We've got an open (non-incumbent) U.S. congressperson election going on in central Iowa, as well as an open U.S. senatorial seat and a gubernatorial race. Time to opine on the candidates.
Congress: Staci Appel (D) vs David Young (R)
When 'friend of John Boehner' and incumbent Tom Latham (R) unexpectedly retired to open this district seat, the major political parties were obviously unprepared. How else do you explain these two poor candidates? Appel is an uninspiring former state senator with an image problem, and Young is a boring, no-name protege of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley. Good lord, is it too late for me to start a write-in campaign? I think Young wins this, because voters will prefer a boring nobody with some national political experience over a boring nobody with no such experience.
Senate: Bruce Braley (D) vs Joni Ernst (R)
This race reminds me a lot of eight years ago, when then-Congressman Jim Nussle ran against state politician Chet Culver for governor of Iowa. It should have been no contest -- Culver was a buffoon. But the anti-Republican fervor was too much that year (George W. Bush was mismanaging Iraq and Afghanistan) and Nussle didn't try hard enough. Culver won, and proved his buffoonery by being Iowa's worst-ever governor. Here, Braley = Nussle, Ernst = Culver, and Obama = Bush. Braley is the better candidate, but it isn't looking so good for him right now. He needs to hope that Ernst -- a National Guard member but also someone who clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed -- makes another mistake to sway independents, like reminding people that Sarah Palin endorsed her.
Governor: Jack Hatch (D) vs Terry Branstad (R)
Multi-decade governor and certified grumpy old man Branstad will win this easily. Make no mistake, it won't be because he's so beloved, it'll be because Iowans would rather dance with the devil they know than with the devil they don't know. Hatch isn't well-known outside of Des Moines, and frankly, he isn't that well known inside of Des Moines if you aren't a real estate developer. I might vote for Hatch just as a silent protest to Branstad's stance on medicinal marijuana.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Crash And Recovery
Two weeks ago, after nearly twenty years and approximately 30,000 over-the-road miles, I had a moderately serious crash on my bicycle.
I fell to the pavement at between 15-20 mph, and ended up with a variety of scrapes and bruises and even a few gash-closing stitches. It could have been much worse, had I not been wearing a helmet and/or had there been vehicle traffic near me.
Last week, although I wanted to get right back on my bike, I had to stay off while I recuperated from my injuries. I spent some of that down time thinking about all of the ways I might have avoided the crash.
After a few days, I started to wonder just a little bit too much about it would feel the next time I went cycling.
This week, I got back on my bike, On the first ride, never did I grip the handlebars more firmly, or pay more attention to my surroundings, for such a long period of time on a ride. It got better the next time out, and the next time, but it's going to be a while before I'm back to being totally relaxed in the saddle.
Twenty years of confident bike-handling, and now all of this caution. It's true what they say -- once you fall off a horse, the best thing to do is get right back on it -- if you can.
I fell to the pavement at between 15-20 mph, and ended up with a variety of scrapes and bruises and even a few gash-closing stitches. It could have been much worse, had I not been wearing a helmet and/or had there been vehicle traffic near me.
Last week, although I wanted to get right back on my bike, I had to stay off while I recuperated from my injuries. I spent some of that down time thinking about all of the ways I might have avoided the crash.
After a few days, I started to wonder just a little bit too much about it would feel the next time I went cycling.
This week, I got back on my bike, On the first ride, never did I grip the handlebars more firmly, or pay more attention to my surroundings, for such a long period of time on a ride. It got better the next time out, and the next time, but it's going to be a while before I'm back to being totally relaxed in the saddle.
Twenty years of confident bike-handling, and now all of this caution. It's true what they say -- once you fall off a horse, the best thing to do is get right back on it -- if you can.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Abusing Money
This week the NFL is in the midst of a full-blown scandal over its handling of the domestic violence charges against one of its star players. Among the side issues is why the victim, engaged at the time, still married her assailant. She is in fact still married to him, and supporting him.
My initial reaction was probably ignorant; I felt like money was the motivating factor. This NFL player was making millions of dollars a year, why else would you stay?
However, a more holistic view of this revealed that it's not unusual for victims of abuse to handle things this way. For a variety of reasons, many people in an abusive relationship will stay with their abuser. The nation learned that in cases of domestic violence, we should not judge the victim.
Look, I don't know why she stayed with him. Maybe she grew up in an abusive household and this seemed normal to her. Maybe she was scared of him. Maybe her family pressured her. Maybe she wanted to keep her family together, since she already has a 2-year old child with the man. Like I said, I don't know.
But there's a more than zero percent chance that maybe, just maybe, she stayed (stays) with him because he's a multi-millionaire, and by marrying him, she'll never have to work another day in her life. Ignoring the role that money may have played in her decision is unreasonable. Might it also have made her family encourage her to forgive and forget?
However, it's so politically incorrect for anyone right now to suggest that money was a factor, I haven't seen anyone even mention it. Heck, I probably wouldn't mention it if I made my living off of writing or broadcasting about it, because you'd be suspended or fired.
That said, it's not insensitive to bring it up the role that money plays IN ANYTHING. Money changes people. Money makes people do dumb things, like making men think they can smack around their girlfriends. And yes, money can be a reason some of those girlfriends stay.
It doesn't make it right -- actually, it makes it more wrong. But let's at least agree that in this situation (obviously it isn't true in most domestic abuse), we can at least mention the money factor, for those of us not afraid of being judgmental.
My initial reaction was probably ignorant; I felt like money was the motivating factor. This NFL player was making millions of dollars a year, why else would you stay?
However, a more holistic view of this revealed that it's not unusual for victims of abuse to handle things this way. For a variety of reasons, many people in an abusive relationship will stay with their abuser. The nation learned that in cases of domestic violence, we should not judge the victim.
Look, I don't know why she stayed with him. Maybe she grew up in an abusive household and this seemed normal to her. Maybe she was scared of him. Maybe her family pressured her. Maybe she wanted to keep her family together, since she already has a 2-year old child with the man. Like I said, I don't know.
But there's a more than zero percent chance that maybe, just maybe, she stayed (stays) with him because he's a multi-millionaire, and by marrying him, she'll never have to work another day in her life. Ignoring the role that money may have played in her decision is unreasonable. Might it also have made her family encourage her to forgive and forget?
However, it's so politically incorrect for anyone right now to suggest that money was a factor, I haven't seen anyone even mention it. Heck, I probably wouldn't mention it if I made my living off of writing or broadcasting about it, because you'd be suspended or fired.
That said, it's not insensitive to bring it up the role that money plays IN ANYTHING. Money changes people. Money makes people do dumb things, like making men think they can smack around their girlfriends. And yes, money can be a reason some of those girlfriends stay.
It doesn't make it right -- actually, it makes it more wrong. But let's at least agree that in this situation (obviously it isn't true in most domestic abuse), we can at least mention the money factor, for those of us not afraid of being judgmental.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
A Working Model
In the investment business, there are three basic models that firms utilize to deliver investments and/or advice to their clients. They don't all work well for investors.
Let's start with the commission model. In this model, the advisor (known as a 'Registered Representative' of a 'broker-dealer' firm), is compensated for the investments that are utilized. Many securities, including virtually all annuities and life insurance, are sold this way. Those commissions pay the advisor an up-front, often substantial amount, which the investor ultimately repays directly or indirectly via account deductions.
Another model is called fee-based, and it's essentially the commission model with a twist. That is, these advisors usually have licenses which also allow them to give advice for a fee, in addition to their Registered Representative licenses. These dual-licensed advisors are called fee-based, because they can provide investment advice for a fee, but they primarily continue to utilize commission-based compensation for making a sale.
The third model is the fee-only model. Practitioners of this model are licensed as Investment Advisor Representatives (IAR) of a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA). Many of them also have attained the Certified Financial Planner® professional designation. The term 'fee-only' acknowledges that they are only compensated by the transparent, negotiated fees (not unspecified commissions) their clients pay.
Unfortunately, most advisors aren't fee-only, even though that model makes the most sense for those seeking help. Consider the possible conflict of interest when a commission-based advisor sells an investment product -- can the investor truly know if the size of the commission impacted the sale? By not receiving commissions for the investments recommended, a fee-only advisor eliminates this uncertainty.
Also, since commissions are paid up-front, what is that advisor’s incentive to provide ongoing client-service? Fee-only advisors charge a flat amount, or a percentage based on the assets they manage -- but in either case, it isn't paid until AFTER the work is done. Since this fee is only a fraction of the commissions that would otherwise be paid, the fee-only advisor must continue to work diligently, as the client can end the relationship at any point.
I am a fee-only advisor. I remove the conflicts of interest that could otherwise exist between investors and advisors, because our interests are the same. That shared interest shapes how we interact, to create and maintain the trust needed to successfully work together.
Let's start with the commission model. In this model, the advisor (known as a 'Registered Representative' of a 'broker-dealer' firm), is compensated for the investments that are utilized. Many securities, including virtually all annuities and life insurance, are sold this way. Those commissions pay the advisor an up-front, often substantial amount, which the investor ultimately repays directly or indirectly via account deductions.
Another model is called fee-based, and it's essentially the commission model with a twist. That is, these advisors usually have licenses which also allow them to give advice for a fee, in addition to their Registered Representative licenses. These dual-licensed advisors are called fee-based, because they can provide investment advice for a fee, but they primarily continue to utilize commission-based compensation for making a sale.
The third model is the fee-only model. Practitioners of this model are licensed as Investment Advisor Representatives (IAR) of a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA). Many of them also have attained the Certified Financial Planner® professional designation. The term 'fee-only' acknowledges that they are only compensated by the transparent, negotiated fees (not unspecified commissions) their clients pay.
Unfortunately, most advisors aren't fee-only, even though that model makes the most sense for those seeking help. Consider the possible conflict of interest when a commission-based advisor sells an investment product -- can the investor truly know if the size of the commission impacted the sale? By not receiving commissions for the investments recommended, a fee-only advisor eliminates this uncertainty.
Also, since commissions are paid up-front, what is that advisor’s incentive to provide ongoing client-service? Fee-only advisors charge a flat amount, or a percentage based on the assets they manage -- but in either case, it isn't paid until AFTER the work is done. Since this fee is only a fraction of the commissions that would otherwise be paid, the fee-only advisor must continue to work diligently, as the client can end the relationship at any point.
I am a fee-only advisor. I remove the conflicts of interest that could otherwise exist between investors and advisors, because our interests are the same. That shared interest shapes how we interact, to create and maintain the trust needed to successfully work together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)