In this increasingly polarized world, it can be difficult to have open and probing discussions about important issues. To resist this trend, I’ve latched on to a useful suggestion from Shane Parrish’s Farnam Street newsletter. “The next time someone disagrees with you or criticizes you, just shrug your shoulders and say, ‘you might be right,’ and watch the energy change. If you care about the outcome, focus on what’s right, not who is right. Keep the goal in mind.”

Investing has its entrenched views that, like in politics, get in the way of sound decision making.

That’s because nothing is clearcut about the economy, markets and the relationship between the two. There’s no room for one-sided, all-or-nothing, dare I say, naive views.

With this in mind, let’s explore some topics where both sides are deeply entrenched and neither has a monopoly on the truth.

Real estate versus stocks

Real estate devotees believe it’s the surest road to wealth. You can feel and touch it. It will always have value because people need a place to live. Prices don’t bounce around from day to day, and it holds its value when stocks are down.

Stock investors also point to strong past returns along with ease of implementation. There’s no upkeep required. Buying and selling is easy, cheap and instant. And outcomes are driven by a wide range of economic and geographic factors.

“You may be right.” Both are wealth generating asset classes and belong in long-term portfolios. They’re cyclical and take turns leading and lagging, which makes them good diversifiers for each other (as we’re currently seeing). Given that most investors are homeowners, it makes sense from a diversification perspective to have a reasonable sized portfolio of financial assets before adding income properties to the mix.

ETFs versus mutual funds

Index investing is on a roll. Broad-based ETFs have low fees, are predictable (you get the index return minus a fee), and have been generating better returns than actively managed funds for more than a decade.

It’s been the case that actively managed funds (mutual funds are my proxy here) don’t go up as much in hot markets but generally hold up better in weak markets. They access asset categories and markets where indexing is difficult and/or less effective. And they don’t require trading expertise – investors see their fund’s net asset value (to four decimal points) at the end of each day.

“You may be right.” Both fund structures (they are fund structures, not investment strategies) have their strengths, depending on the portfolio need. Some markets, such as U.S. large-cap stocks, are extremely hard to beat whereas others need more management discretion (small-cap stocks; emerging markets; high-yield and private credit). Also, as ETFs have proliferated and gotten more specialized, the fee advantage over F-class mutual funds (advice charge not included) has narrowed. And in PACs (pre-authorized contribution plans) where transaction sizes are small, mutual funds work better.

It’s not clear why you would limit yourself to one fund structure when you can take advantage of the strengths of both.

Private versus public

Like ETFs, private assets are winning over the hearts of investors and media. Private equity, debt and real estate funds offer the potential for higher returns combined with less volatility due to different pricing mechanisms (prices are struck less frequently and based on different factors).

Public bonds and stocks have also done well. They are cheap, easily accessible and highly liquid, and there’s no paperwork to sign or redemption windows to monitor. They too benefit from the buildup of private capital, which brings more bidders to the table when assets are being sold or whole companies taken over.

“You may be right.” Both approaches give you an ownership interest in a variety of businesses.

A low-cost, broadly diversified stock portfolio is the core of any investment strategy. Private funds can be an excellent complement, especially when they’re invested in companies and industries not available in public markets and they’re truly private. Indeed, the more illiquid the better. To capture an illiquidity premium, you want to ensure that other unitholders in the fund can’t bail out on you at an inopportune time.

There are other factors where views are highly polarized – Canadian stocks versus foreign, top-down research versus bottom up, growth versus value – where there’s useful and fruitful middle ground to tap into.

When it comes to investment dogma, remember Mr. Parrish’s words – keep the goal in mind. It’s what’s right for your portfolio, not what makes you right.