Are Index Funds Too Big?

First a follow up to an idea from a couple of months ago about creating some sort of fund that would make constant bets on Kalshi or Polymarket. The idea was not so much hold bets through to the conclusion but to use an algorithm to scale in and out as prices change. The hope would be some sort of uncorrelated, absolute return outcome that maybe did a little better than T-bills.

The NY Times wrote about something not that close but sort of close. The article was about arbitraging between two markets when they price outcomes differently. If between the two markets the yes and the no outcome add up to less than a dollar, then a combo bet could be placed to capture the pricing discrepancy, very much hitting singles. The article profiled a mathematician who the Times reports has made over $1 million in the last three years. 

The arb isn't betting on outcomes it is exploiting inefficiencies and discrepancies. 

Torsten Slok is concerned about the enormous size of the three largest index ETFs; VOO, SPY and IVV.

Two different AIs corroborated that index funds (ETFs and mutual funds) comprise 20-30% of the US market. Jack Bogle thought it would be problematic if it ever got above 50%. 

I think it is important to understand that indexes have flaws and drawbacks and it is prudent to know when to deviate from tracking too close to the index. With 50% in tech plus communications, I believe this is one of those times. I have no idea if anything bad will happen but the concentration of risk in those two sectors seems obvious. 

And we'll close out with a fire department buddy who is my age but retired. Part of his post-retirement routine is that he picks up shifts at his church as an EMT during Sunday Services which is not uncommon for larger churches. I believe he has done similar work at the arena in Prescott Valley that has concerts and is the home field for our indoor football team. 

Another former fire department colleague used to get event gigs for EMS down in Phoenix, mostly concerts and festivals. The last time we had a serious fire here was the Crooks Fire in 2022. The community was evacuated and our station house hosted one of the divisions working on the fire as well as the structure protection group. 

As part of this contingent working from our firehouse, there were two EMTs and an ambulance. The EMTs sat in front of our station house on their phones or tablets just hanging out waiting for someone to need help. They were doing nothing wrong, their job was to be on standby and wait in case someone got hurt. There are also teaching/training opportunities for people with EMS credentials.

The point here is there can be plenty of ways to pull together a useful income in an area that might be as relevant to you if needed as EMS is to me. None of these EMS opportunities strike me as punching clock on a regular basis. Taking shifts with the ambulance company would feel like giving up some independence. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Value Funds That Load Up On Tech

Barron's had an interesting writeup about value funds having done well this year including the iShares MSCI USA Value Factor ETF (VLUE). It is up a whopping 44% this year versus 7% for the iShares S&P 500 Value ETF (IVE). 

When you see that sort of dispersion, I think the first question to ask is what the hell is causing that sort of outperformance (or lag as the case may be)? In the case of VLUE, it owns Micron (MU) at a current 22% weighting. MU is up 243% YTD so at 22% of the fund, it has not been rebalanced yet. Barron's neglected to make the point about Micron but several reader comments made the same observation I am making. The number two stock is Cisco (CSCO) with just under 5% of the fund.

A big point being made was that the line between value and growth appears to be blurring as more and more tech is showing up in value funds. The tech sector comprises 42% of VLUE, for IVE it is only 22% which seems kind of high. Apple is the largest holding in IVE at almost 8%, tech adjacent Amazon is second at 4%. The DFA US Large Cap Value Fund (DFLVX) has only 14% in tech for context. 

iShares has several large cap growth ETFs. BGRO and ILGC both have 52% in technology. If both growth and value are heavy in tech and tech adjacent, the odds of doubling up on the same stocks are pretty high as well as having just a ton of tech. Apple and Amazon are both top four holdings in growth funds BGRO and ILGC along with value fund IVE but don't appear to be in VLUE.

I've never done anything with funds that target growth or value. I think managing sector weightings is very important and if the lines are blurring between growth and value then managing sector weightings becomes harder to do. If someone buys VLUE today thinking they're going to get X% of their tech from the fund, whenever MU gets rebalanced down it will change the tech exposure of the portfolio. VLUE is 42% tech with half of it being one stock. 

It's a lot simpler to use sector funds and some thematic funds for any portfolio that doesn't use individual stocks. Utilities are always going to be utilities and a defense contractor themed ETF is usually going to be a mix of industrials with a little bit of specialized tech thrown in unless the name indicates otherwise. 

Quick pivot to the behavioral challenge of spending down from a retirement account. When you build up some sort of account balance, retirement or otherwise, it creates a sense of security. Pulling from that account combined with seeing it shrink doesn't sound easy to me. Over the last many years, chances are someone taking a reasonable amount out has seen their account balance still grow because of how well markets have done. Taking 4-5% out is very unlikely to result in running out of money early but with a decade like 2000-2009, taking 4-5% out could have easily cause the balance to decline. 

Looking back in hindsight, yes just staying the course was the obvious thing but maybe not so easy to actually stick to at the low in 2008 or early 2009. 

This is something I've long recognized in myself. I think it will be emotionally challenging to pull money out whenever the time comes but my thinking on this has evolved a little, maybe someone will find this helpful or useful.

More than just generally spending down if the market sequence is not great causing discomfort, I think when the time comes, there will be some number in my account that would be difficult to go below. Right here, right now there is number that makes me feel comfortable and the dollars above that are gravy. I'd be ok spending the extra, spending the gravy. If I can continue to work to RMD age, 75 in my case, that's still quite aways from here so I have no idea what my comfort number would be by then between price inflation and hopefully account growth (price appreciation and any contributions I might make) or obviously what my gravy number will be but this is a useful tweak to my thought process. 

You can't take out $15,000/mo from a $1.8 million account and expect it to last but if you have that much money when you retire, it would be nice to take your $80.000-$90.000/yr without being constantly stressed out about it. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Prioritizing Peace Of Mind

A few days ago we looked at an article about whether or not to end up as the richest person in graveyard. Basically, dying with too much leftover could lead to regret for people when they get to a very old age. The article from William Bernstein and Edward McQuarrie gave permission to have a lot of unspent money at the end because going through with that sort of safety net, even if unspent, has utility, it has value. They validated the idea of moving financial security further up the priority list. 

This week, the WSJ reported on Fidelity moving toward allowing target date funds to partially convert into immediate annuities. I am not a fan of annuities, I've never sold one and I am not licensed to sell annuities. Anything bad you can say about them, I am likely to agree.

That said, there are positives to annuitizing a portion of a retirement portfolio. I think this will come at some point without getting tied up with a complex insurance contract. One point that I made ages ago, more anecdotal actually, was that people I knew who had annuities love them. 

Someone living a $6000/mo lifestyle, getting $3500 from Social Security, maybe they can peel off a chunk of their IRA into an immediate annuity to generate a $1000/mo income stream while having most of their retirement money still in their brokerage account where they maintain control of the assets. The lifestyle in this example might be $6000 but if SS plus the $1000 annuity stream covers the fixed expenses, then that might reasonably create utility, value, for the end user in the form of peace of mind. 

So if you want an annuity, go buy an annuity if the trade offs would be worth the peace of mind. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Income Engines

StateStreet has filed for the SPDR NASDAQ MyPaycheck ETF. It will be a fund of funds and while there is surprisingly little information on the underlying index for now, Copilot thinks it will target about a 6% yield. Great name, it overlaps one of the things we talk about here for bridge strategies and it reminds me of the StrategyShares NASDAQ 7Handle Index ETF (HNDL) which started trading in 2018 and targets a 7% distribution that can be comprised of yield, capital gains and return of capital.

It was a lot harder to cobble together 7% in 2018, I remember the fund having a lot more exposure to MLPs and funds like SDIV.

The chart is price only. Right now, the distributions are a shade under 7%. 

SDIV has been paying out closer to 9% with much more volatility and obviously compounding very negatively for anyone taking out the distributions. When I first wrote about HNDL, that URL doesn't exist anymore, I expressed concern that the fund would deplete which it clearly has not done. Thinking back to 2018, "the fund will yield 7% and the price will trade sideways" would have been thought to be very good result, I do think it is a good result. 

Lately, HNDL has been paying more ROC. One third of the fund is in various aggregate bond funds that yield more like in the fours, it might actually be more than 1/3 because another 28% appears to be in swaps that replicate the fund. 

I took a stab at making a paycheck strategy as follows;

BKLN and BSJS are in my ownership universe. 

If all the income is taken out then it would deplete after 27 years per Copilot. That seems a little too optimistic but as a bridge to some financial milestone it could last a decently long time. The withdrawals could be managed to avoid the negative compounding (take less out).

HNDL and our idea held up well this past March when the Iran war started but they both got hit hard during the Tariff Panic, dropping about 15%. 

Although not precise terminology, this idea plays off the concept of carry, creating an income "engine" from a portfolio balance that doesn't move around that much.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

The Social Security Problem Appears To Be Getting Worse

By now, you've probably seen they nudged up the timetable to 2032 for when Social Security would presumably need to start cutting payouts by what the Washington Post says would be 22%. Here's the Barron's report on this story. 

There are plenty of ideas floating out there including raising the full retirement age, lifting the income cap (for 2026, once income gets to $184,000 there is no more payroll tax due), reducing the annual COLA bump, means testing (cutting/reducing it for "rich" people) and even investing it in the stock market.

As a legal matter, they simply cannot pull the money from somewhere else to plug the hole. Apparently the last time they made changes in 1983 they did so just in the nick of time which argues that sitting here in 2026 is too soon to worry about it. To adopt that position is to give Congress the benefit of the doubt and while I am sure they will do something, I don't know about giving them the benefit of the doubt on anything. My point being that waiting until the last minute increases the odds that whatever they do is "unfair" to more people than it would otherwise need to be. 

There's a cliche about a negotiation being good when no one thinks they got a great deal, they got something they wanted but not everything. I would suggest being mentally prepared for feeling a little worse than that when this all shakes out. 

Related, this year's Social Security COLA is now estimated to be 4.7% after this morning's inflation data. Someone planning to take Social Security in 2031 and thinking they will get $4000 in today dollars would get $4866 in 2031. If they have to take a 22% haircut from $4866, they'd be down to $3795. Put yourself in that position with your numbers. As it stands right now, would that much of a drop be a problem? I'm not being critical at all. If that drop is a problem, you've got time to figure something out. Then, all the better if they somehow fix it. 

And a quick follow up, with the recent leg down in Bitcoin, I wanted to check in on the Vistashares Bitbonds 5 Years Enhanced Weekly Distribution ETF (BTYB). The basic idea is that fund seeks to pay out twice whatever the five treasury is paying by harnessing Bitcoin volatility via a synthetic covered call. 

UFIV tracks the five year treasury and YBTC is a Bitcoin covered call fund. In the period charted, BTYB has paid out a total of $0.187 so add 75 basis points back into the decline of 5.5% as of Tuesday's close.

BTYB is down less than I would have expected in the face of how much Bitcoin has fallen. What has probably gone on is that as the price of Bitcoin has fallen, the volatility has gone up which results in the option combo that creates the synthetic covered call going down slower than underlying Bitcoin. The fancy term is gamma. BTYB benefitted from positive gamma. If Bitcoin had gone down in such a way that volatility compressed then BTYB would have probably fared worse.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Permanent Adjacent?

Meb Faber Tweeted out an article he wrote in 2020 about a "stay rich portfolio" which he called the Global Asset Allocation. Presumably, the article was in support of the Cambria Global Asset Allocation ETF (GAA) which allocates 45% to equities, 45% to fixed income and 10% into alternatives. 

We've looked at GAA before. The allocation is interesting and results need to be looked at closely to understand them.

The overall numbers aren't so hot. The 67%/33% blend is in there because it was mentioned in the article as being good middle ground between all GAA or all T-bills. The DIY version I built as follows;

Gold is mentioned favorably in Meb's article and I know he thinks managed futures is an excellent diversifier. I chose QMHIX for this to start playing with higher volatility managed futures. MERFX and BKLN are client holdings. 

When we look at the Cambria funds, the volatility stats usually aren't that good, they seem high for GAA given it only has 45% in equities. I wouldn't expect 45% equities to keep up with 60% equities but it would be nice for the volatility to be lower than it is for GAA, inline with the DIY version maybe. 

Where the results get interesting beyond the obvious that the  GAA ETF has been doing very well for the last year and half is that it does appear to be differentiated from VBAIX. Differentiation can be good. 

Pivot to a new fund that might blow your mind. It is blowing my mind, not being sarcastic. It's the Porter & Company Porter Index Fund (PPCP) it is a quadrant style fund that is modeled after the Permanent Portfolio but the asset mix is different. It allocates 25% each to... are you ready... property and casual insurers, capital efficient equities, hard assets and short term fixed income. What?

This one is easy to backtest thanks to the iShares US Insurance ETF (IAK).

Which one is which? That's a 20 year run and the lack of dispersion is remarkable. 

Copilot has thoughts. First it says that PRPFX hasn't been true to the Permanent Portfolio in terms of long term bonds. The equity allocation in PRPFX has generally tilted toward quality, not simpler market cap weighting. Gold is gold of course and cash is cash. Copilot thinks "insurers are unusually resilient, capital-efficient, low-volatility compounders that behave well across many macro regimes."

I don't know about that. The drawdowns look pretty rough for IAK. It then told me that IAK isn't the best proxy even though it gave me the ticker in the first place.

At that I point I threw in the towel. Seeing how PCPP trades might shed some light or maybe IAK is a proxy for something else that Copilot isn't teasing out. What's going on then? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. 

Tools, Not Return Engines

We've got a lot different things to tie together related to portfolio construction and diversification. 

Cliff Asness wrote a long Tweet in support of a paper from AQR that said bonds don't diversify equities, they dilute equities which I think is a fascinating way to phrase it. There's been commentary from various sources that bonds no longer diversify equities they way they used to (I have said that repeatedly) but Cliff believes "bonds never mattered all that much in 60/40" because as the AQR paper goes on to explore, there are other diversifiers can do the job that people think bonds can do. 

I disagree a little bit, bonds mattered for a long time. They were reliably negatively correlated in a way that doesn't exist anymore. Compensation stopped being adequate for duration long before the top in late 2021 but they did help...until they didn't. 

The actual paper starts off talking about the mistake of replacing bonds with things that actually have more equity-like risk than bonds. They cite "most buffered funds" as one example, they cite private credit as having a 0.63 correlation to equities with equity beta of 0.70. They also noted that some believe Bitcoin can function as an equity diversifier but they are very dismissive of that idea. Per the paper they favor long/short equity with a market neutral bias and managed futures. 

Many of the blog posts boil down to me trying to refine my approach on how to build the 40 in a 60/40 construct. There's value in backtesting but there needs to be a grain of salt added to the process of backtesting per a paper from Long Tail Alpha. Done incorrectly, the process can lead to building around hindsight bias that relies too much on the past repeating. 

How often do we backtest a heavy dose of managed futures and then contrast that to the actual experience of owning managed futures? Too much allocated to any diversifier creates risks to the portfolio regardless of whether there's ever a consequence for that risk. Managed futures always backtests beautifully but since the resurgence in popularity of managed futures starting in late 2021, there have been two very rough stretches, one in early 2023 and then going into the Tariff Panic. I've seen a couple of different sources say how bad early 2025 was but I actually recall early 2023 being worse. Managed futures are great for slower, longer declines but really a flip of the coin for fast declines. 

This is a great quote from the Long Tail Alpha paper.

we’re keenly aware of the historical bleed of a typical left tail hedge, whose value does not come from a strong CAGR, but rather from smoothing out left tail events in a larger portfolio

Or, diversify your diversifiers. You can smooth out the left tail events, meaning reduce a portfolio's sensitivity to outlying, downside market events by owning several different strategies that each have their own unique risks. This approach makes the portfolio more robust in case the next long, slow decline is the one where managed futures doesn't work. Thanks to liquid alts, there's no logistical barrier to having many different diversifiers. 

This chart is from Man. The way to read it is that the green combos provide better diversification than the pink combos.

The take away is not to allocate this way, I think the way to take it is as a reminder that during a draw down, a portfolio that goes narrower than broad based indexes will have things that go up. As we noted the other day, during Friday's puke down, healthcare, financials, REITs and staples generally went up. Whenever the next real bear market comes along, there will be stocks and maybe even a couple sectors that go up. If a couple of alts work as well as a couple of plain vanilla holdings go up or are even just flat, then a the portfolio has a good chance of weathering something more serious than a bad week or month.

Hedgeco.net provides rationale for using alts that aligns with my beliefs.

Investors have become more aware that the classic 60/40 portfolio can fail when stocks and bonds fall together. Inflation shocks, rate volatility, geopolitical events, and liquidity stress have all exposed the limits of relying solely on long-only equity and core bonds.

They go on to talk about alts not as "return engines" but as tools that can fill portfolio gaps. The gap in the context for today's post is how to build the 40 or whatever percentage not allocated to plain vanilla equities. There's even a shoutout to litigation finance (we've looked at this a couple of times) which at this point doesn't exist in a wrapper with daily liquidity. "Liquid alts are most useful when they are mapped to a specific portfolio role." How often do we talk about this point? A lot, because it should be an obvious conclusion. 

Adam Grossman weighed in at Morningstar about his concerns for a coming lost decade. A key to success from 2000-2009 was knowing where else to look. I have no idea if we are going to have another lost decade but the process of planning in case we do should have started a long time ago.

A final note, in Friday's recap, I should have included how the autocallable funds did. We've talked about them some so it makes sense to check in when the market does poorly.

ACYN is from First Trust and pretty new. ACYN targets an 11% "yield" which is lower than the others, Copilot says that ACYN should have less sensitivity to equity declines. That panned out of Friday anyway. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.