7 Comments
User's avatar
Yaron Cohen's avatar

Nice summary article, Ben!

With reluctance to change you made me think of two things that I’ve seen in my work and in professional literature:

1. In change management, what seems like a small change to a change agent might seem like a huge change to someone in the target population

2. More from the world of behavioural economics. Sunk-cost bias: The cognitive bias that makes it hard to step away from something that we’ve already invested lots of resources in.

The key is awareness in these two cases, and not a lot of people stop to take the time and internalise it. Looking forward to part 2!

Ben Saltiel's avatar

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment Yaron and great points you raise!

The Financial Pen's avatar

Thanks for sharing this. What puzzles me is why the human brain, designed for thinking, is so keen to avoid it whenever possible, despite potentially costly consequences. Unlike other organs, it gets to vote its own utility...

Ben Saltiel's avatar

Evolution has done a pretty job but hasn’t worked out all the kinks after thousands of years!

The Financial Pen's avatar

Lol, true, perhaps an energy conservation adaptation thing…conserve calories from scarcity memories encoded in our dna

Inverteum Capital's avatar

A good analogy for why it makes sense that there are more ETFs than stocks: in cooking, there are more recipes than ingredients.

Ben Saltiel's avatar

Makes sense but as ETFs are increasingly more niche and tailored they aren’t really passive investments anymore