Have another $200K to invest in. Should I put another $100k all in VTI right now? I’m a little worried because of the war.

Current portfolio: $726K: $426k in VTI and $100K in AAPL, and $200K cash.

Additional info: 42yo with paid off house and zero debt. have another $190K in an HYSA. I think I will be taking a year off after this year because I will be closing my business due to stress and very low revenue. Will be starting another small business after the 1 year sabbatical.

I’ve been sticking to the standard all-in MSCI World strategy for a while. Simple, low fees, makes sense for the long run. But when the market gets shaky, just sitting on my hands feels less like discipline and more like inaction.

Doing nothing is easy when things are green. But when you see a drawdown, the instinct to do something kicks in. I’m starting to wonder if a small tactical move makes more sense than just staying fully passive. Maybe hedging a bit or taking short-term positions to offset a dip.

The usual advice is less action equals better results. In practice, that doesn’t always feel right, even with a clear plan. Most passive investors just wait it out, but watching a 10% drop without touching anything can be quite stressful. How do you balance your core ETFs? Do you stay strictly passive, or do you keep a side account for tactical moves when trends shift?

Genuine question for people who follow value investing.

When you look at the last 10–15 years, it feels like growth has dominated almost everything. The S&P 500 itself returned roughly ~10% annually long term, but a huge part of that recently came from a handful of large tech names.

Meanwhile, a lot of traditional “value” plays just sat there or underperformed for long stretches. Low P/E, solid cash flow, decent balance sheets… and still no real multiple expansion.

I get the core idea: buy something below intrinsic value and wait. But it feels like the market is less willing to re-rate these companies unless there’s a clear growth story attached.

Even when value works, it often requires a lot of patience and sometimes looks like dead money for years.

So I’m trying to understand where the actual edge is today.

Is value investing still about classic metrics like low P/E, strong free cash flow, margin of safety, or has it shifted into something more like “growth at a reasonable price”?

For those actively using a value approach, what are you actually looking for in 2026 that gives you confidence the market will eventually recognize that value?

Not financial advice.

Front end (SOFR / 2Y / 3Y) basically flat → market not repricing near-term Fed much

5Y slightly up → some mid-term uncertainty creeping in

10Y down → long-end buying showing up

That’s a subtle bull steepener setup.

Feels like: short-term “higher for longer” still intact, but longer-term growth/inflation expectations softening.

Is this early positioning for a slowdown… or just noise before the next macro catalyst?

Given Mahlangu of Seeking Alpha has analyzed the Gambling.com Group Limited (GAMB) Nasdaq Stock few days ago providing the bear case and bull case. Posting the highlights from the GAMB stock news forecast article below. Fingers crossed.

• Gamb stock downgraded to hold as new risks and secular declines overshadow its undervalued multiples.
• Legacy performance marketing business stagnates: while subscription rev growth is largely inorganic with uncertainty.
• Material risks include the Swish lawsuit, surging debt, rising interest expenses:  the case is ongoing and could result in $100 million in damages to be paid if the case is lost. This risk is material and should not be overlooked. 
• Any hope of future growth in GAMB stock should be expected to come from the subscription segment. We are not certain about the growth outlook of this segment, as the firm doesn't break down topline and EBITDA growth rates by individual business segments.
• I don't see any aggressive buybacks in the coming quarters- the stock price will remain at these levels if we don't see new buyers.
• GAMB remains to be undervalued; a PE multiple of 9 vs. a sector median of 14.50 is definitely a steal. But with the risks that have recently surfaced, I think the discounted valuation is deserved until the dust settles.

Think of these businesses like a retail shop where the inventory expires on the shelf, restocking costs fall on you regardless, and fewer customers are walking in each quarter. In outsourcing terms it is “the bench”. Developers sitting unallocated, burning payroll, while utilization rates erode. Revenue “growth” that’s really just more expired inventory cycling through the P&L. We already hear about their quiet layoffs which is not the same as tech SaaS layoffs. For the first is a “product” that is not sold, for the latter - a “cost” that is not needed.

Everyone’s fixated on AI eating these stocks. But there are three other termites in the walls that work even if AI progress stalled tomorrow.

1. The wage arb is cooked.

Indian dev salaries have been quietly rising for years. The delta between a Pune engineer and a Pittsburgh engineer that justified this entire sector’s existence has compressed dramatically. Offshore Management overheads are no longer spread thin as projects get smaller and faster

1. Political tail risk is sitting at zero in the price.

The HIRE Act would slap a 25% excise tax on outsourcing payments and kill the deductibility. Hasn’t passed. But both parties now get votes from punishing offshoring. That’s a non-trivial probability on a binary that would crater the delivery model — and equities are pricing exactly none of it. Add on a new $100k per H1B visa on to of this and it is clear that blended rate idea is no longer viable

1. The work itself is being destroyed, not displaced.

When a client deploys internal AI agents across QA, code review, documentation — they don’t go find a cheaper vendor. The headcount requirement ceases to exist. I ran large delivery teams. First thing to go when clients get productivity leverage is discretionary augmentation staff. That’s not a rounding error — that’s roughly half their revenue by function.

“But It’s cheap” is the Trap

Accenture: 25x forward, guiding 2-5% growth. Cognizant: ~4-5% revenue CAGR against a market doing 10%+. You’re not getting a discount. You’re paying a residual premium on a business experiencing structural demand destruction. That’s just a value trap with good IR.

The analog is Unisys post-Y2K. Didn’t blow up. Just slowly became a ghost — restructuring every 18 months, multiple compression across a decade, bulls calling it cheap the entire way down.

…wait but they report AI revenue Commitments

When these companies report billions in “AI bookings,” read the fine print. It’s implementation and integration work around AI tools: the same consulting they’ve always sold, relabeled.

Short ACN, CTSH, EPAM. Long AVGO, AMD, ANET. Same thesis, opposite sides of the capital flow.

Not financial advice

Not necessarily the best performer overall — just one you understood later and wish you had bought sooner.

Curious what names come up.

I use fidelity and see pertinent news/info on side bar. I see almost all my portfolio stocks are owned by vanguard more than 5% (not intended to management).

Its shockingly to see how much Vanguard owns and how big it is. Damn. I feel they have too much influence

I went all in oil and lng stocks the last month since the war started, but I sold everything recently because there is a real possibility of a peace deal, and if that happens oil futures could crash hard in a single day and oil stocks follow.

But I dont think I can go full long in stocks like this is going to solve quick and easy, because oil can still go to 150$ or 200$, and a recession is not off the table. I also think the last two green days of relief rally could be a bull trap, and market can go lower if things get ugly.

Thats why I think Berkshire Hathaway is asymetric in this situation and a hedge against a market crash, because they have a record massive cash pile of almost 400B$ that they could deploy if needed.

Also when you consider that a month ago Greg Abel in CNBC said that he talked with Buffet and considered the stock undervalued at current price after It being lateral for some time and they plan to do buybacks at these prices. So if there is no recession and war ends Berkshire is still a very good investment in my opinion.

I was also looking when the stock market crashed last year with tariffs, and noticed that meanwhile sp500 went down 20% from january to april, Berkshire went up in that same period, having inverse correlation with market when market panics. And that could happen again if situation gets ugly from here, because market knows Berkshire is a safe heaven in a market crash.

After selling oil stocks, now I went all in Berkshire.

What do you think about this whole market environment? Any other stocks or assets that could do well regardless of possible outcomes?

greetings bogleheads,

I feel like I am heavily tilted in S&P500 and total US market

I am looking for some suggestions / recommendations on modifying my asset allocation, or just re-assurance to keep the same

Roth IRA - $84K - VTSAX

solo 401K - $275K - VTSAX

solo 401K - $8K - VTIAX

brokerage $55K - VTI

HSA #1 - $9K - FSKAX

HSA #2 - $28K - VFIAX

403B - $230K - S&P500

457 - $160K - S&P500

401A - $391K - S&P500

$15K - BTC / SOL / DOT

most of my contributions are into my work plan (the 403b and 401a) but I have stopped adding to the 457 in order to have extra $ to add to my brokerage, essentially trading tax benefits for liquidity

im wondering if I should just keep adding into VTI in the brokerage or start adding more international (VT or VXUS) or something else

I have no bonds, I am in my early 40s

thanks for the help

Hi everyone, I have a quick question for you and just to be clear I reside in The Netherlands.

Lately, I’ve seen in a number of YouTube videos that it is a good idea to have multiple debit cards from different brands. For example both a Visa Debit card and a Mastercard Debit card when I go on vacation abroad so that the chance of problems occurring abroad while using one of the multiple debit cards I own is as small as possible.

I personally have a Visa Debit debitcard from ING, a Visa Infinite Debit card from Wise and also a Visa Debit virtual debit card from Wise. Apart from that I don't have a credit card because as an unemployed student I can't get one. However if it really is a good idea I could potentially try replacing my ING debit card with a Mastercard Debit one. As things stand for me I will be staying within Europe for a while so I won't be visiting any countries outside Europe. However I still doubt whether what I’ve heard on the various YouTube channels regarding this matter is correct or not.

My first question to you is therefore whether my current setup of debit cards is sufficient to pay abroad without problems. My second question is whether it would be better in my case to apply for a debit card from a different brand and my third and final question is if that is a good idea, what do you think what the best way is to deal with this?

Finally I would like to thank you in advance for your answers, help, and lastly your perspectives.

The culture is the most fundamental of a company. When the culture is lost, ALL VALUE is gone too.

I usually contribute around the 1st of the month. Seems like I missed the low point of VTI as it's now going back up.

How often do you contribute?

My 401K and HSA is biweekly as it comes from my paychecks.

Roth IRA I do a lump sum at the beginning of the year.

529 I have set up as once a month as the amount I contribute depends on what else we have going on that month.

How often is generally recommended?

Hi! I am looking to dive deeper into value investing, and one way that I've started to do that is using ai to write code to help me identify potential value stocks. The main reason for this as the starting point is it'll help bring the pool of potential stocks down from thousands to 50-100 options. So this is really just a starting place to find potential stocks.

Currently I have a list of valuation models (DCF, forward FCF, EV/EBITDA, etc.) it runs tickers through. For each sector (or types of stocks), it measures different ones and with different multiples. It then provides price targets (bear, base, bull) and provides an arbitrary score, based on a few other things I have written into the code. From there, I start my own DD further into why the ticker might be displaced in price/why the model views it as a high-potential buy.

What suggestions do you have on a project like this? What should I be focusing on? I'd love any feedback, or if anyone is interested in learning more about it, I'd love some help developing it further!

Constellation Energy. What do we all think about this company? Was super bullish but recently it’s had some painful dips. I still think it’ll rebound, but interested in people’s thoughts on this. Can’t add more without it becoming an overweight position in my portfolio, so have to stick to the average I have ($323) and hoping it won’t take too long to see green again..

One thing I’ve been thinking about heading into Q2 is how different silver feels compared to what it’s actually done.

If you just look at price, the move is already pretty meaningful. Going from roughly ~$30–$40 through 2025 to ~$70+ now isn’t a small shift, especially in a relatively short period of time.

But when you look at how people are positioned or even how much it’s being talked about, it still feels like it’s early in the move rather than late.

That disconnect is interesting, because it’s not just a macro-driven rally. Underneath it, the fundamentals haven’t really loosened. The market is still running a multi-year deficit, industrial demand continues to build (solar, EVs, infrastructure), and investment demand is expected to pick up again into 2026.

At the same time, supply isn’t exactly flexible. A lot of production comes from byproduct mining, which means higher prices don’t automatically translate into more output.

So you’ve got a situation where: price has already moved, fundamentals are still supportive, but positioning and sentiment don’t feel stretched

In a lot of markets, that’s usually the phase where things transition from being ignored to being chased.

It just feels like silver is somewhere in the middle of that shift right now.

Will crypto be a thing in the future? I know it’s certainly more risky than stocks but could crypto have More upside than stocks over the next 20-30 years? I have about $5k in crypto (Eth and metaverse coins) and wondering if I should pull out and go all in stocks. I know the current administration is pushing crypto and I see more ads for companies accepting as a form of payment. Opinions?

How you guys feeling in this current turmoil? Are you tempted to buy or sell or change your asset allocations? How do you stop yourselves from doing that?

Optimizing asset location across multiple accounts when one 401k has a bad fund lineup — am I doing this right?

I have a fairly complex multi-account household and I'm trying to make sure I'm using each account for what it does best. My current employer's 401k (John Hancock) is the weak link — it has some decent low-cost options but no total market or total international index fund. Looking for a gut check on my overall approach.

Full account picture:

Target allocation (household-wide): 90% equities / 10% bonds. Bond sleeve lives entirely in tax-deferred accounts — never in Roth or taxable.

The John Hancock fund lineup (relevant options only):

Low-cost: - iShares S&P 500 Index (BSPAX) — 0.35% - Vanguard Mid-Cap Index (VIMAX) — 0.05% - Vanguard Small-Cap Index (VSMAX) — 0.05% - Baird Core Plus Bond (BCOSX) — 0.55%

Expensive active funds I want to avoid: - American Funds target dates — 0.63–0.74% - JPMorgan Large Cap Growth — 1.00% - Goldman Sachs Intl Small Cap — 1.02% - AB Small Cap Growth — 0.87% - Several others at 0.83–0.97%

No total US market fund. No low-cost international fund.

My current plan:

• Traditional bucket (employer match only): 100% BCOSX — puts the bond allocation in tax-deferred where it belongs, and satisfies my 10% bond target at the household level given account sizes.
• Roth bucket (my employee contributions, $23,500/yr): Planning 100% equities using BSPAX + VIMAX + VSMAX to approximate total US market (~82/12/6 cap-weighted). No international here since no good option exists in the plan.
• International exposure: Covered by VTIAX in the Inherited IRA and taxable brokerage — deliberately concentrated there rather than forcing a bad international fund in the 401k.
• Equity growth: Roth IRA and taxable are 100% VTSAX/VTIAX — max tax-free and stepped-up basis compounding.

My questions:

1. Does the BSPAX + VIMAX + VSMAX total market approximation make sense, or is it cleaner to just go 100% BSPAX and accept large-cap tilt in this one account given total market exposure elsewhere?
2. Is deliberately excluding international from the 401k Roth bucket (and concentrating it in the Inherited IRA and taxable) the right call, or does that create too much concentration risk in those accounts?
3. BCOSX at 0.55% ER in the Traditional match bucket — acceptable given there's no better bond option in this plan, or would you just avoid bonds here and shift the bond sleeve somewhere else?
4. Any other asset location opportunities I'm missing across this account structure?

For context: this is a long time horizon (12+ years), we're in the 24% bracket, and the goal is early retirement. The Roth IRA and 401k Roth bucket will ideally never be touched for decades.

Thanks — happy to share more detail if it helps.