Money can buy many things that give happiness in life.  But, once you cross a moderate standard of living, more money leads mostly to temporary increases in happiness until you get used to the new normal (e.g. new car, private jet).

One thing that can stick is the ability to stop worrying about money.  This happens when you save money, and have enough available for surprise needs, beyond the routine expenses, such as a major repair or unexpected health care expenses.

The key factor that makes this work is the extra unused money.  $1M invested in Quality Asset Management’s portfolio Long-Term Component is likely to provide perpetual annual income of $40k, growing with inflation.  Any unexpected expenses up to this amount can be handled with great piece of mind.

The ultimate worry-free life (financially) is reached when your investments can cover all of your ongoing + unexpected expenses perpetually (e.g., $5M providing $150k for routine expenses + $50k for surprise expenses, at 4% annual withdrawals).  At that point, you can avoid worrying about money, and feel the lasting happiness.

The good news is that you don’t need to wait for decades to reach the ultimate goal, to start reaping the benefits.  With every bit of increased savings (relative to spending), you get reduced stress and increased happiness.

Important Disclosures

I read many articles every week, and came up with ways to filter out misleading articles. This is critical for me, so I can keep my investment decisions rational and unbiased. Using the wrong article to affect investment decisions can cost you real money. Here is a quick checklist to uncover many of the misleading articles:

  1. Focuses on recent history without offering a long-term perspective.
  2. Talks to your emotions, without accompanying with data or logic.
  3. Presents recent history in present tense to imply that it will continue the same way (“stocks/bonds/pesos/you-name-it are currently out of favor”).
  4. Focuses on a narrow asset class (e.g., large U.S. stocks, the S&P 500, Japanese stocks, the BRIC countries) when discussing stock investments in general, or diversified asset classes.
  5. Presents only partial returns (e.g., index returns without dividends).
  6. Provides opinions of well-known people to give credibility, without hard data or logic to back the claims.
  7. Depends on traditions to back the claims, without providing logic (e.g. shift allocation to bonds with age, regardless of the total picture).
  8. Provides specific advice without any comments qualifying who this applies to (e.g. referring to a retiree without discussing their withdrawal rate).
  9. Offers a prediction of the near-term future of an investment (stocks, bonds, gold, etc.) with high certainty.
Important Disclosures

In the article  6 Problems with Dividends for Income [December 2013] you saw a long list of disadvantages of dividends when compared to selling from your investments to generate any required income.  Yet, retirees still like dividends.  Why is that?  The reasons are psychological, and several are listed below:

  1. Disciplined spending:  By limiting spending to dividends, you can resist the temptation to spend the principal.  It gives structure.
  2. Avoiding selling at a loss:  Dividends are given whether the investments are up or down.  A dividend withdrawal at a decline doesn’t require actual selling at a loss.
  3. Avoiding regrets over missed gains:  If you spent dividends, it feels like you spent cash.  But, if you sold from your investments, and they gained substantially, you may regret the sale.  People tend to regret action more than inaction.

Since income can be generated by selling from the portfolio instead of dividends, it is best to avoid focusing on high-dividend investments just for the sake of income generation.  By sticking with selling, you gain control over the amount, timing and regularity of income, as well as investment choice and improved tax-loss harvesting.

The missing piece is the psychological comfort.  That can be obtained by sticking to a conservative cap on withdrawals from the portfolio (typically 3%-4% of the peak value of the investments).  Having an outsider (investment advisor, family member, close friend) track the withdrawals can strengthen the discipline.  As a Quality Asset Management client, you receive the available withdrawal amount in your quarterly email, so you can view your investments very clearly as a sustainable income stream.

Important Disclosures

International markets offer a tradeoff of higher potential returns at the price of higher volatility, when compared to the U.S.

Emerging markets offer even higher potential returns, at the price of even higher volatility, when compared to both the U.S. and international markets.

While these characteristics are well publicized, emerging markets investments hold two additional benefits that are typically not discussed:

  1. Technology Leaps: The technologies developed in the U.S. and other developed countries are readily available to emerging markets, allowing for leaps to the newest technologies.
  2. Rotating Countries: The most advanced countries keep being replaced by less advanced countries in emerging markets funds. As long as there are countries that are not advanced enough to be part of emerging markets funds, we get a fresh supply of countries that can leap forward.

These benefits are the key for emerging markets investments sustaining a very high growth rate.

Important Disclosures

If you own a company with a $1 share price, and it pays a 5c per share dividend, you get 5% in investment income.  While this is a natural solution for retirement income, it has problems.  Some of them stem from the way dividends work:  The share value goes down to 95c (reflecting the cash that the company paid out and no longer has) + you get 5c in cash, leaving you with an unchanged total of $1.  That is, until tax time.  You have to pay taxes on the 5c, reducing the value of your investments.  Below is a list of problems, created by this effect among other factors:

  1. Amount:  More dividends than needed result in unnecessary taxes.
  2. Timing:  The dividend is in cash, not invested, until using the money (called “cash drag”).
  3. Irregularity:  Dividends can be increased or decreased unpredictably – too much creates cash drag & too little creates income stress.
  4. Tax Loss:  If your stock is down, you use dividends for income instead of selling losing shares for income.  Selling losing shares can provide a reduction in taxes.
  5. Limited Growth:  Companies tend to pay dividends when they have limited growth prospects (e.g. utility companies).  Some of the fastest growing companies pay no dividends.
  6. Rebalancing:  By using the dividends for income, you miss out on selling from the biggest gainers in your portfolio to rebalance while generating cash.

Selling from stock investments is far superior:  you can sell from your fast-growing companies, the exact amount needed, when needed, combined with rebalancing & tax-loss harvesting.

Advisors often avoid this optimal solution, since it requires more work and careful planning.  Specifically, it requires setting dividends to reinvest, while carefully planning when to sell to avoid wash sales (i.e. selling at a loss within 30-days of the automatic dividend reinvestment).

Important Disclosures

At times of economic uncertainty, demand for stocks tends to decline, leading to lower than typical stock prices relative to their book value, or liquidation value (low price-to-book, or P/B).  The media tends to be negative about stock investments, and recommends rethinking your stock allocation.  Contrary to the media’s message, this article demonstrates that returns following low P/B tend to be higher than typical.

Very Important Disclaimers

  1. The analysis was done for QAM’s stock portfolios Long-Term Component & Extended-Term Component.  The results may be different for different portfolios.
  2. The time inspected involved 14 years, and is not statistically significant.  The future may show very different results.  Read below to see the limited applicability of the results.

The Findings

Below are annual returns following years since 1998 that ended with P/B < 1, until P/B > 1:

Annual Returns in Years Following P/B < 1, 1998-2012
Year P/B < 1 Annualized Returns to
P/B > 1
Multiple year detail 1
Long-Term Component
1999 0.83 38%
2001 0.81 20% 1%, -6%, 63%, 31%
2009 0.73 53%
2012 0.80 20%
Extended-Term Component
1999 0.69 82%
2001 0.83 19% -2%, -3%, 75%
2009 0.92 90%
2012 0.94 18%

2013-10 Annualized Returns after PB under 1

Highlights from the Data

  1. All annualized returns were positive and high.
  2. The returns were higher than typical, with averages of 33% & 52%.
  3. The P/B recovered quickly – typically in one year, leading to high returns in 1-3 years.

What you shouldn’t do, given the lack of statistical significance?

Since we have P/B data for a mere 14 years, the pattern seen so far may be different than the typical.  It is possible that very negative returns will persist following low valuations in the future.  Therefore:

  1. Do not try any market timing based on this data.
  2. Do not take any risk that you wouldn’t take normally with stock investments.

How can you use the results to your benefit?

Despite the limited applicability of the results, there are two beneficial uses of the data:

  1. When the media recommends reducing the stock allocation, check the P/B of your QAM portfolio.  If it is below 1, there is a possibility for unusually high returns in upcoming years.  You can stay strong sticking to your plan when others are telling you to bail out.
  2. If you keep varying levels of cash, or debate taking a mortgage loan for the purpose of investing, and, financially speaking, you can clearly tolerate the short-term risk, seeing P/B < 1 should make you feel comfortable that the risks may be lower than typical.
Important Disclosures

The combination of the 2008 stock market crash and the wave of retirees brought volatility to the spotlight, and many are looking for any way to reduce it. This article questions the idea of sacrificing returns to reduce volatility, and suggests ways to be happy in retirement while investing in a volatile portfolio.

The article is aimed towards retirees who want income for as long as they live. To achieve that, a limited annual withdrawal from the investments is assumed (e.g. 4% of Long-Term Component by QAM, and 3% of Extended-Term Component). With higher withdrawal rates, you take a real chance of outliving your money.

Volatility is the movement of the portfolio price up and down around its average growth. The greater the volatility, the further the returns tend to go below and above the average. A simple way to reduce volatility is to combine multiple investments that don’t all move in the same direction at all times. Ownership of one fast growing company can provide substantial returns, or a total loss. By adding many companies from various industries and countries, you virtually eliminate the risk of total loss.

Even without a total loss, substantial declines can be problematic for retirees. Retirees depend on their investments for immediate income. They cannot decide to stop eating because a 50% decline occurred. A withdrawal of $1 at a 50% decline costs $2, resulting in a substantial loss on the withdrawn amount. This leads retirees and financial professionals serving them to try to minimize volatility. It seems logical, at first.

If volatility were not a consideration, retirees could put all of their money in stocks and get nice long-term average returns. In order to reduce the volatility, most retirees put a meaningful portion of their money in less volatile investments such as bonds. This allocation indeed moderates the declines, and can significantly reduce the excess cost of withdrawals during deep declines of stocks.

Volatility Cost

Assume that you are a retiree living on 4% of your stock portfolio Long-Term Component, or 3% of Extended-Term Component. The total effect of declines on the annual withdrawals during the 3 most harmful declines as simulated since 1970 is:

Cost of Retirement Withdrawals from Stock Portfolios During Severe Declines

4% annually from Long-Term Component

3% annually from Extended-Term Component

Decline to New Peak Cost 1 Decline to New Peak Cost 1
4/1973 – 12/1975 2.5% 7/1973 – 12/1976 2.7%
4/2000 – 5/2003 1.4% 1/2000 – 11/2003 4.8%
11/2007 – 6/2013 2 7.3% 11/2007 – 6/2013 2 6.5%

Even severe declines resulted in very small losses to a retiree thanks to limited withdrawals and global stock diversification.

Volatility Tradeoff

The next table shows the long-term average cost of withdrawals during declines, and impact on the returns:

Cost of Retirement Withdrawals from Stock Portfolios During Declines

Annual Average 1/1970 – 6/2013

Portfolio & Annual Withdrawal Rate Returns Cost 1 Net Returns 3
4% from Long-Term Component 16.4% 0.35% 16.1%
3% from Extended-Term Component 19.2% 0.46% 18.7%

The withdrawals during declines reduced the returns only minimally. The net returns above are the returns achieved with a portfolio that never experienced a decline.

Solutions that reduce the volatility of stock portfolios (only partially), cost far more than the costs above (<0.5%), and result in far lower average returns, erasing the entire financial benefit of volatility reduction. As an example, bonds don’t provide annual returns much higher than 5%-8%. 

Happy Retirement with Volatility

So far, we saw that reducing volatility is likely to hurt the retiree’s financial security. Yet, living through the decline periods can be tough psychologically. How can you stay happy while going through deep and prolonged declines?

  1. Remember that the impact of severe declines on your limited withdrawals is very small.
  2. When investing in a globally diversified stock portfolio, declines don’t sustain. The declines are like pressing a spring very tight – at some point it is released and there is a surge. While the well-publicized concentrated investment – the S&P 500 – had extended downturns, the returns for the globally diversified portfolios were much better in all 10-year periods as simulated since 1970.


    Range of 10-year annualized returns 1/1970-6/2013

    Portfolio Worst Average Best
    S&P 500 -3.4% 10.2% 19.5%
    Long-Term Component 6.3% 16.4% 28.3%
    Extended-Term Component 4.4% 19.2% 40.5%

    If your average returns in recent years were on the low end of this scale, or even below it, you can be optimistic that your chances are for better than usual returns (no guarantees).

  3. Supporting the point above is a simple view of valuations (price/book, or liquidation value) of your portfolio. Typically, after extended periods of poor performance, the valuations of the portfolios become much lower than typical. They reflect the fact that people tend to over-sell investments when there is bad news or uncertainty. Supporting the “over-selling” theory is the fact that deep and long declines don’t start with low valuations – they start with high valuations. So, when valuations are low you can be much more optimistic than usual.
  4. The expectation for returns to be meaningfully positive over time is logical. Companies use materials, labor and capital to generate added value. While a number of companies can fail, the whole system of efficient production is likely to stay with us, since people typically want things done for them in the cheapest and most efficient way possible.
  5. If you listen to the economic news frequently enough, you are likely to expect every large decline to be “the new normal”, where returns don’t revert back to the typical. This has been predicted many times before, and always turned out to be wrong. In addition, the news typically focuses on concentrated portfolios in just one or a few countries.

1 For example, a year-long 20% decline combined with a 4% withdrawal, costs 1% calculated as: 4% of the remaining 80% = 4 / 80 = 5% = 4% of the peak + 1% penalty for selling during the decline.

Note: Investment taxes (taxes on dividends, capital gains distributions, and capital gains) are not accounted for, as they are dependent on the investor’s tax rate. They are not material enough to change the conclusions of this article.

2 A peak was reached, but the portfolio declined since then. While there are no guarantees, conservative assumptions lead to a small expected additional cost of 0%-2%.

3 Net Returns = Returns – Cost [of withdrawals during declines]

Important Disclosures

You may know people who gained nicely from homeownership. This article analyzes a critical element for sustaining the high growth: leverage using mortgage loans.

Is This Article for You?

This article assumes that you desire to maximize the growth rate of your investment in your home, at the price of higher short-term risk in the early years. The risk is very real: many people lost their home or went bankrupt by incorrectly analyzing their risks or simply panicking during a downturn in real estate or stocks. To add to the difficulty, real estate cycles are typically longer than stock market cycles, testing the patience of the most disciplined investors.

Note: To make the article tangible, specific cases are provided. Actual numbers can vary wildly depending on the specific home and timing, but the principles should apply to many cases.

No Leverage: Let’s start with non-leveraged returns. Real estate returns with no mortgage loans are typically moderate. For example, you may obtain combined returns + savings of 6.2% on owning your own home instead of renting it, assuming:

  • 4% appreciation (U.S. real estate growth in the long run)
  • 4% saved rental payments (a common ratio)
  • -0.8% property tax of ~1.1% after tax-deduction
  • -1% repairs

Such returns are nice relative to bond investments, but are below stock returns. 

With Leverage: With a mortgage, the results improve. With the addition of an 80% loan with a 5% interest rate (below the average of the past 20 years), you get an additional gain of (6.2% – 5%) x 4 1 = 1.2% x 4 = 4.8%, for a total of 11%. This is more in line with some stock investments.

Notice that the returns change dramatically depending on the mortgage interest. If you can get today a loan with a 3.5% interest rate, the increased returns thanks to the mortgage, jump to (6.2% – 3.5%) x 4 = 2.7% x 4 = 10.8%, providing a total of 17%, competing with most stock portfolios.

Key point: The returns above are returns on the amount invested. If you bought a $1M home, and put down 20% ($200k), your 17% return is $34k. While this is a great return on the amount invested, taking the loan makes financial sense only if you can invest the rest of your money and expect higher returns than the interest paid when averaged over the life of the loan. This applies to any money you have, whether it is the full remaining home value ($800k), or any smaller amount. If you spent the rest of the money, or invested in bonds with low returns, your financial position will be worse than not taking the loan and keeping the money invested in the house. Here are a few examples for returns depending on the return on the rest of your money:

Year-1 Returns on $1M house with $200k down payment and the remaining $800k invested elsewhere, and 6.2% return on money investment in home

$800k investment Return calculation Total return Loan Benefit
You spent the remaining $800k (34k – 800k) / 1M -76.6% -82.8%
You kept the money in cash (34k + 0) / 1M 3.4% -2.8%
You earned 3.5% in bonds (same as loan interest) (34k + 3.5% x 800k) / 1M 6.2% 0%
You earned 10% in stocks (34k + 10% x 800k) / 1M 11.4% 5.2%
Your earned 17% in stocks (34k + 17% x 800k) / 1M 17% 10.8%

While such gains are appealing, they cannot be sustained by taking a 30-year mortgage, and keeping it until it is fully paid off. They assume that the loan as a percentage of the home value (called loan-to-value, loan/value or LTV) stays at a fixed 80%, when in fact the returns drop quickly, as the mortgage is paid off. There are two things working to reduce the loan-to-value:

  1. Principal paid: A 30-year fixed mortgage is paid off over 30 years, meaning that every year some of the principal is paid off, reducing the loan balance. This decreases the nominator of loan/value.
  2. Home appreciation: Increases the denominator of loan/value.

The following table shows the decline in returns over the years:

Returns on investment in home with 30-year fixed mortgage, 3.5% interest
Assumptions: 4% appreciation, 4% saved rent, 0.8% after-tax property tax, 1% repairs

Year Principal Paid 2 Home appreciated 3 Loan-to-value 4 Returns 5
0 0% 0% 80% 17%
1 1.9% 4% 75% 14.3%
2 3.9% 8% 71% 12.8%
3 6% 12% 67% 11.6%
4 8.1% 17% 63% 10.8%
5 10.3% 22% 59% 10%
10 22.6% 48% 42% 8.1%
30 100% 224% 0% 6.2%

Problem: Within a few years, most of the leverage benefit is erased

For example, the return after as little as 5 years is much closer to the non-leveraged return than the 80%-loan return (10% vs. 6.2% non-leveraged and 17% leveraged).

Solution 1: Add a second loan: either a mortgage or a HELOC (home equity line of credit)

This is a good solution for a few years, since it increases the leverage (loan/value) without losing the benefit of the low rate on the remaining loan balance. There is a negative to this approach: the rate on a second loan tends to be higher than a primary loan, and the rate on a HELOC is variable, adding to the risk and cost of the HELOC as rates go up. While this negative is moderate in the first few years, when the balances are low, it becomes much more meaningful as the years go by, and the second loan or HELOC become large. At that point, you are typically better off refinancing (Solution 2 below).

Solution 2: Refinance to increase the mortgage

This solves the shortfalls of adding a loan (Solution 1 above), but requires accepting a new interest rate, even if it is much higher.

Key Point: If you are eager to lock a 30-year mortgage at today’s low rates, the benefit is likely to be outweighed by the declining leverage. Solving this problem requires accepting future, potentially higher, rates.

Optimization 1: adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM)

Since you are not likely to benefit from holding the same mortgage for many years, you can consider an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM). Such a mortgage guarantees a certain rate for a limited period – typically 3, 5, 7 or 10 years, and later adjusts annually. By retaining the risk of rising rates, you are compensated through a lower initial fixed rate.

Choosing the optimal ARM term:

  1. When rates are high, you can choose a shorter lock, to get the lowest rate, since rates are likely to decline at some point, anyway making a refinance beneficial.
  2. When rates are low, it can be beneficial to lock the mortgage for longer at the price of a higher fixed rate.
  3. An important subcase: When rates are low because real estate declined substantially, and in an attempt to help real estate recover, you may choose a shorter fixed period, since (1) rates may keep being reduced while real estate keeps declining, allowing you to refinance with better terms, and (2) once real estate declines stop, the reversal may introduce unusually large gains early on, reducing your leverage quickly, and leading to a quicker refinance.

Optimization 2: interest-only adjustable-rate mortgage (IO ARM)

A variation of the ARM loan is interest-only ARM. With such a loan you pay only interest for the first few years, keeping the loan balance fixed. This has the benefit of slowing down the decline in leverage. The leverage declines only through the appreciation in the home value. An IO ARM typically carries a slightly higher interest rate, and, depending on how you invest the loan proceeds, can make sense.

More potential issues: While keeping a high mortgage balance can help maximize your wealth, it is not advisable or possible for most people, even if they desire to do so:

  1. Cannot Qualify for Loan: As you seek increasing loan amounts, you may not qualify for the loans based on your income.
  2. Excessive Risk: Any additional borrowing to invest increases your short-term risk. This is pronounced with rates that may adjust higher. A careful risk analysis is necessary to determine the short-term risk, before focusing on the potential long-term benefit. The risk analysis should address factors such as loss of job, a stock market crash, a deep and long real estate decline, and a spike in interest rates, to name a few.
  3. Refinance Labor Too Great: The work for a refinance every 1-3 years, to keep the leverage high, may not be appealing to many homeowners.

Once you reach your capacity to borrow, buying additional real estate as an investment would often be inferior to simple investing in a globally diversified stock portfolio, in terms of returns (with no leverage) and in terms of complexity.

Owning a more expensive home will typically cost you money

Once you realize the benefits of leveraged homeownership, you may ask if you can make more money by owning a more expensive home. The answer is “no”. Let’s review the scenario from the top, modified to exclude the saved rent, to calculate the growth in the amount spent on the extra home value. We get: 4% appreciation – 0.8% property tax after tax-deduction – 1% repairs = 2.2%, as the return without leverage. While this is a positive return, it is far worse than other investments, losing you money compared to the alternatives (and even compared to the typical inflation).

As long as mortgage rates are higher than 2.2% over time, leverage would only hurt the returns (for example with an interest rate of 5%, any leveraged returns would be negative, based on: 2.2% growth – 5% cost of borrowing = -2.8%.

From a financial standpoint, you would be best to own the cheapest home that fits your needs.


Homeownership (vs. renting) can turn from a moderate investment to an appealing one with the help of leverage, but the leverage has to be high (80%) to get the benefit. Even a mild reduction in leverage erases most of the appeal. For the few who (1) can qualify for loans to keep the leverage so high, (2) can afford the short-term risks, and (3) have the desire for such a plan, the potential gains can be substantial.

1­­ 6.2% – 5% is the gain in the home value (6.2%) beyond the cost of the loan (5%). 4 is the multiple of the down payment that is borrowed. With an 80% loan, the down payment is 20%, and the multiple is 80%/20% = 4.

2 The principal paid is calculated using a loan amortization formula by a financial calculator.

3 Home appreciation at 4% per year, for example, in year 5, the appreciated home value is: 1.04 raised to the power of 5 = 1.22, and the appreciation is 22%.

4 The initial 80% loan-to-value is adjusted by: (1) multiplying by the reduced loan balance, and (2) dividing by the increased home value. For example, in year 1, the loan-to-value is: 80% * (1 – 1.9%) / 1 + 4%) = 80% * 0.981 / 1.04 = 75%.

5 The returns are calculated similarly to the base case described in the “With Leverage” section above. For example, in year 1, the leverage multiplier is: 75% loan / 25% down payment = 3, and the returns are: 6.2% + (6.2% – 3.5%) * 3 = 6.2% + 2.7% * 3 = 14.3%

Important Disclosures

Some people expect demand for stocks to decline given the large wave of Americans approaching age 65. This article questions this expectation.

Investment professionals often recommend that investors shift their investment allocation from stocks to bonds as they approach retirement age. The combination of the spike in people approaching retirement age, and growing longevity, may lead you to expect a big shift of demand from stocks to bonds. Below are several reasons why this big shift may never happen.

Bonds are too risky for the long run

While bonds reduce the short-term risk of stocks, they carry a risk of their own. The combination of inflation with increased longevity can erode the value of bonds, introducing the risk of running out of money, slowly and painfully. There are three ways to reduce this risk:

Work longer

People in good health, and with moderate assets, are likely to work longer. They may spend similar time in full retirement as retirees 50 years ago. They will do so by spending most of their increased longevity working, full time or part time.

Spend less

Those with health conditions that prevent them from working and without substantial assets will have to limit their spending to their social security income and whatever resources they have. Either they will reduce their spending early on in retirement, or they will gradually reduce their spending as they deplete their assets.

Invest in stocks, if you have the money

Those with substantial assets relative to their spending will benefit from the option to sustain a low withdrawal rate from their savings in retirement. When you can commit to a low withdrawal rate, stocks (globally diversified) are safer than bonds. Specifically, the risk of depleting the investments due to withdrawals during severe declines is very small. For those who happen to live long, the risk of stocks tends to keep declining, while the risk of bonds tends to grow.

Annuities do not solve the problem

Annuities are simply a window into bond investments (since insurance companies put money backing annuities in stable investments such as bonds), but with high administrative costs. They add the longevity protection and, in some instances, inflation protection, and reduce the income paid in order to finance these protections. Just as a retiree would not put substantial assets into bonds to finance increased longevity, he/she would not finance the bulk of retirement income using annuities.

Literature Support

A paper by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), published in September 2009, provides evidence to support this article’s claims, with many interesting angles on the topic.


As people live longer, they have a choice between working longer, reducing spending, or investing more in stocks. Investment advisors and individuals are gradually realizing that bonds are too risky for financing the increased longevity. This realization may accelerate at times with elevated inflation.

Important Disclosures

Some people believe that the present is far more important to them than the future. This article argues that this is not true for most people.

Say you believe that the future, 5 years from now, is substantially less important to you than today. Please answer the following questions:

  1. Did you hold a similar belief 5 years ago? If yes, read further.
  2. Do you believe that the present is at least as important as 5 years ago?

If you answered “yes” to the last question (as most people would), there is a contradiction: 5 years ago you believed that the future 5 years away (i.e. today) will be substantially less important, yet, today, you disagree. This means that you had trouble accepting the importance of your future needs, and there is a good chance that you are acting the same way today.

More considerations:

  1. While the present is tangible and certain, you have to be sure that you will not be around in 5 years in order to ignore this future. I haven’t met any person aggressive enough to ignore the possibility of living beyond a certain age.
  2. Humans keep living longer. Please don’t underestimate this effect, and be wary of naming any age that you are certain to never reach.
  3. Future needs are easier to finance thanks to the likely growth of your investments over the years (twice as easy after 6 years with 12% real growth, and 4 times as easy after 12 years).


You can assess for yourself the importance of the present compared to the future, but be aware of a psychological bias that may lead you to prefer the present too much, simply because you discount future suffering compared to present suffering.

Important Disclosures