I have a friend who is very risk-averse, by self admission. By my standards he is too much risk averse for his own good.
He says that his personal experience over the last 15-20 years taught him that investing in "risky" markets such as the stock market is "not worth it", and he prefers to keep his money "safe" outside of the stock market. Also, I believe he mentally associates investing with active management, and he thinks that the potential benefits from investing in anything but the most solid investments doesn't yield a lot, compared to the time and money it takes to "properly manage your investments".
Another point is that he compares the money he earns by investing the money he earns from his day job, and he "prefers to concentrate on building something meaningful via his work", as opposed to just earning interest on high yield investments.
I believe that these categorical statements are false. Anyone who has a decent free income and some savings, should not invest only in super solid investments like Time Deposits. Instead, people should choose an investment strategy that allocates a certain portion of their savings to super solid investments, some portion to bonds, and some to stocks, with none of these components being a total flat zero percent. The distribution of the portfolio should vary with age and financial situation, of course.
Now, for my question - what short "tl;dr" link I can send him that might convince him that he is wrong, or at least make him reconsider? I have tried explaining my views a few times, but I wasn't able to convince him so far.