The start of a new year lends itself to making personal and professional commitments for the future. Here are a few resolutions that might be helpful anyone's plans for financial success:
Ignore the financial media. Like others in their field, the financial media want to tell the extraordinary story, something that will increase their audience. Fortunately for them, there are many ‘experts’ claiming an extraordinary ability to predict the future direction of markets. Unfortunately for investors, such stories mask the truth – no one can accurately predict the future. Identifying and ignoring this hype allows investors to make investment decisions based on personal needs, instead of the biased opinions of strangers.
Determine your risk tolerance. One of the cornerstone concepts of investing is that risk and return are related. Investors who seek higher returns can only do so by accepting more risk, but more risk also increases the possibility of a negative outcome. It’s crucial for investors to decide how much volatility they are willing to accept over both short and long-term periods. Only then can one construct an asset allocation that is right for their risk tolerance. This is the cornerstone of investing, yet it is often overlooked.
Do not attempt to time the market. In 2010, the broad stock market hit its low point around July 1. If you would have left the market at that time, and followed the conventional wisdom of a double-dip recession, you would have missed the subsequent broad stock market rally of 20%+ over the last half of the year! Plus, now you would have to decide the ‘right’ time to reinvest. While it’s human nature to follow the latest investment fad, this is yet another example of the outcome an investor can expect when trying to time the market.
Focus on what you can control. Worry is a useless emotion, especially in financial markets, where movements are largely based on unpredictable and uncontrollable events. Investors who focus on that uncertainty are sure to have anxiety over what the future holds. That unease can be avoided by concentrating on financial planning items that can be controlled, such as discretionary spending and desired risk. Investors cannot control the market, but they can control making emotional decisions related to it.
Just as an exercise partner will help someone keep a resolution for a healthier future, I tell people that I will be their investment partner to keep these resolutions for their financial future. Here’s to good health and good wealth in 2011!
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Biggest Loser Losers
I don't watch much reality television, which come to think of it, is fairly limiting. However, I watch enough to know that some reality shows are more watchable (e.g. The Amazing Race) than others (e.g. anything on MTV or VH1).
There's one reality TV show that many would consider to be more watchable, but that I consider to be a blight on the nation - The Biggest Loser. Obese people from across America who go to a fat ranch to learn how to eat right and exercise, the 'winner' being the person who loses the highest percentage weight, and also happens not to tick off other contestants who might vote them out along the way. (It even sounds boring, doesn't it?)
What kills me about this show is how it's framed as a 'feel good' story for everyone. Basically, each contestant has a reason why they are fat, something that no mere mortal could possbly have overcome. It's usually blamed on a rough upbringing, or death, or depression, or genetics, or whatever, and apparently they tried to cope with their problems by doing little else but eating. How could you blame them, right?
Let me try. I have a certain disdain for obesity, something that goes way beyond just the gross-ness of it. To wit, fat people cost society money, ergo fat people cost me money. I've blogged about this before (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/tax-on-fat-people.html).
While there may be a few exceptions, the vast majority of obese people are that way by choice. Genetics and childhood environment may have something to do with it, but let's face it, it also takes a big dose of lazy. It's a mindset, the kind that takes the easy way out. Most Americans are like that, it just that most Americans also muster up the will to move, to take control of their life, to do what's right instead of what's lazy. On most days.
But The Biggest Loser doesn't want people to think about that. They want viewers to root for their poor, common sense-challenged contestants, who have suddenly decided to try to lose weight with the help of network television. Why those same contestants can't try to exercise and eat right without millions of other people watching, I don't know. Apparently some people aren't motivated by trying to not be a replusive-looking burden on society, they also need to be motivated by money and attention.
Dear Obese People - Stop trying to become a reality show freak, set down the Twinkies, roll off of the couch, look in the mirror, and stop living your life in a way that makes everyone else pay for your poor choices.
There's one reality TV show that many would consider to be more watchable, but that I consider to be a blight on the nation - The Biggest Loser. Obese people from across America who go to a fat ranch to learn how to eat right and exercise, the 'winner' being the person who loses the highest percentage weight, and also happens not to tick off other contestants who might vote them out along the way. (It even sounds boring, doesn't it?)
What kills me about this show is how it's framed as a 'feel good' story for everyone. Basically, each contestant has a reason why they are fat, something that no mere mortal could possbly have overcome. It's usually blamed on a rough upbringing, or death, or depression, or genetics, or whatever, and apparently they tried to cope with their problems by doing little else but eating. How could you blame them, right?
Let me try. I have a certain disdain for obesity, something that goes way beyond just the gross-ness of it. To wit, fat people cost society money, ergo fat people cost me money. I've blogged about this before (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/tax-on-fat-people.html).
While there may be a few exceptions, the vast majority of obese people are that way by choice. Genetics and childhood environment may have something to do with it, but let's face it, it also takes a big dose of lazy. It's a mindset, the kind that takes the easy way out. Most Americans are like that, it just that most Americans also muster up the will to move, to take control of their life, to do what's right instead of what's lazy. On most days.
But The Biggest Loser doesn't want people to think about that. They want viewers to root for their poor, common sense-challenged contestants, who have suddenly decided to try to lose weight with the help of network television. Why those same contestants can't try to exercise and eat right without millions of other people watching, I don't know. Apparently some people aren't motivated by trying to not be a replusive-looking burden on society, they also need to be motivated by money and attention.
Dear Obese People - Stop trying to become a reality show freak, set down the Twinkies, roll off of the couch, look in the mirror, and stop living your life in a way that makes everyone else pay for your poor choices.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Goodbye 2010
Things I didn't know much about at the start of 2010, that I know too much about now:
Vuvuzelas
Icelandic volcanos
Top-kill
WikiLeaks
Beiber
Chilean miners
Bed bugs
Glee
Jenn Sterger
Four Loko
"Taking My Talents to South Beach"
Vuvuzelas
Icelandic volcanos
Top-kill
WikiLeaks
Beiber
Chilean miners
Bed bugs
Glee
Jenn Sterger
Four Loko
"Taking My Talents to South Beach"
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Grindin'
I grew up in far northwest Iowa. It was and still is a friendly and safe place to live, work, and raise a family. It also was and still is a very socially and religiously conservative place.
I could give you a number of examples of just how conservative (including how they keep electing Steve King to Congress), but one of my favorites was how one of the local parochial high schools canceled a dance once years ago, because the students were dancing too close to each other at the previous one. I always joked (still do) about how that community later implemented a ban on kissing, because they were afraid someday it might lead to dancing! Yes, it was close to a real-life version of the movie 'Footloose'.
It's 20+ years later, and while NW Iowa is still a very conservative place, it's not as repressed as it once was. With TV and technology, it simply can't stop societal evolution. However, this week I was reminded that no matter what, there will always be someone trying to stop that evolution.
Case in point, this week a parent in my own public school district (Johnston, Iowa, a suburb of big bad Des Moines) complained to high school administrators about the dancing they've seen at school functions. That parent had chaperoned a fall dance at the school, and wrote to school officials claiming that what he saw would best be described as "a sex act, albeit with clothes on."
Specifically, the dancing he's referring to is known as 'grinding'. Basically, it's guys dancing behind girls and rubbing their frontsides against the girls' backsides. The fact that this parent would use the term 'sex act' to describe this makes me think he has either an incredibly boring or incredibly interesting sex life - but I bet it's more like incredibly boring.
The best part about this story is that, just like my kissing/dancing joke, now everybody can poke fun at the parents and school administrators. It doesn't matter if they have a point or not. A Des Moines T-shirt shop has already sold more than 100 "Johnston: Straight Grindin'" tees, and if I was a student there I'd definitely get one, too.
This story certainly made me hark back to my cloistered youth, and laugh at the idea that today some people still think that controlling dancing is critical to controlling other teenage behavior. Aside from 'Footloose' it all makes me think of one other movie. In 'Jurassic Park', the Jeff Goldblum character/scientist is not convinced that the dinosaur population can be controlled via gender genetics, because in the end, "Nature finds a way."
He means that eventually, the dinosaurs will start kissing, and it will lead to dancing, and soon societal evolution will run amok!
I could give you a number of examples of just how conservative (including how they keep electing Steve King to Congress), but one of my favorites was how one of the local parochial high schools canceled a dance once years ago, because the students were dancing too close to each other at the previous one. I always joked (still do) about how that community later implemented a ban on kissing, because they were afraid someday it might lead to dancing! Yes, it was close to a real-life version of the movie 'Footloose'.
It's 20+ years later, and while NW Iowa is still a very conservative place, it's not as repressed as it once was. With TV and technology, it simply can't stop societal evolution. However, this week I was reminded that no matter what, there will always be someone trying to stop that evolution.
Case in point, this week a parent in my own public school district (Johnston, Iowa, a suburb of big bad Des Moines) complained to high school administrators about the dancing they've seen at school functions. That parent had chaperoned a fall dance at the school, and wrote to school officials claiming that what he saw would best be described as "a sex act, albeit with clothes on."
Specifically, the dancing he's referring to is known as 'grinding'. Basically, it's guys dancing behind girls and rubbing their frontsides against the girls' backsides. The fact that this parent would use the term 'sex act' to describe this makes me think he has either an incredibly boring or incredibly interesting sex life - but I bet it's more like incredibly boring.
The best part about this story is that, just like my kissing/dancing joke, now everybody can poke fun at the parents and school administrators. It doesn't matter if they have a point or not. A Des Moines T-shirt shop has already sold more than 100 "Johnston: Straight Grindin'" tees, and if I was a student there I'd definitely get one, too.
This story certainly made me hark back to my cloistered youth, and laugh at the idea that today some people still think that controlling dancing is critical to controlling other teenage behavior. Aside from 'Footloose' it all makes me think of one other movie. In 'Jurassic Park', the Jeff Goldblum character/scientist is not convinced that the dinosaur population can be controlled via gender genetics, because in the end, "Nature finds a way."
He means that eventually, the dinosaurs will start kissing, and it will lead to dancing, and soon societal evolution will run amok!
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Another Iowa Taxpayer Boondoggle
[Below is the text of an as-yet-unpublished letter I sent to The Des Moines Register last week. I've had several letters to the editor printed over the years, but I haven't written any recently due to lack of time and lack of confidence that anyone even reads that section of the paper anymore. Regardless, this letter follows the theme of every other one I've written - wasting taxpayer money.]
Before becoming too content with the recent 'good news' that the IPERS pension plan is improving while nearly $5 billion underfunded, one needs to more closely consider a statement from the consulting actuary that's buried in The Register's December 3rd article.
The actuary noted that one reason the projected shortfall has been reduced is due to changes in actuarial assumptions on the plan's liabilities. In other words, an accounting maneuver has simply made it look as though the plan will not cost taxpayers as much as before.
Those few who understand traditional pension plan valuation know that actuarial assumptions are often too optimistic, especially in public sector plans. In the end, the true cost of the IPERS plan - actual benefits and expenses paid - will very likely be much greater than currently projected.
Unfortunately, taxpayers won't be able to change an actuarial assumption to reduce their liability.
Before becoming too content with the recent 'good news' that the IPERS pension plan is improving while nearly $5 billion underfunded, one needs to more closely consider a statement from the consulting actuary that's buried in The Register's December 3rd article.
The actuary noted that one reason the projected shortfall has been reduced is due to changes in actuarial assumptions on the plan's liabilities. In other words, an accounting maneuver has simply made it look as though the plan will not cost taxpayers as much as before.
Those few who understand traditional pension plan valuation know that actuarial assumptions are often too optimistic, especially in public sector plans. In the end, the true cost of the IPERS plan - actual benefits and expenses paid - will very likely be much greater than currently projected.
Unfortunately, taxpayers won't be able to change an actuarial assumption to reduce their liability.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
How To Tell If Something Is Fake
This time of the year there are an awful lot Santas out there. So how can people tell the real Santa from all of the fakers? It's simple really. The dude at the end of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is the real Santa. Anything else you see between then and Christmas Eve is just a faker, or as I told my kids, Santa's helper. God-given common sense should tell you the real Santa has too much to do at the North Pole!
Fake Santas may not be the best example of how to tell if something is real, but God-given common sense is. This brings me to today's actual topic: Bristol Palin's Facebook Page.
I don't use Facebook; I'm still trying to figure out how to leverage my Twitter account. However, Facebook-ers often use it to communicate crazy things that get mainstream media play. Bristol used it this week to defend herself against a fellow Dancing With The Stars contestant, Margaret Cho, who blogged that Bristol's politically famous mother, Sarah, made her do the show.
It would be perfectly fine and even righteous for Bristol to defend herself using her Facebook page - if it was really her writing the entries. If anyone reads the Cho defense entry, and compares it to the actual verbal quotes of this in-over-her-head (like her mother) kid, no one with any God-given common sense could believe that she actually wrote it.
Let's deconstruct it: She uses the word "canard". She refers to her mother's "bestselling book, Going Rogue". She even makes an analogy that includes KD Lang and the Indigo Girls! When someone who normally communicates at an 8th grade level ends up writing something that sophisticated, and with political innuendo, my 'faker' radar goes off.
So that same God-given common sense tells me this entry was written by a Sarah Palin political operative for damage control. Normally that would be fine - most 'celebrities' and executives use publicists or ghost writers to write statements or even books. But a Sarah Palin ghost writer on her own daughter's Facebook page? It sort of gives Cho's blog entry credibility - that Mama Grizzly is controlling what her kids say and do.
In a way, I feel for Bristol. She didn't sign up to be a Palin, to be under the microscope, and criticism sucks, especially through the media. But when Bristol signed up for reality TV (and the cash that came with it), she put herself on the media-watch list. (Um, that is assuming it really was her and not her mom that made her do it.)
The best path for Bristol now is to live her life with a quiet confidence, and stay out of the limelight a la Chelsea Clinton at her age. In the meantime, she can hope her mom's political ambitions don't take over her life.
Fake Santas may not be the best example of how to tell if something is real, but God-given common sense is. This brings me to today's actual topic: Bristol Palin's Facebook Page.
I don't use Facebook; I'm still trying to figure out how to leverage my Twitter account. However, Facebook-ers often use it to communicate crazy things that get mainstream media play. Bristol used it this week to defend herself against a fellow Dancing With The Stars contestant, Margaret Cho, who blogged that Bristol's politically famous mother, Sarah, made her do the show.
It would be perfectly fine and even righteous for Bristol to defend herself using her Facebook page - if it was really her writing the entries. If anyone reads the Cho defense entry, and compares it to the actual verbal quotes of this in-over-her-head (like her mother) kid, no one with any God-given common sense could believe that she actually wrote it.
Let's deconstruct it: She uses the word "canard". She refers to her mother's "bestselling book, Going Rogue". She even makes an analogy that includes KD Lang and the Indigo Girls! When someone who normally communicates at an 8th grade level ends up writing something that sophisticated, and with political innuendo, my 'faker' radar goes off.
So that same God-given common sense tells me this entry was written by a Sarah Palin political operative for damage control. Normally that would be fine - most 'celebrities' and executives use publicists or ghost writers to write statements or even books. But a Sarah Palin ghost writer on her own daughter's Facebook page? It sort of gives Cho's blog entry credibility - that Mama Grizzly is controlling what her kids say and do.
In a way, I feel for Bristol. She didn't sign up to be a Palin, to be under the microscope, and criticism sucks, especially through the media. But when Bristol signed up for reality TV (and the cash that came with it), she put herself on the media-watch list. (Um, that is assuming it really was her and not her mom that made her do it.)
The best path for Bristol now is to live her life with a quiet confidence, and stay out of the limelight a la Chelsea Clinton at her age. In the meantime, she can hope her mom's political ambitions don't take over her life.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
No Love for the 99ers
At the risk of beating a dead horse.....
This week, the U.S. Congress did not act (yet) to extend unemployment benefits, meaning those benefits ended for millions of Americans. Of course, the Democrats are all aghast at the heartless Republicans for standing in the way of another UNFUNDED extension of these payments for who knows how long. But the Dems want you to ignore one little thing - that these Americans were in their 99th week of receiving those benefits!
Now as anyone reading this blog knows, I'm an independent / libertarian sort, and I really couldn't care less about either party's ideology, especially those on the fringe. But here, it's time for the Democrats / liberals to get real.
99 weeks of unfunded, taxpayer-subsidized unemployment benefits? 99 weeks! Are you telling me those folks could not find a job, or be re-schooled / re-trained for another job in almost two full years' time? I'm sure there are plenty of difficult situations, but I'm also positive there are employable people who are just fine with doing nothing and picking up their unemployment check. I personally know some of them.
I may not be the most compassionate person, but I'm at least compassionate-average, and I've had it with paying for people who don't work. I'm also skeptical anytime I agree with the likes of Senator Mitch "Turtle" McConnell, but our society cannot afford this. A certain U.S. electorate apparently agrees, considering the results of this past November.
Sorry 99ers, but we need to cut the cord on this abusive, one-sided relationship.
This week, the U.S. Congress did not act (yet) to extend unemployment benefits, meaning those benefits ended for millions of Americans. Of course, the Democrats are all aghast at the heartless Republicans for standing in the way of another UNFUNDED extension of these payments for who knows how long. But the Dems want you to ignore one little thing - that these Americans were in their 99th week of receiving those benefits!
Now as anyone reading this blog knows, I'm an independent / libertarian sort, and I really couldn't care less about either party's ideology, especially those on the fringe. But here, it's time for the Democrats / liberals to get real.
99 weeks of unfunded, taxpayer-subsidized unemployment benefits? 99 weeks! Are you telling me those folks could not find a job, or be re-schooled / re-trained for another job in almost two full years' time? I'm sure there are plenty of difficult situations, but I'm also positive there are employable people who are just fine with doing nothing and picking up their unemployment check. I personally know some of them.
I may not be the most compassionate person, but I'm at least compassionate-average, and I've had it with paying for people who don't work. I'm also skeptical anytime I agree with the likes of Senator Mitch "Turtle" McConnell, but our society cannot afford this. A certain U.S. electorate apparently agrees, considering the results of this past November.
Sorry 99ers, but we need to cut the cord on this abusive, one-sided relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)