| > With your phone, if all you care about is texting and making calls, yeah, you're not getting any added value paying more. If that's all you care about, paying $400 like I do is silly - you can get it much cheaper. The $400 phone I get takes fairly good photos (it's one of my main criteria in deciding on phones). Sure, if I want great photos, I'll have to pay more. I've decided that an extra $1100 over 3 years is not worth it for the marginal improvements in photo quality. But I know for some people it is, and that's fine. Regarding the boots, we're both saying the same thing, which I think is not what the author is saying: You're fixing a time interval (e.g. 30 years), and calculating that it's cheaper to get the expensive boots vs the cumulative cost of cheap shoes in that time period. When you fix the time interval (e.g. 30 years), comparing rates vs comparing absolute totals is equivalent.[3] What I typically see is that people take this equivalence and begin to compare against different time intervals (option X is for 2 years, option Y is for 5 years). This is what leads to so many silly blog posts saying you'll never get a better investment than your employer's ESPP benefit, because you get a huge return.[1][2] In any case, the author isn't using the Boots Theory. He's looking at cost per use - and not utility/cost as a whole. [1] https://thefinancebuff.com/employee-stock-purchase-plan-espp... [2] I'm pro ESPP - but looking at those claimed return numbers is almost useless. It's trivial to make more money with, say, a mere 5% annualized return. [3] When comparing investments, you also need the same input. It starts getting messy - which is why the standard advice is to convert to absolute dollars and compare. |
It’s almost always the case that maxing out your ESPP contribution is a good idea instead of getting the money earlier and investing it in something else. It might even be worth getting a loan and still maxing out the contribution should you require more cashflow (because 10% loan is still cheaper than missing out on ~90% return). But the t return is limited to your max contribution percentage * your salary, therefore you still need to think about what to do with rest of your money.
How making more money in absolute terms in some other investment invalidate the above?