Most people worry about stock drama, but every so often, there is also bond drama. Bonds are debt, which means people worry when there’s an increased chance you won’t get paid back. However, the goal of my bond holdings is to have at least 5 years of expenses safely set aside so that I can comfortably ignore both stock market drama and bond market drama. If you assume a simple 4% withdrawal rate, that means roughly 20% of my portfolio should be in very safe bonds.

“Safe” means that my bonds should have both minimal default risk and interest rate risk. Minimal default risk means ideally either FDIC/NCUA-insured cash or certificates, or US Treasury bonds. Minimal interest rate risk means a relatively short duration.

In the idealized “mental model” of my bond portfolio, this is a ladder of 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, 4-year, and 5-year certificates of deposit. Each rung of the ladder is a year of expenses. As each year passes, the 5-year CD will now have 4 years left to mature, the 4-year CD will have 3 years left, and so on, with the 1-year maturing into a liquid savings account. Then, I will take money from my portfolio (mostly dividends and interest) and buy a new 5-year CD. Usually the yield curve is such that a 5-year CD will pay more interest than the savings account, so this ladder earns more interest overall than just keeping it all in the savings account.

In reality, right now US Treasury bonds with their state income tax exemption pay more interest (in my state situation) than other safe options. For example, right now, a 5-year Treasury bond pays ~4.8% interest, but that’s effectively ~5.3% with the state income tax exemption (assuming a 10% state tax rate). There are no 5-year bank CDs that pay ~5.3% a year, even if I went through the hassle of rate-chasing across different credit unions and banks around the nation.

I could build a manual ladder of Treasury bonds, but even better (lazier) is simply buying the Vanguard Short-Term Treasury ETF (VGSH), which maintains a basket of 100% Treasury bonds with an average maturity of 2 years and a low expense ratio of 0.03%. Not exactly the same, but a short-term Treasury ETF is practically very similar to a repeating ladder of US Treasuries of 1 to 5 years. 100% of the interest is considered US government obligations, and so I retain the full state income tax deduction.

For comparison, the 30-day SEC yield today on VGSH is ~4.4%, and with the state income tax exemption that’s an effective ~4.8% for me. Meanwhile, the popular Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) has a 4.8% 30-day SEC yield but also has higher default risk (holds corporate bonds) and higher interest rate risk (longer duration). BND is fine, but this is why I prefer VGSH. I’m getting the same after-tax return as BND with lower risk. VGIT (intermediate-term Treasury ETF) has a significantly higher average maturity of about ~6 years year, longer than I need and doesn’t pay much higher interest in return.

That’s my long-winded explanation of why ~20% of my portfolio is held in Vanguard Short-Term Treasury ETF (VGSH). The rest of my bond allocation is in TIPS because they guarantee a long-term real return and thus address another risk (inflation risk) directly, but that’s a different topic.

Last year, I took an official Certified Financial Planner (CFP) course, which satisfies the “Education” requirement of becoming an official Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Mine was online and self-paced at the University of Georgia with a net cost of around $3,000. I did not take the official CFP Exam ($925), nor did I satisfy the “Experience” requirement of 6,000 hours of “professional experience related to the financial planning process”. I don’t want the actual certification ($925 exam + $250 to apply + $575 every year + continuing education costs) – this is just an example of the strange things you can do with “financial independence”. 😜

In the end, I did learn more about several financial topics outside my personal bubble like using a financial calculator, handling estate issues for small business clients, and specific insurance topics. I would be glad that a prospective financial advisor at least had this basic core level of financial knowledge, but a lot of it was “studying for the test” and memorizing specific formulas and facts. It’s basically the equivalent of passing a semester or two of a single college class. I bought the physical textbooks, but passed the tests without opening them at all (just used the class slides). I’m still glad I tried it, otherwise I would still be curious.

The final requirement of a CFP is “Ethics”, which means passing their Candidate Fitness and Standards Background Check. Allan Roth is an experienced fee-only financial advisor whose opinion I respect, and he recently wrote a detailed article about How the CFP Board Sold Out the Public & the Profession. It’s certainly a disappointing read. Basically, the article outlines how the CFP Board is failing in its promise to only certify ethical financial planners. Many CFP holders with regulatory issues get to keep their CFP as long as they keeping paying the dues. “Nearly 1,000 CFPs have some form of criminal disclosure.”

Overall, my impression is that the CFP Board now mainly serves as a business selling the CFP designation to whoever is willing to pay the annual fees and continuing education fees as a signifier to the average person that they are a “educated and vetted financial planner”. They make millions on annual dues, exam prep classes, and continuing eduction tuition. The CFP took advantage of a vacuum, and unfortunately there really isn’t anything better. This means that all financial planners (good or bad) feel pressured to keep their CFP designation, even if they know it doesn’t mean much.

The takeaway is that a CFP designation is a bar, but not a very high bar. Yes, they took some coursework and passed a knowledge exam, although that exam is not nearly as hard as other financial tests like the CFA or CPA exams. Unfortunately, the CFP does not appear to aggressively weed out unethical advisors. The best advisors in the world still probably have a CFP, but many sketchy advisors with past complaints are also flashing their CFP. Be careful out there. If you’re looking for a planner, looking beyond the CFP badge and use BrokerCheck at a minimum, even if the CFP Board doesn’t.

In this Morningstar market brief, it is revealed that the average self-directed Vanguard investor (7 million accounts!) held an asset allocation of 65% stocks, 24% cash, and 10% bonds. That’s a lot more cash than I expected as well.

Then this WSJ article comes up, Wealth Management Has a $3 Trillion Problem: Investors Are Keeping Too Much Cash (gift article). A self-directed investor and former pilot is profiled that keeps 85% in stocks and 15% in a “a money-market fund yielding 3.62%”, which suggests a Vanguard money market fund or another very-low cost money market.

He is keeping 85% of his portfolio in stocks and the rest in a money-market fund yielding 3.62%. Ross looked at historical bear markets and determined they typically don’t last longer than three years. He keeps enough of his portfolio in cash to comfortably get himself through that period, and he sells stocks when he needs to replenish his cash pile.

The rest of the article is about financial advisors thinking this is wrong and suggesting all sorts of alternatives, from muni bonds to private credit to buffer ETFs.

Now wealth and asset managers, eager to prove their worth and in many cases earn more fees, are trying to persuade investors to put it to work. Search for the phrase “too much cash” and you will find numerous articles penned by the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Charles Schwab, warning about the risk of being underinvested.

I found myself siding with the pilot. Maybe an alternative bond fund would give you a slightly higher yield, but the yield curve right now is still not very steep. As long as you are smart with your cash holdings (“cash sort”) and avoid crappy default sweep options with low yield from brokerages (like *cough*, JPMorgan Chase at 0.01% and Charles Schwab at 0.01%!) and instead buying SGOV, VBIL, or a Vanguard money market fund, you won’t be losing that much to a riskier bond alternative. Perhaps that is also partially why the cash allocation of Vanguard investors is so high. Their money market funds are quite good.

Switching to other bonds types can be fine, but be aware of the additional risk you are accepting for that higher yield. You may be taking on principal risk (buffer ETFs can lose money), duration risk (longer-term bonds can lose money), credit risk, or liquidity risk (private credit may limit withdrawals).

Finally, cash is simply a very safe, very short-term bond. Bonds are broken down by maturity, and Treasury bills with under 30 days of maturity are considered cash (“cash equivalents”). I see nothing wrong with taking your risk with stocks and keeping your “bonds” the safest flavor of bonds possible.

Keeping track of TIPS yields is useful because it provides a baseline of the return you can get by taking minimal risk. Beyond just the reliability of US Treasury bonds paying out their interest and return of principal at maturity, TIPS are US government-backed bonds that also address the risk of unexpectedly high inflation.

The real yield on 30-year TIPS has been at ~3% for weeks now as of August 2026, which is the first time since 2008, nearly 20 years ago. At the same time, the 30-year regular Treasury is at 5.3%, making the break-even annual inflation rate roughly 2.3%. This situation has motivated a new article by Edward F. McQuarrie and William J. Bernstein, Long TIPS Yield 3%. Time to Buy?. Only 2.3% inflation for the next 30 years? As the authors state, “Good luck with that.”

I would recommend reading it in full for their blunt and snarky writing style, but here are my major takeaways:

• Long-term TIPS real yields at 3% or above are not common, and they usually don’t last long when they do show up.
• “Regular” nominal bonds are more likely than not to have a 30-year rolling average real return below 3%. One long-term average provided is only 1.5% real (above inflation). They do sometimes, but it’s not guaranteed and it can be a lot lower than 3%.
• Stocks historically do provide 30-year rolling average real returns above 3% (see chart below). But your time horizon must be that long, as the short-term returns can be very different.
• As a result, this may be a good opportunity for a near-retiree or retiree to lock in some guaranteed, inflation-protected income via a ladder of individual, long-term TIPS. Near-retirees might sell other bonds and buy TIPS. Younger folks should still own mostly stocks.
• Per TIPSLadder.com, you can currently get a 4.9% real withdrawal rate by building such a ladder. That means with $1,000,000 invested, you can get $49,000 every year in today’s dollars every year for the next 30 years, adjusted upwards each year exactly to match CPI inflation.

What if you live past 30 more years? Remember, you don’t need to put every penny you have into a TIPS ladder. For example, if you carve out just 10% and put it into stocks instead, after 30 years those stocks will have grown quite a lot, most likely enough to fund another 7-10 years of annual income. Or you could split your portfolio up between stocks and TIPS however you like, knowing that the TIPS will provide a stable sleeve of income.

A major retirement decision is when to start claiming Social Security benefits. There are many ways to visualize the decision process, and here is another interesting one based on taking the “Net Present Value”. Essentially, you are taking into account the time value of money to aide your comparison, here assuming a 4% real return (which is both rather optimistic and yet somehow less than what people have received over the last ~10 years).

Source: Ways to Wealth via Early Retirement forum.

If you just go off this chart, you might get a different takeaway than if you used the default answer on free sites like Social Security Optimizer by T. Rowe Price or Open Social Security. Note that the default discount rate for real return is currently 2.7% for Open Social Security; changing this number may alter your results.

People are usually quite willing to accept a discount if they get the money now, and in this case the discount doesn’t even seem that high at less than 10% (again, using the assumptions provided). If you don’t live to 85, claiming at 62 actually puts you ahead.

There are many other factors to consider, like your other income which can increase the tax rates on Social Security income, Roth conversion concerns, spousal situation, health status, and so on. Social Security is still the only way to “purchase” (by waiting to claim) additional income that is both guaranteed to increase with inflation and last for the rest of your lifetime. But if you are retired and in a cashflow crunch, waiting another 5+ years to claim may not be worth the theoretical possible extra money you might get if you live past age 80-85.

What’s on my mind these days? Here’s one thing. Based on this Bridgewater article, out of any 15-year period to be invested in US stocks dating back to 1970, the one we’ve just lived through was the best (2010 through end of 2024).

I was a bit surprised to see this. I’m disappointed that the same chart for growth in average inflation-adjusted worker income does not look the same at all. What does it mean for the future? I have no idea. Maybe our economic system is just tilted towards rewarding businesses instead of the average worker now, and high performance will be the norm. Maybe the next 15 years will have horrible performance, but the average worker will earn a much better relative income. Will AI simply reward the huge corporations even more, or will we find a way to distribute the benefits?

In 2019, I wrote the post Buying The Haystack: Sleeping Well Because I’ll Own The Winners (Needles). Recently, Hendrik Bessembinder updated his previous research with the paper One Hundred Years in the U.S. Stock Markets (SSRN/PDF), which tracked the “investment outcomes for 29,754 common stocks listed on the public U.S. stock markets over the 100-year period from 1926 to 2025”. Some highlights:

• Total Net Wealth created over that period: ~$91 Trillion.
• The 0.2% Needles: Just 46 stocks (roughly 0.2% of the ~30,000 total stocks) were responsible for generating 50% of that $91 trillion.
• The 4% Needles: Only 4% of all stocks accounted for 100% of the net value creation. The other 96% collectively just matched risk-free US Treasury bills – many were complete or nearly complete losses, the rest had smaller gains that only just offset those losses. This means that the top 4% created all of the net wealth creation.

Here is a chart that summarizes this info from a Vanguard Australia article Equity market skewness: The few mega-winners and the case for diversification:

I will simply quote Bogle and myself now, because I am lazy and honestly that’s how investment writing works. You just end up repeating and/or repackaging the same 10-25 rules over and over again.

As the late Jack Bogle told us: “Don’t look for the needle in the haystack. Just buy the haystack.”

I don’t know which will be the most successful US companies in the future, but I know that I will own them via the total US index fund in my portfolio. I will own the next Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, or Visa. I’ll also own whoever disrupts them after that. Since I own a big chunk of global stocks inside the Vanguard Total International Stock Index fund, I’ll be covered if they come from the other side of the world.

In 2026, this means I own NVIDIA/Alphabet/Google/Microsoft, but in 10 years, I know that the picture will be at least somewhat different.