Regular readers of this site are probably well aware of ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Indeed, many blogs here have covered their role either as Core holdings of Retirement portfolios or portfolios still in the Wealth-building phase. Some espouse ETFs as a Core holding but play around at the fringe with so-called “Explore” investments either in high-conviction individual stocks or in more tactical specialized ETFs. Many espouse a “hybrid” strategy of mixing ETFs with individual stocks, perhaps by “skimming” the same ETFs for particular stocks that appeal at some level, whether for income, growth or other reasons.

Roughly once a month for much of the existence of this site, Featured.com has provided useful content on investing and retirement. In the past year, it changed its strategy so editors like myself could have more input into the creation of its blogs. Now the process is one of posting a question or general request to its site, soliciting input from a wealth of largely US-based financial experts and business owners.

Today’s blog focuses on various strategies on ETFs and variants of using them as Core or Explore holdings, plus the pros and cons of the “hybrid” approach mentioned above. Most of these experts are on LinkedIn, as you may see by clicking on their company names below each entry.

Here’s how we posed the opening question for respondents:

When it comes to managing your personal Retirement Funds or that of clients, what role do ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) play: Core, Explore, Tactical or what? If you do use ETFs, do you prefer to use them exclusively or do you like hybrid strategies where you also pick individual dividend-paying or growth stocks; or do you also cherry-pick individual stocks from favorite ETFs?

So with no further ado:

Hybrid Strategies of mixing ETFs with individual stocks can lead to trouble

When it comes to the role of ETFs, for the vast majority of people — especially the ones I see in my practice trying to build stable long-term wealth — they belong in the “Core” position. ETFs are a brilliant legal and structural innovation: they provide instant diversification, they are incredibly low-cost, and they are tax-efficient. They allow you to own the market rather than trying to guess which individual company will win, which is essentially an impossible game for most humans to play consistently over 30 years.

The hybrid strategy — mixing ETFs with individual dividend or growth stocks —is tempting, but it is often where people get into trouble. “Cherry-picking” individual stocks is not investing; it is gambling with better marketing. I have represented clients who lost their retirement savings because they became over-concentrated in a single “favorite” stock that cratered. When you cherry-pick, you aren’t just betting on the company; you are betting against the market, the sector, the economy, and your own lack of inside information.

If you are a professional investor with the time to research, the discipline to rebalance, and the stomach for volatility, go ahead. But for the average person, or even the professional focused on their own career, the most successful strategy is usually the simplest: Core, boring, broad-market index ETFs.

The most successful retirement portfolio is often the one you forget you own, not the one you tinker with every week based on a “hot tip” or a gut feeling. I’ve never seen a client file for bankruptcy because they were too boring with their index funds. I have seen clients file because they tried to get clever with individual stocks and got decimated by a market downturn. Complexity is rarely your friend in long-term wealth building. Keep it simple, keep costs low, and let time do the heavy lifting. That isn’t just good investment advice; it’s sound risk management. — Lyle Solomon, Principal Attorney, Oak View Law Group

ETFs are foundational to my plan for retirement. The consistency and broad market exposure that they represent allow them to be at the core of all of my other investment decisions. I use a blended model. In order to achieve this blend, I have selected low cost indexed products (that provide for consistency) in addition to specific dividend producing stock selections to provide additional income. — Zack Moorin, Founder, Zack Buys Houses

ETFs as Core with individual Satellite positions like Crypto

My personal approach to retirement portfolio construction uses ETFs as the core, with a satellite allocation to individual positions including crypto assets.

The core ETF layer serves a specific purpose: broad market exposure at near-zero cost, with automatic rebalancing and no single-company risk. For U.S. equity exposure, a total market or S&P 500 ETF handles this. For international exposure, a developed-markets ETF. For bonds, a total bond market ETF scaled by risk tolerance and time horizon. This core doesn’t require active management or conviction: it just needs to capture beta.

The satellite layer is where I allocate capital I’m willing to analyze actively and hold with genuine conviction. For me, this includes individual positions in companies I’ve studied deeply and blockchain assets backed by whitepapers I’ve read and evaluated (through ChainClarity’s own research process). The satellite allocation is sized so that a complete loss wouldn’t materially affect the core goal.

Why I don’t go pure ETF: I find that having no individual positions reduces my engagement with the market as a learning mechanism. Tracking companies or protocols I own forces me to read earnings reports, understand industry dynamics, and notice when my thesis was wrong. That active attention makes me a better analyst, which has compounding value beyond the direct investment return.

The hybrid strategy I’d caution against: owning both an S&P 500 ETF and individual U.S. large-cap stocks. The ETF already owns those companies: you’re just adding concentration risk and management overhead without meaningful diversification. If you’re going to pick stocks, pick categories the ETF doesn’t cover adequately.

Roman Vassilenko is the founder of ChainClarity (chainclarity.io), an AI platform that makes blockchain whitepapers accessible to investors and developers. — Roman Vassilenko, Founder, ChainClarity

Active Strategies only work if you a demonstrable Edge

The statistics don’t favor an active equity allocation strategy. Over the 10 years ending 2021, 84% of U.S. large-cap growth funds lost to their benchmark, the S&P 500. Even if we add back some of those funds to the universe that died along the way, the failure rate only drops to 91%. You might still have to explain why you’d invest money for a 0.66% expense ratio, which is what active equity funds average compared with 0.03% for their passive alternatives (SPY, VOO). On $500K invested for 30 years that grows at a real rate of 7% annually, you can expect to have spent nearly $387K in fees over your investment horizon. Half of this goes to the active funds manager, whether they perform well or poorly.

The exception to this advice comes if you feel an edge exists. Perhaps you work in Silicon Valley and have insight into Netflix or perhaps have engineer-level technical understanding on why a company’s underlying product will prevail over competitors, but unless you genuinely possess such an asymmetric advantage, most of the advice below comes from investing in low-cost ETF cores, keeping a few per cent in cash or cash alternatives and picking one or two individual stocks that you’re willing to lose money entirely, without jeopardizing your Financial Independence. I think anything beyond that could fit onto one side of a sheet of paper. — Jere Salmisto, Founder, CalcFi

ETFs remove the big risk of your own Decision-Making

Most investors treat ETFs as a convenience tool, but their real power is that they quietly remove the biggest risk in portfolios: your own decision-making.

I think of ETFs as a “behavioral anchor.” In most retirement strategies, they should be the core, not because they outperform everything else, but because they reduce the chances of overtrading, emotional decisions, and concentrated mistakes. They create a stable base you’re less tempted to interfere with.

In practice, I’ve seen this play out repeatedly. Clients who built portfolios purely on individual stock picks often drifted into overexposure or reactive selling during volatility. In contrast, those with ETF-heavy cores made fewer impulsive changes and stayed aligned with long-term goals. When we added individual stocks, it was deliberate and limited, more of a satellite layer than a competing strategy.

The takeaway is simple. ETFs are not just about diversification, they’re about discipline. Use them as your foundation, then layer in individual stocks only where you have conviction and a clear reason. The goal isn’t to outperform the market every year, it’s to avoid the mistakes that quietly destroy returns over time. — Omer Malik, CEO, ORM Systems

ETFs are my core. Period.

ETFs are my core. Period. I don’t have the time or the ego to think I can outpick the entire market with every dollar I own. My retirement strategy is built exactly like our risk models at Insurance Panda: you need a massive, diversified base to survive the outliers. I put the vast majority of my capital into broad-market index funds and let them ride. It’s the only way to ensure you actually have a pile of cash when you’re ready to exit the game.

But I’m a business owner, so I can’t help but look for an edge. I use a hybrid model. I keep the boring foundation in ETFs, then I pick individual growth stocks in sectors I actually understand: specifically digital infrastructure and software. I don’t bother “cherry-picking” individual names from a favorite ETF. That’s just over-analytical busywork. If I see a company we’re actually using in our own tech stack that’s clearly dominating its niche, I buy the stock directly.

And here is the hard truth. Most people mess this up by being too tactical with money they can’t afford to lose. They treat their Retirement fund like a casino. Don’t do that. Secure the base layer first with low-cost funds. Then, and only then, use your actual industry knowledge to take a few shots on individual winners. If you don’t have a clear information advantage, stay in the index. — James Shaffer, Managing Director, Insurance Panda

ETFs should be the core 70 to 80% of your Retirement Portfolio

To any of our MintWit readers who are saving for retirement, my advice will be to build the bulk of your retirement portfolio using ETFs because they provide instant diversification and very low fees. In essence, ETFs will form the basis, or the bread and butter, as part of your investment strategy, making up 70%-80% of your retirement portfolio. The message we always preach is that you use the ETFs as a safety measure; then you explore by buying a few stocks, such as those paid by dividends from companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Coca-Cola, to make up the remaining 10%-20%. –– Scott Brown, Founder, MintWit

ETFs as Core help maintain Target Allocations

ETFs are most useful as core holdings in a retirement portfolio because they offer broad exposure and make it simple to maintain a target allocation. I recommend using ETFs to establish the backbone of a portfolio, then layering in individual dividend or growth stocks only when they serve a clear, specific purpose. Relying exclusively on ETFs can work for many investors, but a hybrid approach lets you target income or single-stock opportunities without losing diversification. Keep the overall asset allocation aligned with your risk tolerance and time horizon. Automate contributions and set a regular rebalancing schedule so ETFs and any individual holdings stay within your intended ranges. Consult a qualified advisor for tax and account-structure considerations before making changes. — Amir Husen, Content Writer, SEO Specialist & Associate, ICS Legal

Hybrid Strategy uses indexing and select individual stocks

I view EFTs (Exchange Traded Funds) as my base of operations for overall market exposure and stability. I prefer to implement an index fund or hybrid strategy which incorporates both index investing and selected individual stock investments into my portfolio. The Hybrid Strategy will allow me to maintain broad based investment diversification by utilizing index fund(s), and also pursue greater returns on investment via selected individual equities. At times, I review the top holdings in the most popular EFTs to see if they are among my potential long-term investment options. — Mike Otranto, Founder, Wake County Home Buyers

ETFs belong in the Retirement core bucket but not a fan of Index Skimming

I’m coming at this as someone who’s been in estate planning since 2008 and now leads operations at Safeguard in Arizona, where retirement planning and asset protection are part of the same conversation every day. My view is that ETFs usually belong in the core bucket because retirement money needs clarity, liquidity, and a structure that’s easier to coordinate with the rest of the estate plan.

What matters most to me is not “ETF vs stock” in isolation, but whether the investment setup works cleanly with beneficiary designations, trust funding, and the reality of incapacity or death. A simple ETF-based core is often easier for a spouse, successor trustee, or family to understand and manage than a scattered collection of hand-picked positions.

I’m generally more comfortable with a hybrid only when there’s a clear purpose for it, not because someone wants more activity. For example, if a family has a living trust and wants long-term retirement assets organized so a successor trustee can step in smoothly, broad ETF holdings tend to create fewer administrative headaches than a portfolio full of one-off stock ideas.

I’m not a fan of cherry-picking names out of favorite ETFs just because they showed up on a list. In retirement and wealth preservation, I’d rather see a plan that accounts for inflation, Social Security timing, healthcare costs, and smooth transfer to heirs than a portfolio that becomes harder to administer when the family needs simplicity most. — Julie Jewett, Director of Operations, Safeguard.

ETFs should have a clear purpose, like Targeted Income or Tactical Exposure

I view ETFs as core building blocks of retirement portfolios, especially for taxable accounts, given their tax characteristics. Asset location is critical, so I often favor index ETFs in taxable brokerage accounts to help control when gains and income are realized.

Dividend-paying stocks and corporate bonds are typically better held in tax-advantaged accounts to avoid current taxation on dividends and interest. ETFs that do not distribute frequent income also give more control over timing because you generally recognize gains when you sell.

However, I do not use ETFs exclusively. I treat them as the foundation and layer individual securities when they serve a clear purpose, such as targeted income or tactical exposure. The precise mix depends on a client’s tax situation, income needs, and retirement phase, with asset location guiding those choices. — Clint Haynes, Financial Planner, NextGen Wealth

The point of ETFs is to provide exposure to an idea without taking single-stock blowup risks

ETFs are immensely diverse, that’s the first thing to clear up. Income ETFs, dividend-growth ETFs, low-volatility ETFs, broad-market index ETFs, growth ETFs, and speculative covered-call funds (YieldMax, Roundhill) are all ETFs, but they serve fundamentally different roles. Their shared job is to express an investment thesis with diversification. The point of an ETF is to give you exposure to an idea without taking the single-stock blowup risks (management, execution, etc.) that come with picking individual names.

For Retirement, low-volatility and dividend-growth ETFs are the natural fit, because they prioritize stability of distributions and capital preservation, which is what matters when you’re drawing down rather than accumulating. Speculative income products like YieldMax or Roundhill weekly-pay funds can play a role, but they’re a speculative income tilt, not a core retirement holding. The high headline yields often come at the cost of NAV erosion that trailing yield figures don’t show. A retiree leaning on these without understanding the option-writing mechanics underneath can find their principal halved over five years even while collecting “income.”

Growth ETFs are a different beast entirely. Their volatility and lower (or zero) distributions don’t suit the liquidity and income needs of someone in retirement, but they’re the right call for accumulators in their 20s, 30s, or 40s with decades-long time horizons. Different season, different tool.

On methodology: the right way to think about an ETF is bottom-up, not top-down. If you research the underlying stocks and like what you see, the businesses, the dividend track records, the valuations … you buy the ETF as a convenient, low-cost container for that thesis. It’s not a common or advised investment strategy to cherry-pick individual stocks out of an ETF you like, without having done the individual fundamental work. That’s reverse-engineering: you’ve already paid for the diversification, picking out individual names just adds concentration risk while losing the structural benefit. If you want concentrated exposure to one or two names, buy the stocks directly. If you want diversified exposure to a thesis, hold the ETF that expresses that thesis.

Across age cohorts and goals, the principle is the same: an ETF is a way to express a stock thesis efficiently, not a substitute for having one. — Ignacio Planas Gonzalez, Founder, YieldMaxCalc Continue Reading…