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 contributing adviser says investors who avoid frequent portfolio changes may benefit by staying invested and not reacting to market swings. The article cites a widely repeated Fidelity account study, but provides no date, methodology or figures, so its specific ranking claim cannot be independently assessed from the material supplied.
A Kiplinger contributing adviser argues that investors may improve their chances of staying on course by avoiding frequent portfolio tinkering, drawing on a widely repeated claim that accounts belonging to deceased owners and people who had forgotten their passwords performed best in a Fidelity review. The supplied report does not identify the study’s date, methodology or results, so the account-ranking claim remains difficult to verify from the information provided.
The adviser’s central argument is that investors who check their accounts less often may be less likely to panic-sell during market declines, try to time market moves or chase recent winners. Those behaviors can interrupt a long-term plan and, in the adviser’s view, undermine the benefits of remaining invested and allowing returns to compound. This is an argument about behavior, not a guarantee that an inactive account will outperform.
The report describes a Fidelity review of thousands of brokerage accounts and says its anecdotal takeaway was that accounts belonging to deceased holders ranked highest, followed by accounts whose owners had forgotten their passwords. The article provides no study link, sample period, account-selection details, return figures or comparison with a benchmark. It also does not establish that Fidelity formally published this conclusion as a research finding.
The adviser does not recommend ignoring investments altogether. The proposed middle ground is to keep a portfolio aligned with an investor’s goals, make changes for strategic reasons rather than in response to daily headlines, and maintain enough oversight to address genuine changes in circumstances. The report places particular emphasis on retirement, when withdrawals can make it harder to recover from selling investments during a downturn.
Why Fewer Trades May Help
The practical point is that investment behavior is part of a financial plan. A person with a suitable allocation who stays invested may avoid turning a temporary market decline into a permanent loss by selling at a low point. Frequent trading can also lead investors to act on short-term predictions that prove wrong. These are possible risks, not proof that every hands-off investor earns better returns.
The stakes can be greater for people drawing income from a portfolio. The adviser says retirees have less opportunity to rebuild savings through future contributions, so decisions made during a market drop may affect how long their assets last. That does not mean retirees should never change investments: spending needs, risk tolerance and other circumstances can change. The report’s case is for planned review rather than reaction, not permanent inattention.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Fidelity Claim in Context
The report refers to a Fidelity account analysis as a familiar illustration of investor behavior, but the supplied material does not cite a primary study or provide enough information to check the claim. Without its date, sample construction and definition of performance, readers cannot tell whether the ranking applies broadly, how large any differences were, or whether other factors account for them. The adviser presents the takeaway as anecdotal rather than as a fully documented statistical conclusion.
The article also states that markets have historically returned roughly 10% annually on average and risen in about three out of every four calendar years. It does not specify the market index, dates, whether returns include dividends, or whether the average is nominal or adjusted for inflation. Those figures should be understood as historical generalizations in the report, not forecasts or a promise of future results. The adviser’s broader point is that declines and within-year pullbacks can occur even during years that finish higher.
“You can’t panic if you’re not paying attention”
— Kiplinger contributing adviser
retirement portfolio management tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Account Study Shows
The supplied report does not provide enough detail to independently confirm the Fidelity study’s scope or conclusion. Its date, methodology, account sample, performance measures and numerical results are missing, as is a direct citation to Fidelity’s original analysis. It is also unclear whether the reported ranking accounted for differences in account type, investor age, contributions, risk exposure or other factors.
The report’s market-return figures likewise lack a named benchmark and measurement period. No investor-specific analysis is included, and the article does not show that inactivity alone caused stronger returns. A hands-off strategy can also leave an unsuitable allocation or an unmet cash need unaddressed; the report does not quantify those risks or define how often investors should review their portfolios.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Investors Can Apply the Argument
The article offers no announced follow-up study or upcoming milestone. Its practical suggestion is for readers to review whether their investment mix matches their long-term goals and income needs, then avoid making changes solely because of market headlines. For retirement portfolios, that review can include how withdrawals are funded and whether the plan remains appropriate through market declines.
Readers seeking to judge the Fidelity claim will need a primary source that spells out the study’s period, methodology and results; those details are not in the supplied report. Any portfolio decision should reflect an individual’s circumstances and risk tolerance. The Kiplinger piece is attributed to a contributing adviser, not presented as a Fidelity statement or a guarantee of returns.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Did Fidelity prove that dead investors earn the best returns?
The report attributes an anecdotal ranking to a Fidelity review of thousands of accounts, but it does not provide the study date, methodology, figures or a direct primary-source citation. The claim cannot be independently assessed from the supplied information.
Does the article recommend never checking investments?
No. The adviser argues for an arm’s-length approach: monitor whether the portfolio still fits long-term goals, but avoid reacting to every market move or headline.
Why does the argument matter for retirees?
Retirees may be withdrawing money rather than adding to savings. The adviser warns that selling during a downturn or abandoning a withdrawal plan can harm a retirement strategy, although the report gives no individual projections or guarantees.
Are the reported market returns a forecast?
No. The article describes roughly 10% average annual returns and gains in about three out of four calendar years as historical patterns. It does not specify the benchmark or period, and past performance does not guarantee future results.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
