Written by David L. Blain, CFA — CEO, BlueSky Wealth Advisors
Passive investing has been one of the best developments for investors over the last several decades. Low cost ETFs have made it easier to build diversified portfolios, avoid unnecessary trading, reduce expenses, and stay invested through good markets and bad ones. That is a good thing, and nothing in this note should be read as an argument for active trading, market timing, or jumping in and out of funds based on headlines. Most investors hurt themselves doing that.
But somewhere along the way, a lot of people took a reasonable idea and stretched it too far. They started to believe that passive investing means you can buy an ETF, forget about it, and assume the index provider is doing something neutral, obvious, and permanent in the background. Unfortunately, that is not quite right.
An index is a set of choices, not a neutral default
An index is not handed down from the mountain, like Moses and the Ten Commandments. Someone creates it, writes the rules, and decides which companies qualify, which countries qualify, how much weight each security gets, and when changes are made. Those decisions may be rules based, transparent, and disciplined, but they are still decisions. No one really owns “the market.” They own a particular version of the market, designed by a particular index provider, using a particular methodology.
When does your ETF actually own a new company?
SpaceX is a good example. If SpaceX becomes public, investors may naturally assume that any broad U.S. stock ETF will eventually own it at roughly the same time. That is not necessarily true. S&P has not changed the S&P 500 rules to fast track a newly public company like SpaceX into the index, so funds that track the S&P 500, such as SPY, IVV, and VOO, would not be expected to own it immediately. Other index families may handle it differently, especially if their rules allow faster inclusion of very large newly public companies.
That does not mean one index provider is right and another is wrong. It means the methodology matters. The same company can enter different indexes at different times, in different weights, and with different float adjustments. A passive investor may end up with exposure sooner or later depending not on an investment decision they made directly, but on the rules of the index their ETF happens to track.
What “emerging markets” actually means today
Emerging markets are another good example. Many investors still think of emerging markets in the old BRIC framework: Brazil, Russia, India, China, plus commodities, demographics, a rising middle class, and the next billion consumers. That is still part of the broad opportunity set, except Russia is essentially gone from world markets, but it is not what the standard emerging markets index looks like today.
The MSCI Emerging Markets Index is now heavily concentrated. At the time of this writing (June, 2026), Taiwan Semiconductor, TSMC, is about 14.5% of the index by itself. The top 10 holdings are about 39%. Information Technology is over 43%. Taiwan and South Korea together are roughly half the index. China is still meaningful, but it is no longer the whole story. India and Brazil are much smaller pieces than many investors probably assume.
So when someone says, “I own emerging markets,” what do they actually own? They may think they own a broad basket of developing economies. In reality, they may own a very large position in Taiwan, South Korea, semiconductors, the AI supply chain, and China, with smaller allocations to India, Brazil, commodities, and frontier market demographics. That may be fine. It may even be attractive. But it is not the same exposure most people probably have in mind when they hear the phrase “emerging markets.”
Buying ETFs is easy. Building a portfolio isn’t.
This is where the do-it-yourself passive investing conversation gets more complicated. Buying low cost ETFs is not hard. Building a coherent portfolio is harder. Understanding the differences between index providers is harder. Knowing when a fund has drifted away from the role you expected it to play is harder. Knowing whether concentration is acceptable, accidental, or excessive is harder. And knowing what to do about it without turning into a short term trader is harder still.
The danger is not passive investing. The danger is passive thinking.
Questions worth asking about every fund you own:
A good investment process still asks basic questions:
What is this fund supposed to do in my portfolio?
What index does it track?
How is that index built?
What are the top holdings?
What are the country and sector exposures?
Has the fund become more concentrated over time?
Does it still match the reason we bought it in the first place?
Those questions do not require panic, but they do require attention. The right answer is not to abandon ETFs or try to outguess the market every quarter. For most investors, that would be a mistake. The better answer is to respect the fact that even a passive portfolio needs ongoing oversight, not because we are trying to predict the next market move, but because we need to make sure the portfolio still owns what we think it owns.
A tool, not a replacement for judgment
Passive investing can be a very good tool. But like any tool, it can be misused. The ETF label does not remove the need for judgment. The index name does not tell the whole story. And “buy and hold” should not mean “buy and stop paying attention.”
The more successful passive investing becomes, the more important this becomes. Trillions of dollars now follow indexes. Index methodology decisions can shape real capital flows. Inclusion dates, eligibility rules, float adjustments, country classifications, and sector weights all matter. None of this means investors need to trade more, but it does mean they need to understand more.
A message from David L. Blain, CFA — CEO, BlueSky Wealth Advisors
Here’s something your accountant probably never said out loud: you don’t have to be the one who pays the tax.
You can move income legally to a family member who pays at a lower rate, to a charity that pays nothing at all, or into a structure where the tax simply never happens. The tax code allows all of it. Most people just never ask and leave a significant amount of money on the table as a result.
That’s what Divert means. And it’s D number two in our 5 D’s of Tax Planning series.
If you haven’t watched the intro or the Defer video yet, start there. But here’s the short version of the core idea: once income lands on a tax return you have to sign, your options shrink considerably. The entire goal of Divert is to reroute income before it gets there.
In this video, I cover:
The three destinations for diverted income: family members in lower brackets, charitable structures, and legal entities where the income is never recognized as taxable in the first place
How employing your children in your business can produce a deduction at your rate and income taxed at their rate
The three main charitable tools: Donor Advised Funds, Qualified Charitable Distributions, and Charitable Remainder Trusts
Advanced Divert strategies for the right circumstances, including GRATs, SLATs, ILITs, dynasty trusts, Private Placement Life Insurance, and more
The strategies in this video range from straightforward to sophisticated. All of them are legal. None of them require doing anything aggressive: just planning ahead with the right structure in place.
The Second D of Tax Planning: How to Keep Income Off a Tax Return
The following strategies are referenced in this video. All require professional guidance to implement properly. This is not tax or legal advice.
Trust Strategies
GRAT (Grantor Retained Annuity Trust): Transfer appreciation to heirs gift-tax free
SLAT (Spousal Lifetime Access Trust): Spouse retains indirect access while assets leave the taxable estate
ILIT (Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust): Life insurance proceeds pass outside the taxable estate
QPRT (Qualified Personal Residence Trust): Transfer a home to heirs at a discounted gift tax value
Dynasty Trust: Multi-generational income shifting and asset protection
529 Superfunding: Contribute up to $95,000 per beneficiary (as of current year 2026) in a single year using five-year gift tax averaging (Source: IRS)
Advanced Structures
PPLI (Private Placement Life Insurance): Wrap investments inside a life insurance structure so income is never taxable
Non-Grantor Trust: Trust pays its own tax, keeping income off your personal return
DAPT (Domestic Asset Protection Trust): Asset protection from creditors while retaining some access
CLT / CLAT (Charitable Lead Annuity Trust): Charity receives income first; heirs receive the remainder
Trust Decanting: Modify the terms of an irrevocable trust by pouring assets into a new trust
FLP / FLP Discount (Family Limited Partnership): Transfer business or investment interests at a valuation discount
Charitable Tools
DAF (Donor Advised Fund): Contribute appreciated assets, take the deduction now, give to charity over time
QCD (Qualified Charitable Distribution): For ages 70½ and older, direct up to $111,000/year (as of current year 2026) from an IRA straight to charity (Source: IRS)
CRT (Charitable Remainder Trust): Trust sells assets tax-free, you receive income for life or a set period, remainder passes to charity
A message from David L. Blain, CFA — CEO, BlueSky Wealth Advisors
Before you write any large check to the IRS, ask one question: is there a legal way to push this out?
Not skip it. Not cheat. Just push it out.
Most people never ask. But the ones who do, and who have advisors who actually know the answer, may keep a lot more of what they earn. Because a dollar you defer isn’t a dollar you lose. It’s a dollar that keeps working for you. And depending on how long you defer it, and what happens to tax rates in the meantime, you might end up paying significantly less than you would have today. Or in some cases, nothing at all.
This is the first D: Defer. And it’s more powerful than most people give it credit for.
If you haven’t watched the intro yet, start there. It lays out the full philosophy and explains why the order of these strategies matters as much as the strategies themselves. But here’s the quick version: most people think about taxes backwards. Deductions come last in sophisticated planning, not first. The first question is always: can we defer this?
In this video, I cover:
What tax deferral actually means and why timing creates a completely different outcome on the same tax bill
The three buckets where deferral lives: retirement accounts, transaction structuring, and investment structures
Installment sales, 1031 exchanges, and QSBS exclusions explained in plain terms
A “wait, what?” deep dive on Qualified Opportunity Zones, including recent changes to the program, a key 2026 deadline for existing investors, and a partnership timing strategy most CPAs don’t know exists
If you’re sitting on a significant gain and want to know whether deferral strategies apply to your situation, feel free to reach out to us at BlueSky and we’d be glad to help.
The First D of Tax Planning: How Deferral Keeps More Money Working for You
A message from David L. Blain, CFA — CEO, BlueSky Wealth Advisors
Here’s something that might surprise you: the most common tax planning advice you’re getting is also the least powerful thing you can do.
Most CPAs lead with deductions. And deductions matter, but if that’s where your tax strategy starts and ends, you’re working the problem backwards. For business owners, high-income earners, and anyone navigating a liquidity event, that approach quietly costs you more than you realize.
This video kicks off a five-part series on how we actually think about tax planning at BlueSky, and why the order in which you apply strategies matters just as much as the strategies themselves. We call it the Five D’s of Tax Planning.
In this intro video, I cover:
Why reactive tax planning (“income hits, call the CPA, find deductions”) leaves serious money on the table
The difference between a proactive tax structure and a simple tax filing
Who this series is designed for, and why most people have never seen tax planning approached this way
A preview of the Five D’s: Defer, Divert, Displace, Deploy, and Deduct
If your tax bill never seems to get smaller no matter what you do, this series was built for you.
If your CPA hasn’t already discussed these tax-saving techniques with you, reach out to us, and we’d be glad to walk you through them.
A message from David L. Blain, CFA — CEO, BlueSky Wealth Advisors
Former U.S. Army Ranger & Special Operations Captain The headlines right now are loud: escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, oil prices swinging wildly, and markets reacting to every new development.
When the world feels unstable, the instinct is often to take action. The urge to sell, to move to cash, or to change the plan…sometimes, it feels like action equals safety.
But, as someone who has led soldiers through fast-moving, high-stakes environments, I know that instinct well. And I know exactly why you shouldn’t necessarily follow it.
In this short video, I draw on my experience as a U.S. Army combat veteran to share a perspective you won’t often hear from a financial advisor: why the moments that feel most urgent to act are often the most important moments to hold your ground.
I quickly cover:
Why emotional decisions in volatile markets can be costly ones.
The three questions every investor should ask themselves before making any move.
Why trying to avoid the market’s worst days can mean missing its best ones too.
What a well-built portfolio is actually designed to do, and why volatility is part of the equation, not a reason to abandon it.
This one is worth three minutes of your time — especially right now.
Stock markets are poised to finish with double-digit gains for the sixth time in seven years. The sole interruption came in 2022 during the inflation-driven decline, leaving many investors with portfolios that have grown substantially.
There’s a common saying that anticipation often exceeds reality. While strong market returns are undeniably beneficial for portfolios and financial objectives, they also tend to make investors anxious once achieved. This is particularly true with major indices trading near record highs and valuations nearing levels last seen during the dot-com era.
Throughout 2025, several key issues facing investors reached inflection points. Inflation, though still impacting households, has settled around the 3% level. Tariffs remain elevated compared to historical norms and drove market volatility in 2025, yet they haven’t triggered the economic disruption many anticipated. The Federal Reserve has maintained its rate-cutting cycle while the economy has expanded at a solid pace.
Taking a broader view, one of the most valuable insights heading into 2026 is that investors’ greatest fears frequently don’t materialize. The recession widely anticipated since 2022 never arrived. Historical patterns show that for every genuine market disruption like the 2020 pandemic or 2008 financial crisis, numerous feared “black swans” – unexpected, rare events – fail to occur. The true test for long-term investors isn’t forecasting which events will prove significant, but rather maintaining both perspective and discipline regardless of market conditions.
Looking toward 2026, the investment environment offers both promising opportunities and notable challenges. Headlines will likely focus on topics including the midterm election, upcoming Federal Reserve leadership transition, AI’s trajectory, mounting concerns about loan performance, U.S. dollar movements, and more. What truly matters isn’t whether investors can anticipate every development, but whether portfolios are structured to navigate uncertainty while pursuing long-term growth. The following seven themes can help frame investor thinking about the year ahead.
Multiple asset classes are contributing to portfolio performance heading into 2026
A significant development for investors approaching 2026 is that numerous asset classes are delivering positive portfolio contributions. This contrasts with much of the previous decade when U.S. equities substantially outperformed global markets. Throughout 2025, international equities have exceeded U.S. market performance, with developed market stocks (MSCI EAFE) and emerging market stocks (MSCI EM) each advancing approximately 30% in U.S. dollar terms. Two primary drivers explain this performance: strengthening growth projections across many economies and dollar weakness, which enhances returns for U.S.-based investors.
Fixed income investments are also fulfilling an important stabilizing function within portfolios. The Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index has delivered 7% returns year-to-date as the Federal Reserve maintains its rate-cutting trajectory and inflation moderates. Higher-quality bonds have fulfilled their intended purpose by generating income and cushioning stock market volatility during uncertain market periods.
Looking ahead to 2026, this reinforces the value of maintaining balance and diversification. Although reacting to headlines with sudden portfolio adjustments might seem appealing, investors who adhere to their financial plans are positioned to benefit.
Stock market valuations are climbing toward dot-com era peaks
Strong market performance over recent years has pushed stock valuations progressively higher. The S&P 500 currently reflects a price-to-earnings ratio of 22.5x, approaching the record high of 24.5x established during the dot-com bubble. By definition, this indicates investors are paying more for each dollar of anticipated future earnings compared to recent periods.
Concerns about valuations typically arise when they diverge from underlying business fundamentals. During the dot-com bubble, for instance, valuations reached historic extremes far exceeding actual revenues and earnings, as investors favored any company associated with the “new economy.” While today’s valuations appear expensive due to AI enthusiasm and continued economic expansion, corporate fundamentals remain solid. Earnings have grown at a healthy rate, with consensus estimates from LSEG suggesting this trend could persist.
Understanding what elevated valuations reveal and what they don’t is crucial. High valuations don’t necessarily signal imminent market declines, as markets can sustain elevated levels for extended timeframes. While some worry about an “AI bubble,” not every bubble ends in a dramatic collapse. Some deflate gradually as fundamentals catch up, which distinguishes the dot-com crash of the late 1990s and early 2000s from cloud computing’s evolution over the past decade.
Nevertheless, elevated valuations do indicate that future returns may be more moderate, since markets have already incorporated expected growth. This can also heighten market sensitivity to disappointments. Markets in this environment are often described as “priced for perfection,” meaning even small earnings misses or weaker economic data can trigger volatility. This suggests that selectivity and maintaining diversified exposure across different market segments – including various asset classes, sectors, sizes, styles, and more – will become increasingly important.
Artificial intelligence is propelling economic expansion and market returns
No single development has captured investor focus quite like AI. Capital spending on AI infrastructure achieved remarkable levels in 2025, with total investment easily reaching trillions of dollars. This encompasses constructing new data centers, acquiring equipment like GPUs, and recruiting AI researchers.
Certain investments involve arrangements that appear circular. For instance, Nvidia invested up to $100 billion in OpenAI, which subsequently purchases millions of Nvidia chips. These interconnected relationships have sparked questions about whether the AI ecosystem can maintain itself if enthusiasm diminishes.
These developments highlight the reality that AI infrastructure requires resources few companies can afford independently. The critical question is whether the technology will ultimately create sufficient value to warrant the massive expenditures. Currently, AI investment represents a substantial contributor to overall economic activity.
Survey data indicates businesses are increasingly incorporating AI into operations. According to the Census Bureau’s Business Trend and Outlook Survey, the percentage of businesses reporting AI usage more than doubled from 4% in September 2023 to 10% in September 2025. The share of businesses expecting to use AI within the next six months increased similarly, from 6% to 14% during this period.1 While these figures have jumped significantly, substantial room for growth remains.
For investors, AI represents both opportunity and risk. The Magnificent 7 technology companies continue driving market gains, powered by infrastructure investments and expanding AI adoption. However, this concentration creates exposure. These companies now comprise roughly one-third of the S&P 500, meaning most investors hold significant exposure whether they recognize it or not.
The question isn’t whether AI will reshape the economy – that transformation is underway. Rather, it’s whether current valuations appropriately reflect realistic timeframes for generating returns on these substantial investments. Historical precedents from the 1860s railroad boom to the 1990s dot-com era demonstrate that transformative technologies often follow comparable patterns: initial doubt, rapid adoption, market excitement, and eventual integration throughout the broader economy.
The important takeaway is that markets frequently overestimate how quickly profits can materialize. In reality, most investors likely hold AI exposure either directly or through major indices, so recognizing this concentration and maintaining an appropriate asset allocation aligned with long-term objectives will be essential in the coming year.
Economic expansion is moderating but remains in positive territory
Economic growth momentum has decelerated but continues exceeding many pessimistic projections. U.S. GDP experienced a minor negative contraction during the first quarter of 2025, but recovered swiftly as tariff-related uncertainty subsided. The 3.8% second-quarter growth rate not only surpassed expectations but ranks among the strongest quarterly readings in years.
Regarding global GDP, the International Monetary Fund forecasts growth could moderate slightly from 3.2% in 2024 to 3.1% in 2026. Advanced economies are projected to expand around 1.5%, while emerging markets are expected to sustain growth above 4%.2
Despite positive aggregate figures, economic expansion has been uneven across income groups and sectors. This phenomenon is frequently described as a “two-speed” or “K-shaped” economy, where some segments flourish while others face challenges.
In the current environment, this divergence stems primarily from technology trends, as those positioned to capitalize on AI growth may experience stronger employment prospects than those in traditional industries. However, factors beyond AI matter, including consumer debt, auto loan delinquencies, and other financial pressures that influence whether individuals benefit from economic expansion.
Regarding longer-term economic prospects, perhaps the most significant question is whether productivity will accelerate due to recent technological progress. Productivity measures worker output, both quality and quantity, within a given timeframe. Historically, improved equipment, training, and education have driven productivity gains, which fuel genuine economic growth.
As illustrated in the chart, productivity growth averaged just 1.2% annually during the 2010s. The promise of AI and emerging technologies is enhanced worker output. However, this transformation typically unfolds more slowly than anticipated and won’t necessarily benefit all workers equally. For investors, the potential for improved productivity means profit margins could strengthen, supporting both the broader economy and investment portfolios.
Tariff implications remain unclear
Although tariffs primarily drove stock market fluctuations in 2025, their economic consequences have been mixed. One continuing puzzle is how minimal the immediate tariff impact has been on inflation and growth. Despite tariff costs rising tenfold compared to prior-year averages, measures like the Consumer Price Index have increased only marginally.
Several explanations exist for why tariffs haven’t produced their expected effects. First, numerous announced tariffs were promptly paused or reduced. Second, many businesses absorbed initial tariff costs by maintaining stable prices and importing goods before tariff implementation. Finally, robust consumer spending, fiscal stimulus, and strong AI-sector growth helped counterbalance any negative growth impact. Additionally, the Supreme Court may rule in 2026 on the legality of the economic rationale used for these tariffs.
For long-term investors, these recent developments, combined with the initial 2018 trade negotiations, demonstrate that tariffs remain part of the government’s policy toolkit. Rather than viewing tariffs as a fundamental shift in global order, they instead represent instruments for advancing broader policy objectives. While tariffs aren’t disappearing, their influence on daily market movements could diminish.
Midterm election and federal debt will dominate 2026 discussions
Beyond trade policy changes, 2025 witnessed a historic 43-day government shutdown and persistent concerns regarding budget deficit size. Simultaneously, the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) tax legislation has provided greater clarity for investors and taxpayers.
The new year begins with additional Washington uncertainty as the short-term funding bill expires at January’s end. This creates potential for another negotiation cycle that could produce another government shutdown. Subsequently, some investors anticipate households and businesses will benefit from larger tax refunds due to OBBBA provisions including full research and development expensing.
Further ahead, investor attention will likely shift toward the midterm election and its potential implications for tariffs, regulation, government spending, and other policies. The chart demonstrates that midterm election years have historically produced healthy returns, averaging 8.6% since 1933, though slightly trailing non-election and presidential election years.
Nevertheless, the expanding national debt remains many investors’ primary concern. The reality is that the historically elevated national debt, currently hovering around 120% of GDP for total debt, or exceeding $36 trillion, is unlikely to be resolved soon. The OBBBA is estimated to potentially increase national debt by over $4 trillion within the next decade. Currently, the national debt represents over $106,000 per American.
For long-term investors, recognizing what we can and cannot control is essential. The national debt has presented challenges for decades, yet making investment decisions based solely on these concerns would have resulted in suboptimal portfolio positioning. While U.S. federal debt sustainability may influence economic growth and interest rates, history demonstrates this shouldn’t primarily drive portfolio decisions.
Instead, what investors can control immediately is understanding key tax legislation changes and their long-term planning implications. These include permanent lower tax rates from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, sustained higher estate tax exemption levels, increased SALT deduction caps, and numerous other provisions. Now represents an ideal time to review tax strategies ensuring full advantage of these new regulations.
Federal Reserve policy will continue supporting economic conditions
The Fed resumed rate cuts in September following an earlier pause. Entering 2026, monetary policy direction may become less predictable. This reflects the fact that runaway inflation risk may no longer be the primary consideration as labor market weakening has gained importance. This environment requires policy rate adjustments rather than the dramatic shifts witnessed in 2022.
An additional complication involves Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s term ending on May 15, 2026, opening the door for new Fed leadership. The White House is expected to name a successor who may support additional rate reductions aligned with the administration’s economic agenda favoring lower interest rates.
The chart illustrates that economic performance has been solid across Fed Chairs appointed by both parties. It’s worth noting the Fed only influences the “short end” of the yield curve, meaning interest rates closely tied to the federal funds rate. Long-term interest rates depend on numerous other factors including economic growth, inflation, and productivity. Rather than tracking the Fed’s every action and analyzing every statement, investors should maintain focus on these longer-term trends to understand their impact on interest rates and bonds.
Keeping perspective throughout 2026
Entering 2026, investors confront a familiar challenge: balancing worries with the historical reality that markets have consistently rewarded patient, disciplined investors across time. The list of potential concerns remains constant, yet history indicates that for every crisis disrupting markets, many more feared events never occur. What distinguishes successful long-term investors isn’t predicting which concerns prove most significant, but maintaining balance throughout all market cycle phases.
The bottom line? Strong market returns have been delivered, but elevated valuations combined with moderating global growth point toward more modest 2026 expectations. Rather than trying to time markets based on any single concern, investors should prioritize maintaining balanced portfolios structured for multiple potential outcomes.
Copyright (c) 2025 Clearnomics, Inc. All rights reserved. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not necessarily complete and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness, or correctness of the information and opinions contained herein. The views and the other information provided are subject to change without notice. All reports posted on or via www.clearnomics.com or any affiliated websites, applications, or services are issued without regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific recipient and are not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future results. Company fundamentals and earnings may be mentioned occasionally, but should not be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold the company’s stock. Predictions, forecasts, and estimates for any and all markets should not be construed as recommendations to buy, sell, or hold any security–including mutual funds, futures contracts, and exchange traded funds, or any similar instruments. The text, images, and other materials contained or displayed in this report are proprietary to Clearnomics, Inc. and constitute valuable intellectual property. All unauthorized reproduction or other use of material from Clearnomics, Inc. shall be deemed willful infringement(s) of this copyright and other proprietary and intellectual property rights, including but not limited to, rights of privacy. Clearnomics, Inc. expressly reserves all rights in connection with its intellectual property, including without limitation the right to block the transfer of its products and services and/or to track usage thereof, through electronic tracking technology, and all other lawful means, now known or hereafter devised. Clearnomics, Inc. reserves the right, without further notice, to pursue to the fullest extent allowed by the law any and all criminal and civil remedies for the violation of its rights.
Winston Churchill is often credited with saying that “it is more agreeable to have the power to give than to receive.” As the year draws to a close, many individuals reflect on their philanthropic contributions and how charitable giving fits into their broader financial strategy. Strategic charitable planning serves dual purposes: advancing philanthropic objectives while enhancing tax efficiency. The key consideration extends beyond simply making donations—it involves structuring gifts to optimize both the benefit to chosen causes and the advantages within your comprehensive financial plan.
This year offers distinctive opportunities for charitable strategy. Recent legislative changes through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) have introduced provisions affecting these decisions. Furthermore, with the December 31 deadline for current tax year contributions approaching, now is an ideal time to evaluate your giving approach. Properly structuring charitable contributions can elevate generosity from a standalone act to an integral component of your overall planning framework.
Record levels of household wealth create new opportunities
According to the National Philanthropic Trust, charitable contributions in America totaled $593 billion during 2024, representing a 6.3% rise from the previous year.1
This demonstrates that philanthropy continues to hold significance for numerous families, despite a declining percentage of Americans making donations in recent years. The chart shown illustrates how household wealth has grown consistently alongside stock market gains and economic expansion. Rising income levels and accumulated wealth, combined with tax code modifications, have established fresh incentives for charitable contributions.
Philanthropy also serves a vital function in estate planning strategies. Charitable bequests avoid estate taxation, making them an effective method for decreasing estate tax obligations while advancing meaningful causes. When estates reach taxable thresholds, combining lifetime donations with charitable bequests can substantially minimize the tax burden transferred to beneficiaries.
Beyond financial considerations, charitable giving helps establish an enduring legacy, strengthens family principles across generations, and reduces lifetime tax obligations. For numerous families, philanthropy provides opportunities to engage younger generations in substantive conversations about principles and responsible stewardship. The complexity for investors lies not in the intent to give, but in determining the most effective approach, which demands careful planning.
Legislative changes elevate the importance of timing and structure
The OBBBA has introduced significant modifications affecting charitable contributions. The most substantial change involves expanding the population eligible to itemize tax returns through raising the state and local tax (SALT) deduction limit from $10,000 to $40,000. Given that charitable deductions require itemization, this development amplifies their significance in contemporary tax planning.
Furthermore, a limited window exists from 2025 through 2029 to optimize gift timing and structure. Beginning in 2026, the OBBBA establishes a threshold for charitable deductions at 0.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) for those who itemize. This means only contributions exceeding 0.5% of AGI will qualify for deduction. For instance, an individual with $200,000 in AGI could only deduct donations surpassing $1,000 (0.5% of $200,000).
A strategy employed by some investors to address this limitation involves “bunching,” which consolidates multiple years’ worth of charitable contributions into one tax year to surpass the deduction threshold. This technique has gained traction since the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act substantially increased the standard deduction, thereby reducing the proportion of households that itemize.
Selecting appropriate assets for donation represents another critical factor. Donating significantly appreciated securities provides three distinct tax advantages: bypassing capital gains taxes from direct sales, eliminating future appreciation from the taxable estate, and generating ordinary income deductions. For ordinary income deduction purposes, factors include whether the receiving organization qualifies as a public or private charity and the donor’s projected AGI. This “triple benefit” proves particularly valuable during years with substantial capital gains, such as when equity compensation becomes available or following business sales, especially when offsetting losses are unavailable.
Incorporating charitable giving into portfolio rebalancing strategies can further improve efficiency. Some investors prioritize donating appreciated holdings from taxable accounts, then replace those positions through purchases in tax-advantaged accounts. This method preserves target asset allocation while optimizing tax advantages.
Common structures for charitable contributions Various charitable giving mechanisms serve distinct objectives, and choosing the appropriate option depends on individual circumstances and objectives. The following represents several prevalent examples, though not a comprehensive inventory:
Donor-advised funds (DAFs) have experienced substantial growth, with total assets surpassing $250 billion.1
DAFs operate similarly to charitable investment vehicles: contributions generate immediate tax deductions, and donors subsequently recommend grants to charities over time. Contributed funds can be invested and appreciate tax-free while donors determine distribution timing and recipients. DAFs prove especially beneficial during years when maximizing deductions holds particular importance.
Under current tax regulations, donors can structure DAF contributions to exceed the 0.5% AGI threshold mentioned previously. DAFs also offer greater simplicity compared to alternative options, broadening accessibility to more donors.
Qualified charitable distributions (QCDs) provide another avenue for individuals aged 70½ or older holding traditional IRAs. QCDs permit direct transfers up to $108,000 for tax year 2025 from IRAs to charitable organizations. This satisfies required minimum distribution (RMD) obligations while excluding transferred amounts from taxable income. QCDs deliver tax benefits independent of itemization status, making them valuable during years when itemized deductions offer less advantage.
Charitable remainder trusts (CRTs) offer an additional mechanism for supporting philanthropic objectives within estate planning frameworks. CRTs involve transferring assets into trusts that distribute income to beneficiaries for specified periods, with remaining assets directed to charity. This proves particularly useful for highly appreciated assets, as trusts can liquidate them without triggering immediate capital gains taxes for donors.
As with other trust instruments, careful attention to structure is essential. For instance, certain retained powers might trigger asset inclusion in the grantor’s taxable estate. Additionally, designating beneficiaries other than the grantor or spouse could initiate gift tax consequences.
For individuals with substantial resources and long-term philanthropic aspirations, additional considerations might include:
Private foundations, offering maximum control and family governance frameworks but requiring higher administrative oversight, minimum distribution obligations, and excise taxes on investment earnings
Charitable lead trusts, providing income to charitable organizations for specified periods before transferring assets to heirs
Supporting organizations, collaborating closely with particular public charities
Pooled income funds provided by certain charitable institutions
These examples represent commonly utilized charitable giving structures, though additional options and modifications may suit specific circumstances. Consulting with a trusted advisor can help identify which approach best aligns with individual objectives.
Integrating philanthropy into comprehensive financial planning Optimal charitable planning incorporates giving into broader financial strategies rather than treating it as isolated from other financial decisions. This comprehensive perspective considers how philanthropy intersects with investment management, tax planning, retirement income strategies, and estate planning.
Most significantly, engaging children and grandchildren in philanthropic decision-making generates opportunities for discussing family priorities, rationales for supporting particular causes, and methods for assessing nonprofit effectiveness. These discussions often become the most valuable elements of wealth planning, helping ensure your family’s principles and stewardship ethic endure across generations.
The bottom line? As year-end approaches and recent tax legislation creates both opportunities and complexities, optimizing the timing, structure, and mechanisms for charitable contributions becomes increasingly important. This optimization can enhance both philanthropic impact and achievement of financial objectives.
Copyright (c) 2025 Clearnomics, Inc. All rights reserved. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not necessarily complete and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness, or correctness of the information and opinions contained herein. The views and the other information provided are subject to change without notice. All reports posted on or via www.clearnomics.com or any affiliated websites, applications, or services are issued without regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific recipient and are not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future results. Company fundamentals and earnings may be mentioned occasionally, but should not be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold the company’s stock. Predictions, forecasts, and estimates for any and all markets should not be construed as recommendations to buy, sell, or hold any security–including mutual funds, futures contracts, and exchange traded funds, or any similar instruments. The text, images, and other materials contained or displayed in this report are proprietary to Clearnomics, Inc. and constitute valuable intellectual property. All unauthorized reproduction or other use of material from Clearnomics, Inc. shall be deemed willful infringement(s) of this copyright and other proprietary and intellectual property rights, including but not limited to, rights of privacy. Clearnomics, Inc. expressly reserves all rights in connection with its intellectual property, including without limitation the right to block the transfer of its products and services and/or to track usage thereof, through electronic tracking technology, and all other lawful means, now known or hereafter devised. Clearnomics, Inc. reserves the right, without further notice, to pursue to the fullest extent allowed by the law any and all criminal and civil remedies for the violation of its rights.
Ensuring that retirement savings can sustain a lengthy retirement remains the paramount concern for current retirees and those nearing retirement. This objective has become more complex due to recent years of inflation, which has diminished the value of cash reserves. Currently, costs remain high in critical spending categories that most affect retirees, such as healthcare, housing, and basic necessities.
Although equities and fixed income securities are well-suited to address this challenge, certain retirees may be conservative in their risk tolerance, while others may question whether their portfolios and savings can adequately counter rising living expenses. For those with long-term investment horizons, comprehending how inflation impacts retirement income and how to structure portfolios to preserve purchasing power continues to be critically important. What key considerations should current and future retirees understand about managing today’s financial landscape?
Experienced inflation may exceed Social Security cost-of-living adjustments
Recently, the Social Security Administration announced a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for 2026, indicating ongoing inflation pressures. Although any increase provides some benefit, the inflation measured by economists frequently diverges from what individuals experience in their daily lives. In particular, this adjustment will increase the average monthly benefit to $2,064, representing just a $56 rise. This is modest compared to the 8.7% adjustment in 2023, which marked the largest increase since 1981.
The difficulty for retirees lies in the fact that although the pace of price increases may decelerate, prices themselves seldom decline. The COLA calculation uses a Consumer Price Index variant called the CPI-W, which monitors prices for working-class households. Nevertheless, this metric fails to recognize that retirees frequently encounter different inflation rates compared to younger workers. Healthcare expenses, housing costs, and other categories that constitute significant portions of retiree spending have frequently increased more rapidly than the overall index indicates.
For instance, medical care services increased 3.9% over the past year, health insurance rose 4.2%, and home insurance jumped 7.5%. Food prices climbed 3.1% during this timeframe, but meat, poultry and fish increased 6.0%. The expense of full service restaurants also grew 4.2% higher.
Compounding this issue, Medicare Part B premiums may increase $21.50 per month in 2026, rising from $185 to $206.50 based on recent Medicare trustees’ projections. Because this amount is usually deducted directly from Social Security payments, this would consume roughly 38% of the average $56 COLA increase, ultimately leaving retirees with diminished purchasing power.
Extended life expectancies heighten the need for portfolio appreciation ]
Similar to how returns can compound over extended periods, losses also compound when a portfolio’s purchasing power fails to match inflation. This consideration carries additional weight today because retirees must prepare for potentially longer lifespans than earlier generations. Therefore, life expectancy represents a crucial factor in any financial strategy.
Based on current Social Security Administration statistics, 40-year-old men and women have average life expectancies of 79 and 83, respectively. Yet, for individuals reaching 65 years of age, their life expectancies extend to 83 and 86. These figures represent averages – individuals in the 90th percentile may live to 94 and 97, respectively.
Although the prospect of experiencing a longer, healthier retirement represents a remarkable achievement over the past century, the distinction between a 20-year retirement and a 30-year or extended retirement carries significant implications for portfolio design and withdrawal approaches. This concept is frequently referred to as “longevity risk,” a challenge that is asymmetric because depleting funds during retirement creates far greater problems than bequeathing assets to family members or charitable organizations.
Therefore, although many emphasize income-producing investments such as fixed income securities for retirement planning, maintaining growth-focused assets like equities remains equally important. This also introduces financial complications that make careful planning increasingly valuable. Knowing how to design portfolios for multi-decade retirement horizons, while controlling withdrawal rates and adjusting to evolving market circumstances demands knowledge that extends well beyond basic guidelines.
Declining short-term rates will diminish cash account income
Recent Consumer Price Index information, which experienced delays due to the government shutdown, carries implications for Federal Reserve policy and broader interest rates. With inflation subsiding and employment conditions softening, the Fed is anticipated to continue progressively reducing policy rates. This transition, although beneficial for numerous economic sectors, will probably decrease the interest income generated from cash and money market accounts going forward.
For retirees who have relied upon interest earnings from their cash positions in recent years, this movement toward a lower interest rate climate may create difficulties. Although maintaining cash reserves for immediate expenses and emergencies continues to be important, depending excessively on cash results in forgoing the appreciation potential of equities and the compelling yields currently available across many fixed income sectors.
The pairing of moderating yet ongoing inflation with falling interest rates establishes a difficult landscape for conservative investors. Cash erodes in purchasing power due to inflation, and the interest it produces will decrease as the Fed proceeds with rate reductions. This elevates the importance for retirees to maintain a balanced portfolio incorporating growth-focused assets like equities, which have historically exceeded inflation over extended timeframes, together with fixed income securities that can deliver income and stability.
The bottom line? Although Social Security COLA offers some protection against inflation, retirees find it challenging to depend on this measure alone. Given increasing life expectancies and falling short-term interest rates, investors require portfolios capable of delivering both income and appreciation.
BlueSky Disclosures
Copyright (c) 2025 Clearnomics, Inc. All rights reserved. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not necessarily complete and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness, or correctness of the information and opinions contained herein. The views and the other information provided are subject to change without notice. All reports posted on or via www.clearnomics.com or any affiliated websites, applications, or services are issued without regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific recipient and are not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future results. Company fundamentals and earnings may be mentioned occasionally, but should not be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold the company’s stock. Predictions, forecasts, and estimates for any and all markets should not be construed as recommendations to buy, sell, or hold any security–including mutual funds, futures contracts, and exchange traded funds, or any similar instruments. The text, images, and other materials contained or displayed in this report are proprietary to Clearnomics, Inc. and constitute valuable intellectual property. All unauthorized reproduction or other use of material from Clearnomics, Inc. shall be deemed willful infringement(s) of this copyright and other proprietary and intellectual property rights, including but not limited to, rights of privacy. Clearnomics, Inc. expressly reserves all rights in connection with its intellectual property, including without limitation the right to block the transfer of its products and services and/or to track usage thereof, through electronic tracking technology, and all other lawful means, now known or hereafter devised. Clearnomics, Inc. reserves the right, without further notice, to pursue to the fullest extent allowed by the law any and all criminal and civil remedies for the violation of its rights.
Are you a novice investor looking to build your wealth through portfolio management? Or maybe you’re an experienced investor who wants to diversify their investments. Whatever your investment goals may be, it’s crucial to understand the different options available in the market.
One popular approach is investing in model portfolios, managed or mutual fund accounts. In this guide, we will dive into the pros and cons of model portfolios so you can decide whether they are the right choice for your investment strategy. Keep reading to learn more!
What Are Model Portfolios?
Model portfolios are pre-made investment portfolios that contain a mix of assets such as stocks, bonds, and cash. They are designed to cater to specific risk profiles and investment objectives. Financial professionals or robo-advisors create these portfolios and are typically made available to investors with varying risk tolerance levels and investment goals.
For example, an aggressive model portfolio may have a higher stock allocation, while a conservative one may have more bonds and cash holdings. Model portfolios are often used as a way for investors to diversify without actively managing their investments.
Pros of Model Portfolios
Model portfolios offer several benefits for investors, including the following:
Simplicity
One of the main pros of model portfolios is their simplicity. Since they are pre-made investment portfolios, investors do not have to spend time researching and selecting individual securities. This is especially beneficial for novice investors who may not know much about the market.
With model portfolios, all an investor has to do is choose a portfolio that aligns with their risk profile and investment goals. If you are a conservative investor looking for stable returns, you can choose a model portfolio with a higher allocation in bonds and cash. This simplicity also makes it easier to track and monitor your investments.
Diversification
Another advantage of model portfolios is diversification. They offer investors exposure to various asset management classes and investment advice, reducing the overall risk of their portfolio. This is especially useful during market volatility, as different assets will react differently to market changes.
For example, a portfolio with a mix of stocks and bonds may perform better during an economic downturn than a portfolio with only stocks. Diversification also helps spread risk and potential losses across different investments instead of being concentrated in one or two.
Cost-Effective
Portfolios models can often be a more cost-effective solution for investors. This is because they are designed to provide wide exposure to diverse asset classes without buying each security, which could rack up fees and transaction costs. By harnessing the power of economies of scale, model portfolios can lower the costs of buying numerous securities.
Furthermore, using automation and technology to manage these portfolios reduces overhead costs. Let’s take an example of an investor, Jane. If Jane were to invest in individual stocks, she would incur a fee for each trade she makes. On top of that, she would need to spend considerable time researching each stock. However, if Jane invests in a financial advisor, she benefits from diversification without the high fees or the time spent on research since the portfolio is professionally managed. This way, Jane gets the best of both worlds, saving time and money.
Professional Management
Model portfolios are typically managed by financial professionals or robo-advisors with expertise in portfolio management. This means that investors can benefit from the knowledge and experience of these professionals without having to manage their investments actively.
Professional management also helps make timely adjustments to the portfolio based on exchange traded funds conditions, ensuring that it stays aligned with the investor’s goals and risk profile. This takes the pressure off investors, especially during times of market volatility.
Time-Saving
As mentioned earlier, model portfolios can save investors time by eliminating the need for extensive research and active management. This is particularly beneficial for busy individuals who do not have the time to monitor their investments constantly. With asset managers, all an investor must select is a suitable portfolio and contribute mutual funds regularly. This simplicity and time-saving feature make model portfolios a great option for long-term investment strategies.
Cons of Model Portfolios
While model portfolios offer many benefits, there are a few downsides that investors should be aware of before investing. Some of the cons include the following:
Limited Customization
While model portfolios are designed to cater to a broad range of risk profiles and fixed income securities, they may not offer the level of customization that some investors might desire. The pre-set allocations of assets such as stocks, bonds, and cash may not align perfectly with an individual investor’s unique financial goals or circumstances. For instance, an investor with a strong knowledge of the tech industry might want a higher allocation of tech stocks than a standard model portfolio.
Alternatively, someone nearing retirement might require a specific blend of income-producing assets to support their lifestyle. In such cases, the inflexibility of model portfolios could potentially limit an investor’s ability to customize their investment strategy to suit their unique needs.
Regular Contributions Required
Model portfolios require regular contributions from investors to maintain the desired allocation of assets. This means that investors must commit to contributing a set amount at regular intervals, typically monthly or quarterly. While this may not be an issue for most investors, it could challenge those with irregular income streams or unpredictable cash flows.
For example, freelancers or individuals with seasonal work may not have a steady income to commit to regular contributions, making it difficult to maintain the desired asset allocation. In such cases, investors may need to explore other investment options that offer more flexibility regarding contribution amounts and frequency.
Lack of Control
A certain sense of control comes with picking out your stocks or bonds, feeling the thrill of the chase as you hunt for the next big thing. Well, my friend, you might have to bid adieu to this control when you choose model portfolios. In model portfolios, investment decisions are made by the portfolio managers or the algorithms that govern robo-advisors. As an investor, you surrender the reins to the professionals, and they drive your fiscal journey.
While this might liberate some from the time-consuming task of constant market monitoring, it also entails handing over your full trust to a third party. Let’s consider the case of Dan, an avid investor who’s spent years honing his skills and building an instinct for market trends. Dan prefers direct control over his investments, making timely decisions based on his market analysis. Unfortunately, the structure of model portfolios doesn’t cater to Dan’s hands-on approach, limiting his ability to make immediate changes based on his market predictions. Hence, for investors like Dan, this lack of control can be one of the significant downsides to using model portfolios.
Costs May Vary
While model portfolios generally offer lower costs than actively managed funds, the fees can still vary depending on the provider and the type of assets included. For instance, some providers may charge higher fees for including alternative investments such as real estate or private equity in their model portfolios. Similarly, robo-advisors may charge a higher fee for additional services such as tax-loss harvesting or financial planning. Investors must carefully review the fees associated with a particular model portfolio to ensure they get value for their money and do not overpay for unnecessary services.
Limited Returns
Model portfolios are designed to cater to a broad range of investors, meaning they may not be as tailored or focused as an individual’s investment strategy. As a result, the returns generated by model portfolios may not be as high as those from actively managed or individual stock portfolios. For instance, a young investor with a higher risk tolerance might want to allocate more significant portions of their portfolio to high-growth stocks, potentially leading to higher returns. However, model portfolios may not offer this level of customization, limiting the potential for higher returns.
Factors To Consider Before Investing in Model Portfolios
Before deciding to invest in model portfolios, investors should consider the following factors:
Risk Profile
When considering investing in model portfolios, one of the essential factors to consider is an individual’s risk profile. This refers to an investor’s willingness and ability to take on risk when making investment decisions. It is influenced by various factors such as age, financial goals, income, and personal circumstances.
Understanding your risk profile is crucial in determining which model portfolio suits you. For instance, a younger investor with a longer investment horizon and a higher risk tolerance may consider a more aggressive model portfolio, while an older investor closer to retirement age may opt for a less risky option. Ultimately, investors must carefully assess their risk profile before choosing a model portfolio to ensure it aligns with their financial goals and comfort level.
Investment Objectives
Another critical factor to consider before investing in model portfolios is an individual’s investment objectives. This refers to an investor’s specific financial goals, such as building wealth, generating income, or preserving capital. Model portfolios may be designed with a particular objective in mind, and investors need to align their objectives with those of the model portfolio. For example, if an investor’s primary goal is to generate income, they may consider a model portfolio with a higher allocation of dividend-paying stocks or fixed-income assets. Conversely, if an investor’s primary focus is growth, they may opt for a model portfolio with a higher allocation of equities and high-growth assets.
Time Horizon
An individual’s time horizon for investing is also crucial when choosing a model portfolio. This refers to the expected time an investor plans to hold their investments before needing them for financial goals such as retirement or purchasing a home. Generally, investors with longer time horizons can afford more risk and may consider model portfolios with higher allocations to growth-oriented assets. On the other hand, investors with shorter time horizons may prefer model portfolios with a more conservative mix of assets to protect their investments from market volatility.
Tax Implications
Investors must consider the tax implications of investing in model portfolios before making decisions. Model portfolios may be subject to different tax treatments depending on the types of assets included, and these taxes can significantly impact an investor’s returns. For instance, stock dividends in a model portfolio may be taxed differently than interest income from bonds. When choosing a model portfolio, investors must also consider the tax efficiency of robo-advisors or other providers. Some may offer services such as tax-loss harvesting to minimize taxable gains for investors.
Fees and Expenses
As mentioned earlier, investors must carefully review the fees associated with a particular model portfolio before making investment decisions. These fees can vary significantly depending on the provider and the services included in the model portfolio. Investors should also consider whether they are getting value for their money and if any additional services offered by robo-advisors or other providers are necessary for their investment goals.
Provider Reputation
Before investing in a model portfolio, investors should research the provider’s reputation to ensure they are reliable and trustworthy. This includes looking into their track record, investment philosophy, and potential conflicts of interest. Investors can also seek recommendations from financial advisors or do their due diligence by reading reviews and checking ratings from reputable sources.
Things To Avoid When Investing in Portfolios Models
Businesses and investors alike know that investment choices can be complicated, but the decision to invest in model portfolios should not be taken lightly. There are several common mistakes that investors should avoid when considering investing in model portfolios:
Chasing Performance
It is essential to remember that past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors must resist the urge to chase after a model portfolio with high returns in the previous year. Instead, they should focus on the long-term performance and consistency of returns. A model portfolio that has consistently generated moderate returns over several years may be a better option than one with higher but less consistent returns.
Not Diversifying
Diversification is essential when investing, as it helps reduce risk by spreading investments across different asset classes. Investors must ensure their chosen model portfolio is adequately diversified to mitigate potential losses from one poorly performing asset class. Additionally, investors should diversify within a specific asset class, such as having a mix of large-cap and small-cap stocks in their equity allocation.
Ignoring Personal Circumstances
Each investor has unique personal circumstances and financial goals to consider when choosing a model portfolio. Ignoring these factors and blindly investing in a model portfolio can lead to unsuitable investment decisions. Investors must carefully assess their risk profile, investment objectives, time horizon, and tax implications before deciding on a model portfolio.
Not Monitoring Performance
Investment professionals should regularly review the performance of their chosen model portfolio and make necessary adjustments when needed. Markets and economic conditions can change, potentially impacting the performance of a model portfolio. Investors must stay informed and make informed decisions to ensure their investments align with their goals and risk tolerance for them not to lose money.
Making Emotional Decisions
Investors must avoid making emotional decisions, such as panic-selling during market downturns or getting overly excited during bull markets. These emotional reactions can lead to poor investment decisions, and investors must stick to their long-term investment plan and not give in to short-term market fluctuations.
Conclusion
Model portfolios can be an effective tool for investors to achieve their financial goals. They offer a convenient and cost-effective way to access professionally managed investment strategies tailored to individual needs. However, investing involves risk and investors must carefully consider the pros and cons of model portfolios before making investment decisions.
By understanding the various factors that influence model portfolio performance and avoiding common mistakes, investors can maximize the benefits of model portfolios and achieve their long-term financial objectives. So, take your time, research, and choose a model portfolio that aligns with your risk tolerance and investment goals to set yourself up for success in investing. Happy investing!
Long-term investors today face an increasingly important question: how to properly allocate cash holdings as short-term rates decline. While cash may feel secure, it carries hidden expenses that can silently erode the pursuit of long-term financial objectives. This issue has become particularly relevant as investors collectively hold unprecedented amounts in liquid assets, with money market funds now containing a historic $7.3 trillion.
Successful investing is not about choosing between volatile assets and cash reserves, nor is it about market timing – rather, it involves maintaining an appropriate asset allocation that supports long-term financial objectives. Cash certainly serves crucial functions within these plans, particularly for ensuring adequate liquidity to cover expenses and unexpected emergencies.
Yet when investors maintain cash balances beyond what their goals require, sometimes called “excess cash,” they may forfeit opportunities for income generation, portfolio growth, risk diversification, and other important objectives. In the current market landscape, what strategies can investors employ to optimize their cash positions and support their long-term financial aspirations?
Equities and fixed income have historically exceeded inflation over extended periods
Financial market history demonstrates a clear pattern regarding wealth accumulation and inflation protection. The chart illustrates how equities and fixed income securities have appreciated far beyond inflation rates. While $1 from 1926 requires $18 today due to inflation, stocks and bonds have multiplied substantially more, generating significant wealth for investors positioned to capture these long-term trends. This holds true despite periodic downturns, financial crises, and economic contractions throughout the past century.
Historical performance does not guarantee future outcomes, yet this year’s market recovery demonstrates how swiftly pessimism can transition to optimism. Even recent elevated inflation has been modest compared to balanced portfolio returns. Over extended timeframes, the cumulative impact of returns that modestly exceed inflation can build considerable wealth.
Within financial planning frameworks, cash delivers critical liquidity and adaptability for immediate spending requirements and emergency situations. For example, accumulating funds for an imminent home purchase typically involves cash-equivalent instruments, as would tuition obligations and other expenses due within twelve months. Likewise, preserving an emergency reserve offers valuable protection against unforeseen circumstances such as employment disruption or medical expenses.
Excessive cash holdings silently diminish buying power
Challenges arise when investors maintain cash beyond what practical requirements dictate. This behavior has been understandable recently given periodic market volatility and elevated cash yields. When cash interest rates appear competitive relative to bond yields or equity dividends, pursuing income through cash holdings may seem logical given its perception as “risk-free.” Nevertheless, this strategy involves at least two concealed expenses.
The first concealed expense of surplus cash is inflation. Even when savings account or money market fund rates appear reasonable, or initially offer appealing yields, they frequently fail to match the increasing costs of goods and services consistently over time. The chart demonstrates that real, inflation-adjusted returns on cash have remained negative throughout most of the previous two decades when examining average certificate of deposit rates.
The second concealed expense concerns the mechanics of short-term interest rates. While money market fund yields, short-term certificates of deposit, and savings account rates may seem appealing, particularly compared to near-zero rates during the post-2008 financial crisis decade, these rates are not guaranteed. Their short-term nature means they fluctuate. While certain promotional rates can be attractive, these rates vary and demand vigilant monitoring upon renewal.
Generally, the requirement to reinvest cash and short-term fixed income instruments at prevailing rates creates “reinvestment risk.” For instance, if the Federal Reserve continues reducing rates as widely anticipated, short-term interest rates may continue declining, potentially producing income beneath inflation rates. Investors must then choose between accepting reduced yields at each maturity or transitioning to longer-term investments. Since longer-term investment prices typically increase when rates decrease, investors may sacrifice returns during this period.
This contrasts sharply with longer-term bonds, where yields can be secured for years or decades. An investor purchasing a 10-year Treasury bond today locks in that yield irrespective of subsequent interest rate movements, even as the bond’s market price fluctuates. Similarly, although equity markets remain inherently uncertain, investing with extended time horizons has historically enabled investors to capture long-term appreciation while avoiding continuous reinvestment risk.
Cash appears secure because account balances can remain steady, even during market turbulence. However, what our money can purchase ultimately determines financial security, not the nominal dollar figures in our accounts. If inflation operates at 3% annually while cash generates 2%, purchasing power erodes by 1% yearly, even if account statements suggest otherwise. This apparently minor differential can compound substantially and significantly impact planning objectives spanning decades, particularly for those in retirement.
Sidelined cash has reached unprecedented levels
Cash holdings extend beyond individual financial plans and reflect broader market sentiment. The chart reveals money market fund assets have climbed to near-record levels of $7.3 trillion, approximately double pre-pandemic levels. This reflects both investors pursuing elevated short-term interest rates and reluctance to commit to longer-term assets.
However, as rates have begun moderating and are projected to decline further, these surplus cash positions may encounter reinvestment difficulties. Investors who transferred substantial assets to cash during temporarily elevated rates, or amid market stress, may confront challenging decisions. This phenomenon is frequently described as “cash on the sidelines,” suggesting some investors may eventually rotate back toward equity and fixed income investments.
The optimal approach for managing surplus cash depends on individual objectives but may incorporate strategies like dollar-cost averaging. This consideration is particularly relevant today as equity markets continue advancing and bond yields remain compelling. Income generated from longer-term Treasury, corporate and high-yield bonds, along with other fixed income securities, remains attractive by historical standards. While interest rates are challenging to forecast, bond market volatility has stabilized. Equity markets have similarly exceeded expectations this year.
The bottom line? While cash fulfills essential functions, excessive holdings generate hidden expenses. For long-term investors, preserving appropriate cash reserves while remaining invested in long-term portfolios continues to represent the most effective path toward achieving financial objectives.
BlueSky Disclosures
Copyright (c) 2025 Clearnomics, Inc. All rights reserved. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not necessarily complete and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness, or correctness of the information and opinions contained herein. The views and the other information provided are subject to change without notice. All reports posted on or via www.clearnomics.com or any affiliated websites, applications, or services are issued without regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific recipient and are not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future results. Company fundamentals and earnings may be mentioned occasionally, but should not be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold the company’s stock. Predictions, forecasts, and estimates for any and all markets should not be construed as recommendations to buy, sell, or hold any security–including mutual funds, futures contracts, and exchange traded funds, or any similar instruments. The text, images, and other materials contained or displayed in this report are proprietary to Clearnomics, Inc. and constitute valuable intellectual property. All unauthorized reproduction or other use of material from Clearnomics, Inc. shall be deemed willful infringement(s) of this copyright and other proprietary and intellectual property rights, including but not limited to, rights of privacy. Clearnomics, Inc. expressly reserves all rights in connection with its intellectual property, including without limitation the right to block the transfer of its products and services and/or to track usage thereof, through electronic tracking technology, and all other lawful means, now known or hereafter devised. Clearnomics, Inc. reserves the right, without further notice, to pursue to the fullest extent allowed by the law any and all criminal and civil remedies for the violation of its rights.
