Common advice about controlling spending is to track all your purchases and add them up each week or month. I believe that this is effective, but have been fuzzy on why it seems to work so well. Why can’t people just spend less without the constant reminder of how well they are doing? I got some insight on this question from, of all places, poker. For poker players there is a certain thrill to dragging in a pot of chips. The thrill is there whether it is a $1 pot or a $10 pot. The $10 pot gives a bigger thrill, but not 10 times bigger. Similarly, losing a $10 pot feels worse than losing a $1 pot, but not 10 times worse. This leads to some players playing in such a way that they maximize happiness by taking in many small pots, but losing some big ones. As long as they don’t count their dwindling chips, they can actually be happy playing this way. Counting your chips is a lot like adding up your spending at the end of the month to see what happened. You may feel good about ...
As a shareholder in BMO I hope they recover some of this lost money! Thanks for the mention, have a pleasant weekend.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link Michael - I think balance protection insurance is big business for the lenders...
ReplyDeleteHave a great weekend.
@CC: Something I was wondering about is whether stock prices tend to adjust for currency swings. If the Canadian dollar drops suddenly, will the price of a large Canadian company that operates multinationally go up (in Canadian dollars) as a result to compensate for the fact that some of its revenues are in other currencies? If so, it isn't correct to just add stock volatility to currency volatility to get overall volatility of unhedged portfolios.
ReplyDeleteThe comment above is a reply to Canadian Capitalist's comment below. His subsequent reply is further below.
Delete-----
Thanks for the mention Michael. I'll have to think through the analysis but I'm sure of one thing: the delta between S&P 500 and S&P 500 CAD Hedged returns leads me to conclude that currency hedging has significant costs.
-----
@Michael: I'm writing about this on Monday. AB's two assumptions are flawed:
1. The risk of unhedged dollar returns is less than the sum of risk of local market returns and currency risks. Often risks of unhedged portfolio returns was less than risk of local market returns due to negative correlation with exchange rate changes.
2. A minor point. SD of C$ against the USD was 4.6 over the 1900-2000 period and 4.2 over the 1950-2000 period.
Data from Triumph of the Optimists. Post on this on Monday.
Have a great weekend.