Question, Comment? Send it Here!

Why does losing $1,000 hurt more than gaining $1,000 feels good? Why do we play it safe when we're winning but become willing to gamble when we're losing? And why do perfectly intelligent people make financial decisions that seem to defy logic?

In this episode of the Dr. Bryan Foltice Behavioral Finance Podcast, we explore the second of the Five Forces of Behavioral Finance: Emotion Beats Logic.

At the heart of this episode is Prospect Theory, the groundbreaking research of psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky that fundamentally changed how we understand decision-making under risk.

We'll explore how our brains evaluate gains and losses, why reference points matter, and how our attitudes toward risk change depending on the situation.

Through real-world financial examples and interactive decisions, we'll examine:

• Loss Aversion: Why losing money often hurts more than gaining the same amount feels good.
• Reference Dependence: How purchase prices, expectations, and previous financial highs influence our decisions.
• Diminishing Sensitivity: Why the psychological impact of money changes as the amounts get larger.
• The Fourfold Pattern of Risk: Why we sometimes avoid risk and other times actively seek it—even when the mathematical outcomes are equivalent.
• Regret Aversion, Fear, and the Affect Heuristic: How emotions influence investing, spending, and financial decisions.

We'll also connect these psychological forces to the Knowing–Doing Gap—the disconnect between what we know we should do with our money and what we actually do.

Because making better financial decisions isn't always about knowing more. Sometimes it's about understanding why we make the decisions we do.

Money Strong: From Knowing to Doing.

#BehavioralFinance #ProspectTheory #PsychologyOfMoney #LossAversion #FinancialDecisions #MoneyStrong #InvestingPsychology

Support the show

Subscribe to our Behavioral Finance Newsletter: https://www.moneystrong.net/behavioral-newsletter

Bryan Foltice Personal Website - www.bryanfoltice.com
Money Strong Website - www.moneystrong.net

Instagram - www.instagram.com/dr.bryanfoltice
Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanfoltice

Disclaimer: www.bryanfoltice.com/cv

Question, Comment? Send it Here!

Present Beats Future: Understanding Present Bias, Hyperbolic Discounting, and the Knowing-Doing Gap

In this episode, Dr. Bryan Foltice reflects on turning 46 and uses that perspective to explore present bias (“present beats future”) as a key driver of the knowing-doing gap in personal finance and daily habits.

He explains evolutionary roots that favored immediate consumption, then illustrates inconsistent preferences through choice examples ($100 today vs. later, and $100 today vs. $110 next month) and contrasts them with delayed future choices.

The episode outlines two sides of present bias—seeking immediate gratification (e.g., the marshmallow experiment and a “DoorDash booty call” impulse) and avoiding immediate discomfort (delaying saving, exercise, healthier eating)—and introduces hyperbolic discounting as an intensified form linked to addiction.

He describes five ways present bias wins: immediate gratification, procrastination, scarcity, inertia, and feeling disconnected from one’s future self, citing Hershfield et al. (2011) on age-progressed renderings increasing retirement saving. He closes by advocating awareness, balance, and self-compassion, previewing next week’s topic on emotions overriding logic.

00:00 Podcast Welcome
00:24 Birthday Reflection Setup
01:55 Why Present Wins
04:18 Present Bias Explained
06:47 Two Sides of Bias
10:40 Hyperbolic Discounting
12:08 Five Ways It Shows
15:53 Future Self Connection
18:14 Research and Nordstrom Story
21:15 Finding Balance and Wrap
23:52 Outro and Subscribe

Support the show

Subscribe to our Behavioral Finance Newsletter: https://www.moneystrong.net/behavioral-newsletter

Bryan Foltice Personal Website - www.bryanfoltice.com
Money Strong Website - www.moneystrong.net

Instagram - www.instagram.com/dr.bryanfoltice
Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanfoltice

Disclaimer: www.bryanfoltice.com/cv

Question, Comment? Send it Here!

Why do we put off saving, follow investment hype, or spend money we planned to keep—even when we know better? Understanding what to do with your money and actually doing it are two different things.

In this episode, Dr. Bryan Foltice explores the knowing–doing gap through five forces that shape our financial decisions: Present Beats Future, Emotion Beats Logic, Perception Beats Reality, Social Influence Beats Independent Thinking, and The Path Influences the Choice.

From procrastination and loss aversion to overconfidence, social comparison, and mental accounting, Bryan connects behavioral finance concepts to familiar money decisions. Why do we hold on to losing investments? Why does a bonus feel different from a paycheck? And how can a free consultation leave us feeling obligated to buy?

These examples reveal how several forces can influence the same decision—and why more financial information may address only part of the problem. This episode introduces a framework for recognizing what gets between your financial intentions and your actions, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of each force.

Support the show

Subscribe to our Behavioral Finance Newsletter: https://www.moneystrong.net/behavioral-newsletter

Bryan Foltice Personal Website - www.bryanfoltice.com
Money Strong Website - www.moneystrong.net

Instagram - www.instagram.com/dr.bryanfoltice
Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanfoltice

Disclaimer: www.bryanfoltice.com/cv

Question, Comment? Send it Here!

The $100 Shirt That Cost Me $10,000 | Reciprocity, Reference Points & Procrastination

How does a free personal styling session at Nordstrom turn into a $10,000 mistake?

In this episode of the Dr. Bryan Foltice Behavioral Finance Podcast, Bryan shares how a complimentary wardrobe consultation led him to purchase a $100 shirt he didn't really want, establish an expensive new household spending precedent, and procrastinate past his intended return deadline.

Using classic behavioral finance research, Bryan explores three powerful psychological forces—reciprocity, reference points, and present bias—and explains how they influence everyday spending, investment decisions, and relationships with financial advisors.

Discover why free isn't always free, how small decisions can have lasting financial consequences, and why knowing better doesn't always mean doing better.

References

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. | The social norm of reciprocity
Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a Favor and Liking on Compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 627–639. | Experimental evidence of reciprocity
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

Support the show

Subscribe to our Behavioral Finance Newsletter: https://www.moneystrong.net/behavioral-newsletter

Bryan Foltice Personal Website - www.bryanfoltice.com
Money Strong Website - www.moneystrong.net

Instagram - www.instagram.com/dr.bryanfoltice
Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanfoltice

Disclaimer: www.bryanfoltice.com/cv

Question, Comment? Send it Here!

Retirement Withdrawal Rates in Real Life: Bryan Foltice’s Two-Bucket Approach Beyond the 4% Rule

In this episode of the Bryan Foltice Behavioral Finance Podcast, we discuss how common retirement withdrawal rules hold up in real life and why anything above 4% can be dangerous due to sequence-of-returns risk and compounding inflation.

We explore the “decumulation paradox,” where lifelong savers struggle to spend after retirement, and we frame retirement as a flexible transition rather than a hard stop at 65. We then break down a practical two-bucket strategy: a conservative 3% “ground floor” built around bare-bones expenses (often helped by paying off the house and supplementing with Social Security or part-time work), plus a “bonus bucket” that unlocks additional spending once the portfolio grows beyond a threshold (e.g., 1.5x). We also discuss trade-offs between thresholds, leaving an inheritance, and spending earlier while healthy.

The full working paper can be downloaded here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7461338

Chapters
00:00 Podcast Intro
00:26 Why Revisit Withdrawal Rules
01:19 Rethinking Retirement Purpose
02:50 The 4 Percent Rule Problem
04:48 Why Higher Rates Fail
05:40 Sequence Risk and Inflation
07:19 Goal of the Study
08:07 Two Bucket Strategy Basics
10:11 Bonus Bucket Spending Freedom
11:44 Thresholds and All Out Approach
13:37 Inheritance and Living More
14:28 Q and A and Wrap Up
15:57 Outro and Subscribe

Support the show

Subscribe to our Behavioral Finance Newsletter: https://www.moneystrong.net/behavioral-newsletter

Bryan Foltice Personal Website - www.bryanfoltice.com
Money Strong Website - www.moneystrong.net

Instagram - www.instagram.com/dr.bryanfoltice
Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanfoltice

Disclaimer: www.bryanfoltice.com/cv

Question, Comment? Send it Here!

Retirement Withdrawals Beyond the 4% Rule: Bryan Foltice on Flexible, Inflation-Adjusted Strategies

In this episode of the Bryan Foltice Behavioral Finance Podcast, we continue to explore why fixed withdrawal rate strategies like the 4% rule can fail over longer 40–50 year retirements, creating a “decumulation paradox” where retirees either run out of money or leave far too much behind.

Today, we discuss proposed alternatives, including Guyton’s Guardrails and a complex optimization approach, and then focus on a simpler two-bucket framework: a “boring” 3% base for necessities plus an “all-out” flexible rule that spends portfolio value above a threshold (often 1.5x the initial amount).

We show how inflation-adjusting the threshold produces zero historical failure rates across 30–50 years with higher average income, and we also review Monte Carlo results showing higher failure probabilities overall but strong relative improvements in income and failure reduction versus the 4% rule.

The full working paper can be downloaded here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7461338

Chapters
00:00 Podcast Welcome
00:26 Fixed Withdrawal Dilemma
01:05 Why Fixed Rates Fail
02:49 Guardrails Too Complex
05:06 Other Alternatives Reviewed
06:43 Two Bucket 3% Base
08:23 All Out Threshold Rule
10:36 When Horizons Get Longer
11:25 Inflation Adjusted Threshold
14:28 Divide Extra By Years
17:58 Monte Carlo Reality Check
21:00 How To Use With Clients
22:25 Wrap Up And Next Steps

Support the show

Subscribe to our Behavioral Finance Newsletter: https://www.moneystrong.net/behavioral-newsletter

Bryan Foltice Personal Website - www.bryanfoltice.com
Money Strong Website - www.moneystrong.net

Instagram - www.instagram.com/dr.bryanfoltice
Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanfoltice

Disclaimer: www.bryanfoltice.com/cv

Question, Comment? Send it Here!

Does the 4% Rule Still Work? Inflation, 50-Year Retirements, and What the Data Really Says

In this episode, we dive into the fixed retirement withdrawal rate debate and why the popular 4% rule deserves a closer look. We discuss how the rule originated from Bill Bengen’s 1994 research, then walk through Bryan and Steve Dolvin’s analysis using U.S. data from 1928–2024 across stock/bond allocations and 30–50 year horizons.

We compare results with and without inflation adjustments, showing that outcomes change dramatically once inflation is included: the 4% rule fails 2.94% of the time over 30 years, 10% over 40 years, and 18.75% over 50 years, while higher rates like 6–8% show very high to guaranteed failure over long horizons.

We also discuss a key overlooked issue—how often portfolios leave large amounts unspent—and preview a move toward simpler “flexible” withdrawal strategies in the next episode.

The full working paper can be downloaded here:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7461338

00:00 Four Percent Rule Setup
02:09 Origins and Assumptions
05:22 Research Data and Method
06:58 No Inflation Results
09:45 Why Inflation Matters
14:07 Inflation Adjusted Failures
16:03 Money Left Over Problem
18:10 Asset Allocation Deep Dive
19:29 Flexible Withdrawal Teaser
20:27 Wrap Up and Next Episode

Support the show

Subscribe to our Behavioral Finance Newsletter: https://www.moneystrong.net/behavioral-newsletter

Bryan Foltice Personal Website - www.bryanfoltice.com
Money Strong Website - www.moneystrong.net

Instagram - www.instagram.com/dr.bryanfoltice
Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanfoltice

Disclaimer: www.bryanfoltice.com/cv

Question, Comment? Send it Here!

In this Q&A episode, we explore four listener questions with Bryan Foltice, starting with whether he teaches the “latte effect,” where he explains he focuses more on big financial decisions like housing and car ownership while still discussing how people often underestimate spending on eating out and DoorDash and how emotional spending can add up.

We then discuss the realities of youth travel sports, including escalating travel demands, “stay-to-play” tournaments, and the significant annual costs families face.

Third, we cover why Bryan has not invested in SpaceX, emphasizing that a great company can still be a poor buy if the valuation is too high and future growth is already priced in.

Finally, we explain Bryan’s hat choices, tied to stadium visits and longstanding sports allegiances rooted in Detroit and German soccer.

00:00 Welcome and Setup

00:33 Latte Effect Debate

04:04 Tracking Spending Habits

05:18 Travel Sports Money Trap

10:55 SpaceX Valuation Check

13:54 Why I Wear Hats

17:16 Final Thoughts and Outro

Support the show

Subscribe to our Behavioral Finance Newsletter: https://www.moneystrong.net/behavioral-newsletter

Bryan Foltice Personal Website - www.bryanfoltice.com
Money Strong Website - www.moneystrong.net

Instagram - www.instagram.com/dr.bryanfoltice
Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanfoltice

Disclaimer: www.bryanfoltice.com/cv