One little push-pull I'm running into is that I'm selecting quality securities that appreciate; the "Active Satellite", but I'm sizing positions smaller for risk mgmt. Desire to increase size is there, but it has to be balanced into the overall picture & the portfolio as a WHOLE.

Generally, a normal #ActII #Center investing portfolio is tailored to the individual, but there are some broad principles that I've applied across portfolios. "Passive Plus" generally has a Passive Core & Active Satellite construction with a broad diversified asset allocation.
The Passive Core is usually around 75-80% of the portfolio consisting of low-cost tax efficient index ETF's covering most equity asset classes (Large Core, Large Value, Mid Core, Mid Value, Small Core, Small Value, EM, Int'l LG/SM) w/exposure to ALL at ALL TIMES.
One caveat to the "Passive Core" is that I use (held passively) a very small number of actively managed mutual funds within that 80% of the portfolio. These are GROWTH funds that worth the small extra expense & I have one manager for US Large and Small US Growth & Int'l Large
This part of the portfolio is truly "Core". It doesn't move. It doesn't get sold aside from rebalancing. It didn't get sold in the depths of March. There is a possibility these positions will be in place for decades. The asset quilt changes every year, so we are exposed to ALL
The most important part about this "Passive Core" of the portfolio is the low-cost exposure to the entire world in thousands of securities, which is an important piece of risk mgmt. It's ok when one asset class is underperforming because the chances are several others overperform
The "Active Satellite" is generally about 20% of the portfolio. This is where there is flexibility to be very specific with the combination of single security selection, dividend stocks, and sector/thematic/concentrated funds based on specific needs. This is where alpha lives.
I would also include REITs in the "single security selection" and "Active Satellite". There is a very small number of either thematic ETFs (gaming, E-sports), sector (healthcare, industrials), opportunistic "Growth at Value" price dislocations on only the HIGHEST QUALITY Co's.
Due to the small number of securities involved in terms of single name holdings (yes I understand risk & that the true "PASSIVE ONLY" could be having strokes reading this) generally these are placed across portfolios and held for a long time. My "Active Satellite" is pretty slow!
So, what I have found is that the "Passive Plus" strategy accomplishes many things: Passive & Active complement each other, risk mgmt through diversification FIRST does NOT kill performance, and flexibility in the "Active Satellite" allows for performance enhancement over "Core"
I understand the Quants, traders, the "Value is dead" crowd, and many others would take issue with all or part of my investment philosophy, but there is nothing that can alter the basics I've outlined because I have seen them effectively implemented across millions of dollars.
I've seen the mechanics of real money in real time through the worst crash in our lifetimes aside from the GFC. I've seen how assets can be positioned in very specific ways for very specific needs or a combination of all; preservation, growth, income, etc. "Passive Plus" works.

More from For later read

This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like

1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?