A 2021 paper in the Journal of Consumer Policy surveyed more than 3,000 married people and found that spending more on the engagement ring went with a higher risk of divorce among men, and spending more on the wedding went with a higher risk among women.
The wedding industry sells the opposite. Ben Felix, Dan Bortolotti and Ben Wilson spent an episode on what the research actually says about the money side of marriage, and the pattern that came out of it was that the size of the spending matters less than whether a couple treats the money as shared.
"Couples who experienced the lowest divorce rates spent less than $1,000 on their wedding, which is just fascinating."
Felix is Chief Investment Officer at PWL Capital, Bortolotti has been a portfolio manager there for more than a decade and created the Canadian Couch Potato blog, and Wilson heads the firm's mergers and acquisitions architecture. All three advise Canadian households, including households that later divorce, and all three are married — 12 years, 15 years and 32 years respectively.
I listened to the full episode so you can skip it. 68 minutes of audio, 20 minutes of reading.
Here are the 8 insights that matter.
🎙️ Hosts: Benjamin Felix, Chief Investment Officer and Portfolio Manager at PWL Capital; Dan Bortolotti, Portfolio Manager at PWL Capital, who created the Canadian Couch Potato blog; and Ben Wilson, Head of Mergers and Acquisitions Architecture and Portfolio Manager at PWL Capital
📰 Published: 10 September 2026, on YouTube
🔴 YouTube | 🟣 Apple Podcasts | 🔗 Show notes | ⏱️ 68 min | ✅ Time saved: 48 min
Key Takeaways
A tightwad is not a frugal person — the label is about the gap between what you spend and what you wish you spent
Felix scored 11 on the three-question scale, one point inside tightwad territory; Bortolotti scored 16 and Wilson 12
Tightwads and spendthrifts marry each other more often than they marry their own type, and the research calls the result a fatal fiscal attraction
The wider the gap on the scale, the more money conflict and the lower the marital well-being, even controlling for household debt and savings
Every married couple already has a prenup — the one their province or state wrote for them
Engaged couples estimate the national divorce rate correctly and then put their own odds far below it
Higher spending on the ring and the wedding tracked with higher divorce risk, and the lowest divorce rates came from weddings under $1K
Two kinds of wedding spending did predict longer marriages: more guests, and taking a honeymoon at all, at any price
Pooling finances is one of the few personal-finance choices with consistent evidence behind it
A 2022 meta-analysis across six studies and more than 38,000 participants found pooled couples reported higher relationship satisfaction and were less likely to break up
Just thinking of the money as joint captures much of the benefit, even without a joint account
Husbands' risk tolerance sets about 60% of the household portfolio in Australia, Germany and the US, and competence does not explain it
Men in one 35,000-household study traded 45% more than women and lost 2.65 percentage points a year to it, against 1.72 points for women
The spouse who is kept out of the finances becomes a continuity problem, not just a fairness problem
Bortolotti said clients often arrive late in life asking what happens to a partner who has never handled the money
1. Tightwads and Spendthrifts
Felix set the topic up as a decision that compounds: who you marry, and how the two of you make financial decisions, runs through every major choice that follows, and getting it wrong is expensive both financially and otherwise. He pointed at the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the longest-running studies of human happiness, where a book drawn from the data listed a stable marriage among six factors in healthy aging. Bortolotti said finances are rarely the primary consideration while dating but are almost always a secondary one, and that a couple who got together young may not recognize what a difference in money habits will mean decades later. Wilson's version was that most people choose a partner long before they know their own financial position, so the hope is that both people's expectations move at the same pace.
From there Felix went to a 2008 paper by Scott Rick and his co-authors, which built a scale running from tightwads to spendthrifts. Rick has been a guest on the show.
The scale measures an emotional response at the moment of purchase, not a budgeting decision. The authors call it an anticipatory pain of paying: tightwads feel it too acutely and spend less than they would like to, spendthrifts feel too little of it and spend more than they would like to
Being a tightwad is not the same as being frugal, and Felix drew the line explicitly. Frugality, he said, is deriving pleasure from saving, whereas "Being a tight wad is incurring pain from spending"
The diagnosis is about the gap between your behavior and your own ideal, which is why it says nothing about how much money you spend. "Like a tight wad is not someone who just doesn't get a lot of pleasure from spending. It's someone who deep down wishes they could get more pleasure from spending than they're actually getting"
Bortolotti made the same point from the outside: a wealthy client spending well below what their plan allows and a friend spending beyond their means can look identical to an observer, because the label has nothing to do with what someone spends "in any objective way"
All three hosts took the three-question quiz on air, and two of them landed near the boundary. Felix scored 11 this time against a 10 the last time he took it, which puts him just inside tightwad; Wilson scored 12 and his wife 13, both at the low end of unconflicted consumer, with the tightwad cutoff at 11 and below; Bortolotti came in at 16, which surprised him because he considers himself a big saver
The trait persists, but naming it appears to help. Felix said psychology research shows that awareness of your own behavioral patterns helps you change them, and that PWL sometimes does that work directly by reassuring a client that a purchase is genuinely affordable
He floated a service idea on air: putting clients through the spendthrift-tightwad scale the same way they are put through a risk questionnaire. "But I think especially once you get to the draw down stage, just as important as it is to understand whether you're a conservative, balanced, or aggressive investor is what kind of spender you are"
Wilson said the community's own discussion thread produced exactly the case the research describes. A retired listener who could comfortably afford a lie-flat business-class seat to Europe could not get their spouse to agree to the upgrade — not on affordability, but because spending the money was unbearable
Wilson tied it to upbringing: a $6,000 flight can feel absurd to someone raised middle class even after their own balance sheet has moved on
The conversation turned to status, and then to happiness research. Felix said the happiest people are the ones indifferent to how their spending looks to others; Wilson said the effect is well documented — "The effects of social comparison are unequivocally horrific for happiness"
2. Fatal Fiscal Attraction
The research then goes somewhere counterintuitive: the two ends of the scale seek each other out.
Tightwads and spendthrifts are more likely to marry each other than to marry their own type, which cuts against the general pattern that spouses share characteristics
The authors' explanation is that people misjudge what they will find attractive, and that their own trait repels them. Seeing your own spending behavior mirrored in someone else is a reminder of the quality you dislike in yourself, while the opposite trait is exciting — what the paper calls "fatal fiscal attractions"
The excitement is transitory and the conflict is not. Couples at opposite ends report more frequent money conflicts and lower marital well-being, the effect grows with the distance between them on the scale, and it survives controlling for household debt and savings
Felix was careful about what the finding does not say. It does not mean two different spenders will be unhappy, and it does not mean anyone should marry their own financial mirror image; it means the framework is worth having before the arguments start. He and his wife took the quiz; Wilson and his wife took it the day of the recording
All three landed on the same practical use: the scale converts a character accusation into a description. Bortolotti put it as the difference between telling a spouse they are irresponsible and recognizing "a psychological tendency to behave this way"
The mismatch can also work in a couple's favor. Felix said a spendthrift can give a tightwad permission to spend and a tightwad can moderate a spendthrift's saving; Bortolotti's example was gift-giving, where the tightwad gets the thing they would never buy themselves and the spouse gets the pleasure of having given it
Wilson added the limit case, the tightwad who is upset by the gift rather than pleased by it
3. Everyone Has a Prenup
Bortolotti reframed the prenup question, which in Ontario is a marriage contract, around a fact most couples do not know.
Nobody chooses whether to have a prenup, only whose prenup it is. "Everyone has one by default when you get married" under the family law where they live, and Felix added that this is not limited to marriage — living together, or having a child together without marrying, can carry legal consequences on a separation too
Two forces suppress the conversation at once. Engaged couples asked to estimate the national divorce rate get it roughly right and then put their own odds far lower, which is textbook overconfidence; and law-and-economics research treats the act of asking for a prenup as a negative signal about commitment, which deters the request in the first place
The combination is why the documents are both rare and, when they exist, weak. A couple who never seriously entertained the scenario the agreement governs will write one that does not reflect what either of them would actually need afterwards
Wilson credited Moira Somers, a past guest on the show, with the reframing that changed his mind. If the law has already written your agreement, the opportunity is to write your own, and to have it "drafted in a loving way" that reflects what the couple actually wants rather than what the statute assumes
Felix's counter was that each party needs independent legal counsel, which does not feel loving whatever the intention
The clear-cut case is a large gap in net worth, and all three agreed on it. Two young people with no assets between them may reasonably skip it; a couple where one side would be badly damaged financially by a breakup almost has to have one
Wilson has seen agreements designed to vest over time rather than to fix the split at the wedding. The wealthier spouse's net worth becomes shared progressively against triggers — years married, children, death — which protects against a short marriage without penalizing the lower-net-worth spouse in a long one
None of the three has one. Felix and Wilson both married young with nothing to divide, and Felix said his own bias against them is the same negative connotation the research describes — while still advising clients to consider one seriously
The exercise has value even when it produces no document. Wilson said couples who have gone through the conversation and then declined to sign anything have at least established that they understand and accept the default outcome
4. The $1K Wedding Wins
Felix turned to the spending that surrounds a wedding, and to where the conventions came from.
The two-months'-salary rule for an engagement ring was invented by a diamond company. Felix, who studied it as a marketing case during his MBA, pointed at De Beers: "It's like it was a diamond company who convinced a bunch of guys that they should spend two month salary on an engagement ring." Bortolotti called the campaign brilliant and the standard gross; Felix noted the rule was pre-tax salary, and that he has heard three and six months quoted since
Wedding products carry their own markup, and the research says consumers permit it. A 2021 paper in the Journal of Consumer Policy found that people attach elevated importance to wedding purchases and use the once-in-a-lifetime framing to excuse spending they would not accept elsewhere, which has produced a two-tier retail market — the same floral arrangement costs more once it is for a wedding
On the same survey data of more than 3,000 married participants, spending more went with divorcing more. Controlling for income, demographics and relationship factors, higher engagement-ring spending was linked to greater divorce risk among men and higher wedding spending to greater risk among women, with wedding-related debt stress offered as one possible mechanism
Felix's own wedding: "Personally, my wedding cost around $300 back in 2013." It was outdoors in Ottawa with his sister, his parents and his wife present
Two kinds of wedding spending did predict longer marriages, and neither is about price. More guests, and going on a honeymoon at all — in both cases regardless of what was spent. Felix read that as an argument for shared experiences over displays of wealth
Bortolotti's ring was sentimental rather than expensive, and the story is better than the ring. He had his wife's grandmother's diamond reset into a gold band, and let himself into his in-laws' empty house with the garage code to collect it, with permission, before asking her parents for her hand — "My wife will tell you funny story that I went and stole the ring from her parents house"
His wedding ran about $5,000 for 150 guests, with a donated photographer, a gifted DJ and a friend making the cakes; Wilson also had 150 guests for about $5,000, with a buffet and no open bar
The wedding is where a tightwad and a spendthrift collide for the first time, and the social pressure is asymmetric. Felix said how a couple handles that argument sets the tone for the marriage; Bortolotti said the pressure to spend falls much harder on the tightwad, because the spending has become the expected thing to do
5. Joint Money, Better Odds
Felix said the account-structure question was the one young couples asked him most often early in his planning career, and that it is less innocuous than it looks.
The evidence points one way: "couples should manage their finances together." Some of it points specifically at joint accounts and some does not, but the direction is consistent
The headline result comes from a 2022 meta-analysis across six studies and more than 38,000 participants. Couples who fully pooled their finances reported greater relationship satisfaction and were less likely to break up, and the result held across cultures
A 2023 Journal of Consumer Research study describes the mechanism. Joint accounts promoted communal norms, shared goals and better feelings about managing money as a team, all of which track with higher relationship and life satisfaction
A 2025 paper suggests the accounts may not even be the active ingredient. Pooling made couples talk about money more openly and more often, but simply redirecting people's attention toward the joint accounts they already had produced a similar effect — so a couple who think of the money as theirs rather than his and hers get much of the benefit whatever the bank setup says
Felix noted that the paper's author was a guest on the podcast years ago
Joint wealth and life satisfaction move together in a way individual wealth does not. Felix cited a 2022 paper, my wealth your life satisfaction: "This is a 2022 paper my wealth your life satisfaction which finds that increases in jointly held wealth led to greater life satisfaction whereas gains in individually held wealth did not have any significant impact"
Bortolotti's intuition cuts against the research in one specific case, and Felix conceded the tension. A tightwad married to a spendthrift will probably want a fence around their own account — which is exactly the couple the joint-account research says benefits most. Felix agreed the instinct is right and said that is itself the problem the first body of research describes
The compromise both of them see most often is a joint account for joint expenses plus a personal account each, sometimes with a formula for what each contributes monthly, so each spouse has money to spend without their statements being read
Where the line sits is a matter of agreement, not arithmetic. Bortolotti said extra accounts mostly add mental overhead once a couple already thinks jointly; Wilson and his wife simply talk before either spends anything substantial; Felix has heard of couples with an explicit threshold, anything over $500 or $1,000 gets a conversation first
6. Financial Infidelity
The threshold conversation led into what happens when one spouse agrees to a rule they never accepted.
The definition is behavioral, not monetary. Financial infidelity is "engaging in financial behavior you expect your partner would disapprove of and then hiding it," and Felix said it is pretty common in marriage
A recent paper looks at couples where one partner is far more prone to it than the other. That mismatch predicts individualized rather than shared financial goals, lower financial well-being and lower relationship satisfaction — and it holds up after accounting for other mismatches, including the tightwad-spendthrift one
Joint accounts make concealment harder, which is one argument for them. Bortolotti's version: with a joint card and a joint account, whatever you buy your partner sees, and chronic hiding of major spending becomes impractical. He was careful to frame it as transparency rather than distrust
All three doubted that plumbing solves the problem. Wilson said someone determined to hide spending will open something separate, or the attempt will surface the issue and end the marriage; the trust breach, not the money, is what makes it serious. Felix's conclusion was that this one is "a bigger problem than we can solve with our with our financial planning guidance," and Bortolotti's that it belongs to counselors or divorce attorneys
7. Whose Risk Tolerance Wins
Felix moved to how much each spouse actually shapes the household's financial decisions, and the research he cited is blunt about the answer.
In Australian households, the husband's risk tolerance gets roughly 60% of the weight and the wife's 40%. "A 2026 paper in the review of financial studies shows that the average Australian household incorporates 60% of the husband's risk tolerance but only 40% of the wife's into the household level asset allocation," which the authors read as a 20-percentage-point gap in bargaining power. Half of that gap is explained by observable characteristics such as income and employment; the other half the authors attribute to a gender effect
The pattern is not local. Average husband bargaining power runs 69% in Germany and 61% in the United States, and the authors say the three countries are statistically indistinguishable from one another — all of them above 60%
Knowledge does not explain it. The 2021 Journal of Finance paper "Who Wears the Pants?" found that US households with a financially sophisticated husband are more likely to hold stocks than households with an equally sophisticated wife, a pattern the authors say is "best explained by gender identity norms" rather than differences in competence
Their randomized experiment points at the mechanism in both directions: "Female identity suppresses the wife's willingness to contribute ideas," while male identity makes husbands less receptive to what their wife contributes
A shorter 2018 conference paper by the same author extends it across countries. Households in countries with stronger traditional gender norms are less likely to participate in the stock market, with suggestive evidence that the pattern reaches wealthy households too
The irony Felix drew out is that the discounted spouse is the better-behaved investor. In Barber and Odean's 2001 study of 35,000 brokerage households, men traded 45% more than women, and that trading cost them 2.65 percentage points of net return a year against 1.72 points for women. "To be clear, both groups hurt themselves by trading too much." Women simply did less of it
His own conclusion did not rest on the returns. A household that systematically discounts one spouse's preferences is making decisions only one of the two people actually endorses, which he said is worth fixing for its own sake
8. The Primary Money Spouse
The same research has a day-to-day counterpart the three of them see constantly in client meetings.
Most households have a primary financial spouse, and the other one is often barely in the conversation. Felix said the reason is rarely that the concepts are too complicated for the second spouse; it is that once one partner always makes these decisions and reports them afterwards, it becomes hard for the other to step back and ask whether the approach is right
A large part of what an adviser does for a couple is act as a neutral third party. Felix said the conversation is simply different when someone outside the relationship is in the room, and that a good adviser interrupts a one-sided meeting to ask the quieter spouse what they think
Felix's own client experience does not match the research's gender pattern on who makes contact, but it does on what gets discussed. He said his primary contact is a woman about as often as a man, and would be shocked if it were not close to even — but in households where the man is the main contact the conversations skew toward the portfolio, and where the woman is, toward the planning
One host described male clients whose questions sound performative, asked because they feel they should be asked, and said he has never had that impression from a female client — offered explicitly as an unquantified intuition, alongside the observation that men face social pressure to sound knowledgeable about markets the way they are expected to be about sports and cars
The financial-literacy literature shows the same asymmetry in confidence. Bortolotti said men are more likely to be overconfident and to answer a question confidently but wrongly, while women are more likely to say they do not know even when they do
Bringing in the quieter spouse improves the plan, not just the optics. Wilson said the less dominant spouse usually has a different perspective on children, travel or gifting that would not otherwise reach the table, and that a DIY investor should include their spouse in planning decisions even if the spouse has no interest in portfolio mechanics — because the money is a means to goals everybody has a view on
The strongest argument is continuity. Felix said a spouse kept in the dark is badly placed to carry on if the primary financial spouse dies; Bortolotti said that is exactly why clients arrive late in life, saying they want someone trustworthy in place before "the sharks are going to start circling" — and Wilson added cognitive decline as the harder version of the same risk, because it goes unnoticed while the decisions get worse
Felix said several people have told him they are not clients but have written into their wills that their spouse's first call should be to him, which he does not think is the best moment to start the relationship
Bonus Insights
The after show is back by listener demand. Felix said comments in the Rational Reminder community asked for the chatter the hosts used to do more of; Bortolotti remembered joking that six people stayed to the end of it
Felix addressed a badly received episode head on. A special Tuesday episode recorded with two people from One Digital drew heavy criticism, and his response was that the feedback was seen, understood and well taken — and nothing more
The community's reading statistics are their own argument. One member has spent three months of their life reading topics on the forum; others sit at 74, 71, 67, 62 and 49 days. Felix, at 44 days, put himself in roughly the top 5 or 10% of readers, and noted that the platform does not let him sort by days read — which Wilson suggested was deliberate
Three listener reviews were read on air, from Israel, Canada and the US, one of which was written by a listener who said the podcast was a comfort during minor surgery. Felix noted that since the show started reading an SEC-required disclaimer over its reviews, reviewers have begun adding disclaimers of their own
PWL Capital's second annual company summit lands the week this episode aired. Bortolotti said more than 140 people will be there, a multi-day event with outside speakers that replaced the firm's old Christmas party; the firm went remote when COVID started and never went back, and Felix said the podcast itself is part of why they have been able to hire the people they have
The common thread the hosts drew across every one of these bodies of research is that the couples who do best financially are the ones who treat the money as a joint project and say so out loud: understanding each other's spending tendencies, settling the legal default deliberately rather than by accident, choosing shared experiences such as a honeymoon over a display of wealth, thinking of the accounts as shared whether or not they are, and keeping both partners in the decisions rather than handing them to one.
Products, Companies & Tools Mentioned
PWL Capital (The firm all three hosts work at, and the source of most of the client observations in the episode; its annual summit, with more than 140 staff, falls the week the episode aired)
De Beers (The diamond company Felix credits with inventing the two-months'-salary standard for an engagement ring)
The Rational Reminder community (The show's own forum, where the discussion that produced the lie-flat-seat example happened, and where members have logged months of reading time)
OneDigital (The firm whose two representatives appeared on a special episode that listeners disliked, which Felix addressed in the after show)
Books & Resources Mentioned
Tightwads and Spendthrifts – Scott Rick, Cynthia Cryder and George Loewenstein (The 2008 Journal of Consumer Research paper behind the scale and the three-question quiz; Rick has been a guest on the show)
Who Wears the Pants? Gender Identity Norms and Intrahousehold Financial Decision-Making (The 2021 Journal of Finance paper Felix uses to argue that the gap in whose view shapes the portfolio is about norms, not competence)
Papers cited in this episode (The hosts' own bibliography for the episode, published with the show notes)
The Harvard Study of Adult Development (One of the longest-running studies of human happiness; Felix cited a book drawn from its data that lists a stable marriage among six factors in healthy aging)
If this was worth your time, send it to someone who has to have a view on this.
Get the latest market chatter as it happens: