Alright, I'll make my case.
There exists a huge amount of research from things like the Trinity study that low cost index funds, in addition to bonds, gives you the highest probability of success long term. (Plus recommendations from the smartest investor in the world, Warren Buffet)
When you do things that deviate from the assumptions of the Trinity study, you are choosing to forgo their researched results, for a less researched/more unknown long term outcome. Some of these deviations could include:
- buying high cost actively managed funds.
- choosing a suboptimal asset allocation, like maybe 20/80 equities to bonds.
- going away from index funds in your equities portion of your portfolio (the deviation you are choosing)
- choosing a ridiculous withdraw rate
So my question is this: If none of us know whether your Alphabet strategy or an all index fund strategy will turn out better, what's your motivation for picking an allocation strategy that goes counter to what has beens shown to be researched best practices?