PWL's Ben Felix Backs 100% Equity Allocation for Long-Term Wealth

PWL的Ben Felix支持以100%股票配置实现长期财富 跨越130年的全球市场数据表明，100%股票策略能优化长期退休财富，而债券无法抵御严重通胀。 Ben Felix解析了基于实证的金融核心原则，指出简单的低成本指数基金能持续跑赢主动管理型基金和高费率产品。他探讨了与消费和人际关系相关的行为心理学，破除了有关购房和主题投资的常见迷思，并强调了遗产规划与适当保险的重要性。对话以学术研究为基础，展示了专注于资产配置与长期纪律等可控变量如何帮助积累持久财富。 Ben Felix 提出了评估买房不可收回成本的“5%法则”（1%房产税、1%维护成本与3%资本机会成本），例如30万美元的房产若月租金低于1250美元，租房在财务上通常更为划算。 (31:19) 富人常通过将股票投资组合抵押给银行来获取免税现金，但该策略伴随着严重的追加保证金（Margin Call）风险，一旦市场大幅下挫可能被迫折价抛售。 (45:36) 忽视遗嘱和遗产规划会导致资产分配直接受制于政府的默认规则，不仅可能违背个人意愿，还会给继承人带来高额税务负担与行政混乱。 (50:41) 伴侣间的财务契合度极大取决于消费心理，对花钱感到心理痛苦的“守财奴”与缺乏消费阻力的“挥霍者”在现实中往往更容易结合，从而埋下长期财务摩擦隐患。 (52:02)

PWL Capital Chief Investment Officer Ben Felix argues that personal wealth building is mathematically straightforward through low-cost, globally diversified index investing, but consistently undermined by behavioral instincts, structural fees, and misunderstandings about housing and lifestyle planning. Academic Investing and the Efficient Market Reality (2:38) Felix asserts that long-term investing has largely been solved by academic finance: broadly diversified, low-cost index funds reliably beat stock-picking and sector-focused strategies. Citing the Efficient Market Hypothesis, he notes that current market prices already reflect all publicly accessible information and collective growth expectations, making regular outperformance through timing or niche analysis statistically improbable. Steven Bartlett references Warren Buffett's decade-long wager against hedge funds as evidence that passive index funds consistently outpace active managers burdened by high management fees. Felix warns that checking portfolios too frequently induces loss aversion, leading retail investors to reduce risk and forfeit returns. Academic simulations covering global market data from 39 countries since 1890 suggest that a 100% equity portfolio—specifically distributed with two-thirds international and one-third domestic assets—delivers superior retirement consumption utility and capital preservation over decades. Felix views uninvested cash as a guaranteed loss of purchasing power given central banks' roughly 2% inflation targets, noting that at a 3% inflation rate, $10,000 loses nearly half its real purchasing value across 20 years. The Hidden Realities of the Rent-Versus-Buy Choice (25:48) Felix challenges the assumption that primary residential real estate functions as an optimal wealth-building vehicle, categorizing it instead as a consumption asset that pays an implicit dividend in avoided rent. Homeowners systematically overlook significant unrecoverable costs, such as mortgage interest, property taxes (typically 0.5% to 1%), continuous maintenance (often exceeding 1% annually), and the substantial opportunity cost of equity tied up in property rather than higher-yielding equities. To evaluate this trade-off, Felix outlines the 5% rule: taking 5% of a property's total purchase value and dividing by 12 provides a monthly break-even rental price. For example, owning a $300,000 home generates roughly $1,250 per month in unrecoverable costs, meaning an equivalent rental priced below that threshold is financially preferable. Furthermore, homeownership reduces geographical flexibility, which can suppress lifetime earning trajectories if workers reject higher-paying positions in other locations due to local housing illiquidity. He also notes that empirical happiness data shows no discernible well-being advantage for owners over renters when controlling for income and neighborhood. Earning Trajectories, Tax Shelters, and Catastrophic Risk (9:40) Early in adulthood, optimizing human capital often yields a far higher return than severe penny-pinching. Life-cycle economic allocation indicates that young workers on entry-level salaries should focus on stacking complementary, rare skills that command higher wages in profitable industries before aggressively scaling savings rates in their 30s and 40s. Once earned, capital should be directed into statutory tax-advantaged shelters—such as 401(k)s, IRAs, TFSAs, RRSPs, or ISAs—which Felix identifies as the most reliable, legal wealth shields available to non-wealthy households. Beyond basic savings, Felix warns against neglecting basic legal structures and catastrophic protection. Individuals relying on paycheck income require term life insurance to replace lost human capital for dependents, alongside disability coverage to safeguard against loss of working capacity. Skipping estate planning effectively delegates asset division and tax efficiency to default government frameworks, while a failure to address romantic financial alignment or draft prenuptial agreements exposes households to protracted legal disputes during marital breakdowns. Avoiding Financial Traps and Misleading Yields (67:40) The modern financial services industry frequently promotes complex, high-fee products that capitalize on retail cognitive biases. Felix cautions against covered call ETFs, which market attractive upfront yields while capping stock upside during market rallies, ultimately forfeiting substantial equity growth under the guise of steady income. Similarly, thematic ETFs targeting sectors like clean energy, artificial intelligence, or cannabis typically launch at peak market valuations, leaving retail investors exposed to severe subsequent drawdowns. Felix also advises avoiding cryptocurrency allocations, noting that PWL Capital avoids digital assets due to their lack of underlying cash-flow generation. Regarding technological displacement from artificial intelligence, Felix points to historical precedents like bank automated teller machines and Jevons Paradox, expecting technological efficiencies to reduce unit costs and expand services into newly created labor categories rather than causing permanent, systemic employment collapse. Felix concludes that personal financial security depends strictly on managing direct personal variables—career skill-building, fee containment, rigorous tax sequencing, appropriate insurance, and disciplined index retention—rather than predicting unpredictable geopolitical shocks or short-term macroeconomic cycles.

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 4 月 30 日发布。页面描述显示，访谈邀请了 PWL Capital 首席投资官兼实证投资专家本·费利克斯（Ben Felix），深入拆解“投资其实早就被学术界解决，但人类本能却悄然让人变穷”的底层逻辑，涵盖看盘心理偏差、买房与租房的真实成本核算、年轻人的储蓄规划以及摧毁财务未来的常见误区。 ## TL;DR 本·费利克斯指出，经学术严谨验证的最优投资策略就是长期持有低成本宽基指数基金，但人类追求刺激和厌恶损失的演化本能往往诱使散户频繁看盘与投机择时。他提出著名的“5%法则”，量化揭示了买房所伴随的房贷利息、维护和机会成本等不可挽回支出，打破了“买房稳赚不赔”的神话，并提醒年轻人切勿因过早买房或过度储蓄而锁死职业流动性。对话还结合 PERMA 心理学模型与金钱观测评，深刻剖析了伴侣金钱契合度、遗产规划、全生命周期全股票配置相对于债券的抗通胀优势，并提醒公众坚决远离主题式 ETF 与备兑期权等高费率金融营销陷阱。核心建议在于做好底层的风险控制与税务架构后彻底“放手不管”，专注于构建个人人力资本与真实的生活幸福感。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在严密冷峻的学术实证与幽默坦率的个人坦白之间形成了绝妙的平衡。主持人 Steven Bartlett 毫不避讳地拿自己购置度假房、遭遇突发维修账单等亲身踩坑经历作为反面素材，而工程师出身的 Ben Felix 则以近乎手术刀般的理性，凭借海量学术论文与硬核数据将传统财经迷思逐一拆解。现场道具展示与金钱人格小测试使沉闷的财务概念变得生动易懂，整期节目既有打破固有认知时的醍醐灌顶，又传递出一种摆脱系统性财务焦虑后的从容掌控感。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=0s) 投资与买房的核心误区与节目总览 节目开篇迅速勾勒出个人财务决策中最关键的几个交锋点。首当其冲的是“租房还是买房”，这是绝大多数人一生中做出的最大单笔财务决定。Ben Felix 指出，人们往往只看到房产增值，却严重忽视了买房过程中的“不可挽回成本”（unrecoverable costs），包括容易被低估的日常维护成本、房产税以及各种突发应急开销。为此，他将运用著名的“5%法则”来量化对比租房与买房到底哪一个在财务上更为划算。 紧接着，对话引申到人们在日常财务管理中悄然犯下的十大错误，例如错过简单可行的避税与税务筹划机会。Ben Felix 所在的财富管理公司为超过3,000名客户打理资产，涵盖不同财富阶层的群体。他的核心理念是摆脱华尔街的推销话术，把经得起考验的学术金融研究转化为普通大众切实可行的决策依据。针对年轻一代，节目也打破了“越早拼命攒钱越好”的传统说教，提出学术研究反而表明年轻人过度激进储蓄可能是次优选择；同时，在人工智能迅速颠覆就业市场的当下，投资者更需要建立清醒、科学的资金管理底层逻辑。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 个人财务与投资核心决策框架 accDescr: 展示学术金融研究如何通过心理学、资产配置与房产分析指导实际财务决策。 subgraph Mindset ["底层驱动：心理学与学术证据"] A["学术金融研究与证据"] --> B["克服演化心理偏差"] end subgraph Decision ["两大核心决策模块"] B --> C["住房决策：5%法则与不可挽回成本"] B --> D["长期投资：低成本指数基金"] end subgraph Execution ["执行与优化"] C --> E["优化个人现金流与人生幸福度"] D --> F["避免日常频繁看盘，长期持有"] end ``` ### [01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=100s) 频道订阅互动与主持人的承诺 在正题展开之前，主持人 Steven Bartlett 与观众分享了一组后台数据：有相当比例的常客观众反映系统会莫名取消订阅。随着频道即将迎来一个极其重要的里程碑数字，Steven 向观众提出唯一的请求：花一秒钟检查自己是否点击了订阅按钮。他真诚地承诺，只要观众协助保持节目的免费和持续升级，团队就会全力以赴邀请最优质的嘉宾、打磨最硬核的对谈内容。 ### [02:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=158s) 为什么投资其实“已经被解决”，但人类大脑总在帮倒忙 当被问及自己的理念与 YouTube 上众多“财经大号”有何不同时，Ben Felix 强调，他的核心方法论永远是站在学术金融文献的肩膀上：那些全球最顶尖的学者耗费毕生心血研究市场，我们应该将这些实证研究提炼为普通人的行动指南。不论一个人手里只有1万美元，还是坐拥1,000万美元，其底层原则完全一致。 在 Ben Felix 看来，“投资这道题其实早就被彻底解决了”（investing has been solved）——最科学、最有效的方案就是直接买入并持有低成本宽基指数基金，获取市场平均回报。然而，真正的难点在于“执行”。人类大脑在演化机制上是为了在险恶环境中生存而设计的，根本不适应处理“把今天的真金白银放进股市、几十年不看不动、穿越周期留给未来退休”这种高度抽象的长期规划。学术研究更揭示出一个反直觉的真相：**投资者越频繁查看自己的账户，承受的心理压力就越大，因而越倾向于减少风险敞口，最终换来的长期回报反而越低**。由于股市短期内频繁剧烈波动，每天看盘会让大脑误以为股市极度危险，但对于真正长期“买入并持有”的投资者而言，股票的安全性其实远超大多数人的想象。 - **投资的核心共识**：低成本宽基指数基金是经大量学术文献实证最优的策略，其难度不在于认知，而在于长期知行合一。 - **看盘悖论**：高频查看账户资产会导致厌恶损失的本能被放大，进而削减股票配置，拖累终身复合回报率。 ### [05:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=326s) 现场道具道具展示与 Ben Felix 的工程学视角 为了更直观地解构枯燥的财务理论，现场准备了一系列道具和推导模型，涵盖： 1. **PERMA 模型**：源自积极心理学框架，不仅用于理解人生幸福感，更用于明确高质量的长期财务目标； 2. **普通人最常犯的十大财务错误**； 3. **首个 10,000 美元投资的三步行动指南**； 4. **买房隐藏的不可挽回成本清单**。 当谈及自身学术与职业背景时，Ben Felix 透露他最初在东北大学（Northeastern University）攻读机械工程学士学位。这段工科背景深刻塑造了他的思维范式——进入金融行业后，他习惯以工程师严苛、实证的眼光去审视各种产品。然而，现实中的财富管理与金融服务业往往像极了“二手车专卖店”，充斥着为了赚取佣金而极力兜售高费率产品的销售人员，根本未将客户的真正利益放在首位。正因对这种行业乱象深感失望，他选择彻底沉浸在严肃的学术文献中，只依赖经过同行评审的硬数据来给出真正客观的财务建议。 ### [07:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=434s) 启动投资不需要成为金融专家：“懂得恰到好处”才是优势 许多普通人迟迟不敢迈出投资第一步，最大的心理包袱是觉得自己缺乏宏观经济或金融学知识，误以为必须先花海量时间去研读行业报告、分析能源或科技板块才能建仓。Ben Felix 明确指出这完全是一个误区。普通投资者根本不需要精通经济学，只要坚定采用低成本指数基金去捕捉整个市场的长期平均回报，这些回报在历史上一直存在，未来也大概率会持续提供补偿。 他犀利地总结道：**那些“只懂一点点”、刚好明白指数基金最科学且有足够信念死守到底的人，其长期投资收益往往远胜于自以为懂得很多的人**。懂半吊子炒股技巧或试图择时选股的人，往往更容易受到心理偏差的支配，在自作聪明中彻底“伤害”自己的资产组合。 ### [08:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=489s) 年轻人与年长者的财务策略分歧：年轻时过度储蓄反而是次优解？ 当被问及一个 21 岁的年轻人与一位 51 岁的中年人在财务策略上是否应该采取截然不同的路径时，本·菲利克斯（Ben Felix）给出了非常明确且颠覆传统认知的回答：两者的策略必然大相径庭。在当今社会，年轻人群体承受着来自家庭与社会的巨大储蓄压力，无论是长辈叮嘱的退休养老准备，还是必须攒钱购置首套房的观念，都让许多年轻人产生了一种强烈的道德焦虑，仿佛只要不在二十出头省吃俭用，就是在对自己的人生挥霍和不负责任。然而，本·菲利克斯援引经典学术金融文献指出，从生命周期的跨期消费平滑理论来看，年轻人在收入偏低时采取过于激进的储蓄方式在经济学上往往是“次优”（suboptimal）的。 理性的储蓄原则应当遵循一个简单的基本规律：在收入处于峰值的时期多存钱，在收入微薄的早期阶段少存钱甚至不存钱。这意味着很多年轻人其实完全不需要承担外界强加给他们的那种苛刻储蓄指标。不过，这一理论在现实操作中存在微妙的心理陷阱——如果年轻时将全部收入挥霍一空，很容易养成毫无节制的消费惯性；一旦步入中年收入提高后未能及时完成向高储蓄模式的心理切换，人生后期的财务状况就会陷入灭顶之灾。反观 50 岁上下的人群，其策略完全取决于早年的财务积累：如果年轻时未曾建立资产储备，此时将面临严峻的被动补救，必须倾尽全力极高比例地储蓄；而如果早已完成财富积累，则可以从容地将重心转移到更深层次的人生规划中。 ### [09:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=580s) 财务误区一：收入不足，以及对个人人力资本的终身投资 谈到人们常犯的十项财务错误时，本·菲利克斯直接抛出了最直白也最具争议的第一条：“赚的钱不够多”（Not earning enough money）。很多人常常陷入一种宿命论式的被动心态，认为自己的薪酬由客观环境或出身决定，个人对此无能为力。但菲利克斯强调，人最应该优先投资的其实是自己的“人力资本”（human capital）——无论通过正规高等教育、专业职业技能培训还是自主创业，本质上都是在把自己打造成一台生产力更高、价值更大的资产引擎。 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深表共鸣，并分享了他关于职业资产的“五个桶”理论。他指出，年轻人在职业生涯初期应当优先灌满前两个桶：“知识”（Knowledge）与“技能”（Skills）。当知识在实践中被应用，就会转化为技能。这两个维度的关键之处在于，它们一旦获得就几乎永远无法被剥夺或清空；相比之下，后三个桶——“资源”（Resources）、“人脉网络”（Network）以及“声誉”（Reputation），随时可能因行业动荡或不可抗力而被瞬间清零。因此，年轻时最高效的策略，是尽一切可能堆叠出一种在市场上既稀缺又能相互赋能的复合技能栈（skill stack）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 职业资本的五个桶模型 accDescr: 展示不可剥夺的基础资本与易受外界波动的外部资本之间的关系 subgraph CoreAssets ["核心内在资本（永不流失）"] K["知识 (Knowledge)"] -->|"实践应用"| S["技能 (Skills)"] end subgraph ExternalAssets ["外部延展资本（易受市场波动）"] R["资源 (Resources)"] N["人脉网络 (Network)"] REP["声誉 (Reputation)"] end CoreAssets -->|"长期积累并转化"| ExternalAssets ExternalAssets -.->|"可能因外部动荡清空"| ExternalAssets ``` 历史统计数据印证了这一点：正规学历教育或专门职业培训与全生命周期的总收入之间存在直接的统计相关性，特别是在工程学、金融学、商科以及硬科学等领域，终身薪酬显著高于其他专业。但未来的挑战在于，高价值技能的定义正在急剧演变，十年前炙手可热的软件工程师如今也面临未知的挑战。 - **复合技能的超额溢价**：史蒂文以本·菲利克斯为例，指出菲利克斯最初拥有工程学背景，随后转型攻读金融学并成为首席投资官（CIO），接着又成功解锁了视频创作与播客传播的专业能力。这种将严谨金融投资与视听内容制作融合的罕见技能组合，使其在全球金融专业人士中变得独一无二。 - **面对镜头的真实磨砺**：菲利克斯幽默地自嘲道，如果翻看他早期的视频，会发现当年的自己僵硬且极度紧张；在经历长达数年的高频录制与播客对话实践后，他才逐渐在镜头前找到舒适感，“我大概花了整整三年时间，才终于学会在镜头前自然地微笑”。 ### [13:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=797s) 技能溢价的关键：选择能够实现最大变现倍率的目标市场 除了拥有稀缺的技能组合，一个人将技能推向何种市场，往往会对收入产生决定性的杠杆效应。史蒂文讲述了自己亲身经历的两个鲜活案例：在他早年经营业务的间隙，曾临时涉足一家生物科技公司。当时行业普遍招聘普通商业撰稿人的薪酬大约在每年 5 万美元上下；然而该公司招募一名生物科技撰稿人（Biotech Writer）的年薪却高达 25 万美元——相差整整 5 倍。这些专业撰稿人并不需要从医学院毕业，仅仅是因为他们掌握了面向生物医药专业语境进行写作的能力，其身价便发生了质的飞跃。 史蒂文进一步以自己的营销生涯为例说明了平台与行业的悬殊差异：他职业初期承接的业务主要是帮助 Uber、汽水品牌和服装零售商做常规推广；而在他职业中期的另一阶段，他转而协助即将进行首次公开募股（IPO）的生物科技公司制定市场策略。在后者的商业赛道中，他的第一笔合同金额就高达 800 万美元，对应仅仅 6 个月的工作周期。这一转折让他深刻领悟到，收入上限往往不仅仅取决于个人掌握了何种技能，更取决于将这些技能卖给谁、在哪一个高资本密度的产业生态中进行变现。 | 行业赛道与职能对比 | 目标领域 | 报酬规模 / 订单量级 | 核心溢价驱动因素 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **常规商业撰稿人** | 大众消费品、普通企业服务 | 约 50,000 美元 / 年 | 通用写作技能，劳动力供给充足，替代门槛低 | | **生物科技专业撰稿人** | 创新医药、生物科技前沿 | 约 250,000 美元 / 年 (5x) | 具备生物医学跨学科理解能力与专业语境表达壁垒 | | **常规品牌营销顾问** | 碳酸饮料、大众服饰零售 | 普通服务合约 | 依靠常规广告流量转化，利润空间受制于零售周期 | | **生物科技 IPO 战略营销** | 即将上市的生物医药研发企业 | 6 个月周期价值 8,000,000 美元 | 面对高估值资本市场，直接撬动投资机构认知与巨额募资 | ### [14:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=883s) 财务误区二：储蓄不足与复利断裂的终身代价 菲利克斯拿出的第二张卡片是“储蓄不足”（Not saving enough）。虽然他在前文中强调年轻人无需在起步期陷入过度节俭的内耗，但随着年龄增长与收入提升，建立充足且持续的储蓄池是绝对无法绕过的客观法则。储蓄与财富累积的本质纽带在于复利（compounding）：复利依赖极其充裕的时间跨度来展现其指数级爆发的威力。如果一个人长期未能存下足够的资金，就会彻底错失早期资金复利滚动的飞轮效应，而这种时间缺口在人生后半程是几乎无法通过提高储蓄率来弥补的。 菲利克斯发出警示，现实中许多人在步入 50 岁、55 岁甚至 60 岁时才恍然惊醒，发现自己的资产储备根本无法支撑未来的体面生活；然而到了这个阶段，可供纠错的时间窗口已被压缩殆尽，在数学和经济学上几乎没有任何翻盘手段。这与个人的生理健康存在极高的相似性：如果一个人在长达数十年的时间里持续不良饮食且从不锻炼，身体机能与血管系统就会遭遇不可逆的系统性退化，无法在一朝一夕之间重新找回年轻时的健康资本。 ### [18:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=1084s) 厘清金钱与幸福的本质：借助 PERMA 模型锚定真实财务目标 在讨论如何规划储蓄与消费时，菲利克斯指出，许多人设定财务目标时往往停留在物质表象上，未能挖掘金钱与内在幸福感之间的真实映射。为了解决这一痛点，他引入了积极心理学之父马丁·塞利格曼（Martin Seligman）提出的幸福五要素——“PERMA 模型”，将其作为一种系统性的“分类提示”（categorical prompt），帮助人们审视自身的消费与投资是否真正有助于提升幸福感： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 积极心理学 PERMA 幸福模型 accDescr: 展现构成个体幸福感的五个核心支柱：积极情绪、心流投入、人际关系、人生意义与成就目标。 subgraph PERMA_Framework ["PERMA 幸福模型框架"] P["P - 积极情绪<br>(Positive Emotion)"] E["E - 心流投入<br>(Engagement)"] R["R - 深度关系<br>(Relationships)"] M["M - 人生意义<br>(Meaning)"] A["A - 成就目标<br>(Accomplishment)"] end P --- E --- R --- M --- A ``` - **积极情绪（Positive Emotion）**：日常体验中的愉悦感与快乐状态，即个人能否发自内心地享受当下的生活与日常行为。 - **心流投入（Engagement）**：全身心沉浸于兼具适度挑战与自身能力相匹配的活动中所达到的“心流”状态。菲利克斯以自身经历举例，每当他全身心投入深度投资研究、视频脚本创作或主持播客深度访谈时，便能切实体会到这种高度的认知投入。 - **深度关系（Relationships）**：与家庭成员、挚友或事业伙伴之间维持紧密、真诚且彼此滋养的社交联结，这是幸福感最坚实的避风港。 - **人生意义（Meaning）**：归属于某个超越个体狭隘自我的宏大事业之中。对于不同人群而言，这种意义可以寄托于宗教信仰、社区公共服务，或是自己倾注心血打造的企业使命。 - **成就目标（Accomplishment）**：设定并攻克极具挑战性的硬核目标，在追求卓越和克服困难的过程中体验充实感与自我效能。 针对诸如“赚大钱买一辆法拉利跑车”这类常见的欲望投射，史蒂文半开玩笑地调侃道：“除非法拉利愿意赞助我们的播客，否则我本人对法拉利丝毫不感冒。”但抛开玩笑不谈，菲利克斯强调，当一个人声称自己想要买法拉利或其他奢侈品时，科学的做法不是盲目追随这种物质冲动，而是借助 PERMA 框架反向质询：这一消费决策究竟是为了满足短暂的感官刺激（积极情绪），还是为了彰显社会地位以获取特定群体的认可（人际关系），亦或是为了证明自己克服逆境的里程碑（成就感）？只有洞悉物质渴望背后的核心心理动因，人们才能避免将宝贵的资本浪费在无法真正增进生活幸福感的虚荣陷阱中。 ### [19:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=1164s) 用 PERMA 模型校准金钱与“美好生活” 在探讨如何设定目标时，本·费利克斯（Ben Felix）与主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）以一辆法拉利为例，拆解了金钱消费与心理学中 PERMA 模型的对应关系： - **P（Positive Emotion，积极情绪）**：买豪车带来的兴奋通常只能维持几天，旋即陷入“享乐适应”（Hedonic Treadmill）； - **E（Engagement，沉浸参与）**：如果车主真正开着它去赛道日，投入数小时磨炼驾驶技术，那它就提供了深度沉浸感； - **R（Relationships，人际关系）**：如果借此融入了一群志同道合的车友圈子，它就承载了社交价值； - **M（Meaning，人生意义）**； - **A（Accomplishment，成就感）**：除非这是一个人从 5 岁起就立下的执念与梦想，否则单纯刷卡买下一辆车很难称得上真正的成就。 绝大多数普通人甚至从未退后一步，认真想过“美好生活”对自己而言究竟意味着什么。大家终日陷在日常琐事里疲于奔命，往往仅凭当下的即时冲动与感受做决策，从而陷入“今天怎样才能开心就怎样做”的短期漂移中。这不仅容易让人在未来追悔莫及，还会导致严重偏科——比如有人为了拼命追逐成就（Accomplishment）而彻底牺牲了人际关系（Relationships）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: PERMA模型与消费价值分析 accDescr: 展示消费决策如何映射到PERMA积极心理学模型的五个支柱，以及缺乏规划导致的失衡。 subgraph Evaluation["消费评估维度 (PERMA)"] P["P: 积极情绪<br/>(易陷入享乐适应)"] E["E: 深度投入<br/>(如赛道竞技体验)"] R["R: 关系联结<br/>(如同好社交圈)"] M["M: 人生意义<br/>(长期使命感)"] A["A: 成就感<br/>(自幼梦想达成)"] end Decision["大额消费/财务目标<br/>(例: 购买法拉利)"] --> Evaluation Evaluation --> Outcome{"是否契合<br/>真正生活目标?"} Outcome -->|否| Trap["陷入过度消费与短期冲动<br/>挤压长期核心目标"] Outcome -->|是| Balanced["达成高质量生活体验<br/>合理平衡当下与未来"] ``` --- ### [21:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=1268s) 财务陷阱四与五：错位消费与不敢承担投资风险 理财中的第四个致命错误是**在错误的事情上过度消费**。当一个人把大笔资金浪费在对自身“美好生活”毫无增益的事物上，就会导致没有余钱去储蓄和投资真正向往的生活。典型的例子包括每天早上花 12 美元买一杯昂贵的冰咖啡，却在上班路上匆忙灌下肚，既没有体验到积极情绪，也没有获得任何幸福感。 紧接着是危害更大的第五个错误：**完全不承担投资风险**。从历史数据来看，股票市场长期提供了惊人的丰厚回报，并且从数学期望上看，未来依然大概率会为投资者提供强劲的回报。普通人犯的最大错误之一就是完全不碰股市，或者配置过于保守。不参与股票市场的隐性机会成本极其高昂： - **历史与预期回报对比**：若股票市场长期预期年化回报率为 7%，而把现金放在银行只能拿 2%，其间 5% 的差额就是放弃参与股市所付出的纯粹机会成本； - **复利的时间杠杆**：以 10,000 美元本金为例，若投入股市并以 7% 的年化回报率复利滚动 40 年，最终将增长为 150,000 美元（增值达 15 倍）； - **当期消费的隐形代价**：史蒂文对此感叹，这意味着今天买一辆 10,000 美元的代步车，其真正的潜在成本是未来的 150,000 美元；买一杯 10 美元加满配料的花式咖啡，理论上等于在 40 年后烧掉了 150 美元。 本·费利克斯补充指出，不应因此走向“什么钱都不敢花、把当下生活过得一塌糊涂”的极端。买车如果能让人开去上班、赚取此前无法获得的收入，它就具备极高的经济效用；只要消费能真正切实转化为 PERMA 框架中的情绪体验与生活支柱，这笔钱花在当下就是有价值的。 --- ### [25:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=1509s) 财务陷阱六与买房真相：自住房是投资还是消费？ 第六个常见陷阱是**承担了错误的投资风险**。许多人不用广泛分散的低成本指数基金去稳定捕获 7% 的市场平均收益，反而热衷于挑选单只股票搏暴利、频繁交易个股期权，或是追逐高风险加密代币。这类投机行为不仅频繁产出负期望回报，高昂的交易摩擦成本还会严重蚕食长期资产积累。 当被问及“买房是否是一项好投资”时，本·费利克斯给出了违背直觉的洞见：**用于自住的房子不应被视为真正意义上的投资**。虽然买房换来了一项资产，但其本质是为你提供“居住消费”服务的载体；自住房给业主的“分红”，仅仅相当于免去了付给房东的租金。要理性评估买房，必须与租房进行严谨的对照分析： 以加拿大为例，典型的买房路径是支付 20% 的首付，剩余部分申请银行房贷。而租房方案则是将这笔 20% 的首付直接投入股票市场。买房之所以常常不如人们想象中划算，是因为自住房存在巨额的**不可收回成本（Unrecoverable Costs）**： 1. **房贷利息（Mortgage Interest）**：借银行资金购房所支付的利息费用是纯粹的资金使用成本，付出去就永远彻底消失； 2. **权益机会成本（Opportunity Cost of Equity）**：沉淀在房产净值中的本金放弃了股市的高额复利。历史上全球房价的长期资本增值幅度基本仅勉强跟随或略微跑赢通胀，而股市涨幅远超通胀。把资金锁死在房产砖头里，丧失的超额收益是买房最大的隐性成本； 3. **房产税（Property Taxes）**：依据地域不同，每年通常在房屋价值的 0.5% 至 1% 甚至更高。虽然换取了部分市政公共服务，但资金同样一去不复返； 4. **房屋维护与修缮成本（Maintenance Costs）**：这是最容易被购房者大幅低估的开销。很多业主直觉上认为每年按房屋总价 1% 估算维护费偏高，但大量的学术研究文献证实，房屋的真实年化维护成本往往高达房屋价值的 2% 以上。 ### [28:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=1713s) 房屋维护的沉没成本与隐形心智消耗 房产维护成本的真实数额往往远超纸面预估。Ben Felix 以自己租房多年后买房 6 年的切身体会指出，实际维护费用往往大幅高于房产总值的 1% 到 2%。Steven Bartlett 闻言深有共鸣地大倒苦水，分享了自己购置首套住宅后的痛苦经历：买房前根本不会想到打理花园有多麻烦，紧接着泳池水泵坏了、室外庭院露台裂缝了、供暖系统又瘫痪了，感觉“所有东西都在轮番坏掉”。更折磨人的是，Steven 的这处房子位于另一个国家，每次飞回去的第一周，几乎不是在休假，而是在巡视房子、记录自上次离开后又坏了什么，接着就是开列一张账单惊人的维修清单。如果当时选择租房，这些烂摊子完全与自己无关。 除开直接的花销，还有一项经常被忽略的巨大隐形成本——协调维修所耗费的时间和精力。绝大多数人算账时只关注请维修工花了多少工时费和材料费，却忽略了反复打电话联系承包商、比价沟通所耗费的大量高价值个人时间。Ben Felix 对此完全赞同，哪怕愿意花钱将这些琐事外包，外包服务本身费用高昂；而自己处理，不仅要一遍遍找师傅，还得守在家里干等对方上门，甚至还要忍受对方迟到。 此外，突发性重大维修（如屋顶翻新、地基开裂等）属于维护成本中最棘手的子集。这类开销动辄成千上万，这就迫使房主必须在手中保留大量应急流动资金。而这意味着大笔现金只能躺在低息账户中，无法投入股市产生复利，从而带来了隐秘而巨大的机会成本。与此同时，买房后还会衍生出一种租房时绝不会有的心理——“升级式翻新”。当屋主修缮某样东西时，绝不会仅仅满足于把它修回原本的样子，往往会顺便添钱升级成更好的配置，无形中大幅推高了实际支出。 --- ### [30:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=1848s) 买房与租房的财务等价模型：著名的“5%法则” 在理清了这些屋主必须承担的不可收回成本（Unrecoverable Costs）后，Ben Felix 构建了一个严谨的买房与租房并面对比模型。如果租房者每月将买房与租房的现金流差额全部省下来并投入股票市场，结合对股票长期预期回报率与房地产长期增值率的预测，就可以在数学上证明：**买房与租房之间必然存在一个财务平衡点（Financial Equivalence），即在某一特定租金水平下，两者的财务财富积累是毫无差别的。** 为了让普通大众更容易理解这一复杂的模型，Ben Felix 曾提出过风靡全网的“5%法则（5% Rule）”。该法则将房屋产权所伴随的不可收回成本简单切分为三部分： 1. **房产税（Property Taxes）**：约占房屋价值的 1%； 2. **房屋维护成本（Maintenance Costs）**：保守估计约占房屋价值的 1%（实际往往更高）； 3. **资本机会成本与借贷成本（Cost of Capital）**：保守估计约占房屋价值的 3%。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 5%法则构成与买租租金换算 accDescr: 展示房产不可收回成本的三个组成部分如何相加构成5%法则，并计算出买房等价月租金 subgraph CostComponents["房屋每年不可收回成本（占房价比重）"] A["房产税: ~1%"] B["房屋维护与翻新: ~1%"] C["资本机会成本与借款成本: ~3%"] end A --> Sum["合计: 每年 5% 不可收回成本"] B --> Sum C --> Sum Sum --> Formula["【计算公式】<br/>（房屋总价 × 5%）÷ 12 个月 = 盈亏平衡月租金"] Formula --> Example["【案例：30万美元房产】<br/>$300,000 × 5% ÷ 12 = $1,250 / 月"] ``` 将这三项相加，便得出了每年 5% 的不可收回持有成本。换算逻辑非常直接：将意向购房的房屋总价乘以 5%，再除以 12 个月，得出的数字就是持有该房产每月的不可收回成本。 Steven Bartlett 在节目现场亲自进行了心算测试：如果考虑购买一套价值 30 万美元（$300,000）的房子，乘以 5% 再除以 12，得出的平衡租金是每月 1,250 美元。这意味着： - 如果在当地租下同品质房产的月租金低于或等于 1,250 美元，那么从纯财务角度来看，**选择租房并将省下的资金用于投资是更优的财务决策**； - 只有当同等租金明显高于 1,250 美元时，买房才在财务账面上占优。 Ben Felix 强调，5% 法则只是一个粗略的经验法则，其所在机构 PWL Capital 提供了更精密复杂的在线测算工具。例如，当投资者的资产配置偏向保守时，机会成本会下降；而对于需要缴纳投资收益税的应税投资者，由于股债市场的税后预期回报率被税收削减，买房的机会成本也会相应降低。 --- ### [33:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2007s) 年轻人买房的隐性枷锁：职业流动性与置换成本 对于 25 岁以下的年轻职场人，过早买房往往不是财富跳板，反而是沉重的财务陷阱。这主要是因为高房价要求年轻人耗尽所有积蓄去凑首付，更为严重的是，它直接锁死了人生最关键的**职业流动性（Mobility）**。 Ben Felix 列举了自己祖国加拿大多伦多的残酷现实：当地公寓（Condo）市场价格此前出现断崖式暴跌。如果一个年轻人在高位贷款买下了一套多伦多公寓，随后却突然收到了海外或外地一份待遇丰厚、职业前景广阔的工作 Offer，他将陷入进退两难的绝境——由于房价大跌，折价卖房意味着承担巨额本金亏损；若硬着头皮出租，又不得不沦为跨国房东，被繁琐的管理琐事缠身。 此外，买卖房产之间横亘着高昂的交易税费和中介佣金。年轻人的居住需求往往处于剧烈变化中。Ben Felix 分享了自己成家的历程：他和妻子恋爱结婚后，随着四个孩子相继出生，他们先后搬过四次家，从公寓换到联排别墅，再换到更大的独立住宅。因为全程租房，每次只需租约到期提前通知房东，就能自由迁往更符合当下家庭规模的住处。如果每一次置换都走买房卖房流程，光是印花税、中介佣金等交易成本就足以让人破产；或者为了避免折腾，只能在一开始就咬牙买下一套终身居住的大房子，但这又会产生难以承受的前期资金占用与机会成本。 Steven Bartlett 补充道，这种心理枷锁在求职面试中屡见不鲜。他在招聘面试时常常听到求职者说“我刚在某某城市买了房”，这套固定资产在无形中成了他们的心理牢笼，导致他们轻易不敢接下在纽约、洛杉矶或伦敦等核心都会的重磅职业机遇，白白错失了大幅提升薪资天花板的机会。 - **多伦多公寓市场**：近年来部分高密度公寓价格断崖式下跌，严重套牢了急于置业的年轻人群体。 - **多次搬家换房的财务对比**：Ben Felix 抚养 4 个孩子的家庭置换全程采用租房，规避了多次交易买卖带来的高额摩擦成本。 --- ### [36:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2164s) 度假房陷阱与多套房的心智负担 谈到购房决策中的冲动与教训，Steven Bartlett 坦诚自己犯过的最大财务昏招之一就是购置“度假房（Holiday Home）”。他自嘲这纯粹是一个愚蠢的决定： 1. **剥夺了旅行的意义**：一旦买了度假房，每次度假就只能被迫去同一个地方，否则就会产生“房子空着没住”的负罪感，这完全背离了度假探索世界的本质。 2. **沉重的心智负荷**：尤其是在年轻人精力旺盛、本该徒步看世界的时候，却被一套固定的房产拴住。 Ben Felix 则直言自己绝不会碰度假房，其核心原因就在于无法忍受“心智开销（Mental Overhead）”。仅仅打理一套主要居所的各种维修维护就已经让人焦头烂额，根本无法想象在自己不在的地方还要远程操心第二套房产的破事。 --- ### [36:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2201s) 幸福感数据：买房者真的比租房者更快乐吗？ 关于“买房者是否比租客更幸福”这一经典命题，学术界的研究结论完全取决于数据分析的切入维度： - **控制关键变量（Controlling for variables）**：如果严谨控制了房产类型、建筑品质、社区环境和经济阶层等变量，**买房者和租房者在主观幸福感上没有任何统计学上的显著差异**。 - **未控制变量（Uncontrolled）**：由于买房者的房产普遍比普通出租房更高级、维护得更好，且多分布在治安和配套更优渥的高档社区，因此在不排除这些外在条件影响的粗略统计中，租房者的幸福感确实显得略逊一筹。但这种差距本质上是由居住环境和财富水平决定的，而非“产权所有”本身带来的魔法。 ### [37:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2225s) 租房与买房的幸福感真相，以及究竟谁才真正适合买房 在探讨租房与买房到底哪个更让人幸福时，Ben Felix 指出，许多针对该议题的学术研究已经给出了明确答案。例如加拿大统计局（Statistics Canada）就曾做过一项非常扎实的研究，控制了各项变量后对比租客与业主的“生活满意度”（Life Satisfaction）。结果显示：如果一个专业人士有能力在优质社区全款或按揭买一套好房子，同时也有能力在相同的优质社区租一套好房子，无论选择哪种方式，其主观幸福感几乎毫无差别。真正会拉低满意度的情况是，某人由于经济条件所限，被迫只能在糟糕的社区租房度日——但这种不幸福在本质上源于贫困和居住环境恶劣，而不是“租房”这一行为本身造成的。 针对“到底哪类人真正适合买房”的追问，Ben Felix 给出了两类核心画像： 1. **风险厌恶型且打算长期定居者**：对于极其厌恶不确定性、组建了家庭并计划在同一地点长期生活的人，买房是锚定生活、避免被当地房产市场“甩下车”（Priced Out）的有效手段。近年来在加拿大某些城市就发生过类似惨剧：长租客由于当地租金飙升完全跟不上节奏，最终被硬生生挤出所在区域。不过，买房也是一把双刃剑，一旦生活发生变故想要搬离，房产的高昂流动性成本可能会让人深陷泥潭无法动身。 2. **适用高税率的应税投资者（Taxable Investors with High Tax Rates）**：这背后是机会成本与税收政策的博弈。在许多国家，自住首套房的资本增值是享有税收优惠的（例如加拿大主要自住房产免征资本利得税，美国也有相当额度的免税额度）。对于边际税率极高的富裕投资者，在金融市场投资要被课以重税，房产的税收庇护特性便具备了独特的吸引力。 ### [38:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2321s) 逐条拆解买房神话：应对网友留言的真实财务剖析 社交媒体评论区里经常充斥着“幸存者偏差”的案例——诸如某人 30 年前花 10 万美元买下房产如今涨到 60 万，或者某个亲戚当年 7 万买房最后卖了 100 万，并将这些个例奉为“买房必胜”的真理。主持人挑选了最具代表性的几条网友高赞评论让 Ben Felix 现场逐一回应： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 租房与买房的真实财务与心理成本模型 accDescr: 对比表面上的月供对比与真实的完整拥有成本架构，展示隐形支出与流动性限制。 subgraph RenterPath["租房模式 (Renting)"] R1["按月支付租金"] R2["资本保留在流动性市场"] R3["规避房屋贬值与突发维修风险"] R4["签署长期租约 + 筛选机构房东规避驱逐"] end subgraph OwnerPath["真实购房成本 (Total Cost of Ownership)"] O1["账面房贷月供 (Mortgage)"] O2["房产税 (Property Taxes)"] O3["硬性房屋维护维修 (Maintenance)"] O4["额外装修升级花费 (Renovation)"] O5["首付与净值的资本机会成本 (Opportunity Cost)"] end OwnerPath --> OSum["真实总支出往往远超账面房贷"] RenterPath --> RSum["以流动性与资产多元化应对市场波动"] ``` * **反驳评论一：“在英国 90% 的租金比房贷月供还贵；组建家庭需要稳定性，租房随时可能被房东几个月内赶走导致生活崩溃。”** Ben Felix 结合自身带娃租房 6 年的经历进行了反驳。首先，租赁的不稳定性完全可以通过策略解决：第一，**坚决只租专业机构/专业房东的房子**，彻底避开那些买了一套公寓顺手出租的“散户夫妻房东（Mom-and-pop Landlords）”；第二，**主动签署多年期长租约**，房东通常非常乐意锁定优质长租客。其次，对于“租金高于月供所以买房必赚”的论调，Felix 指出这是房产决策中最致命的认知误区。人们总是拿纯月供与租金直接对比，却选择性忽视了房屋持有的一整套隐藏账单：高昂的房产税、日常硬性维护成本、自己忍不住投入的非必要翻修花费，以及压在房屋净值里那笔庞大资金的“资本机会成本”。把所有隐性账单加在一起，持有房产的真实成本远超那张房贷月供单。 * **反驳评论二：“买房是我人生最棒的决定，它彻底重塑了我的思维模式，带来巨大的心理疗愈与健康生活空间。”** Ben Felix 坦率承认，如果一个人经过深思熟虑后，确信拥有属于自己的物理空间能带来深远的心理效益，那么这个人完全应该去买房。但这只是个人主观偏好，绝不能作为推及所有人的普世真理。 * **反驳评论三（网友 Don）：“我在 2013 年首付 20% 买房，包含税费、保险、物业费（HOA）在内每月只需 1,800 美元，现在同一套房租金高达 4,000 美元，房价还涨了 3 倍！”** Felix 承认房地产具备低门槛使用极高金融杠杆的天然属性。在极少数特殊时期入场且踩中暴涨周期，账面数字确实会非常惊人。然而，这绝不能视为理所当然的常态预期。现实的另一面往往更为残酷：加拿大正在经历自 1975 年以来按通胀调整后最惨烈的房地产价格大回撤（Drawdowns）之一。如果在 2015 年前后买入并在 2022 年高位套现，人人都会觉得自己是投资天才；但如果是在 2021 年市场狂热顶峰加杠杆买入，看着如今的净值腰斩，许多人只会感到“自己的人生全被毁了”。 ### [42:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2557s) 房价神话的终结、机会成本与流动性的真正价值 当主持人问及这是否意味着“未来再也无法重现过去的房价暴涨”时，Ben Felix 剖析了此前推动房价飞涨的核心宏观支柱： - **历史级别的超低利率周期**：过去几十年利率呈现单边下行趋势，将杠杆购买力推至极致，而如今降息环境已发生实质性逆转。 - **失衡的人口与移民潮**：以加拿大为例，此前引入的移民规模与本土房屋落成速度出现巨大脱节。 - **结构性住房供应严重滞后**。 如今这三项极端要素都在逐步回归常态化。Felix 强调，尽管不能预言高房价永远不再出现，但投资者绝不能指望房地产能够在未来持续提供“堪比股市的高额回报”。 对于大多数以财富最大化为目标、同时看重人生自由度的年轻人来说，**定投股票市场指数基金**往往是明显更优的选择。这里的核心决定因素正是“流动性（Mobility）”： - 一旦有更好的职业晋升或外地创业机会，租房者可以随时拔腿就走，不受变卖不动产的漫长周期与沉重交易摩擦税费所拖累。 - 房产不仅占用现金流，更会剥夺其他高回报资产的机会成本。Ben Felix 分享了自身的尴尬真实案例：多年前他曾获得了认购自己公司合伙人股权的绝佳契机，然而当时他恰好刚刚买了一套房，不仅手头现金吃紧，甚至就在当口家里庄园的水井水泵突然报废损坏，面临一笔高昂的紧急抢修账单，最终导致他不得不大幅缩减自己当时所能买入的股权配额。股市年化 7% 的机会成本已然不菲，但错过类似公司内部核心资产投资的机会成本，代价更是无法估量。 ### [44:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2677s) 财务陷阱之七：忽视税务规划（从普通账户到富人的省税机制） 两人顺势转向日常财富积累中的第七大核心误区：**错失税务筹划机会（Missing Tax Planning Opportunities）**。 Ben Felix 指出，许多普通人觉得税务规划深不可测，实则不然。做好税务筹划并不需要极其复杂的财务工程，最关键的起手式就是把政府提供的免税与延税账户工具用到极致： - 在加拿大，应最大化利用好 RRSP（注册退休储蓄计划）与 TFSA（免税储蓄账户）； - 在美国，则是用好 Roth IRA、Traditional IRA 以及雇主提供的 401(k)； - 在英国，核心则是充分利用 ISA（个人储蓄账户）的免税额度。 对于普通工薪及中低收入人群而言，优先把这些受政府政策保护的免税账户额度全部填满，就是性价比最高、回报最确定的财务动作。然而在现实中，绝大多数人甚至连这一点都没能做到最优配置。而对于高收入群体，税务规则虽然变得极具国家地域特异性，但存在更多结构性的减税手段，这也引出了社会上被广泛热议的话题——富人究竟如何合法雇佣专业团队，千方百计地压缩自己的纳税账单。 ### [45:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2738s) 富人的免税借贷策略与普通人的税务规划 很多普通人常常听到关于富豪避税的离奇故事，比如为了拿到房地产执照而专门开设副业，以此规避特定税务，或者通过资金在各个实体间层层流转来逃避纳税。普通工薪阶层往往没有这种可供钻营的税收漏洞。Steven 提到，当自己赚到一些财富后才接触到一种极为普遍的富人策略：以股票为抵押申请贷款。举例来说，如果持有价值 100 万美元的 Facebook（Meta）股票，无需卖出股票触发资本利得税，只需抵押给银行就能拿到 50 万美元的现金贷款，这笔借款完全免税；当持仓市值升至 200 万美元时，还能再次找银行追加贷款。Ben Felix 指出这种操作虽然完全合法，普通人只要持有标普 500 指数等资产也同样能申请质押，但它绝非毫无风险——一旦抵押资产价格大幅下挫，借款人将面临追加保证金通知（Margin Call），若无法补足现金，银行就会在股价跌至谷底时强制平仓。 针对绝大多数普通人而言，税务规划其实没有那么多天花乱坠的捷径。普通人最容易犯的错误，往往是漏掉了现行税制下本该享有的基本优惠和优化空间。要想排查自身的财务计划是否存在税务疏漏，可以寻求合格的 CPA（注册会计师）或优秀独立财务规划师的帮助。不过 Ben 强调，对普通家庭而言，税务规划并不需要频繁折腾，许多优化措施通常只需“一次性建立好合理架构”，往后就能省心运转。 - **股票质押贷款机制**：富人通过抵押增值资产获得流动资金，从而延缓甚至完全规避变现资产所产生的资本利得税。 - **强制平仓风险**：以高波动资产作为抵押品，在市场急剧回调时极易触发 Margin Call，面临低位斩仓的巨大下行风险。 - **普通人的税务策略**：无需迷信复杂漏洞，关键在于找靠谱的 CPA 或财务规划师识别基础税收优惠，完成一次性优化配置。 ### [47:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2855s) 中场赞助：内容创作者工具与销售管理系统 Steven 在节目插播中分享了个人做内容和商业运营的体会。他谈到绝大多数人之所以迟迟没有建立个人品牌或发布内容，主要受阻于心理层面的内耗与恐惧，例如过分在意他人目光、自我怀疑“我说的话是不是太愚蠢”等，进而陷入瘫痪状态。作为投资人，他推荐了 Stan Store 最新推出的 AI 辅助工具 Stanley（coach.stan.store），该工具能基于用户的声调、过往风格及高绩效内容自动提供灵感并生成文案，帮助克服创作瓶颈。随后，Steven 还介绍了其媒体公司 steven.com 全面采用的智能销售管理平台 Pipedrive（pipedrive.com/ceo），通过可视化管道实时掌握每笔交易的进度与下一阶段动作，以清晰透明的管理取代销售流程中的混乱。 ### [49:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=2978s) 谁真正需要理财顾问：金融服务业的“销售陷阱” 探讨到普通人究竟是否需要聘请理财顾问（Financial Advisor）时，Ben 直言不讳地指出，虽然理论上有很多人能从专业财务建议中获益，但整个理财咨询行业充斥着严重的结构性弊端。金融服务业在本质上带有极强的“销售驱动”属性。当一名普通投资者听信专家建议走进银行或任意一家财富管理机构时，顾问很大概率会沦为推销员，向其兜售佣金丰厚却并不符合客户实际需求的复杂金融产品。 面对这种行业乱象，即便通过亲朋好友介绍寻找“值得信任”的引荐人，也并不完全可靠，因为普通人往往会把信任托付给那些自身并不懂行、也给不出优质建议的熟人。Ben 坦言自己对这种行业顽疾也没有现成的完美解法。对于大部分资金规模有限、自身能够学习基础指数化投资的人群而言，额外支付高昂的理财咨询费用往往并不划算；理财咨询的真正价值取决于能否找到真正恪守信义义务、不靠拿产品佣金牟利的专业顾问。 ### [50:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3041s) 错误八：忽视遗产规划与遗嘱的重要性 Ben 梳理出的第 8 个典型财务误区是“忽视遗产规划（Estate Planning）”。由于多数人在年轻或壮年时都觉得自己离死亡还很遥远，甚至抱有“反正我死了之后什么都不知道，何必在乎”的心态，因而完全将这门功课抛在脑后。然而，如果不提前通过合法架构规划遗产去向，不仅可能产生巨额的意料外遗产税或行政税费，资产也极可能无法流向你真正希望照顾的人手中。 针对“是否每个人都需要立遗嘱”的问题，Ben 引用了一位遗产规划律师的幽默警言：“每个人其实都有一份遗嘱——那就是政府为你设定的默认遗嘱（Default Will），只是一般人绝不会喜欢它的分配方式。”遗嘱不仅是一纸资产分配清单，更是在生命出现意外时避免留给家人一团乱麻的责任担当。对于任何拥有受抚养人（如年幼子女或依赖其生活的老人）的家庭而言，提前订立清晰合法的遗嘱是一项不可或缺的风险对冲。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 遗产规划决策路径图 accDescr: 对比有无遗嘱规划下的资产流向及后果 subgraph Planned ["主动订立遗嘱与规划"] A["订立合法遗嘱 & 设立信托/规划"] --> B["资产精准流向指定继承人"] A --> C["合法规避多余遗产税费"] end subgraph Default ["未作任何规划（默认状态）"] D["未立遗嘱 (Intestate)"] --> E["触发政府默认法定分配程序"] E --> F["潜在高额税费与法律纠纷"] E --> G["遗产可能落入非意愿亲属之手"] end ``` ### [52:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3123s) 错误九：伴侣选择如何暗中决定你的财富与幸福 第 9 个致命的财务陷阱与人生最重要的决定息息相关——那就是结婚对象的选择。Steven 此时笑着拿自己刚向未婚妻求婚的经历打趣，展示求婚现场的照片以及带有趣味设计的戒指盒，顺势将话题引向伴侣对个人长期财富积累的深远影响。Ben 指出，结婚对象不仅决定了个人最终能积攒多少财富，更直接决定了生活的幸福感与婚姻的稳定性。 学术研究根据消费心理与金钱行为，将人群划分为两大鲜明画像：一类是极其厌恶花钱的“守财奴”（Tightwads），另一类则是享受消费花钱的“挥霍者”（Spendthrifts）。心理学与经济学文献中一个令人啼笑皆非的发现是：**守财奴与挥霍者之间反而极易产生强烈的相互吸引**，他们走进婚姻的概率远高于两个同类型人结合的概率。恋爱初期，性格上的巨大反差往往被视作新鲜刺激的互补特质；然而一旦进入漫长的婚姻生活，截然相反的金钱观就会演变成无休止的财务冲突，导致彼此对婚姻的满意度显著下降。 - **目标错配带来的财务阻力**：如果一方遵循严谨的理财规划，渴望节流储蓄以实现长远的人生图景，而另一方却秉持当下行乐的高消费习惯，家庭财富的积累将变得寸步难行。 - **磨合与协调的必要性**：消费观截然相反的夫妻并非注定走向离婚，但相比金钱观契合的伴侣，他们需要付出远超常人的透明度、沟通耐心与深度协同机制，才能化解日常财务中的撕扯与内耗。 ### [54:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3251s) 婚前协议与资产分配：避免将控制权交给政府 在日常财富管理与咨询中，本·费利克斯（Ben Felix）经常遇到单身客户进入恋爱关系并步入婚姻的情况，这不可避免地涉及到结婚合同（Marriage Contracts）、婚前协议（Prenup）以及遗产规划等议题。斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）指出，如果不自己制定婚前协议，默认的规则就是让政府通过法律来决定分手时如何分割财产。 然而，现实中许多人认为签署婚前协议“非常不浪漫”，甚至觉得这暗示着双方在一开始就默认未来会分手。对此，两人探讨了婚前协议的真正意义： * **理性规划与降低破裂成本**：婚前协议并不意味着“我的全是我的，你的全是你的”，而是在双方情绪平和、关系良好时，提前商定若面临约 50% 的离婚概率时该如何处理资产。 * **富有创意的协议方案**：费利克斯分享道，有些客户会制定非常有趣且详尽的公式，根据未来的子女数量等条件动态调整分配规则。由于双方全程深度参与并达成共识，这不仅没有破坏感情，反而成了一个融洽的过程。 * **缺乏协议的惨痛教训**：相反，若没有任何法律约定，离婚往往演变成财务灾难。斯蒂芬举了身边一位成功商业人士的例子：其前妻在创业初期悉心照料家庭，对他的成功功不可没；然而在离婚时，由于双方没有预设协议，彼此聘请的律师为了获取更高收益而极力激化矛盾、争取每一分钱。结果长达六七年的诉讼彻底摧毁了原本可以和平相处的关系，给包含两个孩子在内的整个家庭带来了巨大的情感创伤。 --- ### [56:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3401s) 守财奴还是挥霍者？金钱观心理测试 为了评估伴侣之间的财务兼容性，费利克斯介绍了由卡内基梅隆大学（Carnegie Mellon University）与密歇根大学（University of Michigan）研究人员共同开发的“守财奴与挥霍者测试”（Tightwad and Spendthrift Quiz）。该量表主要测量个人的“支付痛苦感”（Pain of Paying），即花钱时所感受到的情绪困扰程度。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 消费倾向分类与特征 accDescr: 展示守财奴、无冲突型与挥霍者三类金钱人格及其核心特征。 subgraph Types["金钱人格分类"] TW["守财奴 (Tightwad)<br/>多数选 A"] UC["无冲突型 (Unconflicted)<br/>多数选 B"] ST["挥霍者 (Spendthrift)<br/>多数选 C"] end subgraph Traits["核心表现与特征"] TW_T["支付痛苦感极高<br/>必要支出亦感到困难"] UC_T["收支平衡且心态健康<br/>享受劳动成果且无愧疚感"] ST_T["花钱几乎无痛苦感<br/>易冲动消费与产生买后懊悔"] end TW --> TW_T UC --> UC_T ST --> ST_T ``` 现场进行了一个简易的四题自测互动： | 题目情境 | 选项 A（守财奴） | 选项 B（无冲突型） | 选项 C（挥霍者） | 现场嘉宾选择 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **1. 原价 $300 的优质大衣降价至 $100，你恰好需要且有预算** | 拒绝购买，$100 依然很贵，等待更好折扣 | 果断购买，性价比高且刚好需要 | 购买大衣，并可能顺便买条围巾搭配 | 费利克斯选 B；斯蒂芬选 C（坦言自己平时很少购物） | | **2. 与朋友聚餐平分账单，而你点的是全桌最便宜的菜** | 肉体般痛苦，很可能会提出自己应该少付 | 略感不快，但为了维持和睦依然平摊 | 毫无波澜，觉得长远来看总会扯平 | 费利克斯介于 B 与 C 之间（略微不爽但不找事）；斯蒂芬选 C | | **3. 最符合你自身消费现状的陈述** | 即使是真正需要的东西也很难花钱去买 | 能很好地平衡日常消费与储蓄 | 经常花费超出预期，并在事后感到后悔 | 费利克斯选 B；斯蒂芬选 C（指出自己不买实物，但愿为旅行和体验花钱） | | **4. 购买昂贵物品时的主要情绪反应** | 感到焦虑或后悔 | 对物品的使用价值感到满意 | 感到兴奋与肾上腺素飙升 | 费利克斯与斯蒂芬均选择 B | **测评结果分析与伴侣关系启示**： * **测试画像**：费利克斯属于“无冲突型（Unconflicted）”，在必要时能坚持储蓄，同时能毫无愧疚地享受劳动成果；斯蒂芬在测试中偏向“挥霍者（Spendthrift）”，花钱时痛苦感极低、注重当下享受，但在长远储蓄和买后情绪上容易面临挑战。 * **异性相吸的财务陷阱**：“守财奴”与“挥霍者”虽然容易因性格互补而在初期相互吸引，但在长期共同生活中往往会产生极其严重的财务冲突。 * **沟通建议**：伴侣之间可以借助此类测试或播客节目作为契机，在约会中以轻松游玩的心态了解彼此的金钱观。 --- ### [01:00:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3629s) 忽视灾难性风险：人身与伤残保险的重要性 在财务规划中，另一个常被严重低估的致命错误是**对灾难性风险投保不足**（Under-insuring Catastrophic Risks）。费利克斯强调，对于尚未实现完全财务独立、家庭日常开支依赖个人工资收入的人群而言，这一保障尤为关键： * **人寿保险（Life Insurance）**：用于在赚钱主力不幸身故时，替代其“人力资本”（Human Capital，即未来创造现金流的能力），确保家庭生活方式不被破坏。大部分人只需要购买费率低廉的定期寿险（Term Life Insurance）。 * **伤残保险（Disability Insurance）**：在丧失工作能力时替代个人收入。尽管其保费通常不如定期寿险便宜，但在防范家庭财务崩溃方面具有不可替代的作用。 --- ### [01:01:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3679s) 金融学史上最具争议的论文：生命周期资产配置 斯蒂芬提到了费利克斯此前制作的一期关于“金融学史上最具争议论文”的视频。该论文围绕**生命周期资产配置（Life Cycle Asset Allocation）**展开，探讨投资者在整个人生阶段中股票与债券的比例应如何动态调整。 * **传统观念的挑战**：传统投资智慧普遍认为，年轻时应当承担更高风险投资股票，随着年龄增长逐步转向更稳健的债券。市面上广泛流行的**目标日期基金（Target Date Funds）**以及经典的 **60/40 股债组合**正是基于这一逻辑。 * **庞大的历史数据模拟**：该研究收集了来自 39 个国家、最早可追溯至 1890 年的海量历史数据，并在庞大的数据集基础上模拟了 100 万个假设的完整生命周期。 * **颠覆性的研究发现**：研究通过衡量退休消费效用（Retirement Consumption Utility，即退休期间消费所带来的满足感数学量化）、遗赠效用（Bequest Utility，即去世时留下的资产价值）以及破产概率等指标，最终得出了一个极其反直觉的结论：在全生命周期中持有 **100% 股票组合（100% Equity Portfolio）** 反而带来了最优的综合表现。 ### [01:03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3785s) 全球资产配置的黄金比例：本土股票与国际股票的平衡 在探讨全股票投资组合的最优构建方式时，Ben Felix 引用了一篇重磅学术研究论文中的模拟数据，指出将组合的约三分之一配置为本土股票（Domestic Stocks）、三分之二配置为国际股票（International Stocks）在统计模拟上是最优的。主持人询问论文中“本土”具体代表什么，Felix 解释说，研究团队采用的是“自助抽样模拟法”（Bootstrap Simulation）。在每次抽样中，模型会抽取平均长达 10 年的收益区块：假设投资者在美国，模型会抽取以美元计价的美国本土 10 年期收益，而对应的国际部分则是除美国以外所有其他样本国家的综合收益（同样换算为美元）；接下来的抽样区块可能来自意大利，此时“本土”就变成了以意大利当时的货币计价的意大利资产收益，而“国际”则是全球除意大利外的所有市场收益。因此，这里的“本土”泛指投资者本人所居住的任何国家。 换言之，该研究给出的基准配置建议是：将总资金的约三分之一（约 30% 到 33%）投入本国股市，其余约三分之二（约 67%）配置于海外全球市场。不过，Felix 特别补充指出，该论文的一个关键结论是：本土股票配置比例在 10% 到 50% 之间的区间内，其投资组合的“最优性曲线”其实非常平缓。这意味着对于美国投资者而言，即使不严格遵循“三分之一本土”的比例，哪怕持有 50% 的本土资产，或者直接按全球市值加权（Market Cap Weighted，目前美股约占全球市值的 60% 至 65%），表现依然是完全可以接受的。然而，对于加拿大、英国等其他国家的投资者来说，如果直接把三分之一的资产放在本土市场，就已经构成了相当可观的“本土偏好”（Home Country Bias）。 针对这种分散配置的底层逻辑，主持人询问是否因为在模拟中，本土国家不可避免会遭遇严重危机。Felix 给出了肯定的回答：高通胀不仅会严重侵蚀退休人员的实际消费购买力，而且往往会重创本土股市的真实回报；而配置国际股票正是对冲本国恶性通胀和经济衰退的最强防御手段。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 本土与国际股票资产配置架构 accDescr: 展示投资者资金在本土与国际市场的分配，以及应对高通胀的分散机制。 subgraph Alloc ["全股票组合最优配置比例"] Capital["总投资资金"] --> Domestic["本土股票：约 1/3 (30%~33%)<br/>（投资居住国市场）"] Capital --> Intnl["国际股票：约 2/3 (67%)<br/>（全球除本国以外市场）"] end subgraph Defense ["风险对冲机制"] Inflation["本土高通胀 / 经济危机"] -.->|侵蚀实际购买力 & 打击本国股市| Domestic Intnl -.->|全球多市场分散对冲| Inflation end ``` ### [01:05:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3937s) 颠覆常识的学术风暴：为什么说股票比债券更安全？ 这一论文成果在金融业界和学界激起了巨大的波澜。Felix 提到，他们曾两次邀请论文的合作作者做客自己的播客节目，深知该结论遭遇了大量从业者和同行的激烈批评。之所以会引发众怒，是因为该研究彻底推翻了金融界根深蒂固的“传统智慧”（Conventional Wisdom）——即“随着年龄增长、生命周期推进，投资者应该把越来越多的资产挪到债券中以求稳健”。 论文用冷冰冰的历史数据证明了主流观点的致命缺陷：对于真正的长期投资者而言，股票实际上比大家想象的要“安全得多”，而传统上被视作避风港的债券，长期来看反而比想象中“危险得多”。其背后的根本症结在于：债券本质上是一种固定收益借贷工具（投资者把钱借给政府或机构，定期获取微薄的利息并在期末收回本金），一旦遭遇高通胀时期，债券的购买力和真实价值会被“彻底粉碎（absolutely decimated）”。 ### [01:06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=3995s) 备兑看涨期权（Covered Calls）陷阱与费用的隐形杀手 当被问及观众最常来找他咨询、但尚未深入讨论的话题时，Felix 兴奋地表示，拆解那些“绝不应该碰的金融产品”是他最热衷的事情。其中最典型的反面教材，就是当下大行其道的“备兑看涨期权”（Covered Calls）。他在过去一年专门制作了三期视频深入揭露其套路。 备兑期权的操作方式是：投资者持有某只股票，然后向他人卖出该股票的看涨期权（Call Option），从而换取一笔期权费（Option Premium）作为当期现金流入。然而，一旦股价大涨，投资者就必须按照事先约定的行权价将股票拱手让人。举例来说，如果股票原本价格是 40 美元，你以 50 美元的行权价卖出看涨期权，当股票一路暴涨至 60 美元时，你必须在 50 美元结清卖出，白白错失了 50 到 60 美元之间的涨幅。 Felix 犀利地指出，这类产品之所以能在市场上疯卖，是因为华尔街精准利用了投资者的“心理账户偏差”（Mental Accounting Bias）——即人们对所谓“确定性现金分红/收益（Income）”有着非理性的执念，错误地将资本增值和现金收益割裂开来。许多金融机构将这种策略打包成 ETF，打着“既能赚取资本增值，又能享受高额稳定收益”的旗号，向大众大肆推销，同时收取高昂的管理费。但在现实中，投资者为了赚取眼前的蝇头小利，放弃了未来巨大的上行潜能，其隐含的实际成本极其惊人。 主持人随即拿出一张费用对长期收益影响的图表进行印证。很多人在看到 0.5% 或 1% 的管理费时，往往觉得只是个无关紧要的小数字，但 Felix 郑重强调：费用同样是以复利形式（Compound）增长的。任何在漫长岁月中不断复利扣除的费用，最终在资金总额上都会演变成一笔毁灭性的财富缩水。 - **备兑看涨期权（Covered Call）机制**：通过让渡未来潜在的无限上行空间，换取当期固定的期权溢价收入； - **心理账户陷阱**：投资者误以为“现金流分红”与“资本增值”是两回事，从而愿意承担不合理的隐含机会成本； - **高费率复利效应**：0.5% 至 1% 的管理费率在数十年的复利滚雪球效应下，会吞噬掉绝大部分的长期最终净收益。 ### [01:08:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4117s) 床垫下的现金陷阱：为什么现金跑不赢通胀？ 很多人由于从未受过通货膨胀本质的财商教育，习惯将上万美元的现金塞在床垫下或存放在活期账户里求安心。对此，Felix 直言不讳地指出：通货膨胀在人类历史上如影随形，并且在可预见的未来绝不可能消失。大多数发达国家的中央银行政策甚至直接把“维持温和但稳定的低通胀”设为官方目标。这就意味着，静止不动的死钱，其购买力注定会随着时间被不断侵蚀。 虽然投资者可以利用短期政府债务工具（如短期国债）赚取微薄的利息来勉强跟上通胀的步伐，但在高通胀肆虐的严重年份，连短债的实际购买力也会迅速缩水。Felix 总结道，对于普通长期投资者来说，战胜通胀最有力、最经得起历史检验的武器，唯有投资于“超低成本的广泛指数基金”（Low-cost Index Funds）——这样既彻底避开了华尔街中介的高额管理费盘剥，又能充分享受全球股票市场在历史上远超通胀水平的真实生产力增长红利。 ### [01:09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4182s) 广告插播与终极目标拆解法 访谈在此处切入插播环节，主持人分享了企业在快速扩张期保持敏捷与高水准的经验，推荐了赞助商 Fiverr Pro，指出其通过严格筛选经过认证的高端专业人才，能帮助团队在 AI 原生策略、无代码构建及产品工作流等新兴前沿领域迅速补足短板。 紧接着，主持人向听众介绍了其团队研发的实用工具“1% 日记”（1% Diary）。他深感《CEO日记》的观众大多是有着远大抱负的奋斗者，但正如站在珠穆朗玛峰脚下仰望峰顶一样，宏大目标往往会带来强烈的心理压迫感与不适感。要实现宏伟蓝图，唯一切实可行的方法是将目标彻底切碎为每天微小的进度——即“1% 哲学”。正因为这套方法论曾助力团队取得巨大成功，去年推出的 1% 日记一经面世便被抢购一空。 ### [01:11:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4309s) 现金与通胀陷阱：藏在床底下的钱如何贬值一半 史蒂文展示了一张来自英国圣詹姆斯广场（St. James's Place）的图表，直观呈现了通货膨胀对储蓄的侵蚀：如果把 10,000 美元现金塞在床垫底下放置 20 年，在年均 3% 的通胀率下，其实际购买力将骤降至 5,336 美元，相当于凭空蒸发了近一半。很多人以为持有现金是最稳妥的避险方式，却根本没有意识到这种无形的财富腰斩。 本·费利克斯对此指出，这正好印证了个人理财中最典型的误区之一——不投资、不敢承担合理的投资风险。许多人误以为持有现金是“零风险”的，但从购买力角度来看，持有现金本身就是一种巨大的风险。“持有现金没有任何预期回报；在扣除通胀的实际价值（Real Terms）上，你的预期回报是负的。” - **通胀侵蚀数据**：在 3% 的年通胀率下，10,000 美元现金存放 20 年后，实际购买力仅剩 5,336 美元。 - **现金的本质**：持有现金并非避风港，由于缺乏名义增长，长期来看必然承受负的实际预期回报。 --- ### [01:12:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4366s) 退休规划与社会契约的重塑：个人责任时代的到来 谈及公众是否都应提早规划退休时，本·费利克斯将其与 PERMA 心理幸福框架（积极情绪、投入、人际关系、意义和成就）联系起来。他指出，虽然理想生活允许人们追求热爱的事务，但现实中极少有人能在 80 岁高龄时依然保持高强度工作。即便有人自愿终身工作或转向低薪但热爱的事业，也没有人愿意因为生活所迫而“不得不”工作到生命最后一刻。因此，通过储蓄和投资建立财务独立，是每个人不可回避的底线。 两人讨论了当前社会契约的剧烈变化。史蒂文提到，越来越多年轻人担忧未来养老金池枯竭、甚至不得不无限期推迟退休。本·费利克斯分析道，虽然旧体制下由政府或企业承担的确定给付型养老金（Pensions）正在消退，整体责任被转移回个人肩上，但这未必构成一场绝对的危机。与 30 年前投资者必须支付 2% 以上高昂管理费购买共同基金相比，当今大众能够极度便捷、廉价地获得低费率指数基金（Low-Cost Index Funds），个人管理财务的工具比历史上任何时期都更为先进强大。 --- ### [01:14:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4459s) 避开投资陷阱：主题式 ETF 与追逐风口的虚妄 在被问及普通投资者最应远离的金融产品时，本·费利克斯此前已经点名了备兑看涨期权策略（Covered Calls），随后他着重抨击了另一大雷区——**主题式 ETF（Thematic ETFs）**，例如人工智能、大麻、电动汽车（EV）、太空探索或可持续清洁能源等专项基金。这类基金的运作模式存在天然的结构性缺陷：金融机构往往会在某个概念极度狂热、标的资产价格已经被推至峰顶时迅速编制指数并发行 ETF，普通散户进场接盘后，高估值泡沫破裂，资产价格一路回落，导致这类基金的长期实际回报往往惨不忍睹。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 主题式 ETF 泡沫形成周期 accDescr: 展现从概念大火到散户接盘亏损的完整流程 subgraph Hype ["风口形成阶段"] A["行业热点爆发<br/>(AI/新能源/大麻/EV)"] --> B["投资者情绪狂热<br/>标的资产估值推至历史高位"] end subgraph Product ["产品收割阶段"] B --> C["指数编制机构推出专用指数"] C --> D["基金公司顺势发行主题式 ETF<br/>(高点建仓、收取高额管理费)"] end subgraph Crash ["业绩崩塌阶段"] D --> E["热潮退去，标的资产估值大幅回落"] E --> F["散户承担巨额亏损，长期回报极其低下"] end ``` 史蒂文坦言自己在职业生涯早期也踩过这个坑，当时看到清洁能源 ETF 就满怀信念地冲了进去，却不知自己买在了最顶峰。当史蒂文追问是否应该转向宽基科技基金或 S&P 500、FTSE 100 时，本·费利克斯强调，科技行业在过去 20 年的爆发固然惊人，但它终究只是单一行业；押注全仓或重仓科技股，在当下并非显而易见的明智之举。 此外，两人探讨了一级市场（Private Equity）投资的陷阱。面对狂热的人工智能初创企业和 SpaceX 等未上市独角兽，散户缺乏直接入场渠道。许多金融机构顺势包装出所谓的“专享通道产品”，打着散户也能投 AI 的旗号收取极高费率，但这些中间商以什么价格拿到标的股权根本不透明。本·费利克斯直言：“金融机构极擅长窥探投资者的非理性欲望，即便利益并不利于客户，他们也会迅速量身定做一个金融产品来迎合贪念并收割利润。” - **主题式 ETF 陷阱**：在估值最高点发行、费率昂贵、长期收益普遍劣于宽基市场指数。 - **私募基金包装产品**：以 AI 和明星独角兽（如 SpaceX）为噱头向零售端推介，充斥着高额隐性费用与定价不透明风险。 --- ### [01:16:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4618s) 本·费利克斯的投资组合哲学：100% 全球多元化股票 史蒂文假设了一个具体场景：如果一个 50 岁的人手头有 10,000 美元闲置现金，希望在未来 10 到 20 年内实现财富增值，应该如何配置？本·费利克斯坦承，在不知晓具体风险承受能力的情况下给出定论极其危险；如果一个人在股市大跌时会恐慌割肉，那么任何理论上优秀的长期资产配置对他而言都是灾难。 谈到他自己的实际资产配置时，本·费利克斯公开了自己的投资结构： 1. **房产**：自住房产净值。 2. **私募股权**：所供职财富管理公司（PWL Capital）的大额股权。 3. **公开市场投资**：**100% 投资于全球多元化股票**（Globally Diversified Stock Portfolio），同时带有一定程度的加拿大本国市场偏好（Canadian Home Country Bias）。 本·费利克斯表示，即使未来步入退休阶段，他也并不打算降低股票仓位。100% 股票组合的波动性完全在他个人的心理和财务承受范围之内，能够最大限度地捕捉全球资本市场的长期增长溢价。 --- ### [01:18:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4733s) 加密货币的本质：极客的技术突破而非投资圣杯 在谈及加密资产时，史蒂文询问本·费利克斯是否持有任何加密货币。本·费利克斯先是打趣称自己“从未碰过”，随后笑着澄清事实：几年前在深入研究以太坊（Ethereum）和比特币（Bitcoin）底层逻辑时，为了在学习过程中有真实的参与感，他曾分别购买了 1,000 美元的比特币和 1,000 美元的以太坊。 本·费利克斯客观看待加密技术的历史贡献。他指出，数字现金的概念最早源于“密码朋克”（Cypherpunk）——一群追求隐私、崇尚自由意志主义的计算机极客。极客群体苦苦探索了数十年，试图解决“如何在不需要可信第三方中介的情况下实现去中心化交易”。2008 年中本聪（Satoshi Nakamoto）提出的架构确实彻底攻克了这一技术难题，从计算机科学和金融工程的角度来看，这无疑是一项极具突破性的酷炫成就；但这并不等同于它适合作为普通人长期养老规划中的核心投资标的。 ### [01:19:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4784s) 比特币的本质：意识形态载体与投机资产 Ben Felix 回顾了比特币诞生的技术背景。中本聪在论文中巧妙融合了多项前人技术，例如引用了 Adam Back 为防止电子邮件垃圾邮件而发明的 Hashcash 机制。整项技术的拼装过程令人惊叹，是一段极具魅力的技术演进史。然而，从投资属性来看，Felix 认为比特币已经演变成两种核心形态：第一，它成了一种“意识形态载体”，那些坚信世界应当按照某种模式运转、认为政府在货币体系中的角色应当受限的人，投资比特币会产生极大的认同感与精神满足；第二，它本质上是一种高度投机性的资产，绝大多数人买入比特币只是押注其价格会上涨。 鉴于这种投机属性，Felix 明确表示自己个人坚决不碰比特币，而且在 PWL Capital 为众多高净值客户管理大量资产时，公司团队也经过严格决策，选择完全不配置加密资产。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 比特币的双重属性剖析 accDescr: 展示比特币从底层技术到在现实投资中演化出的意识形态与投机属性 subgraph Tech["底层技术积累"] A["密码学与分布式机制<br/>(如 Adam Back 的防垃圾邮件机制 Hashcash)"] end subgraph RealNature["现实双重属性"] B["意识形态载体<br/>(对去中心化与货币制度的信仰)"] C["投机资产<br/>(博弈价格上涨的纯投机行为)"] end Tech --> B Tech --> C RealNature --> D["PWL Capital 机构策略：坚决不予配置"] ``` --- ### [01:20:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=4839s) 1847 年的杂志文章与地缘政治危机下的投资定力 Steven Bartlett 分享了一个近期的小插曲：英国一位知名好友打电话向他咨询财务建议，原因是当时全球局势动荡，俄乌冲突持续发酵，霍尔木兹海峡受阻，地缘政治冲突频发，这让那位朋友深感恐慌，不知道在这样的乱世中该如何规划资金。Steven 虽纳闷对方为何找自己咨询，但团队翻出的一篇发表于 1847 年 10 月 10 日的古老杂志文章，却与当下的世界焦虑如出一辙。 文章生动描绘了当时的至暗时刻： > “各地的情况都很糟糕。这是历史上一个阴郁的时刻。在这份报纸读者的有生之年里，从未出现过如此严重和深切的忧虑。未来从未显得如此黑暗和难以估量。在法国，政治大锅正在沸腾，充斥着不确定性；英格兰和英帝国在社会与经济困境中饱受考验、精疲力竭；美国则陷入了种族、工业与商业的混乱，在迷茫中随波逐流；俄罗斯如同欧洲地平线上一团黑暗沉寂的暴风雨之云盘旋不去。这是一个严峻的时刻，没有人能无动于衷；面对我们自身的麻烦，没有人能看到终点。” Felix 听完感叹道，这段文字几乎可以一字不差地套用在今天。人类历史历经无数次战争、动乱与政治震荡，但总体上人类社会依然穿越了危机并持续前行。回到金融市场上，许多经典图表将历史上最骇人听闻的战争与灾难新闻头条，直接叠加在标普 500 等全球股市长期走势图上，可以清晰地看到：尽管突发战火或动荡会导致市场在短期内剧烈波动甚至下挫，但拉长时间维度来看，全球股票资产的长期预期收益率始终保持向上。 - 地缘危机来临时，市场短期往往剧烈震荡（如俄乌冲突初期股市曾短暂转负后逐步修复），但长期资产增值的逻辑未变。 - 对于持有全球多元化股票投资组合的普通投资者而言，面对世界乱局最理性的策略就是“以静制动”，无需因新闻头条频繁调整核心持仓。 --- ### [01:23:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=5010s) 重新抵押房产再投资：杠杆的收益与心理代价 随后 Steven 补充了那位朋友的具体困惑：她已经还清了房贷，正考虑将房产重新抵押借出一笔资金（Remortgage），犹豫究竟该拿这笔借来的钱去再买一套房子，还是直接投进股市。Steven 个人偏向股市，询问 Felix 的专业意见。 Felix 直言，如果要操作，他首先要搞清楚该借贷决定的真实动机；但若在“再买一套房”与“投入股市”之间选择，股票市场在全球分散性与流动性上明显更优。至于普通人是否该抵押房产加杠杆投资，Felix 阐述了理论与现实的权衡：从纯学术模型与纸面数据来看，借贷资金配置到具有正向预期收益率（positive expected return）的资产（如股票市场）中，长期确实能够提升财富期望值；然而，杠杆是一把双刃剑，它会带来巨大的心理压力，在极端下行行情中甚至会导致满盘皆输、本金尽失。因此，抵押房产去投资股票与配置股票或债券一样，完全取决于个人的风险承受能力和具体财务目标，没有放之四海皆准的答案。 --- ### [01:24:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=5086s) AI、自动化冲击与“杰文斯悖论”的历史镜像 两人的话题转向了席卷全球的人工智能浪潮。Steven 提及 Anthropic 最近发布的一份报告，指出随着 AI 与自动化 Agent 的普及，初级岗位（entry-level jobs）正受到首当其冲的冲击，已有约 13% 的初级岗位受到实质性干扰，引发公众失业恐慌。 Felix 坦言自己并非劳动经济学家，但他倾向于从历史技术革命中寻找参照。最典型的反直觉案例是自动柜员机（ATM）的引入： - **ATM 悖论**：ATM 刚出现时，人们普遍预测银行柜员这一职业将彻底消失。然而实际结果却是，ATM 大幅降低了单家银行网点的运营成本，各大银行顺势开设了远超以往数量的分支机构，反而触达了更多客户群体，最终全行业的银行柜员就业岗位总数不降反升。 - **杰文斯悖论（Jevons Paradox）**：Steven 随即提到了著名的杰文斯悖论。在铁路以蒸汽煤炭为动力的时代，蒸汽机燃煤效率的提升一度引发煤炭行业恐慌，认为煤炭需求将锐减；但运输成本的骤降使火车从单纯的货运工具变成了大众出行的核心方式，客运量爆发式增长反而使煤炭总消耗量和产业规模大幅飙升。 Felix 赞同这一逻辑：效率的跃迁降低了服务与产品的提供门槛，往往会拓展整个市场容量，企业节省的资金也会重新投入新的领域催生全新职业。 然而，Steven 表达了深层的忧虑——AI 与机器人技术的融合速度与历史上的技术革新完全不同。例如在洛杉矶，他的无人驾驶车辆已经实现自主巡航，而驾驶恰恰是全球最大的就业蓄水池之一；在仓储物流及部分海外工厂中，工人甚至开始佩戴头戴式摄像头记录手部动作，以便为机器人提供训练数据来加速替代自身。Steven 担忧，如果这场替代在极短时间内爆发，被替代的大规模劳动力根本来不及找到新的出路。对此 Felix 坦诚承认，由于互联网极速分发的特性，本轮技术渗透的传播速度确实史无前例；而至于那些被淘汰的人力未来究竟将流向何方，历史在每次剧变发生时，身处其中的人们其实同样“根本无法预知”。 ### [01:28:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=5290s) 技术革命、泡沫周期与资产配置 面对人工智能等重大技术变革对社会和经济带来的剧烈冲击，Ben Felix 指出应当从个人和投资者两个维度来思考应对策略。对于个人而言，最关键的是构建互补且独特的技能组合——找到那些你组合起来能比世界上绝大多数人做得更好的事情；就像对 Ben 自己来说，金融专业结合内容创作（Content Creation）构成了独一无二的竞争壁垒。而从投资者的角度来看，人类历史上经历过无数次重塑世界、重塑金融市场与社会文化的重大技术革命，每一次都会伴随失业、社会动荡与财富不平等，但经济与社会最终都会度过周期。 针对当前 AI 领域疯狂融资、天价估值是否会导致股市崩盘的担忧，Ben 引用了经济学家卡萝塔·佩蕾丝（Carlota Perez）的经典著作《技术革命与金融资本》（*Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital*）。书中详尽记录了技术狂热与金融资本的周期规律：处于技术革命焦点的行业，其资本成本会变得极低，推升资产价格达到难以持续的高位，随后必然面临均值回归或价格回调。几年前市场也曾经历过 Web3、NFT 以及号称要颠覆传统金融的 DeFi 狂热，而如今大量资金与开发者又全面转向了 AI 赛道。 尽管初创企业高估值破裂或催化剂事件引发的市场收缩始终存在，但这并不意味着多元化投资者需要陷入恐慌。市场的黑天鹅和回撤永远无法被精准预测，投资者唯一能做的不是去猜测下一次暴跌的时机，而是建立一套即使在最极端崩盘发生时也能坚定持有的资产配置方案。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 技术革命与金融资本周期演进流程 accDescr: 展示新技术从狂热吸引资本、推高资产估值，到泡沫均值回归及投资者应对策略的完整周期 subgraph Phase1["资本狂热阶段"] A["重大技术突破 (如 AI / 互联网)"] --> B["资本成本骤降 & 资金集中涌入"] B --> C["资产价格与估值严重虚高"] end subgraph Phase2["均值回归阶段"] C --> D["催化剂触发 & 市场预期落空"] D --> E["资产价格回落 / 投机公司出清"] end subgraph Phase3["理性应对策略"] E --> F["多元化资产配置 (Asset Allocation)"] F --> G["长期持有并承受周期波动"] end ``` - 面对技术浪潮，个人的核心防御是打造独特的互补技能组合（Complementary Skills）。 - 资产泡沫特征：聚焦技术革命赛道的公司资本成本极低，推动资产估值达到难以维系的极端水平。 - 市场调整往往发生在没人预料到的时刻，试图规避下行往往徒劳无功，关键在于配置能够穿越周期的投资组合。 --- ### [01:31:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=5509s) 有效市场假说与股票的真正价值来源 针对“市场崩盘是否早已露出蛛丝马迹（Writing on the wall）”的说法，Ben 强调如果任何下跌趋势真的确凿无疑，那么当前的市场价格瞬间就会将其反映出来。Steven Bartlett 分享了其从事金融投资 15 年的哥哥给他的忠告：“当你以某个价格买入一家公司的股票时，必须假设这个价格已经完全反映了全世界所有智者对这家公司已知的一切信息；甚至连你以为它未来会上涨的预期，也早已被计算在今天的价格里了。” Ben 指出这正是金融学中“有效市场假说”（Efficient Market Hypothesis）的核心逻辑。在高度有效的市场中，公开价格完全吸收了所有现有信息与市场预期。既然所有预期都已计入价格，那么买股票究竟是在买什么？从金融本质上讲，股票的价值等于**未来预期现金流的折现**（Discounted Future Cash Flows）。投资者买入资产并长期持有，所赚取的正是由于承担风险而要求的回报率（折现率）。 许多普通投资者经常陷入逻辑误区，例如因为自己开了一辆特斯拉觉得车很棒，就认为应该买入特斯拉股票。然而，特斯拉是一家优秀公司、汽车热销这一事实全市场早已知晓，并完全体现在当下的股价之中。仅凭人尽皆知的利好消息去买入股票，并不能构成任何超越市场的投资优势。 --- ### [01:34:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=5665s) 为什么主动选股几乎必然失败：被动投资与“忘记密码”的智慧 在谈到专业投资人时，Ben 指出海量学术数据表明，绝大多数试图通过选股（Stock Picking）和择时（Market Timing）击败市场的专业基金经理，长期来看都无法跑赢大盘；更为残酷的是，在某个时期内偶然跑赢市场的少数经理人，在未来的时间窗口里也几乎无法维持这种超额收益。扣除高昂的管理费用后，主动管理的表现则更加糟糕。 因此，追求超额收益不仅徒劳，而且往往会让投资者的最终收益变得更差。Ben 坚决主张普通人应该践行被动投资：直接买入宽基指数基金，全盘接受市场本身的平均回报率，然后彻底“放手不管”。 Steven 对此深有共鸣并幽默地分享了他未婚妻的真实故事： > “我常说我未婚妻非常擅长投资，因为她总是记不住账户密码。每隔四年我们想起来说：‘宝贝，你该去查查投资账户了。’她就会说：‘我不知道密码。’然后我们不得不折腾一番重置密码。一打开账户发现：‘哇，宝贝，你发财了！’她看一眼说：‘太棒了！’然后转头又把密码给忘了。再过四年我们才会再看一次。” Ben 对这种“忘记密码”式的投资心态深表赞同，并总结道：投资者绝不能把精力耗费在无法掌控的市场走势或相对收益上，而必须专注于自己能够完全掌控的核心要素——制定科学的财务规划、设定合理的资产配置，并严格控制不理性的交易冲动。 - **主动管理困境**：数据显示跑赢市场的基金经理缺乏业绩持续性，扣除费率后净收益普遍落后于大盘。 - **最佳投资策略**：买入低成本宽基指数基金，不盯盘、不频繁操作，坦然接受市场长期创造的丰厚回报。 - **掌控可控之事**：投资的精力应从预测市场转向制定财务规划、控制投资成本与保持纪律性。 ### [01:35:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=5751s) 控制可控之事与投资中的性别差异：女性真的比男性更擅长投资吗？ 在规划财务未来时，市场行情的短期波动是不可预测的，因此理智的投资者应将注意力聚焦在自身真正能够掌控的环节上：设定清晰的财务目标、制定即便面对市场崩跌也能泰然处之的资产配置比例、储备充足的应急资金，以及做好周密的税务规划。接着，主持人 Steven Bartlett 提出了一个极具挑衅性但引人深思的问题：“你认为女性是比男性更优秀的投资者吗？”Ben Felix 直言，虽然自己并非完全钻研该细分领域的统计，但现有学术数据给出的倾向非常明显——女性在投资中通常更厌恶风险，而且最关键的是，她们较少表现出盲目的过度自信（overconfidence）。因此 Ben 毫不犹豫地给出最直接的结论：“是的，我认为女性大概率是更好的投资者。最简单的答案就是——把钱交给你妻子管。” Steven 随后列举了一连串来自顶级金融机构与商学院的硬核实证数据来佐证这一观点。数据显示，这种业绩差异绝非偶然，而是普遍存在的行为心理学结果。Ben 指出，男性在投资中最常见的硬伤就是“过度交易”（overtrading）与妄自尊大。他们总觉得自己能神机妙算挑出大牛股，常常因为喜欢特斯拉的车就自以为是地断定其股票必涨无疑，频繁进出市场。Steven 也随之调侃道，世界上最狂热的赌徒绝大多数也都是男性，这种投机与好赌的心态自然直接传导并侵蚀了投资回报率。 - **富达投资（Fidelity）数据**：对多达 520 万个账户的研究分析发现，女性投资者的实际收益普遍超越了男性。 - **华威商学院（Warwick Business School）研究**：在长达 3 年的跟踪期内，女性投资者的年化收益率平均比男性高出 1.8%。 - **加州大学伯克利分校（UC Berkeley）研究**：男性在交易频率上比女性高出 45%，正是这种过度交易行为导致男性的年化回报率比女性整整低了 1.4%。 - **英国数字银行 Revolut 数据**：该平台英国女性投资者的业绩表现比男性同行高出约 4%。 --- ### [01:37:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=5837s) 终极问题：颠覆有效市场假说的终极实验与巴菲特的十年赌局 《CEO日记》有一个固定的收尾传统：前一位嘉宾会为下一位素未谋面的嘉宾留下一道写在笔记本上的神秘问题。留给 Ben 的问题极具思想深度与冲击力：“你能提出一个什么样的实验，如果其实验结果成立，将彻底推翻你目前的信念？”面对这个问题，Ben 长叹一口气并陷入了沉思。他坦承，自己整个职业生涯与投资哲学的核心基石正是“有效市场假说”（Efficient Market Hypothesis）以及“战胜市场极其困难”这一学术共识。因此，能够彻底颠覆他信念的终极实验，实际上就是“有人能系统性、可重复地在长周期内彻底击败市场”。 事实上，金融市场上每时每刻都在进行着这样的博弈。Steven 联想到了摩根·豪泽尔（Morgan Housel）在《金钱心理学》（The Psychology of Money）中记录的著名轶事——沃伦·巴菲特（Warren Buffett）与门罗合伙公司门徒 Ted Seides 之间名震华尔街的“十年赌局”。巴菲特当时公开打赌，仅凭一只低成本的标普500指数基金（S&P 500），长期收益就能彻底击败 Ted 精挑细选的多只一揽子顶级对冲基金组合。赌注以十年为期，最终收益全部捐赠给慈善机构。最终十年期满，Ted 认输，巴菲特大获全胜。Ben 指出，这次对决成了现代投资史上一个里程碑式的公开案例，不仅让世人亲眼见证了主动选股与高昂管理费的弊端，更把指数投资这一强大的科学理念深深刻进了大众认知。 --- ### [01:38:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks&t=5928s) 金融知识就是力量：走出迷茫与摆脱系统性焦虑 在访谈尾声，Steven 询问了听众如何能够进一步深入了解 Ben Felix 的研究与工具。Ben 推荐了自己长期深度更新的播客节目《The Rational Reminder Podcast》，该节目探讨更多严肃长篇的金融实证话题；同时他介绍，在 PWL Capital 官方网站（PWLcapital.com）上，他们团队为普通人研发了多项实用的理财规划工具，包括精准量化“租房还是买房”的对比计算器，以及正在开发的财务目标设定应用。 Steven 对 Ben 的到访表达了真挚的感谢。他深有感触地坦言，个人财务在人生中占据着生死攸关的地位，但社会中却有极高比例的人群因本能的恐惧和焦虑而本能地逃避这个话题。学校教育从来不教授真正实用的个人财务通识，Steven 自嘲道，自己当年也是直到把个人信用评分彻底搞砸、造成严重损失之后，才痛定思痛去弄明白财务规则的运转逻辑，就像没好好刷牙导致满口蛀牙才懂得护齿一样。他高度评价 Ben 能够用严谨的学术实证研究拨开金融迷雾，把极其复杂的金融陷阱转化为简单实用的法则。在这个充满不确定性与动荡的时代，很多人因为缺乏金融认知而被迫坐在人生的过山车上随波逐流、任凭摆布，而“真正的认知与信息就是掌控权与力量（Knowledge is power）”。对财务底层逻辑的清醒洞察，正是每个人夺回生活掌控权的关键起点。 ## Video description Investing has been solved, but your brain is keeping you poor. Money Expert Ben Felix explains why most people make terrible financial decisions! Ben Felix is a Portfolio Manager and Chief Investment Officer for PWL Capital, and evidence-based investing expert who translates academic finance research into practical decisions for everyday people. He is known for using data, behavioral science, and simple frameworks to help people build wealth without falling for the traps of the financial industry. He explains: ◼️Why investing has already been “solved” ◼️How your brain quietly ruins your long-term financial decisions ◼️Why checking your portfolio too often can make you poorer ◼️Why buying a home is not always the smart investment people think it is ◼️Why young people may not need to save as aggressively as they’re told ◼️How to use money to build a better life, not just a bigger bank account ◼️The biggest financial mistakes that destroys your financial future 00:00 Intro 02:54 Why Most People Overcomplicate Finance 03:57 How Your Psychology Secretly Controls Your Investments 05:26 The Real Frameworks Behind Financial Freedom 07:14 Why You Don’t Need Much Money To Start Investing 09:40 The 10 Money Mistakes That Quietly Keep You Broke 13:17 How Monetizing Your Skills Can 10x Your Income 20:06 Why Most People Never Set Financial Goals 21:10 Are You Spending Money In Ways That Actually Improve Your Life? 21:46 Why Taking Investment Risks Matters More Than You Think 25:48 Is Buying A House Actually A Smart Investment Today? 33:27 Why Young People Are Rethinking Home Ownership 35:11 What Happens If You Delay Buying A House? 36:41 Are Homeowners Really Happier Than Renters? 37:35 Who Should Actually Buy A House 38:41 The Biggest Myths About Home Ownership - Debunked 39:01 What Happiness Data Really Says About Owning Vs Renting 39:53 The Hidden Criteria That Decide If You Should Buy 41:08 Why Common Advice About Home Ownership Falls Apart 42:37 Will House Prices Keep Rising? 44:37 How The Wealthy Legally Pay Less Tax 45:29 The Real Tax Strategies The Rich Don’t Talk About 46:05 What Happens Next To Housing Prices? 47:35 Ads 49:38 The Hidden Problems With Financial Advisors 50:41 Why Ignoring Estate Planning Can Cost Your Family Everything 51:37 Do You Really Need A Will? 52:02 How Your Partner Choice Impacts Your Financial Future 53:18 Why Some Financial Advice May Be Working Against You 54:27 Should Everyone Get A Prenup? 56:41 What Your Spending Habits Reveal About Your Future Wealth 58:24 The Real Reason Prenups Matter More Than You Think 01:00:29 Why People Underestimate Catastrophic Financial Risks 01:01:19 Stocks Vs Bonds: Which Is Actually Safer Right Now? 01:07:40 The Financial Products You Should Avoid At All Costs 01:09:43 Why Cash Loses Value Faster Than You Realize 01:10:58 Ads 01:11:31 Your Cash Under The Mattress Will Lose Value Fast 01:13:53 Do You Really Need A Retirement Plan? 01:15:25 Investments You Should Avoid! 01:17:04 Should You Invest In AI? 01:19:56 Crypto: Opportunity Or Risk? 01:21:45 How War Changes Investing 01:24:36 Remortgage Or Invest: Which Move Builds More Wealth? 01:25:52 Will AI Replace Your Job? Follow Ben Felix: Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/3Mc4mML X - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/5XwRueU YouTube (Renting vs Buying) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ&t=964s Ben's Company - https://pwlcapital.com/ Enjoyed the episode? Share this link and earn points for every referral - redeem them for exclusive prizes: https://doac-perks.com 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 Sponsors: Stan - Visit https://coach.stan.store/?ref=stevenbartlett&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=episode4  Pipedrive - https://pipedrive.com/ceo Fiverr - https://fiverr.com/diary and get 10% off your first order when you use code DIARY   Wispr - Get 14 days of Wispr Flow for free at https://wisprflow.ai/steven [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLFG_FZKbks)

[50:41] Ben Felix: Everybody has a will—it's just the government's default will, which you may not actually agree with. [69:43] Ben Felix: Assuming a 3% inflation rate, $10,000 kept under the mattress shrinks to just $5,336 in purchasing power over 20 years—effectively cutting your wealth in half. [80:39] Steven Bartlett: Things are bad all over. It is a gloomy moment in history... Russia hangs like a storm cloud on the horizon of Europe, dark and silent. It is a solemn moment, and no man can feel indifference. [95:00] Ben Felix: You can't control markets. You can't control your performance relative to the market... But the things that you can control are having an appropriate financial plan, having the right goals set, having an asset allocation that makes sense for you even if markets do decline, having emergency savings, tax planning. Those are things that you can control.

[0:00] Renting versus owning a home, the [0:01] biggest financial decision most people [0:02] make in their life. So, we're going to [0:04] talk about all of the unrecoverable [0:05] costs [music] of owning a home, [0:07] including property taxes, maintenance [0:08] costs, which is the one that I think [0:10] people underestimate the most. And then [0:11] there's also emergency costs. I've got a [0:13] whole stack of them, as well as a 5% [0:15] rule to figure out if renting is a [0:17] better financial decision. We'll go [0:18] through that. What else have we got? [0:19] >> So, this is something that people just [0:20] don't think enough about, which is the [0:22] top 10 financial mistakes that I think [0:24] people make. For example, tax planning [0:26] opportunities. Like, there are simple [0:28] things that people can do [music] to [0:29] minimize the amount of tax they're [0:30] paying, and we'll go through those. Ben [0:32] Felix's firm manages the money of more [0:33] than 3,000 [0:35] people, ranging from people with huge [0:37] amounts of money and not so much money. [0:39] His whole thesis is giving people money [0:41] advice that is based on academic [0:44] research. Our brains, our psychology, [0:46] absolutely gets in the way of making [0:48] good long-term financial decisions. And [0:49] today, we're going to answer the big [0:51] money questions, like what should I [0:53] invest in? A lot of people believe they [0:55] need to have a lot of background [0:56] information before they can start [0:58] investing, but I would argue that people [1:00] who know just a little bit, they will be [1:01] better long-term investors. There's a [1:03] ton of evidence supporting that this [1:04] will outperform most other investment [1:06] strategies. [1:07] >> And also, what is the mentality, the [1:09] mindset of people that end up making [1:12] money over the long term? [1:13] >> Psychology is important for determining [1:14] what your financial goals are. So, this [1:16] is a framework that we developed to [1:18] elicit higher quality goals. What would [1:20] you say to young people that are [1:21] thinking about their financial strategy? [1:23] >> A lot of young people feel a lot of [1:24] pressure to save, but there is research [1:26] suggesting [music] that it's probably [1:28] suboptimal for young people to save, [1:30] which we'll talk more about later. And [1:31] then, in a world of AI where everything [1:33] is changing so quickly, what should I be [1:35] doing with my money right now? Ben Felix [1:37] has the answer. [1:40] This is super interesting to me. My team [1:42] gave me this report to show me how many [1:43] of you that watch this show subscribe, [1:44] and some of you have told us, according [1:46] to this, that you are unsubscribed from [1:48] the channel randomly. So, favor to ask [1:50] all of you, please could you check right [1:52] now if you've hit the subscribe button. [1:53] If you are a regular viewer of this show [1:54] and you like what we do here. We're [1:56] approaching quite a significant landmark [1:58] on this show in terms of a subscriber [1:59] number. [clears throat] So, if there was [2:01] simple free thing that you could do to [2:03] help us, my team, everyone here, to keep [2:05] this show free, to keep it improving [2:07] year over year and week over week, it is [2:09] just to hit that subscribe button and to [2:10] double check if you've hit it. Only [2:12] thing I'll ever ask of you. [2:13] Do we have a deal? [2:14] If you do it, I'll tell you what I'll [2:15] do. I'll make sure [2:17] every single week, every single month, [2:19] we fight harder and harder and harder [2:20] and harder to bring you the guests and [2:21] conversations that you want to hear. I [2:23] stayed true to that promise since the [2:24] very beginning of The Diary of a CEO, [2:25] and I will not let you down. Please help [2:28] us. Really appreciate it. Let's get on [2:30] with the show. [2:31] >> [music] [2:36] [music] [2:38] >> Ben, [2:39] there are lots of people out in the [2:41] world talking about personal finance and [2:42] investing and all these adjacent [2:44] subjects. [2:45] What is the approach you take that you [2:47] think is different to lots of the other [2:51] sort of finance experts that are on [2:53] YouTube that are giving people advice? [2:55] What I think, and the approach that I've [2:56] always tried to take, is what can we [2:58] take from academic literature, very [3:01] smart people who spent a lot of time [3:02] thinking about these things, [3:03] what can we take from them and apply to [3:05] making good financial decisions for a [3:07] typical person? And what are the key [3:09] questions that you've sought to answer [3:10] for the audiences that you have? Is [3:13] renting versus owning a home. So, that's [3:14] always been big. Asset allocation is [3:17] another big one. How much should you [3:18] invest of your of your long-term money [3:20] that you can afford to take some risk [3:22] with. [3:23] Another important question people wonder [3:24] about is, [3:26] why should I not do this other [3:27] investment strategy that seems very [3:29] attractive? [3:30] And who who are we appealing to with [3:32] this conversation? Is it just people [3:33] that have lots of money, or is it No, I [3:35] think these questions need to be [3:36] answered. I mean, the the renting versus [3:38] owning a home one is applicable to [3:39] pretty much everyone, because that is [3:41] the biggest financial decision most [3:42] households will make in their lives, [3:43] regardless of what their net worth is. [3:46] But investing, or what should you do [3:47] with your long-term investments, that's [3:49] applicable to anybody. [3:50] Anybody that's going to be saving for [3:51] their future, whether they have $10,000 [3:54] or $10 million, the same principles [3:56] apply. [3:57] And how much of this [3:58] game of investing, making money, is [4:01] comes back to psychology? [4:03] So, I like to say investing's been [4:04] solved. We're going to use index funds. [4:06] That's it. The hard part is actually [4:08] doing that. [4:10] Because our brains, our psychology, [4:11] absolutely gets in the way of making [4:13] good long-term financial decisions. [4:15] Our brains are designed for survival. [4:19] They're not designed to thinking about [4:20] long-term abstract concepts like taking [4:23] your money today, investing in the stock [4:25] market, ignoring all the stuff that [4:27] happens in between, and then having [4:28] money left over later [4:30] to to fund your retirement. That's so [4:33] interesting, cuz a lot of the time [4:34] people talk about tactics and [4:35] strategies, but I guess underpinning [4:37] your ability to execute on any of those [4:38] tactics or strategies are one's own [4:40] psychology. And is there academic [4:42] research about the best sort of mental [4:45] approach to take towards money and [4:46] finance and investing? So, one of the [4:48] best approaches, and it's a little bit [4:49] counterintuitive, is to not look at your [4:51] investments. There is a an academic [4:53] paper showing that the more people look [4:56] at their investments, the less risk they [4:58] take, and the lower returns they earn. [5:01] Because when you look at your [5:02] investments every day, the stock market [5:04] goes up and down. We know that. If [5:06] you're looking every day at your [5:07] portfolio and it's down 5%, up 6%, and [5:09] going up and down all the time, that can [5:11] be very stressful, and it makes it seem [5:13] like the stock market is very risky. [5:15] And so, people will invest less in the [5:17] stock market. In reality, for for [5:20] long-term investors who can invest in [5:22] stocks, buy and hold for a very long [5:23] period of time, that they're a lot safer [5:25] than people think. Mhm. So, [5:26] [clears throat] we've got some props [5:28] here for some demonstrations we're going [5:30] to do. Could you just give explain to me [5:31] the high-level of what these things are [5:34] on the table and the different [5:34] frameworks we're going to go through? [5:36] Sure. So, we have a bunch of things [5:38] here. [5:39] Uh this is one of my favorites that I [5:42] bring up [5:43] in a lot of my videos. So, this is the [5:45] the PERMA model, which comes from [5:46] positive psychology. Psychology is [5:48] important for investing well, but it's [5:50] also important for figuring out what [5:52] your long-term investing strategy should [5:53] be. We'll go through that. What else [5:54] have we got here? [5:56] This is the top 10 financial mistakes [5:59] that I think people make. Uh this is the [6:02] the three steps for investing your first [6:03] $10,000. Okay. And we've got $10,000 [6:06] there, so you're going to talk me [6:07] through how we do that as well. [6:09] >> all of the We're going to talk about all [6:10] of the unrecoverable costs. [6:12] Got a whole stack of them [6:14] that you incur when you own a home. [6:17] Okay. And I I I guess this begs the [6:18] question, [6:19] who is Ben Felix? What is your [6:21] background, and what is the education, [6:22] the reference points, the experiences [6:24] that you're drawing upon to give us this [6:26] information today? Probably where it [6:28] starts [6:29] for for being relevant is I I did a [6:32] degree in mechanical engineering at [6:33] Northeastern University. [6:36] And I say that's relevant because when I [6:38] came into finance, I wanted to approach [6:41] it like an engineer, and a lot of [6:43] finance, a lot of financial services of [6:45] of investing and wealth management is [6:47] not approached like an engineer. It's [6:49] approached like a I feel almost bad [6:52] saying this, but it's approached like a [6:53] like a car dealership, like selling [6:55] selling product. So, I was disappointed [6:57] in that and and had to find my find my [7:00] own way. So, they haven't got my best [7:02] interests at heart. In in a lot of [7:04] cases, I don't think so. [7:05] And I started spending a lot of time [7:07] reading through academic literature so [7:08] that I could be very confident and [7:10] comfortable that the advice that I was [7:11] giving to people was good, high-quality [7:13] advice. And where is the best place to [7:16] start? [7:17] Is it in the psychology? Is it one of [7:18] the one of these frameworks? Is it [7:19] somewhere else? Is there a background [7:20] understanding of the economy one needs [7:22] to [7:23] to get going? That is a great question. [7:25] I don't think so, and I think that's [7:27] where a lot of people get stuck, where [7:29] they believe they need to have a lot of [7:30] background information before they can [7:32] start investing. [7:33] Uh they may do research on specific [7:35] industries, they may look at like the [7:36] energy sector so they can build out an [7:38] energy portfolio as one example. But [7:41] investing the way that I would say is [7:43] sensible for most people, which is just [7:44] using low-cost index funds, capturing [7:46] market returns, the the market returns [7:48] have been there, and they're going to [7:49] continue to be there. They should [7:51] continue to be there in the long run. [7:53] Uh doing that doesn't require a lot of [7:55] background knowledge. [7:57] I would argue that people who know just [7:59] a little bit, just enough, that just [8:01] know that index funds are sensible, and [8:02] they have enough conviction they can [8:03] stick with that, they will be better [8:05] long-term investors [8:06] than someone who knows enough to hurt [8:08] themselves. [8:09] What would you say to young people that [8:10] are thinking about [8:12] their financial strategy? Would you say [8:14] that someone in their [8:17] early 20s, 21 years old, should adopt a [8:19] completely different approach to money [8:21] based on what you've just shown me, [8:23] versus someone that's 51 years old? [8:25] It's going to be different, for sure. I [8:27] I think, and this is a it's a tricky [8:29] subject, but a lot of young people feel [8:30] a lot of pressure to save. [8:32] And that might be saving for their [8:34] retirement, it might be saving to buy a [8:35] home, but they feel a lot of pressure [8:37] from their parents and just from society [8:39] in general that they need to be saving [8:41] money, and that if they're not saving [8:42] money, they're being irresponsible. But [8:43] again, if we come back to academic [8:45] research, there is research suggesting [8:47] that it it's probably suboptimal for [8:49] young people to save. General point [8:52] is that you should save more when you [8:53] have a higher income, and save less when [8:56] you have a lower income. [8:57] And what that ends up meaning is that [8:59] young people [9:01] may not need to save, or may not need to [9:02] save as much as they feel pressured to [9:04] save. [9:05] The reason this topic is tricky is that, [9:08] well what I just said is true, [9:10] it can cause bad habits. [9:12] Whereas people spend all of their [9:13] income, and then don't have that shift [9:16] towards saving at some point, then [9:18] they'll they'll end up in a difficult [9:19] position later on in life. [9:22] Someone who's 50, [9:23] it's going to depend on their situation. [9:25] If they're the person who I just [9:26] mentioned who never saved, [9:28] they're in a tough position, and then [9:29] they are going to need to save a lot in [9:31] order to have some wealth later on in [9:33] life. [9:34] But if they've already saved, and they [9:35] have wealth, then they can focus more on [9:38] some of these topics. [9:40] And you've got the the 10 money mistakes [9:42] people make here. [9:43] Can you run me through those ones, and [9:45] just let me know if any of them is [9:47] particularly pertinent or interesting [9:48] that we should dive deeper into? So, [9:50] this this one's controversial. [9:53] It's not earning enough money. [9:56] A A of people feel like they [9:58] don't have an option. That they're not [10:00] earning enough money because that's just [10:02] the way things are and there's nothing [10:04] that they can do about it. [10:05] I don't think that's necessarily true. [10:06] Investing in your human capital, and [10:08] that can be formal education, it can be [10:10] getting skills, it can be becoming an [10:12] entrepreneur. Those are all ways to make [10:14] your your own self [10:17] a more valuable asset, to increase the [10:19] value of your human capital, and allow [10:20] you to earn more money. So, that's [10:22] that's a big one. I think people who get [10:24] stuck in the [10:26] in the feeling or the thought that they [10:28] do not have the ability to increase [10:29] their income, and that this is just the [10:31] way things are, I think that could be [10:33] very problematic. I've always thought of [10:35] it across these sort of five buckets. [10:37] The first two buckets that we attempt to [10:39] fill when we're starting our careers are [10:41] our knowledge and then our skills. And [10:43] kind of like when knowledge is applied, [10:44] it becomes a skill. And these two first [10:46] buckets are so imperative because [10:48] they can almost never be unfilled. [10:51] Whereas the other three buckets, which [10:52] is your resources, your network, and [10:54] your reputation, you can have career [10:56] fluctuations and earthquakes that cause [10:58] those buckets to unfill. So, as like you [11:00] were saying earlier on about young [11:01] people, one of the things I've always [11:02] thought is like when you're young, just [11:03] like optimize for filling your knowledge [11:05] and skills as much as you possibly can. [11:07] And actually, I guess that the level of [11:08] nuance there is acquiring a rare but [11:12] complementary stack of knowledge and [11:14] skills that the market values. And I [11:17] think over the long term, you know, this [11:19] doesn't apply to everybody cuz things [11:20] happen in life and bad things can [11:22] happen, but over the long term, I think [11:24] life tends to land you pretty much in [11:27] and around the value of and the rarity [11:30] and the complement complementarity of [11:32] those knowledge and skills as it relates [11:33] to the market's demands. That's [11:35] absolutely true. There's data on this, [11:37] too, where we know that there is a [11:39] mechanical relationship, at least [11:40] historically. We can talk about the [11:42] future, but historically, there has been [11:43] a mechanical relationship between formal [11:46] education or trade education and [11:48] lifetime earnings. [11:50] And we also know that certain degree [11:52] types, like engineering, finance, [11:54] business, some other sciences have [11:57] higher lifetime earnings than other [11:58] degrees. [11:59] So, it's you're I think you're [12:00] absolutely right. There are and the hard [12:02] part is we don't know what exactly those [12:04] degrees and skills that are going to be [12:05] the highest paying in the future are [12:06] going to be. 10 years ago, we might have [12:08] said software developers. Today, we [12:09] might not. But even you as an example, [12:12] so you did engineering and then you did [12:14] finance. And now you've added this other [12:16] string to your bow, which is you know [12:17] how to make content on YouTube. And that [12:20] makes you as a finance expert and [12:22] professional and CIO so extremely rare. [12:26] It almost makes you like one of [12:28] 100 on planet Earth, maybe. [12:31] And this is what I mean by rare and [12:33] complementary skills. You could have [12:34] just learned more finance. And I don't [12:36] think that would have moved you up this [12:37] sort of earning ladder. But because you [12:39] added this really rare skill of being [12:41] able to make content to your other skill [12:44] stack, I'm guessing it made you money. [12:47] It did. It has and I I continue to be [12:49] paid well and, you know, it was [12:53] Please don't, but if you were to go back [12:54] and watch my old videos, which are still [12:56] up, I'm so rigid and nervous and I when [13:00] I was. And it took probably years of [13:02] recording and we do a podcast, too, so [13:04] just being in front of the camera for me [13:06] to feel pretty good. I mean, I it [13:08] probably took me 3 years to smile on [13:10] camera. Really? [13:11] >> [laughter] [13:12] >> So, yes, that was a skill that I [13:13] acquired through just practice, I guess. [13:16] So, I say this because I really want [13:18] people to think about how rare their [13:19] skill stack is. It's not something we're [13:21] taught. And then also, one of the things [13:22] I noticed, I used to work in a a biotech [13:24] company for a little while while I was [13:26] in between things. And we were looking [13:28] for a writer, a biotech writer. [13:30] Now, the other writers that we'd hired [13:32] at our other companies might have been [13:34] paid, I don't know, $50,000, whatever it [13:35] is. For a biotech writer, we would pay [13:38] them a quarter of a million. And all the [13:40] only difference is the biotech writer [13:42] had like some base They didn't have to [13:44] go to medical school. They just needed [13:46] experience in writing about biotech. [13:48] Yeah. And it 5x their earnings. So, this [13:51] other point is, you might have a skill [13:52] stack, but are you selling them on the [13:55] right market? And even me, first part of [13:58] my career was marketing. I was helping [14:00] Uber and fizzy drinks company and dress [14:03] seller company sell their dresses. [14:05] As I just said, the second little stop I [14:08] took in my career was helping biotech [14:10] companies with marketing that are about [14:12] to IPO. [14:13] >> [laughter] [14:14] >> My first contract with one of those [14:15] companies was worth 8 million, 6 months' [14:17] work. [14:18] And I it made it was a real pivotal [14:20] moment in my career where I go, it's not [14:22] just the skills you have, it's like [14:23] where you the market and industry where [14:25] you sell those skills can wildly change [14:28] your your, as you say on that card, your [14:30] earning potential. Yeah. And as you say, [14:32] that this is something that you don't [14:34] have full control over because you could [14:36] do all those things and not find work as [14:37] a biotech writer, but putting yourself [14:39] in that position, I think, does increase [14:40] the odds. What's the second one you've [14:42] got there? [14:43] Second one is not saving enough. [14:48] Touched on this a little bit. Young [14:49] people maybe don't need to save, but at [14:51] some point, you do have to start saving. [14:53] And the tricky thing about saving is [14:55] that wealth compounds over time. [14:57] And if you're not saving enough, you're [14:58] missing out on compounding and it gets a [15:00] lot harder to catch up with the amount [15:02] of savings you would have otherwise had [15:04] if you'd started earlier. [15:06] So, that's a big one. And some people [15:08] will wake up when they're 50, 55, maybe [15:11] even 60 and realize they haven't saved [15:13] enough. But by that time, [15:15] there's nothing that you can do about it [15:16] or very little that you can do about it. [15:18] There's a lot of parallels with health [15:19] here where [15:55] [laughter] [16:56] [clears throat] [18:04] if you eat poorly and don't exercise, [18:06] you can [18:06] >> that [18:07] positive emotion [18:09] is one big piece of it. What does that [18:10] mean? It's literally enjoying what [18:12] you're doing and feeling good throughout [18:13] the day. Engagement, [18:15] you could probably argue that we're [18:17] getting some of that right now where [18:18] you're doing something that you enjoy [18:20] doing that's maybe a little bit [18:21] challenging, but it's your skill level. [18:23] It's the idea of getting into flow. [18:25] I I know I get that when I do podcast [18:28] interviews, when I do research, when I'm [18:29] sitting down and and writing a video [18:30] script. Mhm. Relationships [18:32] [clears throat] is is having good, [18:33] strong relationships with with people [18:36] who are close to you in your life and [18:37] that can be friends, it can be family [18:38] members, it can be colleagues. [18:40] Meaning is being part of something that [18:42] is bigger than yourself. [18:44] That can be a lot of different things. [18:45] For some people, it's religion. For some [18:47] people, it's community. For some people, [18:48] it's their own business. Mhm. [18:51] And accomplishment is achieving hard [18:54] things. Setting goals and achieving [18:56] them. [18:57] You're going to look at the items of the [18:58] PERMA model. You're going to look at [19:00] those as categories and think about what [19:02] other goals you may have that fit into [19:03] those categories. [19:05] That's called a categorical prompt. And [19:07] again, there's evidence behind that [19:08] helping people elicit more meaningful [19:10] goals. [19:11] So, one of the things I said is buy a [19:12] Ferrari. Again, these aren't my goals, I [19:13] don't care about Ferraris, but in case [19:14] they want to sponsor the podcast, then I [19:16] care about Ferraris. [19:17] But say the Ferrari thing, [19:19] do do I have to find where it sits with [19:21] in terms of positive emotion, [19:22] engagement, relationships, meaning, [19:24] accomplishment? It would be wise to and [19:25] this is why I think this framework is so [19:27] important because you might realize that [19:29] a Ferrari does not contribute to any of [19:30] these things. It might, though. [19:32] Like maybe you take it to the track and [19:33] you spend hours racing it. And that [19:36] would be engagement. [19:36] >> engagement. [19:38] Maybe you have a bunch of buddies who [19:39] have Ferraris and you want to be part of [19:40] that friend group. [19:42] So, that's relationships. Yeah. Okay. I [19:44] mean, positive emotions, but that might [19:45] only last a couple of days. Yeah, what's [19:46] the hedonic treadmill idea? That's [19:48] exactly it. Yeah. [19:49] And then accomplishment, I mean, it's [19:52] not really an acco- If it was a goal [19:53] that you've had since you were 5 years [19:55] old, maybe that you could call that [19:56] accomplishment, maybe. Okay, so I fit my [19:59] my financial goals, my life goals into [20:01] the PERMA model as a way to understand [20:04] what my financial goals should be. Yeah. [20:07] Okay. How many people in the general [20:09] public do you think have actually [20:10] thought about what a good life for them [20:12] looks like? Not enough. Not many. I [20:14] think everyone's people are so busy with [20:16] their day-to-day lives. I know this is [20:18] true for me and my family, too. It's [20:20] really, really hard to step back and [20:22] have this kind of thoughtful discussion [20:24] about what you actually want your life [20:25] to look like. [20:27] Cuz I was just thinking about that. I [20:28] was thinking I don't even know if I've [20:29] got um really clearly defined life goals [20:32] for myself. Like I think most of us just [20:34] kind of act on how we feel. Yeah. [20:37] And that can somewhat drift us towards [20:40] the short-term. Like if I just [20:42] Yeah, what what's going to make me feel [20:43] good today? [20:44] And do that every day. I don't know. [20:47] Some might argue that you have to be a [20:48] bit more long-term thinking. [20:50] It can help. It can help, right? Cuz it [20:51] it it can help you from making decisions [20:53] that you might regret in the future. [20:55] Mhm. Yeah, cuz when I look at this PERMA [20:57] model, there's some things on here that [20:58] I've optimized for, which have [20:59] sacrificed the other things that I care [21:00] >> That's it. That's it. Yeah. Like you [21:02] might have I might have over-indexed on [21:03] this, like [21:04] achieving things, but might have cost me [21:06] some relationships. [21:08] So what's the fourth mistake people [21:10] make? Yeah, so this is related to what [21:11] we were just talking about, but it's [21:13] it's overspending on the wrong things. [21:15] Okay. [21:17] When you think about what is a good life [21:18] for you, and you realize if you realize [21:21] that you're spending on things that are [21:22] not contributing to that, which is [21:24] resulting in you not being able to save [21:26] toward things that would contribute to [21:28] what you want your life to look like, [21:30] that's probably not a great position to [21:31] find yourself in. [21:32] So that could be spending $12 on a an [21:35] iced coffee every morning and not [21:37] enjoying it, cuz you could get positive [21:39] emotion out of that. But you're like [21:40] rushing to work, chugging down the $12 [21:42] coffee every day. [21:43] That's probably not contributing to a [21:45] good life. [21:47] Number five might be [21:50] one of the bigger ones, [21:53] which is not taking investment risks. [21:57] And that's really the stock market has [21:59] delivered these incredible long-term [22:01] returns, and on expectation, it should [22:03] continue delivering strong returns for [22:06] investors. Not participating that in [22:08] that is a huge mistake, and it's a [22:10] mistake that many, many people make. A [22:12] lot of people don't invest in stocks at [22:13] all, [22:14] and a lot of people who do invest in the [22:16] stock market don't invest enough in [22:17] stocks. They have very conservative [22:19] portfolios. And that has a very large [22:22] implicit cost. By not participating in [22:24] the stock market when you could be, [22:26] you're giving up a huge amount of of [22:28] economic gain. [22:29] How do you quantify that for the average [22:30] person in terms of what kind of gain [22:33] they're giving up, or the size of the [22:34] gain they're giving up? Well, you can [22:35] look at the historical returns on [22:37] stocks, [22:38] uh and you can also look at the expected [22:40] returns [22:41] on stocks. So let's say it's uh let's [22:43] say it's 7% [22:45] that we expect stocks to turn in the [22:47] long run. [22:48] And if you could get 2% by sitting in [22:52] cash, that 5% difference is your [22:54] opportunity cost of not investing in the [22:56] stock market when you otherwise could [22:57] be. [22:58] And 5% compounded over the long term is [23:01] enormous. [23:03] So say I have $10,000 [23:06] uh and I invest it [23:09] in [23:10] the stock market, and I'm getting what [23:11] did you say, 8%? 7 Say 7%. [23:14] How much money is that? [23:17] Let's have a look. [23:19] So I've done $10,000, which is what we [23:22] have here. Mhm. Invested in the stock [23:23] market at 7% return over 40 years, [23:26] that would be $150,000. [23:31] Do you know what's um Do you know what's [23:33] quite scary when I think about that? Is [23:34] does that kind of means that today if I [23:36] spend $10,000, I'm actually spending [23:39] $150,000. [23:41] Yes. [23:43] Which makes me not want to spend any [23:44] money on anything. Yeah. [23:46] Cuz if you buy I don't know what cost 10 [23:47] What does What cost $10,000? Like a a [23:49] car, small car? Yeah, maybe. Yeah. [23:51] You're actually spending $150,000 [23:54] when you factor in the fact that if you [23:55] put that $10,000 into the stock market, [23:58] you could have made 7% a year, and it [23:59] would have turned into $150,000. Yeah, [24:01] that's that's one side of the coin. [24:03] Yeah, I think you also have to think [24:04] about any enjoyment or utility that you [24:07] get out of that car. If that car lets [24:08] you drive to a job you couldn't have [24:10] otherwise done, [24:12] it may have a significant economic value [24:13] to you in the long run. [24:15] As one example. You know, I've got a [24:17] coffee here. Some people spend [24:19] $10 on a cup of coffee with frappachappa [24:22] toppings and all that stuff. [24:23] Looking at that over the long term, [24:26] in 40 years, if you'd not bought that [24:28] coffee and put it into the stock market [24:30] and got just 7% return, [24:32] you would have had $150. [24:35] So when you buy that $10 coffee, you're [24:37] actually theoretically [24:39] spending $150 in 40 years' time. [24:41] So you better really enjoy the coffee. [24:44] Is there a bit of a fear that it makes [24:45] us not want to spend money on [24:46] anything, and therefore we end up having [24:48] a shitty life in the near term? No, I I [24:50] think that's why this this framework [24:52] That's why the the PERMA framework for [24:53] thinking about these decisions is so [24:54] important, because you do want to have [24:56] positive emotion and engagement, [24:58] relationships, meaning, and [24:59] accomplishment. Those are all really, [25:00] really important. And yes, that money [25:02] could be worth more in the future, but [25:04] it can also be a worth a lot today if [25:06] you're optimizing on the right things. [25:09] What else? Number six. [25:11] It's another big one. So not taking [25:12] enough risk is is important. Taking the [25:14] wrong risks with your investments. [25:17] So I we we just ran some numbers about a [25:19] 7% stock market return. You can [25:22] basically get that using an index fund. [25:25] The problem is a lot of people don't [25:26] invest in index funds. [25:28] They pick individual stocks hoping to [25:31] earn really high returns. They trade [25:33] individual stock options. Uh they trade [25:35] crypto tokens and all that kind of [25:37] stuff. And a lot of those types of risks [25:39] have negative expected returns, or they [25:41] have high costs if you're doing a lot of [25:43] trading. [25:44] And that can really erode long-term [25:46] investment growth. [25:49] What about buying a house? [25:52] Is that a good investment? [25:54] I wouldn't consider buying a house to [25:55] live in an investment. It's sort It's [25:58] sort of is. You get an asset, [26:01] but you're really you're buying an asset [26:03] that funds your housing consumption. It [26:05] kind of pays you a dividend that's sort [26:08] of like getting rent [26:10] from the house that you own. [26:12] When you do the side-by-side comparison, [26:13] which I think is the only way to think [26:14] about this, [26:15] if you compare buying a house, so that [26:18] means in Canada, you'd usually save up [26:21] for a 20% down payment. So you put 20% [26:23] down on your house. [26:25] Uh you take out a mortgage to finance [26:26] the rest. [26:27] You know, living in the house, you're [26:28] paying your mortgage payment, you're [26:30] paying for some maintenance costs, [26:31] you're paying for property taxes. [26:33] Alternatively, you could have rented the [26:36] house. That 20% that went into buying a [26:39] home could have been invested in the [26:41] stock market. So again, we're back to [26:42] the idea of opportunity costs. [26:44] And the other important thing here is [26:45] that renting typically has lower cash [26:48] flow costs than owning. So these are the [26:51] unrecoverable costs [26:53] of owning a home. [26:55] Mortgage interest. [26:56] So that's when you buy a house and you [26:57] borrow to to fund the purchase, you're [26:59] paying interest to the bank. That's a I [27:01] I call these unrecoverable costs. That's [27:03] money that you're paying [27:04] for the use of money in this case, and [27:06] you're not going to get those dollars [27:07] back. It's gone. [27:12] Opportunity costs. So that's what I just [27:14] mentioned. Whatever equity you have in a [27:16] home [27:17] is equity that you could have otherwise [27:19] invested in the stock market. The [27:21] capital portion, the principal, the the [27:23] price of homes has increased around [27:27] inflation at the rate of inflation, [27:28] maybe a little bit higher historically. [27:30] Stocks have far outpaced [27:32] inflation. So by having money sitting in [27:35] a house as opposed to invested in the [27:37] stock market, you have what is called an [27:39] opportunity cost. [27:40] You're not earning returns you could [27:42] have otherwise been earning. [27:43] So that opportunity cost is one of the [27:45] largest costs of owning a home. [27:49] So I mean, the mortgage interest, [27:51] the opportunity cost of equity, [27:54] property taxes are another big [27:55] unrecoverable cost. Property taxes vary [27:57] depending on where you are, but it's say [27:59] between 0.5% and 1%. Maybe some [28:02] sometimes a little bit higher. You get [28:04] utilities and some services in exchange [28:06] for it, but it's again, it's an [28:06] unrecoverable cost. You pay that, you've [28:08] got nothing left afterwards. [28:11] And then you've got maintenance costs. [28:13] Oh, this is the annoying one. This is [28:14] the It's It's the annoying one, and it's [28:16] the one that I think people [28:17] underestimate the most. [28:18] >> Mhm. [28:19] I started making content about renting [28:21] versus owning a home years ago. [28:23] I used to say 1% was a reasonable [28:25] estimate of maintenance costs, and [28:26] people would push back and say that's [28:27] way too high. There's a bunch of [28:29] academic literature on this, too, that's [28:31] says it could well be over 2%. I think [28:33] that's probably a more reasonable [28:34] estimate. [28:35] Having been a homeowner now for 6 years [28:38] after renting prior to that, [28:40] I'm fairly confident, at least in my [28:41] case, that maintenance costs are far [28:43] higher than 1 or 2% of the property [28:45] value per year. Yeah, I mean, I I bought [28:47] my first home a a while ago, and uh [28:51] hell, I I didn't think about the [28:52] gardening, and the pool pump gets [28:54] broken, and then [28:56] there's a crack in the the patio [28:57] outside, and then the heating system [28:59] breaks, and then [29:00] everything just seems to break. [29:02] >> And it's always breaking. It's always [29:03] breaking. Every time I go back there, [29:05] which is it's in a different country, [29:06] I'm the first week I'm just spent [29:08] looking at the things that have broken [29:09] since I was last year. Like making a [29:11] list of the new expenses, and it's never [29:13] cheap. No. And if I was renting, that [29:16] wouldn't be my problem. No. There's also [29:18] like another cost here which we don't [29:19] talk about, which is like the time you [29:21] waste [29:23] on the maintenance. Like when we think [29:27] of maintenance cost, I imagine people [29:28] are thinking about the fees to fix [29:30] things, but actually the time I spend [29:32] having phone calls and speaking to [29:34] people, for me is is worth a lot more [29:36] than just the costs. [29:38] But anyway, yeah, maintenance cost. [29:39] Yeah, the coordination is huge, and you [29:41] could outsource that, but that would be [29:43] expensive, and [29:45] depending on how valuable your time is, [29:46] it could make sense to outsource it. But [29:48] I I agree with you. I do the same thing. [29:49] I spend time on the phone finding which [29:51] contractor is going to come in and fix [29:52] this thing. [29:54] And then you have to wait for them, and [29:55] then maybe they're late. [29:57] Yeah. [29:58] So, that's maintenance costs. [30:00] We have emergency cost here, which is [30:02] really uh a subset of maintenance costs. [30:04] So, you can have big things, like the [30:05] roof needs to be redone, or the [30:07] foundation cracks, whatever. Those can [30:09] be very significant. And one of the [30:11] challenges with those types of big costs [30:13] is that you kind of have to have [30:14] liquidity available to fund them. [30:17] And that means that you have to have [30:18] cash sitting somewhere, or at least some [30:21] liquid assets sitting somewhere. So, [30:22] probably not invested in the stock [30:24] market, which also has an implied cost [30:26] to it. [30:27] Which is more opportunity cost, right? [30:28] >> More more opportunity cost, exactly. And [30:29] then this one's this one's interesting. [30:32] And And this is one that I don't think I [30:33] appreciated until I owned my own home, [30:35] which is renovation spending. [30:37] We talked on maintenance. When you fix [30:39] something in your house, [30:40] you don't just fix it to get it back to [30:42] the baseline level that it was at [30:43] before. Yeah. [30:44] >> You make it a little bit nicer. You're [30:45] right. I never did that when I was [30:47] renting. So, the side-by-side. So, you [30:50] run the side-by-side comparison. [30:52] You account for all of those [30:52] unrecoverable costs that the owner has. [30:54] You account for the renter investing in [30:56] the stock market and investing the cost [30:58] difference, the cash flow cost [30:59] difference between renting and owning [31:01] each month or or whatever frequency. [31:03] And what you'll find, and I've done this [31:05] with projections, so looking at expected [31:08] stock returns and expected real estate [31:09] appreciation, you can very easily show [31:11] that there is an equivalence. [31:13] There is a level of rent [31:16] where you are indifferent between [31:17] renting and owning. I did a video years [31:19] ago that has millions of views now, [31:22] where I I came up with this idea called [31:23] the 5% rule. [31:25] So, I took some of those costs. I took [31:26] property taxes, maintenance costs, and [31:29] the cost of capital, which is the the [31:31] opportunity cost and the cost of of [31:33] borrowing. [31:35] I wrapped all that up and said, "We've [31:37] got roughly 1% for property taxes, [31:39] roughly 1% for maintenance costs, which [31:41] is probably way too low as we just [31:42] talked about." And I said 3% for [31:44] opportunity cost, which I think is also [31:46] on the on the low end. [31:47] And you put all that together and you [31:49] get 5%. So, I said, "Okay, if you divide [31:53] the price of a home by 5% and then [31:56] divide that number by by 12, you will [31:58] get the monthly rent that has equivalent [32:01] that is equivalent to the unrecoverable [32:03] cost of owning that home." [32:05] Okay, so let's do that. [32:07] So, I'm thinking of buying a $300,000 [32:09] house. [32:10] What what's the math that I need to do [32:11] to fit figure out if it's better to [32:13] rent? Multiply by 5%. And then divide by [32:15] by by divide that by 12. [32:17] Divide it by 12. Okay. You're brave. I [32:19] usually have a rule to never do math [32:21] live on a podcast. [32:22] >> edit, so just [32:23] >> [laughter] [32:25] >> Okay, the result is 1,250. [32:28] There you go. 1,250 is the equivalent [32:31] rent where you're roughly break even [32:33] between renting and owning. So, if I [32:35] could rent for 1,250 instead, [32:37] >> or less, or less, I should rent. [32:40] Renting is a better financial decision. [32:42] So, this is an important part of this [32:43] topic. We can show financial [32:45] equivalence. And then just that is [32:47] important. Like, we can show that there [32:48] is financial equivalence between renting [32:49] and owning. I've done more [32:52] uh robust versions of of this analysis [32:54] since then. We have PWL has a calculator [32:56] on our website where you can see the the [32:58] break even by putting specific numbers [32:59] in instead of just doing the rough rule [33:01] of thumb, [33:02] cuz things will change it. For example, [33:03] if your asset allocation is more [33:05] conservative or more aggressive, that [33:07] opportunity cost number can be [33:08] different. [33:09] If you're a taxable investor, meaning [33:11] that you're taxed on your investment [33:13] gains by investing in the stock market [33:15] or the bond market, your opportunity [33:16] cost decreases because the after-tax [33:19] expected return on stocks and bonds [33:20] decreases relative to uh homeownership. [33:23] 5% is a very rough rule of [33:26] rule of thumb. Do you think for the [33:28] average young person, let's say [33:29] someone's under 25 years old, they [33:32] should, and they're thinking about [33:33] building their wealth over the long [33:34] term, do you think they should buy be [33:36] buying a house [33:37] as an investment, or should they be [33:39] doing something else? I think for young [33:41] people it's really tough, and it's tough [33:42] for a couple reasons. One is because [33:44] home prices are high. You have to save [33:46] up a lot of money to buy a house. [33:47] Another one is that it can limit your [33:49] mobility. We've seen in in Toronto, in [33:52] Canada, where I'm from, [33:54] uh prices, condo prices in particular, [33:56] have plummeted. They've fallen off of a [33:58] cliff. If you bought a condo in Toronto [34:01] and you get a job offer somewhere [34:03] outside of Canada, [34:04] what are you going to do with that condo [34:06] that's that's at a big loss? Mhm. [34:08] >> You're kind of stuck. Yeah. Or you're [34:10] have to try to rent it out, and now [34:11] you've got this this just difficult [34:13] situation to deal with. And plus there [34:15] are big transaction costs if you're if [34:17] you're selling a place. So, for young [34:19] people, I do think that homeownership [34:20] can be tricky because it can limit your [34:22] mobility, [34:23] your your ability to go and find maybe [34:25] higher-paying work. It introduces a risk [34:27] that you probably don't need in your [34:29] life because you may end up moving [34:31] somewhere else. [34:33] And then people often move up where they [34:36] want a condo today, but they're going to [34:37] want a house later. For my family, I I [34:39] met my wife, I was renting a place. The [34:41] first place we met in, the second place, [34:43] the third place, and a fourth place. [34:45] We're at the four different places as we [34:46] were having our family. We have four [34:48] kids. And so, our needs were changing [34:49] over time. We needed a bigger a bigger [34:51] condo, and then we had a townhouse, then [34:53] we had a house. Uh but we just [34:56] the lease ended and we gave notice and [34:58] we left. We found a better rental that [34:59] was more suitable for our needs. If we [35:01] had been homeowners, the amount we would [35:02] have paid in transaction costs to do [35:04] that would have been insane. Or we would [35:06] have had to buy the house that we were [35:07] going to have forever much earlier, [35:09] which would have introduced significant [35:10] opportunity costs. That's one of those [35:12] things that's just impossible to measure [35:13] in because it's so intangible, but like [35:15] the psychology of feeling like you can't [35:19] easily move. [35:20] And I see this a lot actually with [35:22] people that apply for jobs in our [35:23] company is [35:25] in the interview process they'll say, [35:26] "Well, I've just bought a house in [35:28] insert city." [35:29] And you can see this that sort of [35:30] psychology is is um holding them back [35:33] from taking an opportunity because [35:35] they've made a an investment in a [35:36] particular city. [35:38] And so, they might lose, as you say, [35:40] like an opportunity in New York or LA or [35:42] London because [35:44] mentally they feel committed to a place. [35:46] Yeah. Now, the flip side of that is that [35:48] if you're really sure that you wanted to [35:51] stay in one place, [35:52] one of the best ways to accomplish that [35:54] is by Who can be sure? [35:55] >> Yeah, you can't. But if if someone was [35:58] really sure, maybe someone has maybe [35:59] like me. I have four kids, they're all [36:01] in the same school. It's very unlikely [36:03] that we would move. The other big [36:05] mistake I think I made is I bought a [36:06] holiday home. [36:08] That was a terrible Well, [36:09] I shouldn't say terrible idea, but kind [36:11] of a terrible idea. In part because of [36:12] the same reason, in part because it [36:13] means you only go you only go on holiday [36:15] to one place. [36:16] >> [laughter] [36:16] >> Which is like defeats the point of a [36:18] holiday. Yeah. And it's I have not done [36:21] that, and the main reason is the mental [36:22] overhead. I don't like [36:24] having to think about one [36:26] property. Mhm. [36:27] >> [clears throat] [36:28] >> I can't imagine having to think about a [36:29] second one [36:30] that I'm not at. [36:31] >> That's a dumb idea. I don't know why I [36:32] did that. [36:33] I don't know why I did it, especially [36:34] when you're like young. It's like [36:36] the whole point is you can still walk up [36:37] mountains and do things. You don't want [36:39] to be sitting in a in the same house at [36:40] >> Yeah. [36:41] Are homeowners happier than renters? [36:44] Mhm. [36:46] Depends how you slice the data. [36:49] If you control for property types and [36:51] neighborhoods and all that kind of [36:52] stuff, no, [36:54] they're not. If you don't control for [36:55] those things, I think owned homes do [36:57] tend to be a little bit nicer and and [36:59] better maintained. They do tend to be in [37:01] better neighborhoods. So, uncontrolled, [37:04] renters are a little bit less happy. [37:05] There's a There's multiple studies on [37:07] this. Statistics Canada has a really [37:09] good one that does exactly that. They [37:10] have controlled and uncontrolled life [37:12] satisfaction differences for renters and [37:14] owners. If you're a professional who is [37:16] thinking about buying a house in a nice [37:18] neighborhood or renting a nice house in [37:20] a nice neighborhood, [37:22] it's unlikely that you'll be happier in [37:24] either case. [37:25] If you are forced to be a renter in a [37:27] not very nice neighborhood because all [37:29] you can afford, you may be less happy, [37:32] but it's not necessarily the renting [37:33] that's making you less happy. Is there [37:35] any particular group of people that you [37:36] think should be buying a house? Yeah, so [37:38] people who are very risk-averse, people [37:40] who want to stay in one place for a very [37:42] long time, because they have a family or [37:44] something. [37:44] >> Yep. Yeah. And you don't want to be [37:45] priced out of of of the market that you [37:47] live in. This did happen in in some [37:48] cities in Canada in recent history. It's [37:50] now reversed, [37:52] but there were people who were getting [37:53] priced out of their market. They've been [37:55] renters for a long time, and rents went [37:57] up so quickly that they they just [37:59] couldn't keep pace. And it depends on [38:01] your rental market. Some rental markets [38:02] are controlled where that's less of an [38:04] issue. So, you do have to think about [38:05] things like that. But yeah, if you want [38:07] to stay in one place, owning your home [38:09] is is the way to do that. But it's a [38:12] double-edged sword because if you [38:13] realize you want to leave, [38:15] you might be [38:16] you might be stuck. Uh and then the [38:18] other big one for who should own a home [38:20] is it a taxable investors with with high [38:22] tax rates. And again, that comes back to [38:24] the opportunity cost, where if you're [38:26] paying a lot of tax on your investments, [38:28] whereas real estate tends to be tax [38:30] preferred. In Canada, gains on your [38:31] primary residence are tax free. [38:33] US has a I believe an amount. And so, [38:36] that's that's another thing to think [38:37] about, where the opportunity cost [38:38] changes depending on your specific tax [38:40] situation. When we have these [38:41] conversations about buying a house or [38:43] not buying a house, one of the things I [38:44] see a lot in the comment section is [38:45] people um sharing their case studies of [38:48] them buying a house 30 years ago, and [38:50] now it went from [38:52] being worth $100,000 to $600,000. [38:55] And they're they're asserting that [38:57] that's evidence that it's a good idea. [38:59] You probably see this a lot. [39:01] >> is this is the thing. This is the [39:02] example. Uh and then everyone has the [39:04] family member that bought a house for [39:06] $70,000 and sold it for a million. I'm [39:09] just going to read you the top four [39:10] comments, and I'd like to get your [39:11] response on them. Now, the first one is, [39:13] "The not buying a house does not work in [39:15] the UK as 90% of rents are higher than a [39:17] mortgage cost. Also, if you want to [39:19] start a family, you need a stable place [39:21] to raise your children. [39:23] And with renting, you can be kicked out [39:25] within a few months' notice, and your [39:26] whole life could be turned upside down." [39:30] I personally think there are ways around [39:32] that, and I as I mentioned earlier, I [39:33] did rent for 6 years of my life with a [39:36] wife and an increasing number of kids. [39:39] The two things that I always made sure [39:41] to do were to rent from professional [39:43] landlords. [39:44] We did have one experience renting from [39:46] a a sort of mom-and-pop person who had [39:48] bought a condo and rented it out. [39:50] And that that wasn't great. But after [39:52] that we we were very careful about [39:53] vetting our landlords and only renting [39:55] from professionals. And then the other [39:57] thing that we did, which addresses at [39:59] least in Canada, addresses one of the [40:01] other points there, is we would sign [40:03] long leases. [40:04] If we want to stay in a house for a few [40:05] years, we would sign a multi-year lease. [40:08] And landlords do tend to to like that. [40:10] The other point that was was in there [40:11] that I think is really important is that [40:13] rents are higher than mortgage payments. [40:16] I think this is one of the biggest [40:17] mistakes that people make when they're [40:18] making the rent versus own comparison is [40:20] they'll say, this is my mortgage [40:22] payment, this is my rent. If the [40:24] mortgage payment is lower, [40:26] owning must be better. [40:27] But that's not the case. As we talked [40:28] about a minute ago, you have property [40:31] taxes, maintenance costs, potential [40:33] renovation spending that you wouldn't do [40:35] otherwise, and the opportunity cost of [40:37] of capital. When you add all that up, [40:39] the cost of owning a home is far more [40:43] than the mortgage payment. [40:44] This guy here said, I bought a house, [40:46] it's the best thing I ever did. It's [40:47] launched my mindset in new directions. [40:49] Remember that having your own space has [40:52] profound psychological impact and can be [40:55] life-changing for some of us [40:58] that want to live in a healthy [41:00] environment. [41:01] What do you make of that point? If it [41:03] have profound psychological impact. [41:05] >> If someone believes that it does, and [41:07] they've really taken the time to reflect [41:09] on their life and has decided that yes, [41:11] it it is in fact true that it has a had [41:13] a profound psychological impact, of [41:15] course that person should own a home. [41:17] Of course they should. Is it [41:18] Is it true for everybody? [41:21] I don't think so. Don said, my [41:22] experience, I purchased a house in 2013 [41:25] with 20% down payment deposit. My total [41:27] payment including taxes, insurance, HOA [41:31] home owners insurance? [41:32] >> Yeah, yeah. insurance. Um is $1,800 [41:36] a month. As of today, the exact same [41:38] house is renting for $4,000. The [41:40] property value has also gone up 3x. I'm [41:43] glad I bought my house. [41:44] Yes. So there are cases where [41:47] it a real estate allows you to use [41:49] leverage very easily as as Don [41:51] mentioned. [41:52] And if you end up buying in a market [41:53] that goes up a lot in a short period of [41:55] time, it can be really really good. [41:57] However, and this is what we've seen in [41:59] Canada more recently, it hasn't touched [42:01] other markets yet, although of course [42:02] the US has had their own declines and so [42:04] have other countries, but Canada is [42:06] right now in one of the biggest real [42:08] estate price drawdowns, when you adjust [42:10] for inflation, going back to 1975. [42:13] And so if you had bought, yes, 7 years [42:16] ago, [42:17] and then, well, and then looked at the [42:18] price in 2022, you'd think, wow, I'm a [42:20] genius. Of course everybody should buy. [42:22] But if you had bought in, I think it's [42:24] 2021 was the was the kind of peak, and [42:26] you look at it today, you're thinking [42:28] like, wow, I've ruined my life. [42:30] >> [laughter] [42:31] >> So yes, there are examples like that, [42:32] for sure. But that that is not what [42:34] people should expect every time that [42:35] they purchase a home. [42:37] So are you saying that the future is not [42:38] going to be as [42:40] like as the past? Uh for this I know the [42:43] Canadian market best, but I think these [42:45] it generalizes outside of Canada. Where [42:47] we've seen record decreasing interest [42:50] rates. So that's that's changed a little [42:51] bit now, but for a period of time we had [42:52] interest rates going down down down. In [42:54] Canada we had a ton of immigration. I [42:56] have no problem with [42:58] immigrants, uh but we had levels of [43:00] immigration that were just not [43:01] compatible with the amount of housing [43:02] that we had in in Canada, which was [43:04] contributing to prices going [43:06] up. We we have have housing supply just [43:08] not growing uh quickly enough, which are [43:10] all things that Canada is addressing [43:11] now, but all that causes price cause [43:13] prices to go crazy, which is I think why [43:15] they've come down in such an extreme [43:17] way. So I'm not I'm not saying [43:18] necessarily that we're never going to [43:20] see high house prices again or house [43:22] prices going up at an extreme rate [43:23] again, but in Canada at least, that has [43:25] now normalized or at least started to [43:29] normalize. I don't think it's reasonable [43:30] to expect stock-like returns from real [43:34] estate forever, even though we did see [43:35] that for for some years. [43:37] So for most people then you think, if [43:39] their goal is to make money and they [43:41] care about mobility, being able to get [43:43] up and go if opportunity arises, [43:45] a better investment decision would [43:47] probably be just investing in an index [43:48] fund [43:50] which gives you exposure to the stock [43:51] market. Yeah, though I think the [43:53] mobility piece is key there, because [43:54] remember, just from a wealth [43:55] perspective, we can show that hey, these [43:57] are pretty close to equivalent. Mhm. [43:59] >> [clears throat] [43:59] >> But if mobility matters to you, yeah, I [44:00] think that that matters a lot. If you [44:02] have unique investment opportunities, [44:04] that that can be another reason where [44:05] your opportunity cost is really high. [44:07] Like I had an opportunity to buy equity [44:09] in my company years ago, [44:11] and [44:13] if I had been a homeowner at the I think [44:15] I actually had just bought a house, and [44:16] I think I even had to reduce the amount [44:17] of equity I bought because our I think [44:19] our well pump broke like around the same [44:22] anyway, it was a whole thing. [44:23] >> isn't it? [44:24] >> But that's like there's opportunity cost [44:25] in the stock market, which is, you know, [44:27] call it 7% or whatever, but there's [44:29] other opportunity costs that can be a [44:30] lot higher like in that specific [44:32] situation. [44:34] And the next one there is number seven. [44:37] Yeah. [44:38] Missing tax planning opportunities. [44:40] This is something I think I think people [44:41] just don't think enough about, [44:44] but it's not terribly complex, but there [44:48] are some simple things that people can [44:49] do to minimize the amount of tax they're [44:51] playing paying. For most people, it's [44:53] just optimally using things like in [44:55] Canada we have the RRSP and the TFSA, in [44:57] the US it's the the Roth and traditional [45:00] IRA and and 401Ks. Uh using those things [45:03] optimally make a lot of sense. So then [45:05] the rest other types of tax planning [45:08] tend to get more country-specific. There [45:10] tend to be lots of things for [45:11] particularly for higher income people [45:12] that you can do to pay a little bit less [45:14] tax. And I think What about for lower [45:15] income people? [45:17] For lower income people, the government [45:19] accounts that are provided uh are [45:21] >> ISA in the UK? [45:22] >> Yeah, exactly. Those are probably the [45:24] best thing for people to be focusing on. [45:26] But even then, I don't like people are [45:27] often not using them optimally. One of [45:29] the things people don't talk about [45:30] enough is all the ways that rich people [45:33] do things to avoid paying tax. [45:35] They have like they hire people so that [45:36] they don't have to pay tax. I hear about [45:38] all these crazy stories of like I've [45:40] started this business on the side here [45:41] so I can get real estate license. And if [45:42] I get a real estate license, I don't [45:44] have to pay the same tax on this thing [45:45] here. And I move the money around here [45:46] and I flip it around there and then I [45:48] don't have to pay any tax. Most people [45:50] like the average people don't have any [45:52] loopholes that they can they jump [45:54] through. Yeah, it's true. [45:56] And even one of the crazy ones I learned [45:58] about when I got some money was that you [46:00] can take a loan against your stocks [46:03] and there's no tax on the loan. [46:05] So if I have a million dollars of [46:07] Facebook stock, I can go to a bank and [46:09] get 500k in cash [46:13] loaned against that stock without having [46:15] to sell it. And then on that 500k, I [46:18] have no tax to pay. [46:19] And I can just hold that Facebook stock. [46:21] When it goes up to 2 million, I can go [46:23] back to the bank and say, give me [46:24] another 500k. You could. But if it goes [46:27] down, you get margin called and you have [46:28] to come up with the cash to [46:30] Don't they just sell? Don't they just [46:31] sell the stock? They might, but then [46:33] you're selling after it's [46:35] come down. So it's not risk-free. But [46:36] yeah, that is a thing that people do. [46:38] I guess everybody could do that, right? [46:39] I mean most people could, if they [46:40] invested in the the S&P 500, they could [46:43] go and get a loan against that [46:45] investment. And that loan would be [46:47] tax-free. Yep, same same rules for [46:50] everybody. But I would still say that [46:52] you're you're taking a lot of risk by [46:53] borrowing money against risky assets [46:55] like that. Mhm. [46:56] Okay, so tax planning, there's nothing [46:58] else to cover there in terms of the [47:00] average person. Yeah, I don't think so. [47:01] But it is an important thing for people [47:02] to think about if thinking about what [47:04] mistakes might I be making in my [47:05] financial plan, [47:07] they should definitely be thinking about [47:08] are there tax planning opportunities [47:09] that that I'm I'm missing. How would [47:10] they find out? [47:12] It's a tough one. A a good CPA. What's a [47:15] CPA? Uh [47:16] uh an accountant. A good tax [47:18] professional should be able to identify [47:19] tax plan planning opportunities for you. [47:21] Good financial planners similarly should [47:23] be able to identify good tax planning [47:25] opportunities for your situation. But as [47:26] you said earlier, the reality is there [47:28] aren't that many things that people can [47:30] be doing. And it's really things that [47:31] you can figure out how to optimize once, [47:34] and then you're kind of set. [47:36] Much of the reason most people haven't [47:37] posted content or built a personal brand [47:39] is because it's hard and it's [47:41] time-consuming. And we're all very very [47:43] busy. And if you've never posted [47:44] something before, [47:46] there's so many factors in your [47:48] psychology that stop you wanting to [47:50] post. What people will think of you. Am [47:52] I doing this right? Is the thing I'm [47:53] saying absolutely stupid? All of these [47:56] result in paralysis, which means you [47:58] don't post and your feed goes bad. [48:01] I'm an investor in a company called Stan [48:03] Store, which you've probably heard me [48:04] talk about. And what they've been [48:05] building is this new tool called Stanley [48:07] that uses AI, looks at your feed, looks [48:09] at your tone of voice, looks at your [48:10] history, looks at your best performing [48:12] posts and tells you what you should [48:14] post, makes those posts for you. You can [48:16] also you just use it for inspiration. [48:18] And sometimes what we need when we're [48:20] thinking about doing a post for our [48:21] social media channels is inspiration. [48:23] Building an audience has fundamentally [48:25] changed my life. And I think it could [48:26] change yours, too. So, I'm inviting you [48:29] to give this new tool a shot and let me [48:31] know what you think. All you have to do [48:33] is search coach.stan.store [48:35] now to get started. I run multiple [48:37] companies that have multiple sales [48:39] teams. And one of the things as a [48:40] founder of a company that's often [48:41] confusing is you find it hard to figure [48:43] out where sales are. So about 10 years [48:46] ago, I started using Pipedrive in my [48:47] former company. And it's also the reason [48:49] why I switched over all of my commercial [48:51] teams in my current media company called [48:52] steven.com to use Pipedrive as well. Not [48:54] only do they sponsor this show, but [48:55] they've been an incredibly effective way [48:57] of scaling our sales engine over the [48:58] years. Pipedrive is an easy-to-use [49:01] intelligent CRM. And at its very core, [49:03] it makes your sales process visible [49:06] through one dashboard, a visual pipeline [49:09] showing every deal, what stage it's in, [49:11] what needs to happen next, and it's all [49:13] in real time with no delay. It doesn't [49:15] magically close the deal for you, of [49:17] course, but it does replace complexity [49:19] with clarity. If you want to join over [49:21] 100,000 companies already using [49:23] Pipedrive, you can use my link for a [49:24] 30-day free trial with no credit card [49:27] payment needed. Head to [49:28] pipedrive.com/ceo [49:31] to get started. That's [49:32] pipedrive.com/ceo. [49:35] I'll see you over there. [49:37] Who does need a financial advisor? [49:40] Probably a lot of people. But the [49:43] financial advice profession has a lot of [49:46] challenges. [49:47] We're chatting about the the sales [49:50] nature of the financial services [49:51] industry. [49:52] And I do think that's a big problem. [49:54] Because if someone's has Here's Ben say, [49:56] "Okay." [49:57] Ben said I should have a financial [49:58] advisor. [49:59] And they go to a bank or they go even to [50:02] some random firm, [50:04] there's a good chance that they're going [50:06] to be sold products they don't need. [50:09] And I don't have a solution for that. [50:10] Like that's a It's It's a difficult [50:12] situation when that is the state of the [50:14] financial advice industry. I guess to [50:17] get around that one might ask their [50:18] friends and family who does their [50:20] financial planning and then go with a [50:22] trusted referral. [50:24] Yeah. But people often trust people that [50:27] aren't giving them great advice. Like [50:28] it's just really It's really [50:29] problematic. [50:31] I I think a lot of people can benefit [50:32] from financial advice. It's just finding [50:34] the right person. And a lot of people [50:36] don't need financial advice because you [50:38] do pay fees for it. What's the next one? [50:40] Number eight. Yeah. Eight is It's [50:42] kind of a similar discussion to what we [50:43] just talked about, but it's it's missing [50:45] out on estate planning. What does that [50:47] mean? [50:48] Figuring out how your assets are going [50:50] to be distributed to the people that you [50:52] want them to or the entities that you [50:54] want them to [50:55] when you die. [50:57] This is an interesting one cuz nobody's [50:58] Well, most people aren't expecting to [51:00] die [51:01] anytime soon. Yeah. So, they haven't [51:03] really thought much about this. [51:05] Yeah. And you know, some might also say, [51:07] "Listen, I'm I'm not going to be here, [51:08] so [51:09] why should I care?" [51:11] Especially people that I guess That's [51:12] the my mindset of someone that doesn't [51:13] have kids, but Yeah. It can cause a lot [51:15] of problems. If you don't think through [51:16] and plan for the way you want your [51:18] estate to be distributed, you can pay a [51:19] lot more tax than you otherwise would [51:21] have. And your estate can go to people [51:24] that you may not have wanted it to go [51:25] to. You can pay more tax. [51:27] If you don't have things set up [51:28] properly. And again, this is going to be [51:30] country specific. But yeah, there [51:32] there's cases where you would pay more [51:33] tax if things were not set up properly [51:35] than if they were. Do you think [51:37] everybody should write a will? [51:39] Everybody that has any dependents should [51:42] write a will. I've heard a an estate [51:43] planning lawyer joke that everybody has [51:45] a will. [51:46] But it's the government's default will, [51:48] which you may not actually agree with. [51:50] It's like prenups. Yeah, kind of like [51:52] that. Yeah. It's exactly like that. You [51:54] could say everybody should have a will [51:55] because it can help from having a big [51:57] mess for other people to clean up. But [51:59] for sure, if you have kids, if you have [52:00] dependents, I think having a will is [52:01] really important. And on that point of [52:03] prenups, number nine is about who you [52:05] marry. [52:07] Yeah, this is this is a tough one. [52:09] It's a tough one because [52:12] I mean, this is front of mind for me [52:13] because as you can see from these [52:14] photos, I just I just uh proposed to my [52:16] fiance. [52:17] >> Yeah. And um I mean, this is not the [52:19] ring, but cuz this is a bit extra. But [52:22] um That's awesome. Oh my god, they put [52:24] my face in the They didn't put my face [52:25] in the box. That's creepy. But yeah, so [52:27] why is this so important who you decide [52:29] to marry as it relates to how rich [52:31] you'll be or or won't be? Well, it's not [52:34] just how rich you'll be, it's how [52:35] satisfied you'll be [52:37] with your life and with your marriage. [52:40] Academic research has identified two [52:42] spending profiles that you can [52:44] categorize people into. One is [52:46] tightwads. [52:47] That's people who don't like to spend [52:48] money. [52:49] And one is spendthrifts. That's people [52:51] who do like to spend money. The names [52:52] are kind of funny, but that's just [52:53] That's what the research calls them. [52:56] And the crazy thing about this is that [52:59] tightwads and spendthrifts are more [53:01] likely to end up marrying each other [53:04] than to marrying someone who has the [53:06] same profile as them. [53:08] So, two A tightwad and a spendthrift are [53:10] more likely to get married than a [53:11] tightwad and a tightwad or a spendthrift [53:13] and a spendthrift. Why do you think that [53:14] is? The the research on this talks just [53:16] about kind of opposites attracting and [53:18] there may be some sort of thrill to the [53:19] to the differences [53:21] um initially. [53:22] But [53:23] tightwads and spendthrifts as they go [53:25] through their marriages do tend to be [53:27] less satisfied [53:29] in their marriages and have more marital [53:30] conflict around money. [53:32] And again, that's based on an academic [53:34] paper. Now, that's the reasons why the [53:37] marriage might not last, but in terms of [53:39] how it might impact your financial [53:41] success [53:42] If you really want to save, if you have [53:44] If you go through your goal-setting [53:46] exercise and your PERMA model [53:48] and you have have a vision for the life [53:50] that you want to live that requires [53:51] saving, and you have a spouse that wants [53:54] to spend a lot of money today [53:56] that can be very, very difficult. It can [53:58] make it a lot harder for you to achieve [53:59] your goals. [54:00] I don't think it's insurmountable. I [54:02] think a tightwad and a spendthrift can [54:04] work. I mean, it's not like all of them [54:05] end up getting divorced. But it does [54:08] require a different level of [54:09] coordination and communication and being [54:11] on the same page. Do you have to speak [54:13] to clients about this often? [54:15] I It It comes up a lot. We have lots of [54:18] clients who were single and end up [54:20] getting in relationships and then [54:21] getting married. And we have to all have [54:22] all kinds of conversations about [54:24] marriage contracts or prenups, um estate [54:26] planning. Do you think everybody should [54:28] get a prenup? Going back to what you [54:29] said earlier, where you said you you If [54:31] you don't write your own, the government [54:32] will give you theirs. Yeah. Which just [54:34] to simplify that [54:36] if you don't write your own prenup [54:38] then you are the default position is the [54:41] government will decide through the law [54:43] how your assets are divided at a time [54:46] when you get when you break up. Problem [54:48] is, people find prenups to be really [54:49] unromantic. That's right. And they also [54:52] think there's an implication that [54:54] we're assuming we're going to break up, [54:55] which is also not so sexy. Right. Do you [54:58] think people should get them? [55:00] If both partners are on the same page [55:02] and comfortable with it, it's not going [55:03] to cause a major rift. And if it does, [55:05] maybe that's a red flag. Do you know [55:06] what I mean? I wouldn't want to cause a [55:07] rift. Do you know what I mean? And it's [55:09] not to say that I'm just keeping all my [55:10] stuff and you're keeping yours. It's [55:12] just to say, "Let's agree now what would [55:14] happen in the like 50% probability that [55:18] this doesn't work out." [55:19] >> Yeah. We've seen both. We've seen [55:20] clients come up with very creative and [55:22] interesting [55:24] marriage contracts that have, you know, [55:25] specific formulas for how things are [55:27] going to work. And depending on how many [55:28] kids they have, it's you know, it's kind [55:29] of an interesting exercise. And in that [55:31] case, it was kind of fun. And they they [55:33] they were engaged in the process. [55:34] And it didn't cause an issue. [55:36] And we've also seen people who did not [55:37] have anything in place and have had [55:40] very bad divorce outcomes from a [55:42] financial perspective. Oh, I had a [55:44] friend go through a divorce recently. [55:45] And he's a very successful person. His [55:48] wife was there from the beginning. She [55:49] took looked after the family while he [55:51] was off gallivanting around the world [55:52] building his his businesses all over the [55:54] place. So, obviously she you know, they [55:57] She's contributed hugely to his success. [55:59] What I noticed though is [56:02] it's destroyed what could have otherwise [56:05] been a good relationship as they [56:07] separated. They now really, really hate [56:09] each other because lawyers have stood in [56:11] between both sides. Yeah. And basically [56:13] caused tension because that's their job. [56:15] They're going to get paid more. And her [56:17] lawyers are incentivized to squeeze [56:19] every single penny they can out of this [56:22] a separation. And so, I think he said [56:24] it'd been like six or seven years since [56:26] they decided to divorce. And he's still [56:28] in court arguing with lawyers [56:31] about how they separate. And it's just [56:33] ruined their relationship. They've got [56:34] two kids. [56:36] You just think, "Gosh, like if you had a [56:37] prenup, this would have been [56:39] quick and it could have saved the [56:40] relationship." Okay. [56:42] Anything else to say on this this point [56:44] of marriage incompatibility? The [56:46] academic research on this does have a a [56:48] short quiz. I don't know if we have it [56:50] kicking around anywhere here. I think [56:51] this is a It's called the tightwad and [56:53] spendthrift quiz developed by [56:55] researchers at Carnegie Mellon and the [56:57] University of Michigan. Yeah. This scale [57:00] measures the pain of paying, the [57:01] emotional distress some people feel when [57:03] spending money. [57:05] Uh and here's a quick DIY version of [57:07] that quiz. Question number one is you [57:09] see a high-quality coat on sale for [57:11] $100, which is usually $300. You need a [57:14] coat and you have the money. Do you buy [57:17] it? Answer A, no. $100 is still a lot of [57:19] money. I'll wait for a better deal. B, [57:22] yes, it's a great value. I need [57:23] something. C, yes, and I might buy a [57:26] scarf to match since I saved so much. [57:29] Which one are you? I mean, if I need the [57:30] coat, I'm B. [57:32] I think I'm C. [57:34] >> [laughter] [57:37] >> But actually, to be fair, I just don't [57:38] buy stuff, so I don't even know if I'd [57:40] buy it anyway. Question two. [57:43] You are at a restaurant with friends. [57:44] The bill is being split evenly, but you [57:46] ordered the cheapest item. How do you [57:48] feel? [57:50] A, physically pained. I'll likely [57:52] mention that I should pay less. B, a bit [57:54] annoyed, but I'll pay it to keep the [57:56] peace. Or C, fine. It all will even out [57:58] in the end. [58:01] I'm between B and C. Really? I I might I [58:03] might feel a little bit annoyed. Really? [58:05] But I wouldn't I wouldn't cause a fuss [58:06] about it. I'm C again. Fine, it'll even [58:08] out in the end. [58:09] Number three. Which statement describes [58:11] you best? A, I have trouble spending [58:14] money even on things I actually need. B, [58:16] I balance my spending and saving pretty [58:18] well. Or C, I often spend more than I [58:21] intended and regret it later. [58:24] I can be. [58:26] You said B, which is I balance my [58:27] spending and saving pretty well. [58:30] Um [58:32] I would say I'm C again. [58:34] But again, the caveat here is I actually [58:35] don't Hmm. I don't spend money on stuff [58:38] anymore. I don't buy stuff anymore. [58:40] >> [snorts] [58:41] >> But I can spend it on like ex- [58:42] travel and experiences and stuff. Yeah. [58:45] Last question. When you buy something [58:47] expensive, your primary emotion is A, [58:50] anxiety or regret. B, satisfaction in [58:52] the utility of the item. Or C, [58:54] excitement and a rush. [58:57] I think I'm B again. [58:59] I I reckon I'm B as well there. [59:00] So, scoring your results. [59:02] If you're mostly A's then you're a [59:04] tightwad. If you're mostly B's, you are [59:07] the unconflicted. And if you're mostly [59:09] C's, you are the spendthrift. So, I [59:12] guess with that, you you are a [59:14] unconflicted. You're in the middle. You [59:15] have a healthy relationship with money [59:17] where you can save when necessary, but [59:18] enjoy the fruits of your labor without [59:20] guilt. And I am a C, which is you feel [59:23] very little pain when spending. You [59:25] enjoy the moment, but you might struggle [59:26] with long-term saving goals or buyer's [59:28] remorse. [59:29] That's so true. [59:31] >> [laughter] [59:31] >> Everyone should do that at home. Okay, [59:33] that makes sense. [59:33] >> So, we we know that that tightwads and [59:36] spendthrifts are incompatible. I I do [59:38] think it's an interesting concept, like [59:41] how do you have that discussion with a [59:42] potential partner? [59:44] Or do you just observe it and kind of [59:45] infer? On on a date, you can say say to [59:48] your partner say, "Oh, there's this [59:49] great podcast on YouTube called The [59:50] Diary of a CEO. We should listen to it." [59:52] Then listen to this episode. They're [59:53] listening with you know right now if [59:55] this you've done this. And then just [59:56] play along. Play along with your [59:58] partner. Are you looking for your [59:59] partner to be the opposite then because [60:01] you said opposites attract? No. They [60:02] don't do well all the time. [60:04] Opposites end up together, but then have [60:07] conflict because of that. Oh, okay. [60:10] Yeah. Mm, interesting. [clears throat] [60:12] Yeah. I think if you're if you're a [60:14] tightwad, [60:15] being with the same is probably good. If [60:17] you're a spendthrift and you end up with [60:18] another spendthrift, [60:20] you'd be really careful about your like [60:21] finances. Yeah. [60:23] I don't think my partner's a [60:24] spendthrift. I think she's in the middle [60:25] with like you. [60:26] >> Yeah. Doesn't really care. Yeah. Which [60:28] is useful. [60:29] We we do have one more Okay. card in the [60:31] mistakes, which is under insuring [60:34] catastrophic risks. [60:37] And I think that's one, particularly for [60:38] people who are not currently financially [60:40] independent, that's really really [60:42] important. If if your household income [60:46] relies on your income [60:48] to maintain the lifestyle of the [60:50] household, it's really important to have [60:52] sufficient life insurance [60:54] where if you die, your human capital, [60:56] your ability to earn income in the [60:57] future is replaced by the insurance. [61:00] And also disability insurance, where if [61:02] you lose your ability to work, you have [61:04] insurance to replace that income. Do [61:06] many people think about this? [61:08] Probably not enough. [61:09] And it's cheap. Well, disability [61:11] insurance is not always cheap. Life [61:13] insurance is generally pretty cheap if [61:14] you're buying [61:15] low-cost term life insurance, which is [61:17] what most people need. [61:19] You made a video called the most [61:20] controversial paper in finance. Yeah. [61:23] What paper was that? That was a paper we [61:26] we didn't have it here, but that was a [61:27] paper on life cycle asset allocation. [61:31] What does that mean? So, it's answering [61:32] the question of [61:34] how should your mix of stocks and bonds [61:36] change throughout your lifestyle? [61:39] Conventional wisdom says that you should [61:41] start out riskier in stocks and then [61:43] move towards safer bonds as you get [61:45] older. [61:46] This paper took a huge amount of data. [61:49] They had data from 39 countries going [61:51] back as far as 1890, I believe. They [61:55] sampled from that large set of data to [61:57] simulate a million potential sort of [62:00] hypothetical lifetimes that you could [62:01] live through. [62:03] And then they asked the question of in [62:04] this simulated data, [62:06] which asset allocation gives the best [62:08] outcomes? [62:09] And they tested target date funds, which [62:12] increase the weight in bonds over time, [62:14] and those are a lot of people have those [62:16] through their retirement accounts. [62:18] So, it's just one fund and it starts out [62:20] when you're younger with more equities [62:21] and then transitions to bonds over time. [62:23] That's a target date fund. [62:25] They tested, I believe, a 60/40, 60% [62:27] stock, 40% bond asset allocation. [62:30] They might have been some other stuff in [62:31] there, too. They might have tested only [62:33] domestic stocks. [62:35] And what they find in this paper is that [62:37] the optimal portfolio from the [62:39] perspective of retirement consumption [62:42] utility and and and bequest utility, [62:45] What does that mean? It's like the [62:47] satisfaction you get from retirement [62:49] spending. Okay. Measured in a with a [62:51] formula so that it can be studied. [62:54] And then likewise for the amount of [62:55] money that you have left over at at [62:56] death. [62:57] They they measure the probability of [62:58] running out of money as well as a whole [63:00] bunch of different metrics they look at. [63:02] And they find that a 100% equity [63:04] portfolio [63:05] with [63:07] a big chunk in international stocks [63:09] is optimal. [63:11] It is a a 1/3 domestic, 2/3 [63:14] international stocks. When you say [63:15] domestic, what does that mean? That's a [63:17] great question. So, the way they set up [63:19] domestic in the paper is that it it can [63:22] be any country. So, the way they do the [63:23] simulations is that for each draw, so [63:26] they're drawing it's on average 10 years [63:28] of returns. We're saying we're in the [63:30] US. [63:31] They'll draw the US returns measured in [63:33] US dollars for a 10-year block. That's [63:36] the domestic return. [63:38] And then the international block is [63:40] going to be 10 years on average of all [63:42] the other countries samples returns [63:44] measured in US dollar. So, I've got the [63:46] domestic return, the international [63:48] return. The next block might be 10 years [63:51] from Italy [63:52] measured in [63:53] whatever the Italian currency was at the [63:56] time. And then the international portion [63:58] is going to be all the other countries [63:59] excluding Italy measured in Italian [64:01] currency. [64:03] And so, they're weaving together all [64:04] these blocks. That's called bootstrap [64:05] simulation. So, domestic, to answer your [64:07] question, is whatever country you live [64:10] in. So, the outcome or the conclusion [64:12] from this should be that you should [64:13] invest [64:15] I mean, if we're following this and if [64:16] it was 100% accurate, well, 60% in [64:19] whatever country you live in, in the [64:21] stocks of whatever country you live in. [64:22] 30%. [64:22] >> 30%. [64:23] >> Domestic. So, yeah, 1/3 domestic, 2/3 [64:25] international. Okay, so if I'm in the [64:27] United States, one So, I get 30% of my [64:30] capital and invest it in the [64:33] American companies. Yeah. And then 60% [64:36] in international stocks. Yeah. Well, [64:38] 67%, yeah. Yeah. So, that [64:41] one important finding in the paper [64:43] talked about in the video is that the [64:45] the curve for how optimal the domestic [64:49] amount is is pretty flat, if I remember [64:51] correctly, between sort of 10% and 50%. [64:54] So, they do say in the paper that for a [64:55] US investor, you don't necessarily have [64:58] to be a third domestic. Even if you're [65:00] 50 or even if you're just market cap [65:01] weighted, which is currently around 60 [65:03] or 65%, that's probably fine. But for a [65:06] Canadian investor [65:07] or someone who's in a country other than [65:09] the US, 1/3 in your domestic country [65:11] ends up being a pretty big home country [65:13] bias. [65:14] In these simulations, are they saying [65:15] that you need to invest in international [65:17] stocks because sometimes in the [65:18] simulations, your domestic country, your [65:21] home country, has problems? [65:23] Yeah. High inflation tends to be bad for [65:26] retirement consumption where you're [65:27] spending a lot more and for domestic [65:29] stock returns. And international stocks [65:31] protect against that. [65:33] So, it diversifies you a little bit. [65:34] Yeah, well, that's exactly what it is. [65:36] It's a diversification. And that paper [65:37] was it was controversial. I mean, we had [65:39] the co-author [65:41] on our podcast twice to talk about it, [65:43] but it it was met with a lot of [65:44] controversy from [65:46] everybody, from a lot of professionals, [65:48] from other academics. Why? [65:51] It's an extreme finding. [65:54] The conventional wisdom that you should [65:55] be allocating more toward bonds [65:56] throughout the life cycle is so [65:58] ingrained in everyone's thinking that a [66:01] finding like this that shows that that's [66:03] basically wrong, of course it's going to [66:05] be met with [66:06] controversy. But at the very least, I [66:08] think it's an interesting paper. It's [66:10] telling us that stocks are a little bit [66:11] safer [66:12] for long-term investors than we probably [66:13] thought. [66:14] And bonds, which are typically [66:16] considered safe, are actually a little [66:18] bit riskier than we may have thought for [66:19] long-term investors. The reason being [66:20] that during periods of high inflation, [66:23] bonds get absolutely decimated. What's a [66:25] bond? [66:26] A bond is a debt instrument. So, you're [66:28] effectively lending money to a [66:30] government, and you're receiving [66:31] interest payments over time, and then [66:33] your principal back at the end. What is [66:35] the the most important thing we haven't [66:37] talked about that your audience come to [66:38] you to understand? Oh. Well, [66:41] a lot of a lot of the things I talk [66:43] about are financial products that you [66:44] should not invest in. Okay, tell me some [66:46] of those. Which I always think is fun. A [66:48] big one that I spent quite a bit of time [66:50] on last year, I did three videos on it, [66:52] was on on covered calls. What's that? [66:54] So, that's where you you own a stock and [66:57] then you sell a call option, which is [66:58] the option to buy the stock. You're [67:00] selling that option to somebody else, [67:02] which gives you a [67:04] an option premium, and so you get some [67:06] income from having sold the call option. [67:08] But it also means that if the stock that [67:09] you own appreciates sufficiently, you [67:11] are required to sell it to the person [67:14] who bought the call option from you [67:16] at a at a preset price. [67:18] So, the stock is whatever, $40, and you [67:21] sold a call at $50. The stock goes to [67:23] $60, you have to sell it at 50. Mhm. So, [67:25] you're giving up a big chunk of your [67:27] upside. [67:28] And this plays on one of the big biases [67:30] that investors have, which is a [67:30] preference for income. It's the mental [67:33] accounting bias where investors separate [67:35] capital and income. [67:36] And so, there's a [67:38] huge proliferation now of covered call [67:40] products where they do that that [67:42] strategy that I that I just described [67:44] inside of an ETF. [67:45] They charge usually a [67:47] higher fee. [67:48] And these are being marketed really [67:49] heavily to investors on the premise that [67:51] you're going to get appreciation, [67:53] capital appreciation, and you're also [67:54] going to get income. [67:56] But I think my my view on this and what [67:58] I tried to explain in those videos is [67:59] that you're giving up [68:01] so much upside that I don't think most [68:03] investors realize that they're giving [68:04] up, that the implied cost of these [68:06] products is enormous. On that point of [68:08] fees, I've got this graph here, which I [68:10] think is pretty pertinent to what you're [68:11] saying. [68:12] Because when we start investing in ETFs [68:14] and various index funds, we often don't [68:17] think about fees. [68:19] You'll say, "Oh, 0.5%." You think, [68:21] "Okay, whatever. 0.5% is fine. 1% fine." [68:24] Small numbers. [68:25] But when you look at that graph, you see [68:27] how that can impact your outcome over [68:28] time. [68:29] Yeah. [68:30] Fees compound. Any rate of return that [68:32] compounds over long periods of time can [68:34] be very impactful in dollar terms. [68:37] Yeah. And and some people choose to keep [68:38] their money in cash. [68:41] Um because most of us are never educated [68:43] on the subject of inflation and what [68:45] inflation means. So, some of us, you [68:47] know, we might keep $10,000 under the [68:49] bed. [68:50] What do you say to those people? [68:51] Yeah, so inflation is it's everywhere. [68:54] It's it's been around for for [68:56] throughout history, and it's probably [68:58] not going to go away. We have central [69:00] bank policies in most developed [69:02] countries that actually target a low but [69:03] stable rate of inflation. [69:06] And there's there are reasons for that, [69:07] but what it means is that if you have [69:08] money sitting under your mattress, its [69:10] purchasing power will decrease over [69:12] time. And that can be very damaging to [69:14] your wealth. [69:15] You can maybe keep pace with inflation [69:18] using short-term government debt [69:20] instruments, which are going to pay you [69:21] a little bit of an interest rate. [69:23] But again, periods of high inflation can [69:25] cause even that to to decline in real [69:27] value. So, one of the best ways to fight [69:29] it fight inflation for a long-term [69:31] investors, something we've been talking [69:33] about, is just investing in low-cost [69:35] index funds to avoid the fee issue. [69:37] All right, and participate in the stock [69:38] market, which throughout history has far [69:40] outpaced inflation. [69:42] One of the smartest things a business [69:43] can do is build like a bigger company [69:46] without actually hiring like one. But, [69:49] the problem we all face is that most [69:50] companies don't have every skill in [69:52] house. So, when I look at the businesses [69:53] seeing real success today, the [69:55] consistent pattern with all of them is [69:57] how quickly they move. They bring in [69:59] specialists with skills in emerging [70:00] areas to keep themselves ahead. Even in [70:02] our company, we spent the last year [70:04] pulling in talent across areas like AI [70:06] native strategy, no-code builds, and [70:08] product workflows. And we find this [70:10] talent through our long-term partner [70:11] Fiverr Pro. Their premium service only [70:14] shows you vetted talent, so you've [70:15] always got the safeguard that anyone you [70:18] pull in to help you with a complex [70:20] project has the skills that you're after [70:22] and will deliver to the same high [70:24] standards as your internal team. And [70:26] most importantly, they'll keep up with [70:27] the pace. It's a simple strategy, but it [70:29] lets us stay agile without compromising [70:30] on quality. So, if you need these kind [70:32] of skills in your business, head to [70:33] pro.fiverr.com to find pioneering talent [70:36] to fill your business's gaps. That's [70:38] pro.fiverr.com. [70:40] This is something that I've made for [70:42] you. I realized that the Diary of a CEO [70:44] audience are strivers, whether it's in [70:45] business or health, we all have big [70:47] goals that we want to accomplish. And [70:49] one of the things I've learned is that [70:51] when you aim at the big big big goal, it [70:54] can feel incredibly [70:55] psychologically uncomfortable because [70:57] it's kind of like being stood at the [70:59] foot of Mount Everest and looking [71:00] upwards. The way to accomplish your [71:02] goals is by breaking them down into tiny [71:05] small steps, and we call this in our [71:07] team the 1%. And actually, this [71:08] philosophy is highly responsible for [71:11] much of our success here. So, what we've [71:13] done is that you at home can accomplish [71:15] any big goal that you have is we've made [71:17] these 1% diaries, and we released these [71:20] last year, and they all sold out. So, I [71:23] asked my team over and over again to [71:24] bring the diaries back, but also to [71:25] introduce some new colors and to make [71:27] some minor tweaks to the diary. So, now [71:29] we have a better range for you. So, if [71:33] you have a big goal in mind and you need [71:35] a framework and a process and some [71:37] motivation, then I highly recommend you [71:39] get one of these diaries before they all [71:41] sell out once again. And you can get [71:43] yours at the diary.com. [71:46] And if you want the link, the link is in [71:47] the description below. [71:49] Is this broadly accurate? This graph [71:51] here shows the impact of inflation on [71:53] cash kept under the mattress over 30 [71:55] over 20 years, and you start with [71:57] $10,000 [71:59] in terms of purchasing power, and 20 [72:00] years later, if that cash is under the [72:01] mattress, you have $5,336. [72:05] It doesn't show me the inflation rate. [72:07] Oh, and that's at 3% inflation. [72:10] You're losing half of your money [72:12] effectively. [72:13] And the source here is St. James's [72:15] Place. [72:17] So, a lot of people who are just holding [72:18] on to cash don't really realize that [72:20] over a 20-year period, assuming a 3% [72:21] inflation rate, they're halving their [72:22] money. Uh it ties back to I don't [72:24] remember which number it was, but it [72:25] ties back to one of those biggest [72:26] mistakes in in personal finance we [72:28] talked about, which is [72:30] uh yeah, not not investing, not taking [72:32] the right kinds of risk with your [72:33] investments. [72:34] And just holding cash. Holding cash is [72:36] is it's in its own way taking a type of [72:39] risk. [72:40] You you you don't have an expected [72:42] return when you hold cash. You you in [72:44] real terms have a negative expected [72:45] return. [72:46] Do you think we should all be thinking [72:47] about retirement planning? [72:50] I think it ties into the PERMA thinking [72:53] and designing the life that you want to [72:54] live, but at some point it it I mean, at [72:57] some point we can't work anymore. It's [72:59] rare for somebody to be able to work [73:00] into their, you know, I don't know, 80s. [73:02] I think that it's it's sensible to plan [73:05] for for that. But, beyond that, a lot of [73:08] people don't want to have to work [73:09] forever. People might choose to work [73:12] forever, but they might choose to do [73:13] lower-paying work. [73:15] Uh but the idea that you will be forced [73:16] to work forever, I don't think is very [73:17] attractive to anyone. So, from that [73:19] perspective, building financial [73:20] independence by saving and planning for [73:22] retirement, yeah, I think it's important [73:23] for everyone everyone to think about. Is [73:25] there is the sort of social contract of [73:27] retirement changing based on how the [73:29] economy is changing? Cuz I hear a lot of [73:30] people saying you're not going to be [73:31] able to retire and get a pension because [73:33] there's not enough money or you're going [73:35] to have to work later than ever before. [73:37] I think the onus has been put back on [73:39] individuals. [73:41] The pensions used to be much more common [73:43] uh from companies and and governments. [73:46] So, [73:47] retirement's changed from that [73:48] perspective, for sure. But, I I I don't [73:50] know if we can say we're in a crisis. I [73:52] think people have more personal [73:53] responsibility now than they've had in [73:54] the past, but they also have better [73:56] tools than have historically been [73:58] available. 30 years ago, we we were just [74:00] starting to get low-cost index funds [74:02] proliferating and being readily [74:03] available to everybody. Prior to that, [74:05] you were paying 2% or more to invest in [74:07] a mutual fund. Mhm. So, the tools people [74:09] have available to them are are better [74:11] today than than they've been in the [74:12] past, [74:13] but it's also there's also a lot more [74:16] responsibility people have to take for [74:18] their own personal finances. You would [74:20] you're naming the things that people [74:21] shouldn't invest in. [74:23] The first is that cool [74:25] thing. Yeah, covered calls. Covered [74:27] calls. What else? Another one that I [74:29] think is really problematic is thematic [74:31] ETFs. [74:32] And so, that's like an AI ETF or I don't [74:35] know, a space or energy, like any any [74:38] specific [74:39] uh ETF that's targeting a specific [74:41] theme. Why? [74:43] What tends to happen with thematic ETFs [74:44] is that something becomes really hot. [74:47] So, maybe it's AI, maybe it's cannabis, [74:49] uh electric vehicles was another one. [74:51] Sustainable energy. Yeah, asset prices [74:53] in that theme go up because there's a [74:56] lot of interest in it. Everybody wants [74:57] to invest in that space. [75:01] Asset prices go up, an index provider [75:04] creates an index for that hot thing. [75:08] And then an ETF gets launched, but it [75:09] gets launched when the asset prices are [75:12] up here. Mhm. And what tends to happen [75:14] is the asset prices come down, [75:17] then the returns on thematic funds tend [75:19] to be very poor. Ah, okay. [75:21] Yeah, I think I was guilty of that in my [75:22] early career. It was like, "Oh my god, [75:24] sustainable energy ETF. I believe in [75:25] sustainable energy. I should invest in [75:27] that." [75:27] >> Yeah. But, you're right. They created [75:29] that when it was hot. So, you should [75:31] have invested, I guess you're saying, [75:33] just invest in the FTSE 100, the S&P 500 [75:35] instead. Or technology, which is a [75:39] broader basket. [75:40] Technology's tough. Technology has [75:41] performed so incredibly well, [75:44] but it is still one sector. Okay. I have [75:47] trouble saying you should invest in [75:48] tech. If you had invested in tech for [75:50] the last 20 years, [75:52] well done. [75:53] Should you choose to invest only in tech [75:55] or have a big concentration in tech [75:56] today? I think that's a lot less [75:58] obvious. [75:59] One would say, "Well, look at all this [76:00] AI stuff. There's How do I invest in all [76:02] the AI stuff?" [76:03] A lot of it's private right now, [76:04] although a lot of the public companies [76:05] do own chunks of of some of these [76:07] private companies. [76:08] Uh we'll see how that plays out. [76:10] But, that's another one that's been [76:11] tough recently where a lot of investors [76:13] are interested in investing in in in in [76:15] investing in some of these private [76:16] companies. Uh a lot of them AI-related, [76:18] but SpaceX is another one. [76:20] It's really hard for retail investors to [76:21] get access to those types of things. [76:23] But, there are companies who are [76:25] creating products that say that they can [76:27] give you access to these to these [76:29] things. They're charging high fees. Uh [76:32] it's not obvious that they've been able [76:34] to buy the underlying securities that [76:36] they're saying they have access to at [76:37] good prices. [76:39] But, it's just another example of [76:40] financial companies [76:42] preying on the the desires and biases of [76:45] investors. [76:47] Financial firms are very good at seeing [76:49] what investors want, even if that thing [76:51] is not good for them, and then creating [76:53] a product to fulfill that desire. [76:57] So, if if someone listening now is [77:00] let's say they're 50 years old and [77:01] they've got [77:03] $20,000 [77:05] in savings in cash, [77:08] and you had to be decisive. You don't [77:10] know the nuance and the the detail of [77:11] their life. You don't know their PERMA [77:13] framework necessarily. [77:14] But, your job was just to make the money [77:16] in the next 10 years. [77:18] What How do you think you'd allocate [77:19] that? Let's say $10,000, it's easier. [77:21] $10,000 in cash. How would you allocate [77:22] it? That's a [77:24] That's a tough question. I don't know if [77:25] it's answerable. Uh especially over 10 [77:27] years, it's tough. [77:28] What about 20 years? [77:31] >> [laughter] [77:32] >> If they have a long time horizon, so I I [77:34] can tell you personally, [77:36] I I like to invest in stocks. [77:38] I I have a a globally diversified stock [77:41] portfolio with a Canadian home country [77:42] bias, kind of like what that that paper [77:44] the controversial paper found. [77:46] Uh we were doing that prior to that [77:49] paper coming out. [77:50] Uh but, I think that general concept of [77:52] a globally diversified portfolio, maybe [77:54] with some home country bias, [77:56] makes a lot of sense for most people, [77:58] including for retirees. But, there are [78:00] so many like, what's what's his risk [78:02] tolerance? If he's going to panic when [78:04] the market goes down and sell [78:05] everything, then it wasn't a very good [78:07] idea, and he's not going to get the [78:08] outcome but the good long-term outcome [78:10] they may have otherwise gotten. And [78:11] would you go all in on stocks? All at [78:14] once? [78:15] Yeah. Like dollar-cost averaging versus [78:17] lump sum? Yeah, like how would you [78:18] invest would you go 100% in stocks or [78:20] would you even diversify that? Yeah, [78:22] that's what I'm saying. I I think 100% [78:24] stocks is personally [78:27] a portfolio that I'm very comfortable [78:29] with. And I [78:31] I'm not I'm not old enough to be [78:32] thinking about retirement, but it's a [78:33] portfolio that I don't expect to change [78:35] throughout my personal life cycle. Is [78:38] that how you allocate your personal [78:39] finances now? You I know you have a [78:41] home, but otherwise, the money you do [78:43] invest is in the stock market. Yeah, so [78:45] I've got my home, I have my stock market [78:47] investments, and I do have a pretty [78:49] significant chunk of equity in the [78:50] company that I work for. [78:51] Yeah. [78:54] No crypto. No crypto. Any crypto? I [78:56] never touched it. Never touched it. [78:58] >> That's not true. I I when I was [79:00] researching uh Ethereum and Bitcoin, [79:03] I remember when that was, it was a few [79:04] years ago, I bought $1,000 of each just [79:07] so I could feel like I was [79:09] participating [clears throat] while I [79:09] was learning about it. [79:11] What do you think of Bitcoin and [79:12] Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies? [79:15] Uh I I think that they they solved a [79:17] really interesting problem. [79:19] The that premise of digital cash is [79:22] something that the Cypherpunk community, [79:24] the kind of libertarian community of of [79:26] uh [79:27] privacy-focused computer nerds, where [79:29] they were trying to solve this problem [79:30] for for many many years of digital cash. [79:33] How do you create digital cash that [79:35] doesn't require a trusted third party [79:37] to mediate transactions? And they they [79:39] solved that. Satoshi Nakamoto solved [79:41] that in uh [79:43] And that that was cool. [79:44] And he used a bunch of different pieces, [79:45] like you can kind of see in the paper [79:46] how he used Adam Back's Adam Back's [79:48] ideas that he had created to stop email [79:51] spam. And it's just how it all came [79:52] together. It's unbelievable, fascinating [79:53] story. The technology was really [79:54] interesting. [79:55] I think it has become uh an ideological [80:00] vehicle, where people who believe that [80:03] the world should be a certain way [80:05] or believe that government's role in [80:07] money should be a certain way, [80:09] they can invest in Bitcoin and feel [80:10] really good about it. [80:12] I think it's it's got that component to [80:13] it. And then the other component that it [80:14] has to it [80:16] is that it's a speculative asset. [80:18] People will buy Bitcoin because they [80:20] think it's going to go up. [80:23] So, it's not a good investment. Is that [80:24] what you're saying? I I I personally [80:26] wouldn't. [80:27] We don't allocate to it for our clients [80:30] at PWL. [80:31] We manage [80:32] quite a bit of money for quite a lot of [80:34] people, and we've decided not to touch [80:36] it. And I personally don't touch it, so. [80:39] I had a phone call actually from a [80:40] friend of mine. She she's very well [80:42] known in the UK. [80:44] And she was um cuz there's lots of wars [80:46] going on everywhere, and there's the [80:47] Strait of Hormuz is closed, and there's [80:49] Russia-Ukraine, and there's all of this [80:50] stuff going on. She was she was asking [80:52] me for financial advice on what she [80:54] should do in such a moment. I don't know [80:55] why she's calling me. [80:58] I just thought I'll ask you when you [80:59] come here. But it But it's interesting [81:00] cuz my my team found this article from [81:02] 1847, [81:04] which was in a magazine, [81:06] and it almost sounds like today. [81:08] The article says this, [81:10] "Things are bad all over. It is a gloomy [81:12] moment in history. Not in the lifetime [81:14] of any man who reads this paper has [81:15] there ever been so much grave and deep [81:18] apprehension. Never has the future [81:20] seemed so dark and incalculable. [81:23] In France, the political cauldron [81:25] seethes and bubbles with uncertainty. [81:28] England and the English Empire is being [81:30] sorely tried and exhausted in a social [81:32] and economic struggle. The United States [81:35] is behest with racial, industrial, and [81:38] commercial chaos drifting, we know not [81:40] where. Russia hangs like a storm cloud [81:43] on the horizon of Europe, dark and [81:45] silent. It is a solemn moment, and no [81:48] man can feel indifference. [81:50] Of our own troubles, no man can see the [81:53] end." An apt description of things, very [81:55] apt. And that was on October the 10th, [81:58] 1847. [81:59] A magazine. Now, that very much sounds [82:01] like today. It could be today, yeah. [82:04] So, as we zoom out on the cycles, the [82:06] big sort of economic cycles, the [82:07] geopolitical cycles, [82:09] my friend that called me and said, [82:10] "Listen, there's lots of stuff going on [82:11] in the world. Should I be thinking about [82:12] my money differently, my investing [82:13] strategy? What the hell's going on?" [82:15] What would you say to those people? [82:17] Yeah. Well, I I [82:19] as the clip that you read suggests or or [82:22] tells us, the world has been through a [82:25] lot of crazy stuff, a lot of crazy [82:27] times, a lot of wars, a lot of turmoil, [82:28] a lot of polit- political upheavals. [82:32] And we've come out okay, in general. [82:34] It's there there's been pain and [82:35] suffering, and and not everybody's had [82:37] good outcomes, but generally speaking, [82:40] here we are. [82:41] And if we think about that that from the [82:42] perspective of financial markets, [82:44] stock returns have been positive despite [82:47] all the craziness going on in the world. [82:49] There's There's lots of interesting [82:50] charts that overlay [82:51] news headlines about all the madness [82:53] going on in the world on top of the [82:55] stock chart that's just going up. [82:57] Doesn't mean the stocks are always going [82:58] to be up. They will go down when when [83:00] things get crazy, like when when this [83:02] war started, stock returns did get a [83:04] little bit negative for a while. They've [83:06] since come back, but there will be [83:07] volatility in financial markets, [83:09] volatility up and down day to day. But [83:12] in the long run, stock returns [83:14] they they should continue to be expected [83:16] to be [83:17] positive. So, for your friend, I [83:21] I don't know how the assets are set up, [83:23] um but someone who's globally [83:24] diversified, exposed to the stock [83:26] market, [83:27] they don't have to make changes to their [83:28] portfolios when the world's getting [83:30] crazy. I remember what she said to me. [83:32] She said that she was going to [83:34] remortgage her house [83:36] because I think she'd paid it down, and [83:38] she was wondering what to do with that [83:40] money. [83:41] She was saying, "Do I just go buy [83:42] another house, or do I invest it in the [83:44] stock market?" [83:46] Now, my my bias is the stock market, but [83:48] I don't know what you What would you say [83:49] to someone I'd want to know why she's [83:51] mortgaging her house, but [83:53] given there's a good reason for that, I [83:55] would I would probably go in the stock [83:56] market, not into real estate. Do you [83:58] think people shouldn't remortgage their [83:59] houses? [84:01] It's a tough question. Leverage, kind of [84:04] like how exposure to the stock market is [84:05] good, borrowing money to invest in [84:07] positive expected return assets like [84:09] like the stock market, [84:11] is actually kind of a good thing on [84:12] paper. [84:13] Borrowing money generally improves [84:15] long-term expected outcomes. [84:17] But it's stressful. You can You can have [84:20] bad outcomes where you lose all of your [84:23] money. So, [84:25] should people borrow money to invest? [84:26] Should people mortgage their house to [84:28] invest? That's That's a very personal [84:30] question. It's kind of like the [84:30] stock-bond question. Should you invest [84:32] in stocks or bonds? Should you invest in [84:34] stocks with leverage [84:35] or not? It really depends on your goals [84:37] and your situation. [84:39] Uh but generally speaking, if we just [84:41] look at what what what do the data say [84:42] about borrowing money to invest? [84:44] It's not It's not a terrible idea. [84:46] One of the things we haven't talked [84:47] about is AI. [84:50] And does AI change any of this equation? [84:52] A lot of people are worried at the [84:53] moment about losing their jobs. [84:54] Anthropic released a report, who are one [84:56] of the big AI companies, saying that [84:58] entry-level people in particular are [85:00] going to have a hard time. And I think [85:01] they said they're already seeing 13% of [85:04] entry-level jobs being disrupted because [85:06] of these new AI and AI agents. [85:09] I'm to be clear, not a labor economist. [85:12] Um it's not my area of expertise. [85:14] I do think though that we look back [85:16] through history. I like looking at the [85:18] history. There have been lots of [85:20] technological revolutions that have been [85:23] major major upheavals to the [85:26] entire economy. [85:28] Yes. So, ATMs. The ATMs are one of those [85:30] fascinating examples. [85:32] People thought that ATMs were going to [85:34] wipe out bank tellers [85:37] because ATMs could do everything the [85:38] bank tellers do, but it was automated, [85:40] and you didn't have to pay a person to [85:41] do it. So, there was a lot of concern. [85:44] And what what ended up happening was [85:47] very counterintuitive. [85:49] It's that the cost of operating a bank [85:51] branch [85:52] decreased because you needed fewer [85:55] people to do all the bank teller stuff [85:56] cuz you had the ATMs. [85:58] And banks opened more branches [86:00] because it cost less, and their [86:02] customers liked that. And the end result [86:05] was that there were actually more [86:07] bank teller jobs [86:09] at the end of the day. [86:10] The cost of providing the service [86:12] decreased, which caused it to [86:13] proliferate more, provide that service [86:15] to more [86:16] people, and it expanded the market [86:18] instead of [86:20] shrinking it. [86:21] Similar story with the Jevons paradox [86:22] and um It's the same concept. [86:25] What's that story? Where coal became [86:27] cheaper at a time when they used coal to [86:29] ship freight on trains, and the coal [86:33] engine got more efficient with coal, [86:35] coal industry panics, [86:36] "We're screwed." But then what it meant [86:38] is people used trains not just for [86:41] shipping freight, but also for other [86:42] things like travel. And people started [86:44] traveling on trains because it got [86:45] cheaper. So, the coal industry actually [86:47] boomed in the end. That's it. I have [86:50] thought a lot about this Jevons paradox [86:51] idea. And I think it's I think it's [86:53] going to be true for artificial [86:54] intelligence, for sure. I there will be [86:56] lots of other jobs created. And actually [86:58] companies like mine, if we save money, [86:59] we invest it in something else, [87:01] which then would would probably create [87:03] jobs, whatever that is. The part that I [87:05] sometimes struggle with is the speed [87:08] of adoption in AI. And then also, when [87:11] you factor in robotics, [87:12] like my car in in LA drives itself. And [87:15] I think one of the biggest employers on [87:16] Earth is driving in all its forms. But [87:19] then if you look at where housing and [87:20] supply chains, a lot of those are run by [87:22] people all over the world. And there was [87:23] a video that I played the other day. We [87:25] can throw it up on the screen, which [87:26] shows that in factories in certain parts [87:28] of the world now, they're having their [87:30] labor force wear cameras on their head [87:32] showing what they're doing with their [87:33] hands because they're robots are [87:35] ultimately going to replace that labor [87:38] force. And I just I I haven't I guess [87:40] this is maybe something that happens in [87:42] history. I haven't been able to think [87:43] about where those people go, and what [87:45] they then can go on to do, [87:48] especially if it happens in short order. [87:50] Yeah, so I I've heard you I've heard you [87:51] ponder this in your other episodes, and [87:53] I I I agree that the speed of this is [87:55] likely to be different. As you've said, [87:57] it's we're we're talking about the [87:59] internet, so you can deploy these things [88:00] at the snap of a finger. And that is [88:02] different. But where do those people go? [88:04] This is one of the interesting things. I [88:06] don't know. We We don't know. [88:08] And through history, we didn't know. [88:10] Exactly. Through history, it's been the [88:11] same sentiment, where people worry [88:13] about, "Where are these people going to [88:14] go?" And they might be unemployed for a [88:16] while, and there might be hard times, [88:17] but things have worked out. [88:20] And so, two ways to think about it. One [88:21] way is as a as an individual, what [88:23] should you be doing? We talked about it [88:24] earlier, [88:25] uh having complementary skills that make [88:27] you very unique, I think is important. [88:30] Personally, content, as you mentioned, [88:31] has been a big part of that for for me. [88:33] Not everybody can necessarily do that, [88:35] but finding those things that you can do [88:37] when combined better than anybody else [88:39] in the world, I think is very valuable. [88:42] And then the other perspective is as an [88:43] investor, how should we think about [88:45] this? And there I would come back to [88:46] again, we have seen many technological [88:50] revolutions that have changed the world. [88:53] They've changed financial markets, [88:54] they've changed our culture, they've [88:56] changed the way we interact with each [88:57] other. The world has changed so many [88:59] times due to technology, [89:00] and the same cycle has repeated itself. [89:03] Uh there there has been unemployment, [89:05] there has been social unrest, there has [89:07] been wealth inequality, but this happens [89:10] every time. Are you expecting the stock [89:13] market to collapse because there's been [89:15] a huge overinvestment in artificial [89:17] intelligence, and at some point the [89:18] investors that put their money into [89:19] these [89:21] sort of speculative [89:22] AI startups that raised tremendous [89:25] amounts of capital at crazy valuations. [89:28] At some point through history, doesn't [89:29] the market always contract at some [89:30] point? There's a great book by an [89:32] economist named Carlota Perez. The book [89:35] is Technological Revolutions and [89:37] Financial Capital. [89:38] And she documents this exact cycle [89:40] throughout history and yes, that's part [89:42] of it. Part of it is asset prices [89:44] getting really high [89:46] and then coming back down. Now, am I [89:48] worried about a catastrophic market [89:49] collapse? [89:51] I think that's always a concern. I think [89:53] that's part of the risk of investing in [89:54] stocks. We never know when it's going to [89:56] happen or what the trigger is going to [89:57] be. So, it's not something that you can [89:59] do anything about. You need to have an [90:01] asset allocation that you can stick with [90:03] even if that outcome is going to [90:05] materialize. [90:06] And in that book is [90:08] does it suggest that the writing is on [90:09] the wall for the current economy and the [90:12] way that we're heavily investing in AI [90:14] and data centers and you know, a couple [90:16] of years ago everyone was investing in [90:17] crypto [90:18] and web 3 [90:20] and NFTs and all this stuff and all of [90:21] the money seems to have been sucked out [90:23] of that industry. Really honestly, [90:25] sucked out of almost every industry and [90:27] into AI. [90:29] Um and you know [90:30] >> I remember when DeFi was going to kill [90:32] banking and finance. [90:33] >> [laughter] [90:34] >> And that was only a couple of years ago. [90:35] In fact, a lot of the developers have [90:37] moved from that industry into the AI [90:38] industry. But I But I think I do think [90:40] about this a lot and I've got a few [90:41] startup friends who are getting a little [90:44] bit nervous and are raising a lot of [90:46] money now because they think that in the [90:48] next couple of years, maybe in the next [90:49] 24 months, there's going to be a big [90:50] market contraction when investors who [90:52] invested in [90:54] some startup idea that had a $100 [90:55] million valuation realize that they're [90:57] losing their money and some domino [90:59] usually falls in the market. Some [91:01] catalyst moment means that there's a [91:02] contraction. Stock markets go down. It [91:05] gets really hard to raise money. Clients [91:07] who you might be relying on now to pay [91:09] your advertising budget start to lower [91:11] their budgets. [91:13] And in such a scenario, you're going to [91:14] want to wish you'd prepared a little [91:16] bit. Some people are. This is part of [91:18] the cycle. The cost of capital for [91:21] bubble companies, we'll call them. I [91:22] don't love the term bubble, but for [91:23] companies who are in the industry that [91:25] becomes the focus of a technological [91:28] revolutions and now we're talking about [91:30] AI. The cost of capital gets really low, [91:32] which means asset prices get really high [91:33] and a lot of people want to invest in [91:35] that space. But those asset prices are [91:37] not typically sustainable [91:39] and they do tend to come down. [91:41] Does that mean a total market collapse [91:42] or catastrophe or or panic for [91:45] diversified investors? No. Oh, is the [91:47] writing on the wall? [91:49] I don't think we can say that. If the [91:50] writing were on the wall, the way that I [91:51] view financial markets is that if the [91:53] writing were on the wall prices would [91:55] reflect that today. Okay. If we thought [91:58] market prices were going to drop in the [91:59] future, they would drop today. So, [92:02] so it happens at a time when no one is [92:04] expecting it. [92:05] >> That's exactly right. [92:06] So, the writing is never on the wall. [92:08] That's right. Some some new piece of [92:10] information, something changes [92:12] and that's what causes prices to come [92:14] down. My brother said something to me. [92:16] He's a very smart person. He's worked in [92:17] sort of investing for the last 15 years. [92:19] He said something to me early in my [92:20] career. He said, "Stephen, when you go [92:23] to invest in something, assume that the [92:27] price you're paying for that investment, [92:28] so say I'm investing in Facebook stock [92:30] at $10 [92:32] is the total accumulation of everything [92:36] everybody on the planet knows about that [92:37] company and they've priced in everything [92:40] the world knows about that company [92:41] today." And he was like, "So, even if [92:43] you think it's going to go up, that's [92:45] also by the way priced into today's [92:46] price. So, you better [92:49] know something that no one else knows [92:52] when you're thinking about buying an [92:53] investment. I've totally butchered what [92:55] he said. No, you You didn't You didn't. [92:58] He is describing the concept of an [92:59] efficient market. [93:01] An efficient market is a market where [93:02] prices always and this is a sort of a [93:04] theoretical concept. It's not actually [93:07] true. But in theory, an efficient [93:09] market, a perfectly efficient market is [93:10] a market where prices always fully [93:12] reflect all available information [93:14] including your thoughts about what the [93:15] price Yeah. might do. Really, if you [93:17] trade on those thoughts. So, what are [93:19] you investing in then if it's if [93:21] the future's already priced in and all [93:23] the information about the company's [93:24] already priced in, what are you [93:24] investing in? You're investing in [93:26] discounted future cash flows. [93:29] Companies produce cash flows. Mhm. They [93:31] earn They earn profits. When you invest [93:33] in a company, you're buying those [93:35] expected future profits at a discount. [93:37] That That's called the discount rate. [93:39] This is getting pretty nerdy again, but [93:40] that's that's how it works in finance. [93:41] What is the What is the value of a [93:42] stock? It's its discounted future cash [93:44] flows. Riskier stocks will tend to have [93:46] higher discount rates. So, you buy this [93:48] asset and now you've got this discounted [93:51] bundle of cash flows, which you then [93:52] hold and you receive the discount rate [93:54] as a rate of return as you continue to [93:55] hold [93:56] the asset. So, a lot of people will [93:57] invest in Tesla. They'll go, "Listen, I [93:59] I've got a Tesla. It's amazing. I'm [94:00] going to buy some stock." [94:02] What is the fault in my thinking there? [94:05] In buying Tesla stock? Because I I've [94:07] got a Tesla. I think it's a great car [94:09] and I think they'll do well in the [94:10] future. So, I buy the stock. But they [94:12] It's what we just talked about. That [94:13] information is already included in the [94:15] price. Every Everybody knows that it's a [94:17] pretty good company making pretty good [94:18] cars that are selling really well. And [94:20] that's why it costs $10 today. Right. [94:22] Whatever it costs today. [94:23] >> Whatever the price is, yeah. If you look [94:25] at [94:26] the data on professional money managers [94:29] who are trying to beat the market [94:31] most of them don't. [94:32] And the ones that do, this is a crazy [94:34] part, the managers who do beat the [94:35] market over a period of time [94:38] don't tend to go on to beat the market [94:40] in the future. [94:42] And these are professional investors who [94:43] are, you know, and then you can look at [94:44] these before or after fees. The data are [94:46] actually pretty similar. It's worse [94:48] after fees, but the distribution is is [94:51] pretty similar. So, what's the point in [94:52] a money manager? Well, ones that are [94:54] trying to beat the market by picking [94:55] stocks and timing the market, I don't [94:57] think that there is one. [95:00] That's why I talk about just just buy [95:02] index funds. Buy buy the market. Let [95:04] Give Take the market's return. Accept [95:06] the market's return, which has been very [95:07] good. And then don't do anything. Don't [95:09] check the thing. Don't check it. [95:11] Don't Don't open the app. Lose the [95:12] password. I said this about my my [95:13] fiance. I said she's really good at [95:14] investing because she always forgets the [95:15] password. And then we 4 years later [95:17] we'll be like, "What, babe, you should [95:19] check your investment." And she goes, "I [95:20] don't know the password." I go, [95:21] "Fucking." And then we have to do the [95:23] whole password reset thing every [95:24] >> [laughter] [95:25] >> And then we open it we go, "Oh, okay, [95:26] babe, you're rich." [95:28] It's probably good. [95:28] >> And she goes, "Oh, amazing." And then [95:29] she forgets the password again. And then [95:31] 4 years later we take a look at again at [95:32] her investments. I like to say you you [95:34] want to focus on the things that you can [95:36] control. [95:37] Mhm. You can't control markets. You [95:39] can't control your performance relative [95:41] to the market. And tr- trying to [95:43] outperform tends to make you worse off [95:45] rather than better. But the things that [95:46] you can control [95:47] are a lot of the things we talked about. [95:48] Having having an an appropriate [95:50] financial plan, having having the right [95:51] goals set, having an asset allocation [95:53] that makes sense for you even if markets [95:55] do decline. [95:56] Having emergency savings, tax planning. [95:58] Those are things that you can control. [96:00] That's what people should focus on. Do [96:01] you think women are better investors [96:02] than men? [96:03] I'm not super good on these data, but I [96:05] believe what the data say are that women [96:08] tend to be a little bit more [96:08] risk-averse. [96:10] Uh but they tend to be a little bit less [96:13] overconfident. [96:15] Which I assume gets better results, no? [96:16] Yeah. I I think women are probably [96:18] better investors. I'm just going to give [96:19] I'm going to give the simple answer [96:20] right there. [96:21] I've just got some numbers here. [96:22] Fidelity said that across 5.2 million [96:26] accounts, women beat men with their [96:29] investments. Warwick Business School, [96:31] women outperformed men by 1.8% [96:33] percent per year over a 3-year period. [96:36] UC Berkeley, men traded 45% more often [96:40] than women leading to annual returns [96:43] that were 1.4% lower than women's. And [96:46] Revolut, which is a big bank founded out [96:48] in the UK [96:49] is says that women's investments in the [96:51] UK outperformed men's by 4% [96:55] over men. [96:56] I believe it. Give your money to your [96:57] wife. [96:59] One of those data points specified, but [97:01] I would assume that a lot of that is [97:03] related to overtrading. Yeah. Men tend [97:05] to be overconfident. They tend to trade [97:07] more. They try to pick stocks. They [97:08] think Tesla stock's going to go up [97:10] because they like the car. [97:12] And we're told that the biggest gambling [97:13] addicts in the world are men as well. [97:15] So, it's kind of correlates. For sure it [97:16] is, yeah. [97:17] Ben, we have a closing tradition on this [97:19] podcast where the last guest leaves a [97:20] question for the next not knowing who [97:21] they're leaving it for. [97:22] In the diary of the CEO. And the [97:24] question [97:25] that has been left for you [97:27] is [97:28] what experiment can you propose [97:31] whose outcome could completely [97:33] contradict your current beliefs? [97:37] Oh, man. [97:39] >> [sighs] [97:40] >> Uh [97:42] an experiment that I could run. [97:45] If I take my current beliefs as one of [97:47] the big things that we talked about is [97:48] markets being efficient and it being [97:50] quite hard to outperform [97:52] the market. [97:53] Uh I mean, the best the best experiment [97:55] that we can run is is trying to beat it. [97:58] People have done that. But it's being [97:59] run all the time. Isn't there a story in [98:01] the Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel [98:04] where like was it Warren Buffett bet [98:06] someone? Yeah, Warren Buffett bet Ted [98:08] Ted Seides, who we've actually had on [98:10] our podcast. [98:12] He bet him that [98:13] his [98:15] index fund portfolio, which I believe [98:16] was just the S&P 500, could outperform [98:18] any hedge fund portfolio that Ted [98:21] picked. [98:22] And they had a specific timeline. It was [98:24] 10 years, wasn't it? Something. Yeah. [98:26] And then they were going to donate the [98:28] an amount of money at the end of the [98:30] period. [98:31] And Ted lost the bet. [98:33] Warren Warren won. But that that was one [98:35] of those instances where the world kind [98:38] of got to see, hey, this this index fund [98:40] thing Buffett has been a big advocate [98:42] for index funds. [98:43] But that was a big example where [98:45] I think a lot of people were exposed to [98:47] that idea. [98:48] Where do people find you? You know, I've [98:50] got your YouTube channel here, Ben [98:52] Felix, which I'll I'll link below for [98:53] anyone that wants to continue to follow [98:56] you on YouTube. Is there anywhere any [98:58] any other resources that we should [98:59] direct people to? Yeah, another place [99:01] where I post actually a little bit more [99:03] frequently with longer form stuff is the [99:05] Rational Reminder podcast. [99:07] People can check me out there. And then [99:09] I do have some interesting tools for the [99:11] rent versus buy calculation. We have a [99:13] goal-setting app. I don't think it's up [99:15] yet, though. And we've got some other [99:16] really interesting tools on [99:18] the PWL Capital website. PWLcapital.com. [99:22] I'll link all of that below for anyone [99:23] that's interested. [99:24] And the Rational Reminder Podcast, [99:26] rationalreminder.ca/podcast. [99:29] And your YouTube channel will be linked [99:31] below, as well. [99:32] Awesome. Thank you so much, Ben. Thank [99:33] you for doing what you do, because um [99:35] finance is such an important part of our [99:37] life, and I think a huge percentage of [99:38] the population, for whatever reason, [99:40] choose to avoid the subject altogether, [99:41] cuz it causes a little bit of anxiety. [99:43] But also, we just don't get taught about [99:45] finance in school, which I think is a [99:46] great shame. And in in my case, you [99:48] know, it wasn't until I destroyed my [99:49] credit rating, my credit score, um that [99:51] I started to figure out what finance [99:53] was. And by then, [99:54] kind of like brushing your teeth, I'd [99:55] done a lot of damage. And so, since [99:57] then, from doing this podcast, and being [99:58] the smart people like you that are good [99:59] at demystifying complex things, and but [100:02] also, in your case, that use academic [100:03] research as the basis for the claims [100:05] they're making, it has helped to turn [100:07] the lights on for me. [100:09] And in this domain, I think control, or [100:11] like understanding and information is [100:13] power. Really, like knowledge is power. [100:16] And a lot of people are disempowered, [100:17] because they don't have the knowledge, [100:18] and they kind of they're on that sort of [100:20] roller coaster of their life [100:21] circumstance, and they don't feel like [100:23] they have control, especially [100:24] considering that the world feels so [100:25] uncertain right now. So, thank you for [100:27] doing what you do, Ben. Really, really [100:28] appreciate it, and I hope to speak to [100:29] you again sometime soon. Thanks so much. [100:31] YouTube have this new crazy algorithm, [100:33] where they know exactly what video you [100:35] would like to watch next, based on AI [100:37] and all of your viewing behavior. And [100:39] the algorithm says that this video is [100:42] the perfect video for you. It's [100:44] different for everybody looking right [100:45] now. Check this video out, and I bet you [100:47] you might love it.