, had promised to pay Trump another $115 million if it were to secure a casino license, though that was not among the objections voiced by the Democratic majority on the council nor the Republican lawmaker representing the Bronx district. Spokespersons for Bally's declined to comment on the future of the project this week. Not surprisingly, the debate over the proposed Times Square casino has taken center stage, with supporters and opponents recently holding dueling rallies in the Crossroads of the World. Among the prominent groups opposed to the $5.4 billion plan is the Broadway League, a trade group representing America's performing arts theaters. It says a casino would draw patrons away from neighborhood businesses and threaten a theater industry still reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic. The project's backers have countered that the plan, which calls for renovating a skyscraper that currently houses the Minskoff Theatre, home of long-running 'The Lion King' musical, will actually boost demand for Broadway tickets. The developers, which have also enlisted Jay-Z's Roc Nation to curate their entertainment offerings, promise $250 million in community projects, including a public safety plan designed by former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton and a multimillion-dollar civil rights museum that helped earn an endorsement from the Rev. Al Sharpton. The two other casinos proposed in Manhattan — one for its West Side and another on its East Side — could face similar headwinds, given their proximity to residential neighborhoods, according to casino experts. But the proposed West Side resort, near the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and the Lincoln Tunnel to New Jersey, could reel in business travelers and convention attendees, if it can win over locals, said Soojin Ha, a lecturer at Cornell University's business school. Meanwhile in Brooklyn, organizers of the quirky Mermaid Parade are among those leading the charge against a Coney Island casino, arguing the plan would remove large chunks of the boardwalk's iconic amusement rides and block access to the public beach. New York market could support 3 casinos, expert says Since the 2013 referendum, four full casinos have opened in New York, though all of them are located upstate, miles away from Manhattan. The state also has nine gambling halls offering slot machines and other electronic gambling machines but no live table games. Some three hours drive north of Manhattan are the Native American tribe-owned Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos in Connecticut. Two hours south are the New Jersey shore casinos of Atlantic City, and less than two hours due west in Pennsylvania is the tribe-owned Wind Creek Casino at the former site of Bethlehem Steel. Despite the competition from seemingly all corners, New York City's dense market could sustain three gambling halls, depending on where they're located, suggests John Holden, a business professor at Indiana University who specializes in gambling law. 'We typically see fairly rosy revenue projections put out by the gaming industry, but the New York City market is really without comparison,' he said. The state could hedge its bets by awarding two of the three licenses to proven winners: the racinos -- slot parlors built alongside horse racing tracks — that have been successfully operating for years in the New York City area, said Alan Woinski, a New Jersey-based gambling consultant. MGM Resorts is proposing a $2.3 billion expansion of the Empire City Casino at Yonkers Raceway. Resorts World, owned by Malaysian casino giant Genting, is proposing a $5.5 billion investment to its gaming facility at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens. Those expansions, Woinski noted, could be rolled out in a matter of months, meaning the state wouldn't have to wait years for the construction of a wholly new site to start reaping the financial windfall. ___
