YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → The Finances of Marriage | Rational Reminder 426

The Finances of Marriage | Rational Reminder 426 — Transcript

by The Rational Reminder Podcast · 13,707 words · 2,093 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Like a tight wad is not someone who uh
0:03just doesn't get a lot of pleasure from
0:05spending. It's someone who deep down
0:08wishes they could get more pleasure from
0:10spending than they're actually getting.
0:12>> Couples who who experienced the lowest
0:14divorce rates spent less than $1,000 on
0:17their wedding, which is just
0:18fascinating.
0:19>> My wife will tell you funny story that I
0:22went and stole the ring from her parents
0:24house.
0:25>> That's pretty funny.
0:28Welcome to episode 426 of the Rational
0:30Reminder podcast. We are hosted by me,
0:32Benjamin Felix, Dan Bordalotti, and Ben
0:35Wilson. All of PWL Capital.
0:38>> Good to be back with you.
0:40>> Looking forward to it.
0:42>> Yeah, good to be back. So, we're going
0:43to jump right into our main topic here,
0:45which is the the finances of marriage or
0:48the the personal finances of marriage or
0:50maybe the interpersonal finances of
0:52marriage. I don't know. There's a bunch
0:54of interesting research on this uh that
0:56we'll talk through and then stick around
0:58at the end. We will we will put together
1:01a little after show. Uh some comments in
1:03the rash reminder community recently
1:05suggested that people miss the uh the
1:08chatter that I guess we used to do more
1:11of.
1:13>> We'll have to do more of it.
1:14>> Well, I think so. I think that's the
1:16message.
1:17>> Yeah.
1:19>> Uh okay. So, who you marry? And I'm I'm
1:23I'll be interested in in your
1:25commentary, Dan and Ben, as we go
1:26through this because we are all married
1:28people. Um, how long have you guys been
1:30married?
1:32>> Actually, 15 years on Thursday,
1:34anniversaries this week.
1:36>> I'm 32 this year,
1:38>> man. Yeah. Okay. So, I've been married
1:3912 years, which I thought was a long
1:41time, but
1:44[sighs and gasps]
1:45>> definitely interested in your input as
1:46we go, even more so. Uh, okay. So, who
1:49who you marry is I mean obviously one of
1:52the most impactful decisions of your
1:54life uh both financially and of course
1:57otherwise
1:59but I think a lot of couples let their
2:01finances be an afterthought or or their
2:03financial compatibility be an
2:04afterthought. Uh but the reality is that
2:06who you decide to marry and how you
2:08structure your finances and make
2:10decisions together compounds across
2:12every major life decision that you make
2:15going going forward. I really think if
2:18you mess I mean I don't think anybody
2:19would disagree with this statement. If
2:20you if you mess up the the marriage
2:23thing the costs can be pretty
2:25devastating both financially divorce can
2:27be very expensive but obviously
2:29otherwise as well emotionally and
2:31psychologically and all that stuff. Now
2:33I'm not a marriage counselor or an
2:35expert in marriage. You guys are more so
2:37than I am with your more years of
2:39experience I guess. Um but there is a
2:41ton of research on this topic which is
2:42what we're going to be speaking to. Uh
2:46we we've also got and again this is
2:48where I'll be interested in in your guys
2:50thoughts as we go through this Dan and
2:51Ben. Um we deal with a lot of clients, a
2:54lot of Canadian households and a lot of
2:56households are couples. They're they're
2:59they're married. Uh and then the other
3:01unfortunate thing that we see in our
3:03role as financial adviserss is people do
3:05get divorced. So we we get we get a
3:07pretty good cross-section of um couples
3:10and finances
3:12just through our professional work. Um,
3:16and the last thing I'll say as a as a
3:17setup for the topic is that the the
3:20Harvard study of adult development,
3:22which is one of the longest running
3:24studies of sort of human human
3:26happiness, uh, does show or a
3:30psychiatrist wrote a book based on th
3:33those data and one of the six factors of
3:36a a healthy aging that this psychiatrist
3:41found was a stable marriage. So, I I I
3:43think it's something that's just really
3:45worth getting right and doing well and
3:48there's a bunch of research on on how to
3:50do that which is what we're going to
3:51talk about.
3:53Any comments before I keep going?
3:55>> Yeah, I think it's a super interesting
3:58topic and obviously finances is a part
4:00of what you interact with in a marriage.
4:03It's usually not a primary
4:05consideration, but it's probably at
4:07least a secondary consideration when
4:09you're in the the courting dating phase.
4:12like you notice things. It It may not be
4:15the reason you go forward or stop a
4:18relationship, but it's definitely
4:19something that people notice. And
4:22especially if you got together young, it
4:25may be hard to recognize what impact
4:28they might have over a long term. So,
4:30it's important to kind of think about
4:32that, especially if you're not at that
4:33stage yet. Or
4:36if you've been burned once through a
4:38divorce, finances might have been one of
4:40the reasons that led to divorce and it
4:43probably changes your perspective on how
4:45to approach future relationship.
4:49>> Yeah, I think that's it. You know, most
4:50people make this decision when they're
4:53quite young, unless it's a second
4:55marriage. But, um, yeah, usually when
4:58you are deciding on a partner that you
5:00want to spend your life with, you're
5:02probably not at the same financial
5:04position then that you will be at some
5:06point in the future. And it's often
5:09difficult to really know what you're
5:11getting yourself into on that. And
5:13hopefully, you know, as a couple, you
5:14evolve over time in the same way, right?
5:18Like in other words, you don't become
5:20more different and more extreme over
5:22time that you know you kind of learn
5:24together your financial system or uh
5:27situation rather changes together at the
5:30same pace and you can both kind of you
5:32know update your expectations along the
5:34way.
5:36>> Yeah. So, some of the research does
5:37speak to sort of that just how the
5:40effects of having joint the the effect
5:42that joint finances can have on the
5:45relationship that a couple has with
5:47money as opposed to when if they have
5:48separate finances. And I think some of
5:51that's why you what you mentioned, Dan,
5:52like if if one person's financial
5:54situation is changing and they have
5:55separate finances, that can become
5:56pretty pretty difficult for a couple to
5:59manage together. Um,
6:02yeah. So, and there's also the the uh
6:05just on people changing over time there
6:07there's some of the research that we'll
6:08talk about does show that there is a
6:12pretty stable characteristic uh in terms
6:14of your your propensity to spend
6:18which uh which we'll also talk about.
6:21So, marriage is obviously a big
6:24commitment. It's a commitment that you
6:26make like emotionally, but it also
6:28changes the legal nature of your
6:30relationship. Like it comes with real
6:32legal obligations and liabilities. Now,
6:34I know obligations and liabilities don't
6:36sound very romantic, but I think that's
6:38the reality of of marriage. It's as much
6:41about love as it is about commitment.
6:44And the law tends to support that
6:47commitment that you say you're wanting
6:49to make. And so, entering into a
6:51marriage ends up being this really big
6:53financial decision. um it's you know
6:56you're sharing your life with somebody
6:57but that you're also sort of incurring
7:00these these costs if you want to walk
7:02away from the marriage in the in the
7:05future. So we're going to walk through
7:07what the research says about the
7:08finances of marriage across five
7:10different questions that shape how our
7:12relationships connect to our finances.
7:16uh choosing who to marry as Ben you
7:18mentioned obviously goes way beyond
7:20finances but I think it's it is worth
7:21understanding what the evidence says
7:23about compatible uh who is compatible
7:27long-term in terms of their financial
7:30behaviors. So this is research we've
7:32talked about in the past and we've
7:33actually had Scott Rick one of the
7:35co-authors on the podcast. I don't
7:37remember what episode that was, but this
7:39is based on a 2008 paper that
7:41conceptualized a scale of spending
7:43behavior from tight wads to spend
7:45thrifts. And the key difference between
7:47those two profiles, those two ends of
7:50the spectrum or or the scale is how they
7:53experience what the authors call an
7:55anticipatory pain of pain. So that's an
7:58immediate emotional response felt at the
8:00moment of purchase rather than a you
8:02know rational calculation about future
8:04consequences or payoffs. Now the the
8:07difference is that tight wads feel that
8:09pain of spending money too acutely. Uh
8:13and they spend less than they would
8:14ideally like to. And that's that's the
8:16key there is that not that they're
8:18frugal, which I'll touch on in a second,
8:20but they're spending less than they
8:21would prefer to be spending. They look
8:23at like their ideal version of
8:25themselves. They would be whatever, I
8:26don't know, going out to dinner more
8:27often or buying things for people or
8:30whatever it might be, but they are
8:32spending less than that because it hurts
8:33them to spend. Um and so I I will
8:36mention the difference between that and
8:38being frugal. Frugal is deriving
8:40pleasure from saving. Um being a tight
8:43wad is uh incurring pain from spending.
8:48And then the other end of the spectrum,
8:50spend thrifts. They tend to feel too
8:52little anticipatory pain when spending
8:55and they end up spending more than they
8:56would ideally like to.
8:59So the scale is really measured as that
9:01gap between your ideal self and where
9:04your behavior actually places you. Um
9:09now those they do persist over time just
9:11in terms of can people change over time.
9:14Um
9:16there is research in psychology that
9:19shows that that if you're aware of your
9:21own behavioral patterns um that can help
9:23you to change them. So even if these are
9:24persistent traits over time, if you know
9:26you're a tight water, you know you're a
9:27spend thrift, I think you're in a better
9:29position to moderate that. So it's
9:31something that's worth understanding
9:32about yourself and a partner, a
9:36potential partner. I think it's kind of
9:37a weird dinner conversation to have, but
9:39you know, maybe maybe worthwhile when
9:42you're making that decision.
9:44>> Ask your partner if they're a tight wad
9:45and or a spend thrift response.
9:48>> And there's a quiz, so we'll we'll post
9:50a link to it in the in the episode
9:52notes. Um but Scott Rick and his
9:55co-authors when they wrote this paper
9:56back in 2008 I think yeah 2008 they came
10:00up with this scale like how do you how
10:01do you measure tight watism or or being
10:04a spend thrift and they come up with
10:06this uh three question scale. So you
10:09answer the questions you get a score and
10:10it tells you what your profile is. I did
10:13this when I was uh when I went on the
10:15Dire of AO podcast. I did this quiz with
10:19Stephen on on the like as we were
10:22recording and at that time I was
10:24unconlicted. I took it again today and
10:26this time I was a tight wad just barely
10:29one point over.
10:32>> So what's changed?
10:34>> I I I don't know. I don't remember. I
10:35don't know what I answered differently
10:36or maybe it's uh Yeah, I don't know. But
10:40I was I think I was right right on the
10:41edge. I was maybe a 10 last time I took
10:44it and I was an 11 this time. So, I'm
10:46very close to being an unconlicted tight
10:48wad.
10:50>> Yeah, I'm I'm just over the edge. I took
10:52it today, too. And so did my wife. And
10:55we're both like at the low end of the
10:57unconflicted consumer. I was 12, she was
10:5913, and tight wad is 11 and below.
11:04>> So, I came in at 16, which is
11:07unconlicted, but I guess closer to the
11:10high end. um which surprised me a little
11:13bit but you know I think I think what's
11:16interesting about this whole definition
11:18is it doesn't have anything to do with
11:22the amount of money you spend in any
11:24objective way right in other words you
11:26could be you know very wealthy and be a
11:29tight wad and you could be you know
11:32living on the edge of bankruptcy and be
11:34a spendthrift it has nothing to do with
11:36kind of the amount of money that in
11:39other words from the outside I don't
11:41think people would be able to identify
11:44spend thrifts and tight wads because it
11:46really comes down to how faithful you
11:49think you are being to yourself. Right?
11:52>> The tight wad is someone who deep down
11:54wishes they could spend more but can't
11:56bring themselves to
11:58>> which is not the same thing as somebody
12:00who is just doesn't get any value from
12:04spending. Right.
12:05>> Yeah.
12:06>> Um so I think that's an important
12:07distinction to make.
12:09>> Yeah. I think that's very important.
12:10It's relative to your ability or your
12:14means to spend. It's like I've seen
12:17clients or other people friends that
12:20have
12:21a lot of wealth and they're under
12:23spending relative to the plan. Like
12:25we've gone through with clients and and
12:27looked at you could spend x amount
12:30multiples more than what they're
12:32currently spending and they're like I
12:34have no idea what they could spend money
12:36on and whether they're considered a
12:38tight wad or not would differ depending
12:40on the perception of whoever is looking
12:42at them. Someone from the outside sees a
12:44friend spending
12:46101 12,000 a month sees like well
12:49they're they're a spin thrift but on
12:52their balance sheet they're spending at
12:54a way lower capacity of where they could
12:57possibly spend versus other clients
13:00spend way beyond their means or friends
13:02or peers in your circles and you can you
13:05can notice a difference there.
13:07>> There's there's people who who can't
13:09figure out what to spend money on. I
13:10think that's I think that's a separate
13:11issue. There's people that that the
13:13tight wad is someone who they wish they
13:15could spend more money and they just
13:16can't bring themselves to do it. And I
13:17think we do see that too
13:19>> for sure.
13:20>> And I know that's something that some
13:22some clients get a lot of uh value from
13:25from the perspective of the service that
13:27PWL provides where if we're able to like
13:30encourage them and tell them yes, it's
13:32really okay for you to do this. I think
13:34that can help reduce some of the uh some
13:36of the pain that they get from spending.
13:38Uh something we have not done that would
13:40be interesting uh is getting people to
13:42take the tit spenthrift scale and then
13:45just be able to show them listen this is
13:46how this is how you are classified as a
13:49spender. Let's think about how to
13:51address that because some of some of the
13:52research in psychology does suggest that
13:54if you just like name an issue that
13:56you're having and have a framework to
13:58think about it that can help you
14:00actually move away from the behavior
14:02that you're not happy about.
14:04That's an interesting point, right?
14:06Because we spend a lot of time, you
14:08know, giving risk questionnaires and
14:11things like that, which is important,
14:13but I think especially once you get to
14:16the draw down stage, just as important
14:19as it is to understand whether you're a
14:21conservative, balanced, or aggressive
14:24investor is what kind of spender you
14:27are. And again, this comes down the
14:29point is not
14:31>> that you have the means to spend or not.
14:33It's about how faithful you are to your
14:37own deep desire. Right? In other words,
14:40like a tight wad is not someone who uh
14:43just doesn't get a lot of pleasure from
14:45spending. It's someone who deep down
14:48wishes they could get more pleasure from
14:50spending than they're actually getting.
14:52And that's a important distinction,
14:55>> right?
14:56>> Yeah. Like I guess what I'm saying is
14:58like let's say for example you had the
15:00capacity to spend 300 grand a year
15:03because you were very wealthy but you
15:05were perfectly and utterly uh content
15:08with yourself spending half that you're
15:12not a tight wad right you're probably an
15:15unconlicted consumer right so I think
15:19that this the idea it's not really about
15:22you know unless you're spending as much
15:25as you possibly can then you have some
15:28sort of tight wad aspect to you. It
15:30really I think again comes down to kind
15:32of what what you enjoy and what gives
15:34you pain.
15:36>> Yeah.
15:38>> I think for some people you know
15:40spending money just hurts so much that
15:42they don't derive any enjoyment from
15:44things that other people would
15:46absolutely derive enjoyment from. Right.
15:50So
15:50>> yeah, and some of it probably ties into
15:52the the happiness and positive
15:54psychology literature and being able to
15:56tell people like, listen, spending money
15:58on this stuff tends to make people feel
15:59really good. Why don't why don't we try
16:01it?
16:03>> Anyway, I I'm going to read through the
16:04questions real quick.
16:05>> Mhm.
16:06>> Because we said we're going to link the
16:08quiz, which we will do. Um, but it's a
16:11podcast, so people are listening, not
16:13sitting at their computers waiting to
16:14take a quiz. Uh, some people have
16:17trouble limiting their spending. They
16:18often spend money, for example, on
16:20clothes, meals, vacations when they
16:22would do better not to. Other people
16:24have trouble spending money perhaps
16:26because they uh perhaps because spending
16:29money makes them anxious, they often
16:31don't spend money on things they should
16:32spend it on. How well does the first
16:34description fit you? That is, do you
16:36have trouble limiting your spending? And
16:38then there's answers from never to
16:40always.
16:42How well does the second description fit
16:43you? That is, do you have trouble
16:44spending money? And again from never to
16:47always.
16:49Following is a scenario describing the
16:51behavior of two shoppers. After reading
16:52about each shopper, please answer the
16:54question that follows. Person A is
16:56accompanying a good friend who is on a
16:57shopping spree at a local mall. When
16:59they enter a large department store,
17:00person A sees that the store has only
17:03has a a one-day only sale where
17:05everything is priced 10 to 60% off.
17:07Person A realizes they don't need
17:09anything yet can't resist and end up
17:11spending almost $100 on stuff. Person B
17:14is accompanying a good friend who is on
17:16a shopping spree at a local mall. When
17:18they enter a large department store,
17:19person B sees that the store has a
17:21one-day only sale where everything is
17:22priced 10 to 60% off. Person B figures
17:25they can get great deals on many items
17:26that they need, yet the thought of
17:28spending money keeps them from buying
17:30stuff. In terms of your own behavior,
17:32who are you more similar to, person A or
17:34person B?
17:36And then the last question, you just
17:38indicate on a scale. So they say,
17:39consider which of the following
17:40descriptions fits you better. I find it
17:42difficult to spend money or I have
17:44difficulty controlling my spending and
17:46you select the number from 1 to 11 where
17:48one is difficult to spend money and 11
17:50is difficulty controlling spending and
17:53then it spits out a score. Pretty
17:55simple, but uh hopefully people will
17:57take it and let us know where they land.
18:02My hunch based on my many years of
18:04interactions with folks listen to our
18:06podcast is that there's going to be a
18:07whole lot of uh tight wads in there, but
18:09we'll see.
18:10>> No doubt. Yeah, it's interesting because
18:12I I tend to be a big saver and I thought
18:15I was going to be more of a tight wad
18:17and ended up in the unconflicted
18:20consumer. So it seems if you're
18:23>> Well, that's healthier. Like you can be
18:24disciplined.
18:25>> I agree.
18:25>> And unconlicted
18:27>> for sure. I would expect that to be a
18:30more common answer,
18:31>> but that's just speculation because most
18:34people I've talked to are happy with
18:36what they're spending, whether it's
18:38perceived as spending too much or too
18:39little. but they're not. I I have not
18:42experienced in in conversation as much
18:46where they're
18:48they wish they could spend more, but
18:49they're not or the opposite.
18:53>> I don't know if you guys have seen
18:54something different in in your
18:55interactions, but it I don't recall
18:58conversations
18:59specifically where it's like I'm I'm not
19:02not spending as much money as I wish I
19:04could spend.
19:09>> Yeah. I I think it I I haven't been in
19:12front of clients in a long time, but
19:13I've definitely had conversations where
19:15that is the case. This discussion popped
19:17up in the rational minder community uh
19:19maybe a week ago or two weeks ago, and
19:22there was a whole discussion about this.
19:23It was from our the the myths and
19:25personal finance episode. People were
19:27discussing that um the the saving that
19:30you need to save as much as you possibly
19:32can when you're young myth. That one
19:34sets people off all the time. Anyway, it
19:36uh it led to this discussion about about
19:39exactly what we're talking about. And
19:40there were a whole bunch of people in
19:41there telling stories about family
19:43members or clients who have been in this
19:45exact situation where they had a desire
19:48to buy stuff or go on trips or do
19:51whatever, but they just couldn't bring
19:52themselves to spend the money even
19:53though they knew they had the money
19:55there. One uh one person gave their own
19:58story about how they're retired and
20:01they're going on a trip I think it was
20:02to Europe and they want they have the
20:05means to do so. They wanted to upgrade
20:07their seats to the lie flat business
20:09class seats and their spouse just
20:12couldn't wouldn't do it. They can afford
20:15it. It's no problem. Whatever. But they
20:16just wouldn't do it
20:18>> because they can't bring themselves to
20:19spend the money.
20:20>> I think that's a good example.
20:22>> Yeah. Or Yeah. spending on things that
20:24don't feel reasonable based on your
20:26upbringing. That that's much more common
20:28for someone that's gotten to a level of
20:30wealth where spending
20:32$6,000 on a trip to on a flight to
20:35Europe, for example, seems crazy if you
20:38grew up middle class or lower middle
20:41class, but if you're wealthy now,
20:45the amount of spending is irrelevant to
20:47your current situation. But something
20:50like that is much more common. I've I've
20:52found
20:53>> I think that's a good point too. I
20:55wonder how much of it um relates to how
20:58conscious you are of status. Um and I
21:01think it can cut both ways, right? I
21:03think there are some people who
21:05>> like to use your you know business class
21:08lie flat seat. I think there might be
21:11some people who would feel quite proud
21:15being in that section of the plane and
21:17feeling like this is a I'm signaling to
21:20other people how wealthy or how
21:23successful I am and other people who
21:25might take the opposite who feel like
21:27>> I don't know it feels like showing off
21:28to me right and so it's the same and
21:31those people could both have the same
21:33means to spend
21:36>> it again it comes down to the kind of
21:38tight wad spend thrift
21:40inclination is about how your spending
21:43um relates to your own identity, who you
21:46think you are, how you want your
21:48spending to appear to other people, if
21:51that's important to you at all. And I
21:53think the happiest people are the ones
21:54who don't care what other people think
21:57about what they spend their money on,
21:59right? Um I'm not interested in other
22:02people judging me favorably or
22:05unfavorably on what I spend. I think if
22:07that's your attitude, probably quite a
22:10bit more content.
22:11>> Well, yeah, that that shows up a ton in
22:13the in the happiness literature. The the
22:15effects of social comparison are
22:17unequivocally horrific for happiness.
22:21>> Yeah.
22:22>> Uh, okay. We're getting a little bit
22:24sidetracked here, which is which is
22:26fine. But back to how this relates to
22:28marriage. So, we've got these tight wads
22:30and we've got these spend thrifts. Um
22:33now the the evidence here gets really
22:36quite interesting. Uh the uh tight wads
22:40and spenthrifts are more likely to marry
22:42each other than to marry a tight wad or
22:45another spenthrift. So if you're a tight
22:47wad, you're more likely to marry a
22:48spenthrift is what their research showed
22:51at least in the sample that they had
22:52studied there. Uh so it's kind of like
22:54you know we hear the we hear opposites
22:57attract. Um but I think the findings may
23:01be a little bit counterintuitive when
23:02when you consider that in reality people
23:04do tend to find spouses who share some
23:08characteristics. Um which I mean without
23:11seeing the research you might expect
23:12that to include spending tendencies but
23:15the research shows the opposite which I
23:16guess why it was a is why it was an
23:18interesting finding.
23:20Uh they do suggest a couple of reasons
23:22for the for the disconnect or for why
23:25opposites attract. Um, people tend to
23:27have poor introspective awareness of
23:30what they'll actually find attractive
23:32when encountering real potential
23:33partners. And when tights and spenthrift
23:36encounter similar behaviors to their own
23:38in others, it reminds them of that of
23:41that negative behavior um quality in
23:44themselves. And so the result is what
23:46the authors describe as fatal fiscal
23:49attractions where someone who doesn't
23:50share your same shortcomings from a
23:54spending perspective is initially
23:56exciting and appealing to you for that
23:58reason. But then the reason that this
24:00this is important is that what the study
24:02then goes on to show is that that
24:04excitement is sort of transitory. Um and
24:06then later on tight wads and spenthrifts
24:08that marry one another tend to
24:10experience more frequent conflicts over
24:12money and diminished marital well-being.
24:15And the more they differ on the scale,
24:17so the more extreme you are in one end
24:19or the other, the more likely you are to
24:21have marital conflict. Uh and they they
24:24find that that remains true even when
24:26debt and savings in the household are
24:29controlled for.
24:31Now, that doesn't mean that two people
24:33who have different spending profiles
24:36will be dissatisfied with their
24:39marriage. It also doesn't mean that you
24:40should marry someone that's going to
24:42mirror your own financial behavior. But
24:44I think it is useful to have that
24:46framework for better understanding
24:47yourself and your spouse and your
24:49respective emotions around around
24:51spending money.
24:54And I do think having that understanding
24:56like Ben, you you said you and your wife
24:58both did the quiz. Um, my wife and I
25:01both did it as well, not today, but a
25:04while ago. And similarly, we were we
25:06were on the same page there. But if if
25:09two people are different, the fact that
25:11they're different, what the research
25:12shows is not great, but I think
25:14understanding where each person is
25:15coming from can put you on a better
25:17footing. And then of course if you're
25:20not married yet and you're kind of
25:22dating, this is something that you can
25:23either explicitly by telling them to do
25:25the quiz or ask them to do the quiz or
25:27you can just try and feel out. Um, but
25:29it's a a trait worth understanding I
25:32think in a in a partner or potential
25:34partner
25:36>> and is as with like many areas of
25:38marriage like it opens a dialogue and
25:41transparent communication is important.
25:43Like as you've said, whether you're
25:46opposite or the same doesn't necessarily
25:49set you up for success or failure, but
25:51having this information equips you to
25:53have conversations in a healthy way that
25:56you can see the different perspectives
25:58and plan together. Maybe maybe you make
26:02compromises on different big financial
26:04decisions, but you can understand the
26:06perspective of each other.
26:10>> It makes conversations better. It's not
26:12about, you know, you're you're
26:13irresponsible. It's like, oh, you have a
26:15psychological tendency to behave this
26:17way.
26:19>> Yeah. Exactly.
26:20>> Yeah.
26:21>> And in some cases, it could probably
26:23actually bring out the best of the other
26:25person. Like a tight wad, it may help to
26:28encourage them to spend more when they
26:30want to spend. And the opposite, the
26:33spend thrift may end up saving more when
26:36they feel bad about overspending. So it
26:38it could end up in a healthy
26:40relationship balancing each other out to
26:42be a more positive experience.
26:45>> Yeah, you can see that kind of in a uh
26:47like gift giving for example, right?
26:49Like somebody who was a tight wad would
26:52presumably be very reluctant to purchase
26:56something even though deep down they
26:58know they'd enjoy it. They just can't
27:00justify the expense. But if a spend
27:02thrift spouse were to purchase that for
27:04them, that probably gives both of them
27:07pleasure, right? Because the tight wad's
27:09going to enjoy this gift even if he or
27:11she wouldn't have bought it for
27:12themselves. But and then the spouse has
27:14the pleasure of knowing that, you know,
27:16they gave a gift that, you know, made
27:18their partner happy. So, I can certainly
27:20see if the compromises are good ones
27:24that having those kind of opposite
27:26personalities can actually result in
27:28each one making the other one a little
27:30bit better or a little bit happier.
27:32Anyway,
27:34>> especially if you know where the other
27:35person's coming from. Like I I think in
27:36that in the gift example, you can
27:38imagine a scenario where a real tight
27:40wad gets upset about having been given a
27:42gift. I can't believe you spent money on
27:44this
27:45>> gift. [laughter]
27:47Yeah. So, I mean, it has to be within
27:50within reason, right? But you're right.
27:52Like, right.
27:52>> That's the compromise. That's where if
27:54everyone's on the same page and Yeah.
27:55Anyway, I think it's a it's a super
27:57interesting strand of research and and
28:00practically useful for couples. Uh,
28:04okay. The the next one is, uh, whether
28:07you should get a prenuptual agreement,
28:09which in Ontario is called a marriage
28:10contract. I'm sure it's got different
28:12names in other places, but people kind
28:14of know what the idea is there. Um, now
28:17one thing that's important to understand
28:18up front with a prenup or a marriage
28:20contract is that everyone has one by
28:23default when you get married based on
28:25the family law uh setup where you where
28:28you live.
28:30>> So, you got to understand what the law
28:31says in Ontario or in Quebec or wherever
28:33you are as a starting point. And that's
28:36actually not even unique to marriage.
28:37We're kind of focused on marriage here,
28:38but that's important to understand. If
28:40you're living with someone, if you're if
28:41you have a child with someone but aren't
28:43married, there can still be legal
28:44implications on a on a separation. A
28:47prenap or or a cohabitation agreement
28:49lets you pre-agree on your own set of
28:52marriage rules that are different from
28:54the standard legal prescription that
28:55your province or state or what or
28:57whatever has. Now, that's it's like
29:01that's probably a good thing for most
29:02people to do. You mentioned earlier,
29:04Dan, a really good point, I think, on
29:06this topic specifically is that a lot of
29:08the time people are getting married,
29:09they're young and don't have a lot of
29:10financial resources, so you wouldn't
29:11even think to do this. Um, which makes
29:15sense. People on second marriages are
29:17probably more likely to get them, but
29:19it's something that people should be
29:22aware of the implications of and
29:23understand whether they should consider
29:25getting a prenup even if they are
29:27younger. Now, why don't people tend to
29:31do that?
29:32uh in engaged couples and this is based
29:35on one one paper that found engaged
29:38couples accurately estimate the national
29:40divorce rate when they're asked but they
29:42estimate their own chances of divorce
29:44being much lower. I mean it's the
29:46classic overconfidence I guess
29:50uh being exhibited there. So that
29:52optimis optimism bias creates a real
29:54practical risk where couples who
29:56understand their likelihood of divorce
29:58who underestimate sorry their likelihood
30:00of divorce may sign may sign prenups
30:02that don't accurately reflect their post
30:05divorce welfare needs uh since the
30:08agreement was designed without genuine
30:10consideration of the scenario that it's
30:12meant to govern. Now the other thing
30:15going on here is that law and economics
30:17research suggests that the act of
30:19requesting a primup prenup functions as
30:21a negative signal showing a lack of
30:24commitment to the prospective
30:26relationship which makes it less likely
30:28for a partner to ask for one in the
30:30first place. So you have these two
30:31things happening. There's the optimism
30:32bias which suppresses uptake and
30:34signaling costs defer deter uh the
30:38having the conversation entirely. And so
30:40you have these structural conditions
30:41where prenups are really underused and
30:45when they do exist they're potentially
30:46designed without the seriousness that
30:48the document warrants.
30:51>> Yeah. I I think this concept the way you
30:54explained it that everybody has a
30:56default prenup that was first explained
30:59to me and the concept makes sense by Dr.
31:01Moira Summers who's been on previous
31:03episodes and I think coming up on a a an
31:06episode in the near future, but she
31:08explained it in such a way and it kind
31:10of made a light bulb go off in my head.
31:13Um like yeah, everybody has a default
31:15agreement set out by the law. So if
31:19you're getting into this, why not create
31:21an agreement that's on your terms? But
31:24as you've said, there's like this
31:25negative connotation that if you are
31:28thinking about prenup, you are think
31:30about thinking about the possibility of
31:32your marriage failing, which in reality
31:35that is true. you're preparing for what
31:36happens in the marriage breakdown, which
31:38is an awkward conversation, but if it
31:43does happen, it's going to be split as
31:46the law says regardless. So, the way Dr.
31:49Myra Summers kind of explained this was
31:52you have the opportunity to create an
31:53agreement that is drafted in a loving
31:56way that reflects your your own wishes.
32:01Mhm.
32:02>> And yet you each have to get independent
32:04>> legal counsel like the environment is
32:07not doesn't appear particularly loving.
32:10Um so I understand the resistance but of
32:13course it makes a lot of sense. And of
32:15course I think we all
32:16>> would agree they're especially important
32:19if you're coming into the marriage with
32:22very different levels of wealth. Right?
32:25Yeah, I mean two young people who don't
32:28have a lot that you know of financial
32:30assets, neither of them own a home.
32:34Is it is it important to get one? Maybe,
32:37maybe not. But certainly if you're
32:39coming into the relationship and from
32:41very different places in net worth and
32:44you know one stands to you know be
32:47harmed a lot more in a financial sense
32:49by a breakup for sure makes sense to do
32:52it. Yeah, that's the the most obvious
32:55case. Mhm.
32:56>> Um,
32:58>> yeah, got some good examples of of that
33:00where we've had those discussions where
33:02there is an imbalance in net worth. And
33:05the way that some clients have
33:07approached it is having the large net
33:10worth spouse have their net worth kind
33:13of vest over time based on a trigger of
33:17say years or life events such as having
33:20children or if you were to pass away
33:23maybe you get a much bigger portion. but
33:27it kind of protects from the short-term
33:29marriage breakdown but benefits for a
33:33longer term relationship. If if it goes
33:36longer, the the lower net worth spouse
33:39is not penalized. They still get a more
33:42representative share of the overall pie.
33:47>> So weird to think about and I think your
33:49point, Dan, is so is
33:51>> right. But then then you talk to people
33:55who did get married young and one spouse
33:58ends up being very financially
33:59successful doing whatever. Um and and
34:02then if they do end up getting divorced
34:04they they are often pretty unhappy but
34:07then it's like that I don't know it's
34:09tough.
34:11>> It's a tough one. I I never did I don't
34:13have one. Um, I had nothing when we got
34:18married and didn't imagine even having
34:20a, you know, I I didn't know I'd have a
34:23successful career at all. I had no idea
34:24what I wanted to do with my life when
34:26when I got married. So,
34:29>> and here you are.
34:30>> And here I am.
34:32>> Yeah.
34:32>> But I think if I were if I'm advising
34:34someone, should should you get a prenup?
34:37Um, it's tough to say like you don't
34:39want to say everybody should get a
34:40prenup. I think what you said is right,
34:43Dan, that it's just the most obvious
34:44case is if there's an obvious financial
34:46imbalance, you almost have to get one.
34:48It's kind of crazy not to. Um, if you're
34:51coming in more equally, it's a it's a
34:53tougher conversation.
34:57Yeah. And it's tough to predict how
34:59someone's career might progress. And
35:01then it
35:03the the question of like gender roles,
35:06not gender roles, but spouse partner
35:08roles, however you play. If one person
35:10decides to stay home with the children
35:12because they enjoy that or it works for
35:15your family, are you in pairing their
35:18ability to earn their own income?
35:20Therefore, that should impact how much
35:22they get if the marriage does break
35:24down. So, it it gets complex pretty
35:26quick. I agree. I'm in the same
35:28scenario. I got married young and we
35:30didn't have a prenup. And I mean because
35:33of that negative connotation I have my
35:35own personal bias that I probably
35:37wouldn't but same thing when talking to
35:41someone I would advise them to seriously
35:43consider a prenuptual agreement so that
35:46they can decide the path that makes
35:48sense for them as a couple.
35:50>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's where
35:52it's interesting is that with with with
35:54this document in place, you can
35:57deliberately design your financial
35:59arrangements to to reflect what makes
36:00sense for you. Um, and again, if you're
36:04getting married, there is a default
36:05based on just the law where you live.
36:08So, you got to know kind of baseline
36:10what what does that mean? And then if
36:11that arrangement does not make sense for
36:13you, you can draft your own version of
36:16it. Um, and you can get creative, Ben,
36:18like like you mentioned, we've seen some
36:20people get pretty creative in terms of
36:22how they want to divide assets in a
36:25hypothetical separation over time and
36:27triggered by different life life events.
36:28Like, you can do all kinds of stuff if
36:31you're doing it yourself. Um, I think it
36:34does have to start with sort of a an
36:36honest conversation about property and
36:39savings and income, future income, and
36:42what each person would need to be
36:43financially secure if the relationship
36:45were to end. So, take it's taking a very
36:48cold and rational approach to something
36:50that is not a very cold and rational
36:53thing, which is I think why it's hard.
36:56>> But I think I think sometimes even
36:57having that conversation helps. I've
37:00seen people that have gone through the
37:02exercise and not formally set up the
37:04prenup, but it's helped them
37:06conceptualize, okay, something does
37:09happen. We've discussed this and I'm
37:11okay with the the default outcome or
37:14not.
37:18All right, next one I have is uh how
37:22much should you spend on an engagement
37:24ring, wedding, and honeymoon?
37:27kind of following the the arc of a
37:29marriage, choosing a partner, prenup and
37:32wedding.
37:34>> Um,
37:35>> yeah, there's a common perception that
37:37cheaping out on an engagement ring
37:39signals a lack of commitment or care
37:41from the proposing member of a couple,
37:44whereas prenaps prenups act as a
37:46negative signal. A bigger ring often
37:48acts as a positive signal and an
37:49expression of love and affection. Uh,
37:51there there are many drivers of this
37:54signaling. Most notably, I remember
37:57learning about this when I was doing my
37:58MBA as just like such a crazy marketing
38:00case. Um, advertising from jewelry
38:03companies or diamond companies in this
38:05case like Debeers who first pushed the
38:08two months salary spending standard on
38:10an engagement ring. Um, ads like that
38:13link the price of the ring to the
38:15permanence of the marriage. I remember
38:17seeing ads diamond is forever when I was
38:20a kid. Haven't seen those in a long
38:22time.
38:22>> Brilliant marketing campaigns. Yeah. I
38:24mean, they they created a market, I
38:26think, for diamonds, which is why it was
38:29so such a crazy case.
38:31>> Yeah.
38:32>> Pre-tax salary.
38:35>> I think it's gross.
38:36>> Didn't like that. I think it's gross,
38:38too. But [laughter]
38:41>> um yeah, that's it. It's funny though,
38:44how peop how supposed, you know,
38:47societal conventions come. It's like it
38:50was a diamond company who convinced a
38:52bunch of guys that they should spend two
38:54month salary on an engagement ring.
38:56Look, whether that's appropriate or not,
38:58it's not for me to say. I just think
39:00it's also not for debeers to say, right?
39:03>> Yeah.
39:04>> Um it's just it's bizarre how that has
39:07entered into the uh consciousness. But
39:10>> people still do it. They still blast
39:12money on on engagement ranks. And
39:14honestly, two months seems low on I've
39:17heard like three or six months help.
39:19>> Yeah, I certainly know of ones that were
39:22more than that. Yeah, for sure. Um,
39:24>> yeah. So, wow. Anyways,
39:27>> so that that's that's the diamonds. Now,
39:29that it's the interesting thing is it's
39:30not limited to the ring. I mean, we all
39:32we all kind of know this. Um, there's a
39:35similar perspect perception around the
39:37wedding itself. I've seen I mean
39:41separate from PWL stuff uh just in my
39:45personal life I've seen some wild
39:48weddings that I've been invited to or
39:50attended. It's just like man it's it's
39:54crazy what people will spend on a on a
39:56wedding. Uh there's a 2021 paper in the
39:59journal of consumer policy that found
40:01that consumers routinely attach elevated
40:04importance to wedding products and that
40:08allows them to excuse excess wedding
40:10spending compared to other categories on
40:13the basis that it's a once in a-lifetime
40:15event that requires once in a lifetime
40:17spending.
40:19And what that's resulted in is a
40:20two-tiered retail market for products.
40:23We've heard about this. I think like
40:24CBC's covered this. It's a it's a real
40:26thing. Um where wedding items are marked
40:28up from their regular non-wedding
40:31counterparts. So think like floral
40:33arrangements for a wedding versus a
40:34non-wedding event.
40:36>> So then that this this begs the the big
40:38question which is is the tendency to
40:40spend more on wedding related related
40:42items uh benefiting the future of your
40:45relationship? Does spending more make
40:47for a better wedding or I mean more
40:49importantly does it make for a better
40:51marriage? And this is where the findings
40:52from this paper are super interesting.
40:55So, they have survey data from over
40:563,000 married survey participants and
40:59they find that after controlling for
41:01variables like income, demographic, and
41:03other relationship factors that the
41:05opposite is true. Higher engagement ring
41:07spending was linked to a greater risk of
41:09divorce among men and higher wedding
41:12spending was linked to greater risk of
41:14divorce among women. Uh wedding related
41:17debt stress might have been one possible
41:20mechanism.
41:21Um yeah, so that that's it. uh couples
41:25who who experienced the lowest divorce
41:27rates spent less than $1,000 on their
41:30wedding, which is just fascinating.
41:31Personally, my wedding cost around $300
41:35back in 2013. It's a very small wedding
41:38outside in Ottawa, and it was it was
41:40awesome. And I'm still married.
41:42>> How many people? How many guests?
41:45>> It was pretty
41:46>> my sister Tessa, my parents, and my
41:49wife. And that's it. Oh, so this is a
41:53really like to kind of pull this back to
41:56the tight wad spend thrift um continuum.
42:00I don't think anybody would argue that
42:03the pressure to spend more on
42:06I don't know about rings but certainly
42:08on weddings has increased a lot over the
42:11last 10 15 years whatever period. Um,
42:15and so people who are more inclined to
42:18be tight wads now have a lot more
42:21pressure on them
42:23>> if they want to resist that. And people
42:25who are inclined to be spend thrifts
42:27kind of have free reign to indulge that
42:29now, right? because you can spend an
42:34awful lot on a wedding without kind of
42:37judgment that you might have
42:39>> had to endure, you know, in years past
42:42or uh without the kind of judgment you
42:44might endure if you spent that money on
42:46something other than a wedding,
42:48>> right? So, I think if if you have a
42:51conflict between a tight wad and a
42:53spendthrift partner, you're going to see
42:56it clash pretty heavily when you're
42:58planning the wedding. H
43:00Yeah, would be a very good early first
43:03test. Like if you got a spin thrift that
43:05wants to do a flashy wedding and a tight
43:08wad that wants to do it as fiscally
43:11responsible as possible, how you handle
43:14that discussion will set the tone for
43:17the marriage.
43:18>> But more importantly, I think the social
43:20pressure on that couple is going to be
43:24much more difficult to endure for the
43:26tight wad.
43:27>> For sure. Right. So
43:29>> yeah, because it's become such a an
43:31accepted, normal, expected even thing to
43:34do.
43:34>> Yeah, exactly.
43:36>> Yeah. I always look back at my wedding,
43:38I'm like, "Yep, glad we did it that
43:40way."
43:42>> Yeah. I did not do my wedding as cheap
43:44as you did, Ben, but I was pretty close.
43:47And going to the engagement ring. Um I
43:51went the sentimental route. I bought a
43:53gold ring and I knew my wife had a
43:56diamond ring from her grandmother that
43:57she wanted to be incorporated and my
44:00wife will tell you funny story that I
44:02went and stole the ring from her
44:04parents' house which it's not completely
44:06true. I had permission I knew but they
44:09weren't home. I used the garage code to
44:11go grab the ring at the time um and then
44:14turned it into a beautiful ring for her
44:16and I wanted to do the traditional thing
44:18of asking her parents to have her hand
44:20in marriage. And that point they like,
44:22"So you came in and took the ring and
44:25>> it was pretty funny to to look back on."
44:28But then our our wedding
44:30>> was not crazy expensive. I think it was
44:33maybe 5,000 total, but we got had 150
44:36people, like mostly family and some
44:38friends. We we used as many free options
44:42we had. We had a free photographer,
44:44someone gifted a DJ. We had a friend who
44:47made cakes and favors. So, we saved
44:51money as much as possible and I don't
44:53regret doing it the way we did it. It
44:55may also be a reflection of the time
44:57like we didn't have much money. We got
44:59married relatively young, but I don't
45:02regret doing that and don't think we
45:04missed out. We had a great time and lots
45:06of good memories.
45:10The the the other um counterintuitive
45:13finding from this study is that there
45:15there were two types of wedding spending
45:18that predicted longer marriages in in
45:20this sample. One was having more guests
45:22at the wedding and the other was going
45:25on a honeymoon in both cases regardless
45:27of the price.
45:29So I think I mean it kind of shows that
45:31a wedding and honeymoon don't need to be
45:33and I would argue should not be shows of
45:35wealth. Um, but they can still be great
45:38experiences. You shouldn't go broke
45:40buying a ring and and you don't want to
45:42max out a credit card on a on a wedding
45:45venue, but there are still ways to do I
45:47mean having a nice honeymoon and having
45:49lots of people you care about at your
45:51wedding
45:52without having to spend a whole bunch of
45:55money,
45:56if that's even possible. I don't know.
45:57Having a whole bunch of people together
45:58at a venue. If if anyone gets a hint
46:01that it's a wedding, it's going to get
46:02more expensive.
46:04>> Yeah. Well, I had 150 people at my
46:06wedding and did it for 5,000 bucks. Had
46:08a buffet, no open bar. It worked pretty
46:12well.
46:13>> Yeah, that's good.
46:16Uh, okay. This This one's one of my
46:18favorites, I think, on this topic. Um,
46:20because I remember when I was when I was
46:23early in my financial planning career
46:24and I would spend a lot of time talking
46:26to young couples, this is always like
46:29one of the first questions I would get
46:30asked is how should we structure our
46:33finances? like how should we have joint
46:35accounts? Should we combine our
46:36finances? Should we have separate
46:37finances? And it seems like this pretty
46:39innocuous financial decision, but it can
46:42actually have a huge impact on your
46:44financial life.
46:47Um, and there's tons of potential
46:49answers. I mean, I've seen every
46:51possible combination of bank accounts
46:54that you can that you can think of for a
46:56for a couple. Um, but what tends to work
46:59best, the evidence is pretty strong,
47:02which is that couples should manage
47:04their finances together. Now, some of
47:08the research does suggest that means
47:09joint accounts, but some of it suggests
47:11it doesn't necessarily have to be. Uh,
47:12but the main idea is that combining
47:15finances has some pretty clear benefits.
47:19There's one 2022 analysis across six
47:22studies of more than 38,000 participants
47:24that finds that couples who fully pulled
47:26their finances reported greater
47:28relationship satisfaction and were less
47:30likely to break break up which held
47:32cross-cultural culturally which is
47:34interesting. The 2023 study in the
47:37Journal of Consumer Research found that
47:38joint accounts promoted communal norms,
47:41shared goals, and better feelings about
47:43managing money as a team, which are all
47:45linked to greater relationship and life
47:48satisfaction. Now, interestingly, this
47:50is the part that I mentioned that the
47:51benefits of combined finances may not
47:54even have to come as a consequence of
47:56actually combining finances like using a
47:58joint account. Simply thinking about
48:00your finances as combined can provide
48:02produce positive results. So there's a
48:052025 paper talk about shared money which
48:08is by Johan Yana Pet who was actually a
48:11guest on this podcast many years ago. Uh
48:14she found that while yes the act of
48:16pooling finances caused couples to
48:18communicate more openly and frequently
48:19about money simply redirecting people's
48:21attention toward their existing joint
48:23accounts rather than their separate ones
48:25was enough to produce a similar effect.
48:27So, I think couples who are thinking
48:28about their finances as as ours rather
48:30than mine and yours tend to talk more
48:32about talk more and more productively
48:35about money uh regardless of how the
48:37accounts are actually set up. And then
48:40the other big benefit and this Dan you
48:42alluded to uh when we first started
48:44talking about this topic uh the other
48:47big benefit of combined finances is that
48:49the effect of combining finances seems
48:51to make the relationship between wealth
48:53and life satisfaction stronger which is
48:56interesting. This is a 2022 paper my
48:58wealth your life satisfaction which
49:00finds that increases in jointly held
49:02wealth led to greater life satisfaction
49:04whereas gains in individually held
49:06wealth did not have any significant
49:09impact. Yeah. So then practically
49:12speaking like you actually need to
49:13combine your finances. I don't know. I I
49:17in my household we do everything in we
49:20have a main joint account and that's it.
49:22Like that's where everything happens.
49:24Um, I don't know. The research says it
49:28doesn't necessarily have to be that way.
49:29I think it's a pretty efficient way to
49:32to do it, though. But the main thing is
49:34is thinking about finances jointly, even
49:37if they aren't physically or whatever,
49:39electronically joint.
49:42>> I think this the joint account thing
49:44like uh is going to be really important
49:46again if you've got this kind of spend
49:49thrift tight wad dynamic going on. Um,
49:53and again, I I don't have any research
49:55to back this up, but my intuition tells
49:57me if the two partners, one was on the
50:02tight wad side and one was on the
50:03spendrift side, the tight wad would
50:06probably be happier with separate
50:08accounts because they feel like they can
50:10build a little bit of a fence around
50:13kind of their account. and if their
50:16partner, you know, is inclined to spend
50:19more freely, then there's at least that
50:22separation. Whereas, if both of them
50:25were on the contented side, or frankly,
50:28if they were both tight wads or both
50:30Spencers, um the joint account would be
50:32much easier. I think it would be
50:34difficult to share a joint account with
50:37someone who was at a very different part
50:40part of that spectrum, right? The closer
50:43you are, the more likely the joint
50:44account seems to me to to be the right
50:47way to go.
50:50>> Oh man, that's tough, right? Because
50:52then it's like you you look at what and
50:54I think you're right, Dan, but when when
50:56you look at what the research on this
50:57says, it's like you're less likely to
50:59have shared goals. Life satisfaction is
51:01decreasing. But it speaks again to just
51:04that what the first piece of research
51:05that we talked about says is that if you
51:07are on a like opposite ends of that
51:09tight wad spend thrift spectrum, it does
51:12lead to marital conflict and it does
51:13lead to lower marital satisfaction. And
51:15I think that you're kind of pointing out
51:16a practical um mechanism at at where
51:20that would happen because I I agree with
51:22you that it it probably does make sense
51:25to keep accounts separate if you're very
51:26different. But that's in itself a
51:28problem. And I think many people, it
51:31doesn't have to be all the way one side
51:33or the other, right? I mean, certainly
51:35know a lot of clients or other couples
51:37have just shared like they have a joint
51:39account for their joint expenses and
51:41then they each have their own account.
51:43And you know, people are can be very
51:46mechanical about how much each has to
51:48contribute to the joint account each
51:50month. Whatever you can work that out
51:52among yourselves, but you know, I think
51:54for a lot of couples that compromise
51:55makes sense. you know, you have mostly
51:58shared expenses in the house, but each
52:01one feels like, you know what, I want a
52:03little bit of money that I can spend
52:05myself without you checking my bank
52:07statements. And, you know,
52:10depending on the relationship dynamic,
52:11that that I'm sure can work well as
52:13also. So,
52:15>> yeah, I I agree. I think it comes down
52:17again to communication. Like if you
52:19agree, okay, you each have a budget of X
52:23amount per month to do what you wish
52:25with the tight wad saves most of it. The
52:28spend thrift spends, then it's less
52:31likely it's going to cause conflict. If
52:32you have agreed on principle, these are
52:34the guidelines for how we manage our
52:36finances and we'll save this much
52:39jointly, then then that can work. I find
52:42where if people have a joint
52:46view on how they manage their money,
52:48having additional accounts, like there's
52:50not one way that's right or wrong. I
52:53think it just adds more mental overhead
52:55and complexity. Like if you agree that
52:57what's ours is ours and
53:01it just if you have to move money from
53:04individual account to joint account,
53:06switch money all around, just adds more
53:09to think about. And if it works for you,
53:11then then that's great. Uh but it just
53:14there's other layers that you need to
53:16think about when you're setting up your
53:17your joint banking.
53:21>> Yep. I agree with all that. And I I
53:24think it is it's all about
53:25communication. Like we if my wife or I
53:29want to spend money on something
53:30substantial, we will just have a
53:32conversation about it rather than, you
53:34know, having a budget for stuff that we
53:36don't have to ask each other questions
53:37about.
53:38>> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. I've heard of
53:40couples that have like a threshold like
53:42anything over $500 or $1,000 we should
53:46talk about it first.
53:48>> Mhm. Now, it does start to kind of bleed
53:51into another topic that I want to talk
53:52about, which is financial infidelity,
53:55where I think like talking about what
53:58what works for a couple. If you do
54:00something that doesn't work, but you
54:01kind of agree to it, but one person
54:03doesn't really agree to it, but they say
54:04they do, then you end up with financial
54:07infidelity, which is which is not great.
54:09uh engaging in fin the definition of it
54:11is engaging in financial behavior you
54:13expect your partner would disapprove of
54:15and then hiding it. It's actually pretty
54:18common in marriage. There there is a
54:20recent paper that looks at what happens
54:23when one partner is much more prone to
54:25it than the other. And couples with that
54:28kind of mismatch are more likely to end
54:30up with individualized rather than
54:32shared financial goals. And this also
54:34predicts lower financial well-being and
54:36lower relationship satisfaction. And
54:39interestingly, this finding holds up
54:41even after accounting for other
54:43mismatches between partners like one
54:46being a tight wad and the other being a
54:47spend thrift.
54:50That's of course harder to do if you
54:53stick to joint accounts, right? So like
54:55that is potentially one
54:58>> argument for joint credit card, joint
55:01bank account and then you just have this
55:04understanding like look whatever I buy
55:06my partner's going to see it and um I
55:09mean if you want to you know buy gift or
55:12something there's ways to do that and
55:13keep it a secret but it'd be pretty hard
55:15to hide
55:17major spending chronically if you are
55:21only working with joint accounts. And
55:23it's not to say that it's only
55:25appropriate if people don't trust each
55:26other. It's just a matter of it's just
55:29transparency, right? It's not usually
55:32transparency. But the case we're talking
55:33about here is financial infidelity. So
55:35if someone is intentionally trying to
55:36hide it, even if you started with a
55:38joint account, it could result in a
55:41separate hidden account being created
55:43and
55:44>> it could cause some serious conflict
55:46because it's it's no longer just
55:47finances. You're
55:49>> reaching trust with your partner. So,
55:51it's uh gets could get messy pretty
55:55quick.
55:57>> Yeah. I kind of think that bird's going
55:58to get fleshed over regardless. Like, if
56:00someone's
56:00>> Yeah.
56:01>> If someone's being if they're if they're
56:03conducting financial infidelity and you
56:06say, "All right, we're doing joint
56:07accounts," then they're either going to
56:08find another way to do it or it's just
56:10going to bring it bring the issue to the
56:12forefront and you're going to get
56:13separated.
56:14>> Yeah.
56:16It's a it's a bigger problem than we can
56:18solve with our with our financial
56:20planning guidance.
56:22>> It's for the counselors
56:24>> or the divorce attorneys to deal with.
56:27>> Yeah. [clears throat] Uh okay. Yeah. So
56:31whether finances are combined or or
56:34joint, I think another big question that
56:37every couple grapples with and we see
56:39this as financial adviserss a lot. But
56:41so the the other big question that
56:43households have to grapple with is how
56:44much each spouse should be involved in
56:46household financial decision-making.
56:50Now again as adviserss we see this all
56:52the time. Uh it's very common for there
56:54to be to be a sort of primary financial
56:58spouse. Um whereas the the less
57:01financial spouse is you know sometimes
57:05not even super engaged in in the
57:07financial conversation.
57:10Um yeah and it's it you know you can
57:13have a lot of conversations that end up
57:14being dominated by one spouse and that
57:17can be with an adviser but it can also
57:18be good good financial advisor will try
57:21and check that and and engage both
57:23spouses but I think if it's just the two
57:25people on their own uh a lot of
57:27decisions can end up being dominated by
57:29one spouse and it's not because the
57:31concepts are too complicated for the
57:33other spouse to understand but it can be
57:36difficult to step back and be objective
57:38about your own financial life without
57:40defaulting into how things are usually
57:42done. Like if your spouse in either
57:44direction just always makes these
57:46decisions or or does stuff and tells you
57:48about it after the fact, then it's kind
57:49of hard to step back and say, "Well,
57:51hey, maybe we should approach this
57:52decision differently." And I do think
57:55that being mediator is not quite the
57:58right word, but being somewhat of a
57:59financial mediator or neutral third
58:01party between couples does end up being
58:03a big part of what advisers at firms
58:05like PWL Capital do for couple clients.
58:09It's just a different conversation when
58:11there's a when there's a third a third
58:13party who's not part of the relationship
58:16in the room. Research on this does tend
58:18to point toward maledominated influence
58:20on important household decisions like
58:21asset allocation. A 2026 paper in the
58:24review of financial studies shows that
58:26the average Australian household
58:27incorporates 60% of the husband's risk
58:29tolerance but only 40% of the wife's
58:32into the household level asset
58:33allocation. The authors state that this
58:35implies a 20 percentage point gap in
58:37bargaining power. Half of that gender
58:40gap is driven by observable
58:41characteristics like income and
58:42employment and then the other half can
58:44be traced back to a gender effect as the
58:47authors describe it. The average
58:49bargaining power for husbands is 69% in
58:52Germany and 61% in the United States.
58:54But the authors do say that the three
58:56countries Australia, Germany, and the US
58:58are statistically indistinguishable from
59:00each other in terms of husband
59:02bargaining power. But all of them are
59:05above 60%. What's most surprising here
59:08is that discounting a wife's financial
59:09input cannot be attributed solely to her
59:12lack of financial knowledge. The 2021
59:15Journal of Finance paper, Who Wears the
59:17Pants? finds that US households with a
59:20financially sophisticated husband are
59:22more likely to participate in the stock
59:23market than households with a wife of
59:26equal financial sophistication. And the
59:28authors argue that this pattern is best
59:30explained by gender identity norms
59:32rather than by differences in
59:34competence. Uh so they also run a
59:36randomized uh a randomized experiment in
59:39in the paper uh which points to that to
59:41the mechanism. Female identity
59:43suppresses the wife's willingness to
59:45contribute ideas while male identity
59:46makes husbands less resp receptive to a
59:49spouse's input. So that paper is in the
59:52journal of finance. Uh it's interesting
59:55to to have that topic covered in that
59:57journal but but there it is. A short
59:592018 conference paper by the same author
1:00:02extends the pattern internationally.
1:00:04Okay, so that paper was just looking at
1:00:06the US. Uh the second conference paper,
1:00:09shorter conference paper, uh finds that
1:00:12households in countries with stronger
1:00:13traditional gender norms are less likely
1:00:15to participate in the stock market with
1:00:17suggestive evidence that the pattern
1:00:19holds among wealthy households as well.
1:00:22Now, these norms carry a real financial
1:00:24cost through the stock market
1:00:25participation channel, which is really a
1:00:28shame given what we know about how the
1:00:30sexes actually trade differently. In
1:00:33Barbara and Odin's 2001 study of 35,000
1:00:36households with brokerage accounts, men
1:00:38traded 45% more than women, consistent
1:00:41with the prediction that overconfidence
1:00:43produces excessive harmful trading. Uh,
1:00:46that activity in in their study was
1:00:48costly. trading reduced men's net
1:00:50returns by 2.65 percentage points per
1:00:53year versus 1.72 percentage points for
1:00:57women. To be clear, both groups hurt
1:00:59themselves by trading too much. Women
1:01:01just did less of it. Whatever the return
1:01:04consequences, I do think that a
1:01:06household that systematically discounts
1:01:08one spouse's preference is making
1:01:10decisions that only one of the two
1:01:12people actually endorses, and that seems
1:01:15worth fixing for its own sake. You know,
1:01:17it's always hard to make generalizations
1:01:20and I hesitate to do so. But I will say
1:01:22like based on my experience working with
1:01:26client households, client couples mostly
1:01:30in a male female couple, I would say the
1:01:33one who is my primary contact about the
1:01:36planning and investing
1:01:38is the woman as often as it is the man.
1:01:41Like it's almost I'd be shocked if it
1:01:43wasn't really close to 50/50.
1:01:46But to to um take it a step further,
1:01:50this idea about it affecting stock
1:01:54market exposure, it's really interesting
1:01:55because I would say in the households
1:01:59where the man is more likely to be our
1:02:03primary contact, we talk more about the
1:02:06portfolio and more about investing. And
1:02:09in the households where the woman is
1:02:11primarily our contact, we spend more
1:02:14time talking about the planning.
1:02:16>> Now again, I haven't quantified this in
1:02:18any way, but that's my intuition. Um,
1:02:21and I think that there is some
1:02:25social pressure on men to
1:02:29think that they need to know about
1:02:32markets and investing. In a way, they're
1:02:35expected to know about sports and cars.
1:02:38in a way that maybe isn't. And I I hope
1:02:41I don't know if this sounds like a
1:02:43stereotype, but to me, I think I see a
1:02:46little bit of that because from time to
1:02:48time, I will talk to like a male client
1:02:51who I get the feeling is kind of
1:02:54bluffing, right? Asking questions that
1:02:56he feels like he thinks he should ask,
1:03:00but it doesn't really feel honest. It
1:03:02feels a bit more performative where you
1:03:04almost never hear that. I never hear
1:03:07that from our female clients. So, I
1:03:10don't know. Take that for what it's
1:03:11worth.
1:03:12>> Well, that that that shows up in the uh
1:03:14in the financial literacy literature
1:03:16where men are more likely to be
1:03:19overconfident.
1:03:21Women they're more likely to answer
1:03:24confidently answer a question
1:03:25incorrectly. Whereas women are more
1:03:27likely to say that they don't know the
1:03:29answer to the question even if they
1:03:31actually did.
1:03:34>> They tend to be under underconfident.
1:03:36Yeah.
1:03:36>> Mhm.
1:03:36>> Interesting.
1:03:38>> So, but you're you're correct. I think
1:03:39that as as an adviser, it's really
1:03:42important for you to try to be aware of
1:03:44that dynamic and do everything you can
1:03:46to bring both partners into the
1:03:48conversation whenever possible. You
1:03:51know, like you'll see it sometimes in a
1:03:53meeting. One spouse will be going on and
1:03:54on and you know, like you have to make
1:03:56the effort and turn to the other one
1:03:57say, "What do you think?" You know, do
1:03:59you agree with that? You know, where are
1:04:01you coming from? because it's it's
1:04:04something I think that
1:04:06uh I mean in just in general uh trying
1:04:09to do a financial plan for a household
1:04:11is going to be a lot easier and a lot
1:04:14more satisfying for them if they both
1:04:16feel some ownership
1:04:18>> and some engagement in the process.
1:04:19Right.
1:04:20>> Well, and it leads to such a better
1:04:22balanced conversation. Like the less
1:04:26dominant spouse tends to have a
1:04:27completely different perspective than
1:04:29the more dominated spouse and
1:04:32>> just gives different perspectives like
1:04:35planning whether it's kids or trips or
1:04:38gifting or all these different things
1:04:41that can come up in financial planning
1:04:43conversations that would not necessarily
1:04:45be top of mind for the opposite spouse.
1:04:47So it's good to get both sides
1:04:50whether you're doing it on your own. So
1:04:52if you're do DIY investor, even if you
1:04:56are the main partner managing the
1:04:59portfolio, you're going to want to think
1:05:01about the more broad financial planning
1:05:03picture and in include your spouse in
1:05:06those decisions and discussions. And I
1:05:08often hear, well, my spouse is just not
1:05:10interested. Don't have to be interested
1:05:12in the details of portfolio management
1:05:15and tax strategies to care about what's
1:05:19important to you. like your money is a
1:05:21means to do things to achieve the goals
1:05:23that you want to achieve.
1:05:25Everybody cares about that to some
1:05:27extent. So being part of those
1:05:29conversations is important even if
1:05:31you're not interested in the the money
1:05:33aspect or the technical aspects of the
1:05:35conversation.
1:05:37>> Yeah, that's for sure. Continuity too,
1:05:39right? where if one if one spouse makes
1:05:41all the decisions and doesn't not
1:05:42involve the other spouse and something
1:05:44happens to the primary financial spouse
1:05:46and they don't have an adviser that can
1:05:48be very difficult for the uh spouse
1:05:50who's kind of been in the dark the whole
1:05:51time to to carry on after the fact. Y
1:05:55>> that's definitely a a reason why um you
1:05:59know we've had a number of clients come
1:06:01to us quite late in life you know um and
1:06:05that's a very common reason why right
1:06:08where the the one spouse who's been
1:06:10managing the finances will come to us
1:06:12and say I'm just concerned about what
1:06:14might happen if I go first right and you
1:06:18know my partner would not be able to
1:06:20manage on their own and then you feel
1:06:22like
1:06:23>> the sharks are going to start circling,
1:06:25right? The bank's going to call you,
1:06:27right? So, they're like, you know, I
1:06:28just want to know that if it's not me,
1:06:31um, you know, somebody I trust is
1:06:34looking after my family. So, yeah, it's
1:06:37something that and it's very
1:06:38responsible, I think, for a person to to
1:06:41be, you know, that humble, but also that
1:06:44forwardinking and not in denial that at
1:06:47some point that could happen, right?
1:06:49>> Yeah. So, uh, yeah, it's it it's usually
1:06:52a a good time to reach out.
1:06:55>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We definitely do see
1:06:56people reaching out for that reason.
1:06:58And, uh, that there was a really
1:07:00interesting paper out a few years ago
1:07:02now that showed that, uh,
1:07:05>> I think it was, no, it wasn't it wasn't
1:07:07gendered. I think it was similar for men
1:07:09and women. But there there's uh, can be
1:07:13significant issues with cognitive
1:07:14decline
1:07:15>> that goes unnoticed leading to poor
1:07:17financial decisions. So death is one
1:07:19thing and leaving a a less financially
1:07:20sophisticated spouse to figure it out,
1:07:23but um cognitive decline is a whole
1:07:25other issue. So we we've seen people
1:07:27come to us as a hedge
1:07:29>> against that as well, which I think is
1:07:31another
1:07:32>> another pretty interesting reason. The
1:07:34other thing I've heard from a ton of
1:07:35people and I don't really know if this
1:07:37is the best way to do it because like
1:07:38you said, Dan, the sharks will be
1:07:40circling. But I've had a ton of people
1:07:41tell me that um you know I'm I'm not
1:07:44going to become a client, but I've
1:07:46written into my will that if I die, I
1:07:48want my wife to I want you to be the
1:07:50first phone call that my wife makes. I'm
1:07:52always like I don't know if that's the
1:07:53best time to do it because
1:07:55>> maybe not the first phone call, but
1:07:57[laughter]
1:07:58>> anyway,
1:08:00I mean that's a huge responsibility and
1:08:02I mean I think any adviser would be you
1:08:05know really take that responsibility
1:08:07very seriously, right? I mean that's an
1:08:10a huge compliment to be told
1:08:13>> that, you know, I trust you with my
1:08:15family's finances when I'm gone.
1:08:17>> Yeah.
1:08:17>> So, um, but yes, I've I've heard the
1:08:20same thing. In fact, I know of people
1:08:22who have done that for sure. Um,
1:08:24>> yeah.
1:08:25>> Yeah.
1:08:27>> All right. So, I think we covered uh we
1:08:28covered quite a bit here. Um, the the
1:08:31questions we talked about drawn on
1:08:33different bodies of research with with
1:08:34distinct financial implications for
1:08:36couples. But I I think if we kind of
1:08:38step back and think about all of them,
1:08:41one clear pattern emerges, which is that
1:08:43the couples who are going to set
1:08:45themselves up the best financially and
1:08:47emotionally are the ones who approach
1:08:49finances of marriage, the finances of
1:08:52marriage as a as a team and have open
1:08:54communication. And that there are
1:08:56multiple ways that can be accomplished
1:08:57based on the stuff that we talked about,
1:08:58the research that we talked about.
1:09:00Understanding you and your partner's
1:09:01spending tendencies lets you understand
1:09:03where each of you are coming from.
1:09:05aligning on the legal implications of
1:09:07marriage for your situation and whether
1:09:09that's a prenup or or the default uh
1:09:12through open conversation before the
1:09:13marriage makes a lot of sense.
1:09:15Prioritizing shared experiences like a
1:09:17honeymoon over material displays like a
1:09:20huge rock or lavish wedding. uh taking a
1:09:23joint approach to your finances or at
1:09:24least thinking about them as shared even
1:09:26if they're not actually set up as as
1:09:28joint accounts rather than maintaining
1:09:30separate financial lives or at the
1:09:32extreme secret financial lives in the
1:09:34case of financial infidelity
1:09:37and then ensuring that both partners are
1:09:39involved in financial decisions rather
1:09:41than delegating everything to one person
1:09:43which empirically is often the male
1:09:45spouse at least based on some of the
1:09:48research that we looked at. Those are
1:09:50all pretty good ways, I think, to
1:09:53open lines of communication and make
1:09:54sure everybody's on the same page and on
1:09:56board with the household financial
1:09:58strategy.
1:10:02That's it. Any final comments?
1:10:06>> No. Should we go to the after show?
1:10:08>> Yes. So, we have gotten some feedback
1:10:10that people miss the after show. The
1:10:12good the good old days when
1:10:14>> Cameron would tell us about the shows he
1:10:16was watching on Netflix.
1:10:17>> Yeah. [laughter]
1:10:18And we would joke that there was six
1:10:20people who stuck around this long.
1:10:22>> Yeah. Right. But
1:10:23>> the six people in the after show.
1:10:24>> Mhm.
1:10:26>> Uh we do have a couple reviews to read,
1:10:29so we can go there. I I do also want to
1:10:31mention while we're here in the after
1:10:33show the um we we did an episode, a
1:10:36special episode on a Tuesday as opposed
1:10:39to a Thursday with two of the folks from
1:10:43One Digital. And uh the episode was not
1:10:47wellreceived.
1:10:48Uh so I just wanted to say that you know
1:10:50that acknowledged we we we we heard the
1:10:53feedback. We saw the feedback. People
1:10:56were very um
1:10:59willing to share their perspectives on
1:11:03how much they disliked that episode and
1:11:05the reasons why.
1:11:07That's that's kind of all I want to say
1:11:08about it. We we we saw the comments. We
1:11:10we under we understand it. Uh the
1:11:13feedback is well taken.
1:11:16>> We'll move on from there.
1:11:18>> Yeah.
1:11:19>> Yeah.
1:11:21>> Uh
1:11:22couple reviews here. Uh I'll do the
1:11:24disclaimer.
1:11:26We have a few reviews from Apple Podcast
1:11:28to read under SEC regulations. We're
1:11:30required to disclose whether a review
1:11:31which may be interpreted as a
1:11:33testimonial was left by a client,
1:11:34whether any direct or indirect
1:11:36compensation was paid for the review, or
1:11:37whether there are any conflicts of
1:11:39interest related to the review. As
1:11:40reviews are generally anonymous, we are
1:11:42unable to identify if the reviewer is a
1:11:44client or disclose any such conflicts of
1:11:46interest.
1:11:49Uh maybe read the first one, Dan.
1:11:52Yeah. So this one is titled Best
1:11:54Financial Show. Disclosure, I'm not
1:11:57affiliated. This is one of the best
1:11:59financial podcasts there is. Applicical
1:12:01for both US and non US citizens, which
1:12:05is great because most of the podcasts
1:12:06are US citizen biased. The only downside
1:12:10of the podcast that is that it makes you
1:12:12go into the rational reminder forums.
1:12:14Install the deep dive which is a
1:12:17neverending loop of learning even for
1:12:19people like me not that savvy and who
1:12:22don't work in finance. Can't wait for
1:12:24the leverage podcast. And this is from
1:12:27VBANV192
1:12:30from Israel.
1:12:32>> Pretty cool.
1:12:33>> The rational mind community is uh it is
1:12:36a situation. Yes. People
1:12:40can get sucked in there.
1:12:42>> Never ending loop.
1:12:43>> I I do love that since we started doing
1:12:45a disclaimer for our reviews, people
1:12:46started adding disclaimers to their own
1:12:48reviews. [laughter]
1:12:51[gasps]
1:12:53>> Let's do the next one here. Great
1:12:55podcast.
1:12:57Thanks, Ben and team. I've been
1:12:59listening to this podcast for years and
1:13:00look forward to my Thursday commute
1:13:02every week for the new RR episode. I'd
1:13:05love to see an episode focused on
1:13:07optimal asset allocation and life cycle
1:13:10theory for
1:13:12defined benefit pensioners, of which I
1:13:14imagine there are certainly quite a few
1:13:16in Canada from the public service. P.S.
1:13:19just to make this fun, I'll have you
1:13:20know that your podcast brings me such
1:13:22great comfort. I listened to it while I
1:13:24was getting minor surgery by Moist
1:13:27towelette from Canada. Quite the name.
1:13:30Nice.
1:13:33Uh, that's a very funny name and also a
1:13:35very funny story. Um,
1:13:37>> yeah.
1:13:38>> Yeah. Okay, I'll do the next one. Future
1:13:41investor. As a 22-year-old mechanical
1:13:44engineering student and massive Excel
1:13:45nerd, this podcast is right up my alley.
1:13:47I transitioned to hear from the wealthy
1:13:49Barber and Dave's podcast, and the level
1:13:51of data-driven nerdy detail you guys
1:13:53provide is unmatched. Even though I have
1:13:55zero assets to invest yet, every episode
1:13:57gets me incredibly excited to graduate
1:13:59and start my financial journey. You guys
1:14:01make complex financial topics
1:14:03understandable and entertaining. Keep up
1:14:05the amazing work. And that's by Gordy
1:14:08from uh Canada.
1:14:11>> All right, we'll wrap up with this last
1:14:13one. In-depth financial analysis. I
1:14:17found rational reminder from an
1:14:18interview on the Bogleheads on Investing
1:14:20podcast. Since then, I've been going
1:14:22through the archive. Excellent
1:14:24interviews and in-depth dives into the
1:14:26data. Looking forward to the next 400
1:14:29plus podcasts. That's from TF Schuler
1:14:32from the US of A.
1:14:34>> Very nice.
1:14:35>> Hopefully there will be 400 plus more to
1:14:38come.
1:14:40>> I mentioned uh I mentioned the rash
1:14:42minder community being being a situation
1:14:44and how people can get sucked into it.
1:14:47looking at okay the alltime stats for
1:14:51the community um
1:14:55in terms of time read so time people
1:14:57spend reading topics on the community
1:15:02one person spent three months
1:15:06three months of their life reading
1:15:09reading topics
1:15:12>> and well spent
1:15:14>> I I mean I hope So,
1:15:18we got some uh Yeah, that's the biggest
1:15:21outlier, but there's
1:15:23I mean 67 days,
1:15:2771 days, 49 days.
1:15:30>> Does it have your stat, Ben?
1:15:32>> 44 days. [laughter]
1:15:34>> I'm near the top. Near the top, but
1:15:37>> not not at the top,
1:15:38>> but I'm in the probably the top 10% or
1:15:42so. Maybe the top 5%.
1:15:45>> Nice. You can't actually sort it by days
1:15:48red. Um I don't know why they don't let
1:15:51you do that
1:15:52>> because it would be too alarming.
1:15:54>> Maybe
1:15:56maybe I can sort it by posts read. That
1:15:59seems like a pretty good proxy. Yeah,
1:16:03someone's got 74 days of red time. 62
1:16:07days.
1:16:09Anyway,
1:16:11it's a it's a fun place.
1:16:13>> A lot of time reading.
1:16:14>> It's a lot of time reading. Yeah.
1:16:15Hopefully they were doing something else
1:16:17while they were reading.
1:16:20It's like the dishes or cleaning the
1:16:23house or something.
1:16:24>> Yeah,
1:16:26it's a big commitment. I don't know what
1:16:29I'm not good at chithat. I don't know
1:16:30what else you guys got.
1:16:32>> I mean, when this episode comes out,
1:16:33we've got a a cool event that PWL is
1:16:36going to be at. This comes out on
1:16:38September 10th. We started last year
1:16:41doing a PWL summit. So the whole team's
1:16:44going to come together and we've grown a
1:16:46lot. So we're get a chance to just hang
1:16:48out, learn a lot. Got some cool guest
1:16:50speakers coming in. Excited for that to
1:16:54hang out, meet some people in person
1:16:55that we've never met. So we've kind of
1:16:57grown across the country and have people
1:17:00working remotely.
1:17:02>> Yeah. How big is group now?
1:17:04>> It's uh I think there's going to be 140
1:17:08plus people there.
1:17:10>> Yeah.
1:17:11>> Pretty crazy.
1:17:13Yeah.
1:17:14>> Yeah, that'll be cool. It really was.
1:17:16Like you said, Ben, we did it for the
1:17:17first time last year and we've we've
1:17:20grown a lot. We became remote when CO
1:17:23started. We never went back to being in
1:17:24the office. And there's something about
1:17:26getting everybody together and we've
1:17:29been so fortunate to attract
1:17:32and interestingly actually like
1:17:34partially at least and partially maybe
1:17:36understating it because of this podcast.
1:17:39Um, we've been able to attract so many
1:17:41incredible employees who are just so
1:17:43bought into the way that we think about
1:17:45the world and think about portfolio
1:17:46management. So, it really is uh it
1:17:48really is special getting everybody
1:17:50together in one in one place.
1:17:53>> Yeah. Yeah. We used to do just like a
1:17:55Christmas party. That was our big event
1:17:57of the year, but this has been so much
1:18:00better. It's a multi-day event and
1:18:03everybody can come to nerd out nerd out
1:18:06on the stuff that brought us all
1:18:08together in the first place. It's
1:18:09[snorts] got talks on leadership, talks
1:18:12on planning, [music]
1:18:14like and and just time to hang out and
1:18:17chat about how we're growing and what's
1:18:20working well, what's not working well.
1:18:23>> Yep. Should be good.
1:18:25>> Good stuff.
1:18:27>> All right.
1:18:28>> All right, guys. Good to see you again.
1:18:30Yep. Good to see you. Thanks, guys. And
1:18:32thanks everybody for listening. Cheers.
1:18:35[music]
1:18:40[music]
1:18:49[music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of The Finances of Marriage | Rational Reminder 426 by The Rational Reminder Podcast, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 13,707 words across 2,093 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.