Friday, June 8, 2018

Money: Beholden ‘em Fold’em & FUability©




Money: Beholden ‘em Fold’em & FUability©

Excess resources are stored for the future purchase and consumption of potential goods and services warehoused via the acceptance of money (the current currency). Money, therefore, represents these unconsumed resources and their yield (interest, dividends, capital gains thereof before withdrawal) as an alternative to barter.
Feelings (idolizing, envy, fear) toward money have superseded the value of shomer tov & its imperative of OWNing UP to. Money has become recognized – and believed (a feeling) as a lubricant (WD40™ – 40 yrs – WD = without Deity in the wilderness?) for one’s survival. For most, rather than acknowledging Hashem with ‘first yearlings’ off the top like Abel’s offering– the money ‘sacrificed’ to God is more in the vain of Cain’s offering – a net profits interest – after covering one’s expenses – a payoff for protection, just in case. Thus, the feelings towards – money (and the resources it represents) – are as a savior and provider have have superseded the shomer tov (OWNing up to) imperative as illustrated by:

In God We Trust (on U.S. currency *
       (which is like stating the perfunctory ‘with all due respect’ which isn’t)
 When they say it’s not the money, it’s the money
Follow the money – credo of investigative reporters
Show me the money – Jerry McGuire
One thing money doesn’t buy – poverty
You can love better with money than without it
The chains of marriage made of gold are strong
Etc….

          Where is ‘this land is mine...’ recognition?
          Where is ‘the land and the fullness thereof…’ recognition?

          We fear the loss of money (and the IRS especially after Obama weaponized it to go after conservatives) more than God!

          Feelings!
         
          (Some might even classify these feelings as ‘idolization.’ When the love of money is an end in itself is that not genuflecting? ((The biggest genuflectors  are progressive liberal Democrats given their preoccupation with rationalizing theft of money in the name of - pretense of social activitism, political correctness, park your tuchis, Marcusian cockamamie – as when they say it ain’t the money – it’s the money moochers.))

“Lo(w) & Behold-en”

True Story: Having the goods on a double dealing Colorado state insecurities commissioner against the publics interest, this writer wanted to expose the schmuck. I was advised by a former Democrat state legislator: “Jim, we don’t want to break the State Securities Commissioner’s, we want to bend him (to our legislation- so  he is beholden to us).”

When ‘money’ becomes ‘more than’ goods and services as :

  • some ‘bend’ their money requirements in the name of flexibility which is typically a rationalization for soothing The More comparative calling & the never enough fear.
  • people often sacrifice what they need (in goods and services) for what they don’t need (be it status, etc).
  • others believe More placates the psychic fear of never enough lowering ‘loss aversion’ worry & dread
  • still others consider the psychic payoff of ‘not being beholden – holding one’s own – being able to ‘cut the mustard’ (not to be confused with cutting the cheese) as ultimately provided by currency.

Hereafter, the focus here after shall be on not being beholden – as a feeling – rather than the value of reciprocity per shalom’s meanings: payment for completion for peace and dignity (I might add).

Beholden creates an uneasy unsettling feeling of out of  imbalance – giving rise to derivative ‘feelings’ (tributaries?) of ‘owing’ being obliged, indebted, dependent. Worse being beholden may escalate to a negative sense of being bendable to another’s will/desire), ‘being under the thumb’ (with or without the accompanying Rolling Stones’ song lyrics playing in the back of one’s mind.)

 

And so given this underlying desire to not be beholden (which additionally may bolt/attach onto a feeling of loss of dignity a certain humiliation), seeks per money: financial independence, retirement income from passive sources, income adequacy for heirs, income protection from disability etc. ’ Yet, underneath the underneath of this acquisition (Cain in Hebrew) of this monetizing strategy is the seeking of the emotional  payoffs of avoiding taking crap, having to kiss ass due to fear of  loss freedom of choice and even worse loss of the sense / identity due to diminution of dignity/degradation  (being, therefore, ‘beneath’).

Money, therefore, however euphemized, spun, parsed becomes a desire commodity for the desired feeling of ‘FUability.’

And yet….

 

The More flesh the More worms, the More possessions, the More the More worry, the More wives the More witchcraft, the More maidservants the More lewdness, the More slaves the More slavery
Ethics of The Fathers 2:7
(font distinctions – this essayist)

 

Typically, More is not only ‘never enough’ – it is a hamster wheel of anxiety. Thus, the feeling of enough &  FUability at best just beyond reach ‘damn it.’  Interestingly, the pursuit of More, More, More has a habit of becoming not only Less, Worse, Later by increasing unnecessary risks and thus jeopardizing FUability! (Again – sacrificing what one needs for what one doesn’t need.)

Given the dependency on money for FUability (not being beholden) and the feeling of ‘never enough,’ one devalues the personal currency of one’s ‘own’ adaptability and resourcefulness in terms of self confidence! (Confidence – from the Latin – con: with, and fidelis – faith – with faith).

And yet, in the pursuit of not being beholden and its main strategy FUability’ to soothe, when in the pursuit of More one often -too often-  loses’ ‘the loving money feelin’’ as ‘it’s gone, gone, gone who’ (apologies to the Righteous Bros.)

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

2.0 Myopia: Assets Management Compensation Astigmatism - Assets Manager in Personal Financial Planner Clothing


2.0 Myopia: Assets Management Compensation Astigmatism -
Assets Manager in Personal Financial Planner Clothing
 

Does a personal financial planner manage goals or manage assets?

 A personal finance ‘commentator’ recently wrote the following statements:
1.     'A recent ‘innovation’ suggested by some advisers and managers  is to benchmark results relative to the ‘investor’ (financial planning) goals in the first place, rather than the manager’s comparable benchmark.
The premise of this assumption of a recent ‘innovation’ is historically incorrect. Going back to the ‘60’s Connecticut General Life Insurance was doing ‘Living Planning’ which matched living objectives/goals to living resources and survivor objectives/goals to survivor resources – on a present value basis adjusted for assumed inflation rates
Secondly, have the asset managers in financial planner clothing (compensated by a percentage of assets under management)  become born again ‘managing goals as their priority’ having ‘seen the light’ without a near death experience?’ Asset under management percentages are facing three headwinds lowering and compressing their percentage for assets under management from ‘the standard of 1%’:

-         Lower competitive percentage on assets under management by full or partial ‘robo’ advisers (i.e. Betterment etc)
-         smarter clients saying ‘why am I paying the same percentage for incremental dollar investment
-         lower expected rates of return from markets in general as anticipated due to demographic changes requiring increased withdrawals from the markets.
And viola’ – born again goals under management planner benchmarking as 'value added’ from the former ‘sinning’ (as in ‘missing the mark’ pun intended) assets manager in personal financial planner clothing. One can only wonder if there is a baptizing ceremony for these ‘missing the mark’ sinners. (Note in Greek – sin means missing the mark. Benchmark?)
2.      Benchmarking to goals measures investor results.
          The petticoat of percentage of assets under management compensation of an asset manager in financial planning clothes betrays the primary mindset of being an investment manager (inherent proclivity to ‘more’ given assets under management compensation) rather than a planner (managing goals). Benchmarking to goals/key result areas includes not just asset accumulation (education, slow down, retirement etc) but also:

-  asset protection (capital depletion due to health, disability etc  
- income conservation (tax reduction as a strategy for asset accumulation),
-  asset conservation (income adequacy for heirs, asset disposition according to desires, estate liquidity and shrinkage.

Thus if per Maslow all one knows is a hammer (or is compensated by assets under management percentage) then everything  will look like a nail (be about assets under management) and the other goals will get short shifted or worse nailed.
Benchmarking in personal financial planning is relative to the CLIENT’SNOT THE INVESTOR’S – goals. The use of the phrase ‘investor’s goals’ is ‘a tell’ as they say in poker – of an asset manager in personal financial planner clothing rather than personal financial planner. (Furthermore, like pulling a thread on a sweater, the client’s –goals interweave. For example, even long term care capital depletion or disability insurability questions may impact the cash reserves and or volatility the client can take relative to asset accumulation goals)).
 The ‘asset under management’ commentator apologist uses confusion to leave room for plausible denial for comebacks. But the question remains – what is the alternative to holding the engaged personal financial planner accountable other than progress or lack of progress thereof to the interrelationship and accountability of personal financial planning goals – to be on target, accomplished, and or maintained?  Stipulating to clients changing goals, their priority, and life changing events – each of the goals as applicable should be stated on a present value basis with an assumed after tax after inflation rate of return – risk adjusted – with date of start and duration with a year by year tracking to see if ‘on track.’ And yes, monte carlo et al should be run for the probability of success and or failure taking into account on the asset accumulation goals – the sequence of return risk to minimize the flaw of averages.
Thus, due to asset under management astigmatism/myopia confused as ‘personal financial planning’ the commentator confuses asset management with personal financial planning – maybe just maybe to protect the asset under management compensation bias and confirmation bias?

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Myopia: Assets Management Compensation Astigmatism - Assets Manager in Personal Financial Planner Clothing


Myopia: Assets Management Compensation Astigmatism -
Assets Manager in Personal Financial Planner Clothing 

Does a personal financial planner manage goals or manage assets?
 A personal finance ‘commentator’ recently wrote the following statements:

1.     'A recent ‘innovation’ suggested by some advisers and managers  is to benchmark results relative to the ‘investor’ (financial planning) goals in the first place, rather than the manager’s comparable benchmark.

The premise of this assumption of a recent ‘innovation’ is historically incorrect. Going back to the ‘60’s Connecticut General Life Insurance was doing ‘Living Planning’ which matched living objectives/goals to living resources and survivor objectives/goals to survivor resources – on a present value basis adjusted for assume inflation rates
Secondly, are the asset managers in financial planner clothing compensated by a percentage of assets under management  born again ‘managing goals having ‘seen the light’ without a near death experience?’ Asset under management percentages are facing three headwinds of lower competitive percentages by full or partial robo managers, smarter clients saying ‘why am I paying the same percentage for incremental dollar investment, and lower expected rates of return from markets in general as anticipated thus facing compression of asset under management percentage they can charge. And viola’ – born again goals under management planner benchmarking - as 'value added.' One can only wonder if there is a baptizing ceremony.

2.      Benchmarking to goals measures investor results.

          The petticoat of an asset manager in financial planning clothes betrays the primary mindset of being an investment manager rather than a planner. Benchmarking to goals/key result areas includes not just asset accumulation (education, slow down, retirement etc) but also asset protection (capital depletion due to health, disability etc, income conservation (tax reduction as a strategy for asset accumulation), asset conservation (income adequacy for heirs, asset disposition according to desires, estate liquidity and shrinkage. Thus if all one knows (or is compensated by assets under management percentage) then everything will be about assets under management and the other goals will get short shifted or worse nailed.
Benchmarking in personal financial planning is relative to the client’s – NOT THE INVESTOR’S – goals. The use of the phrase ‘investor’s goals’ is ‘a tell’ as they say in poker – of an asset manager in personal financial planner clothing rather than personal financial planner. (Furthermore, like pulling a thread on a sweater, the client’s – again ‘client’s’ goals interweave. For example, even long term care capital depletion or disability insurability questions may impact the cash reserves and or volatility the client can take relative to asset accumulation goals)).
 The ‘asset under management’ commentator apologist uses confusion to leave room for plausible denial for comebacks. But the question remains – what is the alternative to holding the engaged personal financial planner accountable other than progress or lack of progress thereof to the interrelationship and accountability of personal financial planning goals – interrelated as they maybe – to be on target, accomplished, and or maintained?  Stipulating to client changing goals, their priority, and life changing events – each of the goal as applicable should be stated on a present value basis with an assumed after tax after inflation rate of return – risk adjusted – as a start with a year by year tracking to see if ‘on track.’ And yes, monte carlo et al should be run for the probability of success and failure taking into account on the asset accumulation goals – the sequence of return risk to minimize the flaw of averages.
Due to asset under management astigmatism/myopia confused as ‘personal financial planning’ the commentator confuses asset management with personal financial planning – maybe just maybe to protect asset under management compensation bias and confirmation bias?

Sunday, April 22, 2018

The Tightwaddery---ENOUGH--- More Continuum - Historic Revisionism & Omission

The Tightwaddery---ENOUGH--- More Continuum - Historic Revisionism

MONEY (tim) Magazine Cover : F.I.R.E, Vicki Robin,& Joe Dominquez

I knew Joe Domingez who started it all = not Vicki Robin  for what has now become FIRE
That said - Joe's 'enough' (he published in 1992 like I did) is explained I believe in the context of a continuum of enough

On one end is More on the other end is tightwaddery
 
Enough is in the middle with variations - Joe's was more toward fiscal restraint even tightwaddery --- at the time there was a Kiplinger's cover story of a guy shining his shoes with a banana peel to say money... There was even the Tightwad Gazette.

The enough I professed at the time was 'one man's floor was another man's ceiling'.

So there wasn't the political agenda in my approach to Enough as there was in the tightwad and Joe's at the time

Furthermore, the enough approach I wrote of took more of the emphasis on aligning personal financial resources with life goals and values as you would see from my book 1st edition which was the culmination of my writings on enough from 1977 on.

From enough being 'clientle realizable goal determination with orderly plans for achievement' (1977) evolving to aligning personal fnancial resources  to achieve life goals and mission (1990's) to today enough is 'healing financial anxiety, puttin' money in its place, to transcend - elevate- connect and align to one's significance/assignment - what one is meant to do, meant to be - enough to live for, enough to live on (c)

So there is this continuum to consider -- but both would agree '- why sacrifice what you need (for enough) for what you don't need (for more - by more-ons__)

Interesting the historical revisionism and omissions by Money Magazine

84% & The Death of Today’s: Accounting, Security Analysis & Asset Manager Compensation in Personal Financial Planning Clothing


84%  & The Death of Today’s: Accounting,
 Security Analysis & Asset Manager Compensation
 in Personal Financial Planning Clothing

According to investment group Ocean Tomo, 84% of the S&P 500’s market value is comprised of intangible assets.
 Patents, trade secrets and brand reputation are the lifeblood of many modern business.
Best’s Review, ‘Insuring Intangible Risks,’  p47, April 2018

(note: A.M. Best Company provides news, credit ratings and financial data products and services for the insurance industry since 1899)

Given the above:

·         What is the value & usefulness of corporate balance sheets prepared by accountants?
·         As for securities analysis – Johnny Carson being reincarnated as Carnac the Magnificent – would be more reliable in predictions (especially given security analysts rely heavily on the corporate income, balance sheets, and cash flow statements provided by Accountants in Wonderland (with or without Alice but certainly the Mad Hatter.)
·         How can personal financial planners, compensated as a percentage of assets under management like asset managers, play asset manager selecting stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etfs’ etc? What added value do these asset under management compensated personal financial planners provide?
·         How can actuaries – the same one’s responsible for long term care policy screw ups even after the travesty of crash value life insurance premiums blowing up and companies going under in the early 90’s – insure these risks – without a firm calculation of values?

As a recovering fee only personal financial planner who practiced the concept of Enough in contrast to the More of moreon planners, personal financial planning is about managing goals not managing assets. Planners – especially asset under management compensated asset managers in financial planning clothing – manage assets often to an orphan secondary status even to the detriment of other personal financial planning goals (recall Maslow: if all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail ---((or assets under management??))). Now given the Tomo Study unless disputed and the compression of asset under management percentages due to robo advisors, planners will have to – need to – go back to personal financial planning – managing goals.

PS: Isn't it interesting this study has not been exposed to date in The Wall Street Journal, and accounting journals - given the monumental impact on accounting, securities analysis, risk management. One can only wonder why - as inquiring minds want to know.

Sunday, March 25, 2018

Stock Market Media Personal Financial Pornography


Stock Market Financial Cable Media Pornography - the conflating of the nominal with the relative in the stock market averages

A 400 point 'nominal) move down on a Dow Jones of 25,000 is a 1.6% (relative) move. Yet to listen to CNN or CNBC (neither friendly to the Trump administration) 400 points is Armageddon

Now at 40 point (nominal) move down on a Dow Jones 1000 is 4% (relative & move) for example I don't recall getting the out sized over reaction i.e. an Erin Burnett 'boo-hoo leading' cadence of doom (on steroids with the excuse 'if it bleeds it leads' or 'we didn't have cable then.'

Yet a 400 point move up on a Dow Jones 25,000, if to be consistent, should have the same out sized reaction and cadence - but is then just a rebound- bounce back - correction of an over correction - dead cat bounce" etc given less time and frantic response. (A study of body language I believe would bear me out).

And yes by the same token - though with less frenzy - fox business on the upside elevates the positive  and downplays the downside but certainly with less vigor though with some cheer leading

Confusing (deliberately and purposefully) the nominal with relative is if anything 'soft' stock market pornography reporting with a political agenda

Saturday, January 13, 2018

MORE & Being ‘SPECIAL’



MORE & Being ‘SPECIAL

(you’re) 1 in a million
cliche

One in a million indicates special.
Yet even if true, being 1 in a million of 7 billion people in the world, one is merely 1 out of 7,000!
So much for ‘special.’

One singular sensation
Lyric from Chorus Line’s Singular Sensation

What motivates the pursuit of special (when certificates of participation – make everyone a winner - special)?

Money?
Sex?
Recognition? (which is envied and certainly fades)
Legacy? (really, tell me the name of your great, great, great grandfather).

By implication – even though no snowflake is alike (including the campus crybullies, coddled cupcakes and their pampered unaccountable scholar barrens professors) if one is not special (an American Idol?) – they are losers, worthless.
1 in 7000.

Special doesn’t promote humility – ok maybe false modesty to reinforce one’s ‘specialness.’

If one isn’t special – at best they are ordinary, regular, common, bourgeois and or in the Hillary Clinton dickionary – deplorable. At worse, if not special unique distinctive exceptional, extraordinary, one is worthless – not “one singular sensation
MORE seeks extra©

          The ‘special quest’ (with or without peyote) bolsters and fortifies the pursuit of MORE.
          If one is ‘right,’ one is ‘better.’ And if one is ‘better’ one gets MORE (sex, money, recognition, etc) And if one gets MORE he or she must be ‘worthy’ and ‘good.’
          Thus, A Special MORE-on (Big G stands for goodness – Cheerios™ or Special K from Kelloggs – ‘k- e- double l- o double - gg’ kelloggs’s best to you.)
          1 in 7000

Isn’t that special
Dana Carvey as The Church Lady

Despite a lack of confidence, and as one never accused of humility ('I was wrong once, and even then I was mistaken”), petitioning of Hashem (as a Celestial Major Domo) rather than acknowledging & ascribing to Hashem has been my habit. (That said, my standard poodle of excellence Goodie, ‘her Royal Highness,’ of blessed memory, made a point of taking me down a notch or 20 while my Moses, my standard poodle friend of the soul, had my clay feet on a pedestal – and yet reminded me daily Torah study time.)

It is said that Moses was the most humblest of men. Moses was chosen by Hashem to lead the Israelites out of Egypt (Egypt- mitzrareim – meaning narrow places, restrictions) per the following story:

 It seems a lamb wondered from the flock. Moses found the lamb drinking near water and carried the lamb back to the herd. Thus, if Moses could treat this lamb in this manner – with this humility – he could lead the Israelites out of Egypt (and endure the constant baa baa baa-ing, complaining and kvetching per The Book of Numbers/Kvetchings of our ancestral Hebrews!)

And yet, Moses (the most humblest of men) and his brother Aaron were denied entrance to the promise land for ascribing to themselves – being special (worse divine) – in bringing water out of the rock.

You didn’t build it (implying we – the government did)
Fairoah Obama & Poca-haunt-us

          No, Elizabeth & Balaam Barack, all is derivative (fabricated) originally from Hashem and fabricated from there. (From no-thing – something – then something from something).  And, though admittedly guilty I as well, we so called self made men (“persons” in PC) are those who worship their creator – are but the singer not the song writer, the fabricator even innovative but not the  inventor. All is derivative from Hashem. If that recognition was internalized,  there would be greater humility and less pursuit of being e-specially special realizing and remembering but 1 in 7000.

The journey isn’t conquering new lands but seeing with new eyes
Proust

Humility, acknowledgment – gratitude may lead to a modicum of joy (simcha) but being special (being well known for being well known) or e-specially worse - being special via stolen valor – is never ‘enough.’  Acknowledgment, gratitude & humility (not this writer’s forte) isn’t dependency, isn’t acceding to predetermination/preordination (at the expense of free will and self determination within limitations(1). The recognition of acknowledgment actually may yield a certain simcha (joy)(2) in contrast to the externally derived so called happiness.
Walking with God (and his emissary dog(s) if lucky) continuing to complete one’s incompletions & one’s assignment INside out in humility, gratitude and acknowledgment – that makes the extraordinary out of the ordinary and being ‘special’ - 1 of 7000 or 1 in a million doesn’t matter.


(1)    At 5’5 ½” (on a good morning) it is predetermined this writer would never plan center for the NBA’s Denver Nuggets (not even the Philadelphia 76ers when they went 12 and 70. So free will is limited. Furthermore, there is the limitation by Lamentations – all is preordained but you have free choice – another Jewish Koan (actually Cohen)
(2)    Simcha (joy) is INside out not ‘as’ dependent on OUTside as the illusion of happiness is. Happiness is a sensation – requiring higher and higher dosages to palliate – for happiness’ altered stae whereas Simcha is, at best, an ‘altar’ed state.