Ritholtz's Carlson Advises Buyers to Dump Cheap Mortgages for Housing

Ritholtz旗下Carlson建议购房者莫因低息房贷放弃改善需求 当家庭空间需求高于财务优化考量时，房主应放弃超低房贷利率，因为等待房价或利率回落可能会永久牺牲生活品质。 主持人Ben Carlson与Duncan Hill解答了关键的个人理财问题，阐释了为何市场回调往往是绝佳的长期买入时机，以及多资产分散配置如何帮助克服一次性大额投资的心理障碍。他们探讨了在保留低利率房贷与为了生活品质换房置业之间的现实权衡，并分析了在拥有150万美元及Social Security支持下的退休保障问题。最后，他们剖析了在高净值水平下维持100%股票投资组合时，风险承受能力与风险承受意愿之间的区别。 因情绪过度外推而引发的市场回调往往会带来卓越的长期买入机会，2022年10月的市场底部就证明了这一点。 (1:53) 非衰退性熊市通常属于常规回调，而衰退性熊市由于资本支出遭大幅削减，需要更长时间才能恢复。 (4:15) 在回调期间略微向国际股票或美股进行超额再平衡是合理的做法，但试图精准择时抄底逃顶几乎是不可能的。 (7:30) 在12个月的时间跨度内，从统计上看一次性投资有75%至80%的概率跑赢定期定额投资，不过定投仍是防范后悔情绪的重要心理对冲方式。 (10:35) 将全球股票、短期国债和黄金相结合可构建多元化多资产配置，有助于解决择时投资的困境。 (11:40)

Ben Carlson and Duncan Hill argue that effective financial planning often requires balancing mathematical optimization against emotional comfort and living standards, whether deploying cash, abandoning low mortgage rates, or transitioning into retirement. Deploying Cash and Managing Market Volatility (1:53) Addressing market-timing anxieties surrounding potential artificial intelligence bubble pullbacks, Ben Carlson notes that market corrections driven by over-extrapolated excitement historically create compelling long-term entry points. Following the S&P 500's October 2022 low, the index generated a 120% total return (roughly 24% annualized). Carlson distinguishes between non-recessionary bear markets like 2022—where the S&P 500 declined 25%—and prolonged recessionary bear markets triggered by broad corporate capital expenditure slowdowns. Citing Cliff Asness's maxim to "sin a little," Carlson advises against extreme binary bets, noting that international markets, including South Korea, Taiwan, and Chinese tech equities, are also participating in the current cycle. When deploying a lump sum such as $150,000, Carlson observes that lump-sum equity investing mathematically outperforms dollar-cost averaging across 75% to 80% of 12-month periods, though dollar-cost averaging serves as a useful psychological tool to minimize regret. For diversified portfolios containing global equities, short-term government bonds, and gold, asset non-correlation offers structural risk mitigation. Over the past 50 years, the S&P 500 and gold posted simultaneous calendar-year declines in only four instances (1981, 1990, 2000, and 2018), with stock losses averaging just -5% during those overlap years. Prioritizing Living Standards Over Low Mortgage Rates (15:00) Evaluating whether a growing family should give up a 2.9% mortgage to buy a larger home in Raleigh, North Carolina, Carlson and Hill weigh qualitative lifestyle needs against mathematical efficiency. Financing a $600,000 home purchase at a 6.75% mortgage rate with 10% down results in a monthly payment of approximately $3,500, compared to roughly $2,200 for the same balance at a 2.9% rate. Accounting for lower original purchase prices, the actual out-of-pocket monthly delta often reaches $1,500 to $2,000. Although Carlson characterizes relinquishing a sub-3% mortgage as an unfavorable financial trade-off on paper, he and Hill maintain that remaining in cramped quarters to preserve an interest rate degrades quality of life. Hill cautions that waiting for mortgage rates or home prices to drop carries significant risk; buyers who delayed purchases when rates initially breached 6% saw home prices continue to escalate, highlighted by an area property that appreciated from $600,000 in 2021 to a $1.2 million estimate by 2026. Evaluating Retirement Sufficiency on $1.5 Million (19:40) Analyzing a retirement scenario for a frugal couple targeting $1.5 million with $30,000 in annual living expenses and a paid-off home, Carlson explains that guaranteed income removes portfolio survival risk. With average individual Social Security benefits paying approximately $2,000 to $2,100 per month, a couple can receive roughly $48,000 to $50,000 annually. Because Social Security operates as an inflation-adjusted, government-backed annuity covering their baseline budget, the couple does not depend on equity market performance to meet basic needs. Carlson emphasizes that while Social Security lowers retirement-age poverty from an estimated 40% to 10%, a standard 4% withdrawal rate on the couple's $1.5 million portfolio yields an additional $60,000 annually, more than doubling their current spending capacity. Consequently, the primary hurdle for hyper-frugal retirees is psychological: shifting from an anxious scarcity mindset to purposefully planning how to deploy their capital and enjoy retirement. The Psychological Risk of All-Equity Portfolios (24:15) For high-net-worth investors with $5 million or more, Carlson examines whether maintaining a 100% allocation to broad equity index funds like VTI or SPY remains prudent. While Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell holds the majority of his estimated $20 million to $80 million liquid net worth in index funds due to past conflict-of-interest mandates, Carlson applies the CFA risk framework—evaluating the need, ability, and willingness to take risk. Investors with low spending and substantial wealth possess the quantitative ability to absorb volatility, but they have minimal structural need to take excessive equity risk. Carlson highlights that nominal dollar drawdowns impose severe emotional strain compared to early-career portfolio drops. A 20% correction on a $5 million portfolio represents a $1,000,000 decline, which can paralyze retirees forced to liquidate equities during downturns. He also clarifies that while Warren Buffett recommends index funds for his estate, Buffett accumulated his wealth through concentrated stock holdings, private acquisitions, and insurance float cash flows rather than passive indexation alone. Carlson and Hill demonstrate that while data often supports aggressive equity exposure and lump-sum investing, practical financial success hinges on psychological comfort and individual family circumstances rather than mathematical optimization alone.

Ben Carlson与Duncan Hill在《The Compound》节目中指出，理财决策的本质是在统计概率与心理承受力、纸面财务优化与实际生活质量之间取得平衡。无论是应对AI市场回调、部署大额现金、放弃超低房贷利率置换住房，还是规划退休资产配置，投资者都应根据自身风险承受能力和生活目标做出务实权衡，而非机械追求理论上的最优解。 AI泡沫破裂预期与逆势再平衡策略 (1:53) 针对投资者是否应在潜在的AI泡沫破裂或美股回调时加大配置力度的疑问，Ben Carlson回顾了2022年10月的市场底部。当时通胀见顶，S&P 500自该低点以来录得约120%的总回报，年化涨幅约24%。他指出，因过度炒作引发的非理性回调往往能带来极具吸引力的长期买点。Carlson与Duncan Hill分析了两种熊市形态：非衰退型熊市（如2022年S&P 500下跌25%）通常调整迅速且较易恢复；而衰退型熊市因大型资本支出削减波及实体经济，修复期往往漫长得多。当前AI行情已扩展至全球市场，韩国、中国台湾及部分中国AI股票均展现出与美股科技股相匹配的走势。在具体操作上，Carlson引用Cliff Asness的建议，主张在回调中温和地向美股或国际股票进行轻度超额再平衡，但反对试图精准择时的极端二元化押注。 大额现金入场的统计优势与心理对冲 (8:35) 围绕15万美元现金应一次性投入还是分批定投的问题，Carlson指出，这反映了投资者对大额资金入场时点所承受的剧烈心理焦虑。从统计数据来看，在12个月的周期内，一次性投资跑赢定投的概率为75%至80%。然而，定投能够作为一种强有力的心理工具，帮助投资者降低“买在顶部”的后悔感。对于计划配置全球股票、1至3年期政府债券和黄金的多元资产组合，多资产架构本身就具备平抑波动的功能。历史数据显示，在1975年至2025年的50年间，黄金与S&P 500仅在四年（1981年、1990年、2000年和2018年）同时收跌，且在这四个重叠年份中，美股的平均跌幅仅为-5%。这种非相关性能够提供稳健的缓冲，并在股市走弱时保留再平衡的流动性。 住房改善与放弃超低房贷利率的权衡 (15:00) 对于北卡罗来纳州罗利市（Raleigh）的家庭面临是否放弃2.9%房贷利率以换取更大空间的抉择，Duncan Hill指出，得益于三角研究园（Research Triangle Park）和远程办公红利，当地优质学区的房屋中位数价格已稳固在50万至60万美元区间，未见明显回落迹象。Carlson以购买60万美元房屋、首付10%为例进行了测算：按当前6.75%的利率计算，每月月供约3,500美元；若维持2.9%的原利率，月供则为2,200美元，仅月供差额就达1,200至1,300美元，加上原本房产购入成本更低，实际月度居住支出增量可能达到1,500至2,000美元。尽管从纯财务角度来看放弃锁定的低利率损失显著（在通胀为4.2%的背景下，低于3%的借贷成本在扣除通胀后几乎相当于免费），但个人财务核心在于生活质量。Hill强调，盲目等待利率回落可能导致家庭在狭小空间内空耗数年，同时面临房价持续攀升的风险。 150万美元储蓄配合社保的退休可行性 (19:40) 针对一对年支出仅3万美元、房贷已还清且拥有150万美元储蓄的节俭夫妇，Carlson明确表示其资金完全足以安享退休。美国单人平均每月社会保障金约为2,000至2,100美元，夫妻两人每月可领约4,000美元（年化约4.8万至5万美元），仅凭社保收入就能全额覆盖其3万美元的基本生活支出。Carlson强调，社会保障实质上是一种由政府兜底且每年随通胀自动上调的长寿保险，使得该家庭的基本生存与股市波动彻底脱钩。若按照4%的常规提取率，150万美元组合每年还可产生6万美元的可支配现金流，使家庭实际消费能力提升一倍以上。对于节俭型退休人员而言，关键的挑战并非资金耗尽风险，而是打破短缺思维定势，学会利用财富改善生活体验或支持家庭。 高净值投资者全权益配置的风险架构评估 (24:15) 对于拥有500万美元以上资产的投资者是否应全仓配置VTI或SPY等宽基指数基金，Carlson引用CFA Level 3的风险分析框架进行了解构：承担风险的“必要性”（Need）、“能力”（Ability）和“意愿”（Willingness）。高净值群体由于生活成本占总资产比重极低，对高回报的“必要性”其实很小，因为他们在财务上已经获胜；其资产规模和流动性赋予了其巨大的风险承受“能力”；然而最难跨越的是“意愿”，即心理容忍度。Carlson指出，绝对金额的亏损与百分比下跌对心理的冲击完全不同：在500万美元的组合中，20%的常规回调意味着账面损失100万美元，若在此类回撤期间被迫卖出股票变现生活费，极易引发恐慌。此外，尽管Warren Buffett曾建议将其遗产置于指数基金，但他个人一生的投资履历涵盖集中持股、整体收购私营企业以及依托保险浮存金运作，不能将其建议简单套用为所有高净值人群均适合全股票配置的证据。 理财规划的核心不仅在于数学收益的测算，更在于厘清资金所服务的具体生活目标。无论是容忍定投带来的些许统计劣势、承担更高的住房贷款以保障家庭空间，还是在高净值下放弃全股票策略以换取心理安宁，正视情绪承受力与现实生活需求，往往比追求极致的纸面数字效率更为重要。

## Background 该视频由财经频道 The Compound 于 2026 年 7 月 13 日发布在 YouTube 平台。节目为《Ask The Compound》第 228 期，主播 Ben Carlson 与 Duncan Hill 围绕 AI 泡沫破裂是否构成美股买点、15 万美元现金如何建仓、放弃 2.9% 低息房贷置换大房、150 万美元是否足够退休以及 500 万美元以上净资产能否全仓股票等读者财务咨询展开解答。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕个人理财与资产配置展开深度答疑，强调在投资中克服心理障碍与坚持原则的重要性。针对大盘走势与现金配置，主持人建议借助股债金多元配置和定期再平衡来规避择时焦虑，并指出若遭遇 AI 泡沫破裂，全球多元化比盲目单边切换更为稳妥；在置业决策上，他们主张为提升家庭生活品质承担更高的房贷成本是完全值得的，切忌为等候降息而空耗光阴。谈及退休与高净值投资，两位主播拆解了社保作为长寿保险对 150 万美元资产家庭的强大托底能力，并从 CFA 风险框架论证了 500 万美元以上全仓股票虽在数学上可行，但真实回撤中的名义美元损失会给投资者带来极大的心理煎熬。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期节目氛围轻松惬意、风趣幽默，两位主持人以老友聊天般的松弛感穿插着周边帽子调侃和意大利度假轶事，但在剖析财务逻辑时又展现出极高的专业度与同理心。他们擅长将冷冰冰的数学模型与残酷的人性心理相对比，用通俗生动的比喻化解观众对市场波动的恐惧。聆听过程就像在与经验丰富的独立财务顾问喝咖啡闲聊，既有严谨清晰的资产框架，又洋溢着“金钱应服务于美好生活”的温情与通透。 ## Bulletin - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=113s) 面对 AI 泡沫或市场回调担忧，标普 500 指数自 2022 年 10 月通胀恐慌低点反弹至今累计涨幅达 120%，年化收益逼近 24%；在熊市中盲目全仓切出或切入不仅构成择时风险，而且 AI 供应链本轮呈现高度全球化特征。 - [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=600s) 大额现金建仓面临心理压力，过去 50 年中美国股市与黄金仅在 1981、1990、2000 和 2018 这四年同时录得负收益，且平均股票跌幅仅为 -5%，多元化配置与定期再平衡是化解择时焦虑的核心方案。 - [13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=800s) 放弃 2.9% 的超低房贷利率换大房虽在财务模型上增加成本，但若家庭拥挤且财务可负担，应优先考虑生活品质而非坐等利率下跌，后续可在利率下行周期再做转按揭（Refinance）。 - [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1200s) 在零负债且双人可领取平均社保（年收入约 5 万美元）的前提下，每年仅花 3 万美元的退休老人手握 150 万美元资产完全绰绰有余，社保本身就是抗通胀的长寿保险，投资组合属于安全冗余。 - [24:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1455s) 坐拥 500 万美元以上净资产的人客观上拥有全仓指数基金的能力，但因必要性极低且面临百万级账面蒸发的心理折磨，绝大多数高净值人群仍需安全现金缓冲以防在低谷被迫抛售。 ## Key takeaways - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=113s) 美股大跌后的绝佳买点往往出现在极度悲观时，正如 2022 年秋季通胀见顶催生了随后 120% 的反弹行情，逢低入场胜率极高。 - [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=113s) AI 产业链深度交织于宏观经济，一旦资本支出（CapEx）断崖式下滑可能引发实体经济温和衰退，而非仅仅是轻度技术性调整。 - [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=300s) 在资产配置中切忌非黑即白的单边极端调仓，应遵循 Cliff Asnes 所说的“犯规只犯一点点”，依靠纪律性再平衡轻度偏离基准。 - [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=600s) 未来 12 个月股市上涨的历史统计概率达 75% 至 80%，定投分步入场本质上是一种支付溢价以实现“遗憾最小化”的心理对冲。 - [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=600s) 股票、短期债券和黄金的组合能够有效平抑择时压力，半个世纪中股金同跌的年份屈指可数，自带天然避险与补仓缓冲机制。 - [13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=800s) 2.9% 的固定房贷利率在扣除通胀后相当于免费借贷，更换为 6.75% 利率每月可能直接增加 1,500 至 2,000 美元支出。 - [13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=800s) 住房置业不能仅算财务账，等待房贷利率回落可能错失数年生活品质并承担股市短期下跌风险，能负担改善需求时应果断行动。 - [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1200s) 全美 65 岁以上老人若无社保兜底贫困率将从 10% 飙升至 40%，社保是经政府背书的终身年金并能根据通胀自动上调。 - [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1200s) 生活开支仅 3 万美元的低消费家庭，依托 5 万美元社保与 150 万美元资产已拥有极大冗余，甚至有能力将现有生活支出翻倍。 - [24:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1455s) CFA 框架将风险拆解为必要性（Need）、能力（Ability）和意愿（Willingness）；500 万美元高净值人群由于早已赢得游戏，承担风险的必要性极低。 - [24:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1455s) 全仓指数基金面临的核心瓶颈不是数学期望，而是数百万美元实际本金账面缩水时带来的心理折磨与可能被迫卖在底部的现金流风险。 - [30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1800s) 大众常误以为巴菲特是低风险指数基金投资者，但其投资体系本质依赖保险浮存金、控股实体企业以及极度集中的重仓股组合。 - [30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1800s) 本金体量会从根本上改变投资者的心理韧性，年轻时几千美元的腰斩容易承受，但百万级体量在暴跌中的绝对损失往往会击垮绝大多数人的风控底线。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=0s) 开场：现金配置难题与周边商品闲聊 Ben Carlson 开启了本期《Ask The Compound》（第 228 期）。节目的核心定位一如既往：观众提问，主持团队提供解答。本期的重点议题从一个非常普遍的财务场景切入：假设你手头正握着 15 万美元的充裕现金，计划将其配置到股票、固收债券和黄金的组合中，但在面对当前充满不确定性的市场环境时，你该如何把握入场时机？是一次性全额买入（Lump Sum），还是采用定投平摊成本（Dollar-Cost Averaging, DCA），抑或是两者的结合？Ben 透露本期节目由于他出差在途并未进行实时直播，但后台团队依然在全网搜集观众在评论区和邮箱（`askthecompoundshow@gmail.com`）中提出的各种问题。 随后，Ben 快速梳理了今日的提问清单： - AI 泡沫或市场回调是否会构成未来的绝佳买点？ - 手握 15 万美元现金当下该如何分步进场？ - 是否应该放弃 2.9% 的超低房贷利率，去北卡罗来纳州罗利（Raleigh）置换一套更大的房子？ - 150 万美元的资产组合到底够不够养老？ - 资产规模达到 500 万美元以上时，是否还能承受 100% 全仓股票配置？ 在切入正题前，Ben 与搭档 Duncan Hill 聊到了 Compound 官方周边商店（idontshop.com）最新推出的系列帽子。Ben 调侃道去年他们走的是类似 Patagonia 的户外风，而 Duncan 头上戴的绿色帽子则散发着一种美国高尔夫大师赛（The Masters）的经典质感；店内同时上架了像 Michael 和 Josh 偏爱的“老爹帽”风格以及平檐帽。Ben 还笑着分享自己全家对周边产品的支持，甚至连孩子们上周去海滩度假时使用的都是 Compound 的专属毛巾。 --- ### [01:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=113s) 读者提问：若 AI 泡沫破裂，该把资金切回美股“抄底”吗？ 进入第一个正式问题，观众 Travis 提出了一个关于市场择时的策略疑问：如果未来发生美股回调、熊市，或者 AI 泡沫破灭，趁美股估值变得便宜，将新增定投资金重新大幅切回美股是否明智？Travis 认为这契合巴菲特常被引用的名言——“街头淌血时正是买入良机”（尽管 Ben 笑着纠正这句名言的源头其实并非巴菲特），但他十分纠结这种操作是否已经越界构成了危险的“择时交易”（Market Timing）。目前 Travis 正通过重仓配置非美海外股票来对冲风险，他设想一旦美股遭遇大幅杀跌，自己就能借机以诱人折扣重新大举加仓本土资产。 Ben 回顾了自己在 2021 年通胀刚见苗头时写过的一篇博文《通胀能否为我们带来绝佳买点？》。当时美联储推行零利率政策，美国政府发放了数万亿美元的财政刺激，通胀预期飙升（最终升至约 9% 的高位）。事实证明，那轮通胀恐慌确实铸就了一个超级买点： - 标普 500 指数从 2022 年 10 月的通胀恐慌低点反弹至今，累计涨幅高达 120%。 - 该区间的年化复合收益率逼近 24%。 - 极具戏剧性的是，通胀率刚在 2022 年秋季见顶，仅仅一个月后 OpenAI 便发布了 ChatGPT，瞬间点燃了席卷全球的技术牛市。 针对当天盘面上部分芯片股盘中暴跌 10% 的单日剧震，Duncan 询问 Ben 是否会感到担忧。Ben 坦言任何投资者看到持仓单日下跌 10% 难免心里发紧，但资产大幅暴涨的过程中必定伴随着剧烈洗盘。正如同盟分析师 Tom Lee 此前在播客中所说，近年来的市场回调几乎都呈现迅猛的“V 型反转”。关于 AI 泡沫一旦被戳破会造成何种杀伤力，Ben 指出这完全取决于熊市的本质究竟是哪一种类型： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 两种熊市类型与宏观演变对比 accDescr: 对比非衰退性技术熊市与衰退性泡沫破裂熊市的调整深度及波及范围 subgraph Types["熊市形态划分"] A["非衰退性普通熊市<br/>（如 2022 年标普回调 25%）"] B["经济衰退型深度熊市<br/>（如 Dot-com 泡沫破裂纳指跌 80%）"] end subgraph AI_Impact["AI 资本支出与宏观传导"] C["巨额 AI CapEx 投入持续"] --> D{"是否拖累广泛实体经济？"} D -- 软着陆/无衰退 --> E["中度调整后迅速 V 型修复"] D -- 引发资本开支断崖 --> F["拖入实体经济温和衰退"] end A -.-> E B -.-> F ``` Ben 解释，2022 年标普 500 指数下跌 25%，属于教科书式的“非衰退性常规熊市”。但眼下全行业在 AI 领域的资本支出（CapEx）高达数万亿美元，AI 产业链与整体经济的交织极其紧密；如果技术落地大幅不及预期导致资本开支骤降，很可能会引发整体经济的温和衰退。 --- ### [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=300s) 极端假设、周期轮动与再平衡的艺术 探讨进一步深入到大众心理层面的认知撕裂。当前市场上蔓延着两种极端的恐慌情绪：一种是担心“AI 是个彻头彻尾的泡沫，一旦破裂将引发剧烈灾难”；另一种则是“AI 极其成功，但其颠覆性直接导致千万人丢掉饭碗”。Ben 强调现实往往处于两者之间的宽阔地带，既不太可能重演 Dot-com 泡沫时期纳斯达克暴跌 80% 的大萧条级别惨剧，也不会仅止步于微不足道的小震荡。 针对 Travis 核心提问中关于“从国际股票切换回美股”的设想，Ben 提出了三层深刻的审视： 1. **AI 交易已经全球化**：市场常常预设美股是所有技术周期的唯一赢家（正如次贷危机与新冠疫情后美股的一骑绝尘），但今年的情况截然不同。韩国、中国台湾等重度参与半导体和 AI 硬件供应链的市场涨幅显著，新兴市场整体表现亮眼；甚至一篮子中国 AI 股票今年的涨幅也紧咬美国同行。AI 并非美国闭门独享的故事。 2. **“进场赢家往往不是离场赢家”的周期规律**：历史表明，在经历经济衰退和泡沫破灭后，带领下一轮牛市破局的行业和领头羊，往往不再是上一轮繁荣中的那一批公司。2020 年疫情之后的科技股持续领跑在历史上是一个罕见的特例。如果未来发生真正的估值洗牌，海外市场或其他滞涨板块未尝没有实现风格切换、弯道超车的可能。 3. **“克制地偏离基准”**：对于普通投资者而言，试图精准踩中宏观拐点往往会聪明反被聪明误。Ben 引用了著名量化投资大师 Cliff Asnes 的名言： > “如果要犯规，那就只犯一点点规（If you're going to sin, sin a little）。” 这意味着，若投资者非常看好国际市场的低估值或者渴望在暴跌中捞取美股廉价筹码，合理的做法是借助资产配置的**再平衡（Rebalancing）**来轻度倾斜仓位，而不是极端的“全仓卖出这个，全仓换入那个”。大方向上，只要在指数大幅回调时坚持买入宽基指数，长周期看胜率极高，但在操作层面切忌过度自作聪明地搞非黑即白的单边押注。 --- ### [08:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=515s) 预告下一题：15 万美元现金如何建仓与意大利奇遇 讨论告一段落后，Duncan 读出了听众 Marco 的来信。Marco 表示自己在意大利知名投资播客《The Bull》上听到了 Ben 的专访，因而慕名写信：如果目前手里持有 15 万美元（或等额欧元）现金，面对当前的宏观环境，该如何系统化地布局进场？Marco 的初步设想是构建一个由全球全市场股票基金（如 FTSE All-World 指数产品）、1-3 年期短期政府债券 ETF 以及黄金 ETF 组成的稳健投资组合，但卡在不知道具体该怎么把握入场步骤。 提问引出了 Ben 与意大利的一段趣事。Ben 介绍《The Bull》由 Riccardo Spada 主持，是意大利当地名列前茅的投资播客。Ben 曾多次做客该节目宣传自己的书籍。他满脸笑容地坦承自己极度热爱意大利，视其为全球最爱的旅行目的地，不管是当地的美食、葡萄酒还是风土人情都让他深深着迷。 Ben 透露，自己的著作《Risk and Reward》的意大利语版权已被出版社卖出，预计将在当年秋季（10 月或 11 月左右）正式发行意大利语版。播客主播 Riccardo 将亲自为意版撰写序言。Ben 兴奋地表示自己正在筹划前往意大利举办一两场线下读者交流活动，甚至现场半开玩笑地提议，未来团队必须策划一场在意大利本土实地录制的《Ask The Compound》特别节目，与大洋彼岸的“意大利铁粉们”面对面互动。随着对意大利之行的憧憬，关于 15 万美元如何一步步安全、理性入场的实操干货解答，即将在下一节全面展开。 ### [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=600s) 巨额现金如何投资：多元化资产配置与心理对冲 针对听众 Marco 提出的“手握一笔大额闲置现金该如何入市”的问题，Ben Carlson 和 Duncan Hill 指出，这是自节目开播以来最常被问及、且永远不会过时的话题。一次性将巨额资金投入市场在心理层面上极其煎熬。从历史概率来看，无论选择哪个历史回测区间，未来 12 个月内股市有 75% 到 80% 的概率会走高。但这绝佳的胜率并不能完全消除恐惧，投资者脑海中挥之不去的永远是：“万一我刚好撞上了那 20% 到 25% 的下跌年份呢？”正因如此，许多人更青睐定投（DCA），或者先投入一半、剩余资金按月分摊入市。这种策略本质上是一种极为有效的心理对冲，即所谓的“遗憾最小化”（regret minimization）。 不过，Marco 计划构建的并非单纯的纯股票组合，而是一个涵盖股票、黄金与短期债券的多元化配置（例如股票 60%、黄金 20%、债券 20%，或股票 80%、黄金 10%、债券 10%）。Ben 强调，预先设定资产配置比例的美妙之处在于它自带缓冲和调整空间：如果入市后股市下跌，手头有短期债券可以重新调配去抄底；如果金价下跌，股票和债券可以作为对冲并逢低补仓。在过去的 50 年里（追溯至 1975、1976 年左右），标普 500 指数与黄金在同一自然年双双录得负收益的年份屈指可数——Duncan 猜测有 5 次，而实际数据仅有 4 次（分别是 1981 年、1990 年、2000 年和 2018 年），并且在这些双跌年份中，美股的平均跌幅仅为 -5%。 多元化投资组合从根本上免去了精准择时的压力。Duncan 补充道，投资期限是决定策略的核心因素。如果是 3 到 5 年甚至更长期的投资，单笔投入的心理负担会大幅减轻；即使极度谨慎，也可以提高短期现金和固收资产的比例，以便在市场回调时逐步补仓。随后 Duncan 还打趣地用蹩脚的意大利语“Buongiorno”向 Marco 问候，引来一阵欢笑。 - **历史统计胜率**：未来 12 个月股市上涨概率约为 75%–80%，但 20%–25% 的回调风险促使普通投资者寻求定投等心理缓冲机制。 - **股金同跌历史**：过去半个世纪中，标普 500 与黄金仅在 1981、1990、2000 和 2018 这四年同时收跌，股票平均跌幅仅为 -5%。 - **操作建议**：确定资产权重（股票、黄金、1-3 年期短债），果断入市，并依靠定期再平衡（Rebalance into the paint）来解决择时难题。 --- ### [13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=800s) 舍弃 2.9% 的超低房贷利率换大房子：理性计算与生活品质的博弈 听众 Sam 发来邮件咨询改善型置业的难题：他在北卡罗来纳州罗利（Raleigh）拥有一套房产，锁定了 2.9% 的超低房贷利率。然而随着家庭成员增加，现有的单层平房已经“挤得不可开交”（bursting at the seams）。他们在当地看房却屡屡被别人加价击败，而要成功中标所需的月供金额让他感到生理上的难以承受。Sam 表示家庭财务上其实负担得起，他在纠结究竟是硬着头皮跳出舒适区买大房子，还是把首付款先投进股市一两年，坐等房贷利率回落。 身为北卡罗来纳州海波因特（High Point）本地人的 Duncan 介绍了当地行情：罗利-达勒姆区域坐拥三角研究园（Research Triangle Park），在疫情期间因居家办公浪潮彻底爆发。这里生活成本相对较低、品质优良，距离海滩和山区都只有约一个半小时车程。房价在暴涨后从未回调，优质学区的家庭住宅中位价已高达 50 万至 60 万美元。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 改善型住房置业决策权衡 accDescr: 对比放弃超低利率在财务表格与实际生活品质两个维度的利弊分析 subgraph Quantitative ["财务数字视角 (Quantitative)"] A["现有资产：2.9% 利率<br/>跑赢通胀的免费借贷"] --> B["换房成本：6.75% 利率<br/>月供增加 $1,500 - $2,000"] B --> C["纯算账评价：<br/>'从财务上看是个糟糕的决定'"] end subgraph Qualitative ["生活品质视角 (Qualitative)"] D["家庭空间现状：<br/>居住拥挤，孩子成长需要空间"] --> E["等待择时风险：<br/>利率未必回落，白白虚度数年光阴"] E --> F["综合生活评价：<br/>'千金难买生活品质，负担得起就去做'"] end C -.-> G{"最终权衡决策"} F ==> G G --> H["行动方案：咬牙置业改善居住<br/>日后若利率下行再申请转按揭 (Refinance)"] ``` Ben 详细拆解了财务账本与现实生活的冲突： 1. **财务视角的残酷现实**：2.9% 的固定利率房贷是无与伦比的抗通胀利器（以当时 4.2% 的通胀读数计算，实际借贷成本等于负数，相当于白借钱）。Ben 现场粗算了一笔账：若购买一套 60 万美元的房子，首付 10%，在当前 6.75% 的利率下，每月房贷支出约为 3,500 美元；如果按 2.9% 利率计算仅需约 2,200 美元。即使房屋总价相同，月供差异就达 1,200 至 1,300 美元；若算上早年买房总价更低，换房后的每月实际差额可能高达 1,500 到 2,000 美元。 2. **生活品质的核心价值**：Ben 直言，放弃那张“诱人且美味”（sweet, succulent）的 3% 以下利率确实像吞下一颗苦涩的药丸，但唯有一件事至关重要——“这么做会让你的生活变得更好吗？”如果是，那就咬牙买下它，“这就是钱存在的意义，人生苦短”（That is what the money is for, life is short）。 3. **切勿择时房地产与利率**：Ben 坚决反对把首付款投进股市去等利率下跌的想法。四年前利率刚突破 6% 时就有人宣称要等它跌回 6% 以下，结果一等四年，白白在狭小的空间里耗费了家庭生活的美好光阴；而且股市具有短期波动风险，极可能在需要用钱时遭遇下跌。当年房价刚涨 10% 时就有一批人观望，结果眼睁睁看着涨幅扩大到 20%、30%、50%。 4. **现实供给瓶颈**：Duncan 补充了自己近期看房的亲身经历，隔壁一套 2021 年以 60 万美元成交的房屋，当前估值已翻倍达到 120 万美元。市场供给匮乏导致竞争异常白热化。两人一致总结：财务规划从来不是单纯的数学题，而是高度主观的生活品质权衡；只要财务上能够承担，置业改善居住是理所当然的选择，未来若利率下降还可以通过转按揭（Refinance）来减轻负担。 --- ### [19:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1180s) 150 万美元够不够养老？来自听众父母的退休焦虑 节目进入下一封听众来信。听众 Dean 表示，自己的父母打算在未来两三年内正式退休。父亲明年就可以开始领取联邦社保退休金（Social Security），这笔收入足以覆盖他们大部分的日常生活开支。老两口目前名下的房产等资产已经全额还清，没有任何债务负担。 然而，父母之间最近正为了“需要存够多少钱才能安心退休”展开激烈争论。他们的既定储蓄目标是 150 万美元，但母亲对此深感焦虑，始终担心这笔钱不够应付漫长的晚年生活，无法带来足够的安全感。围绕这笔 150 万美元的资产储备在没有负债且有社保兜底的情况下究竟是否充裕，两位主播展开了具体评估。 ### [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1200s) 拥有 150 万美元与社保：退休生活完全绰绰有余 针对听众提到父母生活极度节俭、年开销仅约 3 万美元，却仍然对退休充满焦虑的问题，本·卡尔森（Ben Carlson）和邓肯·希尔（Duncan Hill）进行了深度拆解。本首先考了邓肯一个财务常识问题：美国个人平均领取的社保（Social Security）支票金额是多少？邓肯猜测大约是 2,000 美元，本确认正是 2,000 到 2,100 美元左右。这意味着，如果父母双方都领取平均水平的社保，每月能进账约 4,000 美元，一年接近 5 万美元。即使只有父亲一人领取，其社保金额也几乎能完全覆盖两人每年 3 万美元的日常开销。 更为关键的是，许多人忽视了社保的本质——它不仅是养老金，更是由政府背书的“长寿保险”（longevity insurance）。这种年金按月发放直至终老，并且每年自动根据通货膨胀进行向上调整，从制度设计上就是为了防止人们“把钱花光”。针对邓肯打趣的“除非社保破产”，本笑称等出现危机时婴儿潮一代早已不在，那是未来几代人要处理的事。由于社保托底了所有基本生存需求，老人的生活质量根本不需要看股票市场的脸色，其 150 万美元的投资组合完全属于“额外盈余”，足以用来资助子孙、承担大额开销或任意挥霍。 本指出，财务规划的精髓并不仅仅在于算钱，更在于规划自己的时间和生活目标。很多人在退休后依然像“胎儿般蜷缩在角落瑟瑟发抖”，时刻忧心忡忡，这是完全没有必要的。他建议提问者带父母去见一位独立财务顾问，因为父母可能听不进子女的劝导，却需要客观的第三方给予一颗定心丸，明确告诉他们：“你们完全没问题，尽情去享受生活、去度假吧！”按照常规的 4% 提款法则，老两口每年从 150 万美元资产中就算额外取出 5 万美元，资产也极有可能在未来继续增长，他们完全有能力将当下的生活开支水平翻倍。 - **社保的减贫力量**：全美 65 岁及以上老年人中，贫困率目前大约为 10%；若没有社保制度，这一贫困率将骤升至 40%。社保是美国最接近“强制储蓄”的成功机制。 - **开销与资产对比**：每年基础生活费 3 万美元，双人社保年收入约 5 万美元，外加 150 万美元流动投资组合，财务缓冲空间极为宽裕。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 退休现金流与资产覆盖结构 accDescr: 展现社保收入与投资组合如何全额覆盖并富余老人的退休生活开支 subgraph Income ["固定现金流 (每年 ~50,000 美元)"] SS["双人社保年金<br/>抗通胀、终身给付"] end subgraph Expenses ["生活开销 (每年 ~30,000 美元)"] Cost["极度节俭的基础日常开支"] end subgraph Portfolio ["150 万美元投资组合盈余"] Port["股票 / 基金资产"] Withdrawal["4% 提款法则<br/>每年可额外支取 ~50,000-60,000 美元"] Fun["改善生活、旅游度假、资助子孙"] end SS -->|"完全覆盖并富余 20,000 美元"| Cost Port --> Withdrawal --> Fun ``` --- ### [24:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1455s) 坐拥 500 万美元以上资产：全仓指数基金是明智还是冒险？ 随后，两人探讨了听众约翰（John）提出的核心问题：拥有 500 万美元以上净资产的人，在退休后依然 100% 全仓持有 VTI（先锋领航全股市指数 ETF）、SPY 等低成本指数基金是否合理？约翰引用了美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔（Jerome Powell）将大部分资产放入指数基金的做法，并指出历史数据显示美股在暴跌 30% 后往往能在两年内恢复，询问这种高风险承受度是否属于顶级富豪的理性策略。 本证实了鲍威尔的持仓情况：尽管鲍威尔早年在私募股权行业工作，净资产据公开披露在 2,000 万到 8,000 万美元之间，但为了规避监管利益冲突，他确实将绝大部分流动资产配置于宽基指数基金中。借由这个问题，本回忆起了自己当年备考 CFA（特许金融分析师）三级时的难忘经历——在经历了整整三年折磨人的备考并在最后一级完成全套书面论述题后，他信心满满地带妻子去连锁餐厅 Chili's 狂喝了一整桶啤酒庆祝。他借用 CFA 框架中的核心理论指出，任何投资决策都取决于三要素：承担风险的**必要性（Need）**、**能力（Ability）**和**意愿（Willingness）**。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: CFA 风险三要素分析框架 accDescr: 解析高净值人群在风险必要性、能力与意愿上的冲突与平衡 subgraph Dimensions ["CFA 风险三要素框架"] N["必要性 (Need)<br/>达到财务目标所需的回报率"] A["能力 (Ability)<br/>资产规模、收支水平、流动性要求"] W["意愿 (Willingness)<br/>心理承受力与夜晚安睡程度"] end subgraph Analysis ["500 万美元高净值画像"] N_Status["极低：早已赢得金钱游戏，无需追求高收益"] A_Status["极高：本金雄厚，抗风险与抗波动客观资本极强"] W_Status["核心支点：能否忍受账面巨额美元蒸发？"] end N --> N_Status A --> A_Status W --> W_Status ``` 本深入分析道，对于拥有 500 万美元以上且开销适度的人来说，他们“已经赢得了人生的金钱游戏”，因此承担风险的**必要性**极低；但在客观资产和收支指标上，他们承担风险的**能力**极高。最难量化的是心理层面的**意愿**——这是整个资产配置的支点。超高净值人群往往是最难提供咨询的，因为他们“无所不能投”：全仓短期国债（T-bills）、全仓私募股权或全仓标普 500 指数，在现实中都不会导致破产。 然而，全仓股票的代价在于“名义美元损失带来的心理折磨”。在 500 万美元甚至 700 万美元的基数下，即使是常规熊市下跌 20%，账户也会瞬间蒸发超过 100 万美元；若遭遇 2020 年疫情期间 6 周暴跌 35% 的极限行情，资产账面缩水会极为惊人。邓肯指出，单纯看百分比是一回事，但当看到“100 万美元实实在在化为乌有”时，痛感完全不同。更致命的隐患在于：当股市下挫 30% 且资产缩水时，如果你必须持续被迫卖出处于低谷的股票来维持生活开销，就无法享受随后的反弹，这就是为什么哑铃型配置或保有安全现金缓冲至关重要。最后，邓肯提出针对沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）的普遍误解：大众常误以为巴菲特极端厌恶风险或保守，但纵观其早年收购陷入困境的企业、“捡雪茄烟蒂”的投资履历，他其实在承担特定风险方面表现得异常激进与从容。 ### [30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1800s) 破除巴菲特“指数神话”与超高净值全股票配置的心理考验 Ben Carlson 和 Duncan Hill 探讨了大众对沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）投资风格的常见误解。很多人误以为巴菲特一直主张并将所有资金投入指数基金，认为他是一个温和、稳重、厌恶风险的指数化投资者。但两人指出，事实远非如此：伯克希尔·哈撒韦拥有庞大的保险业务，能持续产生巨额现金流供其投资；他投资了大量的非上市私营企业，而且其公开股票投资组合高度集中，基本上仅靠约12只核心股票就构成了绝大部分仓位。况且，巴菲特如今已是95岁高龄，他的投资逻辑与普通投资者完全不可同日而语。 面对“拥有500万美元以上超高净值资产，是否可以100%全仓股票”的议题，两人坦言在纯数学层面上完全可行——拉长时间来看，最终财富大概率会多到花不完。然而核心瓶颈在于“承担风险的意愿（willingness to take risk）”。这种心理承受力是无法用量化模型或模拟器来复现的，只有在市场暴跌真实降临、真金白银蒸发时，投资者才会知道自己的本能反应。 随着千禧一代步入中年并开始积累起实质性金融资产，这种心理考验变得前所未有地具体。回顾2008年次贷危机（Great Financial Crisis），年轻的千禧一代之所以能毫无心理负担地持续买入抄底，是因为当时大家根本没多少本金——即便一万美元的组合缩水到五千美元，投资者也只会觉得“那又怎样？我每年投进股市的新增收入都比这多得多”。但当账户规模膨胀到六位数甚至七位数的百万级体量时，一次大幅回撤蒸发的绝对金额足以击溃心理防线，这也是绝大多数人随着年龄增长和财富积累必然走向保守的原因。 尽管如此，仍有极少数人能够真正做到“钻石手”，承受全股票组合的剧烈颠簸并获得丰厚回报，正如节目评论区和弹幕中经常出现的各路硬核投资者。节目的最后，两位主持人向观众致谢，号召大家在评论区留言提问，前往官网选购周边，并通过官方邮箱提交下一期的咨询问题。 - **巴菲特真实投资架构的支撑点**：依赖保险业务源源不断带来的浮存现金流，大举布局私营企业，且二级市场股票持仓极度集中在十几只标的内。 - **本金体量对风险承受力的降维打击**：几千美元亏损50%可以通过新增工作储蓄迅速抹平，而数百万美元在市场暴跌中损失过半，会对投资者的生活和心态产生实质性创伤。 - **互动与外链提示**：观众可通过邮件咨询财务规划问题，节目周边可在 idontshop.com 选购。 ## Notable quotes > [05:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=300s) If you're going to sin, sin a little. — Cliff Asnes (quoted by Ben Carlson) > [13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=800s) That is what the money is for, life is short. — Ben Carlson > [13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=800s) bursting at the seams — Sam (quoted by Duncan Hill) > [13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=800s) sweet, succulent — Ben Carlson > [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=600s) Rebalance into the paint — Ben Carlson > [20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1200s) 你们完全没问题，尽情去享受生活、去度假吧！ — Ben Carlson > [24:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1455s) 已经赢得了人生的金钱游戏 — Ben Carlson > [30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0&t=1800s) 那又怎样？我每年投进股市的新增收入都比这多得多 — Ben Carlson ## Mentioned Ben Carlson, Duncan Hill, Ask The Compound, The Compound, Ritholtz Wealth Management, OpenAI, ChatGPT, Tom Lee, Cliff Asnes, The Bull, Riccardo Spada, Risk and Reward, Jerome Powell, Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, FTSE All-World, S&P 500, VTI, SPY, Social Security, CFA, Chili's, Patagonia ## Video description On episode 228 of Ask The Compound, Ben Carlson and Duncan Hill discuss: whether an AI bubble crash or market correction would be a buying opportunity for U.S. stocks, how to invest $150,000 in cash today, giving up a 2.9% mortgage to buy a larger home, whether $1.5 million is enough to retire, staying 100% invested in stocks with $5 million+ and much more! Submit your Ask The Compound questions to askthecompoundshow@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠! ►00:00 - Intro ►01:53 - Should You Buy US Stocks on a Pullback? ►08:35 - How to Invest $150,000 ►13:20 - Giving Up a 2.9% Mortgage ►19:40 - Is $1.5 Million Enough to Retire? ►24:15 - Staying in Stocks with $5 Million+? Compound Merch: https://idontshop.com/ FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thecompoundnews Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ Sign up for The Compound newsletter: https://www.thecompoundnews.com/subscribe Listen to our podcasts: TCAF: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/TCAF/ Animal Spirits: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/animalspirits/ Ask The Compound: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/ATC/ Talking Wealth: https://podcasts.thecompoundnews.com/show/talking-wealth/ Talk with us about your portfolio or financial plan here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://ritholtzwealth.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Ben Carlson and Duncan Hill are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. See our disclosures here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers⁠⁠⁠⁠ #personalfinance #askthecompound #stocks #investing101 #wealth [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9pZ1Tu3X0)

[5:00] Cliff Asnes (quoted by Ben Carlson): If you're going to sin, sin a little. [13:20] Ben Carlson: That is what the money is for, life is short. [13:20] Sam (quoted by Duncan Hill): bursting at the seams [13:20] Ben Carlson: sweet, succulent [10:00] Ben Carlson: Rebalance into the paint [20:00] Ben Carlson: 你们完全没问题，尽情去享受生活、去度假吧！ [24:15] Ben Carlson: 已经赢得了人生的金钱游戏 [30:00] Ben Carlson: 那又怎样？我每年投进股市的新增收入都比这多得多

[7:15] Ben Carlson: If you're going to sin, sin a little [19:00] Ben Carlson: From a financial perspective, this is a terrible decision. From a standard of living perspective, I think you probably have to do this if you have kids. [23:40] Ben Carlson: Financial planning requires, like, knowing the kind of life you want to purchase with those finances. So you can't just be in a fetal position worried all the time. [30:15] Ben Carlson: When you're young, your $10,000 portfolio turns into $5,000—so what? You're going to put more money into the market than that every year. What happens when you actually have a six-figure or seven-figure portfolio? [1:53] Travis: buy when there's blood in the streets

[0:00] Ben Carlson, Welcome to Ask the Compound, the show where you ask, we provide the answers. I am Ben Carlson. Let's say you're sitting on a bunch of cash, $150,000 worth. You want to invest some of it in a combination of stocks, fixed income, gold. How do you time it? If you're worried about the markets, do you put it all in at once? Do you average in? Combination of the two? We're going to talk lump sum versus dollar cost averaging and more on today's show. Stick around. Our email here is askthecompoundshow at gmail.com. Our inbox continues to be full of questions every week. We appreciate that. We're not live today because I'm on the road this week, but everyone on the live chat can still fire off questions because we have an army of people here at the compound who are constantly looking for questions and pulling it from all the different places. We love the comments. Yes, as always. On today's show, will AI lead to a buying opportunity in the future? How would you invest $150,000 in cash right now? would you give up a 2.9% mortgage for a new home in Raleigh, North Carolina? Duncan knows where that is, I think. Is $1.5 million enough to retire on? And if you had $5 million or more, would you keep all of your money in stocks Today show is sponsored by our shop at the compound idontshop Got a ton of merch there t hats The hats are the new thing We got all kinds of hats Last year we did like the Patagonia version right This year we have, what would you call yours, Duncan? The green one. I was saying it reminded me of the Masters or something. Yeah, it's got a Masters hat. I got one of those. I got the green one. I got, so it's like a Michael and a Josh hat, like a dad hat, and then like a flat bill, right? Anytime there's a compound hat, you know, I'm going to wear it out. My kids were using the compound towels last week on the beach. Idontshop.com for all of your compound merch needs. All right. Great questions today. Let's do it. Okay. First up today, we got one from Travis. In the event of a U.S. market correction, downturn, or AI bubble pop, would it be smart to shift new contributions back toward U.S. equities while they're cheaper? In my mind, this seems logical because it would be an opportunity to buy when blood is in the streets, but I'm not sure if that crosses the line into market timing. My thinking is that I'm currently hedging my bets by buying non-U.S. equities to diversify my portfolio but a U.S. market downturn could create an opportunity to buy domestic equities at a discount. And for those that don know that that a Buffett quote right Buy when there blood in the streets Buffett was not the first one to say I don know the exact origin of that one but yes Okay. Something similar. It's fairly graphic. That's what I wanted to copy out. It's interesting because when inflation first started to flare up a little bit, throw my blog post up here. In 2021, I wrote about this. I said, could inflation give us a wonderful buying opportunity? This is right when inflation was still kind of kicking in. We didn't know for sure, but the Fed had done everything they did. They brought rates down to zero. Barron rates were really low. The government printed trillions and trillions of dollars and sent it out. And so it seemed like inflation was at least a decent possibility. I never thought it would get like 9%, but it seemed like a good possibility. And guess what? Inflation was a wonderful buying opportunity. Daniel threw up the chart here, chart on. The S&P 500 is up 120% from the inflation lows. That was in October of 2022. It's up 24% almost annualized in that time. which is kind of crazy. And it just so happened that inflation peaked, and then a month later we got JADGPT, which is kind of insane to think about, chart off. So I certainly think AI could be that kind of buying opportunity if something happens because, you know, whatever, things get too people get too excited They extrapolate too far That what causes these bubbles Even the dot bubble burst but we got everything out of that and more Now the question is Even on days like today didn I see multiple chip stocks down 10 at some point today Yeah, are you worried about the one-day correction again? I mean, I always get a little nervous when I see stocks down that much. But you can't have stocks go up so much and not have these times when... And Tom Lee told us on TCAP a while back that we almost always get V-shaped corrections now, right, or V-shaped recoveries. It feels like it. This is the problem, though, with something like this bursting. It depends. So in my book, I talk about the two types of bear markets. Do you remember what they are? Did we get to that point yet? Maybe not. Okay. So it depends what kind of bear. So the 2022 bear market, the S&P 500 fell 25%, right? market, that was a run-of-the-mill textbook non-recessionary bear market. And so for AI, it really kind of depends, is it a recessionary bear market in terms of how long it takes? So that's part of it. So that when you can buy and how bad it would be, it would kind of be like, is all these trillions of dollars in CapEx, is it going to tip us over into recession? And I think if there was a meaningful slowdown, it probably would because it just touches, [5:00] So many different parts of the economy right now. So that would make sense if something did blow up, that it would potentially lead to a minor recession. When this one's particularly freaking people out, because if AI does really well, it could be bad for the overall economy. But it would be great for all of these stocks and companies, I suppose. Right. So, yeah, that's what's scaring people. We're in kind of a weird place where people think the two paths could be, OK, this is a bubble and it pops and that's painful. Or it's not a bubble and it works and it puts a bunch of people out of jobs. Those aren't two. There's obviously a middle ground there. Those are the two extremes people worry about. The thing is, when the dot-com bubble did burst, the Nasdaq fell 80 percent. It was like a Great Depression level calamity. Right. So there's probably some middle ground between an 80 percent crash and 25 percent crash. The Nasdaq fell, I don't know, 35 percent in the 2022. So that that kind of depends on the length of the crash. But his Travis's question here really is, is it makes sense to shift from international back to U.S. if this happens? So the timing of these things is really hard The thing is what if this somehow changes the course of the markets Because what we seen is that the AI trade has kind of galvanized the rest of the world right And this thing has kind of gone global where emerging markets are crushing the U this year because of places like South Korea and Taiwan They part of the AI trade too right China is keeping up. The fact that a basket of Chinese AI stocks is keeping up with a basket of U.S. AI stocks this year as well. So you're having these things where it might not be the case where the U.S. is the automatic winner of this. Like it seems like it's been the winner of everything else, right? Coming out of COVID, we were the winner. Coming out of the great financial crisis, we were the winner. What if AI somehow galvanizes the rest of the world? I guess the way I'm thinking about this in terms of hedging your bets is Cliff Asnes once said, if you're going to sin, sin a little. Like, don't go all the way. So, yeah, if you want to over-rebalance to international stocks right now, I think that, you know, sure, that makes sense. Then if you want to, in a correction, over-rebalance to U.S. stocks, sure. But trying to time that and think that you're going to get too cute with it, I think it's really hard to time these cycles. So I think over rebalancing in terms of risk, that sure, give it a try. You might not be right, but I think that's better than just going all in or all out on these on these segments of the market. And big picture, too, if what they're kind of asking is if you should historically, if you would benefit from buying indexes when they down the answer from your research is clearly yes Right So yeah it probably doesn matter what stocks you buy you know coming out of it The thing is the point is though that a lot of times especially if it was a recession and this was an actual bubble bursting most of the time the winners coming out are not the winners going in. That's what made COVID so weird and that had never really happened before, is that the winners going into tech stocks were kind of the winners coming out. Usually you have a regime change, and that didn't happen that time. And maybe it doesn't happen again this time, but that's the way I would think about it, is that it's hard to tell the winners and losers. And I think AI has helped the rest of the world in a lot of ways in the global stock markets. Yeah. Fair question, though. But I agree with the premise that any sort of AI blow-up would be a wonderful buying opportunity because the promise of AI helping in the future is it's not like it's going to go away, even if people do get a little over their skis and we're forced to live through a bear market because of it. Good question. Next one. Okay. Up next, we got one from Marco. I listened to your interview on the bull and wanted to ask if you had in cash today how would you enter the market I was thinking of building a portfolio with a global equity fund like the FTSE All World alongside a one to three year government bond ETF and a gold ETF, but I'm stuck on how to go about entering the market. And The Bull is an Italian podcast you were on. Yeah, throw it up, Daniel. So The Bull with Ricardo Spada is one of the bigger podcasts for investing in Italy. And I've been on the podcast a couple of times. I did it for kind of book promotion. I love Italy. It's my favorite country in the entire world to travel to. How did you get so big in Italy? You're popular in Italy. I don't know. Maybe it's because I like to drink wine. I love the people. I love the food. I love the sites. In fact, my publisher has sold the rights to the Italian version of Risk and Reward, and it's going to be published in Italian sometime in the fall, probably October, maybe November. I'm in the works of trying to get an event or two over there, potentially going over there and doing some stuff. And actually, Ricardo, who does the full podcast. We definitely need to do an Ask the Compound live from Italy. I would like that. So Ricardo is going to write a forward for me to the Italian version. So, yes, to all my Italian brethren. I think October, maybe November, that Italian rights version is going to come out. So I pushed them for this, too. I said, listen, the Italians love me. [10:00] I need the Italian version of this book. So anyway, Marco's asking one of the favorite questions that we get here. We get it all the time since the show started, since before. Like, what do we do with a lump sum of cash? It's easily the most popular questions. And it's a question for years, and it's always going to be a question going forward because it's always scary to put a big slug of money to work in the markets. We know what the math says. 75 to 80% of the time, depending on your look-back period, 12 months in advance, the market's going to be higher. Those are good odds, but people always think in the back of their heads, but what if I'm part of the 20% to 25% where it's not higher? It happens. This is why so many more people are more comfortable with the dollar cost averaging or putting in half the money now and averaging the rest. It's like regret minimization. It's just a very effective psychological hedge. But Marco isn't talking about just the stock market here. He's talking about a diversified portfolio. So we're talking stocks, gold, and bonds, right, short-duration bonds. And I think the beauty of a diversified portfolio is that, you know, with a pre-established asset allocation. So he picks his asset allocation. It's 60% stocks and 20% gold and 20% bonds or whatever it is, right? 80% stocks, 10% gold, 10% bonds. Whatever you pick that allocation to be like you still going to be sitting on something that you can redeploy right If you put money in and stocks fall you have those short bonds to buy You also potentially have gold as a hedge If gold falls you have stocks and bonds as a hedge to buy those In the past 50 years, Duncan, 50 years going back to like 1975, 1976, how many times have gold and the S&P both finished the year with a loss in the same year, calendar year? Five times. 50 years. Pretty good. Four times. 1981, 1990, 2000, and 2018. And the average decline for the stock market in those years was negative 5%. So not a huge loss either for stocks when they both go down. So I think the idea of having a diversified portfolio takes away the need to predict the future in many ways. It also dampens the need to time the market perfectly. Not that anyone can do that anyway, but I think Marco is picking an asset allocation, have those asset classes. put your money to work and then rebalance when necessary. Like that, this makes the timing thing easier, I think, in a lot of ways. Because it's not just like cash or stocks. That's the really hard one. But diversified portfolio, that makes this timing stuff more of a moot point because you can just rebalance into the paint. Yeah I mean horizon matters so much here right Because as your data shows if you going to be invested for the long term or even what three to five years then it less scary to lump sum If you investing for a year or something okay yeah maybe that all advice here And he's saying I'm going to keep some of it in a one to three year bond. So he still has that optionality, flexibility, whatever you want. And if you're really that worried, okay, fine, up your cash, fix income allocation, and then slowly but surely put it back to work if the market should roll over. but yeah diversified portfolio makes things a lot easier in terms of putting money to work so yeah put your money to work rebalance when necessary boom buy my book when it comes out an italian version good advice buongiorno did i nail it i think so all right another question right uh okay up next we got one from sam i currently own my home with a 2.9 interest rate in raleigh north carolina that's not to brag 2.9 our family is growing and we're bursting at the seams in our one-story ranch house we've been looking for a house in the area but keep getting outbid and i can't stomach the mortgage payment that would be required to be the winning bidder financially we can afford it so should i just suck it up and go outside my comfort zone Or would it be better to put the money I have set aside for a down payment to work in the stock market for a year or two and hope for a pullback in mortgage rates I like this question. I think I know what they're going to say. I have what you're going to say. All right. Well, listen, maybe you don't. You're the North Carolina expert here. Where are you from in North Carolina again? Not Raleigh. High Point. So it's like a little over an hour away. Okay. Is this a burgeoning area for families to move to? So the Raleigh-Durham area has Research Triangle Park, and it exploded during COVID. Everyone wanted to move there. It's a lower cost of living, great quality of life. You're like an hour and a half from the beach, an hour, hour and a half from the mountains. It's a really great location. And so, yeah, it boomed in the work-from-home period, and the prices of homes have not come down from there from what I've seen. The median numbers I saw were somewhere in the $500,000 to $600,000 range if you wanted a good family area with schools or something. So pretty decently high, I think, for that area. Also, the Hurricanes just won the Stanley Cup. Yeah, there you go. You got them right there. So you know how much I love low mortgage rates from a personal finance perspective, right? A 2.9% fixed rate mortgage rate. [15:00] The best inflation hedge there is. The latest inflation reading was 4.2%. So on a real basis, you're effectively borrowing for free. The thing is, if you trade up, your payments can be way higher. So I ran some back of the envelope numbers. So I chose $600,000. Dan, throw the chart up here. I assumed a 10% down payment. Maybe it's higher than that with your equity. 6.75% is the current rate, so that's like a $3,500 monthly payment. And the next one, if you did it just with that 2.9%, it's like $2,200. So $1,200 or $1,300 more a month. And the house you bought before probably was way lower. So I'm guessing we're talking more like a, I don't know, $1,500, $2,000 a month different in payments because the price was probably lower that you bought and the rate was lower. So that is very, very tough to stomach. Obviously, from a purely spreadsheet perspective, I would have a hard time giving up my 3% mortgage. But here's the only question that matters. Is this going to make your life better if you do this? Because if the answer is yes, and it seems like since you say you're bursting at the seams in your current home, then I'd say yes, suck it up. That is what the money is for right Life is short And I hate trying to time the housing market or the mortgage rates market Imagine telling yourself four years ago when mortgage rates first hit 6 that, you know, I'm just going to wait till they fall back below 6% and then I'll buy then. And they haven't come back since then. And then you wasted four years of your life waiting potentially. I think especially with a family, you know, that's two more, two or three more years of life in a house that's only going to feel smaller as your kids get bigger and they accumulate more stuff. I know people say that big material purchases weigh off, but I'm a big believer that your home is one of the places that can pay dividends over and over again if you find the right one that makes you happy. So tough pill to swallow getting rid of that sweet succulent sub 3% mortgage rate. Oh my gosh, it's so awesome. I guess you could always price out in addition on your current home if that's an option. But I think if you find a bigger house you love and the numbers work, I'd say just do it. You can always refinance down the line if rates do end up falling. And so from a financial perspective, this is a terrible decision. From a standard of living perspective I think you probably have to do this if you have kids You have to if you can afford it Yeah No I mean that makes sense to me Is that what you thought I was going say uh yeah yeah i mean well and i knew you weren gonna like the idea of investing the down payment for a year or two and just seeing what yeah that i see what happens yeah i don't like that idea we got when housing prices first started to take off in late 2020 like housing prices were up 10 or something and we got a bunch of emails from people saying ah i'm just gonna wait till they pull back this It can't last forever. And then housing prices are up 20%, then 30%, then 40%, then 50%. And all those people who wait, I just think timing the housing market is – I'm not saying that's going to happen again, obviously. That would be crazy. I don't see any scenario where that could happen. But the idea of trying to time the mortgage rate, if you find a house you like and you can make the numbers work, just do it. It is rough out there, though, because I've been looking at places – we've been looking for over a year now just kind of keeping an eye on the market. and we looked at a place yesterday and was like, oh, I wonder what this area is like. And I looked at the neighboring house and it sold for $600,000 in 2021 and his estimate now is $1.2 million. I was like, double. And I sure if this guy and his family had been living in Raleigh and you said they had a big boom in the housing market because all these people moved there he probably looking at it like man six years ago that house would have gone for this and now it goes for this Right. That is hard to wrap your head around. That this is the new normal and the switch happened so fast. Yeah. Yeah. And the fact that there's not a lot of supply these days. That makes it harder too. So the competition, I'm sure a place like this, the competition that you said, like, you know, university towns and a ton of people coming there for other jobs. Yeah, it's tough. But if you can make it work, I think you probably have to do it. Yeah, it sounds in that way. It sounds like a no brainer if you're putting quality of life into the calculation. All right. Let's do another one. That's what you need to figure out. You need to figure out a calculator for finances that factors in that waits for quality of life. You should figure that out. That's why finance is qualitative, not quantitative. Yeah. Okay, up next we got one from Dean. My parents are considering retirement in a couple of years. Dad will be collecting his Social Security next year, which will cover most of their living expenses. However, they've been debating how much they need in order to feel safe retiring. Their goal is $1.5 million, but my mom is nervous about not being enough. They have everything paid off, and I would guess their cost of living [20:00] is about $30,000 a year. They're very frugal and always have been. What would you tell them? All right, let's test your financial knowledge a little more. What do you think the average monthly check size is for Social Security payments? For an individual? Yeah, individual. $2,000? Yeah, right up $2,000, $2,100, something like that. So he talked about just his dad. Let's say both of the parents received an average Social Security check size, right? That's $4,000 a month, almost $50,000 a year. So Social Security alone would cover them. Even if it's just his dad, it's pretty darn close to covering their living expenses. Now, he didn't say anything in here about what their age is, but mom is worried about outliving the money. The thing is, Social Security is also longevity insurance. It's literally designed to prevent outliving your money because it's a guaranteed government annuity, pays out every single month until you pass away and it automatically adjusts upward for inflation every single year. Until it goes bankrupt, right? Well, yeah, but by then the boomers will be gone and we'll have to deal with it. That's a ways away. So, because it covers the vast majority of their living expenses their survival doesn actually depend that much on the stock market The portfolio then is a way to balance out like you know needs for the grandkids maybe or the kids or bigger purchases Like I think one of the big things is like we don't know what your parents aspirations are, but it might be helpful for them to speak to someone, an advisor, just to get peace of mind in their plan because they're doing more than fine. They are perfectly set up, especially if they're living on $30,000 a year. I would actually tell them to enjoy their wealth a little bit. Figure out what they want to do in retirement. Like, what are their goals? And I'm not talking about money. Financial planning requires, like, knowing the kind of life you want to purchase with those finances. So you can't just be in a fetal position worried all the time. Not everyone has those same financial resources in retirement. Everyone has the same amount of time in a day, in a week, in a month, whatever it is. like your parents need to plan for their money, but also plan for their time. Like that's the big thing. And that's what hopefully an advisor could give you is, I always say the biggest question that our advisors are answering for people is, am I going to be okay? And it sounds like that's the big worry that your parents have. So you talk to an advisor with them maybe and get an objective third party to tell them listen yeah you fine Your social security covers your living expenses Have some fun Go on vacations or help with the kids a little bit something You can actually enjoy your money. And if they're spending that little, their portfolio is probably going to be even bigger down the line than it is today. I wonder how many Americans retire pretty much just on Social Security, don't have a meaningful retirement. So the number is there's roughly 10% of people retirement age or older who are in financial poverty, and that number would be 40% without Social Security. Social Security really does help people out a lot. It's probably one of the best government programs that we've ever instituted. Without it, a lot of people would be in a world of pain. That is their government check is their retirement plan. I guess it's the closest thing we have to force savings, right? It is. Because you pay into it regardless of if you want to or not. But again, his parents have over and above that, right? They have $1.5 million that they can potentially still grow and still spend a decent chunk of and be fine, right? We talking pulling an additional I don know if it a 4 rule pulling an additional 50 grand or whatever out of there right A year on top of their so they could double their current lifestyle if they wanted in terms of spending and be okay They'd be fine. Yeah, they're good. Your parents are fine. They might, but you telling them might not help. They might need to hear it from a third party. Right. Or show them this podcast. There you go. Send them my way. And stamp of approval. Boom. Spend the money. All right. One more question. All right. Last but not least, we got one from John. How often do you see people with $5 million plus invested solely in things like VTI, SPY, or the usual low-cost index funds through retirement? Isn't this how people like Warren Buffett take a disciplined approach to market psychology? If one lives their life with reasonable expenses in retirement, so what if the market destroys 30%? Isn't the potential upside of more growth worth it? Your own stats on recoveries, if I recall, indicate that the market comes back something like 90% of the time in only two years. I believe I've heard Jay Powell even takes this approach of all index funds, even though it may be in a blind trust. I didn't know what Jerome Powell's financial plan was, so I had to look this up. It does sound like through financial. [25:00] Disclosures, the Fed, he has basically all of his liquid net worth tied up in index funds. Now, he used to work in private equity, I believe, and this may have more to do with a conflict of interest things than anything with him, but he's got tens and tens of millions of dollars. I saw Powell's worth anywhere from like $20 to $80 million or something. He's obviously fine. And he does have most of it in just index funds. So you're right, some people do this. Now, I always hearken back on this that I learned in level three of the CFA. All right. Now, after I passed my level three, the CFA, after I took it, I spent three years going through this stupid exam and took my wife to Chili's and ordered a bucket of beer because I knew I passed it. Nothing but the highlight for me. Nice. So something I learned in CFA level three, that was the written one. I had to do a written exam for that one. Everyone needs to understand their willingness, need and ability to take risk. Duncan, you've probably heard me say this before. So your need to take risk is just the return required to reach your financial goals. So if you have $5 million plus, you probably don't need a huge return to reach your goals. You've already kind of, you've won the game. And some financial advisors say, if you've already won the game, why do you need to keep playing? Put your money in safer assets live off of them put it in tips short tips or something like that Your ability to take risk is like what are your circumstances Your income your portfolio size your net worth liquidity needs spending habits savings rate all that stuff So that stuff is pretty easy to quantify, the need and the ability, right? That stuff is, you could put that into ChatGPT and it could probably give you a decent approximation. The hard one is your willingness to take risk. That's like balancing your desire to grow your portfolio and your desire to sleep at night. And those two things are not always in concert with one another, right? I can't, you wanted me to quantify that in the last question. I can't do it. There's no way to quantify it. And so, because your willingness to take risk is like, that's the fulcrum, right? Because once you've won the game, you don't act, you have the ability to take a lot of risk. If you have $5 million plus, right? As long as you're not spending and absorbing on money, you have a really high ability to take risk. But you don't need to take risk. So the question is, what do you want to do? That's a hard thing to answer. So I think like, would you be able to sleep at night knowing that your $7 million portfolio in a month could be worth $4 million or it could be worth $11 million, depending on what the stock market does, right? You know in COVID we down 35 in six weeks or whatever That the trade of having an all portfolio And sometimes people with an ultra net worth which I will say, I don't know if that's $5 million plus, I don't know if it's $10 million plus, sometimes those are the hardest people to give investment advice to because you could put your money into anything and you'd be fine. Now, I don't know if John, who wrote this question, if that's the boat that he falls into, right? If he's in the $5 million plus, maybe he is. sometimes it's the hardest one because you feel like you have no limitations. So you can invest in anything, right? I could put all my money in T-bills and I'd be fine. I could put all my money in private equity and I'd probably be fine. I could put it in S&P 500 and be fine. So what should you do? That's why you need some guidelines and limitations to guide your actions. Yeah, at the same time, small drops hurt you more, right? Yeah. Just from a numbers standpoint. 2% down to hurts a lot more, I guess, from just a sheer number standpoint when you have five plus million. Definitely. You have $5 million, the market falls 20% in a run of the mill bear market. Oh my gosh, I lost more than a million dollars? Are you kidding me? Lost a million dollars. Yeah, think about it from, it's a dollar perspective, you're right, that matters way more than the percentages at that point So you just have to kind of figure out if that trade off is worth it to you And then we talked in the past about maybe having more of a barbell portfolio We have something to see you through so you don have to sell I think that the part that really stings for a lot of people is, yeah, I'm going to be fine. The stock market falls 30%, but I still have $3 million or whatever it is. I'll be okay. But are you also selling your stocks to fund your lifestyle. That's painful when you have to sell them and you can't let them rebound. So that's where the problem comes in. Do you think there's a misconception about Warren Buffett and his investing over the years? Because I hear people a lot of times reference kind of like John here that Buffett is, you know, just like by the market and, you know, kind of risk averse and this kind of thing. But like, if you look at his career, he wasn't risk averse, right? He invested in a lot of small businesses that definitely could have gone out of business. and he talked about looking for, you know, he's the one that talked about looking for cigarette butts and stuff like that, right? I feel like sometimes he doesn't get credit for being as, you know, comfortable with risk as his career shows that he was. You think people think Buffett is conservative? I see a lot of people think that, yeah, like he, because I think one time he said... Oh, because he's sitting on cash right now? Well, and because I think he said something one time about how when he dies, [30:00] all into the index or something. So I think a lot of people think now that he's an index investor and he's just like, that's what he believes in, that's how he's always invested. But it's not really how he's... Well, plus he has the insurance business that kicks off a bunch of cash that allows him to invest. You're right. He invested in a ton of private businesses and the stock book is very concentrated. It's, I don't know, 12 stocks make up the brunt of the stock portfolio. Yeah, I think a lot of people think he's like the mild-mannered, responsible, not risky. Well, he's also 95 years old. It's true. It's true, yeah. Yeah, but yeah, listen, if you have that much money, you're ultra high net worth, could you invest at all in the stock market and be okay? Yeah, probably, and you'd probably end up with more money than you know what to do with, but it's just can you handle that? That's the hard, it's the willingness to take risk. That's the hard part, that you can't quantify. You can't simulate it until you actually go through it. No one knows how they're going to react to that situation. It's a lot harder. That's why I think it's so interesting as millennials hit their middle age and have some financial assets. It was pretty easy for millennials to continue to buy stocks in the great financial crisis because none of us had any money. It easier to live through that situation when oh no my portfolio turned dollar portfolio turned into five thousand dollars Like so what You going to be putting more money into the market than that every year What happens when you actually have a six figure portfolio or a seven figure portfolio? What do you then what do you do? It's harder to see those losses. Yeah, it has to adjust. Yeah, that that's generally why people become more conservative as they age. But are there people who do just keep all their money in stocks and are better off for it? Sure. Some people can handle that. We got a lot of them in the chat in the comments every week. Yes, right. Steady hands. I see what people are talking about there. Yeah, we got a lot of diamond hands. Yeah. All right. If you're in the chat, leave us a question, leave us a comment, leave us a review. What else? Check out idontshop.com for all your compound merch needs. Send us an email, askthecompoundshow at gmail.com, and we will see you next time. Thanks, everyone. See you, everyone. Thank you.