Maybe this is a nomenclature/definition thing, but anyway.
When Paul talks about passive vs “risk managed”, it sounds (could be wrong) as though he is talking about 100% equity vs stock picking (which he does for clients?).
But passive doesn’t mean 100% equity or “all in” on risk, does it? People are encouraged to balance the level of risk by having a % of bonds - and retuning that every year, so as stocks go up, they keep taking a bit off the table (which Paul also talks about) and putting it into bonds. As I say (could have it wrong) the way Paul talks about “passive” is as though there is no risk management (there is) and you’re all in for an equity ride (which is not necessarily the case).
Vs “risk managed” - his active approach. Yes, managing risk is sensible but, as I say, it is done with passive/tracker portfolios. Then his approach to managing risk (stock/asset class picking) is more than managing risk, it is actively trying to pick the winners of the next X years, then selling and buying the next thing. That’s active investing/trading, which isn’t what “risk management” implies - though there can be some overlap, like in many things.
It’s probably terms or me mishearing, but I don’t feel like I agree when Paul uses these terms and then what he goes on to describe and the pros/cons of these approaches.