You guys rock. I'm watching this New Years Day 2025 and 1x speed sounds crazy...haha.....I'm a podcast listener. I already bumped it up. Keep up the great work.....Cheers from Saskatchewan!
Regarding the impact of human capital on allocation, I do factor that into my own workplace retirement accounts. One of my jobs is a predictable income stream through the state with no employer match (contractor). I put that stable money into high risk funds with a 25% small value tilt, 25% midcap, 50% large blend. My work in industry is much riskier and based on availability of contracts. Income varies GREATLY based on client demand (I make anywhere from 80k to 200k per year). That retirement account has an employer match as well. I put that money 100% into a target date fund because I would NOT tolerate that risky income going through deep drawdowns or being in 100% equities. It makes the psychological factor of long term investing easier to know that if I lose contracts, the money I contributed is in a fully diversified fund, and that my stable contributions are going to more aggressive allocations to potentially net a larger return. So far this strategy gives me a 2-5% average bump over target date fund returns per year while moderating my risk exposures.
Ben is a man's man. Handling $million investment accounts totalling billions, but refuses to pay the low MER (tip) of 10% on an already cheap haircut, so stubbornly shaves his own head for 10 years. 😂 Love to hear his wife's opinion of this investment strategy 😉
Good job guys. With the question you skipped, can you let the person know so they won't be trying to find the response when it doesn't exist and wont be answered in the future?(There was no info on who it was afaik)
They said it was the 5-part question that had to be skipped. The questions that others asked were communicated simply. Those were answered. RR hosts, thanks for your detailed responses. I look forward to future shows where more questions are answered.
Q3: If I keep change, it annoys me for a bit, and then disappears before I can use it anyway. So I agree with Old Ben's logic here, I just look way too terrible bald.
For Q12 you said that stocks being riskier means higher expected returns and that makes sense, but why does it actually make sense? If the answer comes from historical data, isn't that just circular reasoning? Or because investors are supposedly rational and (on aggregate) wouldn't make stupid choices / bets?
@@rationalreminder Sure, but can we make that assumption *without* relying on past price data? Everything I see regarding market efficiency points to pricing and risk models, all of which rely on the same price data.
Yes, we can make that assumption purely on theoretical grounds. Empirical testing follows. The most basic models of risk and expected return use volatility as a measure of risk, and bonds are generally less volatile than stocks. Additionally, bondholders have protections in a bankruptcy that stockholders do not have. -Ben
The additional protections on bonds do make sense to me, and I guess that extrapolates to other asset classes and their assumed safety. Hadn't considered that, thanks! For the empirical testing, my comment was getting long so I'll finally make an account and make a forum post 😄
Holy crap. You all answered my question!! (Question 14). Thanks a lot everyone at PWL. It goes a long way.
You guys rock. I'm watching this New Years Day 2025 and 1x speed sounds crazy...haha.....I'm a podcast listener. I already bumped it up. Keep up the great work.....Cheers from Saskatchewan!
Ben choosing to shave his head for 10 years instead of simply finding another place to get his hair cut nearby that takes credit cards is wild.
Regarding the impact of human capital on allocation, I do factor that into my own workplace retirement accounts. One of my jobs is a predictable income stream through the state with no employer match (contractor). I put that stable money into high risk funds with a 25% small value tilt, 25% midcap, 50% large blend. My work in industry is much riskier and based on availability of contracts. Income varies GREATLY based on client demand (I make anywhere from 80k to 200k per year). That retirement account has an employer match as well. I put that money 100% into a target date fund because I would NOT tolerate that risky income going through deep drawdowns or being in 100% equities. It makes the psychological factor of long term investing easier to know that if I lose contracts, the money I contributed is in a fully diversified fund, and that my stable contributions are going to more aggressive allocations to potentially net a larger return. So far this strategy gives me a 2-5% average bump over target date fund returns per year while moderating my risk exposures.
Great to see my question made it in (Q12, I meant future returns ofcource 😊)!
Our Dreams Is : RR ETF (Ucits too 😂)
I like the part about managing what you will do with money
1:16:00 but because of fungibility, not paying off debt (2.8% mortgage) is leverage that makes sense
Ben is a man's man.
Handling $million investment accounts totalling billions, but refuses to pay the low MER (tip) of 10% on an already cheap haircut, so stubbornly shaves his own head for 10 years. 😂
Love to hear his wife's opinion of this investment strategy 😉
It was never about the tip. I wanted to pay the tip. It was the process of getting change to do so!
-Ben
Good job guys.
With the question you skipped, can you let the person know so they won't be trying to find the response when it doesn't exist and wont be answered in the future?(There was no info on who it was afaik)
They said it was the 5-part question that had to be skipped. The questions that others asked were communicated simply. Those were answered.
RR hosts, thanks for your detailed responses. I look forward to future shows where more questions are answered.
@@i-postm4943 I am not saying they need to answer it.
How do I find the Rational Reminder discord server? Is it patreons only or something like that?
Not Discord. community.rationalreminder.ca
@@rationalreminder Ah, thank you very much.
1:18:45 i don’t think we give ourselves enough credit for 2022.
1:32:56 Ben's worst investing mistake was stopping investing in his hair
Q3: If I keep change, it annoys me for a bit, and then disappears before I can use it anyway. So I agree with Old Ben's logic here, I just look way too terrible bald.
For Q12 you said that stocks being riskier means higher expected returns and that makes sense, but why does it actually make sense? If the answer comes from historical data, isn't that just circular reasoning? Or because investors are supposedly rational and (on aggregate) wouldn't make stupid choices / bets?
If markets are even a little bit efficient, capital will only flow to riskier asset in exchange for higher expected returns.
-Ben
@@rationalreminder Sure, but can we make that assumption *without* relying on past price data? Everything I see regarding market efficiency points to pricing and risk models, all of which rely on the same price data.
Yes, we can make that assumption purely on theoretical grounds. Empirical testing follows.
The most basic models of risk and expected return use volatility as a measure of risk, and bonds are generally less volatile than stocks. Additionally, bondholders have protections in a bankruptcy that stockholders do not have.
-Ben
The additional protections on bonds do make sense to me, and I guess that extrapolates to other asset classes and their assumed safety. Hadn't considered that, thanks! For the empirical testing, my comment was getting long so I'll finally make an account and make a forum post 😄
Did you shave it in the shower? At the sink? How did you clean up the clippings? Asking for a friend.
What exchange/platform do you use to convert your btc to cbbtc?
I managed to convince my wife to cut my hair, it saves me so much time and money, although she hates doing it 😂
That sounds very expensive.
-Ben
Nothing about returns? Wonder why
We answered listener questions in the order we received them. None of them were about returns.
-Ben
Low return
Quantity of ads really diminish the quality of this episode. Is this a new setup?
I don’t think we changed anything. Maybe because it’s a long episode?
-Ben
Well that's disappointing. Peace out.