On December 1, 2001, Sam Saver had $1 million in a diversified, asset-allocated portfolio.  His neighbor, Ned Worth, became emotionally attached to a single stock—Enron—and allowed it to grow to 40% of his portfolio.  What happened on December 2, 2001 – with the collapse of Enron – didn’t care what either of them felt, believed, or hoped, because markets don’t respond to personal emotion.

Neither does math.  And neither does the future need for Long-Term Care (LTC) —or the loss of independence that comes with it.  Yet the moment LTC enters the conversation, the functional, non-correlation variables embedded throughout financial planning quietly disappear—and no one ever asks why.

Financial planning works precisely because it controls non-correlation risks through structure:

• Asset allocation neutralizes behavioral bias
• Estate planning neutralizes family burden
• Pre-need planning neutralizes crisis decision-making
• Diversification neutralizes idiosyncratic risk

These controls are embedded before stress occurs; however, when LTC is introduced, those same variables are no longer controlled by them.  They become outcomes, and that’s the problem.  Financial planning succeeds by eliminating bias and burden in advance.  The lack of LTC Planning today reveals what happens when that work was never done, because modern financial planning will not, has not, and cannot model Burden or Bias as functional consumer or advisor planning variables—even though they directly and measurably impact financial outcomes in retirement, particularly liquidity, sequence-of-returns risk, tax drag, and legacy preservation. They are not “soft” or emotional add-ons; they are quantifiable drags on the household balance sheet that amplify or distort the real cost of the Long-Term Care liability.

In practice, Bias (b) is a behavioral drag on planning effectiveness, measuring denial, optimism, avoidance, and overconfidence that prevent accurate modeling of any material liability.  Burden (B) is the family and logistical drag on execution, measuring whether a plan can actually be carried out under stress, or whether it collapses into crisis management.

No one ever said pre-need funeral arrangements are a waste of time because they eliminate burden and bias at the moment of crisis, or that said wills and trusts are a waste of money because they eliminate burden and bias during chaos and loss.  Or, that asset allocation is a waste of time because it removes emotion and impulse before the market tests the plan.

Every level of financial, legal, and tax planning already uses behavioral and family variables in risk profiling, withdrawal modeling, and estate design. Bias and burden are simply the direct application of those same principles to the largest unmodeled liability in retirement planning. They are functional because they move the numbers—sustainable income, ruin probability, and legacy value—in predictable, measurable, and material ways. 

Measuring and documenting B and b is not philosophy.  It is the foundation of a prudent process, and it is necessary precisely because the probability and timing of the loss of independence are effectively uncorrelated with portfolio returns or the assumptions used in Monte Carlo–based financial planning models.

On January 1, the first Baby Boomer turned 80 years old, and going forward, the recognition—or continued denial—of Burden and Bias will determine who ages with confidence and certainty, and who ages in chaos and crisis.

20260105