It seems to be a common thing on Reddit where hundreds of thousands of people just toss their money into a set of low-cost broad index funds in a strategy called the boglehead approach.
I don't know who this guy is, but it just sounds like a lazy approach invented by a guy from a distant generation whose financial advice is less relevant in the modern age.
The common advice I hear from a lot of bogleheads is that no matter what happens, you don't change your allocation to pick winners and losers.
But if you did this, you'd be losing decades of performance in low performing sectors.
If I held international allocation from 2010, that's already 15 years worth of underperformance.
Why not rotate into sectors where the fundamentals have improved and are likely to continue improving while rotating out of sectors where the opposite is happening?
And another philosophy that actually beats the boglehead approach over the long-term is through a Fama-French approach of emphasizing small cap value, so why not do that instead of the boglehead approach?
From 2010 to 2025, I held no international ETFs and outperformed those who did hold them, then I sold almost all of my US equities and overweighted international after the last election and have profited handsomely from the dedollarization trade, the fundamentals of that trade being likely to remain for the rest of this term.
The boglehead philosophy is that if a train is coming your way, you stay standing in front of the train.
My philosophy is that if you see one headed your way, you move out the way.
Simple.