Investor Collins Says Homeownership Traps Capital, Urges Index Funds

投资人柯林斯：买房套牢资金，力荐指数基金 连续投资人 JL Collins 认为，购买自住房会将资金锁定在无收益资产中；他主张量入为出，并将结余资金投资于宽基指数基金，以此获得远更充分的长期财务自由。 JL Collins 阐释了实现财务自由的核心原则：远离债务、量入为出，并将结余资金积极投入 VTSAX 等低成本指数基金。他打破传统认知，将拥有自住房视为一种昂贵的个人消费而非必然积累财富的途径，并强调租房能提供灵活性与更低的基准风险。柯林斯还剖析了财富积累过程中的心理障碍，解释了“F-You Money”如何赋予个人职场自主权，以及为何在长期投资成功中，情绪自律远比择时或选股更为关键。 真正的财富积累建立在三大支柱之上：避免债务、量入为出并将结余积极投入股票市场；将大量资金用于购买自住房往往是一种昂贵的个人消费而非高效的投资手段，房贷支出只是居住成本的起跑线而非上限。 (0:00) “F-You Money”并非达成彻底退休后的专属特权，而是从储蓄初期就逐步建立的财务缓冲，能让个体在遭遇有毒职场或不良环境时具备随时离开的底气与议价能力。 (14:10) 是否提前偿还房贷取决于利率水平：若房贷利率低于 3.5%，应保留廉价资金并将现金流投入市场；若利率高于 6%，则应优先清偿以锁定等同于该利率的确定性无风险回报。 (38:30) 长期投资成功的核心在于克服恐惧与贪婪并避免频繁微调，长期坚持低成本指数基金的被动投资者往往能在回报上击败频繁交易、试图择时的主动投机者。 (48:30)

Author JL Collins argues that true financial independence requires stripping wealth-building down to avoiding debt, living below one's means, and investing surpluses into broad-market index funds rather than primary real estate or speculative assets. Rethinking Homeownership as an Indulgence (15:50) Collins challenges the conventional belief that homeownership is the premier vehicle for building wealth, arguing instead that a primary residence operates as an expensive lifestyle indulgence. Purchasing a home locks up capital in a non-earning asset and subjects owners to uncapped variable expenses such as property taxes, landscaping, and sudden maintenance costs like roof or septic replacements. Collins notes that while monthly rent acts as a ceiling on living costs for a lease term, a mortgage payment merely represents the absolute cost floor. Furthermore, lenders and brokers profit by pushing buyers to borrow the maximum possible amount, often causing individuals to purchase from a position of financial vulnerability. Beyond carrying costs, homeownership reduces career mobility during critical early professional years, imposing steep transaction fees and agent commissions when selling or leaving. Host Steven Bartlett cites historical economic shifts reinforcing this dynamic: since 1980, United States home prices have grown over 300%, while median wages grew roughly 15% between 2000 and 2023, during which home prices doubled and mortgage rates rose above 7%. While Collins acknowledges the valid psychological benefits of ownership for personal security, he maintains it should never be mistaken for a wealth-building engine. The Three Pillars of Financial Independence (25:20) Collins summarizes his financial formula into three basic rules: avoid consumer debt, live on less than you earn, and invest the remaining surplus. Personal debt functions as an ongoing impediment to financial progress; when eliminating it, Collins recommends an avalanche approach that directs all excess funds toward the debt carrying the highest interest rate while paying minimums on the rest. The frugality and behavioral discipline developed while eliminating debt directly prepare an individual to accumulate capital once those redirected funds are deployed into productive assets. Achieving independence requires rejecting cultural assumptions that equate money purely with consumption. Collins advocates viewing capital through the lens of what it can earn, purchasing personal freedom and work optionality rather than consumer goods. By redirecting up to 50% of income toward investments, an individual accumulates leverage—often termed "F-You Money." Collins references the 4% safe withdrawal rule established by Bill Bengen and the Trinity Study, which posits that an individual achieves financial independence when their invested portfolio equals 25 times their annual living expenditures, allowing for sustainable withdrawals without eroding principal over decades. Broad Index Funds and Fundamental Value (81:13) For wealth accumulation, Collins rejects stock picking, speculative trading, and sector timing in favor of low-cost, broad-based index funds such as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX). Because broad index funds are market-capitalization weighted, they function as self-cleansing mechanisms: expanding companies naturally claim larger allocations in the portfolio, while dying corporate giants—such as historic retail leader Sears—steadily shrink and drop out without requiring active management or forecasting from the investor. To explain asset pricing, Collins uses the analogy of a glass of beer. The liquid represents the fundamental value of a business, including sales, earnings, and cash flow, whereas the foam on top represents speculative market sentiment, emotional hype, and short-term trading momentum. Collins warns that trading courses, day trading, and sector-specific bets operate solely within the volatile foam. Over short horizons, equity markets fluctuate wildly, but over 10- to 20-year horizons, broad-market equities consistently outpace inflation and compound capital, provided investors do not panic-sell during routine market downturns. Status Traps, Lifestyle Inflation, and Relational Risk (109:20) Collins and Bartlett emphasize that absolute income does not determine wealth accumulation. High-earning professionals frequently succumb to the "tyranny of the must-haves," inflating their living standards to match societal expectations through luxury cars, elite neighborhoods, and private schools, leaving them effectively broke. Conversely, modest earners living within modest means can build substantial portfolios because they remain unburdened by competitive consumption. Bartlett notes that purchases aimed at signaling status, such as luxury sports cars, typically fail because observers evaluate the vehicle as a reflection of their own ego rather than admiring the driver. Beyond day-to-day spending habits, personal relationships represent major structural financial decisions. Bartlett points to high-net-worth divorces where protracted litigation and disputing asset valuations drain substantial wealth into legal fees. Citing legal expert James Sexton, Bartlett notes that every marriage involves a prenuptial agreement—either one deliberately negotiated by the couple or the default arrangement imposed by the state. Aligning explicitly on savings rates and long-term values prior to marriage serves as an indispensable safeguard for lasting financial autonomy. Collins maintains that personal finance requires behavioral discipline rather than complex strategies, arguing that broad-market investing buys personal autonomy over time. However, the framework assumes investors possess the psychological endurance to withstand severe market downturns without selling, as well as the initial cash-flow flexibility to save significant portions of their income.

投资畅销书作者JL Collins与主持人Steven Bartlett指出，传统的购房观念与消费主义倾向往往会削弱个人财务健康与职业流动性，真正的财务独立取决于避免债务、量入为出并将资金投入低成本宽基指数基金，其核心目的在于购买时间与自主权，而非积累消费符号。 住房属性重塑：自住房是消费而非投资 (15:50) JL Collins向青年群体提出颠覆性建议，主张推迟或审慎对待购买自住房。他解释称，金融机构与地产中介的商业模式本质上是鼓励买家借贷至杠杆极限，从而将大量本金沉淀于无法产生收益的固定不动产中。大众通常将房贷月供与租金对标，但Collins强调，房贷支出仅仅是居住开销的“最低门槛”，后续必然伴随结构修缮、设施更新、财产税以及大额意外维护（如屋顶翻修或排污改造）等隐形成本；相反，租金则是合同期内居住成本的“最高上限”。此外，过早背负房贷会成为职业地理迁移的沉重锚链，显著剥夺年轻人在不同城市追逐高回报机遇的灵活性。 Steven Bartlett引用宏观统计印证了当下购房环境的严峻性：自1980年以来，美国房价涨幅超过300%，远高于工资与通胀增幅；自2000年起，家庭收入中位数仅增长约15%，同期房价却翻倍有余；加之2023年抵押贷款利率升破7%，购房门槛处于历史高位。Collins据此澄清，他并非一味反对住房，但主张应将自住房定义为昂贵的“生活享受”，购房者必须在资金宽裕的强势财务节点再行购买，切忌将其误作累积财富的投资工具。 消费主义心理反思与债务清理逻辑 (25:20) Collins将积累财富的底层框架概括为“避免债务、量入为出并投资结余”。他分析认为，主流文化常将金钱狭隘定义为“能买到何种商品”（如汽车、手表与房产），促使人们在追求外部认同的享乐水车上疲于奔命；而真正的财富思维则关注金钱“能赚取多少收益”，用资金换取不必出卖劳动的自由。Collins指出，阻碍大众财务独立的主要障碍在于把非必要的高端开销视为绝对刚需的“必需品暴政”。他回顾自己在职业早期便坚持将50%的收入直接配置于生息资产，明确主张节制消费绝非剥夺生活乐趣，而是把资金优先用于购买无价的个人自由。 Bartlett结合早年在呼叫中心任职时透支薪资购买电视等大件消费品随后亏损变现的经历，剖析了以消费掩饰自卑心理的普遍误区。Collins则补充指出，驾驶跑车等炫耀性消费极易陷入心理错觉，因为路人关注的仅是豪车本身而非车主。在个人债务处置上，Collins推荐“债务雪崩法”，即维持其他债务的底线偿付，集中一切现金流全力结清利率最高的债务；而偿债过程中形成的极简与节制习惯，恰恰构成了后续转向资产积累的底层能力。通过比较年薪百万却因消费膨胀破产的金融高管与年薪不足40,000美元却达成财务独立的高中好友，Collins说明控制开支远比名义收入水平更能决定财务结局。 指数投资机制与穿越波动的心理纪律 (81:13) 在资产配置路径上，Collins主张个人投资者应长期持有低成本、宽基股票指数基金，并以涵盖约3,600家上市公司的先锋领航全市场指数基金（VTSAX）为例。该类指数采用市值加权结构，自带动态优胜劣汰的“自净”功能：当历史巨头（如20世纪70年代建造世界最高摩天大楼的零售霸主Sears）失去竞争优势时，其在指数中的权重会自动收缩，并被沃尔玛或亚马逊等高效崛起的新兴力量所取代。针对近年纳斯达克100指数年化约20%回报引发的科技股偏好，Collins警示不同经济板块的领先地位存在几十年的长周期轮动，持有全市场指数无需押注特定赛道即可自动分享整体经济的生产力演进。 Collins以“啤酒与泡沫”的比喻阐述了金融资产的定价构成：啤酒代表公司的业务基本面（营业收入、现金流与真实盈利），而泡沫则反映由市场情绪、投机跟风和短线炒作推升的溢价。财经媒体与炒作课程往往过度放大泡沫的上下翻腾，短线交易实质上等同于赌博。Bartlett以2020年3月疫情初期亚马逊股价遭遇恐慌抛售随后迅速翻倍为例，指出非理性止损会把账面波动固化为不可挽回的实质亏损。Collins总结称，股市在短期内充满高波动与不可测性，但在10至20年的长周期中依然是创造财富最强劲的工具，投资成功的核心在于克制恐慌心理，在市场动荡中坚守仓位。 复利增长法则与全周期资产配置 (55:00) 复利增长在长期时间维度上呈现急剧攀升的非线性特征。Bartlett通过推算指出，若每月定投500美元并维持8%的年化复合回报率，35年间累积资产可突破1,043,000美元，其中实际本金投入仅约200,000美元，超过840,000美元均源自资产增值与分红累积。围绕财务独立的退出机制，Collins梳理了源于Bill Bengen及三一研究（Trinity Study）的“4%安全提取法则”：当投资者储备的生息资产达到其年度生活预算的25倍时（例如年支出100,000美元对应2,500,000美元资产组合），每年提取4%可在长周期内大概率维持资金不枯竭。 在不同资产与负债的管理上，Collins依据利率阈值划定界限：房贷利率低于3.5%时资金成本极低，应保留借贷并将现金流投入指数基金；房贷利率高于6.0%时，提前还贷则等同于锁定无风险的固定收益；处于3.5%至5.5%之间则取决于投资者的个人风险偏好。对于债券的作用，Collins澄清债券的核心职能是抑制投资组合的短期波动，而非长线财富增值；长期来看债券面临持续被通胀蚕食购买力的风险，而股票虽短期剧烈震荡，长期看却因战胜通胀而具备实质安全性。此外，401(k)等税收递延账户能在前期凭借未扣税资金放大复利基数，但投资者需明确其本质是延后缴税而非免税。 访谈最后，Collins从75岁的人生回溯中指出，在浩瀚的宇宙时空尺度下，个体存在并不附带客观赋予的终极意义，但这种客观无意义性反而赋予了人们自主定义生活目的与行为选择的自由。金钱与指数投资并非人生终点，而是为个人争取行动自由、免受外部压迫的生活工具。不过，该讨论对指数复利与4%提取原则的推崇高度建立在过去长期资本市场回报率的历史惯性之上，并未深入展开极端宏观滞胀或不可逆经济结构转变对传统资产配置模型的潜在制约。

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 知名播客频道 The Diary Of A CEO（主持人为 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 1 月 12 日发布。节目邀请了畅销书《简单的致富之路》作者兼资深投资者 JL Collins，深入探讨为什么租房往往比买房更明智、如何利用“F-You Money”换取人生自由、指数基金长期投资法则以及如何破除债务与消费主义陷阱。 ## TL;DR JL Collins 系统拆解了实现财务自由（FI）的底层逻辑，核心主张“远离债务、量入为出并将结余投入低成本宽基指数基金”。他颠覆性地指出买房本质上是昂贵的自我放纵而非最佳投资，高额房贷与维护成本会锁死流动性并剥夺年轻人的灵活性；真正的财富积累并非为了炫耀性消费，而是为了换取对时间的绝对掌控权。对话还剖析了复利的曲棍球棒效应、4% 安全提取法则、税收递延账户机制，并通过“啤酒与泡沫”的比喻阐明股票市场价格与内在价值的关系。尾声部分跨越了纯财务探讨，触及婚姻财产分配、未能陪伴父亲临终的深层遗憾以及面对死亡与虚无时的豁达人生观。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在深刻的理财哲学与动人的生命反思之间自然流转，既有抽丝剥茧的硬核数据推演，又充满睿智温和的人生沉淀。75 岁的 JL Collins 嗓音沉稳宁静、自带疗愈感，与 Steven Bartlett 敏锐真诚、直面自身过往创伤的提问风格相得益彰，金币与啤酒的实物比喻更让现场探讨生动鲜活。当话题从冷冰冰的复利计算急转直下，谈到临终病榻前错失的父爱对话与存在的虚无时，空气中弥漫着直击心灵的厚重与释然，带给听众一种如释重负的顿悟感与温情抚慰。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=0s) JL Collins 提出实现财务自由的极简三原则：远离债务、量入为出并投资结余，倡导在年轻积累期将收入的 50% 用于投资，通过买入生息资产在 10 至 15 年内“赎买个人自由”。 - [15:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=946s) 破除买房稳赚神话：买房是日常生活开支的最低起点而非上限，不仅占用流动资本和复利机会，还伴随高昂的税费、维修成本与职业流动性损失，自住房本质上应被视作昂贵的自我放纵而非理财投资。 - [01:19:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4791s) 指数基金凭借市值加权与“自我净化”机制自动淘汰衰退巨头、放大新生赢家，配合“啤酒（底层商业利润）与泡沫（投机情绪）”心智模型，投资者应以 10 至 20 年的超长周期持有全市场指数（如 VTSAX）并克制频繁交易。 - [55:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3300s) 财务独立的核心评估基准为“4% 安全提取法则”：当总投资资产达到年度生活开支的 25 倍时即可宣告达成自由，资本体量的达标与否完全取决于消费水准而非收入绝对值。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=0s) 通往财富的极简大道由三大支柱构成：远离一切消费性负债、生活支出始终小于收入、将所有结余资金投入股票指数基金。 - [02:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=146s) 金钱的本质功能不只是交换物质消费品，普通人更应将其视为“自由的赎金”，通过购买生息资产摆脱受制于雇主的现代劳工奴役。 - [08:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=488s) 低需求即是自由的底牌：正如僧人与大臣的寓言所示，学会过清贫极简的生活，就无需再向权力和世俗卑躬屈膝，“必需品”越少，财务自由越快。 - [14:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=850s) “F-You Money”并非必须等到彻底退休才具备的终极状态，而是一个渐进积累的防御力量，几万至几十万美元的储备就能让人从容拒绝有毒工作。 - [15:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=946s) 买房往往推高生活成本并锁死流动资本：房贷仅仅是居住开销的最低门槛，后续维护开支不可控，且沉重摩擦成本会严重限制年轻人的职场迁徙与发展机遇。 - [31:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1878s) 债务清偿应采取“数学最优法”：在维持其他负债最低还款的前提下，集中所有现金流优先粉碎利率最高的一笔债务，以此获取最高的确定性无风险回报。 - [39:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2358s) 面对房贷与投资的选择，利率水平是决定性标尺：低于 3.5% 的低息贷款无需提前还清，应保留资金用于长期投资；而高于 6% 的房贷提前还清等同于锁定稳固的无风险高回报。 - [46:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2784s) 短期来看股票极具波动性且从未安全过，但在 10 至 20 年的长周期尺度下，股市是人类历史上创造的最强大、最可靠的财富积累机器。 - [52:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3159s) 投资中最致命的错误是频繁操作打断复利，女性之所以在长期回报上超越男性，核心原因在于较少盲目交易和择时折腾，“忘记账户密码”反而是种超能力。 - [55:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3300s) 依据 4% 法则，个人的财务独立仅由“支出与资产的比例”决定：年开销的 25 倍即为安全目标，年花销 10 万美元只需 250 万美元资产即可无忧维系。 - [01:06:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4015s) 复利遵循前缓后急的“曲棍球棒曲线”：每月定投 500 美元按 8% 复合回报率计算，35 年内仅需投入 21 万美元本金即可滚存出超过 100 万美元的巨额资产。 - [01:08:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4083s) 未成年人打工起即可设立 Roth IRA，通过数十年的免税增长建立庞大财富；同时善用 401(k) 等雇主匹配与税前递延机制，在年轻高税率与退休低税率之间赚取利差。 - [01:19:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4791s) 全市场指数基金（如 VTSAX）具备不可替代的“自我净化”功能，无需猜测亚马逊或西尔斯谁会胜出，市值加权机制会自动优胜劣汰，并稳健捕获科技等全行业红利。 - [01:27:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=5259s) “啤酒与泡沫”形象揭示股市定价：啤酒是企业的营运利润与基本面，泡沫是情绪与投机溢价；坚守底层啤酒、忽视短期泡沫并拒绝购买致富交易课程是长胜之道。 - [01:41:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6073s) 传统理财顾问按管理资产规模（AUM）收费存在严重利益冲突，例如客观建议客户取出资金还房贷会导致顾问自身佣金直接减半，散户应警惕此类中介盲区。 - [01:49:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6561s) 高薪并不必然带来财务自由，由于陷入社会阶层攀比陷阱，年入百万的金融精英同样可能濒临破产，而普通工薪阶层凭借自律储蓄更能稳稳达成财务独立。 - [01:55:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6913s) 伴侣选择与婚前协议具有深远的财务影响：富豪在漫长的离婚诉讼中面临数年拉锯、承担天价律师费与被迫清仓原始股份引发的高额资本利得税。 - [02:07:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7659s) 积极虚无主义与人生哲理：在宏观宇宙尺度下个体本就微不足道，人生没有预设的宏大意义，善待他人、享受旅程并掌控仅有的一次生命便已足够。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=0s) 破除买房神话与财富的真正捷径 JL Collins 在开篇抛出了一个极具争议但对想要年轻时实现财务自由至关重要的观点：**如果你的人生目标是早早实现财务独立，千万别急着去买房**。在现实生活中，绝大多数人买下的都是他们根本负担不起的房子。银行之所以极力鼓励贷款购房，是因为这是银行赚取巨额利润的核心方式。购房者将宝贵的本金死死锁在砖瓦水泥之间，这些资金非但无法产生主动收益，反而陷入沉睡。许多人会自我安慰：“反正我的房贷跟以前交的房租差不多，买房总比替房东还贷强。”但他们忽略了一个残酷的现实——**房贷仅仅是持有房产的最低起跑线**，后续还有无穷无尽的税费、维修和维护成本。 当被问及如何真正实现财务富足时，JL Collins 归纳了《简单的致富之路》（*The Simple Path to Wealth*）的三大核心原则： 1. **远离债务**：身上背负债务的人，永远无法体会真正的财务自由。 2. **量入为出，支出永远小于收入**：现代消费主义文化潜移默化地规训我们，让人误以为金钱的唯一价值就是“消费”；但一个人生活中的“必需品”越多，他离富有的距离就越远。 3. **将结余资金用于投资**：股票市场是人类文明迄今为止创造的最强大、最高效的财富积累工具。 很多人对此提出质疑，认为年薪 10 万、20 万甚至 30 万美元的高收入阶层才能践行这套法则。JL Collins 断然否定了这种推论，并举出了身边的真实例子：他有一位朋友年入高达 100 万美元，却落得身无分文的窘境。高收入人群更容易深陷“与邻里攀比”（Keeping up with the Joneses）的无休止内耗中；反观收入普通的人群，由于没有那么多虚荣社交圈的压力，反而更能静下心来执行财富积累策略。随后，主持人 Steven Bartlett 插入呼吁：常听节目的听众中有 53% 尚未点击订阅，如果大家希望团队能继续邀约顶尖嘉宾、带来更优质的内容，动动手指免费订阅就是对节目最大的支持。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 传统消费主义陷阱与简单致富之路对比 accDescr: 对比高收入高消费的债务陷阱与低需求高结余的财务自由路径。 subgraph Trap["消费主义债务陷阱"] A["高收入 / 工资流入"] --> B["过度攀比与高额房贷"] B --> C["本金沉淀于不动产与利息"] C --> D["沦为薪水奴隶，陷入月光困境"] end subgraph Freedom["简单的致富之路"] E["赚取收入"] --> F["降低必需品开支，量入为出"] F --> G["严控债务，积累剩余资本"] G --> H["投入股票指数基金"] H --> I["资产自行增值，赎买人生自由"] end ``` --- ### [02:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=146s) 撰写《简单的致富之路》的初衷与金钱思维认知偏差 JL Collins 谈及他那部畅销全球数百、影响无数人的经典著作《简单的致富之路》，坦言这本书原本并不是为了出版而写的商业书籍，而是源自他的个人博客。当年开博的真正动力，是想为自己的女儿建立一个系统化的理财档案库，把人生必须懂得的金钱智慧毫无保留地留给她。他坚信，只要一个人把金钱这道题算明白了，整个人生的自由度和质量都会成倍提升，拥有更多自主选择的权利。这个世界为拥有资产的人敞开了无尽的精彩与可能，但对身无分文的人却极其苛刻，没有财务依靠的生活会比原本能够达到的状态艰难百倍。 谈及大众对金钱最普遍的盲区与认知误区，JL Collins 指出他在书中专门写了一章《如何看待金钱》（How to Think About Money）。大部分人在消费主义文化的长期洗脑下，思考金钱的唯一维度就是：**“这笔钱能买到什么好东西？”** 比如近期奖池飙升到 10 亿美元的彩票，如果去街头采访排队买彩票的普通人中大奖后打算干嘛，得到的答案几乎千篇一律：“先还清信用卡和房贷，给父母买大别墅，给自己买一辆兰博基尼，然后疯狂买买买……” 金钱确实具有强大的交换职能，但普通人极少意识到金钱的另一项核心超能力：**让钱为你工作，钱生钱**。除了日复一日出卖体力、时间和脑力去换取薪水之外，人们完全可以将一部分劳动所得转化为投资资本。JL Collins 将这一过程定义为**“赎买你的自由”**。一旦转变这种底层思维模式，从“我的钱能买什么物质”切换到“我的钱能赚来多少收益和自由”，人生轨迹就会彻底改变。 --- ### [04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=297s) 购买自由：摆脱“劳工奴役”与创伤驱动的人生抉择 JL Collins 进一步阐述了为什么必须把金钱重新定义为“自由的赎金”。只要一个人完全依赖用自己的时间、精力和劳动力去换取生活费，他就不得不永远顺从于那个给他发工资的人。不客气地说，这本质上就是一种现代形式的“劳工奴役”。背着房贷、房租和日常账单生活，每个月在薪水之间疲于奔命，人的自主性便被彻底剥夺。相反，当工作变成一种“可选选项”而非“生存刚需”时，真正的自由才开始降临。他指着主持人 Steven 说道：“你就是一个典型的成功样本。你今天坐在这里做这档播客，绝对不是为了糊口赚钱；如果你还在某家公司苦哈哈地打卡上班，为了交房贷和填饱肚子疲于奔命，你根本不可能有余裕坐在演播室做你真正热爱的事。” Steven 对此深有感触。他回忆起自己早年在呼叫中心当客服、打电话推销产品的日子。当时在英国他是四周领一次薪水（美国多为两周一付），每到发薪日的头一周就把钱花得精光，剩下的三周只能在拮据和痛苦中死撑。Steven 反思自己当年之所以敢冒着极大的风险从大学退学去创业、在身无分文的绝境中破釜沉舟，并不是因为理智的财务规划，而是源于内心深处的某种“不安全感、自卑感与心理创伤”（chip on the shoulder）。他当时极度渴望自我证明，连个 Plan B 都没有，仿佛是被创伤逼着在悬崖边孤注一掷。 JL Collins 深表认同，指出纵观社会上许多取得卓越成就的精英，其成长背景中往往伴随着不同程度的童年创伤或匮乏感。这些过去的痛苦转化成了一股必须出人头地、向世界证明自己的狂热驱力。但与此同时，他也见过另一类人——他们童年幸福和睦，在生活中毫无宏大野心，只要能获得基本的财务独立、过上安逸舒适的小日子就心满意足，完全不想去改变世界。 --- ### [08:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=488s) 国王大臣与苦行僧的寓言：少欲即是自由 为了厘清物欲、野心与个人自由的平衡，JL Collins 提及了他在《简单的致富之路》开篇所讲述的那个经典寓言故事——**大臣与僧人**（The Monk and the Minister）： 有两个从小一起长大的儿时挚友，成人后各自选择了截然不同的人生旅途。 * 其中一位凭借着八面玲珑和精明才智，步入仕途，成为了侍奉国王身旁、权倾朝野且腰缠万贯的高级大臣； * 另一位则看破红尘，遁入空门，成了一名身披破烂袈裟、手托破碗在街头乞讨度日的苦行僧。 数十年后，两人在尘土飞扬的官道上偶遇。昔日好友重逢寒暄，大臣看着老友身着破衣烂衫、食不果腹的凄惨模样，心生怜悯，便居高临下地劝诫道： > “我的老朋友啊，**如果你能学会去迎合国王，你就用不着整天靠白米饭和豆子度日了。**” 身处清贫中的僧人平静地看着满身绫罗绸缎的大臣，淡淡地回应道： > “我的老朋友，**如果你能学会过以白米饭和豆子度日的生活，你也用不着成天去卑躬屈膝地迎合国王了。**” JL Collins 感慨，在现实生活中，他自己的底色其实更偏向于那位淡泊寡欲的僧人。他从来都不是一个物欲横流的人，即使过着极其简朴的生活也能感到自得其乐。人活在世上，**降低自己的物质需求本身就是一种极具解脱感的强大力量**——所求越少，需要向世俗低头的筹码就越少。 - **核心警句**：“If you could learn to cater to the king, you wouldn't have to live on rice and beans.” / “If you could learn to live on rice and beans, you wouldn't have to cater to the king.” - **生活哲理**：财富的终极形式不是占有更多的物质消耗品，而是对自身时间和行动享有百分之百的掌控权；降低维持生活的边际成本，是摆脱受制于人最立竿见影的捷径。 ### [09:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=573s) 财富与快乐的错位：为什么亿万富翁往往最不快乐 Steven 和 JL Collins 深入探讨了金钱与幸福感之间复杂的心理关联。Steven 观察到，尽管他私下也认识极少数既富裕又真正快乐的人，但他认识的最富有的人——尤其是那些身家数以十亿美元计的超级富豪——反而是最不快乐的一个群体。促使他们走向极致成功的动力往往源自某种创伤、根深蒂固的不安全感，或是对自我价值和攀比认可的病态执念；而当他们终于登上顶峰时，这些心魔非但没有消失，反而在高处继续折磨着他们。相比之下，那些能够过得充实淡定的富人，往往在心理上与自己的财富和物质资产保持着一段健康的“距离”（psychic distance），不让身外之物定义自己。 Steven 分享了自己的亲身经历：在 25 岁之前，他一直笃定地认为，只要能买下一辆路虎揽胜运动版（Range Rover Sport），自己的人生就会彻底幸福起来。然而当他真正提车的那一刻，随之而来的巨大幻灭感（anticlimax）令他震惊不已，现实仿佛被瞬间扭曲。正是这次经历让他重新校准了心智，以至于后来走进自己在洛杉矶的新居时，他提前给自己做足了心理预设：这栋豪宅对提升自己的幸福感“不会产生哪怕一丝一毫的影响”。这种降低预期的做法反而让他真正享受并感激所拥有的一切。 JL Collins 对此深表赞同，指出物质主义的核心悲剧在于把幸福寄托在“终点线”而非“旅程”本身。很多人总觉得“如果我能买到那块大师定制的复杂名表，我就会快乐”，可一旦真正到手，新鲜感转瞬即逝，随之而来的只有空虚和“下一个目标是什么”的焦虑。正如智者所言，金钱绝不会改变一个人的本质，它只会“放大你原本的模样”（Money magnifies who you are）。一个内心痛苦的人即使坐拥金山，也依然是个痛苦的人。JL Collins 举例提到，他平生所见过最快乐的一个人，个人财务状况堪称一塌糊涂、是一场彻头彻尾的灾难，但对方却每天都无比开朗，因为他的快乐从来不建立在金钱之上。金钱的真正价值在于赋予你更宽广的“选择权”（options），如果你能利用这些选择去追求真正热爱的事业，幸福才会随之而来。 ### [12:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=778s) 摆脱贫困的心理红利：消除不幸，而非直接购买幸福 面对这种哲学式的反思，Steven 提出了一个非常现实的角度：对于那些正深陷贫困泥潭的人来说，追求财富依然是不可阻挡的本能冲动。他引用了一句颇有哲理的话：“赚到大钱，比放弃‘有钱就会快乐’这个执念要容易得多。”一个人如果不曾真正变得富有，就永远无法在心底彻底放下对金钱能买来幸福的幻想，总会忍不住去猜想“要是我有钱了会不会完全不同”。 回顾自己初出茅庐的贫困岁月，Steven 坦言当时的大脑几乎被无休止的生存恐惧所吞噬：法警催债的信件、刷爆的信用卡账单、下一顿饭在哪里的焦虑，以及因为囊中羞涩而无法参加朋友聚会的自卑。每天清晨 8 点他就得起床，徒步一个半小时前往呼叫中心打工，生活的全部意义都被“缺乏自由”所绑架。因此，财富的积累在现实层面上最大的功劳并非直接带来快乐，而是“消除了导致不幸的根源”（removed the unhappiness）。JL Collins 极为赞同这一点，指出金钱本身或许不能直接催生幸福，但身处现代社会，极度缺钱所带来的折磨是毁灭性的。 ### [14:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=850s) 重新定义“F-You Money”：通往财务自由途中的力量积蓄 随后，Steven 引入了大众津津乐道的“F-You Money”概念。通常的世俗定义将其解释为：一个人拥有了足够多的钱，以至于下半生完全无需工作也能过得优渥，从而获得对任何不顺眼的人或事（比如有毒的老板、讨厌的岗位、违背自身价值观的要求）直接甩脸说“滚蛋”（F you）的绝对底气。 JL Collins 对此给出了一个更为深刻且具启发性的修正。他认为这个传统定义描述的其实是“终极财务自由”（Financial Independence），而他眼中的“F-You Money”是一个贯穿始终的“渐进力量”。就像健美运动员不必等到站在奥林匹亚舞台上夺冠那一刻才算拥有力量一样——从你第一次走进健身房举起杠铃、从你存下并投资第一笔积蓄开始，你的财务体魄就变得比昨天强壮了一点。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: F-You Money 与财务自由的演进阶段 accDescr: 展示从刚开始储蓄投资获得部分选择权，逐步发展到彻底无需工作的终极财务独立过程。 subgraph Phase1["初级力量：防御与缓冲"] A["开始储蓄与指数投资"] --> B["数月生活费储备<br/>（敢于拒绝无理要求）"] end subgraph Phase2["进阶力量：F-You Money 阶段"] B --> C["数年生活开支积累<br/>（随时辞去有毒工作，从容再就业）"] end subgraph Phase3["终极自由：财务独立"] C --> D["彻底财务自由<br/>（资产被动收益覆盖全部生活开支）"] end ``` 这种随着时间逐渐累积的力量，早在你彻底不用工作之前，就已经赋予了你非同寻常的自由度。哪怕你目前的储蓄还不足以让你退休，但它足以支持你毫不犹豫地辞掉一份折磨身心的有毒工作，让你拥有在数月甚至数年内不必为生计惊慌失措、从容寻找更好出路的资本。这就是“F-You Money”在每一个成长阶段赋予普通人的无形盾牌与底气。 ### [15:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=946s) 财富路上的最大陷阱：为什么买房往往让人更穷而不是更富 当谈到如果自己的女儿 Jessica 询问“想要变富，绝对不能碰什么”时，JL Collins 给出了一个颠覆主流认知的忠告：如果你的人生目标是在年轻时尽快实现财务自由，那么最应当极力避免的常规建议，就是去“买一套房子”。 买房之所以会严重阻碍年轻人的致富之路，核心原因在于它会戏剧性地推高你的日常生活成本（cost of living），并将本该用于投资增值的宝贵流动资本硬生生锁死在一块不会产生主动收益的砖头水泥里。整个房地产中介与借贷系统都在合谋诱导买家： - **诱导借贷至极限**：房产中介首先问你收入多少，银行则竭尽所能计算出你能承受的贷款上限。如果按照银行给的最高额度去买房，你是在把自己逼向财务脆弱的悬崖，纯粹是在给银行打工送利息。 - **空间膨胀引发消费陷阱**：买了更大的房子，就必须添置更多家具、升级高档家电、打理草坪景观。 - **翻修与维护无底洞**：JL Collins 坦言自己成年后大部分时间都在买房住，但他从未见过有谁买了房却不搞大修或翻新的。 - **固定支出变成不可控的浮动支出**：租房时，租金就是你每个月在居住上的“最高成本支出”（例如每月固定的 2,500 美元），在此期间你享有完全确定的预算；而一旦买房，哪怕每月房贷也是 2,500 美元，房贷仅仅是你各项开支的“最低起点”。一旦屋顶损坏需要更换，一笔 20,000 美元的账单就会毫无预警地砸下来。 | 居住开支对比维度 | 租住满足基本需求的公寓 | 购买自住房产 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **资本占用** | 仅需少量押金，多余现金全部投入指数基金利滚利 | 巨额首付被深度套牢，失去流动性与复利增值机会 | | **月度支出属性** | 确定性极高（每月固定租金，即该周期的支出上限） | 不可控的浮动支出（房贷仅是基础门槛） | | **隐藏突发开销** | 0（水管破裂、家电损坏均由房东负责修缮） | 极高（例如高达 20,000 美元的屋顶翻修、地税、维护费） | | **衍生消费压力** | 空间紧凑实用，无需添置多余装饰 | 产生填满更大空间的欲望，诱发家具升级与装修改造 | ### [18:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1132s) 买房是陷阱还是投资：意外支出与地域博弈 拥有房产的背后隐藏着大量无法预测的隐形成本。JL Collins 以自己度假小屋的亲身经历为例，他目前正面临必须更换化粪池系统（septic system）的窘境，这一下就得掏出整整 25,000 美元，而类似这种大笔开销往往会在毫无防备的情况下突然砸向房主。主持人 Steven Bartlett 深有同感地指出买房在很多时候就像一个“陷阱”（trap），坦言即便自己主持播客节目讨论商业理财，在现实中依然犯下了买房的“愚蠢错误”——他在海外购置了一处兼作度假用途的房产，但事后回想，这在机会成本上是个糟糕至极的决定，因为每次只要踏进那栋房子，映入眼帘的全都是需要花钱修改和维护的地方。 对于房地产长线增值的迷思，JL Collins 进一步指出，人们总喜欢拿少数极端的成功案例说事。例如二三十年前在旧金山买房的人，资产确实翻了数倍；但若是同一时期在底特律买房，结局就完全不同。尽管常有人事后诸葛亮地说“谁会去底特律买房，当然要买旧金山”，但现实世界充满了逆转与变数：如今旧金山正面临诸多棘手的社会与治理难题，而底特律近年来却在经历复兴。谁也无法断言再过二三十年，2025 年在底特律买房的人会不会被视为赢家，而旧金山的买家反而陷入泥潭。房产投资虽然有时会带来极其惊人的回报，人们也总对这种暴富故事津津乐道，但现实往往远没有那么美好。 --- ### [20:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1233s) 房产的心理影响与消费本质：昂贵的自我放纵 在探讨买房对生活品质的改变时，主持人念出了一条过往节目的高赞观众留言。该留言提到：“买房是我做过最棒的决定，它彻底拓展了我的思维格局。拥有属于自己的空间能带来深远的心理影响；对于那些曾生活在不健康家庭环境中的人而言，这足以改变一生。”对此，JL Collins 毫不吝啬地表达了赞同，认为对于那位留言者来说这完全是真实的，自己也绝非盲目“反买房”。事实上，他在成年后的大部分时光里都拥有自己的房子。 然而，JL Collins 强调了核心心智模型的本质区别：他买房从来不是为了投资，而仅仅是因为它能按照自己想要的方式提升生活品质。在他看来，房子从本质上讲就是一种**“昂贵的自我放纵”（expensive indulgence）**： - **积累财富的真正目的**：人们努力积累资产，本就是为了能享受某些自己热爱的昂贵事物；有人喜欢华服豪车，有人喜欢舒适的房产。 - **划清消费与投资的界限**：只要财务状况能轻松负担得起，去买一栋房子无可厚非，但绝不能自欺欺人地将其包装成理财投资工具。 --- ### [21:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1307s) 年轻世代的困局：流动性与职业生涯的机会成本 主持人随后列举了一组残酷的现实数据：过去买房确实是稳健的投资，得益于资产升值与低房贷利率；但对年轻一代而言，游戏规则彻底变了。自 1980 年以来，美国房价暴涨超过 300%，远远跑赢了通货膨胀和薪资增速；到了 2023 年，房贷利率突破 7%，大幅推高了月供；2000 年至今，中位数工资仅上涨约 15%，房价却翻了一倍以上；在各大核心城市中，租房成本已显著低于买房。除了财务重负，更致命的是丧失了“灵活性”（flexibility）。 主持人回忆起自己二十岁出头时，比他年长一岁、精通财务的哥哥就极力劝阻他买房，直言买房不仅是糟糕的投资，更会扼杀随时拔腿就走的自由。年轻时的职业生涯处于瞬息万变的跃升期，今天可能还在普利茅斯，下周就可能因为曼彻斯特、伦敦甚至旧金山和纽约抛出的巨大商业机遇而搬迁。如果身上背着房贷，心理上就会产生沉重的锚定效应与负罪感，总觉得离开会让房子闲置产生双重花销，从而不敢追逐跨国发展的机遇。 JL Collins 完全赞同这一观点，并分享了他女儿的故事。他的女儿虽在萨凡纳（Savannah）定居了三年，但她天性热爱冒险，随时可能萌生去欧洲或其他国家生活的念头。一旦买了房，这种探索人生的选择就会被严重束缚： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 搬迁决策与房产交易成本 accDescr: 对比租房与买房在面对人生流动与机遇时的转换成本与心理负担 subgraph 租房状态 R1["获得异地或海外发展机会"] --> R2["退租并搬迁"] R2 --> R3["损失极小<br/>(仅押金或零成本)"] end subgraph 买房状态 O1["获得异地或海外发展机会"] --> O2{"面临艰难处置抉择"} O2 -->|卖房| O3["承担巨额摩擦成本<br/>(中介佣金/交易税/时间)"] O2 -->|出租| O4["沦为被动房东<br/>(跨国打理/空置折损/维修纠纷)"] end ``` - **高昂的退出摩擦成本**：退掉租来的公寓干净利落，最多损失押金；但买卖一套房产伴随着庞大的中介佣金、交易税费和时间损耗，进出成本极高。 - **沦为被动房东（Accidental Landlord）**：若房子一时卖不掉而被迫出租，原本想追求自由的人便会被迫成为跨国房东，不得不面对租客维护等一地鸡毛的麻烦，这正是 JL Collins 第二本书专门探讨的噩梦情境。 --- ### [25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1520s) 财富的极简法则与“必须品暴政” 当被问及如果只能用一句话来概括通往财富的极简之路时，JL Collins 给出了标志性的金句法则： > **“远离债务，量入为出，投资结余。”** > *("Avoid debt, live on less than you earn, invest the surplus.")* 在深度剖析为什么把“远离债务”放在首位时，JL Collins 强调，背负个人债务（特别是消费贷、信用卡卡债、豪车租赁等）的人永远无法实现财务独立。债务就像是牢牢锁在脚踝上的铁球，或者像是在游泳运动员腰间绑上的一块铅块——戴着它或许也能勉强向前游，但过程会无比痛苦和艰难；想要财务自由，第一要务就是把它彻底轰碎（blow it out）。 很多人抱怨自己根本存不下钱来还债或投资，JL Collins 将这种心态归咎为**“必须品的暴政”（the tyranny of the must-haves）**： - **伪需求的绑架**：许多人坚称自己“必须”租赁两辆豪华轿车、“必须”住进昂贵的学区房、“必须”把孩子送进昂贵的私立学校。生活中的“必须品”越多，获得财务自由的概率就越低。 - **自由的价值高于一切消费**：JL Collins 强调，如何花钱纯属个人选择，但他自己从踏入职场的第一天起，就坚持将一半的收入抽调出来购买属于自己的自由。 - **重新定义“节衣缩食”**：大众总认为存钱投资是一种剥夺感（deprivation），但他从未感到被剥夺。他把自己赚到的“每一分钱都花光了”，只是他把其中整整一半的钱，花在了他最渴望拥有的终极奢侈品上——**通过拥有生息资产来买下自己的人生自由**。这就像选择开大众还是开奔驰：省下买豪车炫耀的资金，换来的是无拘无束的主导权，一切只取决于你把什么排在人生的第一位。 ### [28:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1723s) 用金钱购买终极资产：个人自由 JL Collins 非常清醒地意识到，即便许多人阅读了他的著作《简单的致富之路》（*The Simple Path to Wealth*），其中绝大多数人也并不会真正践行这套极简法则。消费主义文化的浪潮太过汹涌，无处不在地诱惑着人们把赚来的每一分钱挥霍一空。但他深信，哪怕只有少部分读者在翻阅书籍或听完播客后恍然大悟，明白金钱除了可以购买消费品之外，还能用来购买世界上最宝贵的东西——“个人自由”，这就足够了。通往这种自由的唯一途径就是不断买入能产生收益的资产。对 Collins 而言，不乱花钱从来不是痛苦的自我剥夺，因为这世上没有任何一件奢侈品，能比掌握自己人生的主动权更让他渴望。 ### [29:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1759s) 消费习惯与自尊的恶性循环：买电视与法拉利效应 主持人 Steven Bartlett 回顾起自己年轻时的荒唐岁月，坦言自己过去极难存下钱，因为花钱在当时与他的“自我价值感”和“自尊心”深度绑定。他分享了一段令人忍俊不禁却又发人深省的往事：当年他在斯温顿汽车保险公司（Swinton Insurance）的呼叫中心上班，发薪日拿到大约 1,500 到 2,000 英镑的工资，回家的路上便立刻冲动买下一台 60 英寸的巨幅电视机，甚至还盘算着剩下的钱够不够再添一台 PlayStation 游戏机。结果仅仅过了一周，当他发现自己身无分文、连基本生活都难以为继时，只能万分狼狈地把它们全部变卖。 Steven 直言这种行为在客观上“纯属发疯”，但它折射出一种真实的心理困境：许多人正是通过购买昂贵物品来获取多巴胺的即时奖赏，以此证明自己是一个成功体面的人，随后又在破产边缘苦苦挣扎。对此，JL Collins 引用了一个极具讽刺意味的“法拉利效应”作为呼应： > “当有人开着法拉利招摇过市，如果他买车是为了博人眼球，他心里大概会想：‘天哪，大家看着我，肯定都在想开法拉利的这家伙有多酷！’ 但事实上根本不是这样。路人看着那辆法拉利，心里想的其实是：‘哇，要是我开着那辆法拉利，我该有多酷啊！’ 他们根本不在乎开车的你是谁，你实际上并没有改变任何人对你的看法。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 消费买自尊的心理循环 accDescr: 展示因自卑而冲动消费、获得短暂多巴胺、陷入财务窘境并最终变卖资产的恶性循环 subgraph Trap["虚荣陷阱"] A["薪水到账 / 渴望认可"] --> B["购买奢侈品 / 大件消费"] B --> C["即时多巴胺快感与虚假自尊"] end subgraph Reality["财务现实"] C --> D["一周后账户见底 / 陷入破产"] D --> E["被迫变卖物品回笼资金"] E --> A end ``` ### [31:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1878s) 债务粉碎法：最高利率优先与习惯重塑 谈及债务危机，Steven 提到自己的一位儿时玩伴身负 40,000 美元的沉重债务，曾向他求助该如何破局。JL Collins 给出了一套不同于市场上常规建议（如雪球法）的方案：采取“数学最优”的策略，将所有债务列出来，找出其中贷款利率最高的一笔。除了对其他债务维持最低还款额以防违约外，将手头所有能动用的现金流集中全部火力，以最快速度把这笔最高利息的债务彻底消灭。在 Collins 看来，优先清偿高息债务是个人能获得的“最高投资回报率”。解决掉最高的一笔后，再将火力转向次高的债务，依次推进。 Collins 坦言，这绝非一条轻松的道路，还清债务的速度越快，过程就越痛苦，因为这意味着必须在生活方式上做出极具颠覆性的让步与削减。然而，这种严苛历练背后却孕育着极大的希望： - **坏消息**：短期内必须大幅压缩开支、降低生活水准，承受剧烈的财务阵痛。 - **好消息**：在与债务搏杀的过程中，你被迫建立起“收入大于支出”并把结余定向投入核心目标的极强自律。 - **财富跃迁**：一旦债务归零，这种已经融入本能的生活方式和现金流就能立刻无缝转化为积累资产、实现暴富的强劲引擎。 ### [33:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1981s) 鸵鸟心态与“靠赚大钱填坑”的认知陷阱 Steven 继续以“魔鬼代言人”的视角剖析自己 18、19 岁时的极度不成熟。当年他彻底搞砸了自己的信用评分，信箱里堆满了红色的催缴账单和失败警告信，但他却像鸵鸟一样选择视而不见，仿佛“只要不打开信封，债务就不存在”。这种逃避心理在社会上极为普遍，无论是面对身体异常拒绝体检，还是面对银行账户拒绝查账，社会因此背负了成百上千亿美元的额外负债。 更致命的是，Steven 当时抱有一种极其危险的赌徒心态：“我要赚到足够多的钱，让财富增长速度彻底碾压这些债务，以后再去收拾烂摊子。”JL Collins 一针见血地指出，这纯粹是受到说唱音乐或暴富神话洗脑后的侥幸幻想。在概率学上，这属于不折不扣的“鲁莽选择”： - **过程与结果的偏差**：即使某些人最终因为运气极好成功赚大钱翻盘，也绝不意味着当初的决策是正确的。 - **决策本质**：一个高风险、低胜率的决策，即便碰巧产生了良好结果，其本质依然是糟糕的决策。 ### [35:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2105s) 比特币是投资还是投机？ 顺着“坏选择碰上好运气”的话题，JL Collins 自然延伸到了比特币（Bitcoin）。尽管许多十年前买入比特币的投资者如今赚得盆满钵满，甚至跑赢了标普 500 指数，但他坚持认为这属于投机而非投资。当面对“十年前反对如今被打脸”的质疑时，Collins 坦诚承认在过去十年的涨幅上自己确实判断错误，但他强调投资永远不能依靠“后视镜”： > “问题从来不是比特币在过去十年表现如何，而是它在接下来的十年里会怎么走。现在的价格已经逼近每枚 100,000 美元，它还能像过去那样以令人眼红的速度继续暴涨吗？这是每个人必须扪心自问的问题。” 针对 Steven 提出的“价格暴涨即代表存在实际需求和效用”的观点，Collins 进行了理性的辩驳： - **无法充当真正货币**：比特币价格波动过于剧烈，无法承担日常交易中的货币职能；目前除了需要规避监管的灰色或非法活动愿意承受这种高波动外，它在现实中极难作为普通法币替代品普及。 - **投机属性与功能预期**：目前它本质上是一场关于未来价值的博弈。虽然方舟投资（ARK Invest）的凯茜·伍德（Cathie Wood）等人对比特币未来的生态功能深信不疑并大举建仓，但这依然建立在预期的基础上。 - **投资底线**：Collins 并不反对投机的存在，也不反对别人参与，但他强调投资者必须诚实面对自己——清楚知道自己是在“投资有坚实收益支撑的资产”，还是在“押注未来的投机博弈”。 ### [38:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2310s) 友人来信：面对 AI 颠覆与崩盘隐忧，该提前还贷还是投资？ 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）向 JL·柯林斯（JL Collins）分享了一条来自英国知名好友（也曾是本播客的座上宾）的私信求助。那位朋友在信息中写道：“如果手头有一笔大额闲置资金，同时背负着房贷，考虑到未来人工智能（AI）带来的冲击和潜在的股市崩盘风险，你究竟会选择提前大额还清房贷，还是拿去投资？我的直觉总觉得股票现在并不安全，我这是在杞人忧天吗？” 面对这种许多人在大环境动荡时都会产生的焦虑，柯林斯一针见血地指出，这个问题其实内含了两个完全独立的底层逻辑：第一，房贷到底该不该提前偿还？第二，在当下这个时代，投资股市究竟还算不算安全？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 资金抉择决策树 accDescr: 根据房贷利率与心理承受力决定是还贷还是投资股票 A["手头有一笔大额资金"] --> B{"房贷利率处于哪个区间？"} B -->|低于 3.5%| C["极低成本借贷：保留贷款，资金优先去投资"] B -->|高于 6.0%| D["锁定确定收益：优先还贷，等同获得无风险高回报"] B -->|介于 3.5% 至 6.0%| E{"个人的心理舒适度偏好"} E -->|追求更高潜在收益 / 能承受负债| C E -->|极其厌恶负债 / 追求无债一身轻| D ``` ### [39:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2358s) 利率高低决定还贷策略：数学逻辑与心理舒适度 柯林斯认为，房贷问题在纯数学层面上非常纯粹，完全取决于个人的贷款利率。利率本质上就是借钱的成本——当房贷利率处于 3% 到 3.5% 或更低水平时，这属于“极其廉价的资金（really cheap money）”。面对这样低息的资金，完全不需要急着去提前还清，大可以继续保留。 相反，如果房贷利率高达 6% 或更高，提前还贷就成了一种极具吸引力的投资。柯林斯解释说，当你还清一笔利率为 8% 的房贷时，你实际上是将那笔资金锁定在了“确定无疑的 8% 复合回报率”上，这在金融世界里是极为难得的无风险收益。而对于处于两者之间（大约 3.5% 到 5.5% 或 6%）的灰色地带，柯林斯给出的标准则是“情绪与心理上的舒适感”。 心理上的踏实感本身就具备极高的经济价值。如果一个人背着债务也能睡得安稳，并坚信自己在股市中能博取更高的长期回报，那就可以选择继续背负房贷去投资；但如果像柯林斯本人那样，心理上更倾向于完全没有任何债务负担，那么痛痛快快地把它还掉就是最佳选择。 ### [40:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2437s) 金币模型与房贷本质：利息与本金的 30 年消长 为了将抽象的利率与借贷机制彻底具象化，史蒂文提议用现场摆放的道具金币进行演示。柯林斯随即将自己比作手握一堆黄金的放贷人：史蒂文想借用其中 10 枚价值不菲的金币去买房，柯林斯虽然愿意借，但绝不会免费借出。“我借给你 10 枚金币，但我并没有喜欢你到可以让你免费使用的程度。借出资产必须获得回报，因此一年后你必须归还我 11 枚金币——多出来的这一枚金币，就是那 10% 的利息。” 史蒂文顺着这个思路追问：如果自己接受了这 10% 的利率去买下一栋价值 10 枚金币的房子，这是否意味着每年都要在总额上支付 10%？柯林斯随即拆解了 30 年期房屋抵押贷款（Amortization）的残酷真相： - **按月偿还的本质**：借款人每个月支付固定数额的月供，但月供内部的结构会随时间发生巨大转变。 - **前期几乎全在付利息**：在贷款周期的最初几年，月供中绝大部分金额都是付给银行的纯利息，只有极小的一小撮（a very tiny sliver）被用来削减最初借来的那 10 枚金币的本金。 - **后期的结构反转**：随着 30 年时间的推移与债务的不断消减，利息占比越来越少，冲抵本金的比例逐渐占据绝大部分，直至 30 年期限届满还清所有本金。而在这漫长的 30 年间，借款人实际已经向金融机构拱手奉上了极其庞大惊人的利息总额。 ### [42:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2543s) 房贷利率如何形成：美联储、通胀预期与历史视角 针对史蒂文提出的“如何才能拿到极低房贷利率”以及“当前是否应该苦等利率回落再买房”，柯林斯指出了宏观利率与通胀的底层逻辑。个人借款人最终支付的房贷成本，本质上是由宏观经济环境决定的：美联储（Fed）作为政府机构设定基准利率，虽然美联储并不直接强制商业银行的具体定价，但其政策导向会深刻牵动银行与抵押贷款机构的资金成本。 借贷的核心考量是通胀预期。如果出借人借出 10 枚金币要求还 11 枚（10% 收益），但当年的实际通货膨胀率高达 15%，那么放贷人实质上是在倒亏做赔本买卖。因此，放贷机构必须将未来的通胀预期全面计入借贷利率中。买房者虽然可以通过“货比三家”寻找不同贷款机构，但由于机构间的资金成本与通胀模型大同小异，不同银行之间顶多只有八分之一（0.125%）或四分之一（0.25%）个百分点的微小差距，普通人很难单凭个人能力拿到明显优于市场均值的神仙利率。 史蒂文回顾了过去二十余年的极端波动： - 2000 年代初期利率相对较高，在 2006 年为了抑制通胀一度攀升至近 7%。 - 2008 年全球金融危机后，多国央行为了挽救经济将基准利率大幅削减至接近 0%，并在长达近十年的时间里维持在历史超低位。 - 新冠疫情（COVID-19）暴发后，美联储再次将利率重手打压至 0% 到 0.25% 区间以抵御经济下行。 对于普通人是否应该苦苦等待超低利率时代重临再买房，柯林斯的回答是斩钉截铁的“绝没必要”： - **利率与市场同样无法预测**：人们常说预测股市走向难如登天，而准确预测未来的宏观利率走向甚至比预测股市还要困难得多。 - **买房的真正评判基准**：买房与否永远应该建立在“你当下是否能轻松负担得起”以及“它是否恰好符合你当前的人生阶段与居住需求”之上。 - **视角的相对性**：面对目前 6% 至 7% 的房贷利率，很多人觉得高得不可思议，但柯林斯笑着回忆道，自己在 1979 年拿下的第一笔房贷利率高达惊人的 18%。“在 1970 年代的高通胀环境下，利率必然水涨船高。对我这样经历过 18% 利率的人来说，现在的 6% 听上去并不算太糟；但对于在 2.5% 或 3% 超低利率温室中长大的一代人来说，这自然看起来像天文数字——一切都取决于你的历史坐标与观察视角。” ### [46:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2784s) 股票在 AI 时代还安全吗？拉长时间周期的终极答案 最后，柯林斯正面回应了那位朋友关于“在当下 AI 颠覆和失业狂潮的动荡时代，投资股票是否安全”的灵魂拷问。他首先给出了极为坚定的定性：“股票是人类历史上所创造出的、最强大且最有效的财富积累工具，没有之一。”然而，它强大的另一面就是极具破坏性的波动。 在柯林斯看来，凡是问出“现在买股票安不安全”的人，脑海中充斥的都是典型的“超短期思维”： - **短期视角下，股票从未安全过**：在任何给定的短期窗口内，股市都随时可能发生断崖式暴跌。媒体的新闻头条往往充斥着歇斯底里的恐慌，但市场崩盘、剧烈回调从来都不是系统故障，而是资本市场在漫长演进中“完全正常自然的固有组成部分（a perfectly natural part of the process）”。 - **短期不可预测，长线高度确定**：由于没有任何人能精准预测暴跌会在哪一天降临，因此绝对不能将短期内急需使用的资金投入股市。 - **拉长时间尺度的惊人可靠性**：一旦将视线拉长到 10 年，股票没有提供良好回报的历史时期屈指可数；如果拉长到 20 年的跨度，在资本市场上亏损更是极其罕见的特例。 柯林斯总结道，长线来看，股票不仅安全，而且具备极其恐怖的财富增长势能。但前提是投资者必须具备承受短期惊涛骇浪的心理定力与资本底气。如果一个人无法接受必然会发生的市场下挫，一旦遇到大跌就恐慌抛售，那么这扇财富之门确实不适合他们迈入。 ### [48:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2908s) 股市风暴与投资的情绪陷阱 JL Collins 告诫投资者，如果在市场下跌时惊慌失措地抛售，股票市场会让你“浑身是血地倒在路旁”。若没有心理准备，盲目遵照投资建议同样会遭遇重创。长期投资能够成功的核心先决条件，在于风暴来临时必须“将自己牢牢绑在桅杆上”，彻底无视市场的剧烈波动，甚至要逆势继续买入——因为资产价格大跌意味着你正在打折买入廉价份额。风暴终会过去，乌云散尽后阳光重现，经济的长期繁荣必然回归。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 投资心态与市场波动关系 accDescr: 展示面对市场风暴时，惊慌抛售与坚持买入导致的两种完全相反的长期结果。 subgraph Storm["市场风暴来临（资产价格暴跌）"] A["市场剧烈波动 / 资产打折"] end subgraph Reaction["投资者的两种应对"] B["情绪失控：恐慌性抛售"] C["绑在桅杆上：持续定投买入"] end subgraph Outcome["最终结果"] D["锁定亏损，错过反弹"] E["低成本积累份额，迎来长期繁荣"] end A --> B A --> C B --> D C --> E ``` Steven Bartlett 对此深表赞同，指出人们谈论投资时往往只聚焦策略、技巧和选股代码，却严重忽视了情绪控制——而这才是决定成败的关键。大脑的深层机制是由恐惧与贪婪驱动的。Steven 分享了自己的亲身惨痛经历：人生第一笔投资是将 10,000 英镑全部买入 Facebook 股票，结果股价随即下跌，他陷入恐慌并全盘割肉，甚至发誓“这辈子再也不碰投资了”。然而如果当时置之不理，那笔本金如今早已翻成六位数。他反思道，当年犯了两个典型错误：一是情绪化割肉，二是用短期可能急需的资金去投资。绝不能把未来数十年内可能用到的钱（比如买房的首付款）投入股市，股市只属于能够承受数十年风浪的超长期资金。 - **长期资金原则**：投入股票市场的资金必须做好数十年不动的准备，唯有超长期视野才能让人平稳渡过市场风暴。 - **割肉教训**：因短期情绪恐慌或资金链紧绷而卖出，不仅会直接兑现账面亏损，更会错失后续数十倍的资产增值机会。 --- ### [50:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3028s) “忘记密码”的超能力与避免瞎折腾 Steven 笑着分享道，他身边最优秀的投资者其实是他的女朋友，原因极为讽刺——因为她总是“忘记投资软件的登录密码”。大约每隔两年，Steven 提醒她查一下账户时，她都早已忘记密码；好不容易找回登录后，才惊呼账户资产已经翻倍暴涨，随后她又立刻把密码抛之脑后。JL Collins 强调，这种看似漫不经心的疏离感其实是一种投资“超能力”。 JL Collins 引用了 Vanguard 集团创始人、指数基金之父杰克·博格尔（Jack Bogle）的名言：买入 S&P 500 指数基金后，甚至不要拆开邮寄来的对账单，就让它们在那里放上整整 20 年；等 20 年后再打开最后一封对账单，而且最好提前备一名心脏科医生在旁边，因为你会被自己积累的惊人财富彻底震撼。Collins 透露，他当初写下畅销书《财务自由之路》（*The Simple Path to Wealth*）就是为了送给自己的女儿，因为女儿也对复杂的金融投资毫无兴趣。对金融漠不关心恰恰是巨大的优势，因为她绝不会在暴跌时产生抛售的冲动。 正如查理·芒格（Charlie Munger）所言，投资者能犯的最大错误就是“阻碍复利的运转”。在市场上频繁进出、低买高卖的骚操作，只会亲手掐断复利的魔力。许多读者常写信对 Collins 说：“JL，你的理论很棒，但如果我们做这一丁点微调，会不会更好？”Collins 将这些人统称为“瞎折腾者”（The Tinkerers）。 - **博格尔法则**：买入宽基指数基金后不要频繁查看账户，给财富留出 20 年无干扰的复利发酵期。 - **冷漠即优势**：对市场动态缺乏关注反而隔绝了从众恐慌，避免了错误的情绪化操作。 - **芒格的警示**：复利的第一法则是非必要绝不要去打断它，任何试图择时调仓的举动往往适得其反。 --- ### [52:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3159s) 投资中的性别差异：男性爱折腾与女性的超额回报 针对“瞎折腾者是否多为男性”的提问，Collins 坦言很多确实是男性，因为男性往往把男性的尊严与胜负欲捆绑在投资操作上，而这在金融世界中毫无益处。Steven 随即列举了一组来自 Vanguard 和伯克希尔·哈撒韦（Berkshire Hathaway）的统计数据，清晰展现了男女在投资行为上的巨大鸿沟： | 投资行为与指标 | 男性表现 | 女性表现 / 影响结果 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **高风险资产偏好** | 投资个股等高风险资产的概率比女性高出 **70%** | 女性倾向于更稳健的资产配置 | | **投资组合波动率** | 投资组合波动幅度比女性高出 **50%** | 虽有更高收益潜力，但伴随巨大的灾难性亏损 | | **交易频率** | 交易频次比女性高出 **45%** | 产生大量摩擦交易手续费，严重蚕食最终净利润 | | **长期年化回报** | 长期年化回报**跑输**女性 | 女性因审慎克制、极少盲目择时与调仓，长期收益显著胜出 | 数据表明，男性虽然承担了更高的风险，但频繁的操作失误、情绪化交易和过度调仓导致其长期回报惨淡；相反，女性更加谨慎耐心的投资模式获得了更优异的回报。听到这些数据后，JL Collins 幽默地自嘲道：“看来我身上具有极其强大的女性特质。” --- ### [55:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3300s) 复利的曲棍球棒效应与 4% 财务自由法则 当 Steven 递过一张复利走势图时，JL Collins 一眼便认出了其中的玄机。图表展示了以 11% 年化回报率推演的长期资产变化模型：下方的平缓线条代表每期的固定本金投入，而红色的总资产曲线在起初相当长的一段时间内，几乎与本金投入线重叠平行；然而一旦越过临界点，两条线迅速分道扬镳，资产曲线呈指数级拔地而起，走出极为震撼的“曲棍球棒”（Hockey Stick）形态。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 4% 法则与财务自由推导关系 accDescr: 展示年开支与实现财务自由所需总资产之间的 4% 提取率与 25 倍乘数双向计算公式。 subgraph Calculation["4% 规则与 25 倍法则"] A["年度生活开销（如 $100,000）"] B["安全资产储备（$2,500,000）"] end A -- "乘以 25 倍" --> B B -- "安全提取 4%" --> A ``` Collins 聊起了他过去举办的 Chautauqua 线下深度交流营。在与营员进行一对一财务咨询时，最常被问到的问题就是：“我算不算实现了财务独立？”他指出，评估财务独立与否有一套极为纯粹的数学公式，源自比尔·班根（Bill Bengen）提出的 **4% 安全提取法则**（The 4% Rule）——即每年从投资组合中提取 4% 的资金作为生活费，资产组合在漫长岁月中依然能够保全并抵御通胀，不会耗尽枯竭。 Collins 分享了一起典型案例：一位参加训练营的女银行家数学底子极佳，且下周即将入职年薪 100 万美元的高管职位，账户中已积累了 500 万美元投资资产，却依旧焦虑地询问自己是否实现了财务独立。Collins 告诉她，答案完全取决于日常开销： 1. **已知年开销求目标资产**：若每年开销为 100,000 美元，乘以 25 倍（即除以 4%），意味着只需 2,500,000 美元的投资资产即可宣告财务独立。以其拥有 500 万美元的体量，早已绰绰有余。 2. **已知资产求安全开支**：若拥有 2,500,000 美元资产，按每年提取 4% 计算，可提供 100,000 美元的无忧年支出。 为了彻底夯实逻辑，Steven 用极简数字提问总结：“也就是说，如果我的投资账户里只有 100 美元，但只要我每年只靠 4 美元生活，这 4 美元恰好是总资产的 4%，那我就已经算是财务自由了？”Collins 斩钉截铁地回答：“没错。”财务独立的本质并不取决于绝对财富的多少，而取决于你的支出与投资组合规模之间的比例。 ### [58:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3495s) 4% 法则与复利“曲棍球棒效应”的震撼 在讨论财务独立时，JL Collins 强调了 4% 法则的重要价值。这一基准最早由财务顾问比尔·班根（Bill Bengen）提出，并在 1990 年代著名的三一研究（Trinity Study）中得到验证。该研究模拟了大量市场情景，证实每年提取投资组合的 4% 是极具参考意义的安全底线。Collins 直言自己不太喜欢用“法则（rule）”这个词，因为这容易让人误以为它是死板僵化的硬性规定，但它无疑是衡量一个人是否实现财务独立（FI）的绝佳指南。他举例说，曾有一位女士向他咨询，称自己每年开销为 10 万美元，手握 500 万美元资产，困惑地问自己是否已经算财务独立。Collins 当时直接回答：“不仅达到了，而且是双倍！”以她的开销水平，手头的钱已是所需数额的两倍之多。 令 Collins 深思的是，来向他求助的许多人本身非常聪明，完全具备算清这笔基础算术的能力，却依然不敢相信眼前的数字。这背后的心理根源在于复利（compounding）惊人的“曲棍球棒曲线”：在最初漫长的时间里，曲线平缓得仿佛什么都没发生；随后它开始缓缓抬头，接着在某一个转折点，陡然以惊人的斜率直线冲天。这种爆发式的增长发生得如此迅猛且超乎预期，以至于人们即使亲手算出了答案，内心也会产生强烈的认知失调，就像指着墙壁困惑地向旁人求证：“你也看到墙上的东西了吗？我不敢相信自己的眼睛，请告诉我你看到的是一样的。” Steven Bartlett 产生强烈共鸣，回忆自己在五六年前第一次在网上使用复利计算器时的震撼体验——哪怕起点是零，只要每年持续投入一小笔钱，在 11% 左右的长期年化回报率下，总资产在后期就会“砰”地一声呈指数级爆炸。Collins 指出，只要把钱放在能产生这种回报的地方并耐心等待，时间本身就会替你打理好一切。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 复利曲棍球棒增长效应 accDescr: 展示资金从前期平缓积累到后期指数级爆发的演变过程。 subgraph Phase1["前期积累阶段"] A["起始本金为零\n每年小额稳定定投"] --> B["资产增长缓慢\n甚至感觉毫无动静"] end subgraph Phase2["后期爆发阶段"] B --> C["突破拐点\n迎来曲棍球棒式飙升"] C --> D["资产呈指数级增长\n收益远超累计本金"] end ``` - **4% 指南**：源于 Bill Bengen 的研究与 90 年代的三一研究（Trinity Study），作为评估财务独立的基准而非死板公式。 - **500 万美元与 10 万美元开支**：年花销 10 万美元只需 250 万美元资产（开支的 25 倍），手握 500 万意味着已经拥有两倍于财务独立的富余资产。 - **心理认知盲区**：复利并非线性发展，指数级增长速度远超人类直觉，导致很多人算清了数学账，心理上却不敢相信现实。 --- ### [01:01:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3662s) 富足后的心境转变：“一切都是免费的” Collins 进一步收束论点，回到他的核心思想《简单的致富之路》（The Simple Path to Wealth）。他指出人们往往忽略了一点：只要遵循这条大道，最终必然会变得富有。在积累初期，他建议克制冲动，不要盲目去买豪车或昂贵的大房子；但一旦跨入真正的财富大门，你不仅完全可以买下那些心仪之物，而且是“以强者的姿态”去购买。当你达到财务独立，投资组合每年的被动收益已经远远覆盖日常开支，购买力便彻底摆脱了限制。 Collins 坦言，他和妻子骨子里都是天生节俭的人，这种特质固然帮助他们走到了今天的成功，但在如今的财富体量下，过度节俭反而不再具有实际意义。直到今天，每当面对某些想买的东西时，两人仍会习惯性地纠结“这要花多少钱”、“真的值得花这笔钱吗”。在这时，他们彼此之间就会半开玩笑地提醒对方：“无所谓了，反正它是免费的（It doesn't matter, it's free）。”这种“一切皆免费”的心态并非挥霍狂妄，而是一种极度释然与自由的财务境界，也是他几十年前开始投资时最终所买下的无价之物。 Steven Bartlett 对此深有感触，并分享了自己年轻时与亲哥哥截然相反的消费观念。他的哥哥极度节俭，而年轻时的 Steven 却花钱极为任性。当时 Steven 用来合理化挥霍的借口是：“人只活一次，青春只有一回。去夜店开香槟狂欢是我只有年轻时才能做的事；如果为了存钱苦熬到七八十岁，就算手握巨款，错过了享受青春又有什么意义？”针对这种典型的享乐主义反驳，Collins 犀利地反驳道：认为“必须花大钱才能快乐和享受生活”本身就是一种巨大的认知误区；更重要的是，年纪大时有钱远比二十几岁时有钱实用得多，因为金钱能买来舒适与保障，而随着年龄增长，身体与心境对舒适度的依赖将呈几何倍数增加。 --- ### [01:03:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3802s) 未来的自己是陌生人：年轻时存钱究竟为了谁？ 针对年轻一代难以存钱的现象，Steven Bartlett 分享了一项脑神经科学实验。研究人员让受试者躺在脑部核磁扫描仪中，分别思考“明天的自己”、“几年后的自己”以及“十年后的自己”的脑区反应，接着再让他们思考一个完全陌生的名人（例如马特·达蒙，Matt Damon）。大脑成像结果惊人地显示：当我们想象十年后的自己时，大脑活跃的模式与思考马特·达蒙一模一样。时间跨度越长，未来的自己在大脑认知中就越等同于一个素昧平生的陌生人。Steven 表示，自己新书专门有一章就探讨这个现象——对年轻的大脑来说，为 60 岁时的自己存钱就像是在保护马特·达蒙，“我根本不认识那个家伙，凭什么要在意他过得好不好？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 大脑对自我认知的时间衰减 accDescr: 展示大脑在思考不同时间跨度的自我时，认知机制如何转变为思考陌生人。 A["思考明天的自己"] -->|"高度自我共情"| B["熟悉的自我概念"] C["思考 10 年 / 60 岁后的自己"] -->|"情感联结断裂"| D["等同于陌生人\n（脑区反应如同思考马特·达蒙）"] D --> E["行为后果：\n年轻时不愿为'未来的陌生人'牺牲当下的消费享乐"] ``` 目前 75 岁的 Collins 听后深表赞同，但他提出了一个截然不同的视角。Collins 直言，当自己 33 岁甚至更年轻时，他也从来没有为 75 岁的老年 JL 考虑过分毫。他之所以疯狂存钱，绝非出于对暮年生活的担忧，纯粹是为了“25 岁和 30 岁的自己”。这正好呼应了他对“F.U. Money”（老子不干了基金）的定义：在通往彻底无需出卖劳动的财务独立终点之前，积攒的每一分钱都在即刻赋予你人身自由与议价底气。 Collins 分享了一段年轻时的亲身经历：25 岁那年，他的年薪只有 1 万美元，但他硬生生省下了 5,000 美元的一半薪水。这笔钱在当年堪称巨款（经通胀调整后相当于如今的 2.5 万到 3 万美元）。当时他渴望去欧洲背包旅行，而这必须辞掉那份他其实挺喜欢的工作。正因为兜里有这 5,000 美元的底气，他不仅敢于做出决定，更有资本走进老板办公室谈判，最终争取到了留职停薪的条件。如果当时过着月光生活，他绝不可能拥有这份选择权。Collins 打了一个生动的比方：正如 Steven 去健身房举铁，绝不是在为“75 岁的 Steven”举铁，而是为了让“33 岁的 Steven”在明天比今天更加强壮；年轻时储蓄投资，买下的正是当下的底气与力量。 - **大脑机制实验**：脑成像表明，人类大脑对 10 年后自我的认知，等同于对毫不相关的名人（如 Matt Damon）的认知。 - **年轻时的极简与储蓄**：Collins 第一份正式工作年薪 1 万美元，存下了一半（5,000 美元），为欧洲背包旅行争取到了巨大的谈判优势。 - **F.U. Money 的即时效用**：存钱不是为了讨好遥远暮年的自己，而是为了换取当下对生活、对工作的绝对掌控权与说“不”的权利。 --- ### [01:06:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4015s) 35 年百万富翁法则：资本增值而非单纯利息 对话随后回到了复利投资的硬核数据测算上。Steven Bartlett 算了一笔账：如果一个人每月雷打不动地定投 500 美元，放在年化复合回报率为 8% 的投资标的中，仅需 35 年，他的资产总额就将突破 100 万美元，达到 104.3 万美元（1.043 million dollars）。 在这整整 35 年的周期里： - **投资者自身投入的本金**：累计仅约 20 万美元（500 美元 × 12 个月 × 35 年 = 210,000 美元）。 - **通过复利累积获得的收益**：高达 85 万美元左右。 面对 Steven 口中“靠利息（interest）赚取了 85 万”的表述，Collins 严谨地给出了技术性纠正：在股票或指数基金投资中，这种回报不能简单称作利息，而应当被称为“资本增值与成长（growth）”。其中虽然包含一部分类似利息特征的分红派息（dividends），但主体是资产本身的成长升值。这项简单而震撼的计算引申出了随后的畅想：如果父母能在孩子刚出生时就每月为其存下 500 美元进行复利增值，时间将赋予这个生命难以估量的财富奇迹。 ### [01:08:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4083s) 复利的时间杠杆与为孩子开设 Roth IRA 斯蒂芬·巴特利特感叹道，如果父母从他小时候起每月只定投 500 美元，到了他现在的年龄，仅凭这笔钱他就已经是百万富翁了。JL·柯林斯对此深表认同，这正是复利惊人的魔力所在。他分享说，自己每年会有两次前往科罗拉多大学博尔德分校（University of Colorado Boulder），为一位教授朋友的学生们举办客座讲座。面对台下 18、19、20 岁出头的年轻人，柯林斯感到非常欣慰又兴奋，这些年轻人如此聪明，提出的问题深刻敏锐，更重要的是，他们拥有长达数十年的时间让复利发挥威力，只要在这个年纪开始行动，未来的人生际遇将截然不同。 紧接着，柯林斯向斯蒂芬以及所有听众分享了一条极为实用的育儿理财秘诀：一旦孩子开始通过兼职赚取收入——无论是在社区铲雪、在餐馆当服务生收拾桌子，还是做其他临时工——只要有合法收入，父母就可以为他们开设 Roth IRA（罗斯个人退休账户）。目前 Roth IRA 的年缴存上限大约是 7,000 美元。这类账户的特点是资金在未来“永远免税增长”，提取时也无需缴税。因为青少年本身的收入极低，根本无需缴纳个人所得税，因而完全不需要传统退休账户的事前税收抵免。 更为关键的是，存入账户里的钱不一定非要来自孩子赚到的那笔钱。柯林斯举例说明：如果孩子一年打工赚了 3,000 美元，父母完全可以直接拿出自己的 3,000 美元替孩子存入 Roth IRA，把孩子自己赚的钱留给他们花。如果从高中到大学毕业持续这样做，哪怕之后再也不往里追加一分钱，这笔起步资产在几十年完全免税的复利滚存下，也会蜕变成一笔惊人的财富。柯林斯强调，积累财富最核心的武器自始至终只有一个，那就是“时间”。 --- ### [01:10:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4215s) 储蓄率 50% 的现实可行性与“购买自由”的哲学 斯蒂芬询问柯林斯，他是否依然坚持自己多年来主张的核心信条——将收入的 50% 存下来进行投资？柯林斯坚定地回答，这依然是一条黄金法则，因为只要你能做到存下一半的收入，根据市场表现，大约只需要 10 到 15 年的时间就能达成财务独立（FI）。面对外界最常见的反驳声音——“存 50% 根本是天方夜谭，没有人能过这种日子”，柯林斯直率地反驳道，自己当年做到了，现在他也认识了无数践行这一原则并成功的人。你可以选择不这么做，但绝不能说这在数学或现实上是不可能的。 为了验证可行性，斯蒂芬现场算了一笔账：假设一个人的年薪处于中低端的 48,000 美元，换算下来月薪约为 3,000 美元。扣除极少的税费后，实际到手大约为 2,900 美元。若要存下 50%，每个月必须储蓄 1,400 美元，意味着全月所有生活开支必须严格限制在 1,400 美元之内。斯蒂芬指出，这意味着必须租住在非常便宜甚至局促的住所里、每天自己带午饭、戒掉星巴克咖啡，并且极大地减少社交活动。大多数人之所以退缩，是因为他们直觉上无法忍受这种清苦的生活方式。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 50% 储蓄率与财务自由路径 accDescr: 展示两种消费选择对时间与未来生活状态的不同影响 subgraph CHOICE_A["消费驱动型路径"] A1["享受当下日常消费<br/>（精品拿铁、外出就餐、高额房租）"] --> A2["维持较高月度开支<br/>（储蓄率低，对工作形成高度依赖）"] A2 --> A3["延后财务独立时间<br/>（出卖时间换取生活费）"] end subgraph CHOICE_B["自由驱动型路径"] B1["极致压缩日常支出<br/>（50% 储蓄率，投资大盘指数）"] --> B2["积累 F.U. Money 与资产底盘<br/>（10-15 年达成财务独立）"] B2 --> B3["最终实现一切免费<br/>（资产被动收益覆盖所有拿铁与生活）"] end ``` 柯林斯从容回应道，他在书中举出的案例甚至使用了更严苛的条件——当时采用的是年收入 25,000 美元的设定，但在数学上依然完全成立。柯林斯承认这绝非易事，但问题的根源在于“你人生最想要的究竟是什么”： - **消费的选择权**：如果有人觉得拿铁和高端生活方式必不可少，那是个人选择与权利，没人会强行剥夺。 - **时间的无情流逝**：无论你做出何种选择，岁月都会一分一秒流逝。 - **终极回报**：如果选择将资金用来“购买自由”（Buying my freedom），一旦达到财务独立点，被动资产产生的现金流足以覆盖日常开销，届时包括拿铁在内的一切消费在本质上都变成了“免费的”。 --- ### [01:12:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4361s) 道具推演：税前递延投资（401(k)）与税后投资的差距 现场录音室的桌面上摆放着两只装有代表金钱的金色筹码桶，斯蒂芬与柯林斯借用道具演示税收优惠账户（Tax-advantaged Accounts）的实际威力。柯林斯以美国体制为例指出，政府设立了诸如 401(k)、403(b) 等雇主赞助的退休计划，以及个人独立设立的传统 IRA（个人退休账户），旨在通过税收红利激励民众为养老进行长线投资。雇员可以直接将一部分税前薪资划入投资账户，并自由选择标的进行打理。 柯林斯拿着桌上的数据示范对比： - **税前递延投资桶（401(k)）**：如果将税前收入投入，加上企业常见的配比匹配（Company Match，例如员工存 5%，雇主匹配补贴 2%，柯林斯强调这是“不拿白不拿的免费资金”），投入本金可达 20,750 美元。这笔全额资金能够立刻全额买入柯林斯推荐的全市场指数基金（Total Stock Market Index Fund）。 - **税后普通投资桶**：如果放弃税前通道，选择缴纳完所得税后再进行投资，同样的原始薪资扣税后只剩下大约一半的筹码，即 10,340 美元。 两笔资金如果买入完全相同的标的，并以每年相同的收益率（例如假定年化复合增长率 11%）持续滚存 30 到 40 年，税前账户由于起步本金高出一倍，其最终累积的复利资产总额将远远甩开税后普通账户。这就是递延纳税（Deferring Taxes）在时间复利催化下释放的几何级差距。 | 投资维度 | 雇主 401(k) / 传统 IRA（税前递延） | 普通应税投资账户（税后资金） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **初始本金规模** | 完整税前薪资 + 雇主 Match 补贴（示例：$20,750） | 扣除个人所得税后的剩余资金（示例：$10,340） | | **早期资金损耗** | 零税收损耗，全额参与市场复利 | 即刻损失 30%~50% 用于缴税 | | **底层投资标的** | 全市场指数基金（如 VTSAX） | 全市场指数基金（同等标的） | | **长线滚存结果** | 本金基数庞大，30-40 年后资产池规模极大 | 本金基数腰斩，复利终端总资产显著缩水 | --- ### [01:15:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4526s) 递延纳税并非免税：RMD 规则与税率博弈 柯林斯敏锐地指出，许多人对这类账户存在认知盲区，必须分清“递延纳税（Tax-deferred）”与“彻底免税（Tax-free）”的区别。政府绝不会放弃税收利益，延后缴税意味着政府迟早会来分一杯羹： - **提前支取的惩罚**：美国税法规定，若在 59.5 岁之前从这类税前账户提取资金，不仅要补缴所得税，还将被课以罚款。 - **强制最低取款（RMD）**：当投资者达到一定年龄（现行法律规定为 73 岁左右），国税局便不再允许资金无休止地递延下去。政府会依据预期寿命制定表格，强制账户持有者每年必须按比例取出一笔资金并按当期税率纳税，这便是所谓的“最低强制分红”（Required Minimum Distribution, RMD）。 柯林斯剖析了这背后的数学博弈：如果在退休前存入与退休后取出时的边际税率完全一样，纯数学计算上，递延纳税最终拿到手的净利润与税后普通投资并没有实质差别。之所以全社会依然极力推崇递延账户，本质上是基于一个大概率预测的“押注”——绝大多数人在职工作时处于收入巅峰期，适用较高的税档；而退休后不再领取工资，靠支取资产度日，届时的税率档位通常会大幅降低。用退休后的低税率去替换在职时的高税率，才是这项制度的核心红利。 然而，柯林斯以自己的真实经历给出了一个极具戏剧性反差的例外案例。在早年的企业职业生涯中，他也是忠实地将资金最大限度地存入 401(k) 和传统 IRA。可是人算不如天算，随着他退休后书籍的大卖和自媒体事业的爆发，柯林斯如今所处的收入税档竟然达到了他一生的最高点，远远超过了当年他在企业上班时的水平。现在他已经到了必须依法提取 RMD 的法定年龄，不得不以远高于当年递延时的税率向政府补缴税款。虽然柯林斯承认自己的个案属于小概率的“幸福的烦恼”，但这真实地警示了每一位投资者：理解税制背后的底层逻辑，远比盲目跟风更为重要。 ### [01:18:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4693s) 退休储蓄账户的税收递延逻辑 针对如何在退休账户中通过税收递延积累财富，史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）进行了一番梳理以确认自己的理解：无论是在日本、瑞士、印度、韩国、德国、澳大利亚、英国还是加拿大，世界各地普遍都存在类似的体制设计。假设一个人每月赚取 1,000 美元，他可以在这笔收入计税前，直接拿出 100 美元存入特定的投资账户，而雇主往往还会进行部分或等额配比（Match），例如同样额外存入 100 美元。这笔资金在账户内享受免税的复利滚存，虽然随时可以支取，但若在法定退休年龄前提前取出，则必须面临罚款并补缴税款；而一旦坚持到 65 岁等法定退休年龄后再取出，虽然仍需纳税，但由于届时已经没有了全职工作的工资收入，纳税人将自然落入极低的税率区间，且无需支付任何罚款。 JL 柯林斯（JL Collins）对此表示完全认同，并强调这种税收优惠模式之所以对绝大多数普通人极其有效，正是因为人们年轻工作时收入高、边际税率高，而退休后薪资中断，收入大幅缩水，税率档位也随之降至非常温和的水平，这让税后实际收益得以实现最大化。 - **全球通行的税收优惠框架**：包括美日英德在内的主要经济体均设有由雇主参与匹配的税前抵扣退休金体系。 - **核心逻辑前提**：利用年轻高收入期（高税率）与退休无工资期（低税率）之间的税率差，借助免税复利放大利润。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 退休储蓄账户税收递延与复利运作流程 accDescr: 展示从税前薪资扣除、雇主配比，到复利滚存及退休低税率领取的完整周期。 subgraph Earning ["工作赚钱期（高税率阶段）"] A["税前月薪 (例如 $1,000)"] --> B["税前自动划扣投资 (如 $100)"] C["雇主配套补贴 (如额外 $100)"] --> D["免税投资账户 (合计 $200)"] B --> D end subgraph Growth ["资产滚存期"] D --> E["享受免税复利持续增长"] end subgraph Distribution ["退休提取期（65岁及以上）"] E --> F{"是否提前取出？"} F -- "提前支取" --> G["面临惩罚性罚金 + 全额补税"] F -- "退休后支取" --> H["无惩罚金 + 仅按极低退休税率纳税"] end ``` --- ### [01:19:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=4791s) 指数基金的本质与“自我净化”机制 当面临“在这个动荡多变的世界中普通人究竟该把钱投向何处”的问题时，柯林斯明确重申，自己坚决反对投机比特币，而是数十年如一日地倡导投资**全市场、低成本的股票指数基金**。他以先锋领航的 Vanguard 全股票市场指数基金（VTSAX）为例说明：该基金几乎囊括了美国所有的上市交易公司（数量虽有变动，但常年维持在大约 3,600 家左右）。投资这只基金，本质上就是把钱押注在美国整体经济的前景上——“从工厂车间的一线工人到企业的首席执行官（CEO），所有人每天打卡上班，都在努力让我变得更富有。” 柯林斯进一步剖析了指数基金的运作机制——市值加权（Market-cap weighted）。企业的市值越高、估值越大，其在基金整体投资组合中所占的份额比例就越重，这也是标普 500 指数中排名前十的科技巨头占据极高比例权重的根本原因。更关键的是指数基金所具备的“自我净化”（Self-cleansing）机制： - **龙头顺势放大**：当企业经营成功、规模扩张时，它在指数中的比重会自动上升，投资者持有的部分自然增多。 - **末位无情淘汰**：当曾经的行业巨头执行力下滑、遭遇激烈竞争并逐渐掉队时，它在指数中的占比会自动滑落甚至被剔除，而取而代之的新兴竞争者会自动进入组合并扩大权重。 柯林斯回顾了自己在 20 世纪 70 年代刚进入投资领域时的真实经历：当时的西尔斯百货（Sears）正如日中天，是那个年代的“沃尔玛与亚马逊的合体”。西尔斯早在 19 世纪末就意识到偏远乡村的农民无法逛实体店，于是首创了详尽的邮购商品目录，让顾客通过信件和汇款邮购商品，彻底统治了美国零售业一个世纪，并在 70 年代的芝加哥建起了当时全球最高的摩天大楼“西尔斯大厦”（Sears Tower）。柯林斯直言：“如果你在 70 年代告诉别人西尔斯气数已尽、好日子没几天了，别人只会把你当成疯子嘲笑。”然而，更精简、更敏锐的竞争对手最终吃掉了西尔斯的蛋糕。如果投资者当年持有单只西尔斯股票，就必须时刻焦虑何时止损离场、何时换仓，甚至还要在 90 年代去痛苦地评判亚马逊那个宣称“利润无关紧要”的怪人杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）究竟是真天才还是彻头彻尾的疯子；但如果持有整体市场指数，投资者根本无需预判谁会胜出，“无论是贝佐斯的奇思妙想最终被证明是商业奇迹，还是被历史淘汰，指数基金都会自动替你完成优胜劣汰”。 --- ### [01:25:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=5108s) 全市场指数 vs 纳斯达克 100：科技主导时代的抉择 史蒂文提出了一项尖锐的现实疑问：团队的调研数据显示，在过去十年里，表现最顶尖的指数基金是重仓科技股的纳斯达克 100 指数（Nasdaq 100），其年化复合回报率接近 20%。鉴于人工智能（AI）浪潮正席卷全球，机器人、全面自动化与完全自动驾驶（FSD）已是大势所趋，世界只会变得越来越技术密集，那么在当下选择集中押注于纳斯达克 100 这类科技比重极高的指数基金，难道不是一个极其符合逻辑且顺理成章的决定吗？ 柯林斯对此给出了非常客观而冷静的回应。他首先承认这种推导完全合乎逻辑，而且如果在十年前做出这种选择，回报确实会大幅跑赢 VTSAX。科技行业在过去十年中展现了无与伦比的统治地位，押注它继续繁荣也是合理的投机性假设。然而，柯林斯之所以依然坚持全市场配置，原因在于： 1. **行业轮动规律**：没有任何一个行业能够永远站在世界之巅。就像单个股票西尔斯经历了由盛转衰一样，市场中的不同行业板块在历史上同样经历着周期性的此起彼伏；眼下科技是绝对霸主，但在未来的长河中是否永远如此，没有人拥有预测未来的水晶球。 2. **两全其美的容错率**：VTSAX 这类全市场指数本身就包含极高权重的科技公司。如果押注科技的人是对的，全市场指数持有者同样能享受到极其丰厚的回报；而如果科技行业遭遇不可预知的黑天鹅或被新的经济形态所替代，全市场指数会自动吸纳并放大那个崭新的替代者，投资者根本无需承担预测失误的毁灭性风险。 随着话题深入到股市波动与情绪控制，史蒂文引出了柯林斯一个广为流传的经典形象比喻——“啤酒与酒杯”（The Beer Analogy）。柯林斯幽默地调侃道，这个比喻大概率是自己某次一边喝着啤酒一边构思出来的，随后准备以此深入揭示股市价格与企业内在价值之间的真实关系。 ### [01:27:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=5259s) 啤酒与泡沫：股市价格与内在价值的比喻 现场进行了一个生动的道具演示：主持人倒了一罐啤酒，刻意直冲杯底，倒出一层厚厚的白色泡沫。以此为引子，JL Collins 阐述了他用来解释股市最经典的“啤酒比喻”。在一个透明玻璃杯里，我们可以清楚地看到多少是啤酒、多少是泡沫；但如果将这杯酒倒进一个不透明的容器中，外面的人就很难分辨里面到底有多少实体、多少虚浮。股市正是这样一个“看不透的容器”。 大部分人打开 CNBC、浏览财经新闻时，看到的全是令人眼花缭乱的日内交易与热点炒作——哪些股票今天大涨、哪些正在暴跌、下一个风口是什么。JL Collins 指出，这些频繁的躁动根本不是“致富的简单之路（The Simple Path to Wealth）”，而纯粹是杯口浮起的泡沫。任何一只股票的价格都由两部分构成： 1. **啤酒（Beer）**：代表公司的基本面与内在经营价值，包括实际销售额、营业开支以及扣除成本后真正赚到手的真金白银——净利润。 2. **泡沫（Foam）**：代表市场在特定时刻基于情绪、炒作、投机、恐惧与贪婪赋予它的溢价。 泡沫来得快去得也快。以特斯拉（Tesla）为例，它的股价中包含着极为厚重的泡沫，因为无数投资者在为其未来的宏伟蓝图下注——自动驾驶出租车、人型机器人等。尽管埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）确实才华横溢，这些构想未来也可能实现，但仅凭当前实际的经营业绩，其极高的市盈率（P/E ratio）显然无法得到支撑。如果一切顺利，随着时间推移，那些泡沫会像杯中的啤酒沫一样慢慢沉降，凝结转化为真正的“啤酒”（扎实的利润），从而坐实高股价甚至更上一层楼；然而在当下，它承受了巨大的投机溢价。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Stock Price Composition accDescr: Diagram illustrating the components of a stock price using the beer analogy. subgraph Price["股票市场价格 (Stock Price)"] direction TB F["泡沫 Foam: 市场情绪 / 投机炒作 / 恐惧与贪婪"] B["啤酒 Beer: 底层基本面 / 营收与实际净利润"] F ~~~ B end F -.->|"随情绪波动起伏，可能快速消散或沉淀"| Dynamic["短期投机风险"] B -.->|"坚实的内在商业价值与经营护城河"| Anchor["长期财富基石"] ``` ### [01:30:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=5453s) 巴菲特的选股哲学与“什么都不做”的定力 谈及价值投资大师沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett），主持人提出巴菲特的过人之处或许正是他只愿为“啤酒”买单，拒绝为浮夸的“泡沫”付钱。JL Collins 进一步补充并修正了这一观点： - **本杰明·格雷厄姆（Benjamin Graham）的早期模式**：作为《聪明的投资者》作者及巴菲特的导师，格雷厄姆主张以极大的安全边际寻找“低于啤酒实际价值”的烟蒂型便宜货。这在当年信息不对称、资讯匮乏的时代尚有操作空间。 - **查理·芒格（Charlie Munger）的现代化启发**：芒格点醒了巴菲特——在现代市场中，极难再以低于净资产的白菜价买到优质公司。因此策略转变为：**宁愿以合理的价格买入一家拥有深厚护城河、卓越品牌、主要由“优质啤酒”构成的顶尖企业**，也不要以便宜的价格买入平庸公司。 这种投资能力不仅需要对企业估值有严密的分析框架，更需要极强的纪律性。巴菲特曾自谦自己只是有幸擅长配置资本，但主持人与 Collins 达成共识：巴菲特最令人敬佩且最难被模仿的特质，其实是**“什么都不做（ability to do nothing）”的定力**。这恰好契合了查理·芒格的名言——千万不要无谓地去打断复利的进程。 - **2020年3月疫情暴跌案例**：市场陷入极端恐慌，亚马逊（Amazon）股价一度腰斩至每股约 1,500 美元，远低于其内在价值。但随着恐慌消退，其股价迅速反弹并突破 3,000 美元。 - **市场的普遍规律**：当时不仅是个别股票，全市场指数都在恐慌抛售。如果在低点惊慌斩仓，投资者将遭受毁灭性打击并错失后续全部涨幅。 - **立足长期的应对策略**：面对大跌，要么纹丝不动等待均值回归，要么在坚信其基本面没有受损的前提下，利用折价机会逆向买入更多份额，绝不能在恐慌弥漫时割肉离场。 ### [01:34:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=5696s) 投资还是赌博？揭穿交易培训课的致富骗局 社交媒体上（尤其是针对年轻男性群体）充斥着通过短线炒币、高频外汇或短线日内交易暴富的神话。许多人常常以此断言：“我从来不买股票，股市就是个大赌场。” JL Collins 对此回应称：“你只说对了一半。” - **短线玩弄泡沫**：如果投资者的视线只盯着杯口的“泡沫”，试图做日内博弈、波段预测，那与去拉斯维加斯赌场赌博没有任何区别。 - **长期投资啤酒**：如果投资者买入的是底层的“啤酒”，伴随实体经济的生产力长期增长，两者有着本质区别。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Investing versus Gambling Approach accDescr: Contrast between short term speculative trading and long term value investing. subgraph ShortTerm["短线博弈 (泡沫)"] ST1["短线炒作 / 情绪波动"] --> ST2["高频进出 / 赌场下注"] ST2 --> ST3["零和博弈 / 极易亏损"] end subgraph LongTerm["长期投资 (啤酒)"] LT1["底层基本面 / 宽基指数"] --> LT2["复利累积 / 静待沉淀"] LT3["分享企业盈利真实增长"] LT2 --> LT3 end ``` 针对网络上铺天盖地的“教你如何炒股交易致富”的付费训练营，两人揭露了其背后极其讽刺的商业逻辑漏洞：**如果某人真的掌握了能预测市场、稳赚大钱的交易秘诀，他闷声发大财都来不及，何必费尽心思把这个秘密做成课程卖给你？** 买这类课程的受害者往往是在财务上走投无路、迫切渴望逆风翻盘的普通人。JL Collins 带着同情与自嘲总结道： > “我得怪我母亲。要不是她从小给我灌输了良知，我本来能比现在有钱得多！正是因为这份良心，让我少赚了几百万美元——否则我早就可以去兜售那些暴富交易课程了。” ### [01:37:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=5822s) 中场赞助与“1%日记” 访谈切入一段赞助与个人品牌产品介绍。Steven Bartlett 介绍了赞助商 Stan——一个专为渴望建立副业、获取被动收入的个人创作者设计的数字产品平台，支持数字商品、在线课程与会员制销售，并提到了正在进行的“Dare to Dream”十万美元创业支持活动。随后，Steven 谈及《The Diary Of A CEO》受众普遍面临的心理困境：许多人有宏大的抱负，但在仰望如同珠穆朗玛峰般的庞大目标时，极易产生巨大的心理压迫感与不适感。解决之道在于将大目标拆解为微小的行动，也就是团队奉行的“1%哲学”（即每天进步 1%）。为此，他们重新推出了曾售罄的“1%日记”（The 1% Diary），增加了新配色和功能优化，旨在为追求目标的人提供结构化的日常追踪框架与前行动力。 ### [01:39:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=5953s) 我需要理财顾问吗？利益冲突的真相 许多人常抱着一种心态：“等我有足够多的钱时，我再去请一个理财顾问来帮我打理财务。”JL Collins 对此直言不讳：当你积累了足够多的金融知识，能够分辨并挑选出一个真正优秀的理财顾问时，你的认知水平其实已经足以在投资层面全靠自己操作了。Collins 承认市场上确实存在恪尽职守的优秀顾问，但他经常收到大量读者倾诉与理财顾问打交道的糟糕遭遇，这让他的观点普遍持怀疑态度。 核心问题在于行业的收费机制所导致的严重利益冲突。多数传统理财顾问采用按管理资产规模（AUM，Assets Under Management）提成的方式收费（例如收取资产总额的 1%）。Collins 举了一个生动的案例：假设你交给顾问管理 100 万美元，他每年可以稳稳拿走 1 万美元管理费；如果你向顾问咨询：“我手上有一笔 50 万美元的房贷，利率大概在 5% 这个中档水平，我在考虑要不要把它一把还清，你怎么看？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 理财顾问利益冲突示意图 accDescr: 展示客户偿还房贷提议如何削减理财顾问的管理资产与提成收入 subgraph ClientDecision["客户面临的抉择"] A["管理资产: 100万美元"] --> B{"咨询是否提前偿还<br/>50万美元房贷？"} end subgraph ConflictImpact["对理财顾问的影响"] B -- "若建议还清房贷" --> C["50万美元转出至房贷公司"] C --> D["管理资产骤降至 50万美元"] D --> E["顾问年收入直接减半 (-50%)"] end subgraph HumanFactor["顾问面临的现实诱惑"] F["家庭开支压力<br/>(孩子大学学费 / 离婚分产 / 房艇贷款)"] -.->|左右建议客观性| B end ``` 这种机制实际上将顾问置于一个道德陷阱之中： - 如果理财顾问给出真正客观合理的建议——支持你取出 50 万美元去偿清房贷，那么他代管的资金池瞬间腰斩为 50 万美元，他自身的佣金收入也当场被砍掉一半。 - 即使顾问本性正直且能力出众，但他也是有血有肉的普通人：如果他正面临两个孩子昂贵的大学学费、刚买了一艘游艇需要还贷、或者刚经历了一场代价惨重的离婚，这种实打实的经济压力很可能会无意识地左右他的专业建议，让他找借口劝你继续把钱留在股市里。 因此，投资者必须看透顾问的薪酬来源，时刻防范隐藏的利益偏向。 ### [01:42:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6120s) JL Collins 的真实资产配置 在被问及个人的实际资产配比时，Collins 坦言自己根本不把房产计入整体投资组合净值。他在威斯康星州的湖边有一间小木屋，在佛罗里达州有一套公寓，两处物业都极其朴素，在总资产中占比微乎其微。他强调自己向来信奉“在绝对优势地位下买入”（buy things from a position of power）。 排除自住房产后，JL Collins 当前的投资资产比例分布约为： - **80% 股票**：主要全仓配置于 Vanguard 旗下的先锋全市场股票指数基金（VTSAX - Total Stock Market Index Fund）。他和妻子各自拥有一份传统 IRA 和一份 Roth IRA，共 4 个退休账户，里面全部清一色配置了 VTSAX；在普通的应税投资账户中，也重点配置了 VTSAX。 - **15% 债券**：主要投资于先锋全债券市场指数基金（Total Bond Market Index Fund），存放在普通应税账户中。 - **5% 现金及等价物**：主要持有货币市场基金（Money Market Fund），并在支票账户（Checking Account）中保留少量现金用于日常支付账单。 面对 Steven 关于“80-15-5”配置的追问，Collins 直言以他目前的年龄段来说，80% 的股票占比在传统财务规划标准里显得“极其激进”，他并不盲目推荐同龄退休群体照搬这一比例。 ### [01:43:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6187s) 什么是债券？波动性与通胀风险的重新审视 针对债券的本质，JL Collins 做出了极简的科普：买债券就是把你手头的资金借给一家企业或政府机构，换取对方定期支付利息，并承诺在到期日偿还本金。债券拥有不同的存续期限： - 超短期债券（如 30 天以内）构成了货币市场基金的基础，流动性极高，功能上等同于现金。 - 定期存款单（CD）属于广义债券的一种，期限从 3 个月、6 个月、1 年、5 年到 10 年不等。 - 长期债券则包括长达 30 年期的美国国债（US Treasuries）。 至于为什么不在指数基金中 100% 配置股票而要搭配债券，Collins 厘清了大众对“安全”与“风险”的根本误解： | 资产类别 | 短期表现 | 长期表现 | 真正扮演的角色 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **股票（指数基金）** | 剧烈波动（短期风险高） | 强劲增长引擎，能够大幅超越通胀（长期真正安全） | 财富积累与抗通胀的核心工具 | | **债券** | 波动极小、走势平缓（短期安全感高） | 回报率低，购买力容易被通胀逐步吞噬（长期处于亏损风险） | 缓冲短期剧烈波动的“减震器” | 大众口中常说的“债券比股票更安全”，其真实含义不过是“债券的短期价格波动远小于股票”；而将股票视为“高风险”，其实是指其“短期价格波动极其剧烈”。选择哪一种资产，完全取决于投资者的资金使用时间跨度（Time Horizon）。 ### [01:45:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6311s) 问询 ChatGPT：通往财富自由的终极答案 Steven Bartlett 在现场分享了一个有趣的测试：在人工智能时代，他向 ChatGPT 抛出了一个提问：“作为一个年薪 5 万美元的普通人，我希望未来实现财务自由。请结合全球所有投资专家的智慧，用一句话给出终极答案。” 听到这个设定，Collins 幽默地抢答：“标准答案应该只有一句话——去读《简单的致富之路》（The Simple Path to Wealth）！”他重申了自己书中的核心三原则： 1. 避免陷入债务（Avoid debt）； 2. 量入为出，消费始终低于收入（Live on less than you earn）； 3. 将剩余结余全部拿去投资（Invest the surplus）。 随后 Steven 念出了 ChatGPT 实际给出的答案：“专注于储蓄，在量入为出的同时，持续定投于低成本、覆盖广泛的市场指数基金（如标普500），并让时间通过复利发挥魔力。”（"Focus on saving and consistently invest in low-cost, broad-based index funds like the S&P 500 while living below your means and allowing compounding to work over time."） Collins 听完会心大笑，打趣道：“我应该去告他们非法训练我的书，他们十有八九直接扒了我的书！”接着 Steven 追问人工智能对于第二个普遍问题的回答——“普通人究竟该如何赚更多钱？”Collins 给出了一针见血的建议：“精进并打造你自己的核心技能（Develop your skills）。”这一判断与 ChatGPT 给出的“专注于培养高需求技能”再次不谋而合。 ### [01:46:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6394s) 在 AI 时代获取高需求技能与拥抱失败 在讨论 ChatGPT 给出的财富建议时，关于“职业晋升、探索副业或投资产生被动收入的资产”这一项，Steven Bartlett 和 JL Collins 展开了深入探讨。Steven 强调，其中最关键的一点在于**培养高需求技能**（high-demand skills）。然而，在人工智能蓬勃发展的今天，高需求技能的定义正发生巨变——过去大家都推崇“去学编程”，如今在 AI 工具面前，编程技能本身的门槛正在迅速降低。 Steven 分享了自己的亲身经历：18 岁那年，他在上了一堂大学商业管理课程后便毅然退学，一头扎进社交媒体领域创业。虽然他的第一个项目彻底失败了，但到了 2014 年左右，年仅 19 岁的他已经对社交媒体算法与增长机制有了极深的原生理解。这一高需求能力让他成为全球顶尖企业的咨询顾问，四处飞行授课。后来其中一家客户提议让他创办一家专业公司，尽管他一度心怀初创企业带来的“创始人创伤”（PTSD）而拒绝，但三个月后他改变了主意，创办了 Social Chain，彻底改变了他的人生轨迹，当时这项技能甚至能为他带来每月 7 万英镑的收入。他直言，如果没有这十年在社交媒体内容创作与增长领域的摸爬滚打，日后《The Diary Of A CEO》也绝不可能取得今天的巨大成功。 JL Collins 点出核心：正因为经历过失败的过程，才真正淬炼出了这种不可替代的能力。在某些文化里，一次失败便足以让人沦为弃儿；但在如今的商业世界中，失败只是垫脚石，许多风险投资人甚至明确表示，绝不会投资那些从未失败过的创业者。Steven 补充道，如果未来自己的孩子问起该去学什么，他的建议是：**去一家初创公司工作**。在初创公司里工位少、离创始人与 CEO 极近，能直接置身于最前沿的试错与失败现场；即便公司在几个月内倒闭，在失败边缘所获得的认知与经验也是无价的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 从失败中获取高需求技能的成长闭环 accDescr: 展示从边缘尝试、经历失败、积累前沿技能到实现指数级增长的个人成长路径 subgraph Learn["试错阶段"] A["投身初创企业 / 前沿浪潮 (如早期社交媒体 / AI)"] B["直面业务挫折与项目失败"] end subgraph Acquire["沉淀阶段"] C["获得前沿高需求技能 (High-Demand Skills)"] end subgraph Scale["爆发阶段"] D["提供高溢价咨询与专业服务"] E["创办新平台与长青事业 (如 Social Chain / DOAC)"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E ``` --- ### [01:49:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6561s) 低收入者的财务自由与高收入陷阱 谈到 JL Collins 的著作《Pathfinders》（探路者）时，Steven 询问书中他最喜欢的故事。Collins 再次提到了他的好友 Tom：经历多次离婚、房屋被法拍、失业并宣告破产，年过 62 岁却依然极具幸福感，人生迎来了精彩反转。但 Collins 强调，写这本书更深层的目的，是为了打破“只有高薪科技精英才能财务自由”的迷思。 虽然书中有不少科技行业高薪人士通过践行《简单的致富之路》（*The Simple Path to Wealth*）成功致富的案例，但更多令人振奋的故事来自起点普通的人： - **年薪从不超过 4 万美元的高中好友**：凭借书中最基础的储蓄与指数投资原则，稳健达成了财务独立。 - **90 年代中期在芝加哥金融圈的朋友**：有一年仅圣诞年终奖就高达 80 万美元，年薪超百万美元。但在一次午餐交谈中，这位朋友却陷入了严重的财务危机，濒临破产。 大部分人听到年终奖 80 万美元还会缺钱都会觉得不可思议，但仔细盘算其豪宅房贷、豪车租赁、私立名校学费以及配套的奢华社交开销后，就会发现其现金流早已不堪重负。Collins 指出，**过高的收入往往反而是实现财务独立的阻碍**。高收入群体极易陷入“与邻居攀比”（competing with the Joneses）的怪圈，周围同温层都在开豪车、住特定豪宅区、送孩子进贵族学校，这让人极难抽身，更难以把收入的大头用于“买断自己的自由”；相反，收入适中的人没有这些沉重的社会地位攀比包袱，反而更容易守住财富。 --- ### [01:52:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6773s) 财富的隐形黑洞：天价离婚诉讼的真实残酷面 从 Tom 的遭遇聊到“多次离婚对财富的毁灭性打击”，Steven 分享了一位纽约超级富豪朋友（身家约 5 亿美元）正在经历的离婚官司内幕。这场诉讼彻底颠覆了 Steven 对离婚案件的认知： - **长达数年的诉讼拖延**：官司已经硬生生拖延了五至六年，富豪不得不频繁奔波于律所之间。 - **全额报销对方律师费**：由于妻子没有独立经济来源，根据法律，作为养家糊口的主要赚钱方（breadwinner），该富豪必须全额承担女方庞大的律师团队费用。 - **律师事务所借机大发横财**：女方的代理律所在这六年中，从一家名不见经传的小所迅速扩张，甚至购置了一整栋宏伟的写字楼。富豪自嘲：“那栋大楼是我掏钱买下来的。”代理律师根本没有任何尽快结案的动力，反而蓄意将程序拉长以赚取数千万美元的法律服务费。 - **主观资产估值恶意膨胀**：富豪的核心资产多为非上市企业等主观估值资产。女方律师竭尽所能在法官面前推高资产估价，例如把估值 1 亿美元的公司夸大到 5 亿美元，企图争取 2.5 亿美元的判决分配。这导致男方根本无法直接妥协平分，必须被动投入巨资抗辩，否则将背负远超实际资产承受能力的虚高债务判决，实际被分割的财产份额甚至会达到 60% 至 75% 以上。 ### [01:55:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6913s) 婚姻、离婚与财富分配的残酷现实 在讨论伴侣选择与财富的关系时，斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享了一个身边朋友的真实经历：这位朋友是某家知名巨头公司的早期投资人，早在十五、二十年前就购入了该公司的原始股份。对他而言，这段早期支持这家公司的经历带有深厚的情感寄托。然而，由于长达六七年的离婚诉讼，法庭判定妻子有权分得一半资产，他被迫清仓抛售这些持有了二十年的股票。JL·柯林斯（JL Collins）立刻指出，这种被迫套现将带来极其沉重的资本利得税打击（"A huge tax hit"）。 斯蒂芬进一步解释了富人群体常用的财务杠杆机制：如果一个人持有价值 1 亿美元的优质股票，他根本不需要变卖股票，而是可以通过将股票抵押给银行，免税贷出 5,000 万美元现金。只要底层资产足够优质且持续升值，他甚至永远无需真正偿还本金，从而彻底规避巨额资本利得税。但离婚判决彻底打破了这种策略。不仅如此，斯蒂芬看到这位朋友因长达数年在法庭上的拉锯战而心力交瘁、满脸沧桑。 柯林斯与斯蒂芬对此展开了更深层的探讨：人们常说“选择伴侣是情感和浪漫的抉择，而不是财务抉择”，但事实是，离婚足以彻底摧毁一个人的财务基础。正如柯林斯所言，巨额财富在某种程度上让他成为了前妻诉讼中的明显目标，此时金钱带来的痛苦远多于幸福。斯蒂芬也客观补充了另一层事实：婚姻中的牺牲是双向的，女方在男方创业开拓的二十多年里抚养了数个孩子，为家庭放弃了自己的职业生涯，要求分得财产完全合理。斯蒂芬引用知名离婚律师詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）的话强调：“即便你没有签署婚前协议，你也拥有一份婚前协议——你不是使用自己制定的协议，就是被动接受政府替你写好的法定协议。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻资产分割与财富处置对比 accDescr: 对比签署专属婚前协议与默认法定分配在资产处置及税务上的巨大差异 subgraph 离婚处置路径 A["婚姻走向破裂"] --> B{"是否有主动婚前协议？"} B -- "有专属婚前协议" --> C["按照约定协商分配"] C --> D["保留核心资产 / 股权质押贷款获取现金流动性"] D --> E["规避高额资本利得税，减少法庭拉锯内耗"] B -- "无协议（接受政府法定规则）" --> F["法官强制对半切割"] F --> G["被迫全额清仓出售早期原始股权"] G --> H["触发巨额资本利得税，失去长期复利与精神折损"] end ``` - **股权质押借贷模式**：持有 1 亿美元股票时，富豪通常会向银行质押借贷 50%（5,000 万美元），该笔资金无需缴纳收入所得税或资本利得税，同时底层资产继续享受复利增长。 - **婚前协议的本质**：没有主动拟定协议，就意味着默认接受各州或各国的法定财产分割框架，资产处置权将完全交由法官裁决。 --- ### [01:58:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7109s) JL Collins 的 44 年婚姻：第一次约会就谈“存下 50% 收入” 斯蒂芬在谈及自己与交往六七年的女友正考虑步入婚姻时，柯林斯微笑着送上祝福，并透露到那年春天，他和妻子简（Jane）就已经结婚整整 44 年了。柯林斯幽默地感叹道：“我很幸运，第一次结婚就找对了人。”斯蒂芬随即向这位年长的前辈请教维持 44 年幸福婚姻、挑选对的人的底层框架。 柯林斯讲起了一段关于他和妻子的趣事。过去常有读者或听众问他：“在结婚之前，你和简有没有坐下来认真讨论过金钱观，确保彼此步调一致？”柯林斯过去的回答总是：“提前讨论金钱是个极好的主意，大家都应该这么做；但老实说，我和简从来没正经聊过这个，我纯粹是撞了大运，碰巧我们俩在财务消费观上高度契合。” 然而，有一次柯林斯当着妻子的面讲起这个故事时，简坐在椅子上向后一靠，当场反驳道：“你在胡说什么呢？就在我们第一次约会的时候，你就直接对我说：‘你必须把收入的 50% 存下来！’你凭什么说我们从未谈过钱？”柯林斯这才恍然大悟，原来对金钱与储蓄的严谨态度早已深入骨髓，成了自己本能的一部分，以至于自己在约会时脱口而出，事后却忘得一干二净。 --- ### [01:59:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7180s) 关于遗憾的思考：为什么假想“另一种选择”是徒劳的 斯蒂芬向 75 岁的柯林斯抛出了播客经典的收尾问题：“你人生中最大的遗憾是什么？”柯林斯在正面回答前，先深入剖析了“遗憾”这种心理机制的局限性与欺骗性。他指出，人们之所以感到遗憾，是因为内心默认了一个假设：即如果当年我选择了 B 而不是 A，生活一定会比现在更好。但现实中，没有人能证明这种因果假设必然成立。 柯林斯举例说明，有人可能会后悔当年创办了一家以破产告终的公司，视之为巨大遗憾；但正是那次失败逼迫他学习成长，进而促成了日后更重大的成就。相反，如果这个人当年没有去创业，而是选择了一份高薪的企业管理工作，并顺风顺水地爬到了跨国公司的高管层，他回过头来可能会庆幸自己没去创业，但谁也无法断言哪一条路真正让他更富足或更快乐。柯林斯总结道，回顾过去时，他也会好奇如果当年在岔路口向右转而不是向左转，人生会是怎样，但他坚信生活并不存在“保证更好的平行版本”。就整体人生而言，他过得极度充实，因而对大的人生轨迹没有任何遗憾。 --- ### [02:01:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7277s) 两个深藏七十年的私人遗憾：未能理解的父爱与病榻前的敷衍 在澄清了宏观层面的无悔之后，柯林斯首次公开分享了深藏心底数十年、关于父亲的两个极其私人的遗憾： 第一个遗憾发生在童年时期（大约八至十岁）。柯林斯的父亲是个极其擅长动手敲敲打打、热衷于修缮房屋的实用型工匠式父亲，而柯林斯从小就对木工或手工工具毫无兴趣。某年的生日或圣诞节，父亲满怀期待地送给他一把电动曲线锯（jigsaw）——在父亲眼里，这绝对是一个父亲能送给八九岁男孩最酷、最完美的礼物。然而，年幼的柯林斯并不懂得掩饰，当场表露出了极度的排斥和冷淡。看着父亲脸上瞬间垮塌下来的落寞与心碎，柯林斯深刻感受到了对父亲的伤害。虽然柯林斯后来宽慰自己那时还是个不成熟的孩子，但他至今依然清晰记着父亲当时的表情。这段长达七十年的内疚，成为了他人生中理解“共情”与体恤他人心意最沉重的一课。 第二个遗憾则更为刻骨铭心。在柯林斯 24 岁那年，父亲因长年饱受肺气肿（emphysema）的折磨，在医院的病榻上走向生命的终点。在父亲去世的前一天傍晚，柯林斯坐在病床边探望。骨瘦如柴的父亲坐在床沿，神情平静而笃定地看着儿子，低声说道：“我要走了。今晚我就会死。” 当时的柯林斯由于恐惧与缺乏经验，没有意识到这是父亲在人生最后时刻，试图以成年男人和平等的姿态，与儿子就“死亡”这一人生最重大议题进行一场庄严而真实的告别对话。柯林斯没有留下来接纳父亲的坦白，而是落入了世俗中最苍白、陈腐的安慰套路，慌忙反驳道：“噢，爸爸，别胡思乱想，你不会死的，你还能活很久，你会好起来的。”那天夜里，父亲果然平静离世。柯林斯痛心疾首地反思，父亲在那一刻根本不需要那些虚伪廉价的“正向鼓励”与假装无事的废话，他需要的是儿子能陪他直面死亡的重压，而自己却残忍地错过了父亲最后的对话邀请。 - **儿童时期的礼物冲突**：父亲赠送的电动曲线锯与儿子的冷酷回绝，揭示了父母与子女之间因兴趣脱节而产生的无意伤害，柯林斯为此铭记了 70 年。 - **面对临终对话的教训**：面对重病亲人直面死亡的倾诉，廉价的乐观主义（"Think positive"）往往是对临终者情感诉求的漠视与逃避，真正的陪伴在于不加闪躲地接纳对方的坦白与恐惧。 ### [02:04:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7478s) 无法挽回的遗憾：未能在父亲临终前与他分担 JL Collins 动情地回顾起自己人生中最大的遗憾——那发生在整整五十年前。当时父亲正独自面对死亡的逼近，试图向身为儿子的他吐露心声，分享内心的恐惧与重担。然而那时的他年轻气盛，根本没有接住父亲递过来的话头。他沉痛地坦言：“我遗憾的是在那一刻我没能陪伴在他身边，更遗憾的是，我错过了与他在那一瞬间共同经历这一切的机会。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面对父亲临终倾诉的心路复盘 accDescr: 展示年轻时的不成熟导致无法识别情感对话契机，进而带来长达半个世纪的遗憾。 subgraph Past["50年前的当下反应"] A["父亲试图敞开心扉<br/>分享面临死亡的恐惧"] --> B["未能意识到选择的存在<br/>心智尚未成熟"] B --> C["下意识敷衍带过<br/>错失情感联结"] end subgraph Present["如今的回望与反思"] C --> D["给予年轻的自己包容与宽恕 (Grace)"] D --> E["无法抹去的深层遗憾<br/>双方本可以得到更好的慰藉"] end ``` 主持人 Steven Bartlett 注意到 Collins 脸上流露出的沉重神色，轻声询问当年究竟是什么原因让他没有顺着父亲的话题走下去。Collins 解释道，那甚至谈不上是一种“意愿上的选择”：并不是他在“敷衍了事”和“欣然接纳并共同面对”之间权衡后选错了路，而是当时的心智根本没有成熟到能察觉到这种选择的存在，无法看懂那一刻真正发生的情感暗流。Steven 温和地安慰他，面对当年的不成熟，他应当对自己宽容（deserve grace）。Collins 认同这一点，但这份遗憾依然难以释怀，因为如果当时自己能够觉察并接纳那一切，“对我们两个人来说都会好得多”。 --- ### [02:06:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7564s) 临别问答：死亡、好奇心与来世的终极解构 节目进入标志性的传统环节：上一位受访嘉宾为下一位嘉宾留下了一个深刻的问题——“有什么事情是你深信不疑，但至今仍无法证实的？” 现年 75 岁的 Collins 坦言自己在这个年纪对内心的信念已经非常笃定。尽管不确定这是否严格贴合问题的本意，他分享了自己对死亡的沉思：他高度确信死后并不存在任何“来世”（afterlife），正如一句歌词所唱的那样，“活人永远无法知晓，唯有死亡才能揭晓答案”。在某种近乎戏谑的层面上，他对死亡抱有强烈的探究欲和好奇心： - **终极结局的清醒**：只要身心依旧健康，他乐于继续享受人间生活，但他几乎 100% 相信死亡就是绝对的终结，一了百了。 - **面对未知的幽默感**：如果死后发现自己猜错了，真的存在一个白胡子上帝，他会觉得十分滑稽：“哎呀，看来真的有个白胡子老头坐在那儿，那好吧，我自己走出去，告辞了！” --- ### [02:07:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7659s) 虚无与掌控：在宏大宇宙中过好仅有的一次人生 当 Steven 借着 Collins 75 岁阅历的“后见之明”，询问人生中“究竟什么才是真正重要的”时，Collins 给出了一个出人意料且直白的答案：“什么都不重要（Nothing really matters ultimately）。” 在他看来，这就像探寻“人生的意义是什么”一样，本质上是个伪命题。将人类置于浩瀚宇宙的尺度下来看： - 智人（*Homo sapiens*）存在的时间不过二三十万年，在漫漫宇宙长河中仅仅是一抹微不足道的尘埃。 - 即便人类文明再延续数百万年，与冰冷庞大的宇宙相比依旧微乎其微。如果认为个体在其中承载着某种宏大深远的意义，无异于“傲慢的极致”。 面对“那人生的目的究竟何在”的追问，Collins 阐释了积极的虚无主义态度：正因为宇宙没有预设意义，人生才是一场全凭自己体验的旅程。历史上有无数人生来就困于悲惨绝望的境地毫无选择；而如今的大多数人拥有充分的自主权来构建自己的生活。虽然生命最终依然没有宏大的外在意义，但这恰恰是你唯一拥有的一生，应当尽可能把它过得精彩，“善待他人，让自己这趟旅程走得不错，你就已经做得极好了”。 --- ### [02:10:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7815s) 诗歌《我在火车上遇见上帝》与告别推荐 为了呼应 Collins 对死亡与人生的豁达视角，Steven 分享了演员兼诗人 Lucas Jones 创作的一首极具市井烟火气又寓意深远的诗歌《我在火车上遇见上帝》（*I saw God on the train*）： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 诗歌《我在火车上遇见上帝》的核心隐喻 accDescr: 展示诗中凡人对天堂奖惩机制的质疑，以及上帝对生与死本质的回答。 A["凡人的困惑：<br/>天堂是愚蠢的诱饵<br/>恶人临终忏悔亦可升天？"] --> B["上帝的独白：<br/>经文非我所写<br/>戒律早已刻在你们心底"] --> C["终极启示：<br/>'生即是云，死即是雨'<br/>何必等死后才去寻找天堂"] ``` 诗中讲述了主角在火车车厢偶遇上帝，忍不住质问天堂的规则荒谬不公——一生作恶的凶手临终忏悔也能上天堂与善良的祖母同坐，这算什么公平交易？上帝却对他说出秘密：那些宗教繁文缛节从来不是他说的，“规则早已刻在你的心间：与人为善、莫施伤害。尽己所能生活，人间即是天堂。人们总因死后化为尘土而痛苦，却悟不透：生就是漫天浮云，死不过是化作甘霖（life is the cloud and death is the rain）。你仰头四处寻觅天堂，殊不知真正躲起来不敢生活的正是你自己。” 朗读完毕后，Steven 对 Collins 的到来表达了由衷的敬意，并极力推荐他的经典著作： - **《财务自由之路》**（*The Simple Path to Wealth*）：风靡全球的现象级财富指南，销量早已突破百万册，是踏上财务自由与摆脱心理焦虑的必读之作。 - **《探路者》**（*Pathfinders*）：记录普通人实践财务自由法则的真实历程。 - **《我在房地产风潮兴起前是如何赔钱的》**（*How I Lost Money in Real Estate Before It Was Fashionable*）：一本以轻松自嘲口吻写就的警示之作，供大家“拿他的失败开怀一笑”。 Collins 补充道，读者若想了解更多，可以浏览他的个人博客（jlcollinsnh.com）。虽然他现在很少更新，但上面的文章历久弥新，正是这些图书的原生母体。最后，Steven 赞叹 Collins 的嗓音极具疗愈感与安抚力，两人在温馨的笑声中结束了这场对谈。节目尾声，Steven 介绍了本季播客全新推出的深度对话卡牌（Conversation Cards），鼓励人们在当下的世界中通过真诚发问重拾深度人际连接。 ### [02:14:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=8064s) 节目尾声与限定版对话卡牌推广 在节目的最后，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）向观众介绍并推广了《The Diary Of A CEO》对话卡牌（Conversation Cards）。他特别强调了卡牌中内附的“金色卡片”（Gold Card），上面印有由他本人亲自撰写的独家专属提问（"an exclusive question from me"）。 史蒂芬提醒听众，这批金色卡片仅限量放置在首发印刷批次的对话卡牌中。他鼓励大家抓紧时间，赶在限量版金色卡牌售罄前点击视频简介栏中的链接前往选购。随后，本期节目在标志性的片尾旋律与歌声中圆满收尾。 - **金色卡片特权**：内含主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特亲自设计的独家专属问题。 - **限量发售**：仅随第一批次印刷的对话卡牌附赠，数量有限，赠完即止。 - **购买途径**：可通过节目简介栏中的专属链接直接获取。 ## Notable quotes > [25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1520s) 远离债务，量入为出，投资结余。 — JL Collins > [08:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=488s) If you could learn to cater to the king, you wouldn't have to live on rice and beans. / If you could learn to live on rice and beans, you wouldn't have to cater to the king. — JL Collins > [29:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=1759s) 当有人开着法拉利招摇过市，如果他买车是为了博人眼球，他心里大概会想：‘天哪，大家看着我，肯定都在想开法拉利的这家伙有多酷！’ 但事实上根本不是这样。路人看着那辆法拉利，心里想的其实是：‘哇，要是我开着那辆法拉利，我该有多酷啊！’ 他们根本不在乎开车的你是谁，你实际上并没有改变任何人对你的看法。 — JL Collins > [35:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2105s) 问题从来不是比特币在过去十年表现如何，而是它在接下来的十年里会怎么走。现在的价格已经逼近每枚 100,000 美元，它还能像过去那样以令人眼红的速度继续暴涨吗？这是每个人必须扪心自问的问题。 — JL Collins > [46:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=2784s) 股票是人类历史上所创造出的、最强大且最有效的财富积累工具，没有之一。 — JL Collins > [01:01:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=3662s) It doesn't matter, it's free — JL Collins > [01:35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=5753s) 我得怪我母亲。要不是她从小给我灌输了良知，我本来能比现在有钱得多！正是因为这份良心，让我少赚了几百万美元——否则我早就可以去兜售那些暴富交易课程了。 — JL Collins > [01:55:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=6913s) 即便你没有签署婚前协议，你也拥有一份婚前协议——你不是使用自己制定的协议，就是被动接受政府替你写好的法定协议。 — James Sexton (由 Steven Bartlett 引用) > [01:58:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7109s) 你在胡说什么呢？就在我们第一次约会的时候，你就直接对我说：‘你必须把收入的 50% 存下来！’你凭什么说我们从未谈过钱？ — Jane (由 JL Collins 引用) > [02:01:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7277s) 我要走了。今晚我就会死。 — JL Collins 的父亲 > [02:10:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU&t=7815s) 生即是云，死即是雨 (life is the cloud and death is the rain) — Lucas Jones (由 Steven Bartlett 朗诵) ## Mentioned JL Collins, Steven Bartlett, The Simple Path to Wealth, Pathfinders, How I Lost Money in Real Estate Before It Was Fashionable, Vanguard, VTSAX (Total Stock Market Index Fund), Jack Bogle, Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett, Benjamin Graham, S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, Bitcoin, Bill Bengen, Trinity Study, Roth IRA, 401(k), Traditional IRA, Cathie Wood, ARK Invest, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, Tesla, Elon Musk, Sears, ChatGPT, James Sexton, Lucas Jones, Social Chain, The Diary Of A CEO, The 1% Diary, Conversation Cards ## Video description Serial investor JL COLLINS reveals why renting is smarter than buying, the biggest lies about investing, how tax and debt destroy wealth, and how small savings will TRANSFORM your life! JL Collins is a financial educator best known for his book ‘The Simple Path to Wealth’, which has sold millions of copies worldwide. He’s also the author of the JL Collins blog, including the renowned ‘Stock Series’, and has been investing for over 4 decades. He explains: ◼️How “F-You Money” changes every decision you make ◼️Why mortgages lock up opportunity and reduce long-term freedom ◼️Why index funds outperform almost everyone over a lifetime ◼️Why working harder doesn’t stop being broke ◼️Why financial independence is about control, not consumption 00:00 Intro 03:14 Common Misconceptions About Money 04:57 Financial Freedom 06:02 Successful People Often Have Trauma 12:58 Mental Benefits of Financial Security 14:10 What Is F.U. Money? 15:46 Buying a House Isn’t Always a Good Financial Idea 20:33 The Psychological Impact of Buying a House 21:47 Why Younger Generations Could Benefit From Flexible Living 25:20 The Easiest Path to Wealth 26:36 What’s Stopping You From Becoming Financially Independent 29:19 How Spending Habits Reflect Self-Esteem 31:17 Advice for Getting Out of Debt 35:50 Should I Invest in Bitcoin? 38:30 Should I Rush to Pay Off My Mortgage? 40:37 Interest Rates Explained 41:15 How Mortgages Work 42:23 How to Get a Good Interest Rate on Your Mortgage 46:24 Is It Safe to Invest in Stocks in the AI Era? 49:05 Emotional Impact of Investing Without Enough Money 52:20 Do Men Take More Investment Risks Than Women? 53:56 Ads 55:00 The Magic of Compounding Interest 1:03:22 Young People Don’t Care About Their Future Selves 1:06:55 Why You Should Invest for Your Children 1:10:15 How Much of My Income Should I Be Saving? 1:12:41 Deferring Taxes With Retirement Savings Plans 1:19:51 Index Funds vs Individual Stocks 1:27:26 The Beer Analogy (Stocks) 1:33:27 Don’t Sell When the Market Drops 1:34:56 Is Investing Just Gambling? 1:35:53 Are Financial Courses a Scam? 1:37:14 Ads 1:39:13 Do I Need a Financial Advisor? 1:42:00 What Does Your Portfolio Look Like? 1:43:07 What Are Bonds? 1:45:11 Asking ChatGPT the Ideal Path to Wealth 1:46:14 How Do I Earn More? 1:47:01 Why Failure Is Necessary for Growth 1:49:20 You Can Have a Small Income and Still Be Financially Free 1:59:40 What's Your Biggest Regret? Follow JL Collins: X - https://bit.ly/4jy2cfp Instagram - https://bit.ly/49binMk You can purchase JL’s book ‘The Simple Path to Wealth: Your road map to financial independence and a rich, free life’, here: https://amzn.to/4aQvBPV The Diary Of A CEO: ◼️Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼️Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼️The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼️The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb ◼️Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼️Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Lucas Jones (poet and artist): https://www.instagram.com/lucassjoness/?hl=en Sponsors: Rubrik - To learn more, head to https://rubrik.com Stan: NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED. For Official Rules, visit https://DaretoDream.stan.store [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoeQUNASmTU)

[25:20] JL Collins: 远离债务，量入为出，投资结余。 [8:08] JL Collins: If you could learn to cater to the king, you wouldn't have to live on rice and beans. / If you could learn to live on rice and beans, you wouldn't have to cater to the king. [29:19] JL Collins: 当有人开着法拉利招摇过市，如果他买车是为了博人眼球，他心里大概会想：‘天哪，大家看着我，肯定都在想开法拉利的这家伙有多酷！’ 但事实上根本不是这样。路人看着那辆法拉利，心里想的其实是：‘哇，要是我开着那辆法拉利，我该有多酷啊！’ 他们根本不在乎开车的你是谁，你实际上并没有改变任何人对你的看法。 [35:05] JL Collins: 问题从来不是比特币在过去十年表现如何，而是它在接下来的十年里会怎么走。现在的价格已经逼近每枚 100,000 美元，它还能像过去那样以令人眼红的速度继续暴涨吗？这是每个人必须扪心自问的问题。 [46:24] JL Collins: 股票是人类历史上所创造出的、最强大且最有效的财富积累工具，没有之一。 [61:02] JL Collins: It doesn't matter, it's free [95:53] JL Collins: 我得怪我母亲。要不是她从小给我灌输了良知，我本来能比现在有钱得多！正是因为这份良心，让我少赚了几百万美元——否则我早就可以去兜售那些暴富交易课程了。 [115:13] James Sexton (由 Steven Bartlett 引用): 即便你没有签署婚前协议，你也拥有一份婚前协议——你不是使用自己制定的协议，就是被动接受政府替你写好的法定协议。 [118:29] Jane (由 JL Collins 引用): 你在胡说什么呢？就在我们第一次约会的时候，你就直接对我说：‘你必须把收入的 50% 存下来！’你凭什么说我们从未谈过钱？ [121:17] JL Collins 的父亲: 我要走了。今晚我就会死。 [130:15] Lucas Jones (由 Steven Bartlett 朗诵): 生即是云，死即是雨 (life is the cloud and death is the rain)

[5:00] The Minister: If you could learn to cater to the king, you wouldn't have to live on rice and beans. [5:00] The Monk: If you could learn to live on rice and beans, you wouldn't have to cater to the king. [22:31] JL Collins: Flexibility, especially when you're young and your career is in a dynamic phase, is not to be underrated. [25:20] JL Collins: Avoid debt, live on less than you earn, invest the surplus. [26:36] JL Collins: I spent every dime that ever came my way. It's just that I spent half of those dimes on the thing that I wanted to own the most, which was my freedom. [29:19] JL Collins: They're looking at you in that Ferrari and what they're thinking is, 'Wow, I would look cool if I was driving that Ferrari.' They're not thinking about you at all. You're making no impact on what their opinion of you is. [34:43] JL Collins: You can make a bad choice where things work out well for you... They got lucky. Lots of speculations don't work out that well. [45:10] JL Collins: Stocks are the single most effective, strongest wealth-building tool that's ever been created, but they're also very, very volatile. [62:00] Steven Bartlett: What the study proved was that we think about ourselves in 10 years' time in the same way that we think about Matt Damon... To the brain, thinking about me when I'm 60 is like thinking about Matt Damon. Right. I don't know the guy. So what do I care? [64:32] JL Collins: You're doing this because you want to be stronger tomorrow than you are today [102:00] JL Collins: My stocks, I'm probably about 80% in VTSAX, total stock market index fund. And probably 15% in bonds... and then the other 5% in money market fund. [107:47] JL Collins: I've come to believe that a large income actually can be an impediment to accomplishing it... people with a large income are much more likely to be drawn into the competing with the Joneses scenario... [117:51] Steven Bartlett: Even if you don't get a pre-nup, there's still a pre-nup. You either use the government's pre-nup... or you create your own. [119:40] JL Collins: Regrets are tricky... there is an assumption that you regret doing A and you think if only I'd done B, things would be better. But you don't know that that's true. [127:39] JL Collins: When you look at the scale of the universe, the scale of the cosmos, the concept that we as individuals bear some meaning seems to me to be silly.

[0:00] If your goal is to become financially [0:01] independent at a young age, this is a [0:03] very controversial thing to say. You [0:05] probably don't want to go buy a house [0:06] because people typically buy a house [0:09] they can't possibly afford. The bank [0:11] wants you to do that cuz that's how they [0:13] make the most money. So you're putting [0:14] your capital into that house and now [0:16] it's not going to be earning thing. It's [0:17] going to be sitting idly. Some people [0:19] say, "Well, you know, I can buy this [0:20] house because my mortgage is the same as [0:23] my rent." Well, yeah, but your mortgage [0:26] is just the starting point. So what [0:28] comes to mind [0:28] >> if I want to be financially wealthy? [0:30] Okay, so we've got a lot to go through. [0:32] JL Collins is a renowned financial [0:34] expert known for his book The Simple [0:35] Path to Wealth. He's teaching millions a [0:37] straightforward and realistic avenue for [0:39] achieving wealth [0:40] >> so that anyone can have financial [0:42] security. What is the simple path to [0:45] wealth? So first of all, avoid debt [0:47] because you can never be financially [0:49] independent if you're carrying around [0:50] debt. Next, live on less than you earn. [0:52] [music] But the problem is the way our [0:54] culture has taught us to think about [0:55] money is solely in terms of what can you [0:58] buy with it. But the more must-haves you [1:00] have in your life, the less likely you [1:02] are to become wealthy. And then the [1:04] final one, invest the surplus. So stocks [1:07] are the single most effective, strongest [1:10] wealth-building tool that's ever been [1:12] created. But the biggest pushback I get [1:14] is from people who say, "Well, that's [1:16] great. I mean, if you got a big income, [1:17] $100, $200, $300,000 a year, then yeah, [1:20] the simple path to wealth will work for [1:21] you." That's not the truth. For [1:23] instance, a friend of mine, he was [1:24] making a million dollars a year and he [1:26] was broke because people have large [1:27] incomes are much more likely to be drawn [1:30] into the competing with the Joneses. [1:32] Whereas the people who make less money [1:34] probably don't have those same social [1:35] pressures and are more readily able to [1:37] do it. So let's talk about investing [1:39] then. Where do you think we should be [1:40] investing our money at this moment of [1:41] time? Should I buy Bitcoin? Do I need a [1:43] financial adviser? So my advice, and [1:46] this is a little different than the more [1:47] common advice out there, would be [1:51] This has always blown my mind a little [1:52] bit. 53% of you that listen to this show [1:55] regularly haven't yet subscribed to this [1:57] show. So could I ask you for a favor [1:59] before we start? If you like this show [2:00] and you like what we do here and you [2:01] want to support us, the free simple way [2:03] that you can do just that is by hitting [2:05] the subscribe button. And my commitment [2:07] to you is if you do that, then I'll do [2:08] everything in my power, me and my team, [2:10] to make sure that this show is better [2:11] for you every single week. We'll listen [2:13] to your feedback. We'll find the guest [2:15] that you want me to speak to and we'll [2:17] continue to do what we do. Thank you so [2:18] much. [2:21] >> [music and singing] [2:26] >> JL Collins. [2:29] You wrote a book, a very iconic book [2:31] that sold [2:32] millions of copies called The Simple [2:34] Path to Wealth. [2:36] Why did you write this book? I actually [2:39] that book was an outgrowth of my blog. [2:42] I started the blog [2:44] to archive information I wanted my [2:46] daughter [2:47] to have available because if you get [2:49] money right, your life is so much [2:52] better. You have so many more options. [2:54] And [2:56] the world offers so much to people who [2:59] have the resources with which to access [3:01] it. [3:02] And so little for those people who don't [3:04] have the resources to access those [3:07] things. And and if you don't have it, [3:10] it life is just so much harder than it [3:13] than it needs to be. When you think [3:15] about the average person listening right [3:16] now, what is what are some of the [3:18] fundamental sort of misconceptions or [3:21] misunderstandings or what would you call [3:23] it, black spots that they have as it [3:25] relates to money? [3:26] The things they walk around assuming [3:28] about money that are incorrect. That [3:31] that you were maybe trying to get out of [3:32] your daughter's mind. Right. So there's [3:34] a chapter in the book called How to [3:36] Think About Money. [3:38] And [3:39] the fundamental way I think the vast [3:41] majority of people think about money, [3:43] because this is what our culture has [3:45] taught us, the way our culture has [3:47] taught us to think about money, [3:49] is solely in terms of what can you buy [3:52] with it. So [snorts] if you go to the [3:54] average person, that lottery for [3:55] instance is like a billion dollars at [3:58] the moment. So people are buying lottery [3:59] tickets. [4:01] And if you interviewed people standing [4:02] in line to buy lottery tickets and said, [4:04] "Okay, if you win this million dollars, [4:05] what are you going to do with it?" [4:07] Well, what you're typically going to [4:08] hear is, "Well, I'm going to pay off my [4:09] debts and I'm going to pay off my [4:11] mortgage and I'm going to buy my parents [4:13] a house and I'm going to buy myself a [4:15] Lamborghini. I'm going to buy I'm going [4:16] to buy I'm going to buy." [4:18] That's the way most people think about [4:20] money. [4:21] And that's certainly one of the things [4:23] that money's very good at. It is a means [4:25] of exchange. [4:27] But the other thing your money can do [4:29] for you is work for you. [4:31] Your money can make you more money. So [4:34] you can exchange your time and effort [4:36] and labor to earn money and that's what [4:39] most of us do. [4:41] But you can also divert some of the [4:44] money you earn into investments, into [4:47] what I call buying your freedom. [4:49] And now your money is working for you. [4:51] So instead of just thinking about what [4:53] your money can buy, you can start [4:55] thinking about what can your money earn. [4:57] You can buy your freedom. [4:59] >> You can buy your freedom, your financial [5:00] freedom. [5:01] Why is that an important reframing of [5:05] the role of money in your view? What [5:07] does that do if I start thinking about [5:09] it through that lens? Well, because as [5:10] long as you are dependent on exchanging [5:13] your effort, time, and labor [5:15] for money, [5:17] you are beholden to whoever is willing [5:20] to pay you to do that. [5:22] That's a limit of freedom. It's a it's a [5:25] form of [5:26] without being too dramatic, a form of [5:28] slavery. [5:30] If you are always living paycheck to [5:32] paycheck to pay the mortgage or the rent [5:34] or whatever, if on the other hand work [5:36] is optional, [5:38] you're a good example. Man, you've been [5:40] a very successful guy. [5:41] >> [snorts] [5:42] >> You're not doing this podcast because [5:44] you need the money. [5:46] If you were still stuck at a job that [5:49] paid you a wage, you wouldn't have the [5:51] option to do this because you'd have to [5:53] devote all your time to that job so you [5:56] could pay the mortgage, so you could pay [5:58] the rent, so you could put food on the [6:00] table. Money buys freedom. How does one [6:03] get out of that situation? You know, if [6:05] I used to work in call centers [6:07] um answering phones and selling people [6:09] things. [6:09] >> Sure. [6:10] How does one in your view realistically [6:13] get from that place where you are kind [6:15] of beholden to the paycheck? [6:16] >> Right. I was I'd spend my wage within [6:18] the first week or so of the month. Sure. [6:20] And then I'd just suffer for the next 3 [6:21] weeks. In the UK we have like a 4-week [6:23] paying cycle. I think in the US it's 2 [6:24] weeks typically, but I I took a I think [6:26] a reckless road out of that life. The [6:28] thing that gave me the proclivity to [6:31] take the risk is like some kind of [6:33] insecurity and trauma. Well, like I [6:35] couldn't I didn't have a plan B because [6:37] I wanted to be I wanted to like validate [6:39] myself or something. [6:41] And so I wonder if the the skill or the [6:43] thing that I was given that I'm most [6:44] thankful for is like some kind of [6:47] chip on my shoulder. Some kind of [6:48] trauma. [6:49] But but no, no, no, genuinely cuz I [6:51] think like what would make you take a [6:52] risk, like some of the risks that I took [6:54] to leave university to then like be be [6:56] broke and [6:58] I was like, well, I just I was driven I [7:00] was dragged by some kind of trauma. [7:02] Right. [7:03] One of the things that I've observed and [7:05] I think to the extent that I've had some [7:07] success in my life, this is true, [7:09] that successful people do tend to have [7:12] trauma in their background. At least [7:14] that's my observation. Now, I'm sure [7:17] there are exceptions to that. [7:19] But it does seem that people like us are [7:23] striving to overcome [7:26] those past traumas, to have that chip on [7:28] the shoulder, to prove something. [7:31] I've also met people who are very [7:34] content [7:36] to be completely lacking in ambition. [7:40] And to have enough to have a comfortable [7:43] life and kind of do what they want to [7:44] do, to have financial independence [7:46] maybe, [7:48] but they don't have this drive to be [7:50] successful, to to make a mark on on the [7:54] world. [7:55] And [7:56] they tend to have had better childhoods [7:58] and and and I think that there is [8:02] that wasn't me, that doesn't appear to [8:03] be you, but I think there's a lot to be [8:06] said for for that, right? You you I [8:09] mean, you open the book about talking [8:11] about a parable of the monk and the [8:13] minister. [8:14] >> And the minister. [8:14] >> Yeah. [8:15] Can you tell me about that parable cuz [8:17] it seems to somewhat relate to what [8:19] we're saying here? Yeah, very very much [8:20] so. [8:21] And that's the reason I opened the book [8:23] with it. So the parable is [8:25] there are these [8:26] uh two boys who grew up together. [8:28] They're childhood friends. As frequently [8:30] happens, they go their different [8:31] directions in life as they become [8:33] adults. [8:34] And one becomes a very successful, [8:36] powerful minister to the king. And the [8:38] other becomes a humble monk in tattered [8:41] robes with a begging bowl and what have [8:43] you. And years later they run into each [8:44] other in the road. [8:46] And they're getting reacquainted. [8:48] And as they are, the minister to the [8:50] king takes pity on on his [8:52] poverty-stricken friend in his tattered [8:55] robes. [8:56] And he says, "You know, [8:58] if you could learn to cater to the king, [9:00] you wouldn't have to live on rice and [9:02] beans." [9:03] To which the monk replies, [9:05] "If you could learn to live on rice and [9:07] beans, [9:08] you wouldn't have to cater to the king." [9:11] And for me, I've always been a little [9:13] bit more towards the monk side. [9:16] I'm [9:18] I'm not a very materialistic person and [9:20] I'm [9:21] comfortable and able to get along on on [9:24] very little. [9:25] And I think there's something beautiful [9:27] about needing less. I have from my [9:30] interviews met people who are very [9:33] wealthy, even actually off camera, [9:35] who are very very wealthy and appear to [9:37] be happy. Yes. [9:38] >> But I think I I think it's safe to say [9:41] that the richest people I know are [9:43] amongst the least happy people I know. [9:45] So if I think about the very top, the [9:47] billionaires that I know off camera, [9:50] they are amongst the least happy, [9:52] typically. Mhm. Um because I think [9:55] whatever's taken them there [9:57] is still haunting them while they're [9:58] there. [9:59] So, it could be the chip on the [10:00] shoulder, the insecurity, whatever [10:01] happened to them that made them so [10:02] driven and obsessed with validation and [10:04] climbing is still haunting them now. [10:07] But I do also I do know people like I [10:09] say that are very very rich and that [10:11] live [10:12] remarkably content lives. I think part [10:14] of it is their relationship with the [10:15] stuff. [10:16] Like I think it is possible [10:18] >> keep it at arm's length, right? They're [10:20] a little psychic distance from the [10:22] stuff. Yeah, and I [10:24] just speaking from my own journey, at a [10:25] very young age up until the age of 25, I [10:27] was convinced that buying a Range Rover [10:29] Sport was going to like really make me [10:31] really happy. And [10:33] the anticlimax once I got those things [10:35] was was like stuck it was staggering. It [10:37] was a complete [10:39] mental it was like someone had shaken my [10:41] head. My reality distorted for a second [10:43] because I thought this was meant to be [10:44] it. [10:45] And now I can still get things that I [10:46] like, but I was saying to Will the other [10:49] day that when I walked into my new house [10:50] in LA, [10:51] I pre-prepped myself to know that it was [10:54] going to have zero impact on my [10:55] happiness. And that meant that I [10:56] actually enjoyed it, weirdly. Right. [10:59] Like I was actually super grateful [11:00] because I'd pre-prepped myself to have a [11:02] healthier relationship with the thing. [11:04] Bring the expectation down. [11:05] >> Exactly. So, there are a couple of [11:06] things at play there, I think. One is [11:08] it's the journey that's really [11:10] satisfying. Mhm. The destination tends [11:12] to be less so. And I think that's one of [11:14] the problems with [11:16] being very materialistic because [11:19] you know, if your definition of [11:21] happiness is if I only owned this watch, [11:25] right? If I only had this watchmaker [11:27] make me this intricate watch, then I [11:28] would be happy. [11:30] Well, I mean [11:31] maybe, but probably not. You're probably [11:34] going to have that watch and you're [11:35] going to look at it and say, [11:36] "That's really nice. Wow, that's good." [11:38] And then [11:39] well, what's next? [11:41] But if you enjoy the journey or and I [11:43] think you made a very wise decision if [11:46] you reset your expectations [11:49] and say, you know, I'm going to have [11:50] this nice house or this nice watch, [11:53] but I don't expect it to make me happy. [11:54] But it's going to be a nice thing to [11:56] have in in my life. And somebody once [11:59] said much wiser than me, you know, money [12:01] doesn't change who you are. It It can [12:03] magnify who you are. So, if you're an [12:05] unhappy person and you have lots of [12:08] money, you will probably still be an [12:09] unhappy person. Mhm. Uh if you're a [12:12] happy person, I mean, one of the happy [12:14] In fact, the single happiest guy I know, [12:17] his life was the biggest financial [12:19] disaster of anybody I personally know. [12:22] And this guy's He's the literally the [12:24] happiest human being I've ever met. Cuz [12:26] he was happy before. Because he was [12:27] happy before and there's other things [12:30] besides money that makes you happy. [12:32] Money [12:33] and the reason that I I it was so [12:35] important to me to teach my daughter [12:37] this, money gives you options. [12:40] Right? Money allows you a lot [12:43] wider range of choices in life. [12:47] But it doesn't necessarily make you [12:49] happy. [12:50] Right? If it allows you to pursue an [12:52] option [12:53] that otherwise you couldn't pursue and [12:56] that option makes you happy, that's a [12:57] different thing. I think if I was [12:59] listening to this and I was broke like I [13:01] used to be very broke, I would still [13:05] pursue wealth at all costs. Because I [13:07] know I had this phrase the other day [13:08] which was [13:10] it is easier to get rich than it is to [13:13] give up the idea that getting rich will [13:15] make you happy. [13:17] And I [13:18] >> [laughter] [13:18] >> I thought to myself [13:19] >> Right. [13:20] And if you hadn't gotten rich, you would [13:22] always think 100% you'd always wonder if [13:25] that was And you know what? So much of [13:26] the unhappiness or anxiety that I had [13:29] when I was you know, my early early [13:32] innings of my life and my career came [13:34] from looking down and seeing the bailiff [13:36] letters or came from the credit card [13:38] debt or how am I going to eat today or [13:41] you know, can't go out and see my [13:42] friends. So much of my mind was occupied [13:44] by [13:45] my inability to have freedom. Right. My [13:47] lack of freedom. My need to get up at [13:49] 8:00 and walk for an hour and a half to [13:51] a call center was you know, so what I [13:53] managed to remove was that. I wouldn't [13:55] say I I added happiness, but I removed [13:57] the unhappiness. [13:58] >> Well, and that's a that's a key point. [14:00] You know, money doesn't necessarily make [14:02] you happy, but the lack of money Oh, [14:04] yeah. can be [14:06] terrible challenge, especially in this [14:08] modern culture we've created. Okay, so [14:11] if you have kids listening right now, [14:12] please cover their ears cuz I'm going to [14:13] say a swear word. Parents always message [14:15] me and ask me to stop swearing. So, I'm [14:17] going to say a swear word. Um a lot of [14:19] people are obsessed with this idea of [14:20] [ __ ] you money. Right. [14:22] Let me just give you a definition. So, F [14:23] you money refers to a financial [14:25] situation where a person has enough [14:26] money to live comfortably without [14:27] needing to work and it gives you the [14:29] freedom to say F you to anyone or [14:31] anything you don't want to tolerate such [14:33] as a job, a boss, or a situation that [14:35] doesn't align with your values. What [14:37] does that mean to you? [14:39] Yeah, so for me, so that's a good [14:41] definition, but I would substitute in [14:44] that definition financial independence. [14:46] F you money for me is the money you [14:48] accumulate on the way. [14:50] Right? So, for instance, if you're a [14:53] bodybuilder, [14:55] you know, financial independence is when [14:57] you're on the stage and you're winning, [14:59] you're at the elite level. But along the [15:01] way, from the moment you start working [15:03] out, you get a little bit stronger, a [15:05] little bit stronger, a little bit [15:06] stronger, right? Same thing financially. [15:09] The moment you start setting aside money [15:11] and investing it, you become a little [15:13] bit financially stronger. [15:15] And that builds over time. That in my [15:17] mind is the F you money. [15:20] Because [15:21] long before you're financially [15:22] independent, that money gives you [15:25] enormous freedom. You might not be able [15:28] to never work again, [15:30] but if you need to, you could leave a [15:32] toxic job [15:34] knowing you could survive for months or [15:37] even years while you looked for the [15:39] better job because you have that F you [15:42] money. So, it allows you to say F you in [15:44] that case to an employer. And if you do [15:46] it daughter turn around, what's her [15:47] name? Jessica. Jessica. If Jessica turns [15:50] around to you and says, "Dad, what are [15:53] what is something I should not do with [15:55] my money if I [15:57] um want to be wealthy?" [16:00] What is the what are like the big What [16:01] is the first thing that comes to mind to [16:03] as a no-no [16:05] if I want to be financially wealthy? [16:07] The most more common advice that I think [16:10] you should avoid if your goal is to [16:11] become financially independent at a [16:13] young age, [16:14] you probably don't want to go buy a [16:15] house. [16:17] That's very controversial thing to say. [16:19] The reason you're why buy a house is [16:21] because houses dramatically inflates [16:24] inflate by and large your cost of [16:26] living. [16:28] You know, you're you're putting your [16:29] capital into that house and now it's not [16:31] going to be earning thing. It's going to [16:32] be sitting idly. [16:34] Along with owning a house, you have the [16:36] expenses of maintaining it, paying the [16:38] taxes on it, blah blah blah. [16:41] If you stay in a [16:43] apartment that is just enough to meet [16:45] your needs, which by the way is what my [16:47] daughter has done and continues to do, [16:51] your costs will be lower. Explain that [16:53] to me. Explain why my cost of living [16:55] goes up if I buy a house. Sure. So, [16:57] people it doesn't have to, but people [16:59] people typically [17:01] buy the most house they can possibly [17:03] afford. The industry drives them that [17:05] way. If you go to a real estate agent, [17:07] you say, "I think I'm going to I want to [17:08] buy a house." Right? First question [17:10] they're going to ask you is how much do [17:11] you make? [17:13] How much you want to spend, you know? [17:14] And And then you go to the bank and you [17:16] say, "Okay, I want to buy a house. How [17:18] much will you lend me?" And they'll [17:19] they'll how much you make and then [17:20] they'll come back with a large number [17:23] of how much they're willing to lend you. [17:25] If you follow those guidelines, you're [17:27] going to wind up with a house that's [17:29] going to be a burden. You are not buying [17:31] it from a position of strength. You are [17:33] stretching to buy it. You are borrowing [17:35] the most money a bank's willing to give [17:36] you. You probably don't want to do that. [17:39] I mean, you can. That's the bank wants [17:40] you to do that cuz that's [17:41] [clears throat] how they make the most [17:42] money, but that's not the best thing for [17:44] you to do. But that's what you get drawn [17:46] into. And then when you buy that house, [17:49] I don't know that I've ever known [17:50] anybody, including me by the way, and [17:52] I've owned houses most of my adult life, [17:54] who's owned a house without doing [17:55] renovations on it. So, you've got those [17:58] costs. [17:59] You're going to furnish that house cuz [18:00] you're probably buying more square [18:01] footage than you were renting before. [18:03] You're going to need new furniture or [18:05] maybe you just want better furniture for [18:07] your new house. Maybe new appliances, [18:09] landscaping, taxes, maintenance. I mean, [18:12] the the list is endless and people [18:15] say, "Well, you know, I can buy this [18:16] house. My mortgage [18:19] is the same as my rent." [18:22] Well, yeah, but your mortgage is just [18:25] the starting point. You've got all these [18:26] other expenses with the house. And the [18:28] other thing is they are variable [18:30] expenses. Variable expenses. [18:32] >> Yeah, with your rent, you know, if if [18:34] you're renting an apartment, you're [18:36] paying $2,500 a month for your [18:37] apartment, right? You know exactly what [18:39] your housing costs are for the term of [18:41] your lease. [18:42] Right? $2,500 a month. [18:45] If you own a house, maybe your mortgage [18:47] is $2,500 a month. [18:49] And then you need new roof. And that's [18:51] 20 grand. [18:52] Or you need a new septic system, which [18:54] by the way I'm [18:55] looking at having to put into my [18:57] cottage. You know, well, that's another [18:59] 25 grand, right? And so and you don't [19:01] necessarily know when those things are [19:03] going to come at you. [19:05] It is a bit of a trap, isn't it? It's a [19:06] trap. Um I didn't realize this until I [19:09] bought a house and And most people [19:10] don't. [19:11] >> Like I even sit here on this podcast [19:12] doing this for a living and then I I [19:14] made this stupid mistake of buying a [19:16] house. And I do think it was a stupid [19:17] mistake because I [19:19] I will talk about opportunity cost in a [19:20] second, but it was in hindsight it was [19:22] like a terrible decision. [19:24] I spent all this money on this house. It [19:26] was a house abroad. It was also like a [19:28] holiday home, I guess. [19:30] And every time I come, all I see is [19:32] things that I need to change. Yeah, it's [19:35] Look at the United States. For instance, [19:37] if 20 years ago, 30 years ago, you'd [19:39] bought a house in San Francisco, [19:42] well, you've done very very well [19:43] financially. If you bought a house in [19:45] Detroit, [19:46] not so much. [19:48] So, then the question becomes people [19:50] will say, "Well, obviously you don't buy [19:51] a house Detroit, you buy a house in San [19:53] Francisco. [19:54] Well, I'm not an expert in real estate, [19:56] but [19:57] I am reading more and more commonly that [20:00] San Francisco is has a lot of very [20:02] challenging problems at the moment. [20:05] Detroit, on the other hand, where I was [20:07] just visiting a couple of years ago, is [20:10] enjoying a renaissance. Detroit's coming [20:12] back. [20:13] So, who's to say in 20, 30 years people [20:16] won't be saying, you bought in Detroit [20:18] back in 2025, [20:20] you were golden. And if you bought San [20:22] Francisco, yeah, not so much. Sometimes [20:25] real estate, buying a house, can work [20:27] out in a spectacular fashion. And that's [20:30] the stories people tend to hear. [20:32] But not always. [20:33] >> And that's what I tend to see in the [20:34] comment section when we talk about this [20:36] issue of buying a house. I've just [20:38] looking at the comment section actually, [20:39] and [20:40] on a previous conversation where we [20:41] talked about whether you should buy a [20:42] house, someone said, I bought a house [20:45] and it's the best thing I ever did. It's [20:46] launched my mindset in new directions. [20:49] Remember that your own space has [20:52] profound psychological impacts and can [20:54] be life-changing for some of that don't [20:57] live in a healthy environment. The [20:59] psychological impact of buying a house. [21:02] What that commenter just said is is can [21:05] be and for him obviously is absolutely [21:08] true. [21:09] I am not anti-house. As I mentioned a [21:12] moment ago, I've owned houses most of my [21:14] adult life. [21:16] But I've never bought them because I [21:17] thought they were an investment. I [21:19] bought them because I thought they would [21:21] enhance my life in a way I wanted it [21:23] enhanced. They would make my life [21:25] better. They are, in my view, an [21:28] expensive indulgence. [21:30] I have nothing against expensive [21:32] indulgences. That's one of the reasons [21:34] we accumulate money. Right? I like some [21:37] expensive some I don't care about, some [21:39] I like. [21:40] Um but that's what they are. And if you [21:42] can easily afford it, then by all means [21:46] buy the house. Looking at some stats [21:48] here, it says home buying was once a [21:49] solid investment due to rising property [21:51] values and lower mortgage rates. [21:52] However, for younger generations, this [21:54] is no longer the case because of [21:56] skyrocketing home prices. Since 1980, US [21:59] home prices have increased by over 300% [22:02] outpacing inflation and wage growth. In [22:05] 2023, mortgage rates surged past 7% [22:08] making monthly payments significantly [22:09] higher than before and medium wages have [22:12] only risen by about 15% since year the [22:15] year 2000, while home prices have more [22:18] than doubled making home ownership less [22:20] affordable. And lastly, the cost of [22:22] renting is often cheaper than buying, [22:24] especially in cities where prices have [22:25] outpaced wage growth, leading many [22:27] younger people to choose renting for [22:29] flexibility. This point of flexibility [22:31] as well is one we don't talk about. [22:33] >> Right. [22:33] >> Which is the ability to go do something [22:35] else in another country. [22:36] >> Exactly. And my brother said this to me [22:38] when I was 20. My brother's very smart, [22:40] he's a year older than me. [22:41] He's a financial genius and has a much [22:44] different brain to mine. And I remember [22:46] when I was 20, [22:47] maybe 24, and I was talking about do I [22:49] buy a house? And he both told me it was [22:52] the worst investment I could ever make, [22:54] but he also told me to think about [22:55] flexibility and my ability to get up and [22:57] move. [22:58] >> Yes. And I was what do you mean? And he [22:59] said, well, listen, you're in a certain [23:01] era of your career where [23:04] you might be [23:06] called by someone in San Francisco who [23:08] offers you a great opportunity and you [23:10] might want to go next week. And it [23:12] actually, when I look at how my career [23:13] transpired, that's exactly what [23:15] happened. I was in Plymouth and then I [23:18] went to Manchester for business and I [23:20] went to London for business. Then I went [23:21] around the world to San Francisco, to [23:23] New York for business. And I'm I'm [23:25] moving with the opportunity. [23:28] And if I was anchored somewhere because [23:30] a mortgage does [23:31] >> that along. [23:31] >> Yeah. And and a mortgage does like [23:33] psychologically anchor you. This is what [23:35] people don't talk about. It creates a [23:36] huge amount of guilt if you then want to [23:40] get up and go because you in your head [23:41] you're going, well, I'm going to be [23:42] paying [23:43] double. Well, you said I agree with [23:47] everything you said. I agree I agree [23:48] with your brother. Flexibility, [23:50] especially when you're young and your [23:53] career is in a dynamic phase, [snorts] [23:56] it is not to be underrated. For my [23:58] daughter, I mean, she loves living in [24:00] Savannah. They've been there for 3 [24:02] years. [24:03] But [24:04] she has an adventuresome soul and [24:07] you know, she says, I don't know. I [24:08] mean, maybe at some point I'll want to [24:10] go live in Europe or somewhere else. [24:13] Well, if you have a house that [24:14] complicates that decision. And even if [24:18] you are fortunate enough to buy in a [24:20] market where your values are rising, [24:23] the cost associated with buying and [24:26] selling a house is are enormous. [24:29] The, you know, the real estate [24:30] commission and the taxes and what have [24:32] you. So, getting in and out of a house [24:35] is an expensive proposition. Getting in [24:37] and out of an apartment doesn't cost [24:39] anything. I mean, maybe your security [24:40] deposit, right? But that's it. That's [24:43] that's very clean and simple, but if [24:46] you're if you were to buy a house in [24:48] Savannah and then to say, you know, I [24:50] think I want to go live in [24:52] Portugal. [24:53] Well, [24:54] now you got to sell that house or maybe [24:57] you have to rent it. Now you're a [24:58] landlord. You're an accidental landlord, [25:00] which was subject to my second book. [25:03] You know, that's not optimal. That I [25:06] mean, if you set out to be a landlord, [25:07] great. But if you become an accidental [25:09] landlord because you can't sell your [25:12] house that you don't want to live in [25:13] anymore, that's not so great. So, [25:16] flexibility is is enormously important. [25:19] If I if I were to ask you, what is [25:22] the simple path to wealth and you had to [25:25] respond in a sentence, [25:27] what would that sentence be? Avoid debt, [25:30] live on less than you earn, invest the [25:32] surplus. So, let's talk about debt then. [25:34] Okay. [25:35] >> Why did you say avoid debt? [25:37] You can never be financially independent [25:39] if you're carrying around debt. [25:41] It's a ball and chain that you drag drag [25:44] along, especially consumer debt. Now, to [25:46] be clear, if you're in business and your [25:49] business is [25:51] is carrying debt as a as a function of [25:54] of running the operation for one reason [25:57] or another, that's kind of a different [25:59] thing. But in terms of personal debt, [26:02] uh if you're running up credit card [26:04] debt, if you're leasing expensive cars [26:07] or or borrowing money to buy expensive [26:09] cars or what have you, possibly a [26:11] mortgage [26:12] >> [snorts] [26:12] >> is in a slightly different category, but [26:15] it has all the disadvantages we just [26:16] talked about. Yeah, debt's a ball and [26:19] chain. It's it's like asking a swimmer [26:22] to [26:23] compete and and strapping a weight [26:26] around their waist. Uh it just is it [26:28] possible? Sure, I guess it is, but it's [26:30] a whole lot a whole lot more difficult. [26:32] So, job one if you have debt is to blow [26:34] it out. And I mean, blowing it out is a [26:37] dream for many, but it's uh easier said [26:40] than done, I guess. It simply means that [26:43] you have to organize your life in such a [26:45] fashion [26:46] that you can divert some money to either [26:50] buying your freedom investments or if [26:52] you have debt, [26:54] paying off that debt. [26:56] You just you have to do that. And people [26:59] say, well, I can't do that, you know, I [27:00] I need to have this I and the more, you [27:02] know, I need to have the these the two [27:04] least luxury cars and we need to live in [27:06] this neighborhood and we need to send [27:08] the kids to these schools and we need to [27:10] and I call that the tyranny of the [27:12] must-haves. [27:13] The more must-haves you have in your [27:15] life, the less likely you are to become [27:17] financially independent. Now, that's [27:20] your choice. That's an individual's [27:22] choice. It may very well be that those [27:24] things [27:26] are more important to you than buying [27:28] your freedom. And it's your money. It's [27:31] not for me to tell anybody [27:33] how they should spend their money or [27:34] what's important me or what's important [27:36] to them. For me, there was nothing I [27:39] could spend my money on that was more [27:41] important than my freedom, which is why [27:44] from the beginning I diverted half of my [27:46] income to buying that thing. It was [27:48] never deprivation. [27:50] Right? Most people say, well, that's [27:51] this is a path of deprivation. I can't [27:53] spend my money. [27:55] Well, not for me. I you know, I spent [27:58] every dime that ever came my way. [28:00] It's just that I spent half of those [28:03] dimes on the thing that I wanted to own [28:06] the most, which was my freedom. And you [28:08] own that by owning assets. [28:11] So, I wasn't I wasn't depriving myself [28:14] any more than if somebody said, you [28:17] know, I'm looking at buying a a Mercedes [28:21] or a Volkswagen, right? If I'm buy the [28:24] Mercedes, I'm in this big fancy car and [28:26] people will be impressed. [28:28] If I buy the Volkswagen, yeah, I'm in [28:30] this more modest car, but then I've got [28:32] a whole bunch of money left over that I [28:34] can spend on a wardrobe or going out to [28:37] dinner or a more expensive apartment. [28:39] It's just a matter of choosing where you [28:40] spend your money on, right? So, [28:43] one of the choices that I I do I am [28:46] under no illusion that most people who [28:49] read my book will actually follow the [28:52] simple path because I I think there's [28:55] just way too much cultural influence to [28:58] spend your money elsewhere. But at least [29:00] the people who read the book and listen [29:02] to this interview will be aware that [29:05] there is something else they could buy [29:07] with their money. [29:08] And that's their personal freedom. And [29:11] you do that by assets. [29:13] And there was nothing more important to [29:14] me. Nothing I wanted more. So, it was [29:17] not deprivation at all. [29:19] I am I reflect back on [29:23] where I used to be in my life and if I'd [29:25] heard this conversation then, [29:27] I really really struggled with um saving [29:30] money because saving spending money was [29:32] so closely linked to my sense of self [29:35] and my self-esteem. A lot of people feel [29:37] that way. I've shared this story before, [29:39] but when I I was working in those call [29:41] centers at [29:42] which one? Swinton Swinton's car [29:43] insurance where I used to work, I would [29:46] get my paycheck and it might be, I don't [29:47] know, 1,500 pounds or 2,000 pounds, [29:50] whatever. [29:51] And like on my way home on payday, I'd [29:52] go buy a 60-in TV. [29:54] >> [clears throat] [29:55] >> And [laughter] I'd put it in the house [29:56] and then I'd try and see if I had enough [29:58] money to buy a PlayStation. [29:59] And then about a week later, when I [30:01] realized that I was broke, I would sell [30:03] both. [30:04] And I look at that behavior as such [30:06] absolute like it's objectively like [30:08] crazy behavior. They're like repeatedly [30:10] doing [30:10] crazy things. But it shows the extent to [30:12] which [30:13] I got a dopamine hit from having a nice [30:15] thing and I was trapped in that cycle of [30:17] like buy the nice thing, dopamine hit, [30:20] feel validated, feel like I'm a [30:22] successful person and then have to sell [30:23] it a week later. [30:25] So I really have a huge amount of [30:26] empathy for people that are stuck in [30:27] this [30:28] spending for self-esteem cycle. [30:32] And they hear these, you know, they hear [30:33] people like me and you talk about these [30:34] things now. [30:37] And it feels easier said than done. [30:40] That to me seems kind of insane and and [30:45] Yeah, one of the things that somebody [30:46] pointed out one time is if you're [30:49] driving around in a Ferrari, [30:51] you know, maybe you're thinking to [30:52] yourself if you're bought the Ferrari [30:55] because you want to impress people, [30:57] everybody's looking at me and they're [30:58] thinking, "Wow, what a cool guy that is [31:00] driving driving that Ferrari." No, [31:02] that's not what they're thinking. [31:05] They're looking at you in that Ferrari [31:06] and what they're thinking is, "Wow, I [31:08] would look cool if I was driving that [31:10] Ferrari." They're not thinking about you [31:11] at all. [31:12] It doesn't it you're making no impact on [31:15] on what their opinion of you is. [31:18] So on this point of debt, I did have [31:20] some people contact me that were [31:21] childhood friends of mine recently and [31:23] asked ask me for advice on getting out [31:25] of debt. [31:26] And one particular friend said that he [31:28] had 40,000 dollars worth of debt and [31:31] asked me for advice on it. And I I [31:34] really [clears throat] [31:34] I'm not an expert in this, so I kind of [31:36] hesitated to give any advice. [31:38] But the advice I'm hearing from you is [31:39] essentially you have to make a [31:41] concession. You have to [31:42] pull back your spending and get things [31:44] back under control. You have to, I don't [31:46] know, sell your house. So here's some [31:48] good news. So you okay to your friend, [31:50] he's got like $40,000 in debt, right? [31:53] My advice would be and this is a little [31:56] different than the more common advice [31:57] out there, but I would look at all my [31:59] debts [32:00] and I would pick the one that was [32:02] charging me the highest interest rate. [32:04] And I would I'd pay the minimums on all [32:06] the others and I would focus on paying [32:07] that one down as fast as I could because [32:10] that's the biggest return on my [32:12] investment. And when that one was gone, [32:14] I'd go to the second until I worked my [32:16] way through. [32:17] It's going to be hard [32:19] and the more quickly you do it, the [32:22] harder it's going to be cuz you're going [32:24] to have to make more dramatic [32:25] adjustments to your life. [32:27] That's the bad news. Here's the good [32:29] news is once you are out of debt, if you [32:31] do this, [32:32] you've developed a wonderful discipline [32:34] of living on less than you earn and [32:37] diverting the excess to something else [32:39] that you want more. In this case, the [32:41] something else you want more is being [32:42] out of debt. [32:44] If you continue with that discipline, [32:46] you now have the cash flow to begin [32:48] building those assets and becoming [32:50] wealthy. You've already developed that [32:52] lifestyle and that discipline. [32:54] So that's the one ray of sunshine, if [32:57] you will, in in the process of getting [32:59] out of debt. Okay, to play devil's [33:01] advocate with me then on this one. So [33:03] when I was 18, 19 years old, my [33:05] strategy, I was well aware that I'd [33:06] [ __ ] up my financial situation. Like I [33:07] was it was [33:08] plain to clear that I'd figured out what [33:10] a credit score was and I realized that [33:11] I'd destroyed mine. I also had these [33:13] letters that [laughter] [33:15] all of these failure letters. [33:17] And and I had I had mounting issues. I [33:20] was avoiding [33:22] finances, bills, envelopes, you name it. [33:25] I just thought [33:26] if I don't look at it, it doesn't exist, [33:28] which I know a lot of people do. Because [33:30] when I was writing a previous book that [33:32] I wrote, I looked into some of the stats [33:33] about humans' ability to avoid, [33:36] whether it's health situations, if a [33:38] friend of yours gets a bad diagnosis, I [33:40] was reading a study that said some [33:41] people are more likely to not go get [33:43] checked [33:44] even if their friends had a because they [33:46] just want to avoid it. Um and then with [33:48] national finances, I was reading a study [33:49] that said we're incurring billions and [33:51] billions and billions and billions of [33:52] debt as a society just because we don't [33:54] look at our bank balance, we don't open [33:56] envelopes. So I know I'm not the only [33:58] one. No, not at all. My strategy [34:01] was [34:02] My my and this is such a dumb strategy. [34:04] >> sure I want to hear it. [34:06] But go ahead. Honestly, [34:08] and I do this sounds like crazy talk, [34:09] but it's just the truth in my head. My [34:11] strategy was [34:13] I'm going to get so rich that I outpace [34:14] this debt [34:15] and then I'll deal with it later. My [34:17] strategy was if I can just get really [34:19] rich, which is kind of the inverse of [34:21] what you're [34:22] advising, [34:23] then this debt won't be a problem. [34:26] At 18 or 19 years old, you don't know [34:28] the world. [34:29] You are guessing. And I was guessing [34:32] that I could earn my way out of it. The [34:33] probability says I was wrong. [34:36] The probability says that I was like [34:37] delusional or some or just like I [34:40] watched too many rap videos or [34:41] something. [34:43] Um so objectively, that is a reckless [34:46] choice. Even if even if it's true and it [34:49] ends up being true for you, you end up [34:50] being it's still a bad choice because [34:52] probability is stacked against you. [34:55] Well, that's true. And but you you just [34:57] made a critical point in that [34:59] you can make a bad choice where things [35:02] work out well for you. Yeah, exactly. [35:04] It's a bad choice. So a great example of [35:06] that is investing in Bitcoin, right? I'm [35:09] not I'm not a proponent of investing in [35:11] Bitcoin. [35:13] Certainly for those people who bought [35:15] Bitcoin 10, 15 years ago, they've done [35:17] extraordinarily well. [35:20] They got lucky. [35:21] Lots of speculations don't work out that [35:24] well. So if you are speculating, [35:27] then you it might work out [35:28] extraordinarily well for you. [35:31] But it's [35:32] you're taking some pretty heavy risks in [35:34] doing that. [35:35] All right, it's same thing with a [35:37] lottery ticket. I mean, the chances of [35:39] winning the lottery are infinitesimally [35:41] small, but people buy lots and lots of [35:42] lottery tickets. [35:44] Somebody somebody does win it. [35:46] But that's probably not a good way to [35:49] spend your money. [35:50] Bitcoin? Mhm. You know the five Bitcoin? [35:53] No. [35:54] And I'm not I'm not opposed to Bitcoin [35:57] existing in the world. [35:59] Uh but for me it's a speculation and I'm [36:02] not a speculator. [36:04] When you say spec give me some color cuz [36:05] I'm sure there's some people who, [36:07] listening now that really thinking about [36:09] Bitcoin or have invested in Bitcoin. I [36:11] mean, if you want to speculate that [36:13] Bitcoin so I I would recommend against [36:16] it. So people and they might push back [36:18] and say, "Well, but JL, [36:20] you know, you were recommending against [36:23] against it 10 years ago, which I was, [36:25] and you and you've been wrong. I mean, [36:27] absolutely wrong. It's been great 10 [36:29] years. It's blow it's done far better [36:32] than the S&P 500." [36:34] Well, [36:35] that's true. If you'd had a crystal [36:36] ball, if I'd known that 10 years ago, [36:39] yeah, well, I would have been in [36:40] Bitcoin, right? We don't have crystal [36:42] balls. So the question isn't [36:45] how has Bitcoin done in the last 10 [36:47] years, it's how how is it going to do in [36:49] the next 10 years. I don't know the [36:50] answer to that, but [36:53] that's the question. Is it worth [36:55] $100,000 a coin now? Is it going to [36:57] continue to grow at that pace [36:59] that you [37:01] regret that you missed over the last 10 [37:03] years? That's the question you have to [37:05] ask yourself. [37:07] But I could say its success is evidence [37:12] that it's serving some kind of utility [37:14] for some people somewhere. [37:17] Its success means that there is demand [37:19] for it by very nature that the price has [37:21] increased so crazily over the last 15 [37:23] years. [37:24] Yeah, that and that's an argument that [37:26] people make and there's a lot of debate [37:28] around that, right? [37:30] Is [37:31] you know, what is the function that it [37:34] has or that it's going to develop? [37:36] And you might well be right. I don't I [37:38] don't know the answer to that question. [37:40] It's not currently at least a currency [37:43] because it's way too volatile to serve [37:45] as currency unless you're doing illegal [37:47] things that [37:49] make it more attractive than the [37:50] volatility makes it unattractive. So [37:53] that's not necessarily good for society, [37:55] but [37:56] but so it can't function as a currency. [37:59] So right now it's just a speculation. Is [38:02] it going to grow into something that's [38:04] more functional? [38:06] Well, [38:07] you're listening to one of the other [38:08] interviews you you you did. Um [38:12] That woman absolutely believes that [38:15] that's what's happening. [38:16] And then Cathie Wood, so that's why [38:18] she's in Bitcoin. And she may be right, [38:21] but she's speculating. [38:23] And [38:24] again, I have nothing against [38:26] speculating as long as you understand, [38:27] as I'm sure she does, that that's what [38:30] you're doing. You'd prefer investing. I [38:32] prefer having engine creating wealth [38:35] behind where I put my money. I had a a [38:37] text message from a really good friend [38:38] of mine who my audience will know [38:40] because they've been on the show before [38:41] as a guest and [38:43] they're very well known in the UK. Um [38:45] they text me and said, "Please can I ask [38:46] you a question? [38:47] If you had mortgages and you had a lump [38:51] sum of money, thinking about the future [38:53] of AI, potential market crashes, would [38:56] you pay off chunks of the mortgage or [38:59] would you invest? My feeling is that [39:01] stocks aren't really safe. Am I being [39:03] paranoid?" [39:05] Well, there that's there are a couple of [39:06] questions embedded in that. So the first [39:08] question is [39:10] would I pay off a mortgage and the [39:11] second question is [39:13] are stocks safe? [39:15] All right. [39:16] >> [snorts] [39:16] >> So the mortgage one first to me is is [39:18] pretty easy. It kind of depends on your [39:21] interest rate. What is an interest rate? [39:23] >> So an interest rate is what you pay to [39:25] borrow money. [39:26] So when you when you get a mortgage, [39:28] you're borrowing money, right? You're [39:29] borrowing it from a bank or a financial [39:31] institution [39:33] and they they want to be paid for [39:35] letting you use their money. And three, [39:38] three and a half percent or less, [39:41] that's really cheap money. [39:43] I would hold on to that. I I would be in [39:46] no hurry to pay that off. [39:48] On the other side, if you have a [39:50] mortgage rate that's say 6% or higher, [39:54] well, when you pay off that mortgage, [39:56] essentially you're locking in a [39:58] guaranteed return of that [40:01] interest rate, right? So, if you pay off [40:03] an 8% mortgage, you've locked in an 8% [40:07] return on that money effectively. And [40:09] then, to finish the thought is if your [40:11] interest rate's between those those two, [40:13] like 3 and 1/2% to 5 and 1/2 6%, then I [40:17] would say it would depend whether you [40:19] pay it off or not is what makes you [40:20] emotionally more comfortable. [40:23] And there's value in being emotionally [40:25] comfortable. So, if you are comfortable [40:26] carrying the debt, you might say, "Well, [40:28] I think I can do better in the stock [40:30] market, so I'm going to carry it." If [40:32] emotionally, like me, you just would [40:34] rather not have any debt at all, then [40:36] you then you pay it off. Do you think we [40:38] could use the coins as a [40:40] example of what an interest rate is? [40:41] Sure. [40:42] Let's say I'm sitting on this pile of [40:44] gold, [40:45] and you want to borrow some of my gold. [40:48] I'm happy [40:49] to loan you, Stephen, these 10 very [40:52] valuable old pieces, [40:53] but I don't like you well enough to just [40:55] let you borrow them for free. [40:58] I want to be paid. I want to get a [41:00] reward back for that. So, when you [41:02] return these gold pieces to me in a [41:04] year, [41:05] you're going to return 11 gold pieces to [41:07] me. You're going to pay me 10% cuz an [41:10] extra gold piece is 10% of these 10, [41:13] right? Make sense? Yeah. That's what [41:15] interest is. [41:16] >> So, I if I say, "Okay, well, I'm going [41:18] to buy a house." Right. You're going to [41:19] take You're going to take those 10 gold [41:20] pieces. Go ahead and take them. So, I'm [41:22] buying a house that costs 10 gold [41:24] pieces. [41:25] >> Right. Right. So, I'm going to accept [41:27] your 10% interest rate. Okay. Am I [41:30] paying 10% a year on on the total on the [41:34] total? [41:35] >> On the balance. So, the way a mortgage [41:36] works is in the Let's say it's a 30-year [41:39] mortgage. [41:40] You're going to be [41:42] giving me a certain amount of money [41:43] every month, right? That's your mortgage [41:45] payment. [41:46] And in the beginning, most of that [41:48] payment is going to be interest to me, [41:51] and a very tiny sliver of it will be [41:53] paying down the principal part of the 10 [41:56] gold pieces that you bought. [41:58] Or that you Yeah, that you borrowed. [42:00] A very tiny sliver. And then, over the [42:02] course of 30 years, that ratio changes [42:05] as you pay down the debt, [42:07] and less and less of it is interest [42:09] payments, and more and more of it is [42:11] paying down the principal until at the [42:14] end of 30 years, you've paid all the [42:16] principal, and you've paid me a fairly [42:18] enormous amount of money in debt over [42:20] that period in uh interest over that 30 [42:22] years. [42:23] And how do I get a good interest rate? [42:24] How do I get a very, very low interest [42:26] rate? And what is a low interest rate? [42:28] >> On mortgages? Yeah. So, [42:30] the only way you can get a [42:32] So, first of all, you're going to pay [42:33] basically whatever the current interest [42:36] rates are. Who sets the current interest [42:37] rates? So, the Fed sets an overall [42:40] interest rate. You've heard the Fed will [42:43] raise or lower interest rates, and that [42:45] will influence what lenders, like bank [42:48] and mortgage companies, will charge. It [42:50] doesn't require them to do a certain [42:53] level, but it will influence up or down [42:55] how much they're going to expect in [42:57] return for their money. The Fed is a [42:59] government [42:59] >> Fed is a government agency. Partially [43:00] because the the Fed is anticipating [43:04] inflation [43:06] by how they set interest rates. So, if [43:08] I'm lending you money, [43:10] and I'm worried about inflation, if [43:13] [clears throat] I lend you my 10 gold [43:15] pieces and say, "I want 11 back in a [43:17] year, 10%", but inflation is 15%, well, [43:21] I've just made a very, very bad deal. [43:23] So, if I think inflation is going to be [43:25] 15%, I'm going to want two gold pieces [43:28] back and maybe you're [43:30] you know, so I so I'm I'm making a [43:32] profit above and beyond inflation. So, [43:35] going back to your question, how do you [43:36] get a good mortgage rate? Well, you shop [43:39] around [43:40] to various lenders at the time you want [43:42] the mortgage and see, you know, who's [43:44] offering what. And there'll be some [43:45] variation within a eighth of a percent [43:48] or a quarter of a percent or something. [43:50] But for the most part, they're all going [43:52] to be very tightly put together cuz [43:54] they're looking at the overall [43:56] projection of what inflation's going to [43:58] be, what they can charge, what the cost [44:01] of money is, what they can charge in [44:02] interest, and then competitively what [44:04] they what they have to do to get your [44:06] business. [44:07] So, there's not going to be a lot of [44:09] variation, and you're not going to get a [44:12] a significantly better interest rate [44:14] than somebody else, but if you shop [44:16] around, you can probably do a little bit [44:17] better. [44:18] And interest rates have been fluctuating [44:19] quite a lot over the last 20 odd years. [44:22] In the early 2000s, interest rates in [44:23] the US were relatively high, peaking at [44:25] almost 7% [44:28] in 2006 due to efforts to curb [44:29] inflation. And then, after the financial [44:31] crisis, um [44:33] they dropped a little bit. Um [44:35] And I was looking here, post-2008, [44:37] central banks around the world adopted [44:39] ultra-low interest rates to revive [44:41] economies. US rates were slashed to near [44:44] 0% by 2008, and remained there for [44:47] nearly a decade. [44:49] Right. Damn. [44:51] Um COVID-19 pandemic interest rates led [44:55] to another record in cuts globally with [44:57] the US Fed lowering interest rates to 0% [45:01] to 0.25% to combat economic disruption. [45:04] So, does this mean I should really be [45:06] waiting for a time when the interest [45:08] rates are really, really low if I want [45:09] to buy a house? [45:10] Well, not necessarily because you never [45:12] know when that's going to happen. I [45:14] mean, be some some people have said [45:16] predicting what the stock market's going [45:18] to do is very, very difficult. [45:20] Predicting where interest rates are [45:21] going to go, even more so. [45:23] So, I think if you're going to if you're [45:25] going to buy a house, then again, you [45:28] buy it based on whether you can easily [45:30] afford it, whether it meets your needs [45:31] at a given time, and you deal with the [45:33] interest rate you have to deal with. And [45:35] of course, they'll be part of the [45:36] equation in terms of how much you can [45:38] afford cuz the interest rate on your [45:40] mortgage is going to have a lot to do [45:42] with how much you have to pay every [45:43] month. And it's quite high at the [45:45] moment, interest rates. [45:47] High compared to what? So, the first you [45:48] know, right now, mortgage rates are 6%, [45:51] 7%, somewhere in there. [45:53] The first mortgage I took out was 18%. [45:56] 18%. That would have been in [45:59] 1979. [46:00] Cuz in the 1970s, we had really high [46:03] inflation. And when you have high [46:05] inflation, you have high interest rates. [46:08] Right? So, to me, I hear a 6% mortgage [46:11] rate, and it's doesn't sound bad to me. [46:14] But for people who grew up where [46:17] mortgage rates were [46:19] 2 and 1/2 3%, well, yeah, I mean, it's [46:22] huge. [46:23] It depends on your perspective. And the [46:24] other half of the lady's question who [46:26] sent me that text message was around is [46:29] investing in stocks safe right now. And [46:31] she did sort of preface it by saying the [46:33] question's in the context of AI, all of [46:35] this disruption that's going on in the [46:37] world. People are going to lose their [46:38] jobs, etc. etc. Like [46:40] is it safe to invest in stocks right [46:42] now? So, depends on your time horizon. [46:46] So, stocks are are [46:48] the [46:49] single [46:51] most effective, strongest [46:53] wealth-building tool that's ever been [46:54] created. [46:56] But they're also very, very volatile. [46:58] So, when she says, "Are stocks safe to [47:00] invest in right now?", [47:03] what I hear is very short-term thinking. [47:06] And stocks are never safe to invest in [47:09] for the short term because they're [47:11] volatile. At any given moment, they can [47:14] take a deep plunge, and that's a [47:16] perfectly natural part of the process. [47:18] People get all crazy, especially if you [47:21] watch the news, they people go insane [47:23] and panicked, but crashes and pullbacks [47:26] in the stock market are perfectly [47:28] natural part of the process. [47:30] They're very, very difficult, if not [47:31] impossible, to predict when they're [47:33] going to happen. [47:34] But that's the reason you never [47:37] want to invest in stocks for money that [47:40] you're going to need in the near term. [47:42] If you zoom out [47:45] for longer periods of time, which is I [47:47] which is what I recommend, [47:49] stocks are stunningly reliable. [47:52] I mean, there are very few times over [47:54] the course of 10 years where stocks have [47:56] not given you a good return. And you go [47:58] out 20 years and I I mean, it's very [48:00] rare. [48:01] So, if you look long-term, stocks are [48:04] extremely safe and extremely powerful in [48:07] building in building wealth, but they [48:09] are very volatile along the way. So, you [48:12] have to be willing and able to endure [48:15] that volatility. If you're going to [48:17] panic and sell when the market drops, [48:20] not if, because the market will drop. [48:22] It's a perfectly natural part of the [48:23] process. [48:25] If you're going to panic and sell when [48:26] that happens, you do not want to invest [48:28] in stocks cuz they will leave you [48:30] bleeding on the side of the road. [48:32] Following my advice will leave you [48:34] bleeding on the side of the road if you [48:36] panic and sell. It's 100% dependent on [48:41] tying yourself to the mast during the [48:43] storm [48:44] and ignoring the volatility and [48:47] continuing to invest into it because now [48:50] you're actually accumulating shares on [48:52] sale cuz prices are down [48:55] because the storm never lasts. It always [49:00] blows over, [49:01] and the sunshine comes back out, and [49:03] prosperity returns. [49:05] >> You're talking here about the emotional [49:06] side of investing, which Which is [49:08] critical. Yeah. If you if you can't [49:10] control your emotions, you're you're [49:12] going to be selling at the wrong time [49:14] and buying at the wrong time. So, this [49:16] is such a huge part of it that people [49:17] don't talk about enough. They talk about [49:18] tactics, strategies, what to invest in, [49:20] etc. But they don't talk about the [49:22] emotional side, which is really like [49:25] arguably a even bigger element of this. [49:27] Because if you think about even how the [49:28] brain is set up and [49:30] what drives us most, it's it's fear, [49:33] it's it's emotion. Fear and greed. And [49:36] when the when the prices [49:38] you know, I mean, we've all got a story. [49:39] So many people listening. I remember my [49:41] first ever investment, I put 10,000 [49:43] pounds into Facebook stock a long, long, [49:44] long, long time ago. And then it went [49:47] down and I sold. I thought, "Fuck, I'm [49:48] never investing again." [49:50] And if I just left it Yeah. Um God, that [49:54] would be worth so much money. It'd [49:55] probably be worth six figures now. [49:57] >> Right. But I I hadn't No one had ever [49:59] taught me about the emotional side. And [50:01] actually, part of the reason I sold it [50:02] was because I needed that money. So, [50:04] there's two things what there. One is [50:06] the emotional side of selling it. The [50:08] other thing is investing money that is [50:10] not for the long term. Cuz you turned [50:12] out you should never invest in money in [50:14] the stock market that is you're not [50:16] willing to commit for decades. This is a [50:18] long-term horizon because that's what [50:21] allows you to weather the storms. If [50:23] you're saving for a house, for instance, [50:25] well, you probably don't want to be in [50:26] the stock market. The best investor I've [50:28] ever met is my girlfriend. [50:30] Uh because she she loses the password. [50:32] >> [laughter] [50:34] >> To the investing app. But honestly, [50:35] every like 2 years I go, "Babe, do you [50:37] remember I was like you bought loads of [50:39] that index fund or Bitcoin or whatever [50:41] it is." I was like, "Do you know the [50:42] price of it?" And she's like, "No, I [50:44] forgot. I've forgotten the password to [50:46] the app." And we always like log back in [50:48] once every 2 years and look at it. And [50:49] I'm like, "Oh my god, babe, you're [50:50] rich." And she's like, "Oh, okay." And [50:52] then she loses the password again. She [50:53] forgets it. This is an incredibly [50:55] important point you just touched on. [50:57] So, Jack Bogle, the guy who created [51:00] retail index funds that we can invest in [51:03] now, created the Vanguard Group in 1975. [51:06] Bogle once said, "You know, [51:09] invest in the S&P 500 [51:12] and don't even open your statements when [51:14] they come. Just let them sit. Don't even [51:16] open them for 20 years. [51:19] And then open the final one and have a [51:21] cardiologist standing by because you [51:23] will be stunned at the level of wealth [51:26] that you've accumulated." [51:28] One of the things that I wrote this this [51:30] book for my daughter, right? [51:33] My daughter is sounds like she's kind of [51:35] like your girlfriend. She's very smart, [51:36] but she has zero interest in this [51:38] financial stuff. [51:41] That is a superpower because unlike me [51:45] and maybe a lot of people listening to [51:47] us who are interested in this stuff and [51:49] who are watching the market all the [51:51] time, [51:52] she and your girlfriend are never going [51:54] to be tempted to panic when the market [51:56] drops cuz they're not going to notice [51:58] the market dropped, right? Because they [52:00] they don't they don't care. [52:02] And the less you tinker with your [52:04] investments, [52:05] Charlie Munger, who was Warren Buffett's [52:07] partner, once said, "The worst thing you [52:09] can do as an investor is get in the way [52:11] of compounding, [52:13] right? And that means [52:15] dancing into the market, trying to sell [52:17] and buy back in and what have you. Just [52:18] [clears throat] let the compounding run. [52:20] I get so many people who read my work [52:23] and they say, "Wow, JL, I I I really get [52:26] it and it's wonderful and you're [52:27] absolutely right about everything, but [52:29] if we just did this one little thing [52:31] differently, it would be even better." [52:34] And they are I've come to think of them [52:36] as the tinkerers, right? Are they men? [52:39] They I think a lot of them are men. I [52:41] think I think women are a little less [52:43] inclined to tinker because men put their [52:46] masculinity on the line in doing these [52:48] things and that's not useful. I asked [52:51] the question about men and women because [52:53] I got some stats here from actually from [52:55] Vanguard that says men are 70% more [52:58] likely to invest in high-risk assets [53:00] like individual stocks versus safer [53:03] assets than women. Men's portfolio are [53:05] 50% more volatile, which leads to higher [53:09] potential returns, but also huge greater [53:11] losses. It as it relates to men again, [53:13] despite having higher risk-taking, men [53:16] underperform women in long-term returns [53:19] annually due to overtrading, tinkering, [53:23] and timing mistakes, tinkering. And men [53:25] trade 45% more often than women, [53:29] resulting in more fees because every [53:30] time they make a trade they pay a fee, [53:32] and lower gains. That's according to [53:34] Berkshire Hathaway. [53:36] The summary here is that men take more [53:37] risks, but in the long term tend to earn [53:40] less because of frequent mistakes and [53:42] emotional trading, whereas women are [53:44] more cautious and their approach tends [53:46] to yield better returns. So, you know [53:48] what we've learned here? Yeah. I have a [53:50] very strong feminine side. [53:52] >> [laughter] [53:53] >> Oh, yeah. Gosh, yeah. Damn. [53:56] Protecting your business's data is a lot [53:57] scarier than people admit. You've got [53:59] the usual protections, backups, [54:00] security, but underneath there's this [54:02] uncomfortable truth that your entire [54:04] operation depends on systems that are [54:06] updating, syncing, and changing data [54:08] every second. Someone doesn't have to [54:10] hack you to bring everything crashing [54:11] down. All it takes is one corrupted [54:13] file, one workflow that fires in the [54:15] wrong direction, one automation that [54:17] overrides the wrong thing, or an AI [54:19] agent drifting off course. And suddenly [54:21] your business is offline, your team is [54:23] stuck, and you're in damage control [54:24] mode. That's why so many organizations [54:26] use our sponsor Rubrik. It doesn't just [54:29] protect your data. It lets you rewind [54:31] your entire system back to the moment [54:33] before anything went wrong. Wherever [54:35] that data lives, cloud, SaaS, or [54:37] on-prem, whether you have ransomware, an [54:39] internal mistake, or an outage, with [54:41] Rubrik you can bring your business [54:43] straight back. And with the newly [54:44] launched Rubrik Agent Cloud, companies [54:47] get visibility into what their AI agents [54:49] are actually doing. So, they can set [54:51] guardrails and reverse them if they go [54:53] off track. Rubrik lets you move fast [54:55] without putting your business at risk. [54:57] To learn more, head to rubrik.com. [55:00] You talked about compounding. You talked [55:02] about how one should maybe not open the [55:04] envelope Right. that has their [55:05] statements in it. [55:06] >> Jack Bogle said that, but I agree with [55:08] it, yeah. I I don't have to explain the [55:09] graph I've just passed you for you to [55:11] know what that is. [55:11] >> Right. The on the bottom, the red line [55:13] is 11% [55:15] >> Mhm. returns. So, the blue line that's [55:18] that's running fairly flat is the [55:20] contributions to this hypothetical [55:22] investment. And the red line is the [55:25] value that that how it how it grows. And [55:29] what's striking and this is this is [55:31] what's striking about compounding in [55:33] general is that the two track each other [55:36] almost exactly for a surprisingly long [55:39] time. And then they begin to diverge. [55:42] And then the compounding makes the value [55:45] of the investment skyrocket. It hockey [55:48] sticks. [55:50] And I didn't know you were going to show [55:52] this to me. But what's interesting to me [55:55] about [clears throat] this is I used to [55:56] do these Chautauquas. They were events [55:58] where we take a small group of people to [56:00] some cool place in the world and hang [56:01] out. And there were people followed my [56:03] work and and I would have one-on-one [56:06] sessions with them and we'd talk about [56:08] whatever they wanted, but mostly it was [56:10] their finances. [56:12] And very commonly, these people would [56:14] lay out their their investments, their [56:17] their finances, and and [56:20] they would ask, "Am I financially [56:22] independent?" And that's a very There's [56:24] a very simple mathematical formula about [56:26] that. How much do you spend? I spend [56:28] $100,000 a year. Okay. If you take the [56:31] 4% guideline What's that? [56:33] >> withdrawal, so guy named Bill Bengen [56:35] came up with the idea that you could [56:39] safely withdraw 4% of your portfolio and [56:42] it would continue to survive over time [56:46] and it would so you could you could pull [56:48] that out without depleting the [56:51] portfolio. There was a woman who came to [56:53] one of our Chautauquas. She was a [56:54] banker. So, obviously knows her way [56:57] around basic math, [56:59] right? She was [57:01] at the end of Chautauqua, she was going [57:03] to take a new job starting that Monday. [57:06] Was going to pay her a million dollars a [57:07] year. [57:08] >> [snorts] [57:08] >> And we're going over her finances and [57:10] she said, "Yeah, I've I've got $5 [57:12] million invested. Okay. [57:15] Am I financially independent?" Well, I [57:17] can't answer that question until I know [57:18] how much you're spending. [57:20] She said, "Well, I'm spending $100,000 a [57:22] year. Okay. [57:24] Well, [57:25] $100,000 a year, [57:28] if you multiply it by 25, you get two [57:31] and a half million dollars. [57:33] 4% of two and a half million is 100,000, [57:37] right? So, that's how that math works. [57:39] So, if you need 100,000 to live on, you [57:42] need two and a half million invested. [57:44] Make sense? Yeah. Okay. So, you can look [57:46] at it either way. You can say I've got [57:47] two and a half million. If I take 4% of [57:50] that a year, that's 100,000. [57:52] Or I [57:54] I'm spending 100,000. How much do I [57:56] need? You multiply that by 25. Two and a [57:59] half. So, just to make sure I'm clear, [58:02] >> [snorts] [58:02] >> if I look at my investment portfolio and [58:05] I have $100 in there, [58:07] if I can live Are you saying that if I [58:09] live on $4, [58:11] which is 4% of my investment portfolio, [58:13] then I'm financially independent? Right. [58:15] That's a good Now, that's a good [58:17] guideline. I mean, [58:19] there's lots of variations, but this is [58:21] a guide guideline that this financial [58:22] advisor Bill Bengen came up with. [58:25] Uh and then there's thing called the [58:27] Trinity study, which was done I want to [58:29] say in the '90s that looked at a lot of [58:31] these scenarios and basically verified [58:33] that this was a very good baseline. [58:36] Um [58:37] so, 4% is I don't like the word rule [58:41] because [58:42] that implies that it's hard and fast, [58:44] but it's a great guideline. If you want [58:46] to have a have an idea of whether or not [58:48] you're financially independent or not, [58:50] this is a good guideline. So, anyway, [58:52] this woman [58:53] says she's spending $100,000 a year and [58:55] she's got 5 million. She wants to know, [58:57] "Am I financially independent?" And [59:00] financially independent and I said, [59:02] "Times two." [59:04] I mean, you have twice as much money as [59:06] you need given your level of spending. [59:08] So, the question that I always had, [59:10] going back to this little chart, [59:12] is how and I would get this question a [59:14] lot, Stephen. You know, they'd show me [59:17] their numbers [59:18] and they would very clearly be [59:20] financially independent on that based on [59:22] that math we just discussed. [59:24] And these were smart people who can [59:26] easily do basic arithmetic. [59:28] So, how how is it that they're asking me [59:30] this this question? [59:32] And suddenly it dawned on me, this is [59:34] how. [59:36] Because compounding [59:39] is a is a hockey stick. It goes along [59:41] and and kind of doesn't appear to be [59:43] happening and then it slowly starts to [59:45] happen and then all of a sudden it it's [59:47] way up here. [59:48] It happens so quickly and so stunningly [59:51] they can't quite believe it. [59:53] It turned out it's not that they [59:55] couldn't do the basic math. They [59:57] certainly could do the basic math. [60:00] What it was is they couldn't quite [60:02] [clears throat] believe what the math [60:03] was telling them. [60:05] And they wanted me to It's like [60:08] You you see what's on that wall over [60:09] there? [60:10] I mean [60:12] Are you seeing what I'm seeing? Cuz I [60:14] can't quite believe that I'm seeing [60:16] that. I need you to confirm that yeah, [60:18] you're seeing the same thing I'm seeing. [60:20] And in this example, all it is is [60:22] someone has [60:24] you know, they started with zero. Mhm. [60:26] And they've paid in a small contribution [60:29] every year to their investment. The [60:31] investment is getting 11% return a year. [60:34] Mhm. And suddenly the thing goes whoop. [60:36] And I I think that was one of the most [60:38] pivotal moments in my life where I went [60:39] online [60:40] 5 6 years ago and looked at a [60:42] compounding interest calculator. So it's [60:45] stunning. It is It is stunning. It is [60:47] absolutely stunning. [60:50] And it shows that if you just leave your [60:51] money [60:52] in a place where it's getting [60:55] this kind of return [60:57] over time [61:00] everything seems to take care of itself. [61:02] So let me let me close the circle in a [61:06] sense [61:07] on on that subject because [61:09] one of the things that I think gets [61:11] overlooked with my book is this is the [61:14] simple path to wealth. [61:17] Which means if you follow it, you will [61:19] become [61:20] wealthy. [61:21] Right? So we go back to you know, buying [61:25] those things that people maybe want to [61:27] buy, whether it's the fancy car or the [61:30] or the house. [61:31] Well [61:33] once you become wealthy, you can not [61:35] only buy those things, but you're buying [61:36] them from a position of power. [61:39] Right? You can easily afford them. [61:41] You've become financially independent, [61:43] which means that your investments are [61:45] throwing off more money than you're [61:47] spending. My wife and I are basically [61:50] pretty naturally frugal people and [61:51] that's one of the ways I suppose that we [61:54] got to where we are. [61:55] But that doesn't necessarily serve us [61:59] with the level of wealth we have now and [62:01] so [62:02] we still have this tendency to say, oh, [62:04] we're thinking about getting this stuff, [62:05] how much does it cost and do we really [62:07] want to spend that money and [62:09] depending on who it is, either she'll [62:10] turn to me or I'll turn to her and say, [62:12] doesn't matter, it's free. [62:14] Everything's free. It doesn't And that's [62:16] a very liberating way to look at things. [62:18] So that's where the simple path [62:19] ultimately will will get you. That's [62:22] what I bought [62:24] all those years ago. One of the thoughts [62:26] that I had, which I do think is somewhat [62:28] illogical was my brother and me are very [62:30] different people. So he was very very [62:32] frugal and I was reckless. Mhm. And [62:35] one of the ways that I self-justified my [62:37] recklessness was, well, you know, you've [62:39] got to enjoy life. [62:40] And I'm only young once. So I'm only [62:42] going to get the opportunity to do some [62:43] of these things that are [62:45] part of being young once, going to a [62:47] nightclub and buying champagne and [62:48] partying. [62:50] You know? So I thought yeah, I could [62:52] save and save and save and save and I [62:53] could get to you know, 70 80 years old [62:55] and have all this money, but what is the [62:57] point if I haven't like enjoyed myself? [62:59] I think it is a mistake to think [63:02] that you need to spend money to be [63:04] happy, to enjoy yourself. And the other [63:06] thing I will say is that [63:09] it's a lot more useful having money at [63:12] this age than it would have been in my [63:13] 20s because [63:16] money buys comfort among other things [63:19] and comfort becomes much more important [63:21] to you as you age. [63:23] They did a study where they put people [63:25] in a brain imaging scanner [63:27] and they asked them to think about [63:29] themselves tomorrow. Then they asked [63:31] them to think about themselves in a [63:32] couple of years, then they asked them to [63:33] to think about themselves in 10 years [63:35] time and they looked at the brain. And [63:36] then they did another study where they [63:38] got the same people to think about a [63:41] celebrity Mhm. that they didn't know. I [63:44] think it was Matt Damon or someone [63:45] famous like that. And what the study [63:47] proved was that we think about ourselves [63:50] in 10 years time in the same way that we [63:53] think about Matt Damon. [63:55] The further away [63:57] the time horizon [63:58] >> Right. the more it becomes a total [63:59] stranger. Right. And so I was writing I [64:01] was writing recently for a chapter in my [64:03] upcoming book about this idea that our [64:04] future self is a stranger. To the brain, [64:06] thinking about me when I'm 60 [64:09] is like thinking about Matt Damon. [64:11] Right. I don't know the [ __ ] guy. [64:12] So what do I care? What do I care about [64:14] protecting him? [64:16] And I think this kind of speaks to what [64:17] we were saying there is young people and [64:19] even me as a young person kind of didn't [64:21] really give a [ __ ] about 60-year-old me. [64:23] Right. [64:24] Like I I it's so far away that I I don't [64:27] really care about protecting his [64:28] interests. I almost think that's a [64:30] different person. He can figure that [64:32] out. [64:32] >> Right. [64:33] And you know, you are How old are you [64:35] now? I'm 75. So you have the the wisdom [64:38] of hindsight. So you can tell me as a [64:39] 33-year-old what it's like to be both 33 [64:43] and 75. [64:44] When I was 33, I didn't think about [64:48] me at an older age at all. I mean, it [64:50] never crossed my mind to do such a [64:52] thing. [64:53] Right? So I was not doing what I was [64:55] doing [64:56] for the benefit of 75-year-old JL. I was [65:00] doing it for the benefit of 25-year-old [65:02] JL, 30-year-old JL. [65:05] Right? Remember, going back to the early [65:07] part of our conversation [65:09] what at my definition of FU money. [65:12] It's the money that you're accumulating [65:15] before that gets you ultimately to being [65:17] financially independent, which is [65:19] when you no longer need to trade your [65:21] labor for money, right? Your money is [65:24] doing all that. [65:26] I wanted that right now. So when I was [65:29] 25, I'd saved the princely sum of [65:32] $5,000, which [65:35] just as for inflation would be about 25 [65:37] $30,000 today. [65:39] Uh and I wanted to go backpack around [65:42] Europe. Right? But that meant quitting [65:44] my job, which I kind of liked. [65:48] But the fact that I had that money [65:51] gave me [65:52] the financial strength to go in and [65:56] negotiate that deal. [65:59] If I was living paycheck to paycheck, I [66:00] wouldn't have had that. I was far from [66:02] being fully financially independent. So [66:05] I wasn't doing this for 75-year-old JL. [66:08] I was doing this right now for [66:10] 25-year-old JL. And it's just like when [66:13] you work out and clearly you do, right? [66:16] You don't go to the gym thinking, at [66:18] least I'm making a presumption here, I'm [66:21] doing this for 75-year-old Steven. [66:24] You're doing this because you want to be [66:25] stronger tomorrow than you are today. [66:29] For 33-year-old Steven. [66:31] So that's my way of thinking about it. I [66:34] I never did this for future me. [66:36] Maybe maybe some people do and that's [66:38] probably not a bad exercise. It's [66:41] probably a bit of wisdom in that. I [66:42] wasn't that smart. So you would you [66:45] would save $5,000 a year. [66:47] Well, in those days so my first [66:49] professional job paid me $10,000 a year [66:52] and I saved 5,000. Yeah, I saved half of [66:54] it. [66:55] Going back to the point of compounding [66:57] and how [66:58] how important it is to start investing [67:00] in things that will offer you [67:02] compounding returns. [67:04] If you started investing $500 per month [67:09] and you got an annual return of 8% [67:12] because you're investing in some of the [67:13] things that we'll talk about in a [67:14] second, [67:16] in 35 years [67:18] you will be a millionaire. [67:21] You'll have more than a million dollars. [67:22] You'll have 1.043 million dollars. [67:26] >> Right. [67:27] Over those 35 years, you would have [67:28] invested about $200,000, but you would [67:31] have made $850,000 [67:34] from the [67:35] interest over that period of time. [67:36] >> Well just to be clarified, not [67:38] necessarily the interest, but the [67:39] growth. Cuz that 11% is not interest. [67:43] It's it's growth. Some of it might be uh [67:46] dividends in the case of which is a kind [67:48] of a form of interest you'd think of. [67:50] But it's not just just to be technically [67:53] correct. [67:54] Right? [67:55] Which is which is interesting. So if if [67:57] I was [67:58] when I was born [68:00] if my parents had put $500 a month away [68:03] in an investment that we'll talk about [68:05] now, Mhm. by the by the age I am now, I [68:08] would have roughly been a millionaire [68:10] just from them putting $500 a month away [68:13] for me. [68:13] >> Right. Right. It's pretty crazy. Yeah, [68:15] but that's the power of compounding. I [68:18] mean, they you know, it's it's very [68:19] gratifying to me that twice a year I am [68:22] a guest lecturer for a friend of mine [68:24] who's a professor at University of [68:27] Colorado in Boulder. [68:28] And it's always fun to talk to her [68:30] students cuz they're exceedingly bright. [68:32] They ask great great questions and it's [68:34] just stimulating for me. [68:36] But I think about these young people. I [68:38] mean, these are 18 19 20-year-olds [68:41] who are thinking about doing this stuff [68:43] at that age. [68:45] And the remarkable amount of time that [68:49] they have for this compounding to work [68:51] for them. It's it's just incredible. [68:53] They're going to be so much better off [68:55] than if not. [68:57] Um [68:58] so [68:59] let me throw out a tip for for you if [69:01] and when you ever have kids and for [69:03] anybody who's listening who has has [69:04] young children, [69:06] you know, as your kids start to grow and [69:08] hopefully they get [69:11] part-time jobs, right? They start [69:13] whether it's shoveling snow or [69:15] bussing tables at a local restaurant or [69:17] whatever it is [69:18] and they start earning some income. [69:20] Well, you can take that income and up to [69:24] I think it's $7,000 is the limit now. [69:27] Put that in a Roth IRA. [69:30] Which will never be taxed. [69:33] It will grow tax-free [69:35] forever. And they're going to be by [69:37] definition cuz they're making almost no [69:38] money in in they're not paying any [69:41] income tax so you don't need any any [69:43] deduction from that. And it doesn't have [69:45] to be their money. So let's say your kid [69:47] makes $3,000 during the course of a [69:49] year. [69:51] You can take $3,000 and fund a Roth IRA [69:54] for them. Imagine just if they never [69:58] added anything other than that, you [70:00] know, you do that until they they get [70:02] out of college or whatever. [70:04] You know, that baseline is going to grow [70:06] tax-free for an extended period of time. [70:10] That's one of the [70:11] great keys to wealth building is just [70:13] time. [70:14] And and is that advice that you still [70:16] believe in that people should be saving [70:18] 50% of their income? Yeah, I think it's [70:20] a good rule of thumb. It gets you to [70:22] financial independence in a pretty [70:24] reasonable depending on what the market [70:25] does [70:26] in say a 10 to 15-year time period. The [70:30] pushback that you might anticipate is [70:32] from people say that's impossible. [70:33] Nobody can save 50% of their money. Just [70:35] that's that's that's silly. And I'm [70:38] sorry but I did it and then I've now at [70:41] this point I've known countless people [70:42] who've done it. So [70:44] it's certainly you may choose not to do [70:46] it but it's certainly possible. Let's [70:48] say you're earning [70:50] 48,000 dollars [70:52] a year which is the low end. [70:55] The average medium household. So that [70:56] would be let's say $3,000 a month. [70:59] So you're you're earning $3,000 a month. [71:02] You're then going to pay tax on that. [71:04] This is what my my math says here. It [71:05] says very little tax would be would be [71:07] paid after all of your taxes. And so [71:11] you're still you've still got roughly [71:12] $3,000 a month but 2,900 um which you [71:15] you would take home. [71:18] I So I would need to save 1,400 of that [71:21] which means my total expenses need to be [71:23] 1,400 a month. So first thing I need to [71:25] do is live [71:27] somewhere very very [71:29] affordable depending on where I live you [71:31] know what city I live in. [71:32] Then I need to basically radically [71:34] reduce my my expenditure. [71:35] >> Right. To be able to save 50% a month. [71:38] And I guess the question is most people [71:41] would assume they wouldn't like that [71:42] lifestyle. [71:44] They wouldn't like to prepare their own [71:45] lunches every day. They wouldn't like to [71:47] not have a Starbucks coffee. They [71:48] wouldn't like to live in a small small [71:50] shoebox and probably socialize a lot [71:52] less. [71:53] So I guess that's the key rebuttal is I [71:56] guess yeah it's possible. [71:58] There's a chapter that talks about this [72:00] with an even lower because when I was [72:02] writing the book um I think I used a [72:05] $25,000 [72:07] annual income. [72:08] So the math works. Is is it easy? No. [72:12] But it goes back to fundamentally [72:15] what is it that you want? You said well [72:17] I may not like that lifestyle. I might [72:18] want to have lattes and all these other [72:20] things. [72:21] Well, that's your money. That's your [72:23] prerogative. [72:24] But [72:26] time is going to happen regardless of [72:28] what you do and if you say instead of [72:31] having those things now I'm going to [72:34] spend my money on buying my freedom [72:36] you will get to the point where [72:38] everything is free including those [72:40] lattes. [72:41] So let's talk about investing then. [72:44] Um we have two buckets here on the [72:46] table. [72:47] We're an analogy Uh-huh. around [72:49] tax-advantaged investing. [72:53] I'm going to take your lead on this. [72:54] Okay. So if you dump that bucket in [72:56] there I'll dump this bucket in here. [73:04] Okay. [73:06] The idea is that [73:09] and I'm going to speak in terms of the [73:10] United States. The government provides [73:14] savings vehicles that are [73:17] tax-advantaged to encourage people to [73:20] acquire money for their for their old [73:23] age, right? So the United States there's [73:26] things called a 401k or 403b [73:29] uh and these are employer-related plans [73:32] where you can divert part of your income [73:35] and the government specifies how much [73:37] you can divert [73:39] and they won't tax you on that and you [73:41] put it into an investment bucket into an [73:43] investment account of some sort. You get [73:45] to choose how you want to invest it. [73:48] But that would be the bucket and that [73:50] means that if you had however much money [73:52] this represents [73:54] uh went into your 401k or your IRA which [73:58] is something you would do on your own [74:00] privately which is also tax-advantaged. [74:03] Right? So [74:05] in the example that you've just [74:08] >> [clears throat] [74:08] >> handed me they're saying that this would [74:10] represent $20,750 [74:13] which is [74:14] uh before tax and with a match. So [74:17] 401k's companies will frequently match [74:19] part of your contribution. So you say [74:22] I'm going to do 5% and they might say [74:24] okay we're going to match the first 2% [74:26] or whatever which you should always take [74:28] advantage of cuz that's that's free [74:29] money. [74:30] So this is not taxed immediately. And [74:34] you invest this money. Let's say you [74:35] invest it in a total stock market index [74:38] fund which would be my recommendation. [74:40] So you get to invest all this money in [74:42] your total stock market index fund. [74:44] If instead you do it [74:46] after you pay taxes on the same amount [74:48] of money [74:50] well by the time you pay taxes you're [74:51] going to have about half of what it was [74:53] before which is $10,340 [74:57] which is what represented in here [74:59] roughly half the number of of gold [75:01] coins. [75:02] Now both of these things grow at the [75:04] same rate cuz we've invested them in the [75:06] same thing, right? So they're making 11% [75:09] a year whatever it is. So this is [75:11] obviously going to grow into a much [75:13] bigger pile [75:14] at the end of 30 years or 40 years or [75:17] whatever it is than this is cuz you're [75:18] starting with a bigger pile. [75:21] So that's the advantage of [75:24] deferring taxes. [75:26] Now the thing that people [75:29] tend not to think about or talk about [75:32] that's incredibly important is [75:34] that [75:35] it is not avoiding taxes. It is [75:37] deferring taxes. Which means that [75:40] ultimately the government is going to [75:42] want their money. They're going to want [75:45] their cut. [75:46] And typically that happens I think in [75:49] the United States the age is 73 or [75:51] something when you're required to begin [75:54] taking money out of these accounts. It's [75:56] called an RMD a required minimum [75:59] distribution. [76:00] So if you haven't started withdrawing [76:03] money from these accounts by then the [76:05] government will require you to begin on [76:09] a schedule based on your life expectancy [76:11] to start pulling that money out because [76:14] they figure they've waited long enough [76:16] and now they want their cut. Okay? [76:19] >> [clears throat] [76:19] >> So it's not tax-free. It's tax-deferred. [76:23] Important thing to understand. [76:25] If you start taking this money out [76:27] before a certain age and if memory [76:29] serves me it's 59 and a half in the US [76:32] then you will pay tax on it as you do [76:35] whenever you withdraw the money and also [76:37] a penalty. [76:38] Right? So they want you to keep it in at [76:41] least until you're 59 and a half [76:44] but they want you to start taking it out [76:47] at some point in this case I think when [76:49] you're 72 or 73 or something like that. [76:52] And that's when they collect their [76:54] money. So you say well okay if that's [76:57] the case then what am I doing here [76:58] because I got to pay the taxes [77:00] eventually anyway. [77:01] And mathematically if your tax rate is [77:04] the same it doesn't matter if you're [77:06] tax-deferred or not. The end result and [77:09] bottom money that you have will be [77:10] exactly the same. [77:13] The speculation is and it's true in the [77:15] vast majority of cases that when you [77:17] retire [77:19] and you start living on this money you [77:21] start pulling it out you will be in a [77:23] lower tax bracket. [77:25] So you will have to pay some taxes but [77:27] you won't have to pay as much as when [77:29] you were working and you were in a [77:30] higher tax bracket. [77:32] So that's the gamble you're taking. [77:34] Now looking at me personally as an [77:37] example this didn't work out for me. [77:40] So I did IRAs and 401k's when I was [77:43] working in my corporate career. [77:46] We decided a fair amount of money in [77:47] them. [77:48] Now as it turns out I'm in a higher tax [77:51] bracket than I have ever been in [77:53] because of the success of the activities [77:55] that I do today. [77:57] I had no idea that that was going to [77:59] happen. And now I'm at that age where I [78:02] have to take RMDs. So RMDs are coming [78:05] out at a higher tax rate for me than [78:08] when I than the tax benefit I got [78:11] deferring it. But that's unusual. Most [78:13] people will benefit from doing this [78:15] because in their retirement they won't [78:17] have an income or their income will be [78:19] very modest and their tax rate will be [78:21] equally modest and it'll work out very [78:23] nicely for them. [78:25] But that's [78:26] basically how that works. Does that make [78:28] sense? It does, yes. And to try and [78:30] summarize it um in a way that I fully [78:33] understand just check I understand is [78:35] every month when I'm paid I have an [78:37] opportunity before that money comes to [78:39] me to invest some of it. And around the [78:42] world whether it's Japan, Switzerland, [78:43] India, South Korea, Germany, Australia, [78:45] UK, Canada there's always some kind of [78:47] system to do this. [78:48] >> right? Yeah. So I can say okay I'm going [78:50] to get paid [78:52] a thousand dollars this month. [78:54] I'm going to put a hundred dollars of [78:56] that before I even get it into one of [78:58] these investment accounts. It's not [79:00] going to be taxed until And your [79:03] employer may match part of it or all of [79:05] it. [79:05] >> Yeah. So my employer might also add a [79:08] hundred dollars to it [clears throat] or [79:09] a part of it. [79:10] That's going to compound over time. [79:12] I can take it out whenever I want but if [79:14] I take it out early I get a penalty. And [79:16] you pay tax. And I pay tax. [79:19] But assuming that I'm not going to be [79:21] earning as much as I do now when I am [79:22] older, [79:24] when I take it out at 65 years old, I'm [79:27] still going to pay tax but at a low rate [79:28] of tax. [79:28] >> There's no penalty at that point, but [79:30] and presumably you'll be at a lower tax [79:32] rate, right? [79:33] So, it really only works if you're at a [79:35] lower tax rate when you're older. [79:36] >> Exactly. [79:38] So, most people work and then and then [79:40] they retire at a certain age [79:42] and that income from their job goes [79:44] away. So, by definition, they're in a [79:46] much lower tax bracket. So, for the vast [79:49] majority of people, this works out very [79:50] nicely. And you talk about [79:53] you know, cuz people will [79:55] will still have to make a decision what [79:56] they want to invest in. Right. [79:59] What Where do you think we should be [80:01] investing our money at this moment of [80:02] time? The If the average person, what [80:04] what should they be putting their money [80:05] into with everything you see happening [80:06] in the world? [80:07] Yeah. [80:08] >> You said not Bitcoin, but what where [80:10] where should we put it? [80:10] >> I'm an advocate of investing in [80:12] broad-based, low-cost stock index funds. [80:16] What is that? That is An example of that [80:19] is VTSAX, which is Vanguard's total [80:21] stock market index fund. [80:23] It invests in virtually every publicly [80:26] traded company in the United States of [80:28] America. That's [80:30] very The number of those varies, but [80:32] it's roughly 3,600 companies. [80:34] >> So, you're basically investing in [80:35] America. There are a lot of private [80:36] companies that I that I'm not invested [80:39] in, but I'm in every publicly traded [80:41] company in in the country. And that [80:43] means everybody from the factory floor [80:46] to the CEO is working to make me richer. [80:49] Now, some of those companies are going [80:51] to do extraordinarily well [80:53] and they're going to succeed [80:55] dramatically. And because this fund, as [80:58] most funds like it are, [81:00] is cap weighted, [81:02] and I'll explain that in a minute, the [81:04] more successful the company is, the more [81:06] of it I will own. [81:08] So, cap weighted simply means [81:11] that the largest larger the market [81:13] capitalization of the company is, the [81:16] valuation. The valuation, [81:17] [clears throat] right? The market cap [81:20] The larger that is, the greater the [81:22] percentage of the fund it will [81:24] represent. So, you may have heard people [81:26] say that the top 10 companies in the S&P [81:30] 500 have an outsized representation [81:35] uh percentage-wise of what they Well, [81:37] that's the reason. It's It's cap [81:38] weighted. So, I benefit from that [81:41] success, right? Now, if one of those [81:44] companies falters [81:46] and [81:48] starts failing on their execution [81:50] or a more aggressive, better organized [81:55] competitor comes along and displaces [81:57] them, [81:58] then they will drift away, but I'm okay [82:01] with that because whatever that new [82:03] competitor is, I don't have to predict [82:05] who it is, [82:06] I will own them. [82:08] And that's a process that I refer to as [82:11] self-cleansing. I'm very proud of that [82:13] term that I that I coined. So, a great [82:15] example of that is Sears. When I was a [82:17] kid, Sears, company you may not even be [82:20] aware of, [82:21] but Sears was the Walmart and Amazon of [82:25] its time combined. But Sears at the turn [82:28] of the last century, the turn of the [82:30] 1800s, looked around and said, "You [82:32] know, we have these brick-and-mortar [82:34] stores, [82:35] but there are all these people living [82:36] out in rural areas who are never going [82:38] to get to our brick-and-mortar stores. [82:39] We could send them catalogs." [82:42] Is this beginning to sound familiar? And [82:44] then they could send us letters and [82:47] money ordering things from our catalog [82:50] that we could then ship to them. [82:52] So, they became, you know, Walmart with [82:54] the brick-and-mortar stores and then [82:56] Amazon of its time. Absolutely dominated [82:58] for 100 years. [82:59] If you had said to somebody when I was [83:02] first investing in the 1970s [83:06] that Sears Sears built the biggest [83:09] building on the planet back in the '70s, [83:13] what was then known as the Sears Tower [83:14] in Chicago. If you had said Sears, its [83:17] days are numbered. I you would have been [83:19] laughed at. [83:21] But its days were numbered [83:23] because leaner, more aggressive [83:25] competitors came along and ate its [83:26] lunch. Nobody could have predicted that, [83:28] certainly not me, [83:30] but I didn't have to if I own the index [83:32] because then when Walmart came along and [83:35] then later Amazon and Sears faded away, [83:38] I own those as well. That's that [83:40] self-cleansing process. [83:41] >> And just for anyone that really doesn't [83:42] understand this at all, you're not [83:44] actually having to do anything because [83:45] that index fund is just automatically [83:48] making the decisions. [83:49] >> Exactly. I don't have to do anything. I [83:51] just have to own it and I can own it [83:53] forever. So, if I went and I bought [83:56] Sears stock as an example back in the [83:58] day, [83:59] well, whenever you own an individual [84:01] stock, you're going to be thinking [84:03] about, "Okay, how long am I going to own [84:04] this? [84:05] And what is going to trigger my sale of [84:09] this particular asset? And what I mean, [84:12] what has to happen to it that would make [84:14] me not want to own it anymore? And then [84:16] if I want to get rid of it and I want [84:18] something in the same space, what do I [84:19] buy? Do I buy this new upstart Walmart? [84:22] You know, do I buy this Amazon that back [84:24] in the '90s is run by this wacko guy, [84:26] Jeff Bezos, who kept saying no, profits [84:28] don't matter, profits don't matter. What [84:30] Who Who invests in a CEO that says [84:33] profits don't matter? I mean, that's [84:34] nuts. And but those are the kinds of [84:36] things you have to be have to be [84:38] thinking about if you own individual [84:39] stocks. [84:40] I don't have to think about any of that [84:42] owning the index because if Jeff Bezos [84:45] turns out that his wackiness is [84:47] brilliance, [84:49] which it turns out it was, [84:51] then he's going to rise to the top, [84:53] which it turns out Amazon did, and I [84:56] benefited from that. If it turns out it [84:58] was just wackiness, it would have just [85:00] faded away as a lot of companies have. [85:02] And but it wouldn't have mattered cuz [85:05] whatever succeeds, I will I will own and [85:07] benefit from. I was asking um the [85:10] research team beforehand, Mhm. [85:13] in the last 10 years, which index fund [85:15] has performed the very very best? [85:17] >> Mhm. And it said that the Nasdaq 100, [85:22] which is [85:23] very tech heavy, [85:24] >> Right. [85:25] has performed at almost 20% a year for [85:28] the last 10 years. And when I think [85:30] about what's going on in the world at [85:31] the moment and the advent of this new [85:32] technology called AI, which is driving [85:35] everything, it seems, and our lives are [85:36] going to become way more technological [85:37] with robots and automation and full [85:40] self-driving, [85:41] it appears to me like if there was ever [85:44] a great time to be investing in an index [85:46] fund, one should aim at the very tech [85:48] heavy index funds like the Nasdaq 100. [85:51] >> Mhm. Is that Is that Is that logical [85:53] thinking or is that [85:54] >> It's It's logical thinking. Yes, so [85:56] first of all, it's logical thinking. [85:59] And actually, had you done that same [86:01] analysis 10 years ago, you would have [86:04] done better than than VTSAX, right? Cuz [86:08] technology has absolutely dominated for [86:10] the last 10 years. It is a reasonable [86:13] speculation that that will continue into [86:16] the future So, why don't you invest in [86:18] >> of time. [86:19] Well, because [86:21] the truth is that technology has not [86:24] always dominated. [86:25] >> But we're not going to go backwards [86:26] though, are we? Well, no, but the point [86:28] is that that it changes. So, just like [86:31] in my Sears example, Sears would have [86:34] been at the top of the index for a long [86:36] time and then it drifted away and got [86:37] replaced. [86:39] So, that's an individual stock. Sectors [86:42] of stocks have also done that over [86:46] time, right? So, right now, the dominant [86:48] sector is tech. [86:50] Wasn't always the case. [86:52] Might not always be the case in the [86:54] future. I don't know cuz I can't see the [86:56] future. [86:58] I understand people who would say that [87:01] clearly that's the best bet, to go with [87:03] tech. [87:04] And your crystal [clears throat] ball is [87:06] clearer than mine and you might very [87:08] well be right, but I don't have a [87:10] crystal ball. [87:12] And [87:13] I don't have to worry about that owning [87:15] the total stock market because if you're [87:17] right, I will still benefit very nicely, [87:19] thank you very much. [87:21] If you're wrong, [87:23] whatever replaces it, I will own. [87:26] So, you have an analogy you came up with [87:29] that involves beer [87:30] and a glass. Right. I probably came up [87:32] with the drinking beer, but go ahead. [87:34] Well, let's show me Show me the analogy. [87:37] So, [87:39] thanks for that sh- Whoa. No, here we [87:40] go. [87:41] >> going to say, thanks for not shaking up [87:42] the can. [87:44] So, beer, right? [87:46] So, I'm pouring it right down the middle [87:48] so we get a nice, thick head. [87:50] That's even more thicker than I hoped [87:52] for. Okay. [87:54] So, [87:56] imagine for a second right now, we have [87:58] a glass and we can see exactly how much [88:00] foam there is and how much actual beer [88:02] there is, right? [88:04] But imagine this was that I poured it [88:06] into this vessel instead where we [88:08] couldn't see that. [88:11] The analogy is the stock market. [88:13] So, when most people think of the stock [88:15] market and when most people turn on [88:18] uh CNBC, they turn on you know, they [88:21] look at at at the investment news and [88:24] what have you, [88:25] it's all this churning and trading, you [88:28] know, what stocks are hot now, what [88:29] stocks are rising, what stocks are [88:31] falling, what's you know, it's all this [88:32] trading. [88:34] That's not the simple path to wealth. [88:36] That's the foam, right? So, the value in [88:40] a stock, [88:41] whatever the stock is, [88:43] what makes up the price of that stock is [88:46] a combination of two things. It is the [88:49] beer [88:50] and it is the foam. [88:52] And the problem is, unlike that glass, [88:56] it's in a vessel like this. So, it's [88:58] hard to see exactly how much beer there [89:01] is [89:02] as opposed to how much foam there is. [89:04] >> And the beer is the value, the foam is [89:06] the speculation. [89:07] >> Exactly. The beer is the fundamental [89:10] operating value of the company, right? [89:13] The sales and the expenses and the money [89:16] that's left over that you call profits, [89:18] right? Yeah. So, that's the beer. The [89:20] foam is what the market [89:23] determines [89:25] that's worth at any given moment based [89:28] on emotion. And hype Based on and hype [89:31] and speculation and fear and greed. And [89:33] so, up here is the total value of the [89:37] stock. [89:38] Right, exactly. The total value of the [89:40] stock. But, this is all foam that can [89:42] come and go very quickly. [89:45] Right? So, let Think about Tesla for [89:47] example, right? Tesla has a lot of foam. [89:52] Cuz a lot of people are speculating [89:55] about the great things Tesla's going to [89:57] do in the future. Robotic cars, humanoid [90:00] robots, you know, all these kinds of [90:02] things which very may well come to pass. [90:04] I mean, [90:05] Elon Musk is a stunningly brilliant guy. [90:08] So, [90:09] who knows? [90:10] But, that's the speculation. That's the [90:13] foam. The underlying beer of Tesla, the [90:15] actual operating company, [90:18] does not justify the price of the stock. [90:21] I mean, the the PE ratio [90:23] of Tesla, you can look it up, is some [90:25] huge number, right? So, there's a lot of [90:28] speculation, a lot of foam in Tesla. [90:31] Now, if things go to plan, [90:34] then that foam will become as as in our [90:37] example, you notice the foam is [90:39] dissipating, we're getting more and more [90:40] beer. [90:41] If things go to plan for Tesla, that's [90:43] what will happen. The foam will will [90:45] eventually settle out into more and more [90:47] beer, [90:48] and Tesla will justify that high price [90:51] and maybe then some. And I guess Warren [90:53] Buffett's greatness, if I've interpreted [90:56] his writing correctly and why he was [90:58] often considered as the greatest [90:59] investor of all time, was he was able to [91:01] pay for stocks where it was mainly beer, [91:04] and he paid at the price of the beer, [91:07] not for the foam. [91:08] >> Or he he looked for times where the [91:11] sentiment was so negative that he was [91:15] actually paying a little less than the [91:18] price of the beer. [91:19] Benjamin Graham, who who wrote The [91:22] Intelligent Investor, who was a mentor [91:24] to Warren Buffett, [91:25] uh basically said what you should do is [91:28] look for value companies and try to [91:30] determine where the beer is and then try [91:32] to see if you can [91:34] get a buying opportunity, watch it where [91:36] you can buy it for less [91:39] than the actual value of the operation. [91:41] That's ideal. And in those days, when [91:44] there wasn't so much information freely [91:46] available, that was probably a little [91:47] easier to do. [91:49] Well, Warren Buffett has said since [91:51] then, and that's a great foundation if [91:52] you're going to pick individual stocks. [91:55] But, what Warren Buffett has said since [91:57] then is he learned, and I think you [92:00] don't quote me on this, but I think it [92:01] was Charlie Munger who actually made [92:03] this point to him, [92:04] that [92:06] it's going to be very, very hard in this [92:08] day and age, even when they started back [92:11] in the '60s, to find companies where you [92:14] can actually buy it for less than the [92:17] actual beer value. So, don't try to do [92:20] that. [92:21] Just try to find companies that you can [92:24] pay a fair price for [92:26] that have a lot of beer in the mix, that [92:29] are mostly beer. Because if you buy [92:31] those companies, they are, by [92:33] definition, very well-run companies, [92:37] strong brands, big moats around them, [92:40] which makes them hard to compete I guess [92:42] to To do this, you're you're going to [92:43] have to have a framework for valuing a [92:45] company. Exactly. And you're going to [92:47] have to have great discipline. Which is [92:49] Yeah. hard. And that's what, you know, [92:52] as Warren Buffett said, I was blessed [92:54] with an ability [92:56] to allocate capital effectively. And [92:59] that's basically what he has done. He's [93:02] has capital and he is [93:04] got the ability to look at different [93:06] companies [93:07] and say of all the different companies I [93:09] could allocate capital to, [93:11] he's pretty skilled at picking the ones [93:14] that are are the best bets. One of the [93:15] things that I really admired about [93:17] Warren Buffett was his ability to do [93:19] nothing. [93:20] Which is one of the key things because [93:23] that goes back to Charlie Munger's [93:25] thing, don't get in the way of your [93:26] compounding, right? And there has been [93:27] recent times where I think we can all [93:29] think of where, [93:31] using your beer analogy, something [93:33] happens in the world and [93:36] the true value of a company [93:39] is higher than the selling price. I [93:41] mean, if you go back to March 2020 [93:43] during the the market sell-off when the [93:45] pandemic happened and everybody [93:46] panicked, Amazon, for example, the stock [93:48] briefly dropped below roughly to about [93:50] $1,500 per share, Mhm. well [93:54] [clears throat] below its intrinsic [93:55] value, um because people were panicking. [93:58] Right. Uh and then it quickly rebounded [93:59] again past $3,000 [94:02] a share. So, [94:03] theoretically, if you had noticed that [94:05] drop, you could have [94:07] made a 100% return on your money. [94:10] Um and this [94:11] >> the whole market did that. The whole [94:12] market dropped, yeah. Yeah. So, you [94:14] could have done that with your index [94:15] fund. This is why if you panicked and [94:17] sold, Yeah, you screwed. [94:19] >> Let's say you owned Amazon or you owned [94:21] VTSAX, and you panicked and sold, well, [94:24] you would have you would have lost [94:26] everything, and then it it recovered. [94:28] So, it works both ways. That's why I [94:31] said earlier in our conversation, you [94:33] you have to stay invested so that the [94:36] dip doesn't matter. And if anything, [94:38] take advantage of the dip and buy more. [94:40] So, you own Amazon, you see it dip, you [94:43] say, "Well, I still believe in the [94:44] company. I still think it's a good [94:45] company and it's got a good future." [94:48] Well, then maybe you buy some more in [94:49] the dip and you do still better. But, [94:51] the important thing is you don't sell [94:53] when it's down because there's panic in [94:55] the air. [94:56] And I think this is um this speaks to a [94:58] broader sentiment throughout this [94:59] conversation, which is to do what others [95:01] don't do. [95:02] You know, and Warren Buffett's famous [95:04] for saying, "Be fearful when others are [95:05] greedy and greedy when others are [95:07] fearful." But, generally, the sentiment [95:10] on social media, especially for younger [95:11] generations and especially for men, [95:12] which is supported by the data, [95:14] is that the way to make money is by like [95:17] trading crypto or buy Right. I mean, [95:20] there's so many people that sell This is [95:22] such a We need to address this. You [95:23] know, it's a platform It's like [95:25] gambling. It's just gambling in the day. [95:26] >> it's a gambling platform. And so, that's [95:29] going You know, people sometimes say to [95:30] me, "You know, I never invest in the [95:31] stock market. It's just gambling." [95:34] I say, "Well, you're half right." If our [95:37] foam [clears throat] is all dissipated, [95:38] but if there were still foam here, I [95:39] would say, "Yes, if you're doing it [95:41] short-term and you're playing with the [95:43] foam, absolutely there's no different [95:45] than going to Las Vegas." [95:47] If you're investing for the beer, it's [95:49] an entirely different story and you're [95:51] investing for the long term. [95:54] And there's lots of young people that [95:55] are being tempted into buying a course [95:58] that's going to help them learn how to [95:59] trade. That's great for the people [96:01] selling the course. [96:03] There's such an There's such an [96:04] incredible like obvious irony to the [96:07] idea [96:09] that I have some secret [96:11] about trading [96:13] that's really going to make you know, [96:15] that is capable of making one wealthy. [96:17] Right. And I'm going to give it to you. [96:19] Or even sell it to you. Why would I need [96:22] to if it worked? [96:22] >> Right. Like this is such an obvious [96:24] question to me. Like why would I need to [96:26] sell it if it worked? [96:27] >> It it is the obvious question. I mean, [96:29] you know, And I feel sorry. I have great [96:31] empathy because the people that buy [96:32] these things are people that are [96:33] desperate to get out of their financial [96:35] situation and they've run out of [96:36] options. And so, it's very compelling to [96:38] hear that there's some secret that you [96:40] can predict the stock market. It's very [96:41] compelling. You know, in another [96:43] interview I I said one time we were [96:44] talking about is the same [96:46] [clears throat] line of conversation [96:48] we're having, and I said, "You know, [96:50] I blame my mother. [96:51] I would be a lot richer if she hadn't [96:54] instilled a conscience in me. [96:56] You know, she's cost me millions of [96:59] dollars instilling this conscience. I I [97:00] could have courses, I could be, you [97:02] know, [97:03] but no. [97:04] I am saying that there is a path [97:08] that will give you great results. [97:11] And it's a pretty well-proven path at [97:13] this point. So many of us are pursuing [97:16] passive forms of income and to build [97:18] side businesses in order to help us [97:19] cover our bills. And that opportunity is [97:22] here with our sponsor, Stan, a [97:26] can help you take full advantage of your [97:29] own financial situation. Stan enables [97:31] you to work for yourself. It makes [97:33] selling digital products, courses, [97:34] memberships, and more simple products [97:37] more scalable and easier to do. You can [97:39] turn your ideas into income and get the [97:41] support to grow whatever you're [97:43] building. And we've just launched Dare [97:45] to Dream. It's for those who are ready [97:47] to make the shift from thinking to [97:48] building, from planning to actually [97:51] doing the thing. It's about seeing that [97:52] dream in your head and knowing exactly [97:54] what it takes to bring it to life. Enter [97:56] to win $100,000 for your dream. All you [97:58] have to do is share what it is. Learn [98:00] more at dare to dream.stan.store. [98:03] This is something that I've made for [98:05] you. I realize that the Diary of a CEO [98:07] audience are strivers, whether it's in [98:09] business or health, we all have big [98:11] goals that we want to accomplish. And [98:12] one of the things I've learned is that [98:14] when you aim at the big, big, big goal, [98:17] it can feel incredibly psychologically [98:20] uncomfortable because it's kind of like [98:21] being stood at the foot of Mount Everest [98:23] and looking upwards. The way to [98:25] accomplish your goals is by breaking [98:27] them down into tiny, small steps, and we [98:29] call this in our team the 1%. this [98:32] philosophy is highly responsible for [98:34] much of our success here. So, what we've [98:36] done is that you at home can accomplish [98:38] any big goal that you have is we've made [98:41] these 1% diaries, and we released these [98:44] last year, and they all sold out. So, I [98:46] asked my team over and over again to [98:47] bring the diaries back, but also to [98:49] introduce some new colors and to make [98:50] some minor tweaks to the diary. So, now [98:52] we have a better range for you. So, if [98:57] you have a big goal in mind and you need [98:58] a framework and a process and some [99:00] motivation, then I highly recommend you [99:03] get one of these diaries before they all [99:05] sell out once again. And you can get [99:07] yours now at the diary.com where you can [99:08] get 20% off our Black Friday bundle. And [99:11] if you want the link, the link is in the [99:12] description below. [99:15] Do I need a financial advisor? [99:17] Cuz a lot of people out there listening [99:19] now will be thinking, "Yeah, I will [99:20] figure out my money situation when I [99:22] have enough money to pay financial [99:23] advisor." Yeah, I think [99:26] my attitude is by the time you know [99:28] enough [99:29] to choose a good financial advisor, [99:32] which is no easy task, you probably know [99:35] enough to do it on your own, at least on [99:37] the investing part. [99:38] Now, there [99:40] are there other life kinds of decisions [99:43] where maybe advisors would be [99:45] more useful, but again, you have to be [99:47] careful. [99:48] And And it takes you you need to really [99:51] educate yourself as to how advisors get [99:53] paid, for instance. My answers, by the [99:55] way, are colored by the fact that I I [99:57] hear so frequently from [99:59] >> [clears throat] [99:59] >> my followers about bad experiences with [100:03] financial advisors. So, I have a [100:05] negative opinion. To be fair, I know [100:07] there are good ones out there, and all [100:08] due respect to those good ones. [100:10] But let's suppose you have a financial [100:12] advisor [100:13] who gets paid [100:15] based on the assets under management, [100:18] right? The amount of the amount that [100:20] you've given them. Exactly, right. So, [100:22] maybe it's 1%. So, you give them a [100:23] million dollars and they get 1% a year [100:26] to manage that money for for you. [100:28] Now, let's suppose you go to that [100:30] advisor and you say, "You know, Stephen, [100:33] I've I've been thinking about paying off [100:34] my mortgage. [100:36] I've got a half a million-dollar [100:37] mortgage on this house. [100:39] It's 6%. Let's say it's 5%, so in that [100:43] middle range, it's 5%. I'm thinking [100:44] about paying it off. What do you think?" [100:47] Okay. Well, now Stephen has a bit of a [100:49] lever because [100:52] he can certainly give you the most [100:54] accurate financial advice he is capable [100:57] of giving you in answering that [100:58] question. [101:00] But [101:01] if that leads him to say, "Yes, pay off [101:03] the mortgage," [101:04] he has just reduced his income by half. [101:10] Because when you pay off that mortgage, [101:11] half a million dollars is going to go [101:13] out from his management and paying off [101:15] the mortgage company. [101:16] So, you have just asked Stephen to give [101:19] you advice potentially that is bad for [101:21] Stephen. [101:22] Now, if Stephen's a honorable, capable, [101:27] honest guy, then maybe Stephen does [101:29] that. [101:30] But let's suppose Stephen [101:32] has two kids in college. [101:35] Let's suppose Stephen just bought a [101:37] boat. [101:38] Let's suppose Stephen has gone through a [101:40] divorce. [101:42] Let's [101:44] think about that, and maybe Stephen is [101:46] honest and capable and and decent as he [101:49] ordinarily is has financial pressures [101:51] that might play a role. [101:53] Right? There is a conflict of interest [101:55] frequently. So, you have to understand [101:57] how your advisor is being paid. [102:00] How does your portfolio look? Where have [102:03] you allocated your money in terms of [102:04] percentages? How much money do you have [102:06] in real estate versus cash versus index [102:08] funds? Oh, I don't even think about [102:10] about the real estate. We have this [102:12] cabin in Wisconsin on the lake, and then [102:14] we have a condo in Florida. [102:17] Um [102:18] they're both very modest, so pretty [102:20] small part of our net worth. I like to [102:22] buy things from a position of power. [102:25] My stocks, I'm probably about 80% in in [102:30] VTSAX, total stock market index fund. [102:34] And probably 15% in bonds, [102:39] a total bond market index fund, and then [102:41] the other 5% in money market fund. [102:44] I keep some money in the checking [102:46] account to pay the bills. [102:48] And to break it down a little further [102:50] for you, my wife and I both have IRAs. [102:53] We have a regular IRA and a Roth IRA. [102:56] So, there are four IRAs. [102:58] All four of them hold VTSAX. We have [103:01] taxable accounts, and part of that is [103:04] VTSAX, part of it is the bonds. What is [103:07] a bond? A bond is money that you have [103:10] lent to a company or to the government. [103:14] So, [103:15] when you buy a bond, you are essentially [103:18] lending money to [103:20] a company or a government entity. So, [103:23] they pay you interest. So, the you will [103:26] the companies and the government sell [103:29] bonds of various maturities, so they can [103:32] be very short, like a money market fund [103:34] is basically very short-term [103:36] bonds, you know, like 30 days or less, [103:39] right? Which makes it the equivalent of [103:40] cash. [103:41] But you could buy a a certificate of [103:44] deposit is a kind of a bond. So, you [103:46] could buy one of those for 3 months or 6 [103:48] months or a year, 5 years, 10 years. Buy [103:51] US Treasuries going out 30 years. Why [103:53] would I do that instead of buying the [103:54] index fund? So, the index fund is [103:56] stocks. It's It's very Stocks, as we [103:59] talked about, [104:00] big growth engine, great long-term, very [104:03] volatile. [104:04] >> [snorts] [104:04] >> So, if you want something to smooth the [104:06] ride, [104:07] bonds are not very good for long-term [104:09] growth, but they are not nearly as [104:11] volatile. Are they so they're safer? [104:13] Short-term, yes, because they're less [104:15] volatile. Long-term, they tend to lose [104:18] value to inflation. [104:20] Stocks, on the other hand, are riskier [104:22] short-term because of the volatility, [104:24] but long-term, [104:26] they outpace inflation, and so they are [104:29] safer long-term. So, it depends on your [104:31] time horizon is which is which is safer, [104:34] but traditionally, people think of bonds [104:37] as being safer. [104:38] And really, the way you should hear that [104:40] is less volatile, and stocks being [104:43] riskier, [104:44] you should hear that is more volatile. [104:46] So, is it broadly true to say that if we [104:48] exclude your real estate, 70% of your [104:51] assets are in stocks, 20% in bonds, and [104:54] 5% in cash? [104:55] Probably more 80-15-5. [104:58] So, 80% stocks, 15 bonds, and cash. [105:01] Okay. It's interesting cuz um Which [105:03] would be considered very, very [105:05] aggressive. [105:06] And I [105:07] wouldn't necessarily recommend that for [105:09] most people my age. [105:11] I thought it would be curious, cuz we [105:12] now have this new alien amongst us [105:14] called AI. I thought it would be curious [105:16] if I went on ChatGPT and I asked ChatGPT [105:18] the question, [105:19] "I'm a normal person who earns $50,000 a [105:22] year. I want to be financially free in [105:25] the future. [105:26] Give me a one-sentence answer based on [105:30] all of the wisdom in the world taken [105:32] from every expert in investing ever." [105:35] Well, there I know what the right answer [105:37] is. I don't know what the answer. [105:39] What do you think it's going to say? [105:40] Read The Simple Path to Wealth. I don't [105:41] think that's what it's going to say, but [105:43] that's the right answer. And the The [105:44] Simple Path to Wealth talks about three [105:45] principles, right? Right. What are those [105:47] three three I'm going to check it [105:48] against what it says. Avoid debt. Yeah. [105:50] Live on less than you earn. Invest the [105:52] surplus. [105:54] It said, [105:55] "Focus on saving and consistently invest [105:58] in low-cost, broad-based index funds [106:00] like the S&P 500 while living below your [106:02] means and allowing compounding to work [106:05] over time." [106:06] I then asked another question, [106:08] "How do I earn more?" I should assume [106:10] them from mining my book. [106:11] They probably did. [106:13] >> [laughter] [106:14] >> I said, "How do I earn more?" What do [106:16] you think? You know, if you if you [106:17] thought if your daughter came to you and [106:18] said, Earn more in a job or I just asked [106:21] a very broad question, which is, "I now [106:23] And now, how do I earn more?" was my [106:24] question. [106:26] I would say develop develop your skills. [106:28] Okay. Yeah. It said, "To earn more, [106:30] focus on developing high-demand skills. [106:33] >> Oh, there you go. Seek opportunities for [106:34] career advancement. Explore side hustles [106:36] or invest in assets that generate [106:38] passive income like real estate with [106:39] dividends." [106:41] But I really think that, you know, I [106:42] really think there's a really important [106:43] part there about developing high-demand [106:46] skills. What are those going to be in [106:48] the future? Yeah. With AI. Cuz [106:50] programming, for instance, [106:53] used to be a very high-demand skill, and [106:55] people said, "Learn how to program." [106:57] Yeah. From what I understand in the age [106:58] of AI, yeah, that's not so much. [107:01] I even think about my own life. 18 years [107:04] old, I started learning about social [107:06] media. I dropped out of university doing [107:07] my business management degree after one [107:09] lecture, and I started learning about [107:11] social media because I was building a [107:12] business in social media and technology. [107:14] And although that first business failed, [107:16] I I was [107:18] 19 years old [107:19] in 2000 and what, 14 or something? [107:22] Really understood this thing called [107:24] social media, which led me to spend a [107:26] year as a consultant flying around the [107:28] world to all these companies doing [107:29] social media. One of those companies [107:30] turned around and said, "It's been so [107:31] great. Could you turn this into a [107:33] company?" I said, "No, I've been through [107:34] the [107:35] founder PTSD of starting a startup. I [107:36] don't want to do it." Three months [107:38] later, I said, "Yes." Turned it into a [107:39] company called Social Chain, and that [107:41] changed my entire life. [107:42] >> out well. High-demand skill. I had, even [107:45] though I'd failed, I had this [107:47] high-demand skill that was honestly at [107:49] the time paying me 70,000 pounds a [107:50] month. [107:51] >> had it because you went through the [107:52] process of failing. Yes. Failure is You [107:55] know, it used to be in some cultures [107:57] that if you failed once, that was it. [107:59] You were a pariah. Nobody would even [108:00] look at you anymore. [108:02] Failure in our culture is just a [108:04] stepping stone. I've heard venture [108:07] capitalists say they won't even look at [108:09] an entrepreneur fund if they haven't [108:10] failed at least once. [108:12] >> 100%. [108:12] The advice I'd now give to my kids based [108:14] on that is I would ask if my kids came [108:16] to me and said, "Dad, what should I go [108:17] learn?" I would say, [108:20] "Go and work for a startup." I said [108:23] startup because you're going to be very [108:25] close to the CEO and founder because [108:27] there's going to be less desks, so [108:28] you're going to be closer to the [108:29] proximity that is failing at the cutting [108:33] edge. [108:33] So, if it's AI, I'd say go work for an [108:35] AI startup. [108:36] I I probably not going to work out. [108:38] You're probably going to be the company [108:40] maybe busting in a couple of months' [108:41] time, but you're going to be so close to [108:42] the failure, you will learn so much. [108:45] >> Yes. [108:45] >> I wish somebody had given me that [108:47] advice. And that's that's like in a way, [108:50] I guess, roundabout way what I did is I [108:52] started a company that failed at the [108:54] very forefront of a wave coming into [108:56] shore, which meant that as I hit, you [108:58] know, as the wave crashed down and I was [109:00] left there on my surfboard, I now had [109:02] this high-demand set of skills that [109:04] people were like begging me for, which [109:07] set me myself up. And frankly, [109:09] the Diary of a CEO would not be [109:11] successful [109:12] had I not spent the previous 10 years [109:15] understanding how social media content [109:17] creation, growth worked. [109:21] Is there a favorite story in this book [109:24] of yours? [109:25] Well, there's so many great ones, so [109:27] Share some of them. I already I already [109:29] alluded to my favorite one, which is my [109:31] friend Tom. [109:32] You know, because he has I mean, Tom was [109:34] a guy who [109:36] got to the age of 62. He'd been through [109:38] multiple divorces. He lost his house to [109:41] foreclosure. He lost his job. [109:44] He was broke. He went bankrupt. And yet, [109:48] his life has turned out pretty well. [109:49] He's an extraordinarily happy guy. [109:52] That's my favorite story. [109:55] But, the one of the reasons I like this [109:57] book so much, and one of the reasons, [109:58] candidly, I did it, [110:00] is if you read through it, you will find [110:02] there are some stories from [110:04] people who were tech bros, right? Who [110:06] made big incomes, and they read The [110:08] Simple Path to Wealth and applied it, [110:10] and it worked very well for them. [110:12] But, there are many, many more stories [110:14] of people who have accomplished this [110:17] from much more humble beginnings. Give [110:19] me an example of I have a very good [110:21] friend of mine, high school buddy. [110:23] I don't think he's ever made more than [110:25] $40,000 a year. He is financially [110:28] independent because he followed the [110:30] basic principles that I talk about in [110:32] that book. [110:33] I have a different friend. Name was in [110:35] the financial business. He was living in [110:37] Chicago. And over lunch, he told me that [110:40] his Christmas bonus had come in at [110:42] $800,000. [110:43] That's back in the mid-90s, when that [110:45] was real money, right? [110:47] And he was already making, I don't know, [110:49] a million dollars a year, whatever it [110:50] was. Big income. [110:52] And he was broke. [110:55] And [110:56] you see, most people listening to this [110:58] are going to say, "What are you talking [110:59] about? This guy got a bonus for 800 [111:01] People paid me $800,000 a year, I'd be [111:03] done forever, right?" And then [111:05] that'd be me, and I'm good. [111:07] How can he be broke? Well, when you [111:08] listen to him talk [111:10] about the house, [111:12] the cars, the schools, and you start [111:15] doing the math, you realize that [111:18] no, his income is not enough. He's [111:20] barely barely making it. [111:24] So, here's a guy with a big income, who [111:26] is, unless he changes his ways, is never [111:29] going to be financially independent [111:30] financially independent. Here's my guy [111:32] with a tiny income, comparatively, [111:35] who got there. [111:37] I've come to believe that a large income [111:41] actually can be an impediment to [111:44] accomplishing it. And my reasoning for [111:46] this is that I think people have a large [111:48] income [111:49] are much more likely to be drawn into [111:51] the competing with the Joneses scenario [111:54] because they associate with other people [111:56] have large incomes, and they're all [111:57] driving a certain car, living in certain [112:00] neighborhood, sending their kids to [112:02] certain schools, and that probably [112:04] becomes very hard to disengage with. [112:07] And making it perhaps even [112:10] less likely that they are going to [112:12] decide to spend a large portion of their [112:14] income on buying their freedom. [112:16] Whereas, the people who make less money [112:19] probably don't have those same social [112:20] pressures, and are more readily able to [112:22] do it. [112:24] So, starting from humble beginnings is [112:26] no obstacle. And that's was the point of [112:29] doing Pathfinders. [112:31] Interesting. [112:33] It does track that. I think [112:36] the goalposts continue to move in [112:37] different ways, and [112:38] >> Yeah. [112:39] I guess you go from competing to the [112:41] Joneses to competing with the size of [112:43] someone else's yacht, which is [112:45] all slippery slopes to bad places. Or [112:47] your own or or your own demons, [112:51] as we talked about earlier, right? Yeah, [112:53] you mentioned a word in there as well. [112:54] You mentioned I think you were talking [112:55] about your friend Tom. Tom had a [112:56] divorce? Multiple divorces, yeah. I [113:00] Which is bad for your [clears throat] [113:01] wealth. [113:02] Yeah, I didn't really I didn't I didn't [113:04] realize this cuz I've never been through [113:05] one before. Um I spoke to James Sexton [113:07] on the show, who's a divorce lawyer, who [113:09] kind of opened my eyes to it. But [113:11] actually, [113:13] I had a private conversation with a [113:14] friend here in New York City [113:16] I'd say a couple of months ago, who's [113:18] going through a divorce. [113:19] And he's he sat me down, and he talked [113:21] me through the specific consequences of [113:24] of divorce that he's going through. [113:27] He said to me, he's a very successful [113:28] person. I reckon he's probably worth 500 [113:30] million, right? He said, the divorce [113:33] proceedings have now dragged on for 5 or [113:36] 6 years. So, I'm I'm having to go and [113:39] see lawyers all the time. And he said to [113:41] me as well that he is paying for her [113:43] lawyer. [113:44] Which I was like I I didn't really [113:45] understand, but he was like, "No, I have [113:46] to also cover her lawyer costs because, [113:49] you know, I'm the the breadwinner. She [113:51] doesn't have money, so I'm covering her [113:52] lawyer costs, which is what I have to [113:53] do." And he said the law firm have gone [113:56] from being a very, very small practice [113:58] in those 6 years, [113:59] now they have a massive building. And he [114:01] goes, "I know, it's my money. I bought [114:04] [laughter] it. [114:04] He was like, "I have paid for her [114:06] lawyer, and now they're doing really [114:07] well, and they're milking this this [114:09] case. They're drawing it out Yeah, they [114:11] have no incentive to this [114:13] >> this ending, yeah. So, he's like, "I've [114:14] spent tens of millions on her lawyer, [114:16] who is basically dragging me, [114:19] um and now they've got this massive [114:20] building." What else did he say to me? [114:22] He said, [114:23] "Because some of my assets are [114:25] subjective in value, like my company, [114:27] her lawyer [114:29] >> [laughter] [114:29] >> is inflating the price of my assets [114:32] because she's going to get half of [114:33] whatever they can convince a judge my [114:35] assets are worth. So, he, you know, for [114:36] his example, his business might be worth [114:38] 100 million, but the lawyer is making [114:40] the case to the judge that it's worth [114:41] 500 million, so that she gets 250 [114:44] million." He also said to me [114:46] >> Which really isn't there. Which really [114:47] he doesn't have. And then he was saying [114:49] to me, he goes, "You know, I bought this [114:51] particular stock." [114:52] >> So, he is I'm sorry to interrupt, but [114:53] now he's forced to fight it. He's [114:55] fighting it as well. [114:56] >> like he can just say, "Okay, she can [114:57] have half." Yeah, because this is a [115:00] judgment [115:01] that is going to create a an obligation [115:04] on his part for assets that don't [115:06] actually exist. [115:07] >> So, it's more than half. Right? She [115:08] could end up taking 60, 70, 75%. And the [115:11] other thing he said to me, which was [115:12] quite sad, he was like, "You know, I was [115:13] one of the first He was one of the early [115:14] investors in a big company that we all [115:16] know. [115:17] And um [115:19] he said to me, "I bought that stock 15, [115:21] 20 years ago." It's actually quite [115:22] emotional to him that he was so early in [115:24] backing that company. And now he's [115:26] forced to sell that. So, he has to [115:28] liquidate investments he made 20 years [115:31] ago because, again, she's entitled to [115:33] half. [115:33] >> And that'll be a huge tax hit. A huge [115:36] tax hit. [115:37] >> Right. And I think some people don't [115:38] realize that wealthy people can [115:41] get a loan against that stock without [115:45] ever having to sell it. [115:47] >> Right. So, he's probably, if he's smart, [115:49] he's probably got a big loan against [115:51] that stock. [115:52] >> Right. [115:53] Probably a 50% loan. So, just for anyone [115:55] that doesn't understand this, cuz I only [115:56] understood this in the last couple of [115:57] years where I where I started doing [115:58] similar things, is if the stock is worth [116:00] 100 million, he can get 50 million [116:03] tax-free from a bank just by keeping [116:05] that stock there, and really never have [116:06] to pay it back because it's such a great [116:07] stock. [116:09] Um [116:10] and [116:11] it was also just looking in his face and [116:13] just seeing the stress and the toll of [116:15] having to go to court all the time and [116:16] fight this thing for 6 or 7 years that I [116:19] thought, "Wow, we we give people [116:21] financial advice all the time about the [116:22] best stocks to pick or investing index [116:25] funds. We don't talk enough about the [116:28] how divorce can just destroy your life." [116:30] You know, you have to be so careful in [116:32] choosing your spouse. I've had pushback [116:35] on that, and people say, "Well, that [116:36] you're choosing your spouse is not a [116:38] financial decision. It's, you know, it's [116:40] emotional, it's romantic, it's Well, [116:42] yeah, it's all those things, but it you [116:44] better take finance into account for all [116:46] the reasons that we're discussing. This [116:48] also, by the way, loops us back to an [116:50] earlier part of our conversation, where [116:53] does money buy happiness? Does, you [116:55] know, being richer [116:57] is that always necessarily better? Well, [117:00] this guy is more of a target because of [117:02] his wealth than he would be if he were [117:04] So, is his money really making him [117:06] happier at this point in his life? You [117:08] know, probably not so much. [117:10] You know. You know, and he's he's going [117:12] to be fine either way. Like, you know. [117:14] Um which is a point point worth saying [117:16] of nuance. But also And the other point [117:17] of nuance worth saying is that [117:18] >> He's going to be fine financially, but [117:20] emotionally, it's he's still going to go [117:23] And she's probably going through it, [117:24] too, on the other side. [117:25] >> 100%. Yeah. [117:26] >> [laughter] [117:26] >> And the other point of nuance here is [117:28] that she did raise the four or five the [117:33] the three or four kids Yeah. while he [117:35] was off building the business for, you [117:37] know, 20 odd years. So, one could argue [117:40] that he wouldn't have that wealth [117:41] without her being at home to look after [117:43] the kids, and she made huge sacrifices [117:44] to her own career. [117:46] Sure. So, you know, there's balance, but [117:48] I I just think with um [117:51] James Sexton said to me, "Even if you [117:53] don't get a pre-nup, [117:55] there's still a pre-nup. You either use [117:56] the government's pre-nup, [117:58] which is Or you create your own. [118:00] >> Or you create your own. Either way, [118:01] there's a pre-nup. Absolutely. Do you [118:03] want to let some judge decide, or do you [118:06] want to be intentional before you get [118:07] married with your partner about how [118:09] things will be split? [118:11] And even when I think about my partner [118:12] at the moment, and we're probably going [118:13] to get married soon. Congratulations. [118:15] Thank you. I haven't proposed just yet, [118:17] but I'm working on it. Don't tell her [118:18] that. We we just let that secret out. [118:20] >> She doesn't She doesn't WATCH THIS [118:21] ANYWAY. [118:22] >> [laughter] [118:23] >> SOMEONE'S GOING TO DM HER. BUT I'M on [118:25] this time, so this is the one episode [118:27] you're going to watch. True. Well, I'm [118:29] very fortunate is if this spring, I will [118:32] have been married 44 years. [118:33] >> Damn. And [clears throat] I I tell [118:35] people I Congrats. I married my wife out [118:38] of the gate. Why? Wait. Do you have a [118:40] framework for choosing [118:42] the person, or for sustaining for 44 [118:45] years? Cuz I'm what, 6, 7 years in with [118:47] my girlfriend, but you've got 44 years [118:49] in. Funny story about that is [118:53] people used to ask me, "Did you and Jane [118:55] sit down and discuss money before make [118:58] sure you're on the same page financially [119:00] before you got married?" [119:02] >> [snorts] [119:02] >> And I always used to say, you know, it's [119:04] a great idea. You should do that. But [119:06] no, we never did that. I just I just got [119:08] lucky. You know, we never talked about [119:10] it, but as it happens, we got married [119:12] and we were very, very compatible [119:14] financially, which we are. [119:16] But just got lucky. Well, I told that [119:18] story in front of her one time. [119:20] And she leaned back in her chair and she [119:22] said, [119:23] "What are you talking about? On our [119:25] first date, you said to me, [119:28] 'You need to be saving 50% of your [119:29] income.'" [119:30] He said, "What do you mean we never [119:31] talked about money?" [119:34] I guess that's such a natural part of my [119:36] persona, I didn't even remember doing [119:37] it. Interesting. [laughter] [119:40] >> [snorts] [119:40] >> My last question for you is about [119:41] regret. [119:43] You said you're 75? I am. [119:45] What are your biggest regrets? [119:48] So, I I think regrets are are tricky. [119:51] Then I and I will I'll answer your [119:53] question directly and that's a couple of [119:56] things that or at least one thing that [119:58] occurs to me that might be surprising, [119:59] but [120:00] the reason they're tricky is because [120:02] there is an assumption like you you [120:04] regret doing A [120:06] and you think if only I'd done B, things [120:08] would be better. [120:09] But you don't know that that's true. But [120:11] you might say, "Boy, I regret starting [120:13] that company that failed because it was [120:14] a failure." [120:16] Well, yeah, but it led to something much [120:18] bigger. You learned so much. Mhm. Now, [120:21] maybe if you'd said, "Instead of [120:23] starting that company that failed, [120:26] maybe I took this high-paying job and [120:29] and I worked my way up through the [120:30] corporate organization." [120:32] And you'd be saying there, you know, [120:33] you'd be sitting at some high executive [120:36] level in this corporation and looking [120:38] back and saying, "Well, am I glad I [120:39] didn't [120:41] do that startup that failed." Right? And [120:43] yet, you're so much further ahead now [120:45] than if you So, who knows? Who knows [120:48] what choice you made that appears to be [120:51] the wrong choice [120:52] as to whether it really was. Maybe it [120:54] was exactly Maybe things would have [120:56] turned out better, maybe they wouldn't. [120:57] So, [120:58] I'm very hesitant to look back on There [121:00] are many things I can look back on and [121:02] say, "Gee, [121:03] I do wonder what if I'd gone down the [121:06] right path instead of the left path. [121:08] What would that have looked like?" [121:10] But there's no guarantees it would look [121:11] better and my life has been pretty damn [121:13] good. So, in that sense, I have no [121:16] regrets. [121:17] Two regrets I do have, very personal [121:19] regrets. I don't I've never shared these [121:22] publicly. [121:24] When I was a kid, [121:27] my father was a very handy guy. He loved [121:31] building things, working on the house, [121:32] that kind of stuff. [121:34] I was not that kind of kid. [121:37] And I don't know, I was 8 or 10 years [121:38] old at one point and [121:41] for my birthday or Christmas, I don't [121:42] remember, [121:44] he brought me a bought me a jigsaw, [121:47] which is a [121:48] for people who don't know, it's a it's [121:50] an electric saw. It's got a little blade [121:52] that goes up and allows you to cut wood [121:54] in very fine kinds of patterns. [121:57] Last thing in the world [121:59] this kid wanted. [122:02] And I let my dad know [122:04] and he was crushed [122:06] because for him, [122:09] it was the best gift he could possibly [122:12] think of to give to an 8 or 10-year-old [122:13] or whatever it was. [122:15] And so, one of the regrets and I give [122:17] myself some grace cuz I was very young [122:19] and [122:21] reasonably you could expect that I [122:23] didn't have the maturity to deal with it [122:25] the way I would have. But I I do regret [122:28] cuz I could see the pain in his face [122:31] when I I kind of rejected [122:34] that gift. [122:35] Right? [122:37] And maybe that [122:39] taught me a good lesson in being more [122:40] empathetic going forward. So again, do I [122:42] really regret it? Well, I regret that I [122:44] hurt my father, [122:46] but [122:47] I learned something pretty valuable. And [122:49] you've let you've remembered that for 70 [122:51] years. I've remembered that for 70 [122:53] years, yeah. [122:55] Yeah. [122:56] I've got similar stories of things ways [122:58] I reacted as a kid. I think most people [123:00] will do. Yeah, you know, yeah, sucks. [123:03] And then my second one and this is even [123:05] bigger. [clears throat] I was 24 when my [123:07] dad died. [123:09] And he died of emphysema. [123:11] And [clears throat] slow, lingering [123:13] death. He died in the hospital. [123:16] And [123:18] the night before he died, the day before [123:20] he died, I was visiting him. [123:23] And um [123:24] he was sitting on the edge of the bed [123:28] and he said to me, [123:33] "I'm going to die now. [123:36] You know, I'm I'm [123:37] going to die tonight." [123:42] Turns out, of course, he was right. He [123:44] did. That was the night he died. [123:48] And instead of recognizing that [123:52] this was a moment where [123:55] he wanted to talk to his son about this, [123:59] this [124:00] probably the most momentous event that [124:02] any of us will ever face, [124:05] right? [124:06] Instead of recognizing that, [124:10] I went to the typical trope of "Oh, Dad, [124:12] don't don't talk like that. You you're [124:13] not going to die. You got a long way to [124:15] go. There you're going to be fine." I [124:17] went to all that [ __ ] [124:19] instead of just [124:21] recognizing whether he was right or [124:24] wrong, [124:26] that [clears throat] [124:28] he was facing a momentous thing and [124:31] [snorts and clears throat] he didn't [124:32] want to hear [124:34] "Don't Don't think about that. Think [124:36] more positively." He He wanted to [124:38] share with his son [124:43] what he was facing. [124:45] And [124:47] I regret that I wasn't there for him [124:50] in that moment. [124:52] But I regret that I didn't get to [124:54] experience that with him in that moment. [124:58] So, that's my biggest. [125:03] I can still see it still in your face. [125:09] That was 50 years ago. [125:14] Is there a reason why [125:16] you think in that moment you didn't [125:19] want to go in that direction with him? [125:22] It wasn't a matter of what I wanted cuz [125:24] it's not like I considered [125:26] >> [clears throat] [125:27] >> I can either blow it off, which is what [125:29] I did, [125:30] or embrace it and go there with him. I I [125:32] didn't even think that way. It's not [125:34] like [125:36] it's not like I made the wrong choice. [125:38] I wasn't mature enough to recognize [125:41] there was a choice. I wasn't mature [125:43] enough to recognize [125:46] the real dynamic of what was happening. [125:49] And for that, you deserve grace. [125:51] Thank you. And I agree with that. [125:54] But I still regret it cuz how much [125:57] better [125:58] for both of us would it have been [126:02] if I had recognized it. [126:04] Jay, we have a closing tradition on this [126:06] podcast where the last guest leaves a [126:07] question for the next. [126:09] What is something that you think is true [126:12] that you haven't yet been able to [126:14] validate? [126:15] I think at at this point in my life, I'm [126:20] I feel pretty comfortable about what I [126:23] think is true. [126:25] Right? So, [126:27] I'm not sure this answers the question, [126:29] but um [126:32] but a good example is [126:34] I am pretty sure that there is no [126:36] afterlife. [126:38] Right? [126:39] I I have a high degree of confidence in [126:42] that. [126:44] But of course, as the song once said, [126:46] "We'll never know by living, only our [126:47] dying will tell." [126:49] And [126:50] I am very curious about death. [126:54] I am very curious as to [126:59] what is on the other side, if anything. [127:02] So, in a [127:04] perverse way, I guess, I'm I am looking [127:06] forward to my death. [127:08] Right? I I don't want to get there too [127:09] soon. I mean, I'm as long as I am [127:11] mentally and physically capable, I'm [127:13] happy to continue living. Thank you very [127:15] much. [127:16] But I do have a great curiosity about [127:18] death and I'm [127:20] almost 100% sure that when I'm dead, [127:22] that's just it. It's over. [127:25] But I'm curious and it'll be interesting [127:28] if I die and it's like, "Oops." [127:31] You know, it's like, "Oh, there is a guy [127:33] with a white beard and [127:35] okay, I'll just show myself out. Thank [127:37] you very much." [127:39] >> [laughter] [127:39] >> There's one last question I wanted to [127:40] ask you, which is kind of just about the [127:41] subject of happiness. Again, at 75 years [127:43] old, you have a retrospective clarity [127:44] that I don't yet have on what actually [127:46] mattered. [127:48] What actually matters? [127:50] Nothing. [127:54] Nothing really matters ultimately. [127:57] Nothing? Yeah. [127:59] I think [128:01] that's kind of like asking what's the [128:02] meaning of life, right? [128:05] And I don't think there is a meaning to [128:08] life. When you look at the scale of the [128:10] universe, the scale of the cosmos, [128:14] the concept that [128:18] we as individuals bear some meaning [128:22] seems to me to be silly. [128:24] Human beings have been around for, I [128:26] don't know, two, 300,000 years depending [128:29] on when you define Homo sapiens. [128:32] I mean, that's that's a [128:35] infinitesimally small smudge of time [128:39] in that has happened already and that [128:41] will happen in the future. Even if [128:43] humans last for another few million [128:47] years, it will be an infinitely [128:49] tiny bit of time [128:51] against this huge cosmic universe. [128:55] And our individuality within that is [128:59] infinitesimally small. [129:01] And I think there's some great meaning [129:02] behind that. Seems to be to be the [129:04] height of arrogance. [129:06] So, I think that if you go through life [129:09] and you treat people pretty well [129:13] and you have a a pretty good good run of [129:16] it, [129:16] I think you've done well. [129:19] I don't but I don't think there's [129:20] something profound in that. [129:23] So, what is the point then? [129:25] Is there a point? Is that the wrong [129:26] question? [129:27] >> no there is no point. I mean the the [129:29] point is we happen to be here [129:31] and it can be a good fun ride. It can be [129:34] a very difficult ride depending on what [129:36] you make of it. [129:37] And in some cases depending on your [129:39] circumstances, there have certainly been [129:41] people in history that have born [129:43] been born into circumstances that [129:46] you know, made it a a miserable [129:49] existence with no options out of it. I [129:52] mean, what's the meaning of that? [129:54] And now you and I and the vast majority [129:56] of people listening to us, probably I [129:59] venture to say 100% of them, have a lot [130:02] more autonomy over [130:04] over how we can make our life. [130:07] And [130:08] will it have great meaning? No, [130:10] ultimately not. [130:11] But it's the only life you have and you [130:13] might as well make the best of it. [130:15] I actually listened to something last [130:17] night by a guy called Lucas Jones who is [130:20] an actor. Um he has some great books. [130:22] He's also a poet as far as I'm aware. [130:24] I'll link his books below. Um but he he [130:27] made wrote this poem which I thought was [130:28] quite related to that that I'm just [130:30] going to play for you because I think [130:31] it's kind of captures the essence as [130:32] well of what you're saying. [130:33] He starts by saying, "I saw God on the [130:35] train." Okay. Saw God on the train. Ah, [130:36] God. Okay. I pretended I didn't. So, I [130:39] sat far away from the seat he was [130:40] sitting at. [130:41] And then he got up, I think probably to [130:43] piss, and he noticed me there and said, [130:45] "All right, what's this? [130:46] What you saying? You heard it from me." [130:48] I said, "Oh, mate, nah, just comfy [130:50] seat." [130:51] And he looked at me like I was a kid [130:52] covered in chocolate surrounded by [130:54] wrappers saying, "Don't know what [130:55] happened." [130:56] And he goes, "Come in then, mate. I've [130:57] got a few minutes. [130:59] Tell me what's wrong, but don't [ __ ] [131:00] around with it." [131:01] And it showed me then that it fit in one [131:03] sentence. I said, "Just think heaven's a [131:06] stupid incentive. [131:07] Like what, a [ __ ] life for a beautiful [131:09] death? And those who are evil can [131:11] suddenly repent like a killer or nonce [131:13] can live like a monster then right at [131:15] the end say, 'I'm sorry, dear God, so' [131:17] and end up in heaven right there with my [131:19] nana. She's doing some knitting. He's [131:21] waving a hammer. So, Jesus, God, what a [131:23] horrible deal." [131:24] And he goes, "Yes, [ __ ] Don't know how [131:25] you feel." [131:27] I'm like, "Mate, you're the one spinning [131:28] the wheel." And he goes, "Listen, I'll [131:30] tell you a secret. [131:31] All that stuff, mate, I didn't speak it. [131:33] Like the old joke says about liars and [131:35] men, if God wrote the book, why are you [131:37] holding the pen? Now, the rules I wrote [131:39] I wrote on your heart. Truth I spoke, [131:42] you've known from the start. Be kind, [131:43] don't harm. Isn't that hard? Heaven's [131:45] just life if you're doing your part. You [131:47] want white clouds and endless skies? Uh [131:49] yeah, look around. You don't have to [131:51] die. And I know it probably brings you [131:53] some pain to think of the dead as just [131:55] dust in a grave, but humans can't [131:57] comprehend it when I say life is the [131:59] cloud and death is the rain. [132:02] And I got to my stop and felt kind of [132:04] mad. Not sure he answered the questions [132:06] that. [132:07] And I looked up and saw the sun rising. [132:10] Said, "You're looking for heaven, [132:12] but you're the one hiding." [132:16] >> [laughter] [132:16] >> LJ, thank you. [132:18] Thank you for writing these incredible [132:19] books that I highly recommend anybody [132:21] who is on their own journey to financial [132:22] freedom [132:24] and is looking for a free life, a [132:26] financial independence, or just [132:27] independence from one's own [132:30] tormenting psychology should have should [132:33] should buy. This book Simple Path to [132:35] Wealth has been an absolute smash hit [132:37] for [132:38] understandable reasons once you read it. [132:40] Sold many millions of copies from what I [132:42] understand, more than a million copies [132:43] at least, and I highly recommend [132:45] everybody goes and starts with this book [132:46] and then [132:47] picks up Pathfinders. I'm going to link [132:49] both of these books below. And there is [132:50] a third book, a slightly smaller, called [132:51] How I Lost Money in Real Estate Before [132:53] It Was Fashionable, a cautionary tale. [132:55] Um [132:57] I'm going to link all of them below. And [132:58] if anybody else wants to find more of [133:00] your work, is there anywhere else that [133:01] they can get in contact with you, read [133:03] your work that I should recommend? So, [133:05] probably the easiest thing is the blog, [133:07] which is jlcollinsnh [133:10] at or dot com. [133:13] And uh you know, you'll find a lot of my [133:15] writing. I don't write on the blog too [133:17] much anymore, but the material that's [133:19] there is evergreen. It's the source [133:21] material for the books that you were [133:23] kind enough to share. [133:25] Uh the last book, the How I Lost Money [133:27] in Real Estate, is if somebody wants to [133:29] have a laugh at my expense, that's the [133:30] book they want to pick up. Thank you for [133:32] doing so much of what you do. Um I know [133:33] what the comments are going to say [133:34] already. They're going to be people [133:35] talking about how soothing your voice [133:36] is. [133:37] And I [133:37] >> [laughter] [133:38] >> I happen to agree. [133:41] Thank you so much. My pleasure. Thank [133:43] you for having me. [133:47] If there's anything we need, it is [133:49] connection, especially in the world [133:51] we're living in today. And that is [133:52] exactly why we created these [133:54] conversation cards because on this show, [133:56] when I sit here with my guests and have [133:58] those deep, intimate conversations, this [134:01] remarkable thing happens time and time [134:02] again. We feel deeply connected to each [134:05] other. At the end of every episode, the [134:07] guest I'm interviewing leaves a question [134:09] for the next guest, and we've turned [134:11] them into these conversation cards. And [134:13] we've added these twist cards to make [134:15] your conversations even more [134:16] interesting. And there are so many more [134:18] twists along the way with the [134:19] conversation cards. This is the brand [134:21] new edition, and for the first time [134:22] ever, I've added to the pack this gold [134:24] card, which is an exclusive question [134:27] from me. But I'm only putting the gold [134:29] cards in the first run of conversation [134:32] cards. So, get yours now before the [134:34] limited edition gold cards are all gone. [134:36] Head to the link in the description [134:37] below. [134:38] >> [music] [134:50] [music] [134:52] [singing]