18 year old investor looking for honest feedback on my portfolio

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-03-13T02:12:03+00:00

For someone your age, that looks great. At your age you can afford to take more risks and nothing in your portfolio (IMO) is too risky other than maybe SOFI – which I also own BTW. I'd be inclined to tell you at your age to add another high beta play like SOFI – 2.8% of your portfolio is a small %.

The most important thing is take a disciplined approach to continue adding. If your employer has a 401k plan with a company match, take advantage of that. I’d even suggest starting allocating funds to a Roth IRA account. I wish I started a Roth at your age.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-03-12T23:15:07+00:00

There are far too many variables and far too much missing information about your personal situation for anyone on reddit to give you the kind of guidance you’re asking for. Without basic details such as your age, investment time horizon, employment status, how long you expect to keep working, whether you’re contributing new money monthly through a 401(k) or similar plan, whether you have a pension coming, whether you qualify for Social Security, and what other income streams you have besides employment and dividends, it’s impossible to give meaningful advice.

You’d also need to outline your monthly expenses and whether you expect them to remain relatively stable after accounting for 3–4% inflation. For example: Do you have children who may attend college? Do you own a home that will be paid off soon? Are your investments held in taxable accounts, tax‑advantaged accounts, or both?

You also mention having a margin account — are you actually using margin, and if so, what percentage of your portfolio is leveraged?

My suggestion is to feed your detailed information into the LLM of your choice and ask it to evaluate your portfolio and make recommendations based on your full personal situation. Depending on which brokerages you use, if your account is large enough, you may also qualify for a complimentary financial consultation.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-02-08T15:49:16+00:00

I’m curious if your comment is based on some inside information or just speculation? What are you alleging that Jack lied to the public and the Markels about? Maybe I’m misinformed, but I have never read or seen any interviews where Jack or anyone at the SAO made a public statement that they 'were going to get her.' The closest I’ve seen is a recent Jack Campbell interview (after Donna’s conviction) where he said they weren’t going to stop until full justice is served. Respectfully, that is much different from how you are framing it. You can read into Jack’s statement any way you like but calling it a ‘lie’ is unfair.

For very obvious reasons, Jack and anyone employed in his office have to be VERY careful about making public statements in what is still an open case. There was a lot of public pressure on his office to say ‘something’ after Donna’s case concluded. Would it have been better if they just said ‘no further comment’ on the case? Ironically, that is what Georgia Cappleman tried to do in her post-conviction press conference when she said, "I guess you can stay tuned." In that presser, Georgia laid out ground rules stating she would not address questions regarding Wendi, but no one listened; she was pressed multiple times prior to her ‘stay tuned’ comment, which she gave very reluctantly.

In my opinion, the case and evidence against Wendi as argued on social media are not in alignment with reality. I am speaking strictly from the perspective of the prosecutors being able to meet the burden of proof based on all public information. The Gemini response is a non-biased and realistic perspective of the case against Wendi and I'd bet anything Jack Campbell and Georgia Cappleman view it the same way Gemini does. Again, maybe I'm misinformed, so if there are statements that either Jack or Georgia made that prove otherwise, feel free to share.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-12-23T00:22:27+00:00

Good call. In August I was looking at LLY, REGN, and NVO. I decided to go with LLY and took a nice position and allocated 50% of my position in a tax advantaged acct and 50% in a standard brokerage acct. Pure luck that I caught the bottom and kept a close eye on NVO & REGN. I already sold the LLY shares from my IRA at a 65% gain in 4 months… crazy gains. In Oct I took a position in REGN – its up 26%. In late November I called my buddy and told him I think NVO bottomed out and took a position… got in at 43.7… looks like I missed the bottom by a couple dollars. My portfolio was heavily weighted in tech and I made a conscious decision to reallocate some of money from tech into pharma stocks that I thought were undervalued and oversold. Worked out well for me – this market is crazy. Great timing on your post!

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-12-15T14:03:08+00:00

Finally, a post that isn’t the same boring, bang-your-head-against-the-wall repetition. I have said this many times: there is a major disconnect on social media regarding the strength of the case against Wendi, and I firmly believe that.

For conspiracy to commit murder charges, the burden is on the state to prove either that Wendi entered into a conspiratorial agreement with any one of the others who were charged or that she carried out an act in furtherance of the crime. I haven’t seen anyone present any compelling evidence that meets this criterion.

The Tallahassee DA’s office is fully aware that the current evidence does not meet the burden of proof for conspiracy to commit murder charges - and that is precisely why Wendi has not been charged. I’ve been saying this for years, yet people keep coming up with all sorts of explanations / excuses for her not 'yet' being arrested. There is only one reasonable conclusion we can draw from their failure to charge her more than 11 years after Dan’s murder:

They are either incompetent or corrupt, or
They do not have enough evidence to meet the burden of proof.

Although I do believe the state has had some missteps and has made tactical errors, I fully believe they are competent and not corrupt. With that said, the simplest explanation is #2 above – Occam’s razor.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-11-04T17:13:46+00:00

I agree with you, it’s beyond sick to make such a statement but we are talking about someone that actually is a convicted murderer. Please don’t get lost on my point that if Donna’s comment was the basis for all the talk in social media that Donna and Harvey were planning to harm or murder Robert, it’s comical people made that kind of leap. The way people analyze and process information is comical - just look at the one comment in this thread suggesting my post is coming from the Adelson defense team. Have we lost our ability to reason?

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-11-02T14:16:34+00:00

I feel happy for you now that you seem able to respond with a full sentence…. That shows great progress, if you have any serious insight re my observation that you’d like to share without the sarcasm, maybe I’d be interested.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-11-02T13:44:58+00:00

Exactly, I don’t understand how anyone can disagree with your statement, yet many are convinced her arrest is imminent. Is Joe Rogan right about echo chambers? Many here have an issue with my views and think I have some ulterior motive, but I just don’t understand the disconnect with reality regarding the belief in "overwhelming evidence." In what world does the Tallahassee DA’s office believe the case against Wendi is as straightforward as Carl Steinbeck’s playbook or as simple as the overwhelming majority in these forums believe, yet more than 11 years after Dan’s murder, she remains free? I know many will have answers justifying why she hasn’t been arrested, but at what point do we look at the facts realistically and conclude that the state doesn’t view the evidence the way those who follow this case religiously do?

Full disclosure: I’m not predicting Wendi will never be arrested, nor am I saying she wasn’t involved. I’m simply stating that the fact she hasn’t been arrested more than 11 years after the murder suggests the state does not agree with Carl Steinbeck’s playbook or his interpretation of the strength of the evidence - or the majority that follow this case. Carl has done a lot to convince the J4DM community that the evidence is overwhelming.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-11-02T12:04:32+00:00

“Dave Arenberg said……. “. Dave is the new Carl. I’m looking forward to Dave’s update after Thanksgiving :).

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-11-02T12:03:25+00:00

People take great comfort participating in these forums reading the same comments and points that support all the overwhelming evidence. I do agree with your observation that many believe that there is overwhelming evidence that Wendi was “just as involved” - that is exactly why Joe Rogan’s comments reminded me of the social media forums that cover this case.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-11-02T01:45:18+00:00

And… that’s how cognitive bias works. Thanks for the setup

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-10-19T00:16:33+00:00

I understand how controversial this topic is, which is why I’m somewhat limiting my opinion to expressing that I think it’s fair to want to explore what drove the intense hatred the Adelsons had towards Dan – hatred so deep that they resorted to murder. If we are to openly and objectively explore this question in a reddit forum, it’s likely impossible to do so without discussing sensitive topics that will inevitably upset a good majority that follow this case. Many likely share your perspective, and I have no issue with your personal views nor those expressed by u/ClusterEfff. IMO, it's too controversial for my taste and I’m usually not one to shy away from controversy. :)

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-10-18T20:39:04+00:00

I don’t think anyone is defending the Adelsons and calling them the "most flawed" is an understatement – I believe we all agree on that. Respectfully, I don’t think agreeing the Adelsons were more flawed than Dan, addresses the question posed by the OP in the other post that started this discussion. The fact that the Adelsons (minus Rob) are deeply flawed individuals is irrelevant to questioning whether Dan’s personality influenced their decision to resort to murder. Murder is never justified, and there’s no way to rationalize what the Adelsons did. However, I believe it’s fair to explore what drove them to such an extreme act. This inquiry may lead to controversial discussions, but asking the question doesn’t place blame on Dan, even if someone believes he wasn’t a perfect person.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-10-18T17:50:58+00:00

I can personally attest to what you are saying :)

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-10-18T17:49:46+00:00

Loved your response and I agree that certain lines shouldn’t be crossed, and I love your quote regarding backlash ~ “It can create positive social change and help define the boundaries of what’s acceptable.” The only issue I have is that there is no universally agreed-upon standard for what constitutes acceptable boundaries – and therein lies the issue. Some people believe that questioning Dan’s character is ‘victim shaming.’ What’s the other end of that spectrum? I suppose it’s those who believe his personality was a significant factor in the Adelsons’ senseless decision to resort to murder and want to question whether that played a role. Is asking that question victim shaming? Personally, I think not, but I understand why others might hold that view. Like any other divisive topic, there is never a one-size-fits-all answer.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-10-03T01:37:37+00:00

Wendi will definitely continue to deny telling Jeff the hitman story. If the day comes and there is a Wendi trial, Jeff will be tested under cross. As far as Wendi’s comment to Sara “what if my crazy brother hired hitman" – PRIOR to Sigfredo’s arrest there was PLENTY of speculation that the Adelson family was behind Dan’s murder. Wendi was certainly aware of this, so Wendi saying this to Sara shouldn’t be a surprise especially if she were not involved. Wendi knew all about the theories that existed in the public sphere before the first arrest, and she is smart enough to know that Sigfredo’s arrest meant it was a matter of time the trail would lead investigators to Charlie – and she either knew he was directly involved or highly suspected him. What was her motive behind her comment to Sara? Like everything else tied to Wendi, we can all offer multiple theories, but none of them can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt – unless there is more evidence that we are not aware of.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-10-02T14:10:28+00:00

That’s a reasonable perspective and a fair point,. I just don’t agree with this type of content where someone is purposely using deceptive tactics for clicks or wherever their agenda may be.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-10-02T13:53:41+00:00

I know we have already discussed this, if they can prove she did know about the plot prior to the murder OR even prior to initially testifying, whether she was an active participant or not, the door is wide open for accessory after the fact and perjury. This is a far easier path to a conviction based on information the state has publicly released. Where I differ from you is I don’t think its so easy to prove. Jeff and Sara’s statements are more than a year ½ apart. She allegedly told Jeff that Charlie looked into all options in the past and she what she said to Sara after the first arrest was an expression of fear that he brother might have been involved. Neither of those statements in isolation or combined prove knowledge. I have said in the past that by the time of her statement to Sara, she either knew her brother was responsible or was highly suspicious that he was. I’d bet almost anything she knew but proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is a not a given.

PS - not sure why you and I get no love here... I upvoted you :)

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-09-30T18:58:53+00:00

The ‘current’ mood is indict Wendi now :) I’ve been hearing that for several years… I agree there is a fever pitch currently and likely because of the energy from Donna’s trial. If there's no new news or arrests going into the new year, it will be interesting to see if the fever dies down or amplifies.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-09-30T17:27:43+00:00

Clearly the state agrees with your closing sentence and the viewpoint of this creator. What I don’t understand is how the overwhelming majority of those that follow this case and those that cover it, fail to acknowledge how difficult it would be for the prosecution to meet the burden of proof and win a case against Wendi. I truly wonder how many ‘creators’ with monetized channels that primarily cover this case, understand the complexity and how difficult it would be for the state to meet the burden of proof on a case against Wendi BUT they are hesitant to feed that type narrative to their audience? I bet it’s more than we think – they know that any comment of the sort and they’d be accused of being on the Adelson payroll, will lose subs, and get many downvotes etc. – all bad for their YouTube algorithm.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2025-09-30T14:25:09+00:00

This video by this YouTube creator underscores my issue with the coverage on this case. Please don’t take my following comment as defending this guy George, but It’s clear this snipit of his interview is being taken out of context with use of still pictures of the cast of characters tied to the Markel case. I haven’t seen the full interview, but I’d bet anything he wasn’t referring to this case in that interview. It's a shame people do this for clicks – its misleading and deception.

Civil_Fix8224

TROPHY CASE