Key Takeaways
- • Financial Samurai founder argues that aggressive venture investing after leaving the workforce in 2012 is a risk-managed choice, not recklessness, capping private investments (venture capital, venture debt, angel investing) at 20% of investable capital.
- • The author made five capital calls totaling $111,150 over five weeks, which he describes as exceeding his passive and online income combined, creating a liquidity constraint but not a solvency problem.
- • He cites a 35% to 40% net worth loss during the 2008 global financial crisis as the basis for a risk-appropriate allocation, and says venture commitments cannot be traded, protecting against panic selling.
- • His stated rationale is to build a financial safety net for his children, whom he believes face job displacement from AI, with capital expected to return in 10 to 12 years.
- • The author concedes the 20% cap may not be enough to guard against temptation as portfolios grow, and invites readers to question whether such allocations are too aggressive.
Summary
Personal finance blogger Sam Dogen, writing on Financial Samurai, defends an aggressive private-markets allocation after readers criticized his earlier posts about being "broke again at 49" as irresponsible and reckless. He distinguishes between a liquidity problem and a solvency problem, arguing that his cash constraints are inconvenient rather than existential.
The author says he has been investing since 1996 and left the permanent labor force in 2012. He argues that AI has eroded his ability to earn supplemental income, making investing the only realistic way to outpace inflation. He caps private investments at 20% of investable capital and caps private and public equity at 50% of net worth. He acknowledges that private and public markets are correlated and that these investments are opaque, illiquid, and expensive, but says he accepts those costs in exchange for potentially higher returns.
To illustrate the strain, he reports five capital calls in five weeks totaling $111,150, which he says exceeds his passive and online income combined. He notes that funds typically call about 90% of committed capital over three to five years. He says he has been investing in a tier-one firm's 2026 vintage after prior commitments in its 2018 and 2022 vintages, and cites holdings including Mirendil, Instinct, Discovery Loop, Etched, Mind Robotics, and K2 Space. He emphasizes that these markups are unrealized and not real until exit.
He frames the strategy partly as behavioral discipline, arguing that illiquid commitments prevent him from trading impulsively and force him to invest through downturns. He also cites his history of frequent trading and a missed 2009 real-estate opportunity as lessons. He says he also owns real estate because its illiquidity limits panic decisions, and concedes that the 20% cap may not be sufficient as wealth grows and temptation increases.
The author closes by linking the strategy to his children's future, citing concern about AI-driven job losses, and asks readers whether 20% is too aggressive for a retiree with young children.
The author says he has been investing since 1996 and left the permanent labor force in 2012. He argues that AI has eroded his ability to earn supplemental income, making investing the only realistic way to outpace inflation. He caps private investments at 20% of investable capital and caps private and public equity at 50% of net worth. He acknowledges that private and public markets are correlated and that these investments are opaque, illiquid, and expensive, but says he accepts those costs in exchange for potentially higher returns.
To illustrate the strain, he reports five capital calls in five weeks totaling $111,150, which he says exceeds his passive and online income combined. He notes that funds typically call about 90% of committed capital over three to five years. He says he has been investing in a tier-one firm's 2026 vintage after prior commitments in its 2018 and 2022 vintages, and cites holdings including Mirendil, Instinct, Discovery Loop, Etched, Mind Robotics, and K2 Space. He emphasizes that these markups are unrealized and not real until exit.
He frames the strategy partly as behavioral discipline, arguing that illiquid commitments prevent him from trading impulsively and force him to invest through downturns. He also cites his history of frequent trading and a missed 2009 real-estate opportunity as lessons. He says he also owns real estate because its illiquidity limits panic decisions, and concedes that the 20% cap may not be sufficient as wealth grows and temptation increases.
The author closes by linking the strategy to his children's future, citing concern about AI-driven job losses, and asks readers whether 20% is too aggressive for a retiree with young children.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.