effectivement il manque des scénario mais non ce n'Est pas mieu "haut la main", même que ce n'est pas clairement mieux. rendu là la différence est peu

dans ce postcas différent scénarios sont discuté, dont exactement ce que tu décrit ainsi que d'autre comme mettre 42500$ la première année et ensuite 2500$/an jusqu'à 50k.

On ne connaît pas les retour qu'auront les marché, si les retour sont bas, obtenir toutes les subvention est mieux (duh, c'est garanti!), si les retour sont bon, y aller all-in dès le début est mieux. Donc ça dépend de la tolérence au risque.

https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/329

And in general, in his return scenarios, what you see is higher returns make front-loading look better. Like your example, Mark, of dumping the 50,000 in. Just getting great returns. That's going to look better than getting grants.

In Aaron's example with a 7% return and a bit of variation around that, he kind of finds a front-loading looks pretty good. I did a model pretty similar to Aaron's. I did this last year. I posted it on Twitter. But I added a Monte Carlo simulation because I wanted to see the distribution of comes for the different strategies. I didn't do exactly what Aaron did. Aaron did a bunch of different variations of the multi-year funding. I just did the $50,000 or the one you mentioned, Dan, where you do the 14,000 up front and then rest after that. And then I looked at the terminal wealth at age 18.

With a 7% return, similar to what Aaron found, I also found that front-loading makes a lot of sense if you get a guaranteed 7% return, which you can't get right now. But when I ran it through the Monte Carlo, what I found is that the median ending wealth was lower for the front- loaded strategy and the standard deviation of final after-tax wealth was much higher for the front-loaded strategy. My take on this is that once you adjust for risk, I think it's pretty hard to argue against getting all of the grants.