At this point these companies make up a huge portion of 401k's for a huge chunk of Americans. How would it affect retirees if they dropped 40-50%, likely taking the market with them?
Personally, I drop the financial sector entirely (Thomistic prohibitions on usury) which leaves an even 10 funds which is easy to allocate mentally and in practice. For example, assuming a 60/40 allocation where one is holding the lion’s share in equities and the remainder in bonds (I substitute with a combination of gold, crypto, cash, and Swiss Franc here), one would allocate as follows:
XLC 6% XLY 6% XLP 6% XLE 6% XLV 6% XLI 6% XLB 6% XLK 6% XLU 6% XLRE 6%
(Note that XLF is consciously not taken as a position here, decide if it’s right for you. The Mortgate REITs which would make XLRE problematic are in XLF per the sector selection rules)
The remaining 40% is bonded debt if you are fine with usury, or some sort of asset negatively or neutrally correlated to equities.
> To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm
…Aquinas expands the analysis but it is relatively straightforward: all interest is usury.
Personally, I find it helpful to imagine two hypothetical persons representing the entire economy, one the creditor who is lending and two the borrower who is taking on the loan. In this ultra simple closed model with a fixed quantity of money, the former is in effect asking for more units of money than actually exist in the whole system. When the loan comes due the borrower owes a sum that cannot be paid in full from the circulating medium itself. Settlement then requires either default, the creditor forgiving the excess, or the transfer of real goods and property to make up the difference. Scaled up, that same pressure (the continuous generation of monetary claims that exceed the existing stock of money) is what I suspect drives a good deal of the subtle and overt strain on families and communities that people so often complain of in the West and in modern growth-oriented capital societies.
This definition of usury differs from the modern loophole-definition: that interest bearing loans are only usury when the rates cross some nebulous abusive threshold. In the above Thomistic interpretation, all interest is socially problematic and disfavored. Judaism holds to a similar prohibition on interest when loans are made between Jews. Islam likewise prohibit usury even more broadly. Despite the injunction against usury in the Middle Ages Christendom and the enduring prohibitions of usury in other faiths, there are many modern Catholics and Protestants who will favor the modern interpretation over Thomas’ understanding; I’m just not one of them.
Depends on how you define the 'whole system'. If I borrow $100 and make $110, the latter didn't appear out of nowhere. The lender, too, could have turned that $100 into $110.
Why shouldn't they be compensated for that opportunity cost?
I suspect the deeper difficulty is the “bond” in bonds themselves, the ongoing compulsion that interest introduces. Once interest is attached the debtor is under continuous obligation to produce additional claims simply to keep the accounts from breaking. Traditional writers on the Christian and Islamic sides generally preferred arrangements that avoided this continuous pressure. A pure discount (as with discounted Treasury bills and similar instruments) prices the time element once, up front: the creditor advances a smaller sum and later receives the larger face amount. The cost is paid at the beginning rather than levied as a recurring claim that must be met out of future circulation. In that sense the time value is acknowledged without the mechanism that forces the system to keep generating more monetary units than presently exist.
[edit:] Clarified the discount language.
But then eventually, if the system were sufficiently complex, I'd probably tire of whatever complicated barter system we have already going on, and then it's likely some third party would step in offering something that's totally not money, dude, trust me, it's just like a handy clearinghouse of IOUs for people engaged in the trade of these non-monetary favors for favors...
Some people who hold or offer such IOUs might then take the bold step of calling them non-exclusive, as in I will mow the lawn of whoever happens to have my "one lawn mowed" voucher, I just happened to originally give it to this first guy, I have no idea what he did with it after that... Other people realize this "non exclusivity" deal actually makes the voucher strictly more valuable, you can do more things with it than you could otherwise... You see where I'm going with this. It's not passing my sniff test.
Any claims that there is any important difference is sophistry.
I agree that charging interest on a full-recourse loan is a wicked and disgusting thing to do to one's fellow man, and I'd say it's in the same genus as slavery. Usury is to fraud what robbery is to larceny. It's also interesting that the markets where usury is most prevalent (housing, college fees) are the ones that have seen the most insane price increases.
Usury usually means ruinously high interest rates, not all lending.
Unless you’re Muslim, generally.
Jump in a time machine to 1515 and ask Martin Luther, or to 1260 and ask Thomas Aquinas, they'd tell you it's sinful.
And in the present age, a fair number of Islamic folk consider interest against their religion's rules. So there's a Halal finance industry where, for example, you can get a "murabahah contract" where the bank buys a house, then sells the house to you at a higher price, while allowing you to pay them in monthly instalments.
So I guess in this case if the house burns down and the insurance only pays 50% of the agreed value then the lender only receives 50% of their agreed repayment.
"Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest" (Deut 23.20 JPS Tanakh).
I suppose it’s worse if your calculation is, “I’ll retire when my 401k hits $X absolute value,” but I think most people just retire at a certain age instead with risk spread across decades.
It created an actual recession albeit thankfully short one for the case of dotcom (sadly not for 2007) and a really recessionary environment which causes unemployment and just straight up fear and panic.
I do understand what you are talking about and overall in long term, perhaps things flatten out but atleast speaking financially so, its better to be on a smooth sailing road rather than insane ups and downs with retirement money if preferable.
> I think most people just retire at a certain age instead with risk spread across decades.
The issue in my opinion is with people near that certain age you mention and who retire in the time during boom just before bust. They would then get the 50% hit on their savings instantly with an recession/inflation/unemployment environment which in my opinion might be genuinely devastating.
(supposing that they had their investments in stocks, I wouldn't consider that any retiree would have all their money in stocks but there have been some other comments which show a sizable amount, @kipchak's comment shows 50% stock for retirement. so a 50% shock on top of that could lead to a wipe out of 25% of your retirement fund which is honestly still pretty crazy.)
No person puts all of their retirement savings into QQQ or SPY at the peak and sell it off at the trough. Instead folks drip their savings into their weighted portfolio and withdraw money from their weighted portfolio as expenses accrue. Now obviously the GFC was a huge deal, but this sort of facile understanding of stock markets always leads to big misunderstandings. There's a reason Monte Carlo analyses of these events are used to model these scenarios.
(Though I imagine there were many people who tried to re-balance their portfolio into a less equity-heavy model abruptly during the GFC and based on equities performance at the time, it was probably the right move as long as taxes were taken into account.)
What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will. Going 100% bonds is simply intolerable for the time window for most retirees, but an equity wipeout of this magnitude is equally intolerable.
For example, you could have an S&P 500 fund that, over the next year, will have a maximum of 0% capital losses (it can't go down), you will only get the first, say, 5% of gains that the equity index makes. So if stocks go up 20% the next year, your return is capped at 5%, but if they crash 50%, you don't absorb any capital losses. In practice, the return cap is going to be just a bit above the corresponding Treasury bill for the same duration.
These can be constructed in various different ways and institutionally I'm sure there are more bespoke ways that are more efficient from a fees/returns and tax perspective, but one way to do this on your own without going the ETF route is:
- Pick an amount you'd like to invest. - Buy a Treasury bill for some duration. Treasury bills are discounted at the time of purchase and return the target amount when the bill matures. For instance, if you buy a $100k 1-year Treasury bill, it might cost $96.5k today. - Now you have $3.5k in your pocket and a guarantee that you'll get $100k in a year when the bill matures. Use that $3.5k now to purchase call options or vertical spreads on the S&P 500 index to capture the upside that you can. Your return is limited by the structure of that options trade and what its maximum payoff is.
If you're willing to accept more than 0% downside, then you can achieve a higher potential upside cap as well.
Investment companies have to remain profitable or at-worst neutral as such they would generally charge a decent bit of money for this type of setup. (If they end up having too big of losses then perhaps it could be similar to the the 2007 Banking/Investment companies crisis.)
Generally speaking I am not a financial advisor but you can take a look at international index funds/ETF's in general which have less exposure to AI in general.
and you can follow the age rule created by Mr Bogle where you have (age)% in bonds and (100-age)% in stocks, so at 70 you have 70% bonds, 30% stocks.
So again taking the example of dot com bubble, International Index funds fell from my understanding 30-40% and suppose that you had 30% stocks and 70% bonds.
So that would only have a 30% times 30 % which is 9% which perhaps might be more managable as compared to the previous 25%. There might be some other strategies as well which can help in diversification
Hope this helps!
It is worth saying however that part of tail hedging is that the payoff is worth a lot more when everything else has tanked, so e.g. even if you (say) get 10% on your puts when the wider portfolio is still down 40% (made up numbers), you can deploy that capital at probably quite a high expected return.
You can use a collar for this at somewhat reasonable cost. Not sure how rolling that would compare to just using it to defer until you can cheaply sell and buy some fixed income ladder. Probably badly.
Also, there’s no capital gains to defer if you use a retirement account, which will be a better place for fixed income anyway.
I expect that would not be a cost-effective way of attaining the risk profile you'd be looking for.
I expect there won't be a more cost-effective way of managing your portfolio risk than by simply adjusting your split of broadly-diversified equities vs bonds.
That was the message that I got from a financial podcast I listened to a couple weeks ago anyway.
I'm saying that for the cost of buying puts to hedge against equity downside in a retirement portfolio, for any given level of risk, you'd probably be better off just selling some of the equities and buying bonds instead.
e.g. try and find any equity-focused ETF with downside protection that generally outperforms a bog-standard stock/bond split total-market ETF for whatever measure of volatility/downside protection that you want.
And more specifically, it's not low growth/high inflation that kills bond portfolio returns, it's interest rates increasing that devalue bonds, i.e. the transition from low inflation to high inflation. So yeah, you can construct a portfolio that hedges against that... but I'd be surprised if you can do it without decreasing your risk-adjusted expected returns below a plain stock/bond index fund - whatever hedging method you use is either going to increase your interest-rate risk (bonds), or your inflation-rate risk (cash), or is going to limit your upside (buffer etfs), or is just going sap your upfront returns (protective puts).
To me the diversification hedge options (say GUNR) seem like they are helping you get closer to regime neutral. Or in other words you are giving up returns to cover more macro scenarios and betting less on what the future looks like.
It's effectively impossible to hedge against every possibility, including temporary drawdowns, while still having positive returns after inflation.
No. With insider information.
SPY260821P00738000 (OCC symbol: PUT on SPY expiring the 21th of August 2026 at a strike of $738) is $12.20 as I type this, so $1220 per lot. So $16 800 to protect for a month. So $200 K per year.
A solid 20% yearly, unless my math is way off.
Now of course you can buy, instead of a PUT, a PUT debit spread, or you can buy further from the strike, or you can finance or partially finance your PUT or PUT debit spread with a CALL you'd sell (turning it into a covered strangle) etc. That's not the point of this exercise though. And anyway I doubt many retirees have the know-how to do that.
In any case it's well known that the costs to hedge are extremely high.
In 1929 those who had 10% gold for example "only" lost 25% overall: gold has value since thousands of years. My dumb thinking is that if gold has value since thousands of years, there's an extremely high probability that it'll keep value for the few decades I've got left at most.
ATM options cost approximately 0.4 S sigma T^0.5 (do a Taylor expansion of the "N"s in the Black Scholes formula), so indeed, for current index vols of about 16% we are talking 0.4 * 16% * (1/12)^0.5 = 1.85% for a 1 month option, and 12 of them indeed cost 22% of your portfolio. Not a good idea.
However, if you hold the options only half the way to expiry, you lose only 1/4 of the time value. And if you buy OTM, you have convexity coming your way on the way down.
Lastly, index vols were very low (until yesterday, ha), as so many firms entered the dispersion trade: they wanted to go long dispersion (some firms do well with AI, some lose out), so short correlation, therefore long single stock vol and short index vol. Which means you could buy index vol (ie protection) quite cheap.
In other words, a programmer should invest a bit more away from software than average, a realtor should invest a bit more away from properties than average, a coal-miner should invest a bit more away from energy and mining, etc.
If you have your job, you can weather a stock-downturn, and if investments are solid, you can weather a period of unemployment by liquidating some, but if both hit trouble simultaneously then that's much much worse.
I'm mostly thinking of folks that will passively invest in a big broad index fund, and then assume they've reached the end in terms of balancing industry/sector risk.
Oh, sure, it's way worse because of the fraud-angle, but even if it had just been a more honest kind of mania, the arrangement was reckless and bad.
give somebody $1000 worth of shares in their company, and a lot of folks will hang on to them. but if you gave them $1000 cash to invest, they almost certainly would not choose to dump all of that money into their own company.
In contrast, starting with Money and then choosing between StockX or StockY is an easier choice.
Presumably this is their total net worth. I think this is way more common than people on this type of forum realize. Most will work until they literally can't anymore, then scrape by on social security until they die. I think it's important to keep that perspective.
The average person is struggling in modern America.
The US is second in the world for median equivalised household disposable income, second only to Luxembourg and 10%+ above Norway. For daily median per person income after taxes and transfers, we're only behind Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Qatar, and the UAE. Outside of petrostates, microstates, and Switzerland, no country has richer "average" people.
The US certainly doesn't have the safety net of some of these other states, but these aren't holes you're being thrown into by society: they're pits you've deliberately jumped into in 99% of cases.
Now, let's talk about insurance, that's also much higher. In states like California and Florida, home insurance is through the roof, in some states like NJ and NY, car insurance is through the roof. Both going up way above inflation (like the items in my first paragraph).
You might counter with energy costs are much higher in these European countries (and similar ones like Germany, Benelux, etc), and the purchasing power might be higher, but the wages are so so much lower.
That said, this trope of people misspending their money needs to consider this outrageous costs of things that many people around the world never need to think about. The shitty wages in France are overshadowed by so many essentials being available without a high cost or any cost in some cases.
A US worker at the average wage keeps roughly 70 cents of every labor-cost dollar; a worker in Belgium, Germany, France, Austria, or Italy keeps closer to 47 cents, even before you add in the effect of VAT. Nobody in Europe is getting those services you mentioned for "free" - you're just making everyone else pay for them with taxing their labor. You almost connected the dots when it came to property taxes paying for public services, but missed that Europe assesses income taxes.
>Now, let's talk about insurance, that's also much higher. In states like California and Florida, home insurance is through the roof, in some states like NJ and NY, car insurance is through the roof. Both going up way above inflation (like the items in my first paragraph).
This is a bundle of issues. As a quick list, compare the size/value of an average property in California or Florida to a property in Europe, assuming they even own the property (remember, Europe's home ownership rate is lower than Florida's). Same goes for car ownership costs: American cars are larger, more expensive, driven more, and are more exposed to damages from uninsured motorists, because states like NY, NJ, and CA think it's racist to enforce uninsured (or even unlicensed) motorist laws. Just like health insurance, allowing free-riders on insurance systems is financially disastrous.
>You might counter with energy costs are much higher in these European countries (and similar ones like Germany, Benelux, etc), and the purchasing power might be higher, but the wages are so so much lower.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, Europeans can get a number of services paid for by their neighbor, but it doesn't make them "richer" by any reasonable measure. Quantifying standard of living is incredibly difficult, because even as this exchange shows, people will value different things differently. But broadly speaking, my original point still stands: Americans should not be struggling to live in America, absent poor personal decisions, particularly if you're willing to lower the standard of living to that of an average European (a smaller rented property, driving far fewer miles in a compact car, no air conditioning, etc, etc).
>That said, this trope of people misspending their money needs to consider this outrageous costs of things that many people around the world never need to think about. The shitty wages in France are overshadowed by so many essentials being available without a high cost or any cost in some cases.
What outrageous costs are those? Community college remains very affordable, and costs for 2 years at a state school can be managed, especially against the greater lifetime earning potential in America. Healthcare costs OOP is capped at $9,200 on an ACA plan, which can be nearly free for middle to lower income brackets, and that debt itself is basically unenforceable in most cases these days, assuming you truly don't have the assets to pay.
24%
We are both German and in the 92nd percentile of the income distribution.
If so, by my rough math, you’re paying about 25% more in taxes than an equivalent American couple based on PPP. That American couple would have about $30K USD/26K Euro more in disposable income, would likely have good quality health insurance paid for by their job, be eligible for $3K to $4K in social security retirement income per month, and be able to individually contribute to tax free retirement accounts, tax free college funds for their children, etc.
Now redo the math.
I and most people in my peer group pay over 40 percent of income in taxes, and that's NOT including property taxes, which are much, much higher than in Europe. Some much more than that - like triple (city, state and federal).
State taxes were completely ignored from your math.
This message, and the message before it which I am at pains to rebut much of, contains a lot of misleading cherry-picking.
And you compared European universities to a two year county college degree? Healthcare costs were also greatly glossed over. I'm hoping someone else is triggered but if not I'll be forced to step in and correct this stuff.
The US median household pays roughly 10–12% of income in federal taxes. A German median-wage single worker's net rate is somewhere in the high-20s to high-30s percent.
Germany will be 10 to 20% higher in total taxes: income, property, sales/VAT, etc; than an American at a comparable professional income. If you claim to be paying 40, you'd be paying 50%+ in Germany. $10 to 30K a year more gives you a lot of room to save for college, pay for medical expenses, etc: the "safety net" in Europe only helps you if you don't want to work or don't want to earn a significant income.
States feature low or 0 income tax, including desirable places to live like Florida and Texas. Yes, they'll have property taxes or others, but again: personal decisions. If you choose to live in CA, vote for CA policies, then you have to pay for CA's waste.
If you read my comment, you'll see I'm saying you can minimize college expenses by doing 2 years at CC, then transferring, yielding a total college spend of just a few thousand dollars (not the absurd $100K student debt loads people incessantly whine about online). Healthcare costs are simple: if you pay for ACA-aligned insurance, again, your costs are capped: $10K OOP max sucks, but if you made the decision to purchase insurance, you're not paying the $200K medical debt people claim online.
My central claim was and remains: America provides more opportunity to earn money, and people misrepresent the "downside risk" of America's approach to healthcare, college, and income by refusing to acknowledge that the worst outcomes are of people's own making. America gives you far more opportunity to excel, but also doesn't backstop your personal failures with your neighbor's work to the same extent (at the individual level, ignoring govt. bailouts of companies).
Bottom line was that stuff is so much cheaper here than over there, that not much would have changed. We’d be able to save up a lot of money if we were willing to live frugally in the US though.
In the end the volatility of the current American political landscape in addition to the hostile immigration laws made it unattractive to move, at least for now.
Here's the easiest example: with ACA subsidies the average cost of an ACA plan is $50, with low income people qualifying for plans as low as $10 a month. This will cover basic preventative care like screenings, tests, and vaccines; and importantly caps your OOP maximum, preventing a financial disaster if you have a significant illness.
Despite all that, many people still aren't insured. They aren't insured despite it being massively subsidized for them by taxpayers. They aren't insured despite the government running advertisements throughout open enrollment.
At this point, if you have a complaint about a massive healthcare bill, my very first question is: did you have insurance?
The same ideas apply to college, housing, cars, and health/diet: "the system" gives you a massive range of options, but people consistently choose poorly, shortsightedly, and wastefully. People need to take personal responsibility for their decisions.
Some people don't even have $10 per month spare. Wealth inequality in the USA is extreme. But more importantly: they are busy and stressed. If it's so easy to get health insurance it should either be mandatory and automatic, or it should be a checkbox on your taxes or some other form.
When I paid my student loan it was a matter of just ticking a box on the employment tax declaration that I had a student loan. And then it was automatically taken from my paycheck. It wasn't about the money, but about the ease of use. If I had to send a monthly payment with a paper check I'd surely miss payments.
The phrase "personal responsibility" is a thought-ending cliche used when someone doesn't want to see the big picture. It's like if Microsoft changes Windows 12 to break Valve games and you blame the game because "developer responsibility" or "executable file responsibility" and ignore the bigger picture that Microsoft is trying to drive Valve out of business to move games off Steam and onto the Microsoft Store.
For loan payments, somehow generations managed to pay mortgages, property taxes, and more with nothing more than a checkbook they manually balanced and gasp paper, envelopes, and stamps. Again, even if you have to log into a website to manually trigger an ACH, put a recurring calendar event in your phone and include a link. I bet you could get that down to 3 minutes a month, assuming they don't have autowithdraw.
Your Windows/Valve example has Windows taking action to make things harder for people. All the examples you provided are things that are easier now than they ever were in the past.
Even your initial premise that these options are inherently self-destructive is wrong. If you're a trust-fund kid and want to study art history for $100K a year, great! We shouldn't take the option away from everyone just because some people rack up $200K of student debt. We shouldn't further bureaucratize and regulate the healthcare system just because some people are too busy (read: watching TV) or stressed (read: can't follow instructions written at a 4th grade level) to work through a few questions on a website.
401k lets you rebalance a portfolio with zero tax implications.
The downsides are generally high fees and a 10% penalty for early withdrawal which makes them surprisingly bad for young people. They tend to start in lower tax brackets, have fewer reserves when unemployed, and face fewer risks from an unbalanced portfolio.
Pay down debt then Roth IRA when young 401k after 40 is often better than defaulting to a 401k, but saving anything tends to be more important than such optimizations.
Cars, student debt, credit card debt all gone. (And I dread needing a new car). Covered downpayment on my house and cash for a nice shed that matches the house and a fence so my kid can play in the back yard with no issue.
Invested low 5 figures into myself taking a year off and now I am getting serious about the 401k at 41. And I am ok with that.
I never worked at a big tech company and I covered my mom's down payment and appliances and new carpet and part of her move for her to move close to me. Dad died when I was 11 so I am all she has and she was a public school teacher so she's on a small pension.
We all walk a different life and I know people that make my entire life savings in a year but I will eventually grow a retirement to get me through 10-15 years and then it will be what it will be. (Maybe a tank of helium and bag)
So most people get taxed at lower marginal rates in retirement when they take money out. Which makes deferring taxes a meaningful advantage. This is especially true if you intend to money to a state with lower tax rates in retirement, but a worse deal if you intend to do the reverse.
Surely you need about 20 years?
1x is plenty IMO.
As the boomers die off - if they have these accounts - their kids are quickly going to be forced to liquidate them over the course of 10 years. With some of them having to sell a chunk annually.
Still, if NVidia lost 50% of their market share, we would probably see a big collapse of the stock market.
EDIT: to note, the top ten companies in SP500 make up an unprecedented concentration but they're not "mostly AI".
This is what caused the 08' crash. Everything was all tied together so as one massive bank failed it sent a cascading ripple effect through the entire industry which became a sort of black hole that took down many seemingly stable, profitable banks with it.
I can easily see the same happening with AI.
They're mostly either AI proper, or hardware manufacturers benefitting from AI boom, or provide cloud services to AI companies...
Plus apparently at least for Google, but from other news sources I've seen, at least Amazon and Oracle have basically mortgaged their future in other business units to fund AI, so it's likely many of these other business units will underperform (or already are).
So lots of new debt, unverifiable growth that could be shady, coupled with a slow down of their other businesses could be a really bad combo.
This is pretty close to current concentration, but the current top 10% is basically all technology except for Eli Lily at 1.5%, so in that sense it's arguably unprecedented.
There's a good chart here on page 5 of top 10 weights over time, and on 6 of how the 1965 top 10 fared to 2025.
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/dam/corp/research/pdf...
It wasn't like, "Nvidia took a hit and everyone else was fine". It was more like, "One or two companies were fine, and ALL others took a hit"
Do you think iphones and windows™ will stop selling once the ai bubble pops?
For the people who are close/early to retirement and can't do that, well, they need to manage sequence of returns risk.
Edit: I think some ppl might interpret this as me being bullish on the SP500. I'm not, I'm bullish on everything evens out and returns to the mean.
a drop of 40-50% in the S&P 500!? That didn't even happen in the market crash of 1929. It would lead to unemployment and breadlines for the majority of the population, and retirees would get in line like everybody else. Making income from your savings requires a productive economy; bonds are not the answer because bonds also stop getting paid, and even govt bonds would be erased by inflation.
it's just not a scenario that should be on your radar, the chance is tiny, and the result would be completely non-linear. if you tried to hedge yourself against that, not only would you fail (it's simply out of your control, like an earthquake or tornado), you also wouldn't make any income in good times, and most times are good and it's sensible to plan for that retirement.
The COVID crash nearly hit those levels also
No correlation with future returns.
On the other hand the world is leveraged to insane levels not seen since world wars or global recessions.
At the same time yields are low while inflation is high.
There is definitely a high level of risk in the financial markets.
A risk nobody, especially politicians, want to look at, because it would unavoidably lead to some major pains, so procrastinating until it's unavoidable seems the way to go.
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...
If one is over concentrated its easily avoided.
The sound advice for the past decades has been, just invest in a low-cost ETF tracking the S&P instead of picking stocks to minimize risk and invest in the market broadly.
So a huge number of people have done that, believing they're diversified, while tech makes up 40% of the index.
Yes you could sell your S&P and find things to invest in least likely to be impacted by a potential bubble, but your average 9-5'er with automated contributions to their 401k is probably not sophisticated enough to do that.
And that's assuming only these companies would be affected if there was a massive draw-down in tech/AI related stocks. We haven't really seen a situation like this before, so it's not easy to predict what effects there might be in the broader economy.
Right now it's not clear that is true.
Most people in actual retirement I know do something like keep ~2 years of cash in short-term treasuries and everything else in equities. That gives you a lot of buffer to time-shift equity drawdown, which is the main risk with equities, while retaining almost all of the benefit of equities. Simple and relatively robust.
What you propose takes on a huge amount of inflation risk. How are you hedging that risk? A guaranteed yield doesn't mean you aren't getting poorer. Obsessing over one type of risk and ignoring another isn't rational.
Reducing variance of net worth has a very high cost. Over-indexing on that singular property, particularly when most people can afford some variability, is a recipe for relative impoverishment.
not if you're 80 dude...
Usually the financial services company will offer several options: more aggressive/high risk, or less aggressive/lower risk. Most people will just go with whatever is the default option.
So much of the American S&P 500 is dominated by handful of companies that the risk is not that easy to avoid. If or when the AI bubble pops, it's going to take down a lot of the economy with it. You can direct your retirement savings into the lowest yield/lowest risk assets offered by the firm, but you'll forego whatever growth happens in the mean time.
Will the bubble pop next week? Next month? Next year? Who knows. Timing the market is incredibly difficult.
There's a famous quote, attributed (perhaps apocryphally) to John Maynard Keynes: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
Like my country pension scheme. It went through ups and downs for a hundred years but has always come on top. All you need is a long horizon and a trillion dollars and you basically can't lose.
https://workplace.vanguard.com/content/dam/inst/iig-transfor... (page 78)