Bashert 'Meant To Be' : In Relationships, with Dogs, & Personal Financial Planning

Bashert ( meant to be ) In Relationships, with Dogs & Personal Financial Planning

Bashert, often spelled Beshert – fated - has come to mean primarily – soul mate paired to ‘reattachment’ & ‘love’ when bashert originally was defined as ‘meant to be’ with often times an element of ‘again.’

            A story – and please forgive the poetic license.

            The Chasidic Shlomo Schwartz was going into the city on the NY Transit subway, and he noticed the woman seated across from him.

            He doesn’t know why – and especially never having seen her previously – he felt affection for her.

            Yet, he didn’t introduce himself as:

• They weren’t properly introduced which is the Chasidic way (the good reason)
• He didn’t have the gumption (real reason number #1)
• He didn’t have a wing man to say to her ‘do you know Shlomo’ – ala the How I Met Your Mother tv show method – ( real reason #2)

Shlomo was bothered for several days with recurring regrets of ‘should haves and if onlys ( I should have, if only I had) such while replaying that day on the subway over and over and over again while driving – he didn’t pay attention to his speed and was ticketed.

Finally, the day came for him to go to court as he wanted to contest the ticket.

All rose for the judge’s entry.

Adorned in the judge’s black robe hearing Shlomo’s case was ‘the woman on the subway.’

Shlomo didn’t beat the fine but after his sentencing he made ‘points’ with ‘the judge’ as he began his ‘courting.’

Bashert – meant to be.

Again

            Bashert (meant to be) is not limited to human relationships.

Max, the Alpha Romeo, black standard poodle and Yaakov ‘The Balagola’ Schwartz were ‘meant to be.’

Yaakov first met Max and his brother one day outside Petco. As his former guardian wrote to Yaakov, “Max immediately recognized you, like an old friend. That very dog that was so protective of me actually went up to you to cuddle with you, if he recognized a long lost friend… I thought about that encounter for a long time because there was something surreal about Max's reaction, like love at first sight. I had never seen Max behave that way towards a stranger, ever… Too many coincidences. No good explanation really. It was meant to be, you and Max.”

A year to that day later, Max came to live with Yaakov & his standard poodles Moses and Elle.

           

Max  would escape his former guardian’s house if a door was open or just jump their 6’ fence and ‘have an adventure.’ In addition, despite repeated requests, Max would never sleep on the guardians’ bed.

            That very first night and for 9 years thereafter, Max would sleep with Yaakov (against his left hand side). Furthermore, Max never escaped or jumped the 6” backyard fence.

            Max was Yaakov’s Alpha Romeo dog.

            On one hand, 10 squirrels, 7 rabbits, 5 birds killed which he would bring into the house ‘to share’ and yet, on the other hand, he would daily sidle up against Yaakov and to the request of ‘hug, hug’ lower his head into his chest gently nudging him.

            Even on Max’s last day on this earth, had there had been a physical threat Yaakov, Max would have summoned his last bit of strength to revert to 5 years of age – to protect him – as The Dog In Black - judge, jury, and executioner (forget tickets and points).

            Max, Bashert – meant to be

            (One day, again, Max!)

            And Bashert (meant to be) is not limited to human and canine relationships. Discovery of bashert (meant to be) ideally can be connected to and enabled by personal financial life planning

I’ve cut so much hair, I’ve lost my concept

Warren Beatty in Shampoo

            The explicit and implicit promise of personal financial planning is the alignment of personal resources to achieve life goals and values. Ideally, personal financial planning and better yet personal financial life planning’s purpose is to heal personal financial anxiety by puttin’ money in its place to enable connection and transcendence of clients to their significance – to their bashert – (their meant to be – their Why I Am.)

 (do not) place a stumbling block before the blind

Leviticus 19:14

(nor to those to whom you owe ‘substitute reliance’)

Yaakov, The Balagola

            Yet, systemically, regardless of compensation method, fiduciary declarations ‘real or airbrushed’, personal financial planning, AND (as generally practiced) personal financial life planning has succumbed to the overarching ephemeral seduction of ‘more’ which is never ‘enough.’

            More, more, more, despite protestations to the contrary, trumps, body (and soul) slams, and supersedes aligning personal resources and life goals and values let alone enabling clients’ transcendence and connection to their significance – their bashert – their meant to be.

And ironically, more, better now becomes all too often less, worse and later as more is never enough.

            Being a MORE-on is detrimental not only to one’s fiscal and physical health but also spiritually crowding out and contraindicating to bashert (meant to be)

            The derivative fiscal symptoms of ‘more is never enough’ (besides ‘if onlys,’ external blaming, and or internal recriminations):

• focusing on which one /what kind (stock, bond, sector etf etc)
• external relative comparison to indexes (Dow Jones, S&P) rather than goals
• in sum, managing assets instead of managing goals.

            Without excusing MOREon personal financial planning and personal financial life planning’s useful idiot co-conspirator role, more is cultural. More ‘temporarily’ externally validates by comparison those who have ‘more’ (as if they are right, better, good, and relatively more worthy and worthwhile). This external more validation is reinforced by the duality of not having more meaning one is (without enunciation though a wink) less, worse, bad and not as worthwhile.

            Driven, overarching More, More, More drowns out the voice, the space for, and discovery of bashert(s) (meant to be) in comparison and fear.

---

We are not able to go up against the people (the Canaanites) for they are stronger than we

Numbers 13:31

Stronger than we is also translated ‘stronger than HIM’

Sotah 35a

            According to some there are 100+ names or relationships to God. In particular, the meaning of Shaddai in Hebrew according to Rabbi Twerski is ‘God, God Almighty, God All Sufficient, enough.

             There is no name for God that means ‘more.’

---

            At best, the ENOUGH(SM) approach to personal financial life planning – may – at best remove or at worst move to the curb a few stumbling blocks thus creating space for ‘what is meant to be’ (bashert). (1) The point is there is no space – only stumbling blocks to one’s bashert – meant to be (mission, purpose etc in this context) given the overarching driver of more, more, more.

            More, more, more suffocates bashert

Dogs create space for bashert.

As far as soul mate bashert –  drive within the speed limits (so sayeth Yaakov, The Balagola)

---

(1) For more info on the ENOUGH(SM) approach ((and in particular, the Personal Prospectus tool)) see my books by the same title (out of print put probably available for $1 of less) and or go to the blog: www.healingfinancialanxiety.blogspot.) Forthcoming over next few months shall be another ebook/tool: The Soul Resume©: Judaic Version – subtitled - Why Should I Be Admitted To Olam Haba (World To Come/Heaven)! (A question mark is probably more appropo!)

Seneca, Yaakov, Esau & Cummings (Not A Law Firm)

No man is crushed by misfortune unless he has first been deceived by prosperity

Seneca, 4 BC – AD 65)  Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist

No man is crushed by misfortune unless he has first, last and always been deceived by MORE

Schwartz, Professional Provocateur

Eesh ha kol – I have all – Yaakov

Enough?

Eesh ha rav – I have much – Esau

Much? More?

                            More, more, more - what are we all morticians? 

e.e. cummings

Dirt, Mud & Sludge: More vs Enough

Dirt, Mud & Sludge: More vs Enough

            In Hebrew adom (man) is derived from adama (from dirt -earth).

            Indeed, we are the Adams Family needing to wash our hands

            As dark is necessary for light, the dirt from which we came is fundamental to the cleansing process of creation. The process: incomplete creation, cleansing, confusion, descending (down to go up – Egypt to Israel), and re-ascension.

Sha-dai (in Hebrew) =(Sha)Who-(dai) Enough

A Dirty Personal Financial Life Planning Demonstration 

of More vs Enough

When I conducted personal financial planning life workshops, I demonstrated how more, better, now became ‘worse, less, and later’ through a simple exercise.

Necessary for the demonstration was:

· a willing volunteer (preferably a doubting ‘more-on’)
· two fistfuls of dirt
· a sprinkling can
· a towel
· a trowel

The demonstration proceeded as follows:

1. I’d ask the volunteer to put out both hands – into each I would put a good size lump of dirt with the trowel
2. I would sprinkle water onto the dirt in one hand – till it absorbed.
3. Then I would continue to sprinkle water until it became mud
4. Not satisfied, I would continue to sprinkle water until the mud itself was liquid –running through the volunteers
5. Being the kind gentle normal person I am I would then offer my assistance with towel to dry off the first hand
6. Next I would sprinkle water on the dirt in the second hand and stop as soon as it was absorbed by the dirt without it becoming mud or dripping.

I then would turn to the audience and ask (which still stunned)), “what is the moral of this demonstration?” (No one ever answered!)

And the moral of the demonstration I would finally tell them, is: more vs enough: more, better, now has a way of becoming less, worse, and later slipping through your fingers.

Thus, the ‘less-on’ of ‘more vs enough’ aka trowel and error OR ‘dropping trowel.’

"Dear God, give us another oil boom and, this time, we promise we won't piss it away’

Bumper Sticker

            Neither a Hoover Windtunnel™, nor a Eureka Smart Vac™, let alone Dyson and its claimed suction power – is enough to clean and cleanse the dirt turned sludge and mire from  more, more, more.

            Instead of ascending, more, in time, descends.

            The question isn’t more (which slips through one’s fingers) or a particular number (which gets recalibrated) but ‘enough’ of Sha-dai: enough to live for – enough to live on as a member of Adam’s Family

The Origins of the Never Enough More Imperative

The Origins of the Never Enough More Imperative

You are not obligated to complete the work but neither are you free to abandon it

Rabbi Tarfon, Ethics of the Fathers 2:16

            Man, identified with his physical body as ‘being’ himself, fears that physical death is his extinction. Given this fear, and man’s bodily identification of his body as himself, man operates from a state of ‘LACK’ (lacktose intolerance). As a result, man seeks acquisition (Cain in Hebrew) as his principle strategy (be it money, power, prestige, religious obedience brownie points etc.) to secure immortality (continuation, permanence, certainty) now or in the afterlife (physical resurrection) or at a minimum diversionary palliation.  

More, more, more

What the hell are we all morticians

e.e. cummings.

The principle derivative tactic of the LACK Acquisition Strategy is More, More, More for Im-MORE-Tality. Ironically, More, More, More typically results in less, worse, and later). The MORE heuristic itself is sequentially encased in a mutually exclusive duality of shame versus pride. Starting with the utilitarian question of whether one is useful, functional, or service OR not, the MORE-ality© Ladder in one’s valuation ascension becomes

One is Right                                                    OR                  One is Wrong

(& if RIGHT)                                                                          (& if WRONG)

One gets MORE                                                                     One gets LESS

(& if one gets MORE)                                                                        (& if one gets LESS)

One is BETTER                                                                      One is WORSE

(& if one is BETTER)                                                             (& if one is WORSE)

One is a WINNER                                                                  One is a LOSER

(& if one is a WINNER)                                                         (& if one is a LOSER)

One is GOOD                                                                         One is BAD

(& if one is GOOD)                                                                (& if one is BAD)

One is WORTHY(2)                                                               One is WORTHless

(& if one is WORTHY)                                                          (& if one is WORTHless)

One is GODLY                                                                      One is EVIL

            Thus, MOREality for Immortality is the aim (consciously or unconsciously) of MOREons to satisfy or palliate their fear (mortality) of their LACK (immortality).

            An ongoing problem with the MORE from LACK heuristic is: The ‘IF ONLYs.’ The IF ONLY illusory rap (by haves, have nots, and have a little wants some more) goes like this: if only I have this, if only I do that, if only – then I’ll be happy.

Happy, typically cut with impure HOPEium©, is a gateway drug of acquisition’s MORE to satisfy the IF ONLY LACK. The problem with the desired state of Happy being achieved IF ONLY is when IF ONLY #1 is satisfied, IF ONLY #2 is promoted in a never ending cycle.  The MORE – IF ONLY - Happy – sequence to attain permanence, continuation, certainty just recycles for the LACKawannas of the LACKawanna Be Tribe. And ‘more, more, more,’ becomes as Edward Abbey stated, ‘the ideology of the (deadly) cancer cell.’

            Given the LACK, Acquisition, More, IF ONLY, Happily Ever’after model, there is ‘never enough’ and attainment of certainty, continuity, and permanence becomes Sisyphusian -  always just beyond one’s HOPEium© fueled grasp.

AUM Part III AUM Inherently MORE, MORE, MORE MOREon Personal Financial Planning

Assets under Management (AUM) ‘Fee Only Planning Compensation’ Conflicts: Part III

AUM Inherently MORE, MORE, MORE MOREon Personal Financial Planning

More, better, now has a habit of becoming less worse later

Alas quoting myself

            Sacrificing what we need for what we don’t need isn’t personal financial planning but the pursuit of ‘more for more’s sake’ which is ‘the ideology of the cancer cell’ according to writer Edward Abbey. The usual motivation for more (at the expense of enough) is comparative valuation of worthiness by ‘net worth.’ The result all too often: more, better, now  becomes less worse later.

            Assets under Management (AUM) reinforces this self destructive behavioral pattern of relative comparison to others, to indexes (Dow Jones, S&P) rather than measuring progress or lack thereof relative to each individual personal financial goal.

            In the D. H Lawrence’s story, ‘The Rocking Horse Winner,’ the family of little boy Paul is living way beyond its means. Paul mysteriously discovers by rocking faster and faster – the names of winning races horses come to him. Of course, the spendthrift family parlays these tips into its bankroll. (Rock ‘n Bankroll?) However, to get more, and more, and more winning names – Paul has to rock the Rocking Horse faster and faster – until Paul dies of exhaustion.

            ‘More, more, more –what are we all more-ticians’ – e.e. cummings.

            More, more, more - Assets under Management.

            AUM pays off on the ‘more’ assets under management not ‘enough’ assets to meet the goals with the least risk. The more assets under management – the more AUM pays. Inherent in this compensation is often taking ‘more’ risk than necessary for the goal. And more risk – more leverage (i.e. keeping a larger mortgage so as to have more available assets in the market) cuts both ways – especially on the downside.

            AUM is inherently The Rocking Horse Winner approach which too often causes a lot of whinnying, the Dow Jones becomes the Downer Jones, and Mr. & Ms. Planner lose clients especially in down markets.

            A test of AUM’s focus: In down markets do clients ask:

·         How did I do relative to the Dow, S&P etc OR

·         Do I still have ENOUGH?

Odds are the former not the latter.

Therefore, is AUM the most or least consistent compensation method relative to  the mission of personal financial planning: aligning clients personal resources (financial or otherwise) to support their life goals and values or really primarily a Trojan Horse for Assets under Management gathering?

They swayed about upon a rocking horse, And thought it Pegasus.

-John Keats, 'Sleep and Poetry

Assets under Management (AUM) ‘Fee Only Planning Compensation’ Conflicts: Part II

Assets under Management (AUM) ‘Fee Only Planning Compensation’ Conflicts: Part II

(Jim so) Assets under Management (AUM) compensation is like federal tax withholding – less painful than writing a check every quarter. You don’t feel it as it’s ‘taken out.’

A former client reacting AUM Part I

…but with less probability of refund

            I didn’t realize that the phrase assets under management was a synonym for fee anesthesia, & from planner having to justify the value of his services less often than a monthly check written by a client on a monthly retainer.

           

            I recall in the early 90’s many a commission (transaction compensated) and fee and commission  ‘financial’ planners asking me, ‘how do I transition to fee only planning with my existing client base?’

            I had two answers that I would suggest – tell the client

1. In one year, I shall go to fee only compensation. You are more than welcome to continue the same compensation method for a year – or change now, but in a year my practice will be compensated fee only. It’s your choice.  OR
2. I’ve been screwing you all these years, and I’ve finally decided to go legit.

No one took me up on option #2 to the best of my knowledge which would have been refreshing.

            Nearly all of these planners who made the transition choose to be compensated on a basis of assets under management. Some have tried to have it both ways (BI-Financial Planners?) – AUM for assets manage plus an charging an additional small flat fee for the planning. The fee plus AUM reinforces the point of AUM compensated personal financial planning as a Trojan horse for being asset managers camouflaged as a personal financial planners.

We do what’s inspected rather than expected and focus on what is compensated.

It is time for asset under management compensation planners to fess up and NAPFA to make a full disclosure note with biographies of its members of how they are compensated: hourly, flat fee, retainer, fee and commission, assets under management etc.

The above said, regardless of compensation method, the real question is doing an audit of the progress, you the client, is making towards or maintaining his personal financial goals (which is in both editions of my book Enough: A Handbook for Your Personal Financial Planning – out of print but probably you can get it for 99cents on the web).r entries on this blog).  The Personal Financial Planning Audit should be done upon engaging the planner (to establish a baseline), quarterly at a minimum the first year of the plan engagement, and at least annually thereafter to monitor progress.

Set up a chart: with goals down the left hand side. For example:

1. Providing adequate income upon total disability
2. Providing adequate income upon partial disability
3. Minimizing capital depletion due to illness
4. Minimizing capital depletion due to nursing home/home health care
5. Providing for the kids education
6. Providing for 100% of income from passive sources (retirement)
7. Providing for 50% of income from passive sources (slow down) for some period prior to retirement)
8. Minimizing liability: unintended creditors, personal guarantees etc
9. Becoming independent of your independent business
10. Providing adequate income for your spouse upon your passing
11. Aligning your life goals with your personal resources
12. Healing personal financial anxiety putting money in its place to transcend to significance
13. Knowing what ENOUGH is
14. Knowing what ENOUGH is versus MORE
15. Etc etc.

Horizontally, have a scale from 1-10 (1 being lowest, 10 being highest) and grade where you are at now (if about to engage a planner). If you already have engaged a planner, think back and grade where you were before planning and do a first ranking (baseline and date it as of the beginning of the planning engagement). Next do the ranking again (separate sheet of paper and date it). The questions then become for comparison REGARDLESS OF COMPENSATION METHOD - has there been progress advance/ maintenance towards satisfying your goals or has there been retreat and or failure? (You might also note if retreat – has there been a concurrent increase of good lunches the planner has taken you to – to message your bottom and bottom line on goals?)

Comprehensive personal financial life planners manager goals; asset managers manage assets (and are typically compensated by YOUR ASSets under Management.

And that is a Salient fact.

Assets under Management (AUM) ‘Fee Only Planning Compensation’ Conflicts - Part I

Assets under Management (AUM) ‘Fee Only Planning Compensation’ Conflicts - Part I

(low saliency pricing ((disclosure-jds))…. can be positive for (the personal financial planner’s businesses by) making it more comfortable and less of a slap (seeing what they are paying each month/quarter?-jds) in the face for the consumers who purchase the business’ bona fide goods and services’

From A Financial Planner’s Blog

            Really???

            So less reminder –frequency -of what the client pays – is a good thing for the client, less ‘salient’?

            Really???

I still await the definition of saliency from the writer.

            But the synonyms for salient are: most important, relevant, significant, leading.

            And so ‘low saliency’ (low importance) in personal financial planning compensation is:

·         Rationalization and justification for low or no transparency of compensation (fool) disclosure

·         Disguised protectionism (anti trust activity at the least – violation of trust at worst) for personal financial planners’ compensation

·         And or paternalism at its worst

The question for this entry is the inherent problems with assets under management (AUM) compensation method of fee only personal financial planners. The bigger question is: is this method of personal financial planner compensation (consciously or unconsciously) conducive and consistent with the practice of integrative comprehensive personal financial planning or really just an asset gathering marketing by asset managers in personal financial planner clothing?

Behavior is a function of its consequences – we continue to do what we are rewarded for and avoid, extinguish the behavior that have negative consequences or lack of reward.

Yes, there are inherent potential problems with all methods of fee only personal financial planning compensation. In particular:

·         Hourly: a license to be inefficient and often negative reinforcement relative to the client calling the planning (especially before the fact) as the client is concerned about the clock ticking on each and every 5 minute call.

·         Flat retainer: from the planner’s standpoint this can lead to over utilization of his services while for the client, he or she wonders if the price monthly or quarterly is worth it.

·         AUM: Asset under Management Percentage (with the emphasis on ‘under’): As Maslow said, if all you know is a hammer, everything will look like a nail.’ The other areas of personal financial planning process - asset protection (e.g. insurance against capital depletion etc)), asset conservation (e.g estate planning, ever income conservation (e.g tax planning) have a tendency to become second class citizens – orphans overlooked – as asset accumulation (AUM) compensation pays the bills. (Note: assets under management is typically the highest valuation method to maximize the value of the personal financial planning firm upon sale – not that that would have an impact on the choice of compensation method.)

·         Percentage of Income against a Percentage of Net Worth whichever is greater. (Relatively few planners use this method – which probably has some value for high income low net worth individuals – professionals – doctors –athletes).

·         Percentage of Net Worth (not including house and personal property): The positive the planner pays attention to facilitating the closed held business owner becoming financially independent  of his independent business  The negatives: most planners, have little business planning skills (and don’t even have a business plan for themselves) so the planner would be way overpaid without these type of skills.)

·         Bracket fees (both for initial plan) and an ongoing planning (monthly retainer). The positive – clients won’t hesitate to call before the fact and know what their maximum cost will be. Instead of the compensation derived from assets under management and the focus thereof, the planner is managing goals instead of an inherent focus accumulation in the assets under management compensation method. The negatives: first, the planner will have to know his planning process to not be over utilized. Secondly, with the client writing a check monthly or quarterly (rather than just being taken out of the Schwab account ‘painlessly’), the planner has to continue to establish his value – relative to goals being made or maintained (poor baby!)

Ok- it’s obvious, I prefer the bracketed fees method of compensation. And yes, it is my opinion, that assets under management compensation – is but a soft commission and inherently a Trojan horse for gathering assets rather than personal financial planning. And yes, with its inherent focus on assets under management more, more, more becomes accumulation (which may or may not be necessary, managing assets INSTEAD OF managing goals) becomes the aim..

Cases in point (and not isolated) of AUM’s focus shortchanging to the detriment of managing goals?

• AUM planners overlooking Long Term Care risk (which if incurred would have cannibalized the retirement goal)
• AUM planners forgetting about replacement value by ordinance on home owners insurance (cost about $30)– which resulted in one homeowner this writer was informed of having to come up with $30,000 even though he had replacement value on his Florida property).
• Complaint ratios? (closed complaint ratio on homeowner and auto insurers)  “That’s my clients frequency of bortzing about their spouses,” one AUMer said to me. (And the AUM planner wasn’t kidding). Schwartz’s law on insurance: What good is a Mercedes (great financially strong company), that is the shop all the time (high complaint ratio), and if it has no gas (lousy policy)? All three elements are necessary: financial strength, low complaint ratio, excellent policy terms.
• The worst: AUM planners (SUB PRIME AUMers?) telling clients to maximize their mortgage (instead of paying it down or paying it off which would lower their slow down or retirement goal need) and instead put the money into the market to get higher returns (as well as leveraged higher returns on their home). How did that turn out, Bunkie? (Over and over again from planners I heard this old saw (rationalization)– and each in  case the ‘so called’ planners were compensated on the basis of AUM! .The risky desire for PREMATURE ACCUMULATION RESULTED IN PREMATURE DECUMULATION PRIOR TO DISTRIBUTION or Personal Financial Planner Ejectile Dysfunction.
•  Despite disability insurer UNUM being downgraded 13 times, AUM planners of my acquaintance didn’t move their client’s disability coverage (even when there was no insurability question) as ‘the insurance guy is on top of the situation.’ (Meaning don’t bother me, I have assets to manage – that’s my job.)

 

Yes, fee only planners compensated on the other methods could have made the same mistakes. However, especially on the mortgage situation, the other methods did not have the incentive to leverage large mortgages increasing the planner’s asset base of compensation for the planner’s compensation benefit.

Part II will focus on the Bracketed Initial Plan and Flat Fee Retainer as well as judging the planner’s success relative to goals (not assets under management).

So much for ‘saliency.’