Looking for financial independence? Follow 'The Simple Path.'

Author and blogger JL Collins's book 'The Simple Path to Wealth: Your Road Map to Financial Independence and a Rich, Free Life' was published in 2016 and has since sold more than 1 million copies. It's hands-down one of my favorite investing books.
Drumroll. He has now returned with a second edition of the book, which his daughter, Jess, collaborated on.
I asked Collins to share some insights. Here are edited excerpts of our conversation.
What has changed since your first edition in terms of your philosophy? Anything you tweaked in this new edition?
JL Collins: Nothing. Zero. I designed the simple path to wealth to be something that you implement over decades. If it were to require major modification after a single 10-year period, I would not have designed it very well. The basic philosophy is the same, and that's important. What has changed is all the little details — the government regulations around income limits for investing in 401(k)s and the amount of money you can put in individual retirement accounts and all that kind of stuff.
You kick off the book with your three key principles. Can you share?
Avoid debt, live on less than you earn, and invest the surplus — if you're following my simple path, you'll be doing that in low-cost index funds.
Avoiding debt, or getting out of it... is critical. You can never achieve financial independence if you're dragging that particular ball and chain around. I'm a little appalled that in our culture, carrying debt has become (so) normalized that people sort of assume, well, of course I'm going to borrow money to buy this, that, or, or the other thing.
How should we spend our money?
Spend money on what is most valuable to you. For me, there is nothing more valuable than buying my freedom, my freedom of time, my freedom of choice. You do that by having money and investments that ultimately pay all of your expenses.
How do you define financial independence? How is your approach aligned with the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) movement?
I love the FIRE acronym. It's very clever, and it's a great goal if that's your goal. Retiring early was never my goal. I like working. My goal was, and is, to have enough money to allow me to make bolder choices. Being financially independent means that you have enough money invested to throw off enough to cover all of your expenses and then some — a little bit of a cushion.
You write that 25 times your annual expenses is the amount you need to be financially independent. Explain.
There is the concept of what's called the 4% rule. And what the 4% rule suggests, and I think it's a great guideline, is that when you have enough money invested, that 4% of it will cover all of your expenses. Let's suppose that you have a million dollars invested. Well, that throws off at 4%, $40,000 a year. So if you can live on $40,000 a year comfortably, you are now financially independent. If you need $100,000, you multiply it by 25, you'd be at $2.5 million.
You advocate saving 50% of your income if you want to become financially independent. Isn't that a tad unrealistic for most people?
This is one of the things I probably get the most pushback on because, well, it depends on how you construct your lifestyle. And I'm sympathetic to people who feel that way, but there are people who are doing it very successfully. The more you can set aside, the greater the percentage, the shorter your journey will be to get to that financial independence thing.
You are all in on owning stocks, but what advice or do you have for people when it comes to dealing with rocky uncertainty in markets?
The single thing that determines whether the market will make you wealthy or leave you bleeding at the side of the road is what you do when it drops. Because market corrections, which are 10% and bear markets, which are 20%, are all normal. They are to be expected. If you're going to be investing in the stock market, you have to be prepared for those things to happen. And they are unpredictable in spite of all the people out there who are claiming they can predict it.
I've been doing this for 50 years, and the answer to what do you do when you know these things are going to come and you can't predict them? Well, you just stay the course. You don't panic and sell, which is the worst thing you can do because that will leave you bleeding at the side of the road. And not only do you stay the course, but if you're building your wealth, and you've been adding money on a regular basis, which is what the simple path calls for, these things are a blessing because now you're accumulating those shares at a lower cost.
Read more: How to protect your money during stock market volatility
What's your ideal investment strategy?
This is the simple path to wealth. It's not only easier, but it's also more powerful. So when you're building your wealth, you hold one index fund, and in my case, that's Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index Fund.
The key thing is it's a total stock market index fund. And caveat here is I hear from people all the time who say, you know, I'm at Fidelity, or I'm at Schwab and they have total stock market index funds. Are those okay? The answer to that question is, yes, those are fine.
You own virtually every publicly traded company in the United States of America, and everybody from the factory floor to the CEO is now working to make you richer. That keeps me warm and comfortable at night when I go to sleep.
When you stop having earned income to flow into that total stock market index fund, then you want to add a bond fund. And in my case, that's Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index Fund. I also hold some money in a money market fund.
Frequently people will go to their 401(k) and they won't find a total stock market index fund, but they will find an S&P 500 fund, those are fine.
Read more: 12 money market accounts with interest rates of 4% APY and higher
What about the international angle?
I'm a little bit alone in this position. I simply don't see the need because those largest companies... which make up the bulk of my total stock market index fund, are by definition international companies. An enormous amount of their sales and profit comes from all over the world.What's your take on target-date funds? They are the primary investment vehicle for people in employer retirement plans these days.
They're effective. One of these target-date retirement funds is a great way to go. That fund will handle all of the rebalancing when it comes time for adding bonds. For those people who want ultimate simplicity, you never have to think about it at all. I don't think it's going to perform quite as well which is why I don't personally use it, and by the way, it will give you that international exposure.
What's your take on crypto creeping into investment portfolios as well as private equity and such? Still stick with the index funds?
I'm not a fan of the multiple income stream school of investing. Simple is better. So no cattle, gold, annuities, crypto, or the like. For the most part, so far, cryptocurrencies are a speculation. Sometimes speculations work out very well, often these speculations don't work out. That's what makes them speculations.
I'm not a speculator. I'm an investor. An investor buys assets that have operations that can generate cash and growth — stock in a company or rental real estate, for example. Such things grow in value because of the underlying activities that earn money.
Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work" and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky.
Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

21 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Sword Health Now Valued At $4 Billion, Announces Expansion Into Mental Health Services

Sword Health announced Tuesday that it had raised $40 million in a recent funding round, giving it a $4 billion valuation. Founded in 2015, the healthcare startup has focused on helping people manage chronic pain at home. Using AI tools, the platform connects users with expert clinicians who then provide patients with tools for digital physical therapy, pelvic health, and overall mobility health. However, the company says this new round of funding will largely go towards developing a mental health arm of its program called Mind. Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can "Today, nearly 1 billion people worldwide live with a mental health condition. Yet care remains fragmented, reactive, and inaccessible," Sword said in the announcement. "Mind redefines mental health care delivery with a proactive, 24/7 model that integrates cutting-edge AI with licensed, Ph.D-level mental health specialists. Together, they provide seamless, contextual, and responsive support any time people need it, not just when they have an appointment." Sword CEO Virgílio Bento told CNBC, "[Mind] really a breakthrough in terms of how we address mental health, and this is only possible because we have AI." Users will be equipped with a wearable device called an M-band, which will measure their environmental and physiological signals so that experts can reach out proactively as needed. The program will also offer access to services like traditional talk therapy. Bento told CNBC that a human is "always involved" in patients care in each of its programs, and that AI is not making any clinical decisions. Trending: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . For example, if a Sword patient has an anxiety attack, AI will identify it through the wearable and bring it to the attention of a clinician, who can then provide an appropriate care plan. "You have an anxiety issue today, and the way you're going to manage is to talk about it one week from now? That just doesn't work," Bento told CNBC. "Mental health should be always on, where you have a problem now, and you can have immediate help in the moment." According to Bento, Sword Mind already has a waiting list, and is being tested by some of its partners who appreciate it's "personalized approach and convenience." "We believe that it is really the future of how mental health is going to be delivered in the future, by us and by other companies," he told CNBC. "AI plays a very important role, but the use of AI — and I think this is very important — needs to be used in a very smart way." The rest of the cash raised in the funding round, which was led by General Catalyst, will go towards acquisitions, global expansion, and AI development, Sword Health says. Read Next: Here's what Americans think you need to be considered Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Sword Health Now Valued At $4 Billion, Announces Expansion Into Mental Health Services originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Yahoo

23 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Top Cryptocurrencies Fall; Bitcoin Hovers Above $103,000

Major digital assets fell Friday with Bitcoin (BTC-USD) hovering above $103,000. The CoinDesk Mar Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Forbes

24 minutes ago

• Forbes

Silicon Valley's Leadership Lessons

Leadership lessons from Silicon Valley for future readiness Mature organizations lose their vitality. Complex organizations lose their responsiveness. Successful incumbent market leaders, because they are typically both mature and complex, lose their charm, and become endangered. Not surprisingly, there has long been a search for ways to restore vigor and zest to such organizations. Inevitably, when such discussions arise, the success of Silicon Valley is cited as an alternative example of both energy and imagination; of being able to move fast and change things in a big way. The recent DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) initiative is one such effort. The advertised idea was to learn from the 'new economy,' and apply those lessons learned to large, bureaucratic, government agencies. That this does not appear to have happened is probably due more to chaotic execution and the mischief of ideologues than to a failure in the promise of Silicon Valley as an organizing inspiration for the rest of us. Not entirely coincidentally, the UK's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is another example. Inspired, in part, by the American Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA), which, established in 1958 in response to the Soviet Union's Sputnik, has continually played an influential role in Silicon Valley successes, ARIA's American born Ilan Gur sees his organization as a means of supporting UK innovation, which he refers to as a 'tightly wound spring that's ready to release'. What is it, then, about Silicon Valley that leads it to be seen as a source of managerial lessons for organizational success, and what might those lessons be? To answer these questions, I took the opportunity to interview an old friend and IMD colleague, Jim Pulcrano, engineer, entrepreneur, academic, and who for over 25 years has been an observer of Silicon Valley's inner workings, leading more than 80 executive explorations of the Valley in search of such lessons. What follows is a sense of what leadership lessons Silicon Valley might offer those of us who work in mature, old-economy, industries, and especially those of us associated with successful, incumbent, market-leaders, in such industries: Thinking Differently Jim Pulcrano: I think that the Silicon Valley lessons all begin with one word: '"urgency." Mature firms often become comfortable—they've grown strong, built moats, have big balance sheets. But that comfort is a trap. Silicon Valley thrives on discomfort. Everyone there is asking, 'What's next?' and 'How fast can I disrupt myself before someone else does?' Bill Fischer: And how does that urgency manifest itself? Pulcrano: Through relentless questioning. The best innovators don't start with answers—they start with better questions. What if we made a 10X improvement, not 10%? What if we killed our core product before someone else did? What if our future doesn't look like our past? Fischer: This is a dramatically different way of thinking than we typically see in more traditional organizations. Pulcrano: Revitalization requires daring and courage. Mature companies often cling to what worked in the past; the leaders usually built their legacies on products and systems that have outlived their utility and should be disrupted. In contrast, Silicon Valley is all about 'dream big or stay home.' It teaches us that innovation isn't about fine-tuning yesterday's model—it's about asking bold, even uncomfortable, questions. That culture of relentless curiosity that we hear about so often; it's gold. Fischer: So, it's about more than simply having a flashy R&D team? Pulcrano: Exactly. You need a network that nourishes innovation—not just exploits it. One important lesson is that in the Valley geographic proximity makes a difference. Everything is tightly packed together: venture capital, prototyping labs, universities, and legal experts. Ideas bounce around fast. That 'proximity stew' keeps innovation alive. For incumbents, the question becomes: how do we recreate that bubbling ecosystem internally? In a mature company, you've got to mimic that intensity. Create idea collisions. Flatten silos. Interest engineers in talking to marketers, finance to R&D. In Silicon Valley, the network is the superpower. People move freely—from startup to corporate, from VC to academia, then back. The real learning happens in the spaces between. Incumbents need to stop thinking in organizational charts and start thinking in ecosystems. Who do your innovators know outside your organization? What cross-pollination is happening? Who is the go-to person on X? Are you one of them? Leadership lessons Fischer: how different is the practice of leadership in such organizations? Pulcrano: First, leaders must normalize failure. In the Valley, failing fast and moving on is a badge of honor. Max Levchin, Elon Musk's Paypal cofounder, struggled with his first four startups struggled (and mostly failed). The fifth was PayPal. Most legacy firms? They'd have fired him after the second flop. Fischer: Failure becomes data? Pulcrano: Exactly. In the Valley, failure isn't the opposite of success—it's part of the process. That's a cultural shift. Leaders must model that by sharing their own missteps. Celebrate intelligent risk-taking, not just polished outcomes. Nobody wants to fail, it's f**king awful, but if you're trying to do something new, whether it be the technology, the business model or some combination, failure is likely, so learn from it. Second, diverse thinking isn't a bonus—it's a baseline. The best decisions in VC firms often come after heated debates. The VC firm Greylock Partners has even studied this—their biggest wins were investments that triggered the fiercest internal arguments. So if your executive team always agrees, you're in trouble. Fischer: That's quite a departure from many boardrooms; it reminds me of the adage: 'polite teams get polite results.' Pulcrano: It is. And that leads to another principle: permissionless innovation. In the Valley, junior people prototype without asking for five layers of approval. Those prototypes could be products or sales models. Leaders should ask themselves: "Am I enabling action, or am I an obstacle?" Fischer: What does that look like in practice? Pulcrano: One example is Google X. When a moonshot project failed—after years and millions invested—the team that shut it down got a bonus. Why? Because they made the right call. They stopped something that wasn't going to work and freed resources for better bets. Does Culture Really Eat Strategy for Breakfast? Fischer: Peter Drucker famously told us that 'culture eats strategy for breakfast,' so I'm interested in what you think about organizational culture, and how important it is for success in Silicon Valley? Pulcrano: A few things about culture: First: optimism. Even when Silicon Valley Bank [SVB] collapsed, in 2023, the Valley shrugged and poured money into AI startups the next week. That attitude? 'What if it works?'—it's infectious. Second: role models. Everyone in the Valley knows someone who built something, or at least tried. That proximity to success makes ambition feel doable. Third: constructive promiscuity. At a typical Valley barbecue, people swap business cards before burgers. It's not impolite—it's expected. Fischer: Am I right in thinking that the way you see it in Silicon Valley is that a lot of culture is tactical? Pulcrano: In the Valley, it's curiosity and opportunity rolled together. Everyone is 'on the make' always, but everyone is also looking to help, invest, and collaborate. That ethos is powerful. But it can fade—especially as wealth accumulates, risk aversion creeps in, and firms become protectionist. What does the Future of Silicon Valley Look Like? Fischer: I'm in interested in how durable these lessons might be? Silicon Valley has dominated for over fifty years. But can it continue? What might the next fifty look like? Pulcrano: That's a provocative question. I'm optimistic, but cautiously so. Silicon Valley's strength has always been reinvention. Semiconductors, personal computing, the internet, biotech, social media, AI—wave after wave. Each time, it adapted. But now? Fischer: You're not convinced? Pulcrano: I'm seeing signs of incumbent behavior. Some of the giants—Google, Meta, Apple—are acting like the very firms they once disrupted. Risk-averse. Bureaucratic. More lawyers than engineers. That's worrying. Fischer: So, what would it take to stay relevant? Pulcrano: It needs fresh blood. And that's under threat. Immigration policies, visa restrictions—they're slowing down the global talent pipeline. Remember, 60% of the Valley's tech workforce isn't U.S.-born. Choke that off, and the Valley stops breathing. Fischer: So, the magic is in the mix? Pulcrano: Always has been. People come not just from Harvard and MIT, but from India, China, Nigeria, Slovenia. They bring their ambitions, the chips on their shoulders. That stew of dreams and hunger—that's Silicon Valley's secret sauce. Fischer: Can other regions replicate the magic of Silicon Valley? Pulcrano: Not exactly, but they can recreate parts of it. You need three ingredients: talent, money, and ideas, and they must come together efficiently. But it's the efficiency with which you mix them that makes the difference. Fischer: That efficiency being? Pulcrano: Access. In the Valley, the customer, the VC, the tech shop, the legal expert—they're all accessible within 30 minutes. You pitch an idea at breakfast, and prototype it by dinner. That's hard to reproduce in sprawling ecosystems or hierarchical, process-driven multinationals. Fischer: How can incumbents inside large firms imitate that? Pulcrano: Start small. Create internal innovation hubs where people are free to experiment. Kill bureaucracy. Protect intrapreneurs. Build a real network of mentors. Most importantly, ensure sharing and success are incentivized. If ideas stay locked in departments, or behind IP walls, you've already lost. Final Thoughts Fischer: This has all been very interesting! If you could leave our readers with one challenge—especially leaders in mature firms—what would it be? Pulcrano: Ask yourself: 'Am I creating a space where innovation is possible, or merely tolerated?' Then look around. If your team is afraid to disagree, if failure is punished, if new ideas die in PowerPoint—your culture needs rewiring. And, if you are wondering whether you need to go to California to do this: you don't. The Valley isn't a place—it's a mindset. You just need to think like a rebel—and surround yourself with others who will, too.