[00:10:24]Dr. DanielCrosby:Yeah. So it’s, you know, the, the example that you just gave of what psychologists call action bias. You know, we know that when the game is on the line, we, we tend to want to, to do something. And that makes a lot of sense, again, in, in other parts of our lives. You know, if you want to get smarter, you should read more books. If you want to get fitter, you should lift more weight. But then if you want to get richer, you should do nothing is, you know, is, is everything that the research suggests to us. And so that’s where a financial advisor becomes so critical. And, you know, I’ll, I’ll talk about a few of the studies, but here’s one that I found absolutely fascinating. It’s just some, some numbers I ran the other day. If you had invested 50 years ago. Okay. So 50 years ago you invest in a value fund and you invest $10,000 in a value fund. That $10,000 would, would today be worth $2.1 million. If you would put that same $10,000 in a growth fund, it would be about one and three quarters, like $1.75 million. Either result is absolutely incredible. But the average investor turned that $10,000, not into 2 million, not into 1.7 million.They turn that into $285,000. And the way that they did that was by succumbing to fear and greed and trying to timethe market and jumping in and out. And this is where the value of an advisor becomes so enormous. You know another study that, all that I’ll talk about. Probably my favorite that I cite in chapter two of the laws of wealth is it looked at research out of Canada.And the reason why I love this study, it’s called the Canadian value of advice report. But the reason that I love it so much as they did a great job with the statistical stuff, they controlled for group one versus group two across 50 different socioeconomic variables. And they compared groups of people who did receive financial advice to those who did not.But then of course normalized it across things like salary and socioeconomic strata, because of course it’s no fair to compare folks who make a lot of money to folks who make a little money, but they found that, that you know, holding these 50 variables, constant that people who worked with a financial advisor over the longterm had 2.7 times the wealth of their peers.These are their socioeconomic peers. These are their earning peers. And these people had nearly three times as much terminal wealth. And the reason is not because financial advisors know the future. It’s not because financial advisors have access to some incredible product that, that only they have. It’s it’s because at three or four critical junctures in, in March of 2020, When you thought the sky was falling and let’s be honest, had very good reason to think that the sky was falling, like had a, had a heck of a, you know, a, a global crisis, a legitimate global crisis.And if you wanted to sell out at that time, And your advisor kept you invested. You’ll never be able to repay her. You’ll never be able to repay your advisor for that advice because the, thevalue that accrued to you by listening to that advisor is just so enormous. And of course, that value compounds over time.
[00:13:56]Eric Brotman:So the rule you’re referring to in the book is rule number two, you cannot do this alone. And, you know, we spend a fair amount of time figuring out what should you do yourself? And the example you use is essentially, should you be mowing your own lawn? Maybe you love to do that, but in the absence of loving to do that, it may not be the best use of your time if your time can do other things.And that’s just one example, but there’s so many of these types of gems here, but you also go through an interview and it’s interesting because in Don’t Retire… Graduate!, we go through questions, ask your financial advisor and you go through a list of them at that same point because having a financial advisor is it may be important, but having a good financial advisor is darn important because like any other profession, there’s some really terrific advisors out there.And then there’s some hacks for lack of a better term. And unfortunately if you pass an exam, you have a license and that’s true whether it’s medicine,or education ,or finance. But let’s talk about some of these, some of these questions. The number one question that you asked, and I presume these are in some form of order though i, I don’t know that that’s true. The first one is, are you a fiduciary? The word fiduciary has been tossed around Congress, like the word infrastructure. What does it mean in your opinion to be a fiduciary? And, and why is that important? And is it the only way?
[00:15:11]Dr. Daniel Crosby:Yeah, so a fiduciary in my, in my own terms, there may be a legalistic definition that I’m missing care, but in, in my way of thinking, it’s someone who sits on the same side of the table with you, who benefits when you benefit and who has a legal obligation to act in your best interests.So, you know, one of my great frustrations is that you know, the term financial advisor is not protected in any meaningful sense. Like, I, I can call myself a psychologist because I have a PhD in psychology. And if you don’t have a PhD in psychology, you arenot a psychologist. You can not like that as a, that is a legally protected term. People have some understanding of what that means. Financial advisor is not that way. And you know, when, when my wife read this book, you know, I said, “Hey, you know, what, what stuck out to you?” And she said this list of 10 questions to ask your advisor. And I was like, really, like, this is not my, not my favorite part of the book or anything.And she said, “yeah, you know, look, if, if, if you died tomorrow, right. If you died tomorrow and I needed to, you know, find someone to, to help us manage manage the money I’d been left,” she said, “look, I’m, I’m not going to remember all the stuff you wrote in this book. There’s some complicated stuff in there. I’m not going to remember it and implement it all perfectly. But I want to be able to choose someone thoughtfully who can help me with that.” So I think, you know, questions like, like yours and like mine are important to get that process right. Because the value and advisor can provide as immense. But of course the damage that can be done by the, by the wrong advisor is, is equally, is equally dramatic.
[00:16:50]Eric Brotman:And let’s talk about some of the behavioral risks, because there are many. And I, again, I lovethat you didn’t write a textbook, but there’s a few that I think resonate for me anyway, more than some of the others. One of them is this sort of confirmation bias idea. And we live in a world with a 24/7 media cycle where you can pick a channel on television to tell you exactly what you want to hear.And people do that with the news and with politics and with all kinds of other things. When it comes to finance. In some ways you can do the same thing. You can find some analyst somewhere who thinks the stock you just picked is brilliant and someone else who thinks it’s foolish. But we tend to pay more information or more attention to the ones that, that back us up.Is that a fair assessment?
[00:17:34]Dr. Daniel Crosby:Yeah, that’s a very fair assessment. You know, gone, gone are the days of, of Walter Cronkite being sort of like the, you know, the people’s news person. We do, we are able to select into any sort of message we want to hear. And there’s interesting research to show that we, we spend a lot more time with unsurprisingly.We spend about 60% more time listening to messages that that congrue to our opinions. You know, if we, if we encounter an article or a piece on the news that that’s inconsistent with our way of thinking, it’s very, very easy to click onto, to the next thing. One of the most dangerous things that we can do, I think, you know, in, in the spirit of this question though, is to conflate our politics with our investing. You know, if you look at the last couple of political cycles, it’s no secret that the left and the right are finding less and less common ground. This isn’t just. Some impulse, we have this, isn’t just sort of our vague notion.The studies show that the, the center is increasingly barren, and that the pole is to the left and right are getting, are getting further and further out there. And so what we’re seeing is people’s opinions about the economy and the market tend to hinge largely on whoever’s in office. So if if the person you like, if the party you like is an office, you tend to think the market and the economy are doing well.And the reverse is also true. And this is sort of independent of conditions on the ground. So yes, confirmation bias is super dangerous. We can self-select into any Stripe of political or financial reporting that appeals to us and the, you know as a follow on comment, investing alongside your politics is a very, very dangerous and wrong headed way to invest.
[00:19:30]Eric Brotman:It’s funny because there’s more of that happening now than ever, whether it’s in public plans, whether it’s around ESG, whether it’s around this, this idea of used to be called the, the sort of the sin taxes were being implemented. This idea that, that the, that the casino stocks were going to do better than the nutritionist stocks, because it’s, it made people feel good, even though it was bad for them.Is that what you mean by allowing your politics to do that? Or are you thinking even more deliberately when a politician hawks something or, or promotes something?
[00:20:02]Dr. Daniel Crosby:No, no, there’s I, that’s a great follow on. I’m talking about what I, what I have seen is that let’s say someone who’s a Republican. When the Democrats in power might say, you know what Biden’s in power now. Not interested. You know, the other team’s going to wreck the economy and it, it absolutely happens on both sides. You know, I saw plenty of people during the Trump administration say, look, I don’t like this guy. I’m taking my ball and going home. And they missed out on some pretty extraordinary years.And so I think what you’re talking about is socially responsible investing. Values-based investing. Go ahead if that appeals to you. I do think any time you limit your investment universe whether you take away sin stocks oryou know, whatever kind of limitation you’re putting, I think there are trade-offs that happen there, and you have to be realistic about what you’re giving up.But in some ways that’s, that’s a behavioral good. When people invest alongside their values, you know, you think about Catholic, Catholic funds have been around for a very long time. And you, you think about where there’s a market disruption, someone who’s holding the S&P may have no real attachment to the S&P and that may be very easy for them to sell and go to cash.Whereas someone who’s holding, you know, the, the Ave Maria Catholic values fund may have very different opinions about that and feel more wed to it, feel more tied to it than, than perhaps someone in a more generic fund. So I actuallythink there’s some behavioral upside to investing in ways that are consistent with your ethics or your morals.But I do think there’s some profound downside to sitting out periods of time when your non-preferred party is in power, which is something I’ve seen quite a bit of in the last call it 12 to 15 years.
[00:21:54]Eric Brotman:So Daniel, there are about 25 different types of risks and biases and so forth, and they’re all detailed in the book and we certainly don’t have time to do them all.But my, my last one that’s sort of a favorite of mine is the, the idea of loss aversion. The idea that a loss of the same size as a gain is more painful than the gain is pleasurable. And I, you know, I’ve seen that in so many different walks of life and one of theeasy ways to see it as is when you go to a casino for fun and financial advisors using casino references might be, might be foolhardy, but people get it.And that is if you take a hundred dollars to the casino and you win a little bit of money, that’s lovely. But if you take it to the casino and you lose it, you feel really unhappy about it. Even if that’s what you had taken with the idea that that’s what I can play with. That’s what I can afford to lose.There’s also on top of that, a tendency to say, well, I started with a hundred dollars now I have 300. So I’m not really playing with my money. I’m playing with their money. And then you give it all back, which is why they have fountains in their lobbies. When in fact it’s your money, because you could go cash it and go have a steak.