Welcome to the age of the “finfluencer.” Some voices bring real experience, many optimize for clicks, not your interests. At Hill Investment Group, we believe good advice should be simple, clear, and grounded in evidence, not hype. This new series examines popular claims circulating online or in print, and separates signal from noise.

We aim to inform, not entertain; substance over speculation.

Heard something at work, on the course, or on social media that has you wondering, “Should I pay attention to this?” Share it with us at zenz@hillinvestmentgroup.com. We will help unpack it. Submissions are confidential. With your permission, we may quote an anonymized version in a future post.

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

Structured notes—sometimes called structured or derivative products—are contracts issued by banks or financial institutions. Their performance depends on how certain markets behave, but with specific features built in.

For example, a note may be linked to the S&P 500, offering returns up to a maximum (say 9%) while limiting downside risk. If the market declines, you might receive your principal back. If the market rises, your return is capped at the maximum.

These products typically combine bonds with options. The bond portion provides stability or income, while the options alter the return profile with added features such as caps, buffers, or payouts tied to specific outcomes. Importantly, they do not create new investment opportunities; they repackage existing securities in different ways.

Structured products are often designed and priced by the issuing institution. A simple illustration:

1. Package bonds and options that may be worth slightly less than the purchase price.
2. Market the package in a way that addresses an investor’s concerns (for example, fear of loss or desire for enhanced returns).
3. Sell it at a markup.

The difference, though it may look small, represents revenue for the bank. Like insurance, protection, or enhancement features come at a cost, which is reflected in the structure’s design and pricing.

Structured notes are not “free.” For every feature that reduces downside risk, there is typically a tradeoff in the form of reduced upside potential. For example, capping gains in strong years may limit long-term growth.

Other considerations can include:

• Complexity: The payoff formulas are often difficult to evaluate without specialized knowledge.
• Liquidity: Notes may be hard to sell before maturity.
• Taxes: Some structures can create less favorable tax treatment.
• Transparency: It may be difficult to fully assess all costs and risks.

These factors mean that outcomes may differ significantly from expectations, and actual results depend on market conditions and the structure itself.

At Hill Investment Group, our philosophy is that portfolios should be built around a client’s unique risk profile using tools that are transparent and cost-efficient. Instead of relying on complex products, we focus on combining equities and high-quality fixed income in a way that is diversified, tax-aware, and grounded in decades of academic research.

This approach does not promise to eliminate risk or guarantee returns. Rather, it seeks to create a risk/return balance that clients can understand and commit to over the long term.

Structured notes can sound appealing because they are often presented as solving two problems at once, offering upside with protection on the downside. In practice, they involve tradeoffs that should be carefully weighed. For many investors, a straightforward evidence-based portfolio may provide more transparency and better alignment with long-term goals.

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.

If you follow finance influencers online, you’ve probably seen a version of this pitch: “All you need are these ETFs.” More often than not, that list includes VOO and QQQ, and little else.

It’s a compelling idea. Over the past decade, these two funds have benefited from strong performance by large U.S. companies, particularly the tech sector. But a closer look at what’s under the hood reveals a more concentrated and potentially less diversified portfolio than many investors realize.

What These Funds Represent

VOO is an index fund tracking the S&P 500, which includes large U.S. companies. QQQ tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index, which also focuses on U.S. large-cap companies, particularly technology-oriented names. While they are separate funds, they share many holdings.

In fact:

• Roughly 85% of QQQ’s holdings also appear in VOO.
• The overlap in weight between the two strategies is around 50%.

That means holding both may result in doubling up on the same exposures, mainly large U.S. tech and growth-oriented companies.

Additionally, QQQ’s higher expense ratio reflects the licensing cost of tracking a proprietary index, as well as required marketing efforts. While high fees alone don’t negate a fund’s  merits, investors should always ask themselves if they can get similar investment exposures without the additional costs dragging down performance. 

What’s Not Included

Holding only VOO and QQQ may leave meaningful portions of the global capital markets untapped. These include:

• Small- and mid-cap U.S. companies
• International developed markets
• Emerging markets

Together, VOO and QQQ cover a significant portion of the U.S. market but only represent about half of the global investable opportunity set. Omitting the other half may reduce diversification and limit exposure to other potential sources of return.

For instance, in some years, areas outside the U.S., such as international stocks, have delivered notably stronger returns than their domestic counterparts. That rotation is unpredictable and has lasted over a decade when looking at historical returns.

A Broader Perspective on Diversification

Low-cost index funds can be valuable building blocks, but true diversification often means looking beyond the most visible names. A globally diversified portfolio typically includes exposure to companies of varying sizes, styles, and geographies. This broader approach is designed to manage risk and capture returns from multiple parts of the market, not just the ones making headlines.

The Takeaway

There’s nothing inherently wrong with VOO or QQQ. They offer relatively efficient access to major segments of the market. But using them as your only strategy may leave diversification and opportunity on the table. We know you can do better. An evidence-based investment approach typically considers a wider range of asset classes, grounded in long-term academic research rather than short-term trends.

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.