Combining Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs & Personal Finance

Updated. You may or may not be familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which is part of one theory explaining human behavior by psychologist Abraham Maslow. It suggests that there are five general levels of needs:

  • Physiological
  • Safety
  • Social
  • Esteem
  • Growth

These are often represented as a triangle due to their relative importance. Lower needs must be satisfied before the higher needs can be addressed. For example, one must first obtain food and water (physiological) before worrying about what might happen if they get in a car accident tomorrow (safety). It’s just a theory, but an interesting one.

maslow_wiki

While not all of these needs can be explicitly bought with money, it’s not too much of a stretch to see the relationship between this triangle and finances. We usually worry about paying for rent and food first before worrying about giving to charity or that long distance telephone bill.

In the book Retirement Income Redesigned, the authors make a close correlation between the hierarchy of needs and planning for retirement. Here is a figure from the book:

maslowmoney600

The new levels:

  • Survival income. How much do you spend simply to survive?
  • What-if income. You will want to protect your life. This could mean health care costs, health insurance, and/or proper portfolio planning so you don’t outlive your money.
  • Freedom income. Money needed to do the things that bring joy and fulfillment to your life. Could be travel, education, or fine wine.
  • Gift income. Money for people and causes that deserve your help. This is the replacement for “love”.
  • Dream income. This is the elusive “self-actualization” level where you find true happiness and meaning.

By breaking down your income needs, this could be another way to track your progress towards financial freedom. You can make covering your bare necessities your first smaller goal, and move on from there. This would involve both measuring your expenses and also deciding how much you’d need to save to create that much income.

Alternative View: Keep Up With The OTHER Joneses

joneses

We’ve all heard the phrase “Keeping up with the Joneses”. It even has its own Wikipedia page with competing origin stories. Perhaps the greatest marketing trick ever is making people equate social status with material goods.

Instead of worrying about the neighbors who (supposedly) make more money than us, what if we instead looked carefully at the neighbors who make less than us? Their valuable example is what can actually help us grow real wealth. What am I talking about? Michael Taylor of Bankers Anonymous explains in his post Saving is never easy:

But – and here’s a key point that you should understand – if you make $50,000 per year, you probably live on the same street as someone who makes quite a bit less than you, say, $40,000 a year.

Somehow your neighbor making $40,000 has figured out how to pay all the bills and sock away an extra few hundred dollars every month. I don’t know she does it. Frankly, I’m resentful of her success. But I’m also impressed.

Also, she doesn’t understand how the family of four two blocks away can survive on $30,000. And yet, that family does it too.

Meanwhile, in another part of your same town, another family is going completely broke on $120,000 a year. If they could just find an extra 10% more income, they think, the checkbook would balance. They could pay down that ever-growing credit card balance. But each month comes and goes, and the debts grow.

Let’s consider this in the context of financial freedom and early retirement. If you wanted to oversimplify things, you would say that you need to control your spending to the household median income level (say, $50,000 a year) while boosting your household income to double that (say, $100,000 a year). A nice, round 50% savings rate. I’m sure many households who make over $100,000 would laugh at the idea of spending under $50,000 a year. Impossible. Can’t do it. But guess what? Half of all US households are doing exactly that every day, so it certainly isn’t impossible! For some reason of human psychology, it is just incredibly hard to make that choice.

My One-Page Financial Plan: Why Is Money Important To Me?

onepageplan2b

onepage0I’ve already shared two nuggets from the book The One-Page Financial Plan by Carl Richards – the importance of getting started and the true value of a human advisor. But what about the title itself?

Before even reading the book, I was impatient and tried to make a one-page financial plan but it didn’t sound right. Even after reading it all the way through, I got a bit lost as besides “one-page plans”, it also tried to cover other big topics like budgeting, investing, and insurance. It took a few re-reads before things finally settled down in my mind. Here are the parts that helped the most:

Your one-page plan simply represents the three to four things that are the most important to you: some action items that need to get done along with a reminder of why you’re doing them.

Having done this with hundreds of my clients, I’ve found no more efficient strategy for solving the problem of how to handle our finances than asking “Why is money important to you?” […] If you’re doing this with a spouse, it’s important that each partner answer the question separately.

The reason I ask my clients this question is because it helps us understand their values. Often, the process of asking “Why?”—“Why is money important to me?” or “Why have I been so anxious about money lately?” or “Just why do I work so hard anyway?”—uncovers deep desires and fears that we are often too busy or too scared to think about. While the process can be uncomfortable, recognizing what really matters to you is the first step toward making financial decisions that are in sync with your values.

Recently, the author shared his own plan on his website – What Does a One-Page Plan Look Like?:

onepageplan1

There are many reasons why my plan (at the top of this post) will be different from the author’s and yours. Our current situation is different, our priorities will be different, our goals will be different.

Why is money important to me?

  1. I greatly value security, sometimes so much that it is irrational. I don’t want to have to rely on anyone else for money or favors. We cut back on work hours to spend more time with kids, but we still want to make more than we spend. It’s not time to touch that nest egg yet!
  2. I greatly value spending time with my family, both on a day-to-day basis and for extended vacations in new and strange places. I have to work hard to avoid getting into a rut where the days and weeks all start melding together. Even if it means lugging multiple car seats and strollers everywhere, I still want to stay curious, make some mistakes, have some adventures.
  3. I want to someday shift my activities such that they more directly give back to my community or some other greater good. I don’t like the idea of just writing checks though, so I need to find a more active and satisfying role. If I could make some money while doing this, that would be great, but otherwise I need to put enough aside that my investments will support me.

The overall point of both this exercise and the book is that improving your financial life doesn’t have to be done perfectly. Just by getting started and putting down your best guess down on paper, you’ll already be better than most. If you see something wrong when comparing your values and your actual behavior, then make some changes. Having done them, I recommend both doing this exercise and reading the book. If your library participates with Overdrive.com, it is available to borrow as a Kindle eBook.

The True Value of a Real, Human Financial Advisor

onepage0

The hot buzzword right now is “FinTech”, where technology will help us manage our finances more and efficiently than before. But I’ve also been tracking the reasons why working with a human advisor can be worth the money and time spent. As I’ve mentioned, the strength of the book The One-Page Financial Plan by Carl Richards is that you’re hearing the voice of an experienced financial planner who also has the skill of distilling his experiences down to a sketch. Here’s how he puts it:

onepage_bigmistake

Takeaway: A good financial advisor keeps you from making The Big Mistake that derails your plans.

The big institution Vanguard says that a good financial advisor should be able to improve the performance of a “average” client’s portfolio by about three percentage points in the following ways. Take note of which one factor makes up half of that 3%:

vgalpha

Takeaway: The biggest “value add” from good advisors is their “behavioral coaching”.

Here’s more incisive commentary by Josh Brown of The Reformed Broker, called When the flood comes:

When the flood comes, all of the bullshit arguments among the financial commentariat will come to an end. This will be my third time through. Believe me. We will not be arguing about how many basis points an advisor charges versus another advisor or a software program.

The people who are there for their clients and keep a cool head in public will come through okay. More than okay – they’ll actually raise assets from new and existing households who realize what a mistake they’ve made with their previous advisor or solution.

Takeaway: A good client advisor will help you keep your cool when the next disaster comes.

I’m sure you’ve caught onto the theme by now.

The value in a financial advisor arrives when they help you maintain your plan through both the good times and bad. They will prevent you from participating in the mania during the next bubble, and they will keep you from bailing out during the next crisis.

The problem is, how do you find this “good” financial advisor amongst a sea of average to downright dangerous ones? Here’s some advice from The One-Page Financial Plan:

To a certain extent, the process of finding a real financial advisor is a qualitative experience. It boils down to the question “Can I see this person getting to know me well enough so that I can trust him to help me behave for the next twenty years of my life?” Yes, you should verify that they’re properly registered. Do a Google search of their regulatory record. I’m not talking about blind trust here— the kind that would allow someone to steal your money. I’m talking about finding someone who’s willing to get to know your goals and values well enough to help you stick with your plan. Remember, your financial advisor is the only one standing between you and the Big Mistake of buying high and selling low. You’re hiring them to do what you can’t: make unemotional decisions about your portfolio. If they can’t do that, why pay them?

Now, I still don’t see myself hiring an outside advisor. But I do keep my portfolio conservative enough that my portfolio “boat” stays relatively stable even in rough weather. We’ll see if I can remain unemotional during the next flood, as it is not a matter of “if” but “when” the next one comes along.

Your Financial Plan & The Importance of Getting Started

onepage0I’m currently reading The One-Page Financial Plan by Carl Richards, who also writes for the New York Times. Given the title, I thought it would be a quick read but it turns out to cover a variety of topics over its 200+ pages. So far, I like that it comes from the point of view of an experienced financial planner who spends his days talking with clients.

A valuable observation is that the most common financial mistake most people make is simply doing nothing. Either they are scared of what they might find, or they are overwhelmed by how hard it is to plan for something with such uncertainty. Future jobs and/or income? Uncertain. Childcare/Healthcare/Retirement costs? Uncertain. Future investment returns? Uncertain.

As a financial planner, his job is get people over this hurdle. Guessing is okay! You can always correct your course as you go along, but as long as you are facing the problem and doing something, you are much more likely to have a good result. Carl Richards is also known as “The Sketch Guy” and this one from the book illustrates things well:

onepage1

However, you could replace “investment” with any decision that you have been putting off. Don’t worry about making mistakes (you will). Don’t worry about making the perfect or optimal decision (you won’t). Financial planning is not an exact science.

Here’s another take from inspirational speaker and writer James Clear in Why Getting Started is More Important Than Succeeding:

I can’t think of any skill more critical to the active pursuit of a healthy life than the willingness to start. Everything that signifies a happy, healthy and fulfilled existence — strong relationships, vibrant creativity, valuable work, a physical lifestyle, etc. — it all requires a willingness to get started over and over again.

Take note: being the best isn’t required to be happy or fulfilled, but being in the game is necessary.

Get started and correct your course as needed. In terms of personal finance, so many people have never drilled down to the real reasons why money is important to them, they have never calculated their net worth, never tracked and broken down their monthly expenses, and thus never properly prioritized their time, energy, and money accordingly. But that’s okay, as now is still a great time to get started! I have finished the book yet, but apparently you can fit an entire plan on one page. :)

DietBet.com Update: My Weight Loss Profit Breakdown

db3

Back in early February 2015, I wrote about and started participating in a weight loss challenge at DietBet.com. As the picture above indicates, a group of folks (strangers or friends) agree on a weight loss goal, put money into a community pot, and the winners split the pot (after fees). It’s part gambling for profit, part community support group, and part behavioral modification nudge.

Knowing myself, I definitely hate losing money if I can at all help it. So far, it’s working! The idea that I would lose hundreds of dollars definitely kept me on track during times of weakness and doubt. (In addition to DietBet, I also did a simultaneous bet at similar site HealthyWager to up the total ante.)

Anyhow, since this is a money blog I figured I’d share some details about my financial results so far on DietBet. You pick from a list of open “games” with a goal of either losing 4% of your body weight in 4 weeks, or 10% in 6 months. I chose the 10% goal and joined The Transformer (Feb 5 – Aug 4), mostly because there were over 1,000 participants and I figured there had to be some people that would drop out. I know, it’s selfish, but it’s like poker – all your profits come from the losers! Indeed, DietBet uses the poker rake business model where they take a cut of the pot and thus never have to risk their own money.

Your weight is verified using a smartphone app (or website) that uploads two pictures each month: one with your feet on a digital scale, and another of your entire (lightly-clothed) body on the same scale. You are given a special keyword to ensure that the weigh-in is done during a 48-hour window.

I put up $25 a month for 6 months. I was offered one month free ($25 discount) if I paid $125 upfront, but since this is all about the behavioral component for me, I wanted the monthly charge to show up on my credit card bill. Players who have chosen to place their bets on a monthly basis may drop out at any time and avoid being charged for future, unplayed rounds.

There is one round per month; Rounds 1 to 6. Half of the total money bet is put towards Round 1 through 5. That is $25 x 6 / 2 = $75, split across 5 rounds is $15 per round. The other half is put toward the final weigh-in round. So $75 is bet on Round 6.

Four rounds have been completed so far, and here are my winnings. Here’s the graphic from my profile page that explains things pretty well:

db2

  • Round 1 Breakdown: $16.09 (7% ROI on $15 bet)
  • Round 2 Breakdown: $26.94 (80% ROI)
  • Round 3 Breakdown: $31.36 (109% ROI)
  • Round 4 Breakdown: $31.50 (110% ROI)

According to their documentation, the average “win” is 50% to 100% of your contribution. My personal results appear to be in line with these numbers. Based on the recent trend, I am not expecting the the future payouts to get much better than about 110% as these are probably the serious participants that will finish successfully. Additional people may also “catch up” and make that final Round 6 goal.

Dietbet does take a cut of the gross pot before distribution, between 10% to 25%. For my small monthly bet of under $100 a month, they will take a significant 25% cut. While I definitely think they should take a fee for providing this helpful service, I am conflicted as to what should be a “reasonable” fee. Keep in mind that taking 25% of the gross pot means that they usually take over 50% of your net winnings! (You are guaranteed never to lose money if you win, which otherwise technically could happen if enough people win.)

If I were to assume that I reach all my future weight-loss goals and a future 100% pot ROI, at the end of 6 months, I will have put in $150 and won $285.89 gross (135.89 in gross profit). After the 25% fee, I will take in $214.42 for a net profit of $64.42. That’s a projected 43% ROI on my $150 total bet. Hmm, that’s not too shabby. Perhaps I should have bet more money in retrospect. :)

But if I am honest, the fact that the last time I was this weight was about 15 years ago in college, THAT makes me happier than even winning a hundred bucks. In that very important aspect, I think DietBet has a great idea going. If I lost 9% of my total body weight, I’d still probably be okay with everything. There is also a supportive community aspect where people both commiserate and cheer each other on (which I did not actively participate in… not my thing).

You can read through all the Transformer rules here and how they discourage cheating and such. I’ll do a more complete final review once my 6 months is up.

Portfolio Rebalancing Frequency: Even Less Than Annually?

scaleHere’s another data point on the debate on how often to rebalance your portfolio to your target asset allocation. Econompic Data writes about rebalancing a portfolio back to 60% S&P 500 / 40% Barclays Aggregate Bond index from 1976-2014 and finds that rebalancing every 3 years actually produced slightly better average annual returns that rebalancing monthly (via Abnormal Returns):

econompic_rebal

Momentum is cited as a potential reason why this works. Looks good at a glance, but look at that y-axis. We are comparing 10.3% and 10.2%. Is that really significant?

I would point out that in a previous Vanguard research article, a similar backtest was done on a 60/40 Broad US Stock/Broad US Bond portfolio rebalanced across various thresholds from 1926-2009. Their conclusion (emphasis mine):

We found that no one approach produced significantly superior results over another. However, all strategies resulted in more favorable risk-adjusted portfolio returns when compared with returns for portfolios that were never rebalanced.

vgrebal

From a 2008 paper from Dimensional Fund Advisors:

Aside from avoiding excessive trading, there are no optimal rebalancing rules that will yield the highest returns on all portfolios and in every period.

From advisor and author William Bernstein:

The returns differences among various rebalancing strategies are quite small in the long run.

Instead of there being a benefit to rebalancing less often, it may just be safer that the frequency doesn’t matter. On the other hand, given the potential cost of rebalancing from taxes, commissions, and bid/ask spreads perhaps lowering the frequency doesn’t hurt.

I think the most important thing to note is that in every test case above, the rebalancing was done on a strict schedule and without emotion. The problem you are really trying to avoid is being afraid buy whatever has been getting crushed and selling what has been doing awesome. There’s that behavioral/emotional component again.

As for me, I try to check my portfolio once a quarter, but rebalance no more than once a year. An annual frequency is as easy to remember as your birthday, it’s not too often and not too seldom, lots of smart people are proponents, and it gives me the opportunity to do tax-loss harvesting. I use tolerance bands such that if my major asset classes are off by more than 5%, then I will rebalance. Otherwise, I “rebalance lite” year-round using any new money to buy underweight asset classes.

The Only Two States of Your Portfolio: Happy All-Time High or Sad Drawdown

emoinvestQuick question – What was the highest value ever for your investment portfolio? Now, what was the value exactly a year before that? You probably know the answer to the first question, but not the second, even though both have little to do with your final portfolio value.

I am currently reading the e-book Global Asset Allocation by Meb Faber and he had a good observation that I don’t recall ever expressed in this specific manner (emphasis mine):

It is a sad fact that as an investor, you are either at an all-time high with your portfolio or in a drawdown – there is no middle ground – and the largest absolute drawdown will always be in your future as the number can only grow larger.

We tend to carry the highest value of our portfolio around in our heads because of the powerful cognitive bias of anchoring. Let’s say that 10 years ago you started with $20,000 and today with your contributions and investment growth your total is $100,000. If next year your portfolio experiences a drawdown to $80,000, you’ll probably identify your portfolio as being 20% down from $100,000, as opposed to a 400% increase from $20,000. $100,000 is “what you had” and you will forever be anchored to that number, even if for it only lasted just for a day.

That is, until you reach another all-time high (yes! $105,000) and that will be your new anchor. (This applies to individual holdings as well – I’ve found this especially pervasive when using brokerage smartphone apps that allow me to frequently check in with just a tap.)

If your portfolio is anything like mine, it has been repeatedly been hitting all-time highs for a year or two. The problem is, sooner or later, there is a 100% chance I’ll be stuck in a prolonged drawdown phase. I will think about my high-water value every time I check my statements (which is why perhaps it is better not to check your investment value much more than once a year). I will question my existing asset allocation and how to invest my new money.

Now add in loss aversion – the other finding from behavioral economics that people feel the pain of losses much more severely than the pleasure of gains (studies suggest we hate losses roughly twice as much as gains).

That means drawdowns are always lurking around the corner, and we hate them twice as much as any investment gain. It’s no wonder that investors are often their own worst enemies by not sticking to their investment plans.

Back to Basics: Simplify and Automate Your Savings

automateLet’s take a step back and focus on some actionable tips to simplify and automate your savings. Think of it as knocking out your New Year’s Resolution in just 10 minutes or less.

New Year’s resolutions fail because willpower is like a muscle. If you keep having to choose the “right thing” that does not provide immediate gratification, your willpower muscle starts to fatigue. Eat the healthy kale thing instead of the nachos? Yes for a few times, but after a month no no no. Take 15% of your paycheck and set it aside? You’ll forget. The key is to take away the decision = no willpower fatigue.

First, consider your paycheck. Is it bi-weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly? Let’s say it is biweekly and you get paid this Friday, January 9th. That means you know you’ll get paid on January 23rd, February 6th, and so on. You just need to schedule a transfer for 15% of your paycheck for each of those days directly into an online savings account. Here are screenshots and tips for some specific providers:

Auto-save with your 401(k) plan.
This allows you to get any company match, grow your money faster with tax advantages, and also takes the money out before it even reaches your paycheck. Our provider is TransAmerica, which like many others now offer an option for annual auto-increases as well. The only frequency option is every pay period.

save_trs

Auto-save with Ally Bank Savings Account.
This is my go-to savings account, and it has the most flexible list of frequency options: weekly, bi-weekly, every 15 days, weekly, every 2 weeks, every 4 weeks, monthly, every 2 months, every 3 months, every 6 months, every year, the first business day of each money, or the last business day of each month. With a competitive interest rate, no minimum opening balance, and no monthly fees, and other features – see my Ally Bank Savings Account Review for details.

save_ally

Auto-save with Capital One 360 Savings Account.
Formerly ING Direct, this is the original no minimums, no monthly fee online savings account. The frequency options include weekly, bi-weekly, semi-monthly, monthly, or quarterly. You can even set up special sub-accounts and name them things like “Vacation” or “Next Car”. See my Capital One 360 Savings Account Review for more details.

save_capone360

Auto-save with Vanguard IRA and mutual funds.
The best place for low-cost investing in an IRA. Under “Automatic Investments”, you can schedule investments for mutual funds in either IRA or taxable accounts. You’ll need to have the fund already established with the minimum initial investment. The frequency options include weekly, monthly, bi-weekly, or semi-monthly.

save_vanguard

What if I need the money? Well, if you put in an online savings account, if you really need the money, you can transfer it back. But even transferring back out of your savings account will take a conscious effort, so you’re less likely to do it. You can’t easily withdraw from a 401k or IRA, so you’ll just have to make the commitment.

The key here is to combat laziness. If you like this idea, take action today and you’ll be on autopilot the rest of the year!

More Research on Buying Experiences vs. Things

travelsignpostYou’ve probably heard the advice that you should buy experiences and not things. (Except maybe when things help you experience.) This Atlantic article explores new findings from behavioral research about the differences between experiences and material objects.

With experiences, people are less competitive and worry less about keeping up with the Jones':

Gilovich’s prior work has shown that experiences tend to make people happier because they are less likely to measure the value of their experiences by comparing them to those of others. For example, Gilbert and company note in their new paper, many people are unsure if they would rather have a high salary that is lower than that of their peers, or a lower salary that is higher than that of their peers. With an experiential good like vacation, that dilemma doesn’t hold. Would you rather have two weeks of vacation when your peers only get one? Or four weeks when your peers get eight? People choose four weeks with little hesitation.

Experiences elicit positive feelings and promote social togetherness rather than creating impatience and worries about scarcity.

Those waiting for experiences were in better moods than those waiting for material goods. “You read these stories about people rioting, pepper-spraying, treating each other badly when they have to wait,” he said. It turns out, those sorts of stories are much more likely to occur when people are waiting to acquire a possession than an experience. When people are waiting to get concert tickets or in line at a new food truck, their moods tend to be much more positive. […]

Research has also found that people tend to be more generous to others when they’ve just thought about an experiential purchase as opposed to a material purchase. They’re also more likely to pursue social activities.

Do You Spend More at Restaurants When Splitting The Bill?

There always seems to be a new startup involving sending money person-to-person, with the most common demo showing how easy it is to split a restaurant bill with your friends. Is this really a huge problem? Are there many groups of friends where one person orders lobster and four drinks without offering to pay their fair share? Yes it can get weird once in a while, but I would think things would self-regulate quickly. (Okay, maybe not the $47,000 food bill for 6 people on the right!) Also, it’s not very hard to ask for split checks with modern POS cash registers… maybe just tip a bit more for the inconvenience.

The economic argument is that if you know you’ll be splitting the bill evenly, you are incentivized to order more. In a group of six, ordering a $6 cocktail only costs you $1 more. A $12 appetizer is only $2. But you’re also subsidizing other people, so social dynamics come into play. If someone believes others are “freeriding” on them, then they’re more likely to order more, and so on. Do people really spend more when splitting the bill?

According to a study pointed out by Undercover Economist Tim Harford, people just might:

Diners were, at random, offered three different billing rules: split-the-bill, pay-your-share, or on-the-house. They were also asked to order food by writing their choices down, without discussion. This odd request was made less odd by the fact that they were all filling in questionnaires at the time.

Homo economicus immediately emerged: diners ordered, on average, 37 shekels worth of food when paying their own way, 51 shekels when splitting the bill, and 82 shekels when the experimenter picked up the tab for everyone. (A small follow-up experiment hinted that people splitting the bill six ways behave similarly to those paying one-sixth of their own bill.)

The study involved bringing strangers together in an actual restaurant ordering real food, so it’s close but not quite the same as eating with friends. Even with friends, I still tend to think as a group the total bill would be a bit higher, like maybe one more person will order a beer if everyone else is having one.

Sell in May and Go Away? How About Remember To Rebalance In May and November

“Sell in May and go away” is a rhyming market-timing slogan that may never… go away. Here’s a graphic that seems to support the idea that stocks have historically performed much worse between May and October than the rest of the year. Credit to Reuters/Scott Barber via Abnormal Returns. Data set is the MSCI World Index from 1971-2011.

Meanwhile, The Big Picture shares a bunch of graphs from TheChartStore that don’t make it look so clear-cut. Looking at this one, why shouldn’t just bail out every September? Data set is the S&P 500 from 1928-2011.

Larry Swedroe tests the theory out using 30-day Treasury bonds as the alternative investment in this CBS Moneywatch article:

He looked at returns through 2007 from six start dates since 1950. “Sell in May” beat “buy and hold” if you started investing in 1960, 1970 and 2000, but not if you started in 1950, 1980 or 1990. “It’s pure randomness,” Swedroe says. “How would you ever know when to start?”

Throw in the tax implications of all that buying and selling, and I agree. Do you really want to base your investing strategy on a data-mining result that has no logical explanation behind it? Sounds too much like driving a car using only your rearview mirror.

However, Tadas Viskanta of Abnormal Returns has what I think is a reasonable compromise – what if you just decided to rebalance your portfolio at the very end of April and the very end of October? You should rebalance your portfolio regularly anyway, so why not do it twice a year, six months apart. If your target asset allocation is 70% stocks/30% bonds and now you’re at 80/20 due to the recent run-up, why not go back to 70/30. If things end up at 60/40 in November, then again, go back to 70/30.

You could call it “Remember to Rebalance in May and November”. It even rhymes! If “sell in may” really works, you’ll get some benefit from this mean reversion wackiness. If it’s just noise, you portfolio shouldn’t theoretically be hurt any more than picking other months.