The author and blogger discusses the new edition of his personal finance blockbuster, his biggest financial mistakes, and the three investments that belong in every investor’s portfolio.
Hi, and welcome to The Long View. I’m Christine Benz, director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar. Today on the podcast, we welcome back author and blogger JL Collins. JL’s first book, The Simple Path to Wealth: Your road map to financial independence and a rich, free life, was published in 2016 and has since sold more than 1 million copies. He has recently come out with a second edition of the book, which his daughter, Jess, collaborated on. In 2023, he published another book called Pathfinders: Extraordinary Stories of People Like You on the Quest for Financial Independence.
“Case Study #1: Putting the Simple Path to Wealth Into Action,” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, July 10, 2023.
“Things Important, and Unimportant,” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, March 1, 2023.
“Stocks—Part XIII: The 4% Rule, Withdrawal Rates and How Much Can I Spend Anyway?” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, Oct. 15, 2023.
“Déjà Vu All Over Again,” by JL Collins, jlcollinshh.com, April 18, 2025.
“Stocks—Part IV: The Big Ugly Event, Deflation and a Bit on Inflation,” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, Nov. 16, 2023.
“Stocks—Part XXII: Stepping Away From REITs,” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, May 12, 2025.
“Stocks—Part XXVII: Why I Don’t Like Dollar Cost Averaging,” by JL Collins, jlcollinshn.com, Jan. 8, 2024.
“Stocks—Part III: Most People Lose Money in the Market,” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, Nov. 16, 2023.
“Time Machine and the Future Returns for Stocks,” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, July 10, 2023.
“Chainsaws and Credit Cards,” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, March 30, 2023.
“Stocks—Part XXVIII: Debt – The Unacceptable Burden,” by JL Collins, jlcollinsnh.com, May 12, 2025.
“JL Collins: The Case for Simplicity,” The Long View podcast, Morningstar.com, April 5, 2022.
“JL Collins: Spotlighting the Many Paths to Financial Independence,” The Long View podcast, Morningstar.com, Oct. 31, 2023.
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index VTSAX
(Please stay tuned for important disclosure information at the conclusion of this episode.)
Christine Benz: Hi, and welcome to The Long View. I’m Christine Benz, director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar. Today on the podcast, we welcome back author and blogger JL Collins. JL’s first book, The Simple Path to Wealth: Your road map to financial independence and a rich, free life, was published in 2016 and has since sold more than 1 million copies. He has recently come out with a second edition of the book, which his daughter, Jess, collaborated on. In 2023, he published another book called Pathfinders: Extraordinary Stories of People Like You on the Quest for Financial Independence. JL, welcome back to The Long View.
JL Collins: Christine, it’s a pleasure to be back. Thanks for having me.
Benz: Well, it’s a pleasure to have you here. So we want to talk about the newly revised edition of The Simple Path to Wealth. The first Simple Path was published in 2016, and it seems so timeless to me, which I do think helps explain its really consistent popularity since its first publication. What were the main things that you wanted to address in the new edition since you published that first book?
Collins: Well, first of all, I’ve got to tell you a little story about that. In the middle of doing the revisions for the new book, which was candidly a much bigger project than I had anticipated and a whole lot more work than I had counted on. I was talking to a friend of mine and he said, you know, the great thing about The Simple Path to Wealth is you’re never going to have to update it. It’s timeless. I didn’t say anything to him at the time, but I’m thinking to myself, why am I doing this? But to your point, now that it’s done, I’m very glad that I did it because I think it is a better book. It’s an expanded book. There’s a new section in it called “Toolkit.” There’s a new case study in it that’s one of my all-time favorites about what it looks like when everything financial goes wrong. So I’m thrilled with it. And I’m also thrilled. I now have a publisher, Authors Equity, and I just think—well, I know—the physical book itself will be a much better product, just like Pathfinders is a stunningly good-looking book physically. And The Simple Path to Wealth, because it’s self-published, has always been OK. But I looked at Pathfinders, I thought this is just an entirely new level and now the new edition of Simple Path will have that going for it as well.
Benz: Yeah, I’m curious. Were there any aspects of the 2016 Simple Path where you realized you got it wrong the first time, or maybe you wanted to tweak your take?
Collins: Not at all. In fact, one of the key points is the basic philosophy, the basic approach from the original to the new edition is exactly the same. What the new edition allowed me to do is add to it and respond to some of the questions that since 2016 readers have been kind enough to share with me. And in fact, I think I mentioned there’s an FAQ in the new edition where I actually took some of those questions and specifically addressed them. And sometimes the questions refer back to the book content, but sometimes it’s outside of the book content. So yeah, there’s nothing I felt I had to take out because it didn’t work, which of course validates in my mind at least the approach.
Benz: Yeah, definitely. I wanted to ask about that Q&A section. I had fun reading through it. I’m curious, are there any questions when you hear them coming your way that you rub your hands together because you really love tackling them or you feel like you have an especially differentiated take on a question?
Collins: You know, not so much. It’s more there are questions occasionally that cause me to slap my forehead, and you’re probably not going to find those in the FAQ necessarily, although at least one is. And this is a pretty common one that I get. And that is, especially seeing as The Simple Path to Wealth has been out for a decade, is it still valid? And that always kind of makes me roll my eyes a bit because if you read The Simple Path to Wealth, you should come away with the understanding that this is an approach you’re going to implement for decades. And if I thought for a moment that anything would change that would change that and make it invalid or substantially change it, then there wouldn’t be a Simple Path to Wealth. I’ve got my daughter on it. I’m on it. She’ll be on it for the next 50 years unless our capitalist, the economy goes away, and we can no longer own individual stocks and funds.
So it is designed to be timeless. And so if you read it and it resonates with you, part of what should resonate is the fact that you don’t have to worry about it going out of fashion like so many other investment approaches probably do. The other more humorous one that I don’t bother to address is anybody who reads my work knows I’m a big fan of low-cost, broad-based index funds and VTSAX from Vanguard is my favorite. And on a distressingly regular basis, I get the question, do you think I ought to invest in VTSAX? At one point on the blog, I responded that said, you’re yanking my chain, right? I mean, you have to be kidding me.
Benz: Well, now there are VTSAX and chill T-shirts and sweatshirts and stuff. So you’re definitely in the Vanguard of encouraging people to use simplicity to their benefit.
Collins: I wish I’d come up with that T-shirt. I think it’s great.
Benz: I wanted to touch on that case study that you referenced with your friend, Tom. First, is Tom a real human being?
Collins: Tom is a real human being and he’s a real friend. Tom was actually a client of mine back in the 1990s. And Tom is a couple of years older than I am, which puts him in his mid-70s. But yes, he’s absolutely a real human being.
Benz: OK. So he has had a life reading through that case study. It’s hard to believe that an individual could have had so many different experiences and relocations and spouses, but maybe talk about why you wanted to include his story in the book.
Collins: Well, mainly Christine, because one or the other recurring, not questions, but concerns that I get and that I see in the whole financial independent space is this obsessive worry that people have about whether they are successfully securing their financial future. And in my mind, the irony of that is the kind of people who are reading my book, the kind of people who are engaged in the financial independence community have the least to worry about because they’re already paying attention. I think that is a huge worry for a large numbers of Americans, but those people are not reading my book and they’re not tuning into the financial community. If you are, you’re probably going to be OK. And Tom, candidly, was one of those people who did not. I mean, Tom and I never talked about this before I started writing about it, and that wasn’t until 2011.
So, Tom is, I think, an extreme example, which is what makes it interesting, but probably not atypical of what a lot of Americans who haven’t paid attention might be facing. And the moral of Tom’s story in my mind is that even then it doesn’t matter, because the truth is, if your needs are simple, it really doesn’t take much to keep body and soul together. And Tom loses everything. He goes into his 60s, jobless, his home is foreclosed, and he’s forced out, and he’s bankrupt. And yet Tom, when I met him and to this day and through all that trauma, is probably the single happiest guy I know. But that’s the attitude that he brings to it. And that attitude also attracts amazing people into his life.
Benz: So the broader lesson you think is that people should stop obsessing about their financial management, that it’s really like what’s inside of us that determines our outcomes and our contentment in this world? Is that how you want people to come away from that story?
Collins: Yeah, it’s VTSAX and chill. If you follow my advice even a little bit and go into broad-based low-cost index funds like VTSAX and contribute on a regular basis, you’re going to be fine. You’re going to be fine. And you mitigate risk in lots of different ways, but one of the big ways is in your mind, is understanding that even when things go bad, life can still be good.
Benz: So you referenced, JL, your connection with the FIRE community, the financial independence retire early community. Can you talk about that and the fact that you said your work has never been about retirement, even though you’ve been very much aligned with FIRE?
Collins: So I love the acronym FIRE because I think it’s very clever, but I don’t actually use it because as you just pointed out, for me, it’s never been about retirement. So already in our conversation, you’ve heard me referred to it as the FI community, the financial independence community. I have nothing against people who choose to early retire. In fact, a lot of my friends are working toward that and many of them have accomplished it and are loving it. It just wasn’t particularly my life. And in many ways, you could argue I’m still not retired. I just put a lot of work into revising a book. Candidly, I didn’t have to do that, but I’ve always enjoyed working. And I think I’m fortunate in doing that. And I frequently, I’ll get people who will say to me, I’ve achieved financial independence looking at these formulas, but I don’t want to quit my job. I love my work. And I say, well, there’s nothing written here that says just because you’re financially independent, you have to stop working.
If you enjoy working, then by all means continue working. The whole point of being financially independent is that you have options to do what you want. By the same token, incidentally, I get people who occasionally will say, “You know, I am in this soul-crushing job, and I am not quite financially independent. If you think about the 4% guideline, I need $50,000 a year to live on and I’ve got $1 million invested, but that’s only going to throw off $40,000. But I’m in the soul-crushing job.” And my response to that is always, “I’d quit yesterday.” For a couple of reasons. One is if you look at the Trinity study, a 5% withdrawal rate works, I want to say from memory 87% of the time. I’m going to roll those dice. It’s not the 96% of the time that 4% gives you, but 87% are pretty good odds, especially if it gets me out of a soul-crushing job.
And the second question I ask these people and anybody who’s in this position is almost by definition smart and resourceful is, do you think there is some way you could figure out how to earn an extra $10,000 during the course of the year doing something? And I’ve yet to have anybody say to me, no, no, I don’t think I could do that. So there you go. I say retire, pull the 5% if push comes to shove, or if you’re nervous about that, figure out a way to make the other $10,000 that doesn’t get you the 4% and get out of that soul-crushing situation.
Benz: So following up on the 4% guideline that a lot of FIRE or FI people take and run with, it seems that there’s some concern among retirement researchers who I talked to about taking the 4% guideline and extrapolating it to a really long time horizon, like 40 or 50 years. What are your thoughts on that question?
Collins: So a couple of things. Certainly it’s true. Again, if you look at the Trinity study, you can see situations where if you start to go out past 30 years, because that 4% of the time, I’ve referenced a moment ago that it’s successful 96% of the time, and there’s obviously the implication that 4% of the time it’s not. So if you go out more than 30 years, the number of times that the money doesn’t last begins to rise, but it doesn’t rise dramatically. Four percent is extraordinarily conservative, and I think it was the financial advisor Bill Bengen who came up with it originally, and it was in his mind very, very conservative and if I am recalling correctly, he even encouraged clients to do more. Which is one of the reasons, for my comment for the soul-crushing job situation. So I think if you look at the fact that is a very conservative withdrawal rate to begin with. And that even when you go out beyond the 30 years, the number of times the money doesn’t last is pretty modest. I think it’s a pretty safe and comfortable thing to do. Now having said that, I have always said, and I’ll repeat it here, that nobody should take their investments, set up a 4% automatic withdrawal, and then forget about it. For two reasons, the obvious reason is, well, even in 30 years, 4% of the time, that might now work out. And of course, the next 30 years might be different. So maybe the percentage doesn’t work out to be something larger, or maybe something less.
But the other reason that people don’t think about is, again, if you look at the Trinity study, there’s a huge percentage of cases far larger than those that fail, where it succeeds in a spectacular fashion. And if over 30 years you are only withdrawing 4%, you are going to wind up, if you start with say, $1 million with $8, $10, $15 million at the end of the day. And that’s great if you want to have that at the end of the day, but I would think more people would want to enjoy it and increase their spending along the way. So two reasons to pay attention. So you don’t run out of money, and in the more likely event, that you enjoy the extra money that it’s earning.
Benz: Yeah, that’s a key point. I wanted to talk about the key principles of the Simple Path, which are save as much as you can, ideally 50% of what you make. Avoid debt and invest in a basic index fund. As you reflect on those three key principles, which would you say has had the biggest impact in your own financial success?
Collins: Well, because for a large portion of my life, I made all kinds of financial mistakes, very clearly my savings rate is what saved me. And I, as you alluded to, when I came out of college and got my first professional job, which paid me the princely sum of $10,000 a year. Of course, back in those days, $10,000 a year bought a lot more stuff than it does today. But any event, I just randomly said, I want to begin building what I call the FU money. I had no concept of early retirement or financial independence then, but I knew I wanted to have a financial cushion. And I just arbitrarily said, you know what I can live on $5,000 a year. That’s a whole lot more than I was living on in college. So I’m going to live on that and I’m going to invest the other $5,000. And that’s what I did. So that is the thing that is probably the most powerful thing. Had I been smart enough and aware enough to embrace index funds earlier. Ironically, the first index fund that Jack Bogle created came out in 1975, which was the first year I ever bought stock. So theoretically, I could have been in in the beginning, but I didn’t know that.
And even 1985, when I was finally introduced to the concept of indexing and index funds and Vanguard, I still wasn’t smart enough to embrace it. It took me another 10, 15 years to get there. But that’s a problem with me. But for people today, especially young people like my daughter, who isn’t going to go through all the mistakes I went through and who started with, in her case, VTSAX from the get-go, the path is going to be a lot smoother. And her savings rate, which has been aggressive, is just going to get her there faster.
Benz: So you referenced that 50% savings rate. I guess the question is how realistic it is, especially if you think about people who might be sole earners who are living in expensive metropolitan areas. Is it an unrealistic target, do you think, for many people?
Collins: You know, probably for some, but probably for far fewer than who think it is. And if you read Pathfinders, which is my third book, and it’s a collection of about 100 stories from all over the world, people who read the Simple Path to Wealth and embraced the principles in it. One of the things that’s a little bit stunning and very gratifying to me is how humble many of the beginnings for these people are, how little they had to start with when they started down this path. I mentioned that my first job paid me $10,000 a year and I lived on $5,000. I’m sure if I’d had the internet in my hand, which thankfully I didn’t, it would be filled with people telling me that I couldn’t possibly live on $5,000 a year. And frankly, by doing that, a lot of my peers were living a bigger lifestyle than I was because they weren’t doing that. But as somebody smarter than me once said, if you want extraordinary results, you’re going to have to do something different than the ordinary. And a high savings rate is one of those things.
What’s striking to me is I get a lot of pushback on 50% saying, oh, you know, that’s just unrealistic. And as Henry Ford would have said, if you believe you can, you’re right. If you believe you can’t, you’re right. And so for that person, it will always be unrealistic. But interestingly, I get push back from the other direction too, where people say 50%? I’m saving 60%, 70%, 80%. What kind of piker are you at only 50? So in the other point I would make about the 50% is a lot of people think that this approach is one of deprivation. I’ve never felt that way. And as my income expanded, I maintained that 50%. And what people somehow fail to notice is that, yes, my amount of dollars I had available to invest rose dramatically when I was making $20,000 a year. Well, I was now investing $10,000 but so did my lifestyle. Instead of living on $5,000, now I was living on $10,000. And I was making $100,000, well, now I’m living on $50,000 and investing the other $50,000. And of course, when you cross the Rubicon and you’re financially independent, well, then saving becomes optional. So, you get to a point where, as my friend Pete, Mr. Money Mustache, once told me everything’s free. And by that, what’s meant is that within reason at least almost no matter how much you’re spending, your investments are replacing it at a faster rate.
Benz: Do you think growing income could have been another one of those key principles in Simple Path because it does seem like if you can concentrate on that, assuming you’re doing something that you enjoy, that is a really magical thing too, right?
Collins: You know, that’s a good point, Christine. And I’m kind of wishing that was part of the FAQ as you say it because that’s valid. And in fact, if you’re doing something you love or even that you’re just good at, which is the other way to approach your career is, there’s some pushback on this idea that you should find something to do that you love. And that’s great if you can. But that’s not necessarily available to a lot of people. I never particularly loved what I did, but I was good at it. And if you become good at something, then you tend to love it. But you also earn more money almost by default. So that’s a great point.
Benz: Debt paydown is in the book as well. You have some helpful breakpoints when people are trying to decide whether to prepay debt or more aggressively pay down debt. Can you walk us through those? And also talk about the impact of the prevailing interest-rate environment and how that might or might not change the calculus.
Collins: Right. So, my basic intention is that if you have debt, you are never going to be financially independent. So if you have debt, it’s an emergency. It’s what Mr. Money Mustache calls your hairs on fire. And I agree with that. So job one becomes getting rid of the debt. And there’s no easy way to do that. You simply have to organize your life in such a fashion that you would not only are no longer adding new debt, but that you are spending less than you earn, which of course is a basic principle to becoming wealthy. You’re spending less than you earn, and you’re taking that excess and applying it to the debt and paying it off. And of course, the bigger a chunk that you can divert to your debt, the better off you are. So again, going back to say 50%, if you can figure out how to live on 50% of your income. And you probably can for the vast majority of people listening to us. Then you’ve got the money to push toward the debt. And by the way, the great silver lining in that is once you’ve blown the debt out, you’ve already learned the habit of living on half of what you’re making. And now you simply take what you were paying off the debt with and begin investing. And then your wealth begins to build.
But before you can begin your wealth, you have to dig yourself out of the hole. Now, I think what you were referring to in terms of the interest rates is—there are one of the questions like it is, well, what if I have debt that is really low interest, wouldn’t I be better off investing the money, which will theoretically at least give me a larger return. So a good example of that is suppose you have a mortgage from a few years ago that’s 2%, 3%, even 4%. Well, in that case—and then I break it out by percentages—but I’d say, OK, if you’re carrying debt that’s less than 4% interest, maybe it’s not such a bad idea to keep that debt and invest the excess money instead. The key thing, of course, is organizing your life to have excess money. If you’re somewhere between 4% and in my mind, maybe 6%, that becomes more of a difficult question to answer. Theoretically, your investments will do better than 6% over time. But carrying debt should feel very uncomfortable to everybody listening. So personally, I’d be inclined to begin blowing off debt at that point. Anything above 6%, absolutely job one, blow off the debt before you do anything else.
Benz: You’re pretty down on student debt too. Maybe you can talk about how students and their families should decide whether and when to take it on, because you do see a very good ROI for investing in college. So how do families decide how to approach that decision?
Collins: You know, Christine, I don’t know that I have a good answer for that. Because as you point out, going to college does have a great return on investment. There’s a lot of pushback on that idea, but I don’t think I’d particularly be personally willing to give that up or to have my child give it up. We were in a position to put our daughter through college. The deal, by the way, was we paid for the essential things and anything extra she had to work for. I put myself through college, but it was easier to do in those days. I think it’s criminal that student debt has become so widely available because there’s a direct link between the fact that student debt is widely available and the fact that college is so expensive. Because anytime you take anything and you can convince people to borrow money to buy it, whether it’s a house or a car or an education or now I’m reading that even Door Dash food deliveries, you can borrow money. You’re going to make it more expensive because more people will be willing to pay more money because it doesn’t feel so expensive when you’re borrowing it.
So it’s just a very pernicious cycle and I’m a big believer in personal responsibility. And if you take on debt, paying it off. But having said that, the idea of offering kids who are 17, 18, 19, 20 access to huge amounts of money, borrowed money, at that point in their life with probably a real lack of understanding of what they’re taking on, I think is unconscionable. Now, the answer to your question, which I haven’t, and I appreciate I haven’t is, what do you do about it today? I don’t have a good answer to that.
Benz: Well, I appreciate that honesty, because I don’t either. I did want to switch over to discuss investing. As we’re taping this in early April 2025, US stocks have been incredibly volatile, mainly due to some of the tariff concerns. You’ve argued that periods like the current one make having a very simple investing plan more important than ever. Can you talk about that?
Collins: Sure. Well, I think the real argument that I would make is that what’s going on in the world at any given time shouldn’t matter to your investments. So, a great example is during covid. So, one of the core parts of my philosophy is that you tie yourself to the mast. The market’s always going to be volatile. Corrections, bear markets, even crashes are a perfectly normal part of the process, and they should be expected. And the thing that triggers those is always going to be different. But what’s not different is that we always recover from it and the market goes up. What’s not different is we never know when it’s going to happen. It’s not predictable. So, the idea that as Warren Buffett said, once you can dance in and out of the market successfully is nonsense. Nobody can do that. So, my philosophy is you buy, and you hold throughout regardless of what goes on. Now, during covid, I got a lot of pushback on that. And of course, the market crashed. The crash didn’t last very long, but nobody knew that at the time. And people said, “You know, JL, what you say makes sense. But this is a pandemic. People are dying. This time, it is truly different.”
And I said, yes, it’s truly different and tragic and that people are dying. But in terms of your investments, it is not different at all. I had no idea that that crash would only last six weeks or whatever it was. I think it’s the shortest in history. But I knew that it wouldn’t last forever. Now I’m hearing the same thing around the political uncertainty. You know, this time is different. Yeah, JL, everything you said made sense up until now. But what’s going on politically is different. Well, first of all, as we sit here recording today, I think the market’s down year to date, 5%, 6%, something like that. So, we’re not even in a correction. I have no idea what it’s going to do. I don’t know if this is as low as it’s going to go. And then it continues its rise up or if we’re going to see something much uglier.
Candidly, I am very concerned about the tariffs. I’m not in favor of them. But I don’t really know how, first of all, how they are actually going to unfold. And I don’t really know what that impact is going to be. But what I do know is that even if it leads to a crash, that too will pass. And the best approach is to tie yourself to the mast. Don’t panic. The worst thing you can do is sell in any crash or any downturn. And that will not change. And if at some point in the future, Christine, I’m wrong about that, then where you’re invested won’t make any difference because things will have gone so off the rails that unless you’ve been building a bunker and stocking guns and ammunition and canned goods, if my approach fails, then that’s the approach that will be working.
Benz: That’ll be the least of your problems, in other words, right? I wanted to ask about US versus non-US. As you’ve said, you are a big proponent of someone owning the total US market and calling it a day. But I’m curious, and I have a feeling I know what you’ll say, but isn’t non-US exposure starting to look more attractive now that we’re seeing the US pursue very different economic policies than other developed markets? It seems like international diversification could be more valuable than ever over the next decade, especially if the dollar declines.
Collins: So first of all, if you look over the past 10 years, since I first published The Simple Path to Wealth, the approach that I use, which is 100% US, has just crushed it because the US market has outperformed everything. But that’s not why I recommend it. It’s not like 10 years ago, I had a crystal ball and could see that the US market was going to crush it. I had no idea. Just like I don’t know if the US will continue to dominate going forward or if international will have its day in the sun. So far this year, international is definitely having its day in the sun, where our market, again, as we’re talking, is down 6%. I think Europe is up 15%, 18%. So yeah, I mean, international is having its day in the sun. And that’s typical, by the way. If you look back over history, the US hasn’t always dominated and suddenly now it’s stopped. There have been other times in the past where international has done better than the US market. So this is not a surprise. And how long the international market does better than the US? Just like 10 years ago, I had no idea that the US was going to be so dominant. I have no idea.
You might be right. Maybe the coming decade is the decade of international. Maybe not. I don’t know. There is no way to know that. But none of that informs the reason that I invest only in the US. The reason is that if you’re invested in the US, you have international exposure. If you look at VTSAX or any total stock market index fund, it is cap-weighted, which means the largest companies make up the largest portion of the fund. And those companies, those large US companies, are almost by definition international. Many of them generate more than half of their revenue and profit internationally. So when the rest of the world prospers, that’s good for those US companies. That’s good for me as an investor. The other two reasons are that there is no stock market in the world that is as transparent as the US.
Now, there are still, to be clear, you still have things like Enron that pop up occasionally, although that’s been a while. But in that sense, the most honest market in the world, so I feel more secure there. And the third reason is becoming less of a case. But investing in the US is simply less expensive in terms of expense ratios. Now, that’s becoming less of an issue because Vanguard has been steadily reducing the expense ratio on their international funds. So that gap is closing a little bit. Having said all that, and I was saying this 10 years ago, for those people listening to us who disagree with me and say, no, I really want to have international exposure, you’ll get no great argument from me. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to do. I just personally don’t feel the need.
Benz: Sticking with current events, I wanted to ask a little bit about inflation or lack of inflation. In the book, you note that stocks have been a really nice long-term hedge against inflation, that they’ve outrun inflation. But what about stagflation, which has been getting some serious attention recently, this idea that we could have slow economic growth with some accompanying inflation as well?
Collins: Yeah, stagflation is a very bad thing, a very difficult time. I came of age in the ‘70s as an adult, and that was the decade of stagflation. And it was a very, very difficult decade for stocks. I forget the exact numbers, but it was probably—well, of course, we had a lost decade between 2000 and 2010. And by lost decade, I mean a decade where stocks performed poorly. And I think the ‘70s were the last decade before that, that that happened. And that does happen on a regular basis. If you’re going to follow The Simple Path to Wealth, you have to be aware of that and prepare for it. There’s not a whole lot you can or want to do in terms of your investments. Again, in my view, you want to stay the course.
So if I look at the ‘70s, and I was just beginning to invest in the mid-70s, what I would have done and what I would have recommended is keep investing, even though your returns might be a little bit disappointing, because you are accumulating shares at a very attractive price. Certainly, if you’d done that from 2000 to 2010, you would have been richly rewarded now. And so, will another decade like that come? Absolutely, it probably will. Are we about to begin it now? Well, possibly. I mean, if we do, in fact, trigger stagflation as some think, and I understand the reasoning behind believing that, then yeah, this might be the decade. But that’ll be a wonderful decade, especially if you’re a new investor, to accumulate shares. As is any decline, I’ve said, the best thing that can happen to a new investor who’s just beginning to build their wealth is a massive market crash, because it puts everything on sale. For an old guy like me, maybe it’s not so good.
Benz: You talk about in the book how the three things we should have in our investment toolkits would be a broad market index fund, an equity index fund, a core bond fund, and some cash. I’m curious where, if at all, inflation-protected bonds would fit in that mix. Do you think it makes sense to add some additional inflation protection for that portion of the portfolio to help protect the fixed-income portfolios’ purchasing power?
Collins: It’s been a long time since I’ve looked at TIPS or considered them. As I recall, you pay a pretty big price to own them in terms of lower interest rates overall. I guess I look at inflation, and as you alluded to earlier in our conversation, stocks are a very impressive inflation hedge over time. And I think a simple bond fund to balance the stocks when you’ve already accumulated your wealth. I’m a believer in 100% stocks when you’re building your wealth, because you’re going to be adding money. So whenever it drops, you’re buying shares at a lower price, and stocks give you the best performance over time. And then when you’re living on the portfolio, then maybe you want to add some bonds, so just to make that clear. But yeah, I remember looking at TIPS and thinking I just don’t see the appeal, and I haven’t looked at them in a while candidly. But as far as I know, nothing fundamental has changed with them. So again, if somebody said, yeah, I definitely want to have these things in my portfolio, OK. But, I don’t feel the need.
Benz: One lively ongoing debate in the investing space is whether investing a lump sum or moving the money in gradually is the better course. You are on team lump sum; you don’t like dollar-cost averaging too much. I guess a question that I always have in this debate is, most of us just earn our money in dribs and drabs, and we have it to invest in dribs and drabs. So is it an overdone discussion, in that most of us do not have a lump sum at our disposal?
Collins: Yeah, and this is when I first started writing about this, this is something I wish I had made more clear, that as you said, I’m in camp lump sum, which means invest it all at once. But that’s only if we’re talking about investing a lump sum. As you pointed out, if you don’t have a lump-sum investment, and you are investing out of your earned income over time, which is by definition, dollar-cost averaging, I’m hugely in favor of that. I did that, my daughter did it, almost anybody following The Simple Path to Wealth is going to do it. I suggest that not only that you do it, that you automate it, meaning that that money comes out of your bank account every month or every couple of weeks on a regular basis. So you don’t have to make the decision to do it, it just happens, which will make it a lot easier to live through market declines. So yeah, huge, huge fan of dollar-cost averaging in that scenario.
But if we’re talking about a lump sum, if you come into an inheritance, or if you sell an asset, and you suddenly have a big chunk of money, and you want to put it into something like VTSAX, that conversation about whether you should dollar-cost average it, or put it in all at once, I am 100% lump sum, do it all at once. Because the odds favor a better result. The stock market goes up roughly 75% of the time, three out of four years it goes up. Unless, if you dollar-cost average, the only time it’s going to work out better is if you happen to be investing over a time when the market is declining. Again, the odds are that you’re going to be investing over a time when the market’s increasing, because it increases 75% of the time. And in that case, if you dollar-cost average, you’re simply paying more for your shares every month, or every week, or however long, whatever the period of time is that you’re doing that. So I look at that and I say, well, you know, I got to make a choice and there are odds here. If I go lump sum, I got 75% chance of winning. If I go dollar-cost averaging, I got 25%. Now, no matter what choice you make, clearly it can turn out to be the wrong choice, but personally, I’m going to go with the 75%.
Benz: You have this wonderful metaphor in the book of the market as a combination of beer and foam. Can you walk us through that?
Collins: I’m chuckling because when I came up with that, I didn’t really think too much of it. I just thought, OK, this is not a bad way to illustrate what I want to illustrate, but it really seemed to have resonated with a lot of people. Maybe I didn’t appreciate how many beer drinkers are reading The Simple Path to Wealth. But anyway, the market is really two things, just like if you’re looking at a mug of beer, it’s two things. So if you look at the mug of beer and let’s assume it’s in a mug that you can’t see through. There’s going to be foam on top. And underneath that foam, there’s going to be beer. And depending how that beer was poured, there will be more or less foam, more or less beer. And if you look at the stock market, there is the stock market of the financial news that you see day to day, the traders, all what’s the market going to do next? What stock should you buy now? What should you be selling?
All of that speculation, all of that is what I call the foam. Underneath all the foam is the beer. And the beer is the actual companies that we own, the actual companies that provide services and make products. And if they do that well, generate profits that pay us as owners. It’s the beer that I’m interested in. It’s the beer that investors are interested in. Because we’re long term, we want to own that business or a small part of it. When I owned VTSAX, I own a piece of every publicly traded company in the United States of America. And everybody in those companies, from the factory floor to the CEO, is working to make me richer. That’s the beer. The stock price is in large part based on how well that company is doing based on the beer. But the wild fluctuations you see in the stock price of any given company, that’s the foam. That’s the traders doing all of the things that traders do day to day. That’s all the noise you hear on the TV. And all of that, if you’re smart, you’re just going to ignore because you don’t care what the market’s doing in a week or a year or tomorrow or later today because you’re in it for the beer.
Benz: Investing in private equity and private credit is in vogue today, or at least investment firms would like us to get excited about it. It seems like one good argument in favor of private equity is that fewer firms are choosing to go public. And there are more and more of what are called unicorns, these companies that aren’t public but have market values of over $1 billion. So what’s your response to that? That in order to be truly diversified, you would need exposure to some of these nonpublic companies?
Collins: So my first response is that Wall Street is always coming up with new ways to invest. And typically, those new ways to invest benefit the people who sell them more than the investors. And almost without exception, they are far more expensive to invest in than a basic, broad-based, low-cost index fund. So are you going to miss some unicorns, as you call them, if you don’t invest that way? Sure. You’re also going to miss some probably major failures as well. VTSAX, as I alluded to earlier, has 3,600 companies in it. I think that’s plenty. When I first started investing and mutual funds were not such a big deal and index funds were just beginning, if you looked at the standard advice diversification, what you heard was you want to pick out about six to eight industries. And within those industries, you want to pick out one or two companies. And that’s how you want to build your portfolio. And at the end of the day, you’ll have somewhere between 12 and 20 companies, which is plenty to be diversified, and more than enough to try to track. Certainly the last thing is true, but what’s striking is that in those days, owning 20 companies was enough to be diversified. With one purchase of VTSAX, I owned 3,600 companies. So I have plenty of diversification, plenty of opportunities for growth, and the track record of the total stock market supports that. In fact, for the last 50 years, it’s returned over 12% annually on average, which stuns even me.
Benz: You caution in the book, though, that people should not just plug 12% into their personal finance calculators and assume that they’re going to keep getting that, right? It’s important to note that it may not be in that same vicinity going forward.
Collins: Yes, it’s very important. When I first wrote The Simple Path to Wealth, by the way, and I was looking at a 40-year time horizon, the number for that when I thought, well, I’m going to look up, how did they do over that 40 years? Because I didn’t know. And kind of to my horror, the actual number was 11.9%. And I agonized over that in terms of writing the book, because to your point, I didn’t then and I don’t now want to for a moment suggest that you should do any kind of planning that assumes you’re going to get 12% a year, because that’s a pretty stunning amount. At the same time, that’s what the market actually returned over those 40 years. And those 40 years were pretty damn ugly. There are a lot of really bad things that happened in them, both in the world in general, in terms of wars and conflict and economically. We had stagflations in that period of time. We had the crash in ’08-’09. We had 1987 Black Monday, the biggest one-day crash in history. So this was not some golden period and yet.
And then doing the new edition and now I had 50 years to look at it. I wonder, what’s happened there? And in fact, it’s even better. It turns out that over that 50 years, it’s now up to 12.2%. And that includes a major bear market in 2022, I think it was, in the crash of covid, the epidemic. So it’s an amazingly robust number, but I am a conservative kind of guy, and I would never suggest and strongly suggest that nobody thinks that they can rely on 12% a year. But that also goes back to our conversation about the 4% rule of how conservative that is. And I think the 4%, if I remember correctly, when he came up with that, the thinking was the market would do about 8% a year, you’d pull 4% and then the other 4% would go to continue building your portfolio for the future. So I think that’s a probably more reasonable way to think about it. But it’s also striking, again, to look at the past half century at this point with all the turmoil that we’ve gone through—economic and otherwise and realize just how powerful a wealth builder the stock market is if you hold it through the bad times.
Benz: What’s the essay of yours about, it’s like the market hot tub time machine or something like that, where you talk about all these terrible things that happened and yet the market was still pretty good.
Collins: That’s one of my favorite blog posts, actually. It’s called “The Time Machine and the Future Value of Stocks.” And in that post, I say, imagine that you’re back with a bunch of friends around the campfire in 1975, which again is the year I started investing. And somebody says, “I see this guy, Jack Bogle, just created this new thing called an index fund that’s going to track the S&P 500. I wonder how that thing’s going to work out over time?” And in my story, I pipe up and say, “Well, as a matter of fact, I can tell you because I just got back from 2015 in my time machine. So I can tell you exactly what happened in the last 40 years.” And I just list all of the bad things that happened. And of course, everybody around the campfire said, “Oh, boy, thank God you came back to tell us this. There’s no way we’re going to invest in this stupid S&P 500 index fund now.” And of course, the kicker is well, it still delivered almost 12% a year.
Benz: When you reflect on all the feedback you’ve received on Simple Path over the years, what’s the best compliment that you get from readers about the book?
Collins: Oh, that’s kind of easy. And I love the question. So thank you. Far and away, the best compliment I get, and I get it on a pretty regular basis, the people say to me, I never could understand this financial stuff. I try and I just couldn’t get it. And now I do. Now it makes sense to me. And that was kind of my point because I wrote The Simple Path for my daughter, who at the time at least had no interest in this financial stuff. But she was smart enough to know that that she needed to get it right. Or if she did get it right, that her life would be much better and far more options available. But she just had zero interest. And so that’s my target market. What’s interesting to me Christine, by the way, is of course, that’s not my only market because it’s a financial book and people who love this stuff also read it. And the people like my daughter read it and say, “Wow, this is a simple path. This is exactly what I’m looking for. I actually understand what’s in this book. I’m going to implement it.” And then the other people who are into this stuff are always saying to me, you know, JL, if only you did this, if only you added this thing, if you, and you’ve done a little bit of this today, Christine, and what about TIPS, you know, what about international? What about, what about if we tinker this way or we tinker that way? And my response to them is, well, tinker all you want. That’s not the simple path. I’d be willing to bet a whole lot of money that my daughter and people like her who follow The Simple Path to Wealth then don’t tinker at the end of 10, 20, 30, 40 years are going to have a much stronger performance than those who do tinker.
Benz: Well, JL, thank you so much for being here today. Congratulations on this new edition of Simple Path.
Collins: Thank you, Christine. I appreciate all the great questions, and it’s always a pleasure hanging out with you. I hope we get to do it again in the real world one of these days.
Benz: Thank you so much JL. The pleasure was all mine.
Thank you for joining us on The Long View. If you could, please take a moment to subscribe to and rate the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can follow me on social media @Christine_Benz on X or Christine Benz on LinkedIn.
George Castady is our engineer for the podcast and Kari Greczek produces the show notes each week. Finally, we’d love to get your feedback. If you have a comment or a guest idea, please email us at thelongview@morningstar.com. Until next time, thanks for joining us.
(Disclaimer: This recording is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice. Opinions expressed are as of the date of recording and are subject to change without notice. The views and opinions of guests on this program are not necessarily those of Morningstar, Inc. and its affiliates, which together we refer to as Morningstar. Morningstar is not affiliated with guests or their business affiliates, unless otherwise stated. Morningstar does not guarantee the accuracy, or the completeness of the data presented herein. This recording is for informational purposes only and the information, data, analysis, or opinions it includes, or their use should not be considered investment or tax advice and therefore is not an offer to buy or sell a security. Morningstar shall not be responsible for any trading decisions, damages, or other losses resulting from or related to the information, data, analysis, or opinions or their use. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All investments are subject to investment risk, including possible loss of principal. Individuals should seriously consider if an investment is suitable for them by referencing their own financial position, investment objectives and risk profile before making any investment decision. Please consult a tax and/or financial professional for advice specific to your individual circumstances.)