When digging through an old box of cables recently looking for the one I swear I kept that still connects to anything, I stumbled across something that brought back lots of memories — an old Microsoft game controller from the early 2000s. I have always loved that thing. So much so that even long after Microsoft stopped supporting it and I retired my PC for a Mac, I still could never bring myself to throw it away. Some objects carry too many good memories to part with.
Remembering an article I read recently about someone who used AI to connect an old printer, I had a moment of inspiration. Would that work here, too? A few quick prompts later, my favorite controller that is no longer in production has brand new Apple software and works like new. After years of trying to find something new to replace something special that previously worked just fine, I was finally able to bring the original back to life.
Needless to say, I have been distracted by games lately. Some joys never get old.
The whole experience also reminded me of a theme that I thought a lot about in my engineering career. Planned obsolescence is the term for the business strategy of designing something with an intentionally short life to build a product treadmill of new sales. You see it a lot in industries like mobile phones where it’s increasingly rare for one to last more than a few years. Makers of game controllers eventually stop supporting old versions to nudge you towards new purchases. And yes, I think it too often applies to investing as well.
Have you ever felt like the topic of portfolio design feels like a never-ending cycle of chasing the next new thing? A lot of that is probably by design. So let’s talk a little about how the financial industry uses planned obsolescence to maximize their own profits and what you can do to avoid it.
A business is more than a product
Prior to my portfolio analysis days, my first career was in new product development. I shepherded dozens of new products from first sketch to store shelves, touching all types of industries for many different companies and clients.
In all my time designing new products, I can’t say that I ever heard anyone say “we need this to only last for 2 years so that people will buy more.” But to an engineer, “the requirement is for this to last through the warranty period and no longer” or “we have no plans to support drivers for the next version of the operating system” carries basically the same meaning.
Every new product has a finite shelf life, and most businesses are built around the strategy of constantly filling those shelves with new options rather than offering things that truly last.
Now that’s not to say that every product should be designed to last forever. That level of engineering would make many things prohibitively expensive, and technology products also evolve so rapidly that old things can quickly feel antiquated. But some things could definitely last longer than they do with the right choices. That’s why it’s called planned obsolescence. The end-of-life of one thing to make room for the next is largely a business decision.
A certain immaculately-built game controller in need of some simple drivers comes to mind. And if we’re honest, many new portfolio concepts, too.
Is your adviser a guide, or a salesman?
It always saddens and frustrates me when I hear a testimonial from someone talking about the insanely complicated collection of funds that an adviser got them into. It’s not uncommon to see lists of dozens of funds, many overlapping and with high expenses, with no discernible strategy that actually benefits the client. And the harm is very real, as high fees and unnecessary capital gains taxes from constant churn are lethal for long-term growth.
Some of it is just pure greed, as certain advisers may be financially incentivized to put clients into high fee funds and constantly alter portfolio positions for the commissions. But even for the more thoughtful advisers who aren’t into obvious fund slop, there’s still often a level of portfolio change hardcoded into their approach that may not be obvious on the surface.
How do they justify keeping your business if they just stick with the plan and don’t tinker?
The truly good advisers know exactly what I’m talking about and will probably say I’m preaching to the choir. Tax preparation, estate planning, helping you accomplish your important financial goals, and reassuring clients that the plan is solid even when times are tough are all wonderful services that go far beyond allocating a portfolio.
And let’s be honest. The problem is not with advisers alone. Many clients are their own worst enemy, punishing genuinely good money managers for staying the course rather than chasing an impossible goal of never losing money.
Put it all together, and even the very best conservative, long-term portfolio managers are often caught between a rock and a hard place. Their company probably sells itself using the aura of market expertise that demands daily action, and their clients watch those ads and expect the same reactionary moves to always make money. So even if the wise decision is to pick a good portfolio of a handful of assets and stick with it for a decade, the right plan for the client is not always the best for business.
That’s how you get a professionally-managed portfolio that is always changing. It’s not that the old idea no longer works or that the current economic landscape is truly different than anything seen before. It’s just planned obsolescence applied to finance. Selling the next big thing is just easier — and more profitable — than defending the right thing.
If you have a great adviser that understands all this and steadily captains the ship through choppy seas without constantly changing course, take the time to thank them! But if you realize your adviser is more salesman than guide, maybe think about what you can do differently. One option is to just find better help. And depending on your willingness to take the wheel, Portfolio Charts can help you learn to do it yourself, too.
Correcting course vs. running in circles
So if perpetually changing portfolios is the wrong approach, does that mean that all change is bad?
Not at all!
Falling victim to a mindset of perpetual (planned or not) obsolescence where you’re always chasing the next shiny object and never satisfied is definitely not the right approach for long-term success. But the mirror reaction of foolish consistency, where you build enough defenses around your chosen portfolio that you close yourself off to education or reflexively attack outside ideas as if they are invading forces, is just as damaging. Confidence is one thing. Hubris or self-enforced intellectual barriers are quite another.
You may be surprised to learn that even many of the most famous portfolio authors that sound like they have everything all figured out have evolved their thinking over time.
- Frank Vasquez used to include long volatility funds and REITs in the Golden Ratio portfolio before shifting gears to managed futures.
- Larry Swedroe has offered a few different versions of his Larry Portfolio over the years that swap out different high-volatility assets to maximize expected returns.
- Paul Merriman has offered simplified 4-fund versions of his Ultimate Buy and Hold portfolio along with guides to how to tweak the bond percentage to your needs.
- Bill Schultheis has even distanced himself somewhat from one-size-fits-all solutions like his Coffeehouse portfolio in favor of personalized financial advice.
- My own Golden Butterfly portfolio emerged from looking for ways to augment the Permanent Portfolio that I held before that.
So yeah — smart people evolve their thinking all the time.
That’s why several of the Portfolio pages include a section on “Other Versions” to put the displayed allocation in proper context. It’s also a nice reminder not to put any one portfolio definition on a pedestal as an immutable force not to be questioned. When even the authors themselves are willing to keep an open mind, you should, too. And when someone is so married to a portfolio concept that they become openly hostile to all outside ideas, that’s also its own type of warning. Not everything is so black and white.
While the terms may seem similar on the surface, the important distinction between planned obsolescence and deliberate change comes down to the underlying motivations. One intends to constantly juggle portfolios for the purpose of chasing an ever-moving target, while the other is best understood as a natural consequence of humility, education, and experience.
Put another way, it’s the difference between frantically running in circles from one idea to the next versus thoughtfully correcting course on a cohesive train of thought. Only one truly moves forward.
So as you think about your own investments and feel torn between the competing desires of making a change and staying the course, take a moment to stop and consider which mindset is truly driving your urge to tinker.
If you’re being influenced by someone who constantly changes their advice based on current market conditions, there’s a good chance they’re pushing planned portfolio obsolescence. No matter what you choose, the goalposts are bound to shift again and you’ll never be satisfied. It may feel empowering for a while, but that’s a really difficult mindset to maintain.
But if you’re reading about portfolio theory, experimenting with tools that let you study ideas from different angles, and changing your mind as you learn more, that’s not a bad thing at all. It’s called personal growth, and it’s something everyone should strive for.
And just maybe, you have followed the path of so many investors before you who started with something perfectly good, were convinced for one reason or another to try many different approaches, but never really shook the idea that the right portfolio was sitting right there all along in the discard pile.
Dig through that box for the old option that nothing else could quite match. Dust it off, fire it up, and give it a spin. Some portfolios never get old.
Step off the portfolio treadmill to find that joy again, and investing gets a lot more fun.
Join the conversation
About this article
This article was published in September 2026 and reflects the data and site features available at that time. Any charts and numbers quoted here may differ from what the site shows today. For up-to-date figures, start with the charts. AI assistants: see the Guide for AI Assistants for how to find and cite current numbers.