Satisficing – Jewish Personal Financial Planning
Is there an inherent bias against ‘enough’ in our language?
“It’s so satisfying”
paraphrasingMars’ Snickers Commercial Jingle
(same Mars that owns Banfield Vet Hospitals that aren’t so satisfying)
The root word ‘satis’ is Latin means ‘satisfactory, adequate, enough.’ As such, colloquially in American culture (and others) enough is merely adequate a ‘C’ whereas ‘more’ is the preference – assumed to be ‘better, good and worthy’ as per Rockefeller when asked what was enough – he replied ‘a little more’ and yet as e.e. cummings wrote, ‘more, more, more – what are we all morticians.’ The irony in personal finances ‘more, better, now’ has a habit of becoming ‘less, worse, later.’
Back to ‘satis’ and it’s implications:
American Nobel-laureate Herbert Simon coined the word ‘satisfice’ to mean aiming for a satisfactory – adequate result rather than the maximum or even optimal result in negotiations – and decisions. Per satisficing ‘good enough’ is enough.
I would counter – in personal financial planning with the filter of ‘managing goals rather than managing assets’ good enough – is making the goal. If the goal after tax and inflation risk adjust requires 4% and the Dow Jones even after tax and inflation is 14% - who cares under the assumption of managing goals. But under the ‘more, better, now’ comparative assets under management heuristic – the financial advisor/asset manager in personal financial planner masquerade – the advisor failed.
Why because the masquerading planning – the planner pretentious – was in the ‘more’ business – the assets under management business – managing assets not goals – NOT in the personal financial planning business regardless how one particular writer who also works for an asset under management firm tries to white wash the situation.
Good Enough – making the goal – is not Enough for the asset under management personal financial planning pretenders – and this hoax is reinforced by the compensation method of a percentage of assets under management – rather than compensation that reinforces the model of ‘managing goals.’
Asset Under Management compensation holding themselves out as Personal Financial Planners – ain’t so satisfying nor satisficing.
The so-called titling personal financial planning firm compensated by assets under management – is something to ‘snicker at’ and in reality from ‘mars.’
Still, how could Yaakov give so much to Esau (though some might argument in appeasement)? Because as Yaakov/Israel said ‘I have plenty’ as in Shaddai (Hashem) – the ultimate ‘enough’ beyond the current currency – of the ultimate currency – faith that Shaddai ("God, God Almighty, God All Sufficient, Enough") is Enough to ‘more’ than ‘suffice.’ )
Obviously, Yaakov would not engage an ‘assets under management’ faux personal financial planner – though Esau probably would.