What to put in the jar of financial independence

 Something struck me today. 

Six, seven years ago; financial security was so important for us. Getting to a work-situation that was sustainable, and then amass enough for financial independence was the most important thing to do.

Let's imagine that all things we wanted to do in a year would fit in a jar; something like collecting pebbles. 

Priorities shift for good reasons - so beware of the autopilot that keep going on old goals

Financial security was the first pebble to put in the jar of things to do in that year.

And that was a big pebble, pushing so much else out.

Only after we had put in the pebble of amassing as much as possible for financial security and independence; then it was possible for us to even consider other things. 

But now; we have passed financial independence. We have passed a possible monthly spending significantly higher than what we spend now - and what keeps us fairly happy.

We are probably on the path of having wealth beyond what we will be able to spend, or want to spend, and will end up in our 60ies and 70ies with more than we can understand.

So do we do what's most important today as well?

Or are we going on autopilot, and just put in the pebble of amassing more money in the jar of things we can do in a year? Do we really consider that what was a very important priority 7 years ago, has changed, when we have passed all those stations along the tracks to and beyond financial freedom?

Shouldn't we perhaps consider that other things are important, and need space over a year: health, for instance, why not go from decent health to top-health? Or friends? Or appreciate the shifting seasons and the small beautiful things in life? Visiting family?   

Everything is fleeting, and the moments will be lost if we don't attend to them.

How important is that, compared to but another bunch of euros in the barn? 

Have we set our priorities straight? 

Is it time to give up the feeling of financial insecurity, and understand that the pebble of amassing, now, hides other things; things that are more important to us.

Perhaps it's time to realize that we have arrived. 

Farewell,

antinous&lucilius 

The Moral Thing To Do

Not contributing productively could - and will - be seen by society, and the slave mentality, as something amoral. 

Not that it would be wise to argue.

But let's stop for a second and consider the argument.

Is not being productive ... amoral?

The Face of Arete in Ephesus, the Goddess of Excellence as in full realization of potential or inner function 

Carlos Delgado, CC BY-SA 3.0

What would be the purpose to agonize over how much one can produce; if it's one's insatiable thirst after recognition and plenty, that one is trying to quell: a more beautiful house, another car, another expensive pastime for one's children. 

Wherein lies the moral prominence in squandering one's life in the pursuit of any such insatiable appetite? Are these delights a worthy cause to worry over, and loose the little time that was given to us?

Or is it more moral to recognize what is enough, and instead of everlasting production pursuit health, wisdom and love?

Free people are far between. Shouldn't we, then, pursue what would only happen, if we are free to choose to do it.

That is the moral question.

Farewell,

//antinous&lucilius

We have already arrived, and why we carry on

We knew it at the beginning of the year.

But in all the tumult in the world during spring, we forgot it again.

We have already arrived.

We could spend all our time sipping on soft-drinks from now on.

We have low, probably even very low, monthly expenses. And atop of the 'must have to live', we still add around 30% of "pleasure spending", which makes us happy with life (in a stoic way). 

What dawned upon us now as summer goes over in fall, is that the safe withdrawal rate gave us, already in the beginning of the year, that we could withdraw all we needed + our small "pleasure spending" and another 50% in safety margin, and still be safe in the worst historical case.

That's a 50%-100% safety margin if one does the math. 

That's what we had already at New Years Eve earlier this year. 

And since then, half a year has elapsed, and we've been adding to our investments since then.

So on top of the safety margin, which is already a worst-case-scenario, we've been adding what correspond to several years of expenses. 

So, yes. We have arrived. 

Why carry on?

Fundamentally, we don't believe that more money from this point on will a big difference when it comes to if we feel content with what we have. 

If we're not happy, the biggest problem will probably not be if we can or can't spend a little more per month.

So why go on?

So why don't we stop then, and savor what we have? 

Well, one thing is that we don't really know our future preferences. Even if we think we're stoic today, why not give our future self the gift of actually being somewhat wealthy as well. A money-machine on top of the money-machine, so to speak.

And it's pretty easy for us to earn money right now. We're in the middle of our careers. We're relatively well-payed. Our jobs don't imply freedom for sure, but we're also in positions that are interesting, we perhaps even allow to delude ourselves that society is slightly better off if we show up for work. So it's not freedom, but it's not directly painful neither to build that money-machine on top of the money-machine right now. 

A third thing is the black-swan-factor. We only know the expenses we know, or can forsee. It's the unknown unknowns that will bite us. And we don't want to keep looking over our shoulder and wonder if what quacks (or whatever swans do) is that proverbial black swan.

So hopefully, we'll soon be free with a margin, and soon thereafter, wealthy as well.

Are we right? Are we wrong? Are we just greedy? Are we not greedy enough with the time that we have left? We don't know.

We'll see how it goes.

As Seneca has it in his second letter to Lucilius:

"[quotoes Epicurus]: "Contented poverty is an honourable estate." Indeed, if it be contented, it is not poverty at all. It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor. What does it matter how much a man has laid up in his safe, or in his warehouse, how large are his flocks and how fat his dividends, if he covets his neighbour's property, and reckons, not his past gains, but his hopes of gains to come? Do you ask what is the proper limit to wealth? It is, first, to have what is necessary, and, second, to have what is enough. "

We're poor, in Seneca's eyes. And perhaps he's right, because we hope of gains to come. And this part of the journey will continue for some time more.

Farewell

//antinous&lucilius

Why stock index investing is probably wrong for you

Stock index investing is a common recommendation on the journey to financial freedom.

And sure, it looks like there could seemingly be advantages to stock index investing. 

Are we sure which chimpanzee is picking the stocks here?

In stock index investing, there is no smartassing around with what stocks should be in the index. 

Hence, a stock index is less risky than certain other high-risk-behaviors, such as running around in a cage of chimpanzees armed with guns, sky diving in a squirrel suit, picking stocks, etc.

An index has the advantage that we don't need to bring our small and far too proud and easily tricked brains into how to pick out individual stocks. No guns, no squirrel-suits, no fragile ego complex in the equation.

Just a mathematical, simple rule, behind the index.

That's good, in the exceedingly likely event that we do something stupid when we try to 'think'.

Another important advantage: it's easy to start investing in a stock index. 

Investing in an index can very easily be set up to be automatic. 

Yet, does that automatically make the index the right choice for you?

Obviously, index investing is - over the very, very long time - probably better than not investing (but that's not entirely true, as we will see below, and that's a helluva important nuance). 

"It's better to start early" as they say.  "Good for you that you are still young if something happens", is what they actually mean.

Why stock index investing is not good for you

So one way or the other, we're talking about our life's savings.

Even if it takes a few hours more of effort, we think that given all the tens of thousands of hours one has potentially spent earning one's life savings, one might be able to stomach a few more hours to understand some more nuances than just blindly following the stock index investing-recommendation.

Let's say that we're not complete investing newbies and have understood that we need to invest, and that it's better to avoid the squirrel suit-bunch and chimpanzees with guns, yet we're still ready to spend some hours to think a little deeper, after all. 

So is there something hiding immediately beyond stock index investing? Is the recomendation, well, really good?

Let's start with what "good" could mean.  

Good could mean 'good' as in efficient; as in there is no other obvious alternative that, with reasonable ease, provides a better price for the risk one is taking on. 

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that stock index investing is efficient; however we measure risk, as long as we stay within some minimal boundaries of what 'rational' can mean; there are simple yet better variants. 

Here's a trivial example: balancing in just 20% of a very different asset class (we propose gold) makes the resulting two-asset portfolios much, much less volatile. 

And that has a tremendous impact. Less volatility means a higher probability to reach the destination in a comfortable time even in a bleak scenario. Less volatility means a higher safe withdrawal rate when living off one's investments, which directly translates into higher material standard. 

Less volatility means sleeping better at night.

Why wouldn't one go with that?

Well, you're right. Why wouldn't one. 

A rule such as the 80/20-split is so simple that one can easily stay rule-based, applying yearly rebalancing back to the asset split. Such a rule is so straightforward that only someone with severe cognitive deficits would say that the the portfolio suggested above is not, to the minimally interested investor, just as trivial as investing in an index. 

There are other alternatives; investigate and find a composition that suits you, instead of assuming the one-size-fits-all-recommendation of pure stock index investing.

A quick summary from previous articles here on the blog:

• Stock index investing can have up towards the double time needed to recover back to +/-0 (often more than 10 years) than a simple modification with another asset class. 
• A stock index is a very dangerous place to be. 10+ years of severe underperformance is common. Life is long enough for most of us, and everything that can happen should be assumed to happen during our investment lives.
• Even worse: catastrophic setbacks of 20+-25 years have happened in recorded history. What, then, promises that such setbacks, or worse, might not happen again in our lifetimes? 
• Because of the risk of decade-long setbacks, one is much more likely to try to time the market with stock index investing even if one is 'supposed' not to. This will destroy the average return that was the motivation in the first place.
• One doesn't get fair compensation of a better average return for the wild swings of a stock index compared to easy adjustments to a much safer portfolio. 

Let's leave the serious reservation concerning the lack of efficiency with that. Because that's not the most important objection.

Most importantly: where are we in the assumption?

We're concerned if one doesn't feel that one shouldn't even consider one's own risk tolerance when investing one's life savings. 

Serious downside protection is very cheap, like house insurance. 

One-size-fits-all is a non-sequitur; a deceptive misuse of logic. The conclusion (that it's right for us) don't follow on the premise (that stock index investing is easy and hopefully gives some kind of average return after a few decades).  

Yes, a stock index buys a certain basket of stocks. But that doesn't mean that the risk implied in that basket is acceptable for us. 

We have our own plans, goals, appetites, emotions, journeys and ambitions.

Why should a certain portfolio by default match an acceptable investing profile for us? Why assume that we are not ready to 'pay' with less chance of the most rosy best scenarios, to be able to stay out of seeing or investments devaluated for decades until they reach the same level again, if we're even there to see it?

Not to mention a higher withdrawal rate, that just plain simply translates into a higher material standard when living off one's investments. 

The 'one-size-fit-all' assumption of the stock market, and stock market index investing, is, we think, a dangerous one.

For us, for instance, it has been more important to arrive at financial freedom within a reasonable time, also in a hypothetical bleak scenario, rather than arrive a tiny little bit quicker on average. 

The assumption that all our hopes and dreams fit automatically in the strategy of stock index investing is a hole in the deceptive conclusion of stock index investing as a universal recipe for everyone. 

Examples of misalignment 

- Importance to reach the goal: There are better ways when it's more important to reach the goal within a reasonable time, than to reach the goal quickly.

-High and stable withdrawal: There are better ways when it's more important to be able to withdraw a high, sweet amount to live of. Risk efficient returns it's the cherry on financial freedom, and stock index investing doesn't have it as we saw above. 

- Fear might derail the plans: In the beginning of one's investment career, contrary to common wisdom, one might be so discouraged by a long setback that it's worth to trade a slightly lower expected return and have serious and robust protection of the downside. The same fear might get hold of experienced investors as well, when they realize how long a downturn might turn out to be.

A side-note on cost averaging

It's at this point that proponents of blind stock index investing might throw in the argument of cost-averaging. Of course we don't mean that you should invest everything you own tomorrow, they say. The risk of regret would be to high, they try to comfort the nervous investor. 

Cost-averaging, we're afraid to say, is a fallacy. Let's see what we mean. 

The problem lies in the answer to this question: If one feels that one can't go all in with a large sum due to fear of regretting the timing, well, why should one be comfortable with the risk profile in a year? Or in two years? 

There's a never-ending recursion behind the argument. 

Two years down the line when one is entirely in the stock index; should one sit awake every night and wonder if we should "cost average" in (or out) of the investment? 

No. The obvious conclusion is that the risk profile of the investment is wrong for that investor from the outset.

A tragic recommendation

The most tragic (almost criminal) aspect with recommending stock index investing as a cure for everything, is perhaps to recommend it for complete newcomers, perhaps especially those with some savings already. 

Many are the examples of a newcomer that are emotionally attached to their savings ("I worked a lifetime!") or perhaps sudden wealth ("I inherited my mother!").

These newcomers are then scared and overwhelmed when the market eventually drops (as it always does), and sells at a low point, misses the bounce upwards and might be set back for decades, if they even ever gets back in ("I destroyed my life savings", "I lost not only my mother, but also the sum of money she left me").

Think about your risk profile first, if someone recommends that you should cost-average into an investment. If you can't stomach to own a certain portfolio today, why should you be able to stomach that in a year from now? 

Once more, volatility is more dangerous than one might think from the armchair, until one starts to face real prospects of financial ruin, however minute they are.  

So why would you assume that stock index investing is right for you? 

Farewell

//antinous&lucilius

When the knifes are falling

It has been a rough spring for our open societies, not to mention the people in Ukraine where we have friends and acquaintances that have caused many a white night for us. 

A stress-free portfolio

Despite all that, we have not been particularly anxious about our portfolio. Sure, it has fallen somewhat, but not with more than we can brush it off. We also remember all the simulations and back-tests for the "bouncing back factor" of our portfolio, which is one of the reasons we've chosen it. 

Over a three-year period the portfolio has been back where it began in all cases, during the last 52 years. 

So it's more bombs falling than the portfolio falling that keep us up at night. 

In short: we felt prepared when the financial world started to seemingly fall apart during this spring.

,
In Ciceros original telling of the story, there were boys (twinks?) at Democeles' party. Just saying. But a debauched same-sex orgy (with additional food and wine to satiate all appetites) was a little too much in 1812 when Richard Westhall imagined the impeding fall of the sword and gory end of the party, so the twinks became ladies instead. 

The markets price everything in

In the last few weeks, we've read doomsday forecasts for all asset classes we own. 

Allegedly, Putin would be sitting like an old dragon on a ton of gold, and what happens with that pile, one way or the other, might completely perturbate the price of the shiny metal. We'll soon see kitchenware in pure gold instead of steal at Ikea, according to the most negative predictions.

Inflation eats bond yields, and it's going rampant and then central banks and governments will not able to control inflation, or so it goes, so treasury bonds and toilet paper are soon to be equivalent investments. Actually, toilet paper might be an investment with a better outcome if the wars in Europe get severe enough. 

And the world economy will never be the same, with supply chain disruptions, a scared populace that refuses to consume and shrinks demand, and shortages of all kinds. 

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Don't forecast. And with enough time, everything happens. 

What these fortune tellers seem to forget is, in our opinion, a very fundamental thing. 

All assets above correspond to financial contracts, traded on open markets in anonymous transactions, by intelligent agents - mostly institutions - with access to much information, and much more than the alluring stories presented above. 

Which means that all ideas about what will happen in the future is already priced into the current asset prices. There's no "natural laws" or "safe bets" that haven't already been baked into a (very refined) average assessment of the situation - an assessment that we normally call the current price.

For instance, bond prices already anticipate what the future payment stream (coupons) will be worth today, in today's money, inflation and all, with expected real returns, in the net present value in relation to existing bonds, buy backs, expectations of future quantitative measures, money printing and issues of new treasuries. It's all there, in the price, already.

So what one is saying when trying to see anything as "doomed", is that one is more intelligent than the market, or perhaps that one has figured out a bias that no-one else is exploiting. But beware. Markets are learning machines, and they are smart. 

As good stoics, we prefer to lean back instead of trying to outsmart people that, truth be told, probably are much more intelligent than us. 

We rely on the method, and we have pre-meditated that the sword may fall.

Come year's end, we will follow our strategy, and as usual pour our hard-earned money into the worst performing asset of the year (whichever that might be). That is probably then the lowest priced bet possible between long term treasuries, gold and stocks, and hence, also the bet with most upside if the market expectations are surprised.

So yes, we bet, but according to a pre-meditated and simple plan.

And the markets are always surprised, but not in ways that the stories above indicate - but genuinely surprised and one, at least not we, will not be able to predict why, when or how. 

For instance, in our own risk assessments for our future FIRE-life, we hadn't even really written out war explicitly (it was implicitly there, but more like "Sweden becomes impossible to live in"). 

Once more: with enough time, everything that can happen will happen, and now war is raging in Europe, despite (at least) us not foreseeing it. 

The best is to be aware that the knives might be falling at any time, and take precautions in advance and not hope that one will be able to do a last millisecond rescue when the unforseen actually happens. 

Be prepared in advance, prepare for all eventualities, consider a strategy that works for the human you are and not the hero you wish to be, so you are able to stick to the plan when the party ends.  

Farewell,

//antinous&lucilius. 

More reading:

Ergodicity - everything that can happen, will eventually happen.

Amor fati - love what destiny has in store for you.

Our portfolio - the pathfinder, bringing us to our goal. 

Only the wise are rich

Cicero was a funny guy. He used an old-school trick to maintain his financial freedom, which was the Roman version of house hacking - to have a lot of property out for rent. 

He was obsessed with how he should furnish his villa and which statues to buy. 

This was a fellow who did not live as he learned. His writings are confusing. Once when war called for duty, he escaped it by calling home sick.

He wrote about the stoics, and about stoic paradoxes, and sometimes he hit close to home. Perhaps because he could draw on personal experience of how paradoxical human behavior can be.

One of his paradoxes are: All Fools Are Mad. Only The Wise Are Rich.

Only The Wise Are Rich

We think that there's something creepy with the Rich Dad, Poor Dad kind'a'guys. Of course, a Poor Dad is doing something wrong with neglecting money all together, and we've been there. 

But someone who just want to amass as much money as possible, to the detriment of one's tranquility of mind or, worse, one's core moral values? 

A man, like Cicero, obsessing about buying the right statues to his villa. Is that person really wise? And if he's not, can one say that he's rich?

This question is tangible for us. 

We start to seriously leave the basic level of lean financial independence. But what after that is enough? 

Well, we add some safety margin. For instance, like Cicero's mad man, only a fool would assume that the highest mountain he has seen is the highest mountain (or financial crash) there is.

But after that safety margin? At a certain point, perhaps for us around USD 2-3 millions, there's a new level, the point where someone that are used with our level of expenses just can't spend the money on a monthly basis (unless we buy something very expensive or give the money away). 

For us, at that point of a few million dollars, we could always do whatever we could imagine; renting whatever car we wanted, travel from Sydney to Bali to a chalet in the Swiss Alps, hang out with the jetsetters, go to our conferences, meet the people we like all over the world - indefinitely, month after month - as long as we are at least reasonably conscious about the price and not paying over-prices. 

All experiences that we could imagine would be financially feasible without end.

This is of course what we want to do anyways, but with moderation. The key difference is the 'without-end'.

By just adding a little extra we could achieve all experiences we've imagined, forever, for as long as we want. 

Is it worth to work 3 more years to get to that point? Or should we use the last years of our relative youth to concentrate on for instance more health? Or can we do both?

Heli-skiing with the jet set bunch
Picture by Zach Dischner

And what comes after that? Are we becoming the Rich Dad, the mad fools? Appetites are insatiable. The financial independence community would agree with Cicero here; all fools are mad.

We are always at risk to become slaves to our appetites, be it the inferiority complex of the buyer of yachts and castles, the fear of having a too small safety margin of the too neurotic, the lack of imagination of the one that is forever stuck at the desk with the paycheck.

There's a point, where it is much more important to work on one's wisdom, rather than one's riches. 

Farewell,

//antinous&lucilius

How we dared to start investing

Our investment journey started with that we both went through crisis at work; where we realized that our financial future shouldn't rely on the paycheck alone.

Yet we had too much fear of the total stock market, and of stocks, to go all in on stocks.

Looking back we had some investments, mostly in mutual funds with corporate bonds that had a return of 4%. So very weak returns for the accumulation phase. And we really didn't pay attention to it. 

At some point, Antinous said that if we put our brains to it, we should be able to get at least a 7% return, still with reasonable risk. 

Sunrise for Antinous & Lucilius Financial Freedom Journey

Enter Asset Allocation

That's when we came across the permanent portfolio. We soaked up and read everything about it, we got the books of which we would especially recommend Craig Rowland's The Permanent Portfolio from 2012 that goes into more depth and answers some of the questions otherwise left unanswered. 

Compared to the advice one would get from one's bank, this is a wildly different approach.

It allocates 25% in four completely different asset classes (cash, long term government bonds, gold and the domestic stock market via a broad index fund).

Why? If we don't know anything about the future, then we bet equally on what's going to happen. And then the asset balance each other out, providing a radically different risk approach than anything one has heard from the old bank's investment advisors.

Why we dared going all-in

We already had a bunch of money when we started to be interested in investing. But it didn't feel good to go all in in the stock market, as many seemed to recommend in the financial independence-sphere.

Basically, it was the table below that made us dare to put our hard-earned money in a portfolio. The data below sums all periods from 1970 to now, with yearly re-balancing. We added US and France below just as a reference, with the US stock market as a benchmark. 

	PP SE	PP US	PP FR	Stocks (US)
Deepest Drawdown	-12%	-14%	-13%	−49%
Longest Drawdown	5y	5y	5y	13y
Average Return*	5.9%	5.2%	4.9%	8.2%
Short Term 3y Bad Case*	1.1%	1.6%	1.6%	-2.3%
Long Term 10y Bad Case*	3.2%	3.9%	3.6%	1.4%
Min Time to FI**	4y	7y	6y	3y
Max Time to FI**	10y	10y	10y	14

* Returns here are per year without inflation. So one needs to add one's expectation on inflation to see the same returns one would see in a brokerage account. The bad case is at the 15% percentile. 

** We assumed a 50% savings rate and 8 years expenses already saved. But this is 

When we started, we didn't really find online numbers for Sweden, so we crunched the numbers ourselves. It would show that the permanent portfolio is even better in Sweden than we first thought. Now there's portfoliocharts that is excellent for getting better ideas about different asset allocation strategies. 

So the higher average return in the stock market has also a very high price of 4 red boxes in our table, where each and one of the red box represent a very unnerving result for us. 

In short: the idea of asset allocation and perhaps the permanent portfolio might be worth checking out. 

So we did go slightly slower, but preferred to avoid the red trapdoors. Can you go more aggressive? Yes. Did we dare go more aggressive? No. So better to have something to start with rather then bring scared into doing nothing at all, or to pretend to be an ideal stoic sage that will be unaffected whatever happens just to discover that it might not be true. 

Farewell,

//antinous&lucilius

Truly not a slave: when the paycheck looses its attraction

What would your boss say if you came in and requested a 40% salary increase for the next year? And a 40% increase the year after that? Would she happily agree? Or would the cadres at your company think that you are more than insane?

A few years ago, we could expect a 40 k€ return from our investments for that year. The year after, this had increased to 60 k€, as it happened to be a good year.  The year after that, it was up at 80 k€.

That's a 100% increase in our income from investments per year over two years, or roughly an increase with 41% per year. All that just because we save and invest conservatively in our pathfinder portfolio. 

This is after-tax, in-our-pocket (or rather, investment account) money. So in many regards, much better than paycheck-money.

Now, compare that to how our salaries increased during the same period. These years were good to both of us, as we had changed job and had some salary progression. In the same time, that increase was hardly above 10% per year, so very, very far from the 40% increases in investment income.

This increase in investment income keeps rolling forward in a pace that is much, much quicker than any salary progression. 

It compounds quicker than one expects

Scientif38, CC-3.0

So, as all proponents of the FIRE-movement knows, there's a point where the investment income can cover for one's basic needs. 

Let's ask for a radical salary increase, shall we?

But there's also a point where the investment income is as big as the salary itself, and then - quite quickly - comes a point where the salary income just can't match the investment income at all under any realistic assumptions.

That's the point when a very substantial increase in salary - which for most people would mean a very drastic increase in responsibility or required skills - doesn't really do a significant change in total income nor wealth.

And then, suddenly, there's no salary that can realistically be paid, in any wage-based profession, that can be economically interesting to us anymore.

Truly not a slave 

This is the point where we loose financial connections the labour market, at least for all kinds of normal, labour-market-based monetary reasons.

We suspect that we have no inherent feeling that such a point in the financial journey exists. It should always be economically useful to work and earn one's living, right? Yet take any billionaire. There is no economic way of employing them with motivation of any normal paycheck.

There's a point like that for you and us as well. In Sweden, the take-home after-tax average salary after 5+ university studies is around 40 k€ (yes, we're in Europe, but the point still holds). That is a number we swooshed by several years ago with our investment income alone, and then continue to go beyond, with a very significant increase in our "investment salary increase" every year.

The progression, as we saw with the numbers, is such  that our bosses would be very surprised if we asked them to please keep up with our investment income increases with matching salary increases.

When most people hits a million euro, and keeps lifestyle inflation at bay, then it starts to get really hard to make significant improvements to one's economy by working for a monthly paycheck. The investment income becomes more than twice as large as what one earns via the paycheck. 

Suddenly, as sudden as how quickly a surprise avalanche builds up, it's no longer possible to employ us anymore, at least not for economic reasons. 

Then truly, we're not slaves any more.

At that point, only our own devotion can buy our time.

Farewell,

//antinous&lucilius

Balancing The New Year's Resolutions - Part 2/2

This is part 2 of 2 about our overly ambitious way of making New Year's Resolutions for 2021. 

We've divided our resolutions in 4 areas with Epic Mission Statements and all! 

• Job: Leaving Earth's Gravity
• Fun: Enjoying the Ride
• Body: Building our Temples
• Soul: Expanding our Stories

How we think about focusing on the journey and how we set the mission in Part 1. Here comes our resolutions on the last two areas - Body & Soul.

Body: Building our Temples

Keeping the ambitions realistic

As said in the beginning, we are very keen on training and fitness, both of us. 

In the last two years we've improved a lot in our fitness (increasing muscle-mass while staying lan, hitting records on our running). But still - let's make it a focus. 

We've just put in a time goal, of 9000 minutes of deliberate training. And topped it up with at least 3 times 2 mile crawls. We like swimming. Running comes natural. 

If we keep that up, we probably can pull of the odd 42 km run as well. 

Soul: Expanding our Stories

So the last area. Perhaps the most nebulous one, but on equal terms with the rest. What stories do we tell ourselves about ourselves? And, more importantly, what stories do we tell ourselves that we are NOT? 

A question worthy of exploration.

So in the search for expanding our stories, we put things like:

- get a lifestyle / work-life coach

- take the fearless and tougher choice 2 times

- at two social events, having a (tasteful) focus that is 180 degrees contrary to our main personality traits 

- identify three stories we tell ourselves that diminishes us

- improve 1 language

As many non-English speakers do, we already speak a bunch of languages, but why stop there? To a certain extent, as Goethe puts it, those who know nothing of foreign languages know nothing of their own. And perhaps less about the world as well. If we think of where we will land, our story will probably include a touch of Socrates cosmopolitan - he who is at home everywhere and nowhere.

Antinous German is not quite were it should be, so he should basically be able to have a conversation in the end of the year. He will aim for reading four books and listening to four audiobooks. Lucilius Mandarin is rusty, so he will focus on building vocabulary and basic sentences, and should be able to survive everyday situations in Mandarin at the end of the year.

A word about that thing about going counter to our personality traits. It sounds strange. It should sounds strange! 

Two Examples: 

• For Lucilius, who naturally is very goal and result-focused, this means going to a social event, outside of work, with the sole purpose of being really nice to everyone. No other results needed, no learning telling mingling with ulterior motives. 
• For Antinous, who naturally is a very likeable person, it will mean putting his own will in the centre of a social event and make something happen that just depend on that he wants it. So it's "Expanding our stories" that have snuck into this category a little bit as well. 

What about that tougher choice? It's about at least twice taking a choice where we first feel like "nah, this is nothing for me" and say "yes, I'll do it!". It's probably related to worklife, but not necessary. The idea is to push us to expand our story of who we tell ourselves that we are. 

We will also try to get a coach this year. We've found a way to finance that, so it's not as expensive as it sounds. We will try to use the coach to identify a few stories that we tell ourselves that diminishes who we are. And just being open to getting new perspectives and ideas.

Let's see how this works out for us, but we hope this way 2021 will become more intentional for us. 

What are your missions and how do you go about to reach them?

Balancing the New Year's Resolutions - Part 1/2

We occasionally run marathons. It's not like we aim for it, but for us it's a proof that we stay reasonably fit. 

How do we pull this off? By loving the process, as the saying goes. Those 42 km:s become the outcome of early morning runs, good food, blissful swims and long, long runs in the woods.

Not a forest per se, but still very good for running

So how does this relate to New Year's Resolutions? 

It's about avoiding wishful thinking. Don't fall in the b*llshit trap of magically wishing for a goal (run a marathon). Wish for the journey!  

A good resolution moves us in a desired direction. Who exactly cares where we might end up, as long as it's in that direction? Super-fit but didn't run a marathon, would that really be a problem?

For a few years now we didn't have any New Year's Resolutions. 

We have been coasting along on our journey towards financial independence, and we didn't feel the need to think about where we were heading. That overarching goal blinded out all else. But this year, it feels like the coasting part has changed. 

Our lives will need to transform again, and start to prepare us for landing at some sweet spot outside  gravity's pull of the paycheck. 

Our New Year's Resolutions 

So how can we avoid losing sight of the horizon? After some thinking and some more running in the woods (snow included) we decided to split our resolutions up in four areas.  

And what the heck. Epic mission statements can't be wrong. Here they go:

• Job: Leaving Earth's Gravity.
• Fun: Enjoying the Ride
• Body: Building our Temples
• Soul: Expanding our Stories

Job: Leaving Earth's Gravity

In the job category, we put things like:

- Work more than 4+, 3 Sundays 

- Work more than 12h+ days, 8 times 

- Establish Total Budget Control, for each of the 12 months 

We try to stick to the motto that our jobs must feel worthwhile. Lo and behold, we are at work places were we think humanity is one nano-iota better off if we show up at work. When we haven't believed in work - then we've done all we could to wiggle ourselves out of that situation.

And with probably a much, much shorter work life than the average Joe - we don't have to get disillusioned to put in hard work every now and then. It's more amusing to go all in. So instead of seeing that as a sacrifice - we turn it around and make hard work a promise. 

We shall stand up and fight (when necessary!). Much more fun.

And on another note, related to that paycheck. We've never really had complete budget control. We have just stayed very frugal, and summed things up roughly at year's end. Usually we hit our budget.  

The thinking here is that if we better know where the money goes, it will actually allow us to spend more. We should feel allowed to actually spend what we've set off as our fun budget.

Which opens up for the next topic; the Fun Area.

Fun: Enjoying the Ride

One danger with the quest for financial independence, or rather financial freedom, is that we tend to become so goal oriented that we just forget having fun. We forget everything that doesn't have an obvious payoff. Like piano. We are never going to play the piano at Carnegie Hall, let's put it like that, but it's still fun to play!

So this year we decided to have a spotlight on Fun as well. 

In this area we put:

- 1 long-haul flight for fun only

- making the socially adventurous/interesting choice, 3 times

- able to play two songs well on the piano

- put in the time necessary for at least three close friends

I think the list speaks for itself. 

Why all the social stuff? We score somewhere on the middle between introvert and extrovert, hence some focus at the social side, as we know we enjoy it but need a push to take initiative. It's also an area that was somewhat sacrificed under our financial bandwagon during the last few years. So it's about coming back to something we used to have. I suspect we share that with many in this community. 

Related to that we also put an explicit focus on our close friends. It's tragic, but we admit that we tended to play down the time for friends while aiming stubbornly for financial independence. That is probably nothing that will serve us well in a financially free future.

Let's save the two last areas, Body and Soul for Part 2.

How are you going with your resolutions so far?

We're leaving Low Earth Orbit

Where are we in our journey?

The Method Works, as Jean Baptiste Grenouille noted in Grasse.

Lucilius is now safely past Low Earth Orbit, and since a few months he can count himself as robustly financially independent according to the 4% rule. 

Antinous is quickly picking up speed. He's soldering on, and he's armed with side hustles, and will touch Low Earth Orbit before the year's end. 

Even if we know the maths behind it, it's still surprising for us that this actually works. And that we now enter more into a period of building margin, rather than aiming for the lowest level of financial independence.

The shift in mood is large as well. 

Our take on work is that it should feel adventurous and fun. We've changed jobs when it didn't feel like we could put enough of our hearts in it. 

But now, with the first level of Financial Independence behind us, it is as if a new level of adventure, with an unusual calm and perspective is taking over.

Let's see what this will bring us.