site banner
birb_cromble  9d ago (text post)   837 thread views

Weekly Finance Thread - 2026-08-01

A weekly thread to discuss financial matters - from personal all the way up to global.

Ground Rules

  • Remember that we're all just Internet randos. Don't bet your life savings on a hot tip from this thread.
  • Keep culture war in the culture war thread. Yes, global events may impact our personal finances, but that does not mean we have to incessantly harp on culture war aspects here. If you are going to discuss it, please stick to the practical impacts of it on an individual level.
  • Be kind. Remember that everyone here comes from different circumstances. We all have different resources available and different risk tolerances.
  • Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Better is better. Celebrate people when they take a step up and work to move their finances in the right direction. Don't flame out because they haven't followed what you consider the optimal path. Everybody has to start somewhere.
1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One common friction point that keeps coming up in these threads is something that I can't clearly name, but seems to be the friction between one person's perceived optimal behavior and another person's risk tolerance. One person will say that they are doing something, and another person will comment that the first poster is Doing It Wrong because they believe there is a more optimal path that they could take. It's a very binary thing that seems common in the Internet in general. I think it comes from a benevolent place, but it seems like it can push people off from the topic entirely as much as it can educate them.

I've been thinking about that lately because of events in my personal life. My partner is a fairly responsible saver, but she's not really investing. She's in the upper half of her age group for net worth and doesn't have any debt, but I worry that inflation is going to eat those savings over the long term. I've gently tried to get her to consider moving some of that money into funds over the years, but for her, it's entirely too much risk. I've not really pushed on it because what she's doing is better than doing nothing, and nothing is her alternative right now.

For somebody who has that extreme level of risk aversion, what options are there that beat a HYSA? Browbeating her into equities isn't going to fly.

On a similar topic, are there "non optimal" things that you do financially, but you do them anyway?

  1. I pay ahead on my mortgage, even though the interest rate is "only" 3.75%.
  2. I hold some dividend stocks and funds, and even commit the cardinal sin of holding them in a taxable brokerage account.
  3. I don't use credit cards outside of the bare minimum necessary to keep them active.

In all three cases, it's entirely a psychological thing for me, and I recognize this. In the first two in particular, it's still better than not doing anything at all

Yes, my brother-in-law is like your girlfriend. He’s…not young, and every dollar he’s saved is in a savings account. He’d be worth 3, 4, 5x what he is now if he had gone the index fund route, but for some reason that’s not convincing. I think because that doesn’t address the reason he fears risk in the first place.

He also has, so far, refused to get a mortgage, despite the fact all the options they looked at would have resulted in mortgage payments less than their current rent.

The frustration is how much more materially comfortable they could be—right now—if I had been managing their finances for them, or if he’d be willing to bear one iota more risk.

Your point is well-taken, and in that same spirit I don’t harass this man about his financial leadership in his family.

There is a happy medium, and I believe it exists. For example I sell options. Right now, I have a notional risk of 7x-8x my taxable portfolio’s actual value. If the market went to zero I’d lose in the market double what my house is worth. That seems insanely irresponsible to the average person, so I’m very shy about it irl, and I am extremely selective about to whom I mention what I’m up to.

How are you getting that level of leverage? My broker only lets me sell up to roughly half my account's value.

Not that I'd want to go 7x, but a little bit more would be nice.

You may be talking about margin, or buying power, usage.

If I sold a put at the $40 strike and my buying power decreased by $900, I still carry the notional risk of $4,000, the max loss of the put before considering the selling proceeds.

My mention of notional risk refers to that theoretical $4,000 while you may be asking about the $900. Is that right?

Right, but in my case my buying power goes down the full notional amount whenever I sell a put. I should probably look at the level of risk allowed, even though, again, I'm not looking to lever up that much.

Ah, you can find your options permissions in your investor profile on the broker website. It will probably be expressed in terms of “levels.”

Oh, and @WhateverHappenedToNorman, what explains the rest of the high notional is that most of that is actually options on futures. SPAN margin offers a lot more leverage than Reg-T. 7x I think would be impossible to achieve with Reg-T.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats