TL;DR
Get office and shipping supplies delivered free — and shop member deals
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
A Kiplinger contributing adviser argues that investors who avoid frequent portfolio changes may benefit from staying invested through market swings. The article cites a widely repeated Fidelity account study, but provides no study details or return figures to verify the claim that inactive accounts performed best. It recommends a measured approach: monitor investments, but make changes for strategic reasons rather than in response to headlines.
A Kiplinger contributing adviser argues that investors may improve their chances of sticking with long-term plans by resisting frequent portfolio changes, citing a Fidelity account study said to have found that accounts held by deceased investors performed best, followed by accounts whose owners had forgotten their passwords. The supplied report does not identify the study’s date, methods or return figures, so that finding cannot be independently evaluated from the information provided.
The argument is that less-engaged investors are less likely to panic-sell during declines, attempt to time market movements or make repeated changes that interrupt a long-term investment strategy. The adviser says those behaviors can leave investors worse off than maintaining a portfolio aligned with their goals. This is the article’s interpretation of the account-study anecdote, not a quantified result presented with supporting data.
The report describes an appropriate approach as monitoring without constant tinkering. Investors might rely on a professional adviser or use personal rules to limit reactive decisions. Any adjustments, it says, should follow a considered change in goals, circumstances or investment strategy rather than short-term headlines. The article does not specify a suitable review schedule or allocation for individual readers.
The adviser also points to retirement as a period when emotional decisions can carry added risk. Unlike many people still saving, retirees may be withdrawing from their portfolios and may have less opportunity to recover from selling investments during a downturn. The article warns against abandoning a withdrawal plan or pursuing unfamiliar investments in reaction to market pressure; it does not claim that inactivity alone can protect a retirement portfolio.
Why Restraint Can Protect a Plan
The practical issue is not whether investors should ignore their finances, but whether frequent decisions help or hinder their plans. Reacting to every market move can lead someone to sell after prices fall or buy after enthusiasm has pushed prices up. The adviser’s central point is that behavior is part of investment risk: a sound plan can be undermined if an investor repeatedly abandons it in stressful moments.
That concern can matter especially for retirees taking withdrawals. Selling assets to meet spending needs during a decline may leave fewer investments in place for a later recovery, though the effect depends on portfolio design, market performance and the retiree’s circumstances. The report’s recommendation is to set an allocation and withdrawal approach around income needs, then make deliberate, limited changes when a lasting reason arises. It does not establish that every hands-off investor will outperform an active one.
For readers, the useful distinction is between disciplined oversight and impulsive trading. Staying informed about whether a plan still fits is different from changing it in response to every prediction or news headline. The adviser presents restraint as a way to support consistency, not as a substitute for sound planning or a guarantee of returns.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Fidelity Account Anecdote
The report refers to a Fidelity study conducted years ago that it says reviewed thousands of brokerage accounts. It recounts the conclusion as an anecdote: accounts belonging to deceased holders ranked highest, while accounts whose owners had forgotten their passwords ranked next. The supplied material does not include a study title, publication date, sample period, account-selection details or the comparison used to calculate performance.
The article places that story alongside general market observations, including the claim that markets have historically averaged roughly 10% annual returns and risen in about three out of every four calendar years. These figures are presented as broad historical patterns, with no index, time period or data source specified in the supplied report. They should not be read as a forecast or as a return an individual investor can expect.
The piece was written by a contributing adviser, and Kiplinger’s disclaimer says it presents the contributor’s views, not those of the editorial staff. That distinction matters: the account anecdote and advice are the contributor’s framing, while the source material supplied here does not provide independent documentation for the study’s findings.
“The best-performing accounts belonged to deceased account holders. Right behind them were accounts belonging to people who had simply forgotten their passwords.”
— Kiplinger contributing adviser
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Study Details Are Not Supplied
The supplied report does not identify the Fidelity study’s date, authors, methods, account sample or return data. It is not clear how accounts were categorized, what period was measured, how performance was compared, or whether factors such as account size and investment mix were taken into account. The reported ranking therefore should be treated as an anecdotal claim in the adviser’s article, not a fully documented finding here.
The report also does not specify which market index or period supports its historical return and positive-year figures. Nor does it offer a controlled comparison showing that less-engaged account holders earned higher returns because they traded less. Market results vary, and an investor’s outcome depends on factors beyond trading frequency, including allocation, costs, taxes, timing of withdrawals and personal circumstances.
There is no individual portfolio recommendation in the material. It does not establish how often a particular reader should review investments, what assets to hold, or whether a professional adviser is appropriate for them. The advice is general, and the source’s disclaimer identifies the article as the contributing adviser’s view.
retirement withdrawal planning tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Keep Reviews Tied to Goals
The article sets out no scheduled follow-up, new Fidelity analysis or specific next milestone. Its practical recommendation is that investors review whether their allocation still matches their goals and income needs, while avoiding changes driven solely by short-term market moves. For retirees, that includes considering how withdrawals interact with the portfolio during a downturn.
Readers who want to verify the account-study claim would need the original Fidelity research or a detailed account of its methodology and results; those details are absent from the supplied material. Any portfolio changes should be assessed against an investor’s own circumstances, rather than inferred from an anecdote about inactive accounts.
long-term investment strategy books
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Did Fidelity prove that inactive investors earn the best returns?
The Kiplinger contributing adviser reports that a Fidelity study ranked accounts of deceased holders highest and forgotten-password accounts next. The supplied report does not provide the study’s date, methods or return data, so the claim cannot be independently verified from this material.
Does this advice mean investors should never check their portfolios?
No. The adviser recommends staying aware of a portfolio while avoiding constant reactions to headlines and market movements. The article favors occasional, research-based adjustments when goals or circumstances warrant them.
Why does the article single out retirement?
Retirees may be withdrawing from investments rather than adding new savings. The adviser argues that selling during a downturn or abandoning a withdrawal plan in reaction to fear could harm a long-term plan, although outcomes depend on individual circumstances and market conditions.
Does staying invested guarantee higher returns?
No. The article presents reduced tinkering as a way to avoid some reactive decisions, not as a guarantee of gains. Investment returns vary, and the report does not provide evidence that every hands-off investor will outperform.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
