Nathan Worden's avatar
$332.5m follower assets
Agree or Disagree—?
From a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care about it greatly from a personal perspective.

Do you agree or disagree?

Post media
Conor Mac's avatar
Mostly agree.
Vikram's avatar
Agree with increased savings from 6 months to 18 months.
Samuel Meciar's avatar
Well I mean if I'm dead, or if this planet is destroyed by nuclear weapons and I somehow happen not to be dead, then the performance of my portfolio surely will be my last worry :D so don't care, just staying course.
Tim Esteben's avatar
This is the "In the end we're all dead" argument.
Some like to live their lives as if they'll never die.
But in my opinion, it's useful to incorporate your own mortality into your decision making. And I'd argue this applies to your portfolio as well.
The nuance is that you're factoring in the possibility of existential risk, not the certainty.
Joey Hirendernath's avatar
@tim_esteben Point captured most eloquently.

In this context, I would say mostly agree. However, factoring in your own mortality into financial decision making is very useful. For example, having insurance in place for your loved ones and recognising what stocks you want your children/spouse to inherit from you, and so on.
Cole's avatar
Mostly agree. A high enough risk justifies living it up while I still can at the expense of long-term savings.
Edmund Simms's avatar
It's a fascinating point. Typically, when making investment decisions, we ignore personal existential threats--being hit by a car, a meteorite strike, heart attack, etc. Challenging and nuanced personal utility question. I imagine Daniel Kahnemann would be a great guy to talk to about this.
Alex Biestek's avatar
Lots of good thoughts and responses on this thus far. Going to have to agree.
Leandro's avatar
This research was funny tbh 😂 How someone can place a 10% probability on the end of the world is beyond me