Benjamin Felix

But I think that the takeaway from the paper and from the research, and I think Mike would agree, is sort of a level of abstraction above that where it's just like,

Forgetting about how precise the outputs are, he's able to quantify the importance of integrating all of the, in the way that he sets it up in this model, the six financial planning areas together, because the advice that you might give in one area will affect another financial planning area.

And if you're not paying attention to those interactions, you can end up giving suboptimal advice, which he's able to quantify effectively.

because he has the model.

But the fact that the model can quantify it precisely, I don't think is really the takeaway.

I think just the general concept of the importance of integration, of integrating financial planning advice across all of the financial planning areas and integrating the preferences that the specific client has, that was really the takeaway.

The work that he did is building this

really impressive mathematical representation of the whole financial planning process.

It's like a mathematical model of what a financial planner should be thinking about when they're giving advice to a client.

And that's pretty cool.

So I mean,

In a lot of the episode, we talk about the model and about how he built it and how it works.

We're basically just talking about financial planning, the way that he has represented it in his mathematical model.

So hopefully it's not too much math nerdiness and there's enough sort of, this is why these modeling decisions are relevant to making financial planning decisions.

I think we struck a reasonable balance, but that's really what the whole thing is about.

It's thinking about financial planning decisions.

He's done a lot of work to quantify that.

Any other thoughts?

I'll talk a little bit about who Michael is, but do you have any other thoughts before I do that?

I agree.