I do not see a need to defend PRISM as the paradigmatic wealth-building process.
I see myself in the role of Marc Antony in this drama. Thus, I say:
Friends, Lifetime members, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury PRISM, not to praise PRISM.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with PRISM.
There are some very thoughtful and erudite posts in this thread. Passioned and well-reasoned comments like these demonstrate the value of my not-so-biological (NSB) "lifetime" AAII membership and speak to the depth of the pool of collective wisdom we have access to through an AAI Membership and, thus, how valuable my NSB AAII membership is.
As my mangling of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" demonstrated, my contribution to this thread will NOT be to litigate the merits of the PRISM process or any other alternative wealth-building process described so far. I see the value of the idiosyncratic processes described by their users on this blog to be self-evident and self-fulfilling. What I seek to do is to point out that there is a proximate nexus of the inherent values of ALL wealth-building processes.
In "Misbehaving" (2015), Richard Thaler explains the difference between "Econs" and "humans."
All economic theory assumes that all people are "Econs," meaning they make rational decisions when making economic choices. On the other hand, "Humans do a lot of misbehaving (they regularly violate a lot of axiomatic economic principles). That means that economic models make a lot of bad predictions." (p.4)
"Misbehaving" is a study of how "human" miscalculations can help us make smarter decisions in our lives. It reviews the body of behavioral finance that Thaler founded 50 years ago (and won the Nobel for in 2017) that has come to dominate behavioral financial theory. However, most financial models still assume Econs are rational decision-makers and minimize the role of human "misbehaving" in the overall processes they use to learn. One human "misbehavior" is that they rationalize or ignore the feedback they receive from their "misbehaving." This makes many of them slow learners who do not learn from their mistakes and repeat mistakes. These physics apply to wealth-building processes of all ilk.
Understanding that all wealth-building processes are designed to serve a population dominated by "misbehaving" irrational not-fully evolved "humans," therein lies the resolution of our differences here.
We can disagree on specific limitations of any particular wealth-building process for well-developed reasons, but we must remember that there is no perfect wealth-building process that fits everyone. Perhaps that is why there are so many versions of such processes and so very many, many, many, many self-help investing books. Even the most "perfect" process does not meet the needs of all because "misbehaving" human users will misunderstand and "misuse" the intent of the process because of their humanity. The "misbehaving" embodied in trial-and-error learning approaches to managing money are the building blocks for financial success. It costs a lot more, but you have to fail to succeed. We call that "learning." Mr. Market calls it "profit."
Word.
Original Message:
Sent: 12/27/2023 10:45:00 PM
From: ROBERT ADAMS
Subject: RE: An Alternative View From a Seasoned Investor
I didn't really intend to launch a discussion about AAII's product offerings and advertisements in general, but now that the can has been opened, I have to say I share the concerns others have voiced about where AAII is heading. I realize that any organization has to remain economically viable, but I wonder what happened to all those lifetime dues that were collected. Were those memberships sold too cheaply? It seems to me that if they were priced appropriately, the revenue they generated could have been invested in something like an S&P500-based index fund, with 4% of the previous year's ending balance withdrawn annually to provide funds for future operations. Has the organization done something similar, or has that money already been expensed?
I value AAII and its original mission, but I wonder whether all these add-on products are interfering with that mission. Like other members, I am annoyed at the marketing tactics used to sell those add-ons. I start reading an interesting email from AAII only to scroll down and find out I have to buy something to read the rest of it. Maybe that works with some people, but it's a total turnoff to me.
------------------------------
Rob Adams
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-27-2023 15:59
From: ROBERT ADAMS
Subject: An Alternative View From a Seasoned Investor
I'm sorry, Barry, but I just can't find a lot of value in PRISM. I know the folks at AAII worked hard to produce it, but the whole program is so infected with conventional/academic wisdom, I think alternative views of "how investing is done" should be presented as Surgeon General warnings to its users.
I'm not suggesting that my approach to investing is the only way--or even the best way--but the purveyors of PRISM seem to be suggesting exactly that for their program. The number of methods for successful investing is infinite, but some methods are better than others. If PRISM were a college football team, I would not expect it to appear in a bowl game.
I think novice investors seeking direction should be presented with an honest array of methods along with objective appraisals of their benefits and shortcomings. Debate over methods is more illuminating than the promotion of a single faulty paradigm.
------------------------------
Rob Adams
Original Message:
Sent: 12-24-2023 12:27
From: BARRY JOHNSON
Subject: An Alternative View From a Seasoned Investor
Dr. Bob
Thanks for trying to keep this discussion "real."
Having a "goals-based plan" enables new investors a way to measure progress on their terms. It is a first step toward building an appreciation for having discipline. Folks from the School of Hard Knocks ("Sigma Eta Kappa"?) like you and I learned discipline through trial-and-error practice with the motivation of survival. Feedback is essential for improvement.
So, the goals have to be meaningful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1960s, David McClellan of Harvard wanted to know what motivated people.
So, he set up a "ring toss" experiment.
Participants were asked to toss a ring at a peg on the floor and get it to stay on the peg.
They were told the goal was to get as many "ringers" as possible.
He did NOT tell them where to stand. They could stand as near or as far as they chose.
Obviously, the odds of success varied roughly with the distance and level of skill (learned in pre-school).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what he found.
Some people stood very close to the peg to ensure they made 100% of their attempts.
Some stood at a calculated distance that challenged them to make a high percentage but also provided a challenge that made making a higher percentage more rewarding.
Some stood so far away that it lowered the odds of making ringers so low that the degree of success or failure of their attempts was due to random luck and provided no actionable feedback to improve their performance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What these experiments disclosed was that people set goals based on some internalized, unstated level of a Need for Achievement.
One group, people who were very successful in their life, stood at a distance -- "just far enough" to make the task challenging and just close enough -- to get feedback on their skill level so their performance would provide a "reasonable" estimate of their success and support their "need for achievement."
This became the key variable he isolated with these experiments.
McClelland's Human Motivation Theory states that every person has a dominant preference for 1 of 3 driving motivators: a need for achievement, a need for affiliation, OR a need for power.
These motivators are developed through family, culture, and life experiences.
People with a high need for "achievement" like to solve problems and achieve their goals.
Socrates said, "To know thyself is the beginning of wisdom." Erasmus said the same thing 1,000 years later but called it free will.
Our goals tell us who we are and how much risk we are willing to bear.
Maybe the AAII PRISM goal-setting exercise is a simulated ring-toss experiment to learn to "know thyself" and to learn the approximate level of your Need for Achievement and how much risk you can bear to take and still leave "reasonable odds" to succeed. These traits (aka "discipline") have to be learned through trial and error... like you and I did.
If someone had asked me to set up a ring-toss experiment, I would have turned it into a system to achieve my real goal - create "reasonable" odds that make the amount of money I wanted to make. That's how "Sigma Eta Kappa" pledges do it if they want to get through hell-week.
Merry Christmas, Dr. Bob, and all ya'll.
PS - Great job with this project, Jenna. Learning this one lesson is worth the price of an AAII membership.
------------------------------
BARRY JOHNSON
Original Message:
Sent: 12-16-2023 13:40
From: ROBERT ADAMS
Subject: An Alternative View From a Seasoned Investor
I just skimmed over an email I received from AAII advertising a lifetime membership in the organization. I was a bit miffed at the following condescending statement:
"No one should be investing unless they have a goals-based plan." 😳
So, are they telling me I should not be investing!? I have to admit, I have never, EVER set a single measurable goal related to investing. All my life, I've invested merely to increase my net worth. I never set a figure on it. I never set a time limit on it. And I never thought about what I would do with it (except grow it some more).
Here I am now, at 62 years old, having been able to retire 10 years ago because of my GOALLESS investing activities. On top of that, I'm well within the ranks of the two-percenters because of my GOALLESS investing. But the geniuses who wrote that advertisement tell me I shouldn't be investing!
For those of you who find the PRISM program too cumbersome and unwieldy, take heart! Having a detailed roadmap and going through all the PRISM machinations is NOT necessary! I will grant that some people might benefit from PRISM, but it is NOT for everybody! You can be quite successful without it.
I am so incensed about that emailed statement that I am going to reply to myself with a little essay I posted elsewhere.
------------------------------
Rob Adams
------------------------------