La psychologie de l'argent

Finance has scooped up the smartest minds coming from top universities over the last two decades. Financial Engineering was the most popular major in Princeton's School of Engineering a decade ago. Is there any evidence it has made us better investors?
I have seen none.
Through collective trial and error over the years we learned how to become better farmers, skilled plumbers, and advanced chemists. But has trial and error taught us to become better with our personal finances? Are we less likely to bury ourselves in debt? More likely to save for a rainy day? Prepare for retirement? Have realistic views about what money does, and doesn't do, to our happiness ?
I've seen no compelling evidence.
Most of the reason why, I believe, is that we think about and are taught about money in ways that are too much like physics (with rules and laws) and not enough like psychology (with emotions and nuance).

Finance is overwhelmingly taught as a math-based field, where you put data into a formula and the formula tells you what to do and it's assumed that you'll just go do it.
This is true in personal finance, where you're told to have a six- month emergency fund and save 10% of your salary.
It's true in investing, where we know the exact historical correlations between interest rates and valuations.
And it's true in corporate finance, where CFOs can measure the precise cost of capital.
It's not that any of these things are bad or wrong. It's that knowing what to do tells you nothing about what happens in your head when you try to do it.

La compétence la plus difficile à acquérir dans le domaine financier, c'est d'apprendre à stopper l'inflation de ses désirs.

Les gens devraient être plus nombreux à adopter cette philosophie - être raisonnables plutôt que rationnels - quand ils prennent des décisions relatives à leur argent.

La frontière entre audace et imprudence est parfois ténue, et elle tend à s'effacer lorsqu'on refuse de reconnaître la juste place de la chance et du risque.