Optimized Portfolio | John Williamson, APMA®

$OVQ is the newer, Nasdaq-100 cousin to $OVL. It holds the NDX via QQQM at 97%, adds a short put spread overlay on the S&P 500, distributes 12% annually, and costs 0.97%. Is it worth an extra 0.86% fee compared to 95/5 QNDX/TQQQ, which it resembles, for a small option strategy and having your money handed back to you? You decide. New post here: optimizedportfolio.com/ovq/

Reminder: Only one of these potentially results in homelessness. nitter.cf/OptimizedPort/status/2…

Reminder: Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) still exists whether or not you want to acknowledge its existence. As such, by definition, it cannot be "an old school approach." Apples and lawn mowers.

This is like saying "as soon as I find out someone is cautious, competent, and qualified, I ignore them."

Goldman is acquiring NEOS because they like to make money, not because they think the products are good for investors. Dan Bortolotti on ep 379 of the @RationalRemind podcast: "...when it comes to financial technology, it's very rarely a benefit to the average consumer. It's only a benefit to the company that creates these products."

I've always kinda hated the framing of posts like this because they imply the "paycheck" must come from yield alone, which is silly. In point of fact, a pretty naive 80/20 mix of low cost index funds beats the "cheapest" choice here, at least since its inception through today.

$CSHI has delivered about 0.8%/yr. above T-bills. In my newest post, I explain how it works, where that premium came from, some not-so-obvious risks, how (not) to think about an allocation, and how it compares to a plain T-bills fund like $SGOV: optimizedportfolio.com/cshi/

Reminder: While the strategy under the hood remains unchanged for $OVL, the big jump in distribution rate is a recent marketing decision in January 2026 that potentially greatly impacts the whole NAV erosion conversation, so we can't just look at the recent bull market history to indicate the future. ROC (Return of Capital) is an accounting classification for taxes. ROC per se does not equal NAV erosion. They can overlap and interact, certainly, but they're 2 different things. NAV erosion simply means a fund has to pay out more than its total return. That eats into its own capital. Thus its Net Asset Value (NAV) drops, hence "erosion." As such, a fund does not get to choose and "use" the type of ROC that does not result in NAV erosion. It's up to, again, the distribution versus whatever the market does. With some hand waving, OVL's prospectus basically already hints at expecting to see some erosion at times, at least temporarily. No one can say with certainty that NAV won't erode, just like no one can say with certainty that it will. Ironically, the way to lower the likelihood of so-called "destructive" ROC that erodes NAV is to lower the distribution rate (and fees). That's why I opined that OVL arguably made way more sense with its older, lower, modest yield around 3%. In this context, NAV erosion happens if OVL's total return is less than its distribution rate of about 10%, which is entirely possible. For the newer $OVQ that just launched, it's 12%. This is why I always say it's important to fully understand what you're buying. I explained all this and more - including the specific prospectus verbiage - here: optimizedportfolio.com/ovl/ optimizedportfolio.com/ovq/

Seriously, what's going on with protein? This was $107 a year ago. It's now more than double that.

$AVUS and $VTI have traded blows pretty closely but AVUS's big edge came from faring far better in 2022:

$OVQ obviously has a higher acquired funds fee than $OVL (QQQM vs. VOO), but you might be surprised to learn it also has a higher management fee (0.85% vs. 0.75%), even though the option overlay is the same. Spooky! 👻🎃

SPYI captures more upside than JEPI, but that isn't saying much. Its ROC benefit maxes out around 0.3%/yr. while its fee is over double that. Finfluencers' claims about it don't hold water. I explain all this and more in my newest blog post here: optimizedportfolio.com/spyi/

> "Same mortgage payment covered. The higher the yield, the less capital you need." When I say income influencers are often purposely misleading, this is what I mean.

Fun fact on GPIQ and GPIX, covered call ETFs from Goldman: The permitted range of option overwrite is 25-75%, but nowhere in any of the fund literature does it say what informs that percentage. I thought they might mention the usual terms like market sentiment, directionality, or implied vol (all of which would still be vague). Nope. Nothing. So these are more discretionarily active than I initially thought. That word "dynamically" could mean anything here. So far, the average has been about 35%. Read more at: optimizedportfolio.com/gpix/

Subscribe to my paid newsletter where I tell you which total market index funds are the cheapest and why they'll beat the stock picks from the other newsletters you're paying for. #sarcasm

Should advisors suggest unsafe withdrawals? 🤨

Reminder: $WEEK continues to be the worst way to own T-bills.

Finfluencers can be sponsored by niche fund houses, shill their high-fee ETFs, and sell newsletters while thinking calling someone a fee-only fiduciary advisor is an insult. FinTwit is upside down.

Reminder: This only applies to 1% of investors. The other 99% lag the market return or go broke. That's why I advocate for "index and chill."

Reminder: "What the people want" at any given point in time is almost always NOT the best investment, objectively. Some flowers in the 1600's serve as a salient reminder. More recently, NFT's and memecoins come to mind.