Welcome to the age of the “finfluencer.” While some have genuine experience, many are focused on views, and not your best interest. At Hill Investment Group, we believe that real advice should be simple, clear, and grounded in evidence, not hype. That’s why we’re launching a new series to unpack misleading ideas that circulate online or in print.

Our goal? To inform, not entertain. To offer substance, not speculation.

Heard something at work, at golf, or on social media that has you asking, “Should I be paying attention to this?” Feel free to share it with us. We’d love to help unpack it. Submissions will remain confidential unless we get your permission to share anonymously. Send to: zenz@hillinvestmentgroup.com

Please note: Submissions are reviewed for educational purposes only and do not constitute personalized investment advice.

A prominent advisor at a national wealth management firm recently posted a popular headline online:

“What could possibly have performed better than buying the Lakers for $67.5 million in 1979 and selling them for $10 billion today?

Answer: The stock market.”

The post argued that simply investing in the S&P 500 would have outperformed the sale of the Lakers by an estimated $3.7 billion.

It’s catchy. And it seems to reinforce a message we strongly believe in: that long-term, diversified investing often outperforms more exciting-sounding alternatives.

But there’s a problem: the comparison isn’t accurate.

The claim uses the total return of the S&P 500 (which includes both price appreciation and reinvested dividends) but compares it to only the price appreciation of the Lakers. That’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.

To make a fair comparison, we’d need to include decades of Lakers’ profits, as well as proceeds from the sale of other assets tied to the original deal, like the L.A. Kings, The Forum, and other valuable land holdings. A more appropriate benchmark for the S&P 500 would be its price return alone, which would have resulted in a significantly smaller figure than the Lakers’ current estimated value.

It’s like evaluating a stock without considering the dividends. As evidence-based investors, we know how important it is to look at the full picture.

Why Total Return Matters

At Hill, we focus on total return—not just income or price growth—because it reflects the complete investment outcome. Ignoring part of the return can lead to faulty comparisons and poor financial decisions.

So let’s not lose sight of the broader point: Owning a low-cost, globally diversified portfolio has been one of the most accessible and consistent wealth-building tools for long-term investors. Unlike a professional sports team, which typically requires billions in capital, an evidence-based portfolio is available to nearly anyone with savings and discipline.

Yes, buying the Lakers was a great investment for Jerry Buss.

But for the rest of us? Trusting markets, managing costs, and sticking to a thoughtful plan…that’s a powerful approach, too.

This example is for illustrative purposes only and does not reflect the performance of any specific investment or portfolio. Index performance is not indicative of any particular investment. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Past performance does not guarantee future results.