Looking for financial independence? Follow 'The Simple Path.'
Drumroll. He has now returned with a second edition of the book, which his daughter, Jess, collaborated on.
I asked Collins to share some insights. Here are edited excerpts of our conversation.
What has changed since your first edition in terms of your philosophy? Anything you tweaked in this new edition?
JL Collins: Nothing. Zero. I designed the simple path to wealth to be something that you implement over decades. If it were to require major modification after a single 10-year period, I would not have designed it very well. The basic philosophy is the same, and that's important. What has changed is all the little details — the government regulations around income limits for investing in 401(k)s and the amount of money you can put in individual retirement accounts and all that kind of stuff.
You kick off the book with your three key principles. Can you share?
Avoid debt, live on less than you earn, and invest the surplus — if you're following my simple path, you'll be doing that in low-cost index funds.
Avoiding debt, or getting out of it... is critical. You can never achieve financial independence if you're dragging that particular ball and chain around. I'm a little appalled that in our culture, carrying debt has become (so) normalized that people sort of assume, well, of course I'm going to borrow money to buy this, that, or, or the other thing.
How should we spend our money?
Spend money on what is most valuable to you. For me, there is nothing more valuable than buying my freedom, my freedom of time, my freedom of choice. You do that by having money and investments that ultimately pay all of your expenses.
How do you define financial independence? How is your approach aligned with the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) movement?
I love the FIRE acronym. It's very clever, and it's a great goal if that's your goal. Retiring early was never my goal. I like working. My goal was, and is, to have enough money to allow me to make bolder choices. Being financially independent means that you have enough money invested to throw off enough to cover all of your expenses and then some — a little bit of a cushion.
You write that 25 times your annual expenses is the amount you need to be financially independent. Explain.
There is the concept of what's called the 4% rule. And what the 4% rule suggests, and I think it's a great guideline, is that when you have enough money invested, that 4% of it will cover all of your expenses. Let's suppose that you have a million dollars invested. Well, that throws off at 4%, $40,000 a year. So if you can live on $40,000 a year comfortably, you are now financially independent. If you need $100,000, you multiply it by 25, you'd be at $2.5 million.
You advocate saving 50% of your income if you want to become financially independent. Isn't that a tad unrealistic for most people?
This is one of the things I probably get the most pushback on because, well, it depends on how you construct your lifestyle. And I'm sympathetic to people who feel that way, but there are people who are doing it very successfully. The more you can set aside, the greater the percentage, the shorter your journey will be to get to that financial independence thing.
You are all in on owning stocks, but what advice or do you have for people when it comes to dealing with rocky uncertainty in markets?
The single thing that determines whether the market will make you wealthy or leave you bleeding at the side of the road is what you do when it drops. Because market corrections, which are 10% and bear markets, which are 20%, are all normal. They are to be expected. If you're going to be investing in the stock market, you have to be prepared for those things to happen. And they are unpredictable in spite of all the people out there who are claiming they can predict it.
I've been doing this for 50 years, and the answer to what do you do when you know these things are going to come and you can't predict them? Well, you just stay the course. You don't panic and sell, which is the worst thing you can do because that will leave you bleeding at the side of the road. And not only do you stay the course, but if you're building your wealth, and you've been adding money on a regular basis, which is what the simple path calls for, these things are a blessing because now you're accumulating those shares at a lower cost.
Read more: How to protect your money during stock market volatility
What's your ideal investment strategy?
This is the simple path to wealth. It's not only easier, but it's also more powerful. So when you're building your wealth, you hold one index fund, and in my case, that's Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund.
The key thing is it's a total stock market index fund. And caveat here is I hear from people all the time who say, you know, I'm at Fidelity, or I'm at Schwab and they have total stock market index funds. Are those okay? The answer to that question is, yes, those are fine.
You own virtually every publicly traded company in the United States of America, and everybody from the factory floor to the CEO is now working to make you richer. That keeps me warm and comfortable at night when I go to sleep.
When you stop having earned income to flow into that total stock market index fund, then you want to add a bond fund. And in my case, that's Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index Fund. I also hold some money in a money market fund.
Frequently people will go to their 401(k) and they won't find a total stock market index fund, but they will find an S&P 500 fund, those are fine.
Read more: 12 money market accounts with interest rates of 4% APY and higher
What about the international angle?
I'm a little bit alone in this position. I simply don't see the need because those largest companies... which make up the bulk of my total stock market index fund, are by definition international companies. An enormous amount of their sales and profit comes from all over the world.By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's
Terms
and
Privacy Policy
What's your take on target-date funds? They are the primary investment vehicle for people in employer retirement plans these days.
They're effective. One of these target-date retirement funds is a great way to go. That fund will handle all of the rebalancing when it comes time for adding bonds. For those people who want ultimate simplicity, you never have to think about it at all. I don't think it's going to perform quite as well which is why I don't personally use it, and by the way, it will give you that international exposure.
What's your take on crypto creeping into investment portfolios as well as private equity and such? Still stick with the index funds?
I'm not a fan of the multiple income stream school of investing. Simple is better. So no cattle, gold, annuities, crypto, or the like. For the most part, so far, cryptocurrencies are a speculation. Sometimes speculations work out very well, often these speculations don't work out. That's what makes them speculations.
I'm not a speculator. I'm an investor. An investor buys assets that have operations that can generate cash and growth — stock in a company or rental real estate, for example. Such things grow in value because of the underlying activities that earn money.
Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work" and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky.
Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
5 hours ago
- Fast Company
Trump rollback on clean energy subsidies stalls major solar, wind projects and manufacturing plans
Singapore-based solar panel manufacturer Bila Solar is suspending plans to double capacity at its new factory in Indianapolis. Canadian rival Heliene's plans for a solar cell facility in Minnesota are under review. Norwegian solar wafer maker NorSun is evaluating whether to move forward with a planned factory in Tulsa, Oklahoma. And two fully permitted offshore wind farms in the U.S. Northeast may never get built. These are among the major clean energy investments now in question after Republicans agreed earlier this month to quickly end U.S. subsidies for solar and wind power as part of their budget megabill, and as the White House directed agencies to tighten the rules on who can claim the incentives that remain. This marks a policy U-turn since President Donald Trump's return to office that project developers, manufacturers and analysts say will slash installations of renewable energy over the coming decade, kill investment and jobs in the clean energy manufacturing sector supporting them, and worsen a looming U.S. power supply crunch as energy-hungry AI infrastructure expands. Solar and wind installations could be 17% and 20% lower than previously forecast over the next decade because of the moves, according to research firm Wood Mackenzie, which warned that a dearth of new supplies could slow the expansion of data centers needed to support AI technology. Energy researcher Rhodium, meanwhile, said the law puts at risk $263 billion of wind, solar, and storage facilities and $110 billion of announced manufacturing investment supporting them. It will also increase industrial energy costs by up to $11 billion in 2035, it said. 'One of the administration's stated goals was to bring costs down, and as we demonstrated, this bill doesn't do that,' said Ben King, a director in Rhodium's energy and climate practice. He added the policy 'is not a recipe for continued dominance of the U.S. AI industry.' The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has defended its moves to end support for clean energy by arguing the rapid adoption of solar and wind power has created instability in the grid and raised consumer prices – assertions that are contested by the industry and which do not bear out in renewables-heavy power grids, like Texas' ERCOT. Power industry representatives, however, have said all new generation projects need to be encouraged to meet rising U.S. demand, including both those driven by renewables and fossil fuels. Consulting firm ICF projects that U.S. electricity demand will grow by 25% by 2030, driven by increased AI and cloud computing – a major challenge for the power industry after decades of stagnation. The REPEAT Project, a collaboration between Princeton University and Evolved Energy Research, projects a 2% annual increase in electricity demand. With a restricted pipeline of renewables, tighter electricity supplies stemming from the policy shift could increase household electricity costs by $280 a year in 2035, according to the REPEAT Project. The key provision in the new law is the accelerated phase-out of 30% tax credits for wind and solar projects: it requires projects to begin construction within a year or enter service by the end of 2027 to qualify for the credits. Previously the credits were available through 2032. Now some project developers are scrambling to get projects done while the U.S. incentives are still accessible. But even that strategy has become risky, developers said. Days after signing the law, Trump directed the Treasury Department to review the definition of 'beginning of construction.' A revision to those rules could overturn a long-standing practice giving developers four years to claim tax credits after spending just 5% of project costs. Treasury was given 45 days to draft new rules. 'With so many moving parts, financing of projects, financing of manufacturing is difficult, if not impossible,' said Martin Pochtaruk, CEO of Heliene. 'You are looking to see what is the next baseball bat that's going to hit you on the head.' About face Heliene's planned cell factory, which could cost as much as $350 million, depending on the capacity, and employ more than 600 workers, is also in limbo, Pochtaruk said in an interview earlier this month. The company needs more clarity on both what the new law will mean for U.S. demand, and how Trump's trade policy will impact the solar industry. 'We have a building that is anxiously waiting for us to make a decision,' Pochtaruk said. Similarly, Mick McDaniel, general manager of Bila Solar, said 'a troubling level of uncertainty' has put on hold its $20 million expansion at an Indianapolis factory it opened this year that would create an additional 75 jobs. 'NorSun is still digesting the new legislation and recent executive order to determine the impact to the overall domestic solar manufacturing landscape,' said Todd Templeton, director of the company's U.S. division that is reviewing plans for its $620 million solar wafer facility in Tulsa. Five solar manufacturing companies – T1 Energy, Imperial Star Solar, SEG Solar, Solx and ES Foundry – said they are also concerned about the new law's impact on future demand, but that they have not changed their investment plans. The policy changes have also injected fresh doubt about the fate of the nation's pipeline of offshore wind projects, which depend heavily on tax credits to bring down costs. According to Wood Mackenzie, projects that have yet to start construction or make final investment decisions are unlikely to proceed. Two such projects, which are fully permitted, include a 300-megawatt project by developer US Wind off the coast of Maryland and Iberdrola's 791 MW New England Wind off the coast of Massachusetts. Neither company responded to requests for comment. 'They are effectively ready to begin construction and are now trapped in a timeline that will make it that much harder to be able to take advantage of the remaining days of the tax credits,' said Hillary Bright, executive director of offshore wind advocacy group Turn Forward.
CNN
5 hours ago
- CNN
Tesla's stock is tumbling after Elon Musk failure to shift the narrative
Elon Musk's big promises apparently no longer seem to be enough for many Tesla investors. Shares of Tesla (TSLA) fell 9% on Thursday following another dismal earnings report, released after the bell Wednesday. Tesla's earnings and revenue both fell by double-digit percentages following the biggest sales drop in the company's history. The automaker also faces a number of financial headwinds, including the loss of a $7,500 tax credit for US EV buyers starting in October, and the vanishing market for regulatory credit sales, which has earned Tesla $11 billion since 2019. But Tesla CEO Elon Musk barely talked about that on the earnings call Wednesday, although he did acknowledge the company 'probably could have a few rough quarters.' Instead, he talked about his grand vision for the future, including Tesla's long-promised robotaxi service; and its humanoid robot, Optimus, which is still in development. The lack of details about the company's plans to solve problems in the near term disappointed some investors and analysts. 'Investors have been very forgiving of Tesla for several quarters now, despite obvious headwinds to their business,' Garrett Nelson, analyst at CFRA Research, told CNN Thursday. 'But I think its investors are taking a more realistic view of the story at this point. Some of his brilliance has been his ability to keep investors focused on the long term and ignoring the near term and intermediate term. Now, headwinds are difficult to ignore.' Nelson downgraded the company's stock to a neutral rating in April. But even some of the Tesla bulls on Wall Street are saying that the time for Musk to take action is running out. 'The street is losing some patience,' Wedbush Securities tech analyst Dan Ives told CNN Thursday, although he said he still believes in the autonomous vehicle and artificial intelligence vision laid out by Musk and Tesla. Musk has made big promises about his robotaxi service, including that it would be in service within a year as early as 2019. Tesla's robotaxis finally rolled out in June this year, albeit in a limited portion of Austin, Texas, to friends and fans of the company, and with an employee sitting beside the empty driver's seat. However, that limited rollout wasn't enough to stop Musk from making extraordinary claims on Wednesday that the service would be available to half the nation's population by year's end. To achieve that, Tesla will need to get regulatory permission to operate in two states per week through the rest of the year, including New York, which does not allow autonomous vehicles on its roads. Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein said that while he does believe Tesla will eventually be successful in its robotaxi venture, 'the software will require further testing' and he does not expect a full robotaxi product until 2028. But Musk has a history of making grand promises that do not pan out. Like the Cybertruck – the only new vehicle Tesla has offered in the last six years. Musk said Tesla was supposed to be delivering 250,000 vehicles annually by this year. But full-year sales of the Cybertruck and Tesla's two other expensive models were less than 80,000. Sales of the three plunged 52% in the most recent quarter. Tesla also started the year forecasting it would achieve higher sales following its first annual sales drop in its history in 2024. But after two quarters of record sales declines, most investors now assume that it will not meet that goal either. And with Musk himself barely mentioning car sales during an hour-long conference call, it doesn't appear that is enough for shareholders any longer. 'We are mixed on Tesla's ability to meet its robotaxi timelines, cost targets, and scale,' wrote Ben Kallo, an analyst for Baird, in a note to clients late Wednesday. 'So far Tesla has received a pass due to how ambitious/revolutionary these products are, but we think continued sluggishness in the auto business could cause more focus on the near term.'
Entrepreneur
5 hours ago
- Entrepreneur
4 Signs It's Time to Abandon Your Patent
How to make smart, strategic calls on when to abandon patents — and why doing so is essential to long-term innovation and budget health Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Patents are often filed early, before a startup knows what the market really wants. That's smart, but it comes with a challenge: Not every idea turns out to be worth protecting. Markets shift. Products pivot. And eventually, founders ask: Should we keep paying for this patent or cut our losses? It's a tough call. Abandoning a patent midway can feel like giving up. But continuing just because you've already spent money? That's the sunk cost trap, and it quietly drains your budget. Many startups keep prosecuting every idea, paying rejections, annuities and attorney fees. But a smart IP strategy means knowing what to keep and what to walk away from. Here's how to make that call strategically. Related: How to Identify the Patent-Worthy Innovations in Your Business Built-in checkpoints in patent lifecycle — use them Roughly, you can split a patent's entire lifecycle cost into three parts. The first third goes to drafting the application, another third is for arguing the patent through issuance, and the final third covers patent maintenance fees for the next 20+ years. In a way, these financial checkpoints are decision checkpoints, too. When drafting, consider whether the invention aligns with your core business or is just a side experiment that may never get to market. During prosecution, evaluate whether it's still worth the legal wrangling, as each round of argument is costly. And when renewal fees come due, ask if the patent still supports your product, blocks competitors or adds leverage against others in the market. Unfortunately, many startups treat these pivotal stages as administrative formalities. Instead of evaluating whether continued investment is justified at each stage, many companies default to pushing forward — whether by extending prosecution unnecessarily, filing continuations without a clear purpose, or simply paying maintenance fees — without assessing strategic alignment. That's how portfolios get bloated with low-impact patents. The only solution here is patent pruning: Abandon some patent filings at the right checkpoints. Related: Don't Let Patent Costs Crush Your Startup — Here's How to Protect Your IP Without Breaking the Bank What are the signs that it's time to abandon a patent? Every dollar spent defending or maintaining a weak patent is a dollar not spent protecting something truly valuable. Therefore, you must look for the signs at different checkpoints to spot a patent to discard. Here are some signs to look for: 1. No market validation A patent is only valuable if the protected product actually sells. If your invention fails to gain customer traction, the patent will be a failure. Experts emphasize focusing on "high-impact" problems with real demand. Without that market pull, even a granted patent is a dead weight. For example, Google Glass — once hyped as the future of AR eyewear — never found a viable consumer market. It was pulled from sale in 2015 (and again in 2023) due to poor adoption, illustrating how patents tied to unvalidated products offer no return. 2. Shifting industry direction Industries evolve, and a patent can lose value if the tech horizon moves on. In practice, companies are advised to ask whether their invention still aligns with "the target industry and market." If adjacent innovations eclipse your solution (for example, cloud services replacing old networking hardware), the patent's relevance vanishes. In that scenario, it makes little sense to keep paying maintenance fees. Better to refocus on protections for innovations that fit the new direction of your field. 3. Prior art kills the novelty Sometimes, what initially feels like a breakthrough ends up being something others have already attempted or fully disclosed. If prior art eclipses your claims, the chances of securing meaningful protection drop significantly. At that point, even if you receive a patent, it may be so narrow that it offers little real-world value. Continuing to prosecute a case like this can quickly become a drain on time and legal budget. 4. Weak business use case Every patent in your portfolio should earn its keep through business impact or the potential to do so on your current roadmap. If it's not protecting a revenue-generating product, blocking a competitor or supporting licensing efforts, its value is questionable. Startups often hang on to patents without a clear path to monetization or strategic use. But unless a patent strengthens your market position or serves a legal or commercial purpose, it's just another expense on the books. To actively prune your patent portfolio, just looking for signs isn't enough. As the portfolio grows, you need a deliberate, repeatable process for patent abandonment assessment. Build a patent pruning system: Health checks and ranking framework An effective patent pruning system should take two things into consideration: 1) lifecycle stage and 2) multiple perspectives. For the first one, you want to start by ranking each patent across key lifecycle stages: At the idea stage : Is this innovation aligned with your product roadmap or market differentiation? Post-filing : Has the landscape shifted? Is the application still strategically relevant? Pre-renewal: Is the granted patent still supporting revenue, blocking competitors or enhancing leverage? The higher a patent scores at a certain stage, the more you want to invest in it. Please note that not only your legal counsel team but also others, such as product, technology, marketing and finance, must contribute to this ranking system, as pruning cannot be undone. The goal is to ensure that patents are evaluated through a business lens, not just a legal one. Consider using patent management tools that provide full portfolio visibility and enable seamless collaboration as part of your patent pruning process. Related: 4 Surprising Patent Myths That Could Cost You Big — What You Need to Know Now Pruning a patent portfolio isn't just about saving money; it's about fueling what's next with the reclaimed budget. In 2020, IBM stepped back from chasing patent volume. "We're no longer pursuing patent leadership," they said. "We're being more selective." The result? Fewer filings, stronger focus and more investment in high-growth areas like AI and quantum computing. That's the lesson: Pruning isn't cutting back. It's reallocating toward where your business is growing. Because IP should follow your future, not fund your past.
