Torah Portions Confirming God as Shaddai (Enough)

Torah Portions Confirming

God as Shaddai (Enough)

          Per Exodus 16, a manna portion was provided to each Hebrew  daily, twice on Friday – as no manna would provided on Shabbat. Further’more,’ if a Hebrew gathered more than needed (‘for a rainy day’ just in case in reserve?) – the extra would rot with maggots. (1) There is Midrash (Rabbinical JEWbonics – to fill in the blanks) that individually the manna tasted to each Hebrew as desired (i.e. Roast Beef au Jews, Arby’s, Domino’s, and of course A Whopper™ from Burger King Judaism franchise).

          Thus, the manna represents that it is Hashem that provides – and provides what is required. More than what is required becomes adulterated – maggot infested of trying to have more than what Hashem provided and is a test for the Hebrew’s faith that Hashem is ‘enough.’

          After avoiding, praying, even getting ready to fight – splitting the family’s ranks – should Esau attack, Jacob/Israel prevails in giving a huge gift (tribute/bribe/reparation depending on JEWbonics) to Esau. Initially Esau  demurred accepting stating ‘I have plenty’ to which Jacob as Israel replied ‘I have all.’

          All is Shaddai – Shaddai is Enough - in this Torah portion context.

          At the Passover Seder, there are several customs and rituals which are unique i.e: “matzah (the eating of unleavened bread); maror (the eating of bitter herbs); chametz (abstention from eating leaven); b’iur chametz (removal of leaven from the home); and haggadah (participation in the seder meal and telling the story).” There is a  6^{th &} 7^th custom family bickering as well as the singing of the song Dayenu.

Each lyric of the song Dayenu begins with the word dayenu. And dayenu – means and invokes ‘it was enough, it was enough!’ in the context of it was enough that God did – what God did – what Shaddai provided….

          The MOREal of the juxtaposition of these three stories from Torah : Hashem in providing daily manna, Hashem in destroying storage of the manna for a rainy day of manna, Hashem as ‘all,’ and Hashem as Dayenu - demonstrates that Hashem is Shaddai – is ‘God, God Almighty, God All Sufficient, ENOUGH.’

          It only took 43 years of practicing, writing, philosophizing about Enough to come to this insight  – which is 3 years beyond what the Hebrews endured in the desert.

(1)- The two loaves of Challah on Shabbat is a custom derived from the double portion of manna allowed for the day before and day of shabbat

Money, Happiness, Subjective Well Being & Sloppiness at The NY Times’

Money, Happiness, Subjective Well Being & Sloppiness at The NY Times’

One thing money doesn’t buy – poverty

Ellis Schwartz, my dad

Stipulating:

Money (the current currency) = goods and services, a store of value for eventual exchange for goods and services

Satis = etymologically is from the Latin ‘satis’ meaning ‘enough’

Happiness = etymologically from ‘happenstance’ meaning ‘by chance’

Well-being = etymologically well = “in a satisfactory manner, Old English wel “ abundantly, very, very much; indeed, to be sure; with good reason – while being = c. 1300, "existence,” “condition, state, circumstances; presence, fact of existing

New research suggests that more money really does lead to a more satisfying life

‘Money Really Does Lead to a More Satisfying Life’

by Justin Wolfers, NY Times

Columnist Wolfers fails to define money & satisfying let alone happiness accepting subjective well being as  assumptive metric basis’s for his conclusion even when citing studies.

Thus, is the metric of subjective well being a measure of palliation? Is one person’s degree of subjective well being – another person’s crying towel – akin to one man’s floor is another woman’s glass ceiling? Even taken in the aggregate of the measure of subjective well being - what does this measure other than subjective well being - not well being?

What is satisfaction per these studies?

How is happiness defined per these studies?

Once again, more and its more-on prophets for profit (a division of self esteem, happiness and participation trophies inc) put the pedal to the medal without any mettle.

Guess the fake news influenza at the Times has infected the Business and Personal Finance section first with just plain sloppiness.

Yes, money doesn’t buy poverty but does it buy undefined happiness, well being, satisfaction or depending on the level of wealth and income just more altered states requiring greater and greater dosages for palliation?

It’s a question of definition which Wolfers conveniently avoids especially given well being is ‘satisfactory existence’ per etymology (as satis is enough) his headline is More Satisfying Life – a contradiction in underlying terms (more vs enough).

Of course, legend has it when Rockefeller was asked what was ‘enough’ he said, ‘a little more.’

Maybe Wolfers is an ancestor.

The LESSon of MORE for MORE’s Sake ©

The LESSon of MORE for MORE’s Sake ©

Fatal Addition: More, Better, Now becomes Less, Worse, Later

a.k.a MORE: The Gift That Keeps On Taking---MOREons

MOREon's & STUFF

MOREon’s  ‘TURKEY’ STUFFING(c)

Right Stuff             One is Right                                        One is Wrong

(& if RIGHT)                                      (& if WRONG)

Double Stuff          One gets MORE                                One gets LESS

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

Upscale Stuff         One is BETTER                                  One is WORSE

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

Strut Stuff              One is a WINNER                      One is a LOSER                                                                                   if one is a WINNER                               (& if one is a LOSER)

Hot Stuff                 One is GOOD                                     One is BAD

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

Full of Stuff         One is WORTHY(2)                           One is WORTHless

(& if 1 is WORTHY)                          (& if  is WORTHless)

Full of S…               One is GODLY                                  One is EVIL

Untold Personal Financial Planning Dirty Little Secrets© #1 Assets under Management (AUM) & Retirement Withdrawal Rates: The Conflicted Dirty Little Secret

Untold Personal Financial Planning Dirty Little Secrets© #1

Assets under Management (AUM) & Retirement Withdrawal Rates: 

The Conflicted Dirty Little Secret

            We fear outliving out money – dreading being beholden, dependent, under other’s thumb, being obliged, having to take sh*t (either with our mouths open or closed), and or catering (when we actually resent).

            And weather consciously or not, asset under management compensated planners prey on this fear – what is called ‘longevity risk.’

            And rightly, so, asset under management planners (as well as others) run ‘monte carlo analysis’ to assess the probability of not running out of money (longevity risk) – usually seeking a 95% (the maximum) probability of not running out of money. (See The Flaw of Averages)

            And yes, stipulating that there is the potential of sequence risk – such that adequate resources could be depleted prematurely due to especially large market declines in the beginning years (like 1973 and 1974).

            And secondly, qualifying that there are inherent conflicts of interest in all methods of personal financial planning compensation be it churn and burn (commissions), hourly (where the client is afraid to call cause the meter is always on – and therefore preventative measures that could have been taken are ‘too late’) etc.

            But the inherent conflict of assets under management compensation impacts, in particular, the withdrawal percentage in retirement of clients – possibly causing the client – in the name of fearing out living their resources and or minimizing their legacy to heir – to under spend.

            And what is the conflict?

            Given the more assets under management the greater the compensation to the planner – the lower the percentage of withdrawal by the client – the more assets under management for the planner’s compensation. (Some planners have even been involved in the creation of trust companies – to ‘capture’ the assets upon a clients’ death – and continue the assets under management compensation of the deceased client for heirs.)

            Furthermore, assets under management becomes a more saleable and scaleable asset in the buy out of the assets under management compensation planner – planning firm.

            But WAIT – like the infomercial would blare – we don’t want to out live our assets!

            True.

            And it is also true, that the only certainties are death, taxes, and one won’t return the rental car having taken it to a car wash before remittance.

There are no solutions, only tradeoffs

Thomas Sowell

            Regardless Bergin’s or Trinity study 4% withdrawal rate let alone someone’s 3.62% etc, we adapt to circumstances. We not only adapt buying chicken breasts at $1.77 when steak is $5.99 – but in entertainment etc. Furthermore, there seems, in general to be 3 phases in retirement: go go (where we may spend more even), slow go (spending reduces), and no go (where spending – yes, other than health) is even further reduces.

            Flexibility isn’t theoretical back testing – but it deals with the real.

            And we rarely give ourselves (please none of the retorts – that was easier when I was in my 30’s) recognition of our adaptability and resourcefulness (including utilization of guilt on progeny). Currencies change, but to our adaptability and resourcefulness (and its flexibility) we give little recognition – they are almost persona non grata on our mental ‘balance sheets.’

            Furthermore, the axiom of never spending principle (living off of interest, dividends and capital gain distributions) – get over it. Living lifetime goals should take precedence (other than adequate spouse income should you predecease) over the lucky sperm & ovarian club progeny or one’s charitable legacy – even if invasion of principle. PS those restricted charitable legacy gifts have had a lurid history not being  unfulfilled and often redirected for other purposes and giving good lunch by the executive directors.

            So if one’s assets under management personal financial planner compensated planner says 2.62% or 3.60% withdrawal rate is all that is really sustainable or scares the crap out of you so you should buy single premium insurance annuities (forgetting Mutual Benefit Life rated A+++ and other top rated went out of business covered up by mergers i.e. New England Life, Connecticut Mutual etc)  remember the the inherent conflict of interest. Also, ask the planner, ‘do you have has clients in Trust companies that cater to personal financial planners? And do you have a stake in the Trust company? Lastly, as for the Single Premium Insurance Annuities evangelists, wasn’t it the insurance company actuaries (cpas without personalities) who also screwed up royally in the long term care market having not learned their lessons in the 80’s about lapse supported premiums – such that insurers are losing their tuchis, down to a few offering LTC, the premiums have skyrocketed and the coverage has been greatly reduced. So much for guarantees of insurers and ‘certainty.’

            And while you are at it, you might ask your dirty little secret asset under management compensated planner, if there are alternative fee arrangements relative to your engagement of his or her services.

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.)

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’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 –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?