How to convince someone they're too risk averse or conservative with investments?
"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing ""tl;dr"" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish.  They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify.  The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market.  Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars." Let the man be. If you've tried again and again to convince him, and haven't, maybe he doesn't want to be convinced. It's his money, and he has every right to manage it as he sees fit. You can advise him, but its his call whether he accepts your advice or not, and for what reasons. And suppose you push and push and it gets through? Now either he has more money than he would otherwise, and he's happy he has such a smart friend. Or he loses 30% of his money, and you're trying to tell him that he's going to earn it back in due time, but you can't, because he's not talking to you. Ever. What do you think is the mean benefit to your friendship? I feel these beliefs can not be changed so easily. Once someone loses their money, how can you convince him? And on what ground can you convince him? Can you give a guarantee that investments will perform at a certain level? There are many people who are happy with low returns but highly safe instruments. They are not concerned with what you earn in the stock market or the realty market. They are happy not losing their money. I known many people who earned decently during the up-rise of the stock market but all profits were squared up in the downturn and it turned to negative. Such people have their own thinking and such thinking is not out of place. After experience with much turmoil, I feel that they are also right to a great extent. Hence I feel if the person is not getting convinced, you should accept it with greatness. Introduce him to the concept of Inflation Risk, and demonstrate that being too conservative with your investments might be a very risky strategy as well. "Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not ""safe""; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else."
"So here's the sad truth. He might actually be making a return on his investment. Not because it's right or because the system works, but in all these schemes there are a range of people that actually do make money.  In addition to that, there is that fact that he ""believes"" that he is doing a good thing, and is unwilling to discuss it.  So, if he is making, even a tiny return, and really believes that he is making a large return, or that that large return is just around the bend, your never going to convince him otherwise.  You have two real options; If he will listen, go though and look at money in v.s. money out. If money out is larger then money in, your screwed.  Make sure to point out that he should look at real money in (left a bank account) and real money out (deposited to a bank account). Again be prepared for the fact that he is actually making money. Some people in the pyramid will make money, it's just never as much, or as many people as they make it out to be.  Don't attack the system, attack other aspects. Try and argue liquidity, or FDIC insurance. Again not trying to show why the system is bad, but why a investment in foo instead may be better. If nothing else, go with diversify. Never put all your money in one spot, even if it's a really good spot. At least in that case he will have some money left over in the end. That said, your friend may not go for it. May just put on blinders, and may just stick finger in ears. Move to option two. Respect his wishes, and set boundaries. ""Ok, I hear you, you like system X, I won't bring it up again. Do me a favor, don't you bring it up again either. Let's just leave this with religion and politics."" If he continues to bring it up, then when he does, just point out you agreed not to discuss the issue, and if he continues to push it, rethink your friendship. If you both respect one another, you should be able to respect each others' decisions.  If you can't then, sadly, you may need to stop spending time with one another." "Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true.  Roughly, the mathematical analogue of ""higher risk and higher reward"" is ""higher standard deviation and higher mean"".  In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean).  Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart -  from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns.  With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on.  Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out.  If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again.  Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age.  What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains." "My feeling is that you're basically agreeing to throw away a bucket of money for a lesson that doesn't have to cost a penny. Like another commenter said, you're putting the cart before the horse.  I once asked a similar question to a seasoned investor, though I wasn't in the position to toss my hard-earned cash into the well yet. He told me that the difference between the winners and losers is that the winners don't need the money. I'm not trying to say that there's a ""rich keep getting richer ..."" component here, while schlubs like me get nada.  The real nugget of wisdom he offered was that if anyone wants to do well as investors, we must invest in a way that we're not dependent on the money we have in the market. Instead, manage risk carefully so that you don’t get swept up in the emotional highs and lows.  For you, what I applaud is that you're willing to do your research first. And part of that should be anticipating how you will handle the anxiety when you put your money in at the wrong time or get out a little later than you should.  What I understand now is that you don’t need to be wealthy to “not need the money.” You just need to invest smartly and leave your emotions out of it." "This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk.  Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for ""stock bond age"" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but ""past results are no guarantee of future performance"". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point." "A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/""aggression"" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite." I am a bit at a loss as to how you can read the same book, that inspired Warren Buffet, and take away that trading 600 contracts per month is a way to prosperity.  As a fellow engineer I can say with assurance this speculation scheme is doomed to failure.  Crossing out the word gamble was a mistake.   Instead you should focus on two things.  The first is your core business, which is signal processing.  Work and strive to be the best you can.  Seek out opportunities to increase your income while keeping your costs low.  As an engineer you have an opportunity to earn an above average salary with very low costs. Second would be to warehouse some of those earning and let others who are good at other things work for you.  You may want to read the Jack Bogle books and seek an asset allocation model.  I tend to be more aggressive then he would suggest, but that is a matter of preference.    You don't really have the time, when you focus on your core business, to manage 6 trades a month let alone 600.  Put your contributions on auto pilot and a surprisingly short time you will have a pile of cash. Something that introduces the vocabulary and treats the reader like an intelligent individual? It's a bit overkill for 'retirement', but Yale has a free online course in Financial Markets. It's very light on math, but does a good job establishing jargon and its history. It covers most of the things you'd buy or sell in financial markets, and is presented by Nobel Prize winner Robert Schiller. This particular series was filmed in 2007, so it also offers a good historical perspective of the start of the subprime collapse. There's a number of high profile guest speakers as well. I would encourage you to think critically about their speeches though. If you research what's happened to them after that lecture, it's quite entertaining: one IPO'd a 'private equity' firm that underperformed the market as a whole, another hedge fund manager bought an airline with a partner firm that was arrested for running a ponzi scheme six months later.  The reading list in the syllabus make a pretty good introduction to the field, but keep in mind they're for institutional investors not your 401(k). "I will solely address your fear because from what I read you fear investing in something that could possibly go down in the future.  This is almost identical to market timing, so let's use the SPY as an example.  Look at the SPY on Yahoo Finance, specifically in 2011.  The market experienced a little bit of a pull back during the year, and some ""analysts"" claimed that it would fall below 600 (read this).  In fact, a co-worker of mine said that he feared buying the S&P 500 in 2011 (as well as in 2010), so he bought gold (compare the two from 2011 to now - to put it bluntly he experienced 50% less gain than I did). Did the S&P 500 ever fall below 600 in that timeframe, or according to the linked analyst (there were plenty of similar predictions then)?  No.  If you avoid doing something because you're afraid it could drop, technically, you should be just as afraid of it rising (Fear of Losing Everything, FOLE, vs. Fear of Missing Out, FOMO - both are real).  That's not to say invest out of fear, but that fear cuts both ways, and generally, we only look at it from one side. Retirement investing should be a boring, automated process where, ideally, we don't try and time the market (though some will try, and like in 2011, fail).  If you can't help your fear, you can always approach retirement investing with automated re-balancing where you hold some money in ""less risky"" forms and others in ""higher risk"" forms and automate a rebalance every month or quarter." "I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic.   If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately.  I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals.  My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is ""age in bonds,"" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it.  Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know.  I don't give the ""notion in the investment community"" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is." "Another approach would be more personalized, which is to measure the risk of missing your goals, rather than measuring the risk of an investment in some abstract sense. Financial planners do this for example with Monte Carlo simulation software (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method). They would put in a goal such as not running out of money before you die, with assumptions such as the longest you might live and how much you'll withdraw every year. You'd also assume an asset allocation. The Monte Carlo simulation then generates random market movements over the time period, considering historical behavior of your asset allocation, and each run of the simulation would either succeed (you are able to support yourself until death) or fail (you run out of money). The risk measure is the percentage of simulation runs that fail. You can do this to plan saving for retirement in addition to planning withdrawals; then your goal would be to have X amount of money in real after-inflation dollars, perhaps, and success is if you end up with it, and failure is if you don't. The great thing about this risk measure is that it's relevant and personal; ""10% chance of being impoverished at age 85,"" ""20% chance of having to work an extra decade because you don't have enough at 65,"" these kinds of answers. Which is a lot easier to act on than ""the variance is 10"" or ""the beta is 1.5"" - would you rather know your plan has a 90% chance of success, or know that you have a variance of 10? Both numbers are probably just guesses, but at least the ""chance of success"" measure is actionable and relevant. Some tangential thoughts FWIW:" "P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows.  For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a ""conservative"" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard ""Life Strategy"" funds." Be cognizant of your own limitations when approaching this material.  I've dealt with lawyers, doctors, engineers and other highly intelligent people from other disciplines, who then try to learn about companies and the stock market.  Their own arrogance and assumption that they can just learn anything *quickly* ends up hurting them.  It can take years and real classical training of finance to understand this material with any depth.  Someone is wrong (a fool) in every trade.  There is someone who is going to make money and lose money.  Odds are the fool is you. The idea with passive investing in ETFs is to eliminate the all important firm specific risk. I agree with him that it surely creates a herd mentality and might over/understate the fundamental prices for individual stocks. If fund managers could consistently maintain alpha, lower their 2/20, and not shutdown when they can't reach their high water mark, then maybe investors might come back to them. As it stands now, the money goes where it can get the best return with only market risk to worry about. Such an offer has negative value, so it's hard to see how it would make sense to accept it. The offer has two components, one part that you gain and one part that you lose. The gain is that half your losses are covered. The cost is that half your profits are lost. For that to be a net benefit to you, you would have to expect that you will gain more from this than you will lose from it. That is, you must expect that the investment has negative value. But if you expect that the investment has negative value, why are you investing? This also doesn't really align incentives between the two parties. The person choosing the investment is not incurring opportunity cost (because they have no funds locked up) while you are. So they have an incentive to be conservative that you do not. For example, say I could make 1% in an ultra low risk CD. The person choosing the investments has an incentive to put me in something that he only expects to make around 0.5% (because he gets to keep half the profits and it costs him nothing). Whereas I'd rather just put the money in a CD (because I get to keep 1% instead just half of 0.5%). It depends on your cost structure and knowledge of the exchanges. It could be optimal to make a manual exchange selection so long as it's cheaper to do so. For brokers with trade fees, this is a lost cause because the cost of the trade is already so high that auto routing will be no cheaper than manual routing. For brokers who charge extra to manually route, this could be a good policy if the exchange chosen has very high rebates.  This does not apply to equities because they are so cheap, but there are still a few expensive option exchanges. This all presumes that one's broker shares exchange rebates which nearly all do not. If one has direct access to the exchanges, they are presumably doing this already. To do this effectively, one needs: For anyone trading with brokers without shared rebates or who does not have knowledge of the exchange prices and their liquidities, it's best to auto route.