Hide table of contents

I just went looking for a generalized piece on what to do with personal resources and didn't find much [1]so here's a question: What recommendations does the EA community hold as ways to manage personal finances and optimize investments? *I recognize this is very dependent on personal situations, place of residence, access to various forms of capital, expertise, etc. AND I sense there is some broadly applicable advice among us.*

Of course there is the extreme option of donating as much as possible as soon as possible but what about a more nuanced approach to personal savings in balance with effective giving. Are there specific 'investing hacks' people recommend or see as uniquely possible now (vs 3-10 years ago)? What are you investing in and why? How much time and energy do folks spend updating their personal finance strategies in a given year? Are there financial advisors you'd recommend if you're looking to work with someone 1:1?

Given how central this feels to enhancing folks ability to increase effective giving, I'd almost expect financial planning and money management to have a well researched and updated set of resources around it. 

 

  1. ^

    There is a small section here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/w9ENDad268PT9KnWn/thoughts-on-personal-finance-for-effective-altruists#Savings

6

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment

3 Answers sorted by

There are a few articles and Q&As on the EA Forum, like Investing to Give Beginner Advice? There are also blog posts on EA personal blogs, in particular Brian Tomasik's Assorted tips on personal finance and Ben Kuhn's Giving away money: a guide. Appendix B of an article I wrote on improving nonprofit treasury management also covers investments. The 80,000 Hours article I linked to in Appendix B, Common investing mistakes in the effective altruism community, is also pretty good.

My opinionated TL;DR is that "investing to give" is useful for various cases including donating once-a-year on Giving Tuesday, longtermist investment funds, and of course standard personal wealth accumulation. The standard investment advice is to use low-cost ETFs to create diversified portfolios. The main tax tip applicable to EAs is to donate appreciated securities (assume someone is donating their earnings). In addition to standard investment advice, more advanced investors will use leverage/margin to increase the returns of low-volatility portfolios as Tomasik and the 80K article mention. IMO the best strategy, which no one really uses, involves using various evidence-based factors to select asset classes, which the 80K article briefly alludes to at the end. That's what sparked my initial interest in the investment space and why I launched an investment firm (I also do more standard stuff like optimal high-interest bank accounts and passive asset selection by popular demand).

I run Antigravity Investments, which is an EA-aligned investing firm. I've mostly been advising charities, but now that better technology is available like Altruist, I'm in the process of expanding to once again directly advise individuals (that's why the website has a temporary placeholder at the moment). Robo-advisors are good for people that want something standard, and there are a few firms doing evidence-based asset class selection. Alpha Architect is one such firm.

Amazing, thanks for surfacing these resources Brendon. Will dig in and follow up with any further learnings or questions I feel may be generally applicable. As someone who does not spend much time using financial language, I appreciate the array of resources you've shared. 

In addition to what Brendon said, I'd say that finance best practices for EAs are mostly the same as best practices for anyone else. I like the Bogleheads wiki as a good resource for beginners.

IMO you can get most of the benefits of investing just by following best practices. If you want to take it further, you can follow some of the tips in the articles Brendon linked, or read my post Asset Allocation and Leverage for Altruists with Constraints, which gives my best guess as to how EAs should invest differently than most people.

Comments-1
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
More from emwalz
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
At the last EAG Bay Area, I gave a workshop on navigating a difficult job market, which I repeated days ago at EAG London. A few people have asked for my notes and slides, so I’ve decided to share them here.  This is the slide deck I used.   Below is a low-effort loose transcript, minus the interactive bits (you can see these on the slides in the form of reflection and discussion prompts with a timer). In my opinion, some interactive elements were rushed because I stubbornly wanted to pack too much into the session. If you’re going to re-use them, I recommend you allow for more time than I did if you can (and if you can’t, I empathise with the struggle of making difficult trade-offs due to time constraints).  One of the benefits of written communication over spoken communication is that you can be very precise and comprehensive. I’m sorry that those benefits are wasted on this post. Ideally, I’d have turned my speaker notes from the session into a more nuanced written post that would include a hundred extra points that I wanted to make and caveats that I wanted to add. Unfortunately, I’m a busy person, and I’ve come to accept that such a post will never exist. So I’m sharing this instead as a MVP that I believe can still be valuable –certainly more valuable than nothing!  Introduction 80,000 Hours’ whole thing is asking: Have you considered using your career to have an impact? As an advisor, I now speak with lots of people who have indeed considered it and very much want it – they don't need persuading. What they need is help navigating a tough job market. I want to use this session to spread some messages I keep repeating in these calls and create common knowledge about the job landscape.  But first, a couple of caveats: 1. Oh my, I wonder if volunteering to run this session was a terrible idea. Giving advice to one person is difficult; giving advice to many people simultaneously is impossible. You all have different skill sets, are at different points in
 ·  · 47m read
 · 
Thank you to Arepo and Eli Lifland for looking over this article for errors.  I am sorry that this article is so long. Every time I thought I was done with it I ran into more issues with the model, and I wanted to be as thorough as I could. I’m not going to blame anyone for skimming parts of this article.  Note that the majority of this article was written before Eli’s updated model was released (the site was updated june 8th). His new model improves on some of my objections, but the majority still stand.   Introduction: AI 2027 is an article written by the “AI futures team”. The primary piece is a short story penned by Scott Alexander, depicting a month by month scenario of a near-future where AI becomes superintelligent in 2027,proceeding to automate the entire economy in only a year or two and then either kills us all or does not kill us all, depending on government policies.  What makes AI 2027 different from other similar short stories is that it is presented as a forecast based on rigorous modelling and data analysis from forecasting experts. It is accompanied by five appendices of “detailed research supporting these predictions” and a codebase for simulations. They state that “hundreds” of people reviewed the text, including AI expert Yoshua Bengio, although some of these reviewers only saw bits of it. The scenario in the short story is not the median forecast for any AI futures author, and none of the AI2027 authors actually believe that 2027 is the median year for a singularity to happen. But the argument they make is that 2027 is a plausible year, and they back it up with images of sophisticated looking modelling like the following: This combination of compelling short story and seemingly-rigorous research may have been the secret sauce that let the article to go viral and be treated as a serious project:To quote the authors themselves: It’s been a crazy few weeks here at the AI Futures Project. Almost a million people visited our webpage; 166,00
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- > Despite setbacks, battery cages are on the retreat My colleague Emma Buckland contributed (excellent) research to this piece. All opinions and errors are mine alone. It’s deadline time. Over the last decade, many of the world’s largest food companies — from McDonald’s to Walmart — pledged to stop sourcing eggs from caged hens in at least their biggest markets. All in, over 2,700 companies globally have now pledged to go cage-free. Good things take time, and companies insisted they needed a lot of it to transition their egg supply chains — most set 2025 deadlines to do so. Over the years, companies reassured anxious advocates that their transitions were on track. But now, with just seven months left, it turns out that many are not. Walmart backtracked first, blaming both its customers and suppliers, who “have not kept pace with our aspiration to transition to a full cage-free egg supply chain.” Kroger soon followed suit. Others, like Target, waited until the last minute, when they could blame bird flu and high egg prices for their backtracks. Then there are those who have just gone quiet. Some, like Subway and Best Western, still insist they’ll be 100% cage-free by year’s end, but haven’t shared updates on their progress in years. Others, like Albertsons and Marriott, are sharing their progress, but have quietly removed their pledges to reach 100% cage-free. Opportunistic politicians are now getting in on the act. Nevada’s Republican governor recently delayed his state’s impending ban on caged eggs by 120 days. Arizona’s Democratic governor then did one better by delaying her state’s ban by seven years. US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins is trying to outdo them all by pushing Congress to wipe out all stat