Core Viewpoint - The article argues that simpler investment strategies, such as the classic "60/40 portfolio" (60% stocks and 40% bonds), often outperform more complex alternatives, highlighting the limitations of human predictive abilities in investing [2][4][5]. Group 1: Performance Comparison - Over the past 25 years, the "60/40 portfolio" achieved an annualized return of 6.89%, while Bridgewater's "All Weather Portfolio" returned only 6.49% [2] - Other complex strategies, such as the "Permanent Portfolio" (equally divided among stocks, bonds, commodities, and cash), yielded a lower annualized return of 4.45% [2] - A "30/70 portfolio" (30% stocks and 70% bonds) also underperformed with a 5.55% annualized return over the same period [2] Group 2: Institutional Investor Insights - Research tracking public pension funds and university endowments from 2008 to 2023 revealed that public pensions had an average annualized return of 6.88%, while a market index portfolio could have achieved 7.84% [3] - University endowment funds also returned around 6.88%, while a market index portfolio would have yielded 9.27% during the same period [3] - The difference in returns, although seemingly small at 1-2 percentage points annually, accumulates significantly over decades, suggesting that complex asset allocations have hindered long-term performance [3] Group 3: Investment Philosophy - The article emphasizes that the market's inherent complexity and uncertainty make it difficult for investors to predict outcomes accurately, leading to higher costs and lower returns when pursuing complex strategies [4] - The "60/40 portfolio" embodies a fundamental asset allocation philosophy, balancing risk and return effectively over time [4] - The article suggests that rather than seeking intricate strategies, investors should focus on controlling costs, diversifying, and adhering to key investment principles for long-term success [4][5]