TL;DR
Get smart everyday buys 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 contributor argues that investors may benefit from checking their portfolios less often and avoiding emotional trades, while still maintaining a plan suited to their goals. The article cites a widely repeated Fidelity account study, but provides no study details or figures that would establish a measured return advantage.
A Kiplinger contributing adviser argues that investors may improve their long-term outcomes by resisting frequent portfolio changes, citing a widely repeated claim that deceased Fidelity account holders had the best-performing accounts in a review of brokerage accounts. The source does not provide the study’s date, methodology or results, so the claim is an anecdotal takeaway rather than a verifiable return comparison in the material provided.
The article’s central argument is that investors who leave a suitable portfolio alone are less likely to sell in a panic, try to time the market or interrupt compounding. The contributor says advisers often see highly involved clients make more market calls and adjust their holdings more frequently, while some clients check their accounts rarely and follow an established plan. These observations are presented as the adviser’s experience, not as results from a controlled comparison.
The Fidelity story is often repeated as a finding that accounts of people who had died performed best, followed by accounts whose owners had forgotten their passwords. But the supplied report gives no account count, return figures, time period or comparison baseline, and does not link to Fidelity’s underlying research. It therefore cannot support a specific estimate of how much less-engaged investors earned, or show that inactivity itself caused better performance.
The adviser does not recommend abandoning oversight. The proposed middle ground is to monitor a portfolio enough to check that its allocation still fits the investor’s goals, while avoiding changes prompted solely by headlines or short-term market moves. Any adjustments, the article says, should be occasional and grounded in a strategic reason, rather than repeated reactions to volatility.
Why Retirees Face Greater Market Risk
The argument carries added weight for people drawing income from investments. During the saving years, continued contributions can help investors keep buying through a downturn. In retirement, withdrawals may continue while asset values are lower, and a poorly timed sale can reduce the amount left invested for a recovery. The source warns that panic selling or abandoning a withdrawal plan can damage a retirement strategy, though it offers no quantified estimate of the effect.
For readers, the practical issue is not whether to watch a portfolio at all, but whether decisions follow a plan or a moment of fear. A portfolio that is too risky for an investor’s income needs or tolerance for losses may require attention; staying hands-off is not a substitute for an appropriate allocation. The article’s case is for disciplined oversight rather than constant trading, not for neglect.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Fidelity Study Claim and Its Limits
The report says Fidelity reviewed thousands of brokerage accounts and that the anecdotal conclusion was that deceased account holders’ accounts performed best, with accounts whose owners forgot their passwords next. It does not identify when the review took place, how “best-performing” was defined, or whether the findings were published by Fidelity. Without those details, the story is best treated as a commonly repeated anecdote, not a documented performance statistic.
The contributor also points to broad historical market patterns, saying markets have averaged roughly 10% annual returns and risen in about three out of every four calendar years. The source does not specify the market index, dates, currency, treatment of dividends or other calculation assumptions. Those figures should not be read as a forecast or a guarantee; returns vary across periods, and investors can lose money.
The article’s framing is consistent with a familiar investing principle: short-term volatility can prompt decisions that conflict with long-term goals. Its advice is to maintain a portfolio aligned with those goals and make material changes for strategic reasons. It does not establish that all investors should use the same allocation or monitoring schedule.
“You can’t panic if you’re not paying attention”
— Kiplinger contributing adviser
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Account Review Does Not Show
The source material does not include Fidelity’s original study, its date, methodology, account sample, performance measures or numerical results. It is therefore not possible to verify the account-ranking claim or determine whether the reported outcome reflected investment choices, account characteristics or other factors. The article does not show that being inactive caused higher returns.
The historical market figures are also not accompanied by a named index or measurement period. No investor’s future results can be inferred from the averages quoted. The report does not specify how often investors should review their holdings, which investments suit a particular reader, or how to balance market exposure with retirement withdrawals.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Investors Can Apply the Argument
The source describes no pending Fidelity release, new study or scheduled follow-up. Its immediate takeaway is to review whether an investment plan fits long-term goals and income needs, then avoid changing it solely because of short-term market moves. Readers who need personalized help can discuss allocation and withdrawal decisions with a qualified financial professional.
For the study claim to support a firm conclusion, readers would need access to Fidelity’s original data or a documented account of its methods and results. Until then, the article’s recommendation to limit reactive trading remains the contributor’s interpretation, not a finding established by the details supplied.
retirement investment planning tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Did Fidelity prove that deceased investors earned the highest returns?
The source says a Fidelity review produced that anecdotal conclusion, but provides no original study, methodology, time period or return figures. The claim cannot be independently verified from the material provided.
Does the article recommend ignoring an investment portfolio?
No. The contributor argues for keeping an eye on whether a portfolio still fits its owner’s goals, while avoiding frequent trades driven by headlines or fear.
Why does the argument matter for retirees?
Retirees may be withdrawing money during a market downturn. The article says selling investments in response to a drop or abandoning a withdrawal plan could harm a retirement strategy, but it does not quantify that risk.
Are the market return figures a promise of future performance?
No. The source gives broad historical averages without naming an index or calculation period. Past market performance does not guarantee future returns, and investments can lose value.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
