Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • [MUSIC PLAYING]

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Cool, So let's start

  • with your blog and your podcast.

  • You call it \"Afford Anything.\"

  • Where did that name come from?

  • PAULA PANT: So the concept of \"Afford Anything\"

  • is really the concept of opportunity cost.

  • It's this notion that you can afford anything,

  • but not everything.

  • And every decision that you make is a trade-off

  • against something else.

  • And this concept doesn't just apply to your money,

  • even though the word afford conjures up images of money

  • immediately.

  • It also applies to your time, your focus, your energy,

  • your attention because we all have limited cognition, limited

  • mental bandwidth.

  • So really, it's this notion of recognizing

  • that most of the resources that you

  • deal with on a day-to-day basis are limited resources.

  • And we need to be extremely conscious--

  • I would say even ruthless--

  • about how we allocate them.

  • And that means, number one, allocating our resources with

  • more intention and, number two, deeply reflecting on how,

  • at a 30,000-foot level, what is actually a priority to us

  • in our lives to each individual, not what does society say ought

  • to be, or what are the default priorities that we've been

  • taught.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Very nice.

  • And your best known, you know, kind of

  • in the personal finance community

  • for talking and writing a lot about financial independence.

  • So what is financial independence?

  • And how does it relate to your story?

  • PAULA PANT: OK, so financial independence

  • is an interesting concept, and it's

  • one that's gained a lot of popularity

  • in the past few years.

  • I define financial independence as the point

  • at which your passive income typically, but not always,

  • through investments is enough.

  • And when I say enough, I mean that it's enough

  • that it creates at least some type of a safety

  • net underneath you, some type of a floor

  • or a foundation such that you know that, in a worst case

  • scenario, in a black swan situation, you would be OK.

  • And so let's unpack that a little bit because there's

  • a lot going on in that concept.

  • Now, first of all, so financial independence

  • is the point at which your passive income, typically

  • through investment-- so what we mean by that?

  • So passive income is income that does not

  • come through exchanging time for money directly.

  • So for example, if you have access to a 401(k),

  • and you make contributions of income into your 401(k)

  • that money will, hopefully, grow.

  • Right?

  • That money will grow both through capital gains

  • and through dividends.

  • And then that growth will compound.

  • So that would be an example of passive income.

  • Regardless of whether or not you harness it,

  • right, it's income in the sense that it fuels your net worth,

  • and it makes your balance sheet bigger, your personal balance

  • sheet bigger, regardless of the fact

  • that you are not actively pulling money out

  • of your 401(k) on Tuesday in order

  • to pay for a pair of shoes.

  • It's still yours.

  • Right?

  • Same thing with if you make contributions to an IRA

  • or to a health savings account or if you

  • use that money to buy a personal residence or a rental property,

  • assuming that those appreciate or if the rental property does

  • well.

  • In all of those examples, you have a source

  • of passive income coming in that's

  • fueling your net worth, despite the fact

  • that you're not actively trading dollars for it.

  • Now when we talk about--

  • so the last portion of the definition

  • of financial independence is this concept of enough.

  • And that leads to a fairly big philosophical question,

  • which is how much is enough.

  • And this is a source of endless debate within the Financial

  • Independence community, which is abbreviated

  • as the FI community.

  • But at a bare bones, basic level, enough is, as I see it,

  • enough such that, in a worst case scenario,

  • you would at least be OK.

  • You could feed yourself.

  • You could keep the lights on.

  • You could have some type of a reasonable human shelter.

  • It might not be what you prefer, but you

  • know that you would be OK.

  • And the example that I often like to use is--

  • so a lot of people conflate financial independence

  • with extreme wealth or big other highfalutin,

  • pie in the sky ideas.

  • The example that I like to give to kind of bring it

  • down to Earth a little bit is let's

  • say that you had a brother or sister.

  • And today, in an hour from now, you get a phone call,

  • and you find out that your sibling just got diagnosed

  • with a terminal illness.

  • And they have one year left to live.

  • And you want nothing more than to take a one year

  • leave of absence, unpaid leave of absence

  • from work, so that you can spend that last year or that last six

  • months with your sibling.

  • And you can't do that locally because your sibling lives

  • on the other side of the country,

  • or they live in a different country.

  • All right, so you need that time.

  • Financial independence is the state

  • of having enough passive income so

  • that when you're doing that, when you drop everything

  • to be with your sibling for those critical moments,

  • you'll be OK.

  • You know, you're not going to be going to Disneyland.

  • You're not going to be having $400 steak dinners,

  • but you'll at least be OK.

  • And there's a lot of freedom that comes with that.

  • A lot of people who reach financial independence-- and I

  • reached it when I was 31.

  • We'll talk about that in a minute.

  • But a lot of people who reach financial independence often

  • find that nothing in their life necessarily changes.

  • The day to day of their life might

  • look exactly the same post-FI, as it did pre-FI.

  • But the psychological relief that

  • comes from knowing that you've built your own safety net

  • is valuable.

  • And so sometimes, I joke that FI is an extremely elaborate

  • anxiety reduction measure.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • So in my own life, so my own story is

  • I graduated from college when I was 21.

  • This was in 2005.

  • And I shortly after, a few months after that, I got

  • my first job at a newspaper.

  • And my starting salary was $21,000 a year.

  • And I worked at that job until 2008.

  • And at the time that I left, my salary was $31,000 a year.

  • By the way, I know it's unusual to like

  • to sit on stage with a microphone revealing

  • your salary, but I'm a blogger and podcaster.

  • And I've made this very, very public for years.

  • So I'm comfortable sharing all these numbers.

  • So at the time that I left my job, which was in 2008,

  • I was making $31 a year.

  • And I had a lot of anxiety at that time.

  • Like being in my early 20s, I could

  • live like a college student.

  • So it was fine, but I knew that later in my life

  • I was going to need something more, something

  • bigger, something better, especially if I ever wanted

  • to have a family or ever wanted to own

  • a home or anything like that.

  • And so I became really obsessed with saving

  • and obsessed with investing.

  • I started making money--

  • while I was still in newspaper, I

  • was making money on the side as a freelancer,

  • and I continue to grow that.

  • And I became just extremely aggressive

  • about saving and investing, largely fueled

  • by honestly fear, which, you know,

  • I wanted to make sure that I would be OK.

  • And so over the course of the next--

  • basically throughout the rest of my 20s

  • and into my early 30s, myself and also

  • my husband at the time, soon to be ex-husband,

  • Will, who shares my same like enthusiasm for saving

  • and investing, we lived on oftentimes

  • about 50% of our combined income and invested the rest of it.

  • And we invested in a combination of 401(k)--

  • I have a Roth Solo 401(k).

  • He has a simple IRA.

  • We both had Roth IRAs, which later turned back to Roth IRAs.

  • We had HSA accounts.

  • We had the whole alphabet soup going on.

  • And so we put a lot of money there.

  • And then we put a lot of money into rental properties as well.

  • We lived with roommates until we were 31.

  • And I mean, our net worth at the time that we stopped

  • living with roommates, our combined net worth

  • was over $1 million at the time.

  • So we were millionaires living with roommates

  • so that we could save 50% of our income

  • and just shovel that into investments.

  • And that was the level of our dedication towards investing.

  • So that was how I reached FI.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Wow, over $1 million

  • and financially independent by 31,

  • which brings us to a very important question.

  • Please share with us your investing philosophy

  • and some tactics and strategies that you use.

  • PAULA PANT: Sure, at a high level,

  • my investing philosophy is one that

  • is very fond of passively managed investments.

  • So there is this thing called index funds

  • that was created by John Bogle who's the founder of Vanguard.

  • And an index fund is a fund that tracks a market, a broad market

  • index.

  • So for example, an index fund might track the S&P 500 index.

  • And when you invest in an index fund,

  • that fund attempts, to the best of its ability,

  • to mirror everything in that index.

  • And that means that it will do as well as or as poorly

  • as what it's tracking.

  • So if you invest in the total US stock market index,

  • you will do as well as or as poorly

  • as the total US stock market, no better and no worse.

  • And what they found is that, statistically speaking,

  • over the long term, over about a 15- to 30-year time span,

  • you are, statistically speaking, more

  • likely to do better trying to match the market

  • than you are trying to outperform the market.

  • You will sometimes, occasionally, in the short run,

  • have funds or fund managers that momentarily outperform.

  • But then they tend to, over time, revert to the mean.

  • So you're better off just taking the passive approach.

  • And similarly, with real estate investments,

  • I'm a big fan of rental properties.

  • And with rental properties as well,

  • I favor a passive approach of, you know,

  • don't try to constantly be flipping home in my view.

  • There are other people, of course,

  • who do it differently than me.

  • But I don't want to be spending all of my time

  • trying to flip homes or trying to go into extremely

  • sophisticated tactics because that's not what I do full time.

  • I have a different full-time job.

  • And I want to focus on that other full-time work

  • because that's my core competence.

  • And so I want to make my real estate investments

  • as passive as possible so that they take up as little

  • of my cognition as possible, again,

  • because you can do anything, but not everything.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Right, and you write and talk

  • a lot about growing the gap.

  • So what do you mean by growing the gap?

  • PAULA PANT: So growing the gap is the result of a big--

  • an argument, a debate that is popular among people

  • in the personal finance community

  • and in the FI community, which people love to argue about

  • whether it is more efficient to earn more or spend less.

  • It's that classic like chocolate versus vanilla, peanut butter

  • versus jelly debate.

  • Right?

  • And people often tend to--

  • they'll choose a side.

  • They'll pick a camp.

  • It's almost like you have a favorite sports team.

  • I'm on the earn more side.

  • Well, I'm on the save more side.

  • And the way that I was able to find a bit of compromise

  • between those two is I asked myself

  • what are we actually trying to do here.

  • Like forget what camp you're in.

  • What's the goal?

  • Well, the objective is to increase the gap between what

  • you make and what you spend.

  • And when you think of it in that terms,

  • you know, growing the gap is--

  • the objective becomes more clear.

  • Right?

  • You're not caught up in endless penny-pinching.

  • You're not caught up in like trying

  • to shrink your way to greatness, nor on the other side

  • are you caught up in just, you know,

  • going for promotion after promotion and raise to raise,

  • trying to make as much money as possible,

  • but being super careless about your spending.

  • Like growing the gap is that recognition

  • that you can earn more.

  • You can spend less.

  • You can do a combination of both.

  • But ultimately, your approach or your tactic

  • matters less than the size of the gap.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: So on the saving side,

  • there's a cliche that says, you know, don't buy lattes.

  • Or said another way, don't pay $5 for a cup of coffee.

  • Do you agree with that?

  • PAULA PANT: So that was coined by David Bach.

  • And David Bach, he's a best-selling author.

  • And he very much meant that as a metaphor for don't be

  • mindless about your spending.

  • The $5 a day, you know, the buying a latte,

  • if it is done with intention, if you sit down, and you think,

  • you know, I really value this.

  • I value this moment in my morning

  • where I can drink a latte and write in my journal

  • and reflect on what's coming up in my day.

  • That conscious, intentional spending

  • is very different than mindlessly

  • buying a $5 coffee every morning and then,

  • at the end of the week, complaining

  • that you don't have enough or wondering why you're still

  • in credit card debt.

  • Those are same action, but the thought behind it

  • is the differentiator.

  • That being said, in the world of saving money,

  • there's what I call the big three--

  • housing, transportation, food.

  • And if you can get those big three right,

  • then you can actually make a lot of small--

  • you can get a lot of small things

  • wrong, if you get those three things right.

  • Because for the average American,

  • housing, transportation, and food

  • are going to be your three biggest expenses.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: And actually, just as a

  • follow up on that, same concept of like how

  • do you think about making budgeting and budgeting

  • and spending decisions, especially

  • for certain categories?

  • So to come up with a budget, how do you

  • decide for these categories, oh, my budget

  • is going to be $50 or $100 or $200 a month?

  • Is it arbitrary?

  • And then also, like how do I decide how much to spend

  • versus how much to invest?

  • You know, if I have x amount of dollars, you know,

  • from my paycheck, how do I decide

  • where to allocate that money?

  • PAULA PANT: So it's interesting that you

  • ask about different categories because I'm

  • going to take a step back for a second

  • and question the premise.

  • What is the point of allocating your budget

  • into specific, granular, line-itemized categories?

  • Ultimately, a budget is a tool that people

  • use in order to make sure that you are saving enough.

  • So again, let's take that step back and ask

  • what's the objective here.

  • If the objective is to make sure that you're saving enough,

  • well, let's start with that.

  • So you take whatever your take-home income is,

  • your after-tax income and, from that,

  • decide how much you want to save.

  • And when I say save, I mean that very broadly.

  • I mean that as anything that improves your net worth.

  • So how much money do you want to put into retirement accounts,

  • use as additional payments on a debt, so maybe

  • additional payments towards a student loan or a mortgage?

  • And then savings could also be literal savings

  • in a savings account.

  • Right?

  • So take your income, then ask yourself how much of this

  • do I want to save, meaning any improvement my net worth.

  • Yank that off the top.

  • And then whatever is left over is yours to spend.

  • And there isn't actually any reason to line

  • itemize it any further than that.

  • Now if you want to, if you're the personality type who

  • loves tinkering with spreadsheets,

  • and that sounds like a really fun way

  • to spend a Friday night, then go for it, you know,

  • if that's what you want to do.

  • But to a lot of people, a lot of people

  • believe that they can't stick to a budget

  • because they create these incredibly granular budgets

  • where they've allocated precisely $37 a month

  • for dog food.

  • And then it turns out that they've spent $42 that month.

  • And then they throw up their hands in despair

  • and decide that budgeting is not for me.

  • And I'm just not very good at money.

  • Right?

  • And so the concept of what I call the anti-budget, which

  • is what I've just described, which

  • is this very simple, two-category budget of save,

  • spend, the anti-budget was something

  • that I developed in order to address

  • that concern that a lot of people had,

  • that problem that a lot of people

  • had because so many people were giving up

  • on the notion of budgeting, thinking

  • that it had to be more complicated than it is.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: So for people that do

  • want to increase their savings rate,

  • as you were talking about, what are some ways

  • to go about doing that?

  • PAULA PANT: Oh, so again, if you think of savings

  • more broadly as growing the gap, then you can earn more.

  • You can spend less.

  • You can do a combination of both.

  • So let's talk about each of those.

  • So earning more, you can do that--

  • and it depends on really where you are in life,

  • like what your life situation is.

  • For some people, like if you have the opportunity,

  • if you're at a company that is large enough

  • to have the opportunity for promotions and raises,

  • then hitting it really hard at work

  • and making yourself extremely valuable to your company

  • so that your company reciprocates with rewarding you

  • with some of that value that you are giving to them,

  • that can be an incredibly powerful way

  • to save because, if you keep your current standard of living

  • exactly where it is, and then you earn more--

  • you get raises.

  • You get promotions.

  • You earn more.

  • And then you bank all of those raises.

  • So you just keep living exactly where you are today

  • and save every single raise.

  • That, over the span of 10 years, assuming

  • that you continue to get raises and promotions over the next 10

  • years, that alone can be rocket fuel on your finances.

  • Of course, that assumes that you are

  • at a company that has those types of opportunities.

  • You know, in my case, I worked at a very small newspaper,

  • where, like I said, my maximum salary was $31,000.

  • And at that company, the highest paid person at that company

  • was making about $60.

  • It was just a small company that didn't

  • have those types of opportunities for advancement

  • or at least those opportunities for--

  • I didn't have the opportunity for a six-figure income

  • where I worked.

  • And so in that situation, developing

  • some type of a side hustle or a side business

  • could be a good approach.

  • And I'll divide that actually into two different levels

  • because, in terms of side businesses,

  • you have the gig economy stuff.

  • Right?

  • You have driving for Uber, driving for Lyft,

  • renting out of room on Airbnb, walking dogs on Rover,

  • renting out your car on Turo.

  • Those are all gig economy types of ways

  • to make some extra income.

  • The benefit is that that income is immediate,

  • but the drawback is that you can't--

  • well, with the exception of Airbnb,

  • you can't really distinguish yourself very much.

  • You don't have much of a competitive advantage.

  • And so while you have some immediate income,

  • your upside potential will be limited.

  • The other type of side income would

  • be something like freelancing, consulting, something

  • where you have unique value that is your market differentiator.

  • And so the advantage to that type of side income

  • is that you can potentially make a lot more.

  • The disadvantage is that that can take a while

  • to build into scale.

  • So that income is not necessarily

  • going to be immediate.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Very nice.

  • And another thing you say is never delay gratification.

  • So what does that mean?

  • PAULA PANT: So that much applies to the thinking

  • or the mental construct around saving money and investing

  • money.

  • A lot of people refer to saving money as delayed gratification.

  • And I think that that's a huge mistake, especially

  • because, you know, you're trying to encourage people

  • in their 20s and 30s to save, especially

  • to save for retirement because the longer your money is--

  • time in the market is far more important than timing

  • the market.

  • And compounding growth is, you know, a wonder of the universe.

  • Right?

  • So when you tell someone in their 20s

  • to delay gratification, that sounds pretty awful.

  • But if you reframe that mental concept,

  • and if you say you know what, I'm not delaying gratification.

  • I am super gratified by watching my net worth grow.

  • Like I am super gratified by looking

  • at the numbers in this account and watching them get bigger

  • and tracking my net worth and watching that line go up.

  • That's super cool.

  • And that brings me far more of a sense of satisfaction

  • than some cheap plastic junk or a car

  • that is marginally nicer than the one that I already have.

  • Right?

  • Like that's a way that you can reframe gratification, rather

  • than delay it.

  • The other aspect of that is to have a very strong

  • why that motivates you.

  • So you don't want to be unhappy in the present

  • for the sake of a future.

  • You do want a future that you look forward to.

  • You want a strong, compelling why in the future,

  • but you also want to frame that saving and investing in a way

  • in which you're enjoying the present moment.

  • So for example, when I lived with roommates,

  • like my thinking at the time, my mentality was like, cool,

  • I've got built-in friends.

  • You know, I've always got people to eat dinner with.

  • And you know, so there were, of course, certain drawbacks

  • with that like sharing a refrigerator.

  • But I mentally focused on the advantages, rather than

  • the disadvantages.

  • And that made it feel like an immediately fun option,

  • rather than as a sacrifice.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: And so yeah, we talked about kind

  • of saving and investing.

  • How about investing versus paying off debt?

  • So you know, most people have some sort of debt,

  • whether it's a mortgage or student loans or whatnot.

  • And how do you think about whether, if you

  • do have some extra cash, do you pay down debt quicker?

  • Or should I do the minimum payment

  • and invest that in the stock market?

  • And there seems to be arguments both ways.

  • What are your thoughts on that?

  • PAULA PANT: That's an excellent question.

  • Now first of all, both of them are fantastic options.

  • Anything that improves your net worth is awesome.

  • So regardless of which one you choose, either way, it's great.

  • In terms of how to think through that question,

  • there are a couple of different approaches.

  • First of all, I'm going to differentiate

  • between high-interest debt versus low-interest debt.

  • Now we know that, historically, the US stock market, depending

  • on the years that you're looking at, the time frame that you're

  • looking at, historically, the US stock market

  • has returned somewhere between 7% to 10% ish

  • as a long-term aggregate average.

  • Warren Buffett has predicted that the US stock market

  • might, to the extent that anybody can ever

  • predict anything about the future,

  • has predicted that the US stock market may produce 7% returns

  • in the future, moving forward.

  • Of course, projection is just a fancy word for guess,

  • but we can use that as a ballpark figure

  • as we're kind of thinking through this decision.

  • So if you have a debt that has double-digit interest rates,

  • right, if you've got a debt that's 10% or more--

  • or I would argue, personally, 8% or more,

  • pay that off because you're not likely to do better

  • in an index fund, in a broad market index fund.

  • Now if you have a debt that has a high single digit--

  • we'll say somewhere between 5% to 8% interest rate--

  • there's still a strong argument for paying that debt off.

  • Although, the argument is a little bit less strong.

  • But when you talk about investment returns,

  • you want to think of them in the framework

  • of a risk-adjusted return.

  • And what that means is that getting

  • a return of 8% in a treasury bond

  • is very different than getting a return of 8% in Bitcoin,

  • right, like two totally different types of risk

  • that we're talking about.

  • So if you're thinking about arbitraging the difference

  • between the interest rate that you're

  • paying on a loan versus the return

  • that you could get in an investment,

  • you want the potential gap to be big enough.

  • You want that spread to be big enough

  • to justify the added risk.

  • So for example, if you have a mortgage at a 3.5% interest

  • rate, and you have $10,000 that you got as a bonus,

  • and you're wondering should I apply

  • this $10,000 towards my mortgage,

  • or should I put this $10,000 into the stock market, well,

  • at that point, we're talking about a spread that

  • is large enough that there would be, in many cases, a pretty

  • valid argument for putting that 10 grand into the market.

  • If the spread is really small, then it's just not worth it.

  • So that being said, the other thing that I'll say

  • is that there are many people who

  • are proponents of getting rid of debt as quickly as possible

  • because there are a lot of emotional and psychological

  • benefits to getting rid of that debt.

  • And so in addition to the math of it,

  • in addition to the opportunity cost and the expected value,

  • you also do want to think about, you know, we're not machines.

  • We're not robots.

  • And if that psychological benefit to being debt-free

  • is going to help you get a better night's sleep,

  • well, then there's added value in that.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Yeah, so you've obviously

  • made a very compelling argument like why you should invest.

  • There are seasoned investors in the room.

  • And there's also people just getting started.

  • And I guess one challenge that I still

  • have is trying to figure out my ideal asset allocation.

  • Everyone disagrees with it.

  • You know, some people would say you're very young.

  • You should be all stocks.

  • Some people would say you should have your age in bonds.

  • Some people should say the market has been very volatile.

  • You should have real estate in your portfolio.

  • And others would say cash is king.

  • So with so many different asset classes,

  • how do you make a decision on how-- you know,

  • based on things like risk tolerance,

  • how do you decide for you specifically, rather

  • than just some rule of thumb?

  • Like how do I decide what my personal asset

  • allocation should be?

  • PAULA PANT: That's also a good question.

  • So when people diversify their investments,

  • the idea behind diversification is

  • to have an assortment of what are known

  • as low-correlation assets.

  • And so low-correlation assets are

  • assets in which, when one moves this way,

  • the other doesn't move, or it moves, you know, inverse.

  • So like stocks and bonds, that's an easy example.

  • They tend to have an inverse correlation with one another.

  • When one goes up, the other goes down.

  • And so having that mix of stocks and bonds

  • smooths out the ride in your portfolio.

  • And really, what it does is when you rebalance--

  • the idea behind rebalancing is that you

  • sell some of the winners and buy more of the losers.

  • You know, you buy things that underperform--

  • you sell things that are doing really well

  • and buy more of what's underperforming.

  • Rebalancing a portfolio forces you to do exactly that.

  • It forces you to sell the winner, harvest the winners,

  • and buy the underperformers.

  • And as a result, the whole concept of rebalancing

  • forces you to take a contrarian approach

  • and move in the opposite direction of the market.

  • It forces you to be greedy when others are fearful and fearful

  • when others are greedy, to paraphrase that famous quote.

  • And that's the reason why asset allocation and buying

  • an assortment of like different assets

  • and then rebalancing periodically

  • is so well regarded among many people.

  • That being said, it's not necessarily

  • the only way to do it.

  • There are plenty of people who make the argument

  • that, particularly when you're young,

  • having an all-equities portfolio,

  • you know, balanced out with a strong cash reserve

  • would be better than putting a portion of your portfolio

  • in bonds since, historically, over a 40-year time span,

  • those equities are going to do better.

  • And so there are people who will argue

  • that having any type of a bond allocation

  • means that you are giving up some returns in exchange

  • for that smoother ride.

  • So if you talk to 100 different people about asset allocation,

  • you're going to hear 101 different responses.

  • The way to think through it for yourself

  • is, first and foremost, again, what's going to help you

  • sleep more easily at night because your behavior

  • and your contributions are the single biggest determinant

  • of market performance.

  • They've found that people often underperform the funds

  • that they are in.

  • And on the surface, that sounds impossible.

  • Like if you're in a fund, how could you possibly underperform

  • the fund that you're in?

  • But the reason that that happens is because people get nervous,

  • and then they dance in and out of the fund.

  • And as a result, they underperform

  • what they're already holding.

  • And so they've actually found that dead people actually

  • outperform the living when it comes to investment returns

  • because they just don't touch-- they

  • don't touch their portfolio.

  • And so actually, I learned that through JL Collins who

  • gave a great talk at Google.

  • And so that's the first question that I would ask yourself.

  • Right?

  • Like the math of it is one thing,

  • but the behavioral component cannot be understated.

  • So if having that bond allocation

  • or having some portion of your portfolio in commodities

  • or in real estate or just keeping an excess in cash

  • beyond what most financial advisors might recommend,

  • if that's what helps you hold steady through market declines

  • and hold steady through a recession,

  • then it's worthwhile.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: So speaking of JL Collins and other industry

  • titans, like Warren Buffett, Jack Bogle,

  • they all say US stocks.

  • You know, put your money in either the S&P 500

  • or the total US stock market and don't touch it

  • for a really long time.

  • What are your thoughts on US versus international investing?

  • So should people be investing in international stocks?

  • So I guess could you talk about kind

  • of home-country bias and then whether or not

  • you recommend investing internationally as well?

  • PAULA PANT: So I do, yes.

  • I think that it is a very good idea.

  • Again, this is one of those controversial topics

  • where there are some people, JL Collins being an example--

  • he makes the argument that, if you

  • are invested in major companies that are based in the United

  • States, like Google or Nike, you know,

  • many of the big companies based here

  • do business in countries around the world.

  • And so he and many other people make the argument

  • that, simply by virtue of investing in large-cap US

  • companies, you necessarily have international exposure

  • indirectly through them.

  • And his argument is that, for that reason,

  • international funds are unnecessary.

  • They also, oftentimes, depending on the specifics

  • of the type of plan that your company offers,

  • these funds can often be more expensive.

  • And there's also currency risk because you're

  • using US dollars to invest in companies that operate

  • in different currencies.

  • And so in addition to all of the risks

  • that you have when you become an investor in a company, which

  • is what happens whenever you buy a stock,

  • you also have currency conversion risk

  • to contend with as well.

  • So for that reason, there is a camp

  • of people who think that international investing is

  • unnecessary.

  • Personally, I disagree.

  • I think that it is important to have an international component

  • to your portfolio.

  • And so there are three subsets, major subsets,

  • to international investing.

  • There's developed markets, emerging markets,

  • and frontier markets.

  • And I would argue that, at a minimum,

  • developed markets, which are well-established,

  • stable markets, should be a piece of your portfolio.

  • Emerging markets, probably, you know,

  • they tend to be a little bit more volatile.

  • But if you have the stomach to withstand that volatility,

  • I think that's also an excellent addition.

  • Frontier markets might be a little bit too volatile

  • for a lot of people.

  • So I wouldn't necessarily go there.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Gotcha.

  • And several of your episodes have

  • gone into kind of behavioral finance, which

  • I know a lot of us find very interesting.

  • And so can you kind of share some key lessons

  • you've learned on how psychology impacts investing

  • and maybe what we should do about it.

  • PAULA PANT: So first, there's this notion of loss aversion.

  • And loss aversion is the concept that losing money

  • feels worse than making the equivalent amount of money.

  • If you invest $5,000, and you lose $1,000,

  • and now you're down to $4, that feels a lot worse than the joy

  • that you would feel if that $5,000 went up to $6,000.

  • And so loss aversion and, you know,

  • its closely related cousin negativity bias,

  • highlights how we often can spend more time playing defense

  • than we do playing offense.

  • Right?

  • We spend more time and energy trying to protect ourselves

  • from the downside than we do trying to pursue opportunities.

  • And that's something, as you feel yourself emotionally

  • reacting to your investments-- like if you make a practice

  • of tracking your net worth, and you do this quarterly--

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Daily.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • PAULA PANT: You're probably going

  • to have some quarters-- unless you're very lucky,

  • there might be quarters where your net worth goes down,

  • perhaps significantly.

  • And when that happens, you will feel that sense of that.

  • Seeing your net worth decline feels a lot worse

  • than the joy you felt the previous quarter watching

  • it go up.

  • And that's that moment to check in with yourself and say

  • am I about to do something stupid.

  • Am I about to make an impulsive decision based on this feeling

  • that I have right now?

  • So that's one of the components.

  • Loss aversion is one of the behavioral components

  • of managing yourself as an investor.

  • I would argue that managing yourself and managing

  • your own mindset is the precursor to managing money.

  • You can't effectively manage your money

  • until you've managed your mental space.

  • So in addition to loss aversion, sunk cost

  • fallacy is another popular fallacy

  • that people get hung up on.

  • Sunk cost fallacy is this notion that I'm already in it.

  • I may as well stay in it.

  • I've already put in so much time and effort.

  • I may as well keep doing it.

  • I see this a lot when people buy rental properties.

  • Right?

  • You'll make 10 offers on properties.

  • None of them get accepted.

  • You make the 11th offer.

  • It finally gets accepted.

  • And then you send an inspector out to the property,

  • and the inspector finds something

  • completely unanticipated.

  • And you think to yourself I've put in so much work just trying

  • to find this property, plus I've paid $400 for the inspector,

  • you know, this has already cost me so many hours of my time.

  • Let's just buy the thing.

  • Right?

  • And that's sunk cost fallacy.

  • Now that you're this deep into it,

  • you don't want to give it up.

  • But that's not an effective framework

  • for making that type of six-figure decision.

  • Anchoring is another one.

  • So anchoring is this notion of, well,

  • I paid $100 for this stock.

  • And so now I'm price anchored to it at $100.

  • The stock has dropped to $70.

  • I'm just going to wait until it gets back up to $100,

  • and then I'll sell it.

  • Right?

  • That's a tempting thought to have.

  • But in reality, it's completely illogical.

  • The stock does not care what you paid for it.

  • So those are all examples of very, very common

  • mental fallacies that we can fall into as we think

  • about how to manage our money.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: And so knowing that psychology

  • has such a major influence on investing,

  • one thing I'd like to hear from you

  • is, so going back to the asset allocation,

  • if you're young, if you're in your 20s or 30s,

  • you should be predominantly all stocks.

  • So it seems like-- and some people

  • are even preaching be 100% stocks for example.

  • And that's extremely aggressive, especially

  • because a lot of millennials have never--

  • they haven't gone through 2008, for example,

  • with money and the market.

  • So I guess my thought is knowing--

  • again, going back to the loss aversion and things like that,

  • do you actually recommend maybe young people have

  • a more conservative allocation until they see how they react

  • going through volatility or a bear market

  • and making sure they can handle that sort of, you know,

  • volatility or loss?

  • And then once they do that, maybe they

  • could actually then take on a more aggressive allocation,

  • knowing they can handle it.

  • PAULA PANT: I would not recommend

  • that for all young people, but I would

  • ask each individual person to know yourself.

  • If you think that there is a reasonable likelihood that you

  • might panic the next time that we have a recession,

  • then put those safeguards in place

  • that will save you from yourself.

  • And so the tactic that you just cited,

  • which is have a heavier bond allocation or a heavier cash

  • allocation when you're young so that you

  • can see how you react at the next recession, that's

  • an example of a way that you can build a safeguard in which you

  • protect yourself from yourself.

  • That's one of many examples.

  • You could also work with an advisor

  • and give them clear instructions to like no matter--

  • when we have our next pullback, no matter

  • what I tell you, right, don't let me

  • shoot myself in the foot.

  • Right?

  • Don't let me be my own worst enemy.

  • That might be another way, another tactic that allows you

  • to save yourself from yourself.

  • But at the end of the day, what you

  • want to do is really know yourself and then put

  • those safeguards in place that allow you--

  • that they compensate for your weaknesses.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Great.

  • I have one more question.

  • And then I think we actually might

  • have time for a few audience questions

  • so if you want to think about anything you might want to ask.

  • But first, before we get there, let's talk about habits

  • because that's a huge component.

  • You chat a lot about that on your podcast, habits and habits

  • building.

  • You've had some great guests come on and talk about that.

  • And one of the things you said that stuck with me

  • is that basically habits beat willpower any day.

  • And I think that's fascinating.

  • Right?

  • It's like it's very hard to walk by like a donut or something

  • and not grab it.

  • But if you, in advance, develop a habit to not walk

  • by the donut, it's very easy.

  • So can you chat more about that, building the habits.

  • PAULA PANT: Oh, this is one of my favorite topics.

  • OK, so first of all, yes, habits beat willpower.

  • The notion is willpower is kind of like a muscle.

  • It tends to be, for most people, it

  • tends to be strongest in the morning and weakest at night,

  • which is why a lot of people have--

  • they stick to their eating plan for the whole day,

  • and then they have that late night snack,

  • you know, that they never intended to have.

  • But it's 11:00 PM.

  • And you're tired.

  • And this seems like the perfect moment to eat that donut.

  • Right?

  • When you create habits, those habits are largely unconscious.

  • Right?

  • When I wake up in the morning, when I pick up my toothbrush,

  • the next thing that I do is I pick up my tube of toothpaste.

  • And I put the toothpaste on the toothbrush.

  • That's not a conscious thought.

  • I don't pick up my toothbrush and then

  • stand there looking at it wondering what to do next.

  • It's muscle memory.

  • It's a habit.

  • This is the trigger or cue--

  • picking up my toothbrush is the trigger or cue

  • that precedes the next immediate action, which is picking up

  • that tube of toothpaste.

  • And so in order to form a habit, things to be conscious

  • of-- and this comes from Charles Duhigg in his book \"The Power

  • of Habit\"--

  • is time, location, immediately preceding action,

  • emotional state.

  • Right?

  • And if there's a particular habit

  • that you're trying to break--

  • he gave the example of he would always

  • get up and start, around 3:30 in the afternoon, he would get up,

  • and he would eat a cookie.

  • And he just kept doing this.

  • And then he kept eating cookies.

  • And he started gaining weight.

  • And so then he noted the time.

  • He noted the location.

  • He noted the emotional state that he was in,

  • which was kind of bored or restless or wanting

  • a break around that time.

  • And he was able to replace getting

  • a cookie with just taking a walk and, you know,

  • satisfying that emotional state, satisfying

  • the state of like boredom restlessness

  • without the cookie.

  • So he kept the cue or trigger, and then he

  • kept the reward, which was the satisfaction

  • of his restlessness, like that entertainment and distraction.

  • And he replaced the action in the middle.

  • So if you break down a habit into cue,

  • action, reward, then keep the cue.

  • Keep the reward.

  • Switch out the action.

  • There's this notion also called habit stacking.

  • And that is to build habits on top of other habits.

  • And so the reason that habit stacking works so well

  • is, because every habit needs a given cue,

  • if you have a cue already because that cue is

  • a habit that you're already doing,

  • then, since you're already doing it,

  • you know that you can stack another habit on top of that.

  • So for example, every morning I make a cup of coffee.

  • Earlier this year, I decided that I

  • wanted to create a habit of writing in a journal.

  • And so I now stack my journal writing habit

  • with my coffee habit.

  • I will never forget to drink coffee in the morning.

  • That's impossible.

  • And so when I have that cup of coffee,

  • that is now the cue or the trigger that tells me time

  • to write in a journal.

  • And then the next habit that I will form--

  • and it's typically most effective to only form

  • one habit at a time.

  • A lot of people try to stack on too many habits all at once.

  • And then the whole thing collapses.

  • So choose one habit.

  • For me, it was writing in my journal.

  • Stick with that for 30 to 60 days.

  • And then at the end of that, then add in another one.

  • So right now, it's the end of February.

  • I started the journal habit.

  • It's been about 60 days.

  • And now that that has been pretty consistent,

  • now I can add on the next habit.

  • And so the next thing I'd like to do

  • is meditate for about 10 minutes.

  • And my intention is, again, that habit stacking, coffee,

  • journal, meditate.

  • So each one is a cue or a trigger for the next.

  • AUDIENCE: How do you think about cash flow investing

  • with real estate?

  • Are you like an LP in a fund?

  • Or are you a sole proprietor?

  • And you buy apartment buildings, and you manage them yourself.

  • What do you do?

  • PAULA PANT: So I personally--

  • again, I want to spend as little time

  • on real estate as possible for myself.

  • And of course, every real estate investor

  • is going to have a different strategy based

  • on what your career is, what your business is, you know,

  • how much time you have.

  • For myself, with that passive philosophy,

  • I want to spend as a little time on it as possible.

  • So I only buy residential rental properties

  • in the United States.

  • That's the only thing I'm interested in.

  • And that does not necessarily mean

  • that that is better or worse than any other type.

  • You know, so I'm in no way implying

  • that that's better than commercial buildings

  • or warehouses or storage units.

  • It's just I want to keep it as simple as possible

  • so that I can focus the vast majority of my time and energy

  • on my business and my career because that's where

  • I can make the biggest gains.

  • AUDIENCE: Hi, Paula.

  • I have a question going back to the asset allocation discussion

  • that David started.

  • And it's also coming off that real estate comment.

  • What is the recommended percentage

  • of your net worth that you would invest in index

  • funds versus rental properties?

  • Because it seems like all the research

  • I've done on all the dialogue from the financial independence

  • community is basically split into those two schools

  • of thought.

  • Like do index fund investing, or buy rental properties.

  • And if I may outline, it seems to be the rule of thumb

  • for index fund investing is the 4% safe withdrawal rate.

  • And then the rule of thumb for rental property investing

  • would be the type of cap rate you're going for.

  • And a going rate for the cap rate might be like 7%.

  • So is that a 7% rule versus a 4% rule that

  • accelerates your date to FI?

  • Or am I off there?

  • Just curious.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: That is a pretty specific question.

  • [LAUGHTER]

  • PAULA PANT: So first of all, to the first half

  • of your question, which is what is the proper asset allocation,

  • again, I don't think that there is any specific correct one.

  • Right?

  • Like at the end of the day, at a big picture level,

  • what you're trying to do is increase your net worth

  • in a risk-managed way.

  • And so however you can increase your net worth

  • in a way that is comfortable to you is the way to do it.

  • Right?

  • The best, the quote unquote, \"best strategy\" in the world

  • is the one that you'll actually stick to because, ultimately,

  • regardless of whether your contributions are going

  • to rental properties versus index funds,

  • your contributions are going to be the single biggest

  • determinant of your success.

  • And so if you--

  • and again, humans can play these psychological tricks

  • on themselves.

  • Like we have this tendency to compartmentalize money.

  • Like if you think about it, money is money.

  • You've got this big pool of assets, and it's all money.

  • But if we compartmentalize it mentally,

  • if we think this is the batch that's

  • going to be used for my kids' college fund,

  • well, we're less likely to take the kids' college fund batch

  • and spend it on caviar and champagne,

  • even though we might take a batch from this other bucket

  • and spend that on caviar and champagne.

  • Right?

  • Ultimately, it's all your net worth.

  • It's all your money.

  • But compartmentalizing is very powerful.

  • And so that really, in terms of asset allocation,

  • is what I would encourage you to do.

  • If you can compartmentalize like,

  • you know, maybe the income that I make from--

  • the income that I make from this freelancing

  • that I do on the side goes towards rental properties,

  • but the income that I make from my primary job

  • goes towards index funds or vise versa, whatever.

  • You know, it doesn't matter what the decision is.

  • That compartmentalization can often

  • be a motivator that helps you increase contributions.

  • And I think that is far more important than the tactic

  • of nailing a proper asset allocation.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Nice, all right, one last one.

  • AUDIENCE: Who wants it?

  • AUDIENCE: Hi, first, thanks for coming out and talking with us.

  • So my question has to do with asset allocation to a degree,

  • but also real estate and equity.

  • So ultimately--

  • PAULA PANT: Popular topic here.

  • AUDIENCE: Yeah, you know, if you're

  • noticing that a substantial portion of your net worth

  • is in home equity, what are kind of the key points

  • to factor into the decision of whether

  • or not to pull the equity to invest?

  • So you know, ultimately, you discussed 4% and change.

  • If it's a home equity line, if there's

  • a variable versus fixed, what are you looking for as far as--

  • you know, you mentioned 7% or 8% return--

  • kind of that gap?

  • What's that spread that you kind of look

  • for to decide whether or not it's meaningful to actually

  • pull money out of investments?

  • PAULA PANT: Oh, that's an excellent question.

  • So the concept of, if you have a significant amount

  • of home equity in your personal residence,

  • pulling that home equity out to invest-- now

  • first thing I'll say is a lot of people

  • have a knee-jerk reaction to this where they think,

  • oh, no, don't do that.

  • That's not a good idea.

  • But if you think about it logically,

  • right, what is the difference between--

  • what is the difference between taking money

  • that you would otherwise use to make accelerated mortgage

  • payments and using that for an alternate purpose versus having

  • a good amount of home equity and then

  • borrowing against it for same said alternate purpose.

  • Right?

  • At a functional level, those are exactly the same actions.

  • But a lot of people will say--

  • you know, person A will say I'm not making any accelerated

  • payments towards my mortgage because I would rather put

  • that money into investment x.

  • And person B would say I am making accelerated payments

  • towards my mortgage.

  • And now, look, I've got all of this home equity.

  • I'm going to borrow against it and put that money

  • towards investment x.

  • Right?

  • Like it's the same thing.

  • So the first thing I'll say-- and I'm

  • saying this for the sake of everyone who's listening-- is,

  • you know, don't have that knee-jerk reaction

  • against borrowing against the equity

  • in your personal residence because, in many ways,

  • many of us are already doing it through opportunity cost.

  • So then to answer your specific question,

  • how would I think through whether or not to do it

  • for a given investment?

  • The first thing that I would ask is not

  • the potential return on that investment,

  • but I would ask what is the risk of ruin.

  • Right?

  • What are the chances that that money that you withdraw

  • could go down to zero?

  • On something like a broad market index fund

  • or a rental property, the chances of that falling,

  • sure, that's there.

  • But the chances of that dropping by 50%, you know,

  • or losing a very significant amount of money

  • is, historically speaking, not that likely to happen.

  • You know, so in that regard, your downside is, at least

  • historically speaking, limited.

  • And to that extent, that makes it

  • safer than say taking out that same HELOC

  • and using it to start your own business, which could go down

  • to zero.

  • So that's the way that I would approach

  • it is manage the downside.

  • Manage the risk of ruin.

  • Because so long as that money, in a worst case scenario,

  • so long as even if you don't make any returns,

  • if at the end of the day, you break even,

  • and then you're mad at yourself because you've just

  • paid a bunch of closing costs, that's not

  • going to be a deathbed regret.

  • Right?

  • AUDIENCE: Thanks.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: All right, well, that's all the time we have.

  • Last question for Paula, for those

  • that are interested and want to learn more

  • about you and \"Afford Anything,\" where should they go?

  • PAULA PANT: So my podcast is called \"Afford Anything.\"

  • So you can find it wherever podcasts are found.

  • And my website is affordanything.com.

  • DAVID MOLTZ: Great, well, thanks, everyone.

  • Thank you, Paula.

  • [APPLAUSE]

[MUSIC PLAYING]

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 美國腔

寶拉 潘特:買得起任何東西 | Talks at Google (Paula Pant: "Afford Anything" | Talks at Google)

  • 176 0
    Potsun 發佈於 2019 年 05 月 23 日
影片單字