Відео

I think you're missing their point...

I found this video to be very disappointing. He pulls a small clip from multiple financial influences and suggests they're wrong only to go on to espouse the very ideas presented in all of those original videos. This is click bait of the highest order.

Great video. The insights about behavioral mistakes is quite helpful and true.

$100k in investments at an average ROI of 10% will generate about $10k per year in profit. Unless you have a low income you should probably be contributing much more than that, so your contributions will still be the majority of the growth.

This is cool to see

Great video and a very important topic that does not get mentioned enough. Stocks are volatile and have the potential take your portfolio from profit to loss. You must have the psychology of a long term investor. That includes viewing a market/portfolio loss as a chance to buy discounted assets is essential for long term growth. ABB. It would have also been good to mention, when talking about net worth, that it’s all unrealized if it’s in the stock market. If you are counting your portfolio’s value in your net worth, you may want to consider making an adjustment that corrects it by a certain percentage. Be prepared for a scenario where your unrealized net worth can decrease.

Thoroughly enjoyed this video, especially touching on the use of averages and how most don't factor in variation (depicted by standard deviation), which is a given in the real world.

It's just an easy round number to help they layman understand.

Dude no one actually thinks returns are going to be 7% annually guaranteed. It’s the stock market. That’s why investors get high returns because of the risk we take that the stock market can go down or up on any given day. Ramit has never said returns are guaranteed, he just shows the average and what it could potentially be. Never said it’s guaranteed , nothing is. He has never advocated for just the S&P either. He’s actually always advocated for target date funds which is probably best for people who are not educated about the market

What's also not modelled, and potentially can't be, is the changing of the macro status quo we've lived in since the second world war. It's been a relative time of "peace" for western markets. There's also a non-zero chance that a black swan event happens. To assume the next 60 years will play out, on average, in the same way, when not only is inequality of wealth compounding domestically, but in international terms, there's a chance China, India, Middle East, or anywhere else, may cause another lost generation for western democracies and their economies. It wouldn't surprise me if that lands right at the door step of mellenials too. At each important life stage so far, the previous assumptions have not played out for them.

I mean i feel like this is a bad faith argument anyone whos investing obviously knows yes the market doesnt go only up but investing is a long term thing not just a decade like u said for the 2000’s yes theirs gonna be bad periods but if u invest long term at all times consistently u will on avg come out on top

Good points. Next do a video bashing The Money Guy. He says similar things about $100K. The negative Nelly videos are very popular!!! Keep up the good work!

Smashed the like button within 20 seconds of the video! I watched Ramit's recent video about how it will take 20 more years to go from 100k to 1 million, which he says is 10x in only 3x the time it takes to get to 100k under the same assumptions. I get the point. I get that there's compounding. You should be investing in the stock market. I get that time works well in your favor the longer you let it cook. But it is still a slow process to 1 million (or whatever your goal is) unless you ramp up your contributions. Hardly an explosion. I don't want to wait 20 years if my goal is to watch my net worth explode. It's the same as going from 10k to 100k. Exponential curves are exponentials at all points of the curve.

I'm a new listener from the US (Minnesota), any suggestions on favorite places to visit in Canada? I've been to Vancouver Island, Victoria and Vancouver, but not much else besides that. Enjoying the episode. Cheers. Edit: nevermind, you just mentioned your favorites after I wrote this!

This reminds me of John Cena who said he has one "watch" for perspective. One side is for when he feels he is not good enough and the other is for when he gets a big head. 1. The real risk is not that you may only get 800k but that many do not even start. 2. The closer you get to retirement the more realistic a view you will require to avoid an unplanned return to the workforce. 3. The other risk with assuming guaranteed earnings is that you start thinking leverage will always make sense.

Net worth explodes after 10.000.000 net worth 😂

Doesn't this assuming that any given year you are having a underperforming year vs overperforming year is equal because that makes a difference due to compounding is more powerful with consecutive bull years vs bear years. Just curious because i think thats why we have the average return being 10% instead of 7%. I just wanted to point this out because bull years can be consecutive for 3-4 years while bear markets last no more than 18-24 months in most cases.

It is true that past performance is not an indication of future return, but it’s the next best thing. Over the last century, adjusted for inflation, the sp500 still returned 7.4%. This includes world war time, Great Depression, pandemics, terrorism, and so on. It is fairly reasonable for me to believe that this could happen again for the next century. If it doesn’t, well it sucks for everyone but the ones investigating are still doing better than those who don’t.

Great video, but please distance a bit more from the camera

You got me to watch, good job lol

I’m surprised you didn’t even acknowledge the simple math that a 10x from 10k to 100k is the same as a 10x from 100k to 1000k. That is the simple math that is being used by the folks you criticize. A fair rebuttal needs to recognize some of the fair points of the other side. I will say that even though I tend to agree with the folks you are criticizing, you bring up some important extensions to the analysis. But none of your points defeats the simple math at the core here. Is a Monte Carlo analysis that shows ups and downs more realistic than a straight average? Could be, but that has some problems as well. You emphasize savings rate and just leaving the money alone to grow. Both good points. I wish I had done that more often over the years.

Really depends what you're investing in. Yes my network worth or more specific my portfolio has exploded. But in addition to my 401k, I take more risk in my taxable account via single stocks and leveraged etfs. YTD up 200% thanks to TSLA and PLTR

You completely missed the point of those videos. It is a mathematical fact that the more you have the more it growths. It may not happen every year but it happens on average.. for 70 years if you play safe like with the s&p 500

Charlie munger says this too because it requires discipline so if you can do that then it is half the battle.

Great, my phone bill is $9, not exactly a lot left to save there...

Another one is "if you miss the best 10 trading days, blah, blah."

But this video explodes!

On Reddit I recommend, as a crude method of adjusting for risk, that people run the long term numbers at 7-8% and then chop that number in half. Assume a range of outcomes ($1-2 Million) not a fixed number ($2.25 million)

Pretty nitpicky TBH. Monte carlo is also not terribly accurate, since it doesn't account for actual stock market behavior. If it's down one (or more) years, it usually goes up the next year(s)! Monte carlo does not do this. You can have a -25% year, followed by 6 years of 0-8%. Not at all realistic. I'd preferred if you used historical data. And in any case $100k is just an arbitrary number to strive for. Also somewhere around there the returns might start to outpace the contributions for most people

These gurus don't understand how averages work. Well-above average returns (1970s & 1990s) that imply well-below average returns sometime in the future (1970s and 2000-2010). You might need to invest for 50+ years to get 8% average across the entire period

Agree that the message from these finfluencers is a bit basic but it is better to be invested over many years/decades. And it’s certainly not like you can stop investing once you reach 100k

Disagree with the don't look advise. Look but be extremely hesitant towards ACTING (making changes). By looking you can actively build a tough skin. The ostrich tactic never improved anyone. If you actively look from the start and take and internalize the emotions that come with it you'll start when there are lower amounts at stake and can build resistance to it. Also, later mistakes can be much more costly: if you are a person that will make mistakes the first time you experience a big loss are you going to be able to avoid looking forever? No, that's highly unlikely, better to have that happen to you early and learn from it and build resistance so it doesn't happen to you again. Of course this guy's coming at you from a certain mentality: he's hired to invest others' money and makes his living on it do psychologically he's unlikely to tell you this (not saying he's manipulating or lying just that he's likely looking at reality through a lense that's convenient for him).

9:58 Literally shows the s&p 500 had an annualized return of 9.5% in that 20 year period, which most of those people you bashed suggest you do, which is invest in an etf like VOO and DCA. Shows a chart of a 20 year period and then says it’s a 30 year study…remember how you were mocking Ramit for showing 40 instead of 30? Whatever, right? You want to bring up what the cost of a 1% to 2% financial advisor fees would add up in 30 years compare to 0.06% expense ratio with VOO?

I really do like Ramit, and quite honestly he’s one of the more conservative in this space that I’ve found, and that’s who I try and stick with (same reason I’m subscribing to your channel). I was one of those who got into crypto in 2019-2020, and was like OH I’M GOIING TO BE RICH!” Well I quickly learned I had zero clue what I was doing, and instead changed paths to S&P 500, set it, and forget it. Will it go down? 100%. Do I feel better knowing it’s not obscenely volatile like crypto? Yea

1. What are the “portfolios” they actually use to run the simulator? 2. 833 per month regardless of the market situation? You realise the right strategy in doing that is DCA into a Strong support level of the price action strategy to approximately actualize the 10% annual gain right. 3. Do they even select the top ETF tracking S&p500 with the best expense ratio? You are making a highly conjectured video without much in-depth understanding of index fund. Basically painting it with a wide brush.

Im 27 Now. I got my first $100k at age 26. It does explode. right now I have $170k. I will not tell you my formula. But I will rather listen to Warren Buffet and Charles Munger than some random youtuber with 3k subscribers. Finance is not for everyone. Just because you can buy a share just by 5 clicks. Does not make you a real capitalist. Maybe career or job security will fit for you also I notice a lot of people are not for finance. It is mix between learning economics and being a capitalist. High level of common sense.

Why don't you invest in Bitcoin?

Internet is full of people pretending to be experts nowadays or people who do the doom grift

Net worth explodes around 500-600k for your average future millionaire/multimillionaire.

Finally, someone pointed the reality out. A lot of financial conversations I come across conveniently omit mentioning the economic downturns over the period of investment. Also, from a late millennial perspective, I feel that while the game is the same, the rules have changed. Wealth does not grow meaningfully at $100k; with the current inflation and sheer cost of existence, even a 10-12% growth does not make a meaningful change to your life. Let alone, saving $100k over 8 years would probably wipe out 1/3 of that value in today's terms.

Evan, you’re clearly a smart and intelligent guy, and you have your CFP designation which is great. But this video seemed a bit unfair, maybe your opinion was a bit harsh to the other creators. Not sure but this video left a bad taste in my mouth. I think you have great potential to keep making investment UA-cam videos, just try not to rub viewers the wrong way.

You pointed out the first 10 years of his investing he lost money 2000-2010. Which is incorrect, you would be assuming he lump sum bought at the start and didn’t DCA. Which is extremely unlikely. And actually the best case scenario someone staring would want. To buy and build a strong foundation during downturns at low prices.

Explosion after $100K has some hyperbole to it but there is truth in compounding growth. Even with the decline in 2020 if you were invested in the S&P at the start of 2018 to present (12/20/24) you would be up 121%. And if you invest in the down years you will recover quickly in the boom years. Critiquing compound is kinda much ado about nothing.

Definitely NOT a Ramit fan. Every time he says "rich life" I wanna throw up a bit. With that context, first video of yours I've watched(!) and you just kind of come off salty. Underlying content seemed helpful, but your tone is pretty condescening throughout. Makes the overall message sound like a Ramit bashing session, mostly over semantics/technicality. Some vids to really well going at other youtubers (e.g. Ramsey lol) so maybe this was intentional? Will check on some of your other content cause the production quality comes off high, but that's the first impression for whatever it's worth.

I invest 200 euro a month and I will invest more later. But I first pay off my student loans ! Then I have a garantie 3% return 😂

this trope is the biggest lie .

After watching this, I understand that it’s not guaranteed, but taking out the inflation adjustment and assuming an average of 2% inflation…many of those scenarios would likely be over 7 figures…just not in today’s money. My concern is not factoring in my expense ratios…those could prevent it from reaching 7 figures if they are too high, right?

You are a 100% right, finally somebody is telling the truth.The sad thing is that all those videos are the ones with the highest views because they sell and most people believe all that bullsh$t

Is the standard variance model that you use here the right tool? Where does the 16 standard deviation come from? I have no clue so I'm just curious

I wouldn't use the word, "explode" until you reach $500k or more. The median income is $81k and using a 10% number you'll earn approx. $50k. That's more than a large sun will make. $100k makes you feel good and pushes you towards the next $100k or $1M!