The Fraud of ‘Personal’ Financial Planning “Personal financial planning has failed and continues to fail”

The Fraud of ‘Personal’ Financial Planning

“Personal financial planning has failed and continues to fail”

• the reality: so called personal financial planning is really but financial planning applied to personally held assets
• there no metric of client perceived success other than assets under management as the Trojan horse for personal financial planning success
• there is no metric of what retention should be –(i.e. a contra intuitive standard by what year should be out of the engagement -   whoops – no mas AUM?) (assets under management compensation %)
• AUM is contrary to the underlying foundation of ‘personal financial planning’  comprehensive and holistic. With the emphasis on assets under management per a loose thread of a sweater analogy – only the presentational thread (AUM) is tended to – though other parts of the sweater may be falling apart.
• The retort – ‘this is the way ((AUM)) it has been done’ forgets Tom Paine’s admonition, ‘a long habit of doing the wrong thing gives it the superficial appearance of being correct.’
• This ‘personal’ financial planning is a Trojan Horse for financial planning of personally held assets (not the person) – a misnomer.
• This financial planning of personally held asset – abdicates the thirst for meaning – the will to meaning per Victor Frankel - aligning personally held assets to client’s person mission and values especially in two of two major market: a) 55+ seeking what next, significance, making a difference, the next chapter) and b) and the millennials who, are not FIRE devotees seeking the financial wherewithal to drop out (but without fully preparing for ‘to what, and what for’)

For those AUM apologists, know this. My dad was a Trojan wholesaler. I inventoried Trojans for my dad. I know Trojans. I know personal financial planning and AUM is not personal financial planning but rather a Trojan Horse woofing personal financial assets in leaky unnatural Lambskins™ clothing.

if you are kind when you should be cruel

you'll be cruel when you should be kind

Judaic thought

Local, Global & Loco (In Loco Torment Us)

Local, Global & Loco (In Loco Torment Us)

We will do and we will hear

Exodus portion Mishpatim

Local – restricted, limited, narrow, confined, micro

Global – comprehensive, restricted, inclusive, macro

Loco – kooky, wacky, bonkers, looney, cockamamie, mentally disturbed (mentally challenge PC for snowflakes)

We will say we hear and we will ignore & complain

Apologies to Torah portion Mishpatim

Story:

          Years ago when I was in a fee only personal financial planning practicing/evangelizing the concept of ENOUGH, even then, an investment, which several of my clients were in, went down to fraud. Despite due diligence done by several pension plans, admission of this asset for surplus by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners etc etc – fraud was committed – and the investment became worthless.

          Other planners – all MORE planners, heard it from their clients –  to the tune of ‘why did you put me into this investment in the first place’ and blaming, complaining, bitching, kvetching at these planners about this ‘their investment.’

          Yes, my clients who invested called. Their question – I believe the right question – was ‘do I (we) still have Enough?’

          The distinction – the MORE planners practicing More – had a focus on which one, what kind (investment) therefore managing assets – not managing goals. This ‘which one, what kind’ investment  is  ‘local’ focus – which results in these ‘loco’ reactions.

          Enough focuses – spotlights -  on each goal – enough relative to each objective – the global goals.

Local vs Global

          Stipulation: $200,00 portfolio – regardless of the foolishness of not putting the $200,000  into the context of a goal – after tax, after inflation, start date and duration.

          The individual invests $5,000 in a stock and it goes to $2,000. The 60% loss is local and the focal point/spotlight of the individual. However, if the individual focused on the $3,000/1.5% loss relative to his or her $200,000 portfolio would he or she be as ‘loco’ with this global perspective?

          ‘MOREon,’ particularly managing assets under management compensation in personal financial planning, filters the focal point to the local rather than the global aggravating the already ‘loco’ behavior & reaction of clients.

          Recently there was a 1000 point drop in a day in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Questions of nominal versus relative decline (4% decline) aside let alone the fanning of the loco flames by the pornographic personal financial media, individuals were kvetching bitching, complaining about their individual stocks & their portfolio (not their objective) to their planners. In the defense of the planners (a rarity for me) even though they are parasitic Moreon’s collaborating in the local not global perspective, not one of the hosts (the Moreon individuals) called any of these planners I’ve subsequently talked with over the next week or so when the Dow Jones recovered the 1000 points plus a couple of hundred points in addition –to say thank you for calming me down let alone apologizing for being ‘loco’. 

          Not one.

          Local -not global- is ‘loco.’

Friends of mine, who were not clients, were ‘loco.’ Not one of them that had called and complained kvetched and bitched during the market decline called even after the market recovered in a week or 10 days – to apologize or let alone even recognize the recovery. Not one even though they each have had a copy of my book Enough.

          Not one.

         

          Thus, a title this cockamamie syndrome of Local Loco MOREons – In Loco Torment Us©.

We will ignore, kvetch & complain & not hear of it

Again apologies to Torah portion Mishpatim

Giving Short Shrift To F.I.R.E & Fire IN The Belly

Giving Short Shrift To F.I.R.E & Fire IN The Belly

By F.I.R.E.brand Jim Schwartz

First they ignore, then they ridicule, and finally take credit for the idea

          There are good reasons, real reasons, and real good real reasons. The objections to F.I.R.E. concept – in particular sequence of rate of return risk – is a good reason. Still one can only wonder, given no offered solutions (but plenty or dismissal), if the real reason questioning F.I.R.E is so called planners protecting their already systemically compressing AUM (assets under management) compensation model.

          Stipulating to giving the benefit of the doubt to the objection is but a ‘good reason’ rather than a Trojan Horse for the real reason, the objectors and ankle biters are missing the point at the heart of the matter: meaning.

The will to meaning

Viktor Frankel

          Personal Financial Planning is a misnomer. It is really financial planning of personally assets with a winkie winkie –to ‘personal’ for  marketing reasons. The ‘personal’ doesn’t pay when the compensation model is based to the intangible financial assets – especially in the AUM model. In effect AUM  makes second class citizens out of asset protection (risk management), estate planning etc. When the emphasis is managing assets instead of managing goals – the reality is financial planning of personally held assets not personal financial planning.

          Personal financial planning – better yet – personal financial life planning (to borrow a phrase coined by Mitch Anthony) goes to the question of aligning personal resources to life goals – meaning. Per my Enough definition personal financial life planning is ‘healing personal financial anxiety, putting money in its place, to transcend, elevate, align & connect to one’s significance/assignment (meaning) – what one was meant to do; meant to be - enough to live for, enough to live on.’©

         

          Notice the phrase one’s significance/assignment (meaning)

          F.I.R.E., in great part, is a reaction to the lack of meaning particularly for millennials – who wish to move on from their less than meaningful compensated endeavors.

          Both F.I.R.E. and systemically (regardless of compensation method) personal financial planners (who have forgot the calling of ‘personal’ in personal financial planning) haven’t given commensurate focus to meaning IN one’s life.

F.I.R.E may cultivate the right thing (becoming personally financial independent) but inefficiently (if not coupled to one’s significance/assignment). So what if one no longer has ‘the man’s’ boot or the woman’s high heel’ on his or her neck, if the spouse is complaining ‘for better or worse but not for lunch?’ So what if another spouse in kvetching, “put him or her back to work, he or she is putting my spices in alphabetical order.” (True story). Without defining meaning/assignment/significance – there is LACK (Lacktose intolerance) and not unusual recycling back to habituated more for more’s sake which is the ideology of a cancer cell (Edward Abbey) and more, better, now has a habit of becoming less, worse, later

          So systemically the financial planning (notice the omission of personal) have failed to enable FIRE IN the belly let alone reduce the ‘is that all there is’ (per Peggy Lee Song) let alone healing personal financial anxiety – putting money in its place to connect and align to client’s significance assignment/meaning – to sell more, more, more – and try to put out the F.I.R.E with objections..

          Now the roots of F.I.R.E. one can dispute. By way of full disclosure, while the first edition of my book Enough was 1992 (second edition) 1995, I was writing on Enough from 1977 with at the first what was to be NAPFA conference (for which I am one of the co founders with John Sestina and the late Bob Underwood) in 1985. The organizers had to run down 3 or 4 times to make more copies of my More vs Enough and what would be titled The Personal Prospectus when my books were published.

          Joe Dominquez (Vicki Robin was his co writer second billing) beat me to the punch on enough but our enoughs are quite different. Consider a continuum from more at one end to frugality at the other (shining one’s shoes with a banana peel as one Kiplinger’s cover had it during that time). Joe’s enough and gzingis pins etc was towards frugality, whereas my approach is ‘one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling.’ Another key difference – was getting to and focusing on meaning IN one’s life for which the assets are aligned to support.

          The question of meaning & how to is beyond the scope of this essay – but it is certainly not the ‘life planning’ of ‘I’m your friend’ to keep the AUM percentage from compression. Hint – there has to be an empirical basis – not hope (hopeium) wishes, and wet dreams.

          The responses to F.I.R.E therefore are defensive rather than self reflective, not speaking to sequence of rate of return to assist, and fail to take responsibility in part for financial planning masquerading in ‘personal’ clothing – not addressing – rather just winking – what FIRE is a reaction to – for utilizing personal assets for one’s will to meaning and values.

Janis Joplin –Freedom & Security & Securities

Janis Joplin –Freedom & Security & Securities

Story (related by Rabbi David Aaron in Endless Light p119) of a very very wealthy man giving but $100 stating :

I have a big company but I’m worried about it…Competition is tough. Who knows? One day I could lose it this . I too could have a reversal of fortune, so I cannot afford to give too much away right

The more he had, the more he had to worry he would lose.

Poor man.

Moreon-itis©

The more flesh the more worms, the more possessions the more worry, the more wives the more witchcraft, the more maidservants the more lewdness, the more slaves the more thievery….

Ethics of The Fathers 2:8

          Security.

          An old flame, ‘Flash, Class & Sass’ aka The Highland Parkway or the Highway coined the phrase ‘insecuriorites.’

          Interesting – conflating security with a complex – Freud would be proud. (And ‘twisted steel and sex appeal’ didn’t have a phd though she was the master of the ‘leg loan’ in real estate – quoting her).

          The etymology of securities is derived from security per the Old French securite or Latin ‘securitas from securus meaning ‘free from care.’ Obviously the man – and his great wealth which presumably included ‘securities’ (1) was not free from care – as the ‘more possessions the more worry’ regardless accumulation of ‘securities’ as he didn’t understand let alone believe in Hashem as Shaddai ‘enough’ (per God Almighty, God All Sufficient, Enough)

Freedom’s just another word for nothing (no-thing) left to lose

Janis Joplin’s Me & Bobby McGee

          Yes, God creates – man, given his chalek – talents on loan from God – builds upon (despite Pocohauntus & Fairaoh Obama) with the duty of being shomer tov – the good guardian during his caretaking. And yes, being in the material, believe in God but row away from the rocks (and cut the deck twice for that matter – so to speak.)

          But more for more’s sake – more securities – for enough - which is just a little more – just in case ‘as the competition is tough, I could lose this all’ – indicates a lack of faith not only in The Currency (Hashem) but one’s own self worth adaptability and resourcefulness that built upon Hashem’s creation for ‘net worth.’ Thus, the un-balanced sheet.

          The result: a more-on affliction of Moreitis manifesting physically (often ulcers etc) and an emotional state of – Insecuriority – believing in More rather than Shaddai (enough). And the irony: more, better, now (just in case of a reversal of fortune) has a habit of becoming, worse, less, later as more for more’s sake (the ideology of the cancer cell – Edward Abbey) instead of producing freedom toward – becomes obsessive compulsive fear.

Professor MOREiarities

Aggressive Paranoia: The Joseph™

Aggressive Paranoia: The Joseph™

Everything in moderation; nothing in excess

Bubbe Schwartz

          Not.

Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous;

you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides

Margaret Thatcher

People who stand in ‘the middle of the road’ get run over

Rush Limbaugh

          No – this is not about politics – but about – ENOUGH – and strategic thoughts in the age of Capitalism without Capital – protecting ENOUGH.

          Security Analysis and security analysts (putting aside the fiction of the Chinese Wall between analysts and investment bankers in the same firm) are in denial. Shaking the foundations – forget mere shaking – destroying, devastating the basis’ of security analysis is disruption – not mere change – fundamental disruption. Result: ‘black & blue Swans in the red’ to underlying assumptions and models in securities analysis (which of course the reaction to is ignoring, then ridicule and finally taking credit for that which it initially discredited).

          How so?

          One study featured in Best’s Review (the foremost insurance industry monthly periodical) stated that 80% of the value of the S&P 500 was in ‘intangible assets’ – trademarks, patents, trade secrets etc etc. Even if half correct – the whole compass of analysis changes – and as yet, there is a lot of blowharding but not generally accepted principles on this other than Groucho Marx principles (to paraphrase) ‘I got principles (that sound good on CNBC) but you don’t like those principles, I got other principles.’

          There now is even a book ‘Capitalism without Capital.’

          Therefore, what is the implication for ENOUGH?

          A step back before to reinforce the questionable value of security analysis – given its conflicts of interest – even before this tsunami – which granted shows my bias (I was trained in security analysis in college as well. )

          Typically, in general, 70% of a movement of a stock is the market itself, 20% the industry, and 10% the company itself unless there is news etc particular to the stock. Secondly, there is a difference between the business of a company and the stock of the company – which most analysts in their offices don’t understand let alone have dirt under their fingernails (though they may have corporal tunnel as an occupational hazard – with secondary sprained thumbs from texting.) At best, an analyst can really know maybe 1 or 2 industries only a handful of stocks and their particularities within those industries. (Believe me, asset manager/analysts masquerading as ‘personal financial planners’ especially compensated per the asset under managment are even worse except in glad handing.)

          Thus, an approach I employed, subject to ENOUGH (per amount after tax, duration, after inflation and risk adjusted ((return on beta etc)) was focused diversification.

          Focused diversification? How’s that for cognitive dissonance and a pattern interrupt?

          What was specific manifestation of focused diversification again qualified by ENOUGH per objective (and recalling don’t sacrifice what you need for what you don’t need)?

          The purchase of 3 or 4 focused value mutual funds – which typically would have 70% of more of the fund’s assets in 10 or less stocks – and 10%++ in cash. Critical is 3 or 4 funds – not one. Why? While each is focused with the best thoughts of their analysts (which can’t know each more than 1 or 2 industries) – by 3 or 4 – one gets the diversification.

          And it worked for 30+ years – of course stipulating withIN the confines of the objective – remembering more, better, now has a habit of becoming worse, less, later – thus manage the goal not the assets.

          But no longer.

          Adding to the disruption headwind is demographics. With the aging of America – more money will be pulled out of the markets – regardless of earnings growth – than invested. The hopeium, since the legacy costs politically prevents cutting government deficits – is growth (i.e. the Trump tax cuts) which is most likely not enough without cutting deficits – especially as interest rates rise crowding out equity investment.

          The answer – sorry – unlike Cramer CNBC etc etc – I don’t have one – except ‘The Joseph™’ to minimize the paranoia of one getting whipsawed endangering goals on the inevitable downs in the markets. (The whipsaw: how many – no one is looking – got the Heebie Jeebies when the market went down nominally 1000 points and called their planner etc? How many called back after several days when the market recovered 1000+ plus some more? Out of practice now 20 years – I had calls after than 1000 point drop BUT not a damn one to thank me or at least acknowledge my calming them with in market declines they are two even three times faster than the recovery.

          Ok, what’s The Joseph™?

          Hint not related to an orange flavored aspirin for children

          First a little Torah to introduce The Joseph™

And, behold, seven other cows came up after them out of the River,

ugly and lean of flesh, & stood by the other cows upon the bank of the River. 

The ugly and lean cows ate up the seven handsome and fat cows.

Joseph’s Interpretation of Pharaoh’s Dream Genesis 41:1-4

          The seven emaciated cows gained no weight eating even fatted cows. Thus, this event historically the first application of the Adkins Diet™

          Joseph counseled the Pharaoh that there would be 7 prosperous years and 7 years of famine. Thus, put away grain etc during the prosperous 7 years to endure and thrive the 7 years of famine (downturn).

Other than eliminating debt, a minimum of 2 years standard of living (at the gotta & level of annual expenses – NOT nicetas) in cash (money markets), near cash (bonds A+++ with less than 2 years average duration) or even more years – subject to the confines of the goals. And if necessary, reduction of the amount of each goal.

          Yes, this will reduce the overall rate of return (see aforementioned reduction of goal) though maybe less than one thinks – considering the 2+ years allows one to have higher deductibles or wait periods on one’s home, auto, disability and long term care policies reducing annual premiums – the savings from which is in effect a partial offset in the overall rate of return per goal.

          As for investment –  the rate of return of the market given the headwinds of demographic shifts, the deficit time bomb of legacy costs and increasing interest rates overall should be less (caveat maybe the impact of 3D will offset this anticipated lower rate of return for the market.) Now think of the impact of investment fees in light of this assumption way: a 1% management fee on 10% rate of return is 10% of the take. But if the rate of return is 5%, the 1% management fee is 20% - not including the up to 1% ‘personal financial planning assets under management fee.’ Reduction to .30 management fee increases the net on 10% and 5% gross rate of return from 10% of the take netting 9% pretax to 9.7% or an 7.77% increase and on the 5% rate of return otherwise 4% gross rate of return to 4.7% or 14.8% -- better protecting the downside in paranoia.

          For the upside – since there is little tried and true – in the disruption – one may consider aggressive funds etf’s in terms of those investing in disruptors again subject to the confines of the goals. But the concept of ‘moderation’ while there is fundamental disruption (akin to buying more yellow cabs medallions with Uber around the corner – or taking a large position in Sears – forgetting the ghost of Montgomery Wards) – has a high probability of road kill – run over in the middle of the road.’

Thus, aggressive paranoia –to increase (in Taleb’s term) antifragility) minimizing the black and blue of the Swan (the cash –near cash for example cushion) at the same time being more aggressive – to deal with the stressors rather than seek the comfort (and the fragile) of the tried and true ‘moderation’ of my Bubbe Schwartz (exception her hand rolled pineapple with powdered sugar turnovers from my obnoxious petulant childhood).

          But of course there will those who say, ‘I can beat the market.’ Given the tectonic shift in valuation and headwinds – until new generally accepted security analysis principles come about (and that is questionable given the inherent conflicts of interest) – think about ‘The Joseph™ relative to your ENOUGH goals while having an Adkins’ Protein Bar & Shake™.

The UN-Balanced Sheet: Net Worth/Self Worth & Enough

The UN-Balanced Sheet:

Net Worth/Self Worth & Enough

Who is rich? One who is satisfied(*) with his lot.

Who is strong? One who overpowers his inclinations

Ethics of the Fathers 4:1

Worth – significance, importance, merit

Worthy – commendable, laudable, valuable, praiseworthy

Provide for the worst;

the best can take care of itself

Yiddish saying

Net Worth, in accounting, net worth is defined as assets minus liabilities. Essentially, it is a measure of what an entity is worth. Personally, for many an individual, it represents the properties owned, less any debt the person has. It has also become a measure of what an individual is worth. Thus, net worth connotes ‘net’ significance, importance, meritorious

Self Worth(y) Having a sense of self value as worthy. ... Self-worth is defined by Merriam-Webster as: “a feeling that you are a good person who deserves to be treated with respect’ and deserves good things. (Thus – commendable, valuable, laudable.)

          The conflation of net worth & self worth within the acculturated MORE, Better, Now matrix (sans Keanu Reeves) becomes tautologically reinforcing of both the pursuit (MORE) and for validation Self Worth by Net Worth – Fort Worth residency not required.

Most provide for the best and

hope the worse will take care of itself

Nassim Taleb, Antifragile, p334

          And thus, More, Better, Now has a habit of becoming ‘unworthy’ as Worse, Less, Later

(*) satisfied is derived from the Latin satis meaning…ENOUGH.

What Is Wealth?

Wealth

Man plan; God laughs

Judaic thought

            A story.

            A wealthy former Fortune 500 CEO friend (not client) was concerned all ‘was going to hell.’ His plan:  he bought a get away farm in Australia that, in time, would be self sufficient ‘for when all goes to hell.’ He had his farm hands plan, plow – have everything necessary – including water – even pistachios amongst the crops – for when the ‘inevitable’ arrived. Finally, after 15+ years the farm was fully operational – with plants, water, pistachios etc . And what happened? The parrots ate all the crops.

            Man plans; God laughs, dogs pee, and parrots eat the pistachios.

            While in fee only personal financial practice and doing workshops, it was also inevitable – regardless how ‘wealthy’ a participant was – having ‘enough’ – having a cushion to enough ‘just in case,’ even having way more than enough – there would be a client, a participant – who would have the ‘always another buts’ – inventing low low low probability risks with high high high seriousness. And even if that ‘but’ was satisfied and planned for – ‘but’ number one being solved, ‘but’ number 2 was promoted’ regardless of the wealth of ‘the butt head.’

            Enough Jewish Personal Financial Life Planning – healing personal financial anxiety, puttin’ money in its place to elevate, transcend, align, and connect to one’s significance/assignment – what one is meant to be, meant to do – enough to live for, enough to live on© - despite cognitive acceptance, regardless of FUability© (to not be beholden, to not take sh*t) is typically not enough as enough is not by itself Wealth.

Stipulation: (‘this land is Mine, you are but wayfarers” – Leviticus) All is derived & leased on loan from Hashem aka ‘The Currency,’ and we, at best, can be good guardians owning UP to the assets under our caretaking ‘more or less.’

One thing money doesn’t buy – poverty

My Father, Ellis Schwartz

Dad’s admonition aside, current currencies come and go – remember the wheelbarrows of German Deutsch during World War I. So enduring wealth isn’t ‘money.’

Then what is Wealth?

            Our adaptability and resourcefulness!

Andy yet, to our own adaptability & resourcefulness we give little or no value to nor do banks. Proof: where on a personal balance sheet is there an asset category – let alone a valuation for – our adaptability and resourcefulness – which (other than inheritance and theft) was due one’s efforts and Hashem’s beneficence of abilities one developed?

            Where?

            Ironically, per one recent study (featured first in the insurance industry’s Best’s Review and later in the Wall Street Journal), 80% of the value of the S&P 500 companies value is in intangible assets – patents, trademarks, trade secrets etc. not tangibles i.e. bricks & mortar, receivables, etc as in past decades. This revelation even if half right is a game changer – to securities analysis as it has been known. And what are patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc other than creative adaptability and resourcefulness? Yet, the same individual who was the inventor of a patent for one of these patents, trademarks, trade secrets for his or her company is given no credit for his or her creative adaptability and resourcefulness on his or her personal balance sheet! Note: some financial planners love to blow smoke up some of their clients’ tushies flattering them with trying to monetize the clients’ ‘human capital’ even though this ‘human capital’ isn’t recognized by the banks (unless with collateral if that).

            Given increased specialization’s manifest requirement to know more and more - at the extreme like the definition of a phd – one knows more and more about less until he or she knows everything about nothing – we have become less adaptable and resourceful – even if we have a self sufficient farm in Australia and paid off the parrots.

            For example, this essayist knows about  to differing degrees  maybe 4 things: a bit about Judaism, something about dogs, relatively a good amount about personal financial planning (relatively given the beauty contest of contest of uglies in the business) and the most about professional wrestling which is life and politics unmasked. Otherwise,  mechanically, for example, I am idiot (1)

Still, if the value of the current currency vamooses along with bit -the dusk- coins, how will I fix the toilet, the leaking this or that? You think Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs will help accept the barter of my pleasing personality? Reciprocity (shalom) endures & completes; sans reciprocity – how about those Broncos?.

Trees that have been trimmed throw off countless branches

Seneca

Some suggest inoculation in the form of goads to prod & build up anti fragility to use Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s term. Per inoculation there is ‘gain from harm’ stipulating ‘harm is dose dependent.’ Anti-fragility is not robustness nor to be confused with resilience per Taleb (aka adaptability as I interpret it) while goads are like inoculation –stimulating immunity by enduring a small dose of the harm to combat the potential larger danger (fragility). Thus, the system becomes anti-fragile..

Paradoxically, thus whereas fragility ‘does not like volatility, nor randomness, uncertainty, disorder, errors, stressors etc’ per Taleb. Antifragility likes volatility (accepting uncertainty, impermanence, and lack of continuity) and as a result the system becomes more resistant due to adaptability & resourcefulness allowing one to arise from like Phoenix in ‘post traumatic growth’ (David Halpern) regardless of current currency – dose dependent for Wealth. (Note one can extrapolate the following: there are no heroes without villains, adversaries, opposition.)

Still resilience, adaptability, or even anti-fragility is no guarantee of sustainable ‘forever’ Wealth given as Rabbi Spitz’s mom once told him, ‘we are only here for a short visit.’ (2)

In the end, all is derivative from Hashem. He creates and derivatively we make/build it (not you Obama & Pocohauntus). Currencies come and go. We may have enough – which for most is never enough.

This transitory ‘wealth’ derived from adaptability & resourcefulness to deal with the fragility and possibly increase anti-fragility still is prone to Black Swans & parrots regardless inoculation, goads, resilience, and tree trimming.

Herein lies the question of faith – the leap of faith – believing in Hashem or as one former client said, ‘believe, trust in God, but row away from the rocks’ and believe, trust in God, but cut the deck twice.’

          Wealth: my two ‘sense’- right on the money