Mixing Passive- and Active-Managed Funds

My coworker posed the following question today:

"If one already owns a total market fund, why buy Wellington?"

OK-- this question might be completely oversimplistic. We need to understand what sometimes turns out to be a complex web of circumstances that would whittle this question down and give it more relevancy.

So, first of all: colleague and I had began reading up on various investment strategies and, at one point in time, I thought we were largely on the same page. Lately, I've noticed he's focusing questions on stock picks, which, I have to be honest with you, Dear Colleauge, it's already challenging enough defining our own core portfolio, let alone be worried about something that's infinitely more complex than asset allocation (with few exceptions).

We were relatively debt-ridden at the time. Now, what are we taught to correctly do with debt? Yes, pay it down first before anything else. We've been dealing with that ever since.

Colleague is starting their savings from scratch. Colleague is in their late-20's to early 30's.

Colleague has previously expressed keeping their core portfolio simple, containing at most 2-3 core funds. These would include a total market fund, a fixed-income fund, and something else. Hopefully, Colleague sticks with this.

Now, Colleague and I have previously reviewed various Vanguard funds, one such being Wellington. Wellington's attraction stems from its built-in equity to fixed-income ratio (roughly 60/40), its value tilt, a factor which has commanded a return premium over the years, its proven ability to ride out the most recent bear market, 2000-2002, without significant value decreases, its high dividend rate for investors interested in and income fund, its classification as a balanced fund, and, most importantly, its extremely low expense ratio, practically unheard of for being an active-managed mutual fund.

Wellington sounds like it *might* be for an aggressive retiree due to its aggressive value tilt, equity allocation, while providing income in the form of dividends.

If someone *only* owned a Total Market fund in their portfolio, they're viewed as very young, with many years of life and career (which will mean a long series of contributions ahead of them), and very aggressive, without the need for dividends.

I had the Retiree Portfolio often discussed in this blog temporarily park a significant portion of assets in the Wellington fund when I was unable to expeditiously define the asset allocation because of the following characteristics: its one-stop solution, its AA mix, its blend, along with its superior handling of market downturns.

A hypothetical 50/50 mix of Total Market fund / Wellington would exhibit the following characteristics:

Stock Style Diversification

31 31 20
5 4 4
2 2 2


0 100 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

Considering this mix, the only issue I see is that the portfolio's equity portion seems tilted towards large-cap with little exposure to mid and small-cap positions for an early saver. Also, there doesn't seem to be much diversification with the fixed-income portion: it's 100% intermediate-term. However, everything else seems OK: it's balanced, it's blended, and the fixed-income durations don't go beyond intermediate-terms.

So, not a bad mix, depending on an individual's needs and goals.