After months, even years, of avoidance and threats, last week I joined the world of Facebook. I consider this to be the third leg of the social media trifecta: Blog, Twitter, and Facebook. (Yes, I'm on LinkedIn as well, but there's no practical social element to that, that's all business.)
On balance, this is a good thing. Facebook has become a primary means of communication for a lot of people, so if you want to deliver a message, you'd better include that in your communication toolbox.
Unfortunately, social media complicates your life before it simpifies it. For one, there's going to be a learning curve. For two, I need to figure out the most efficient and effective use for it, both personally and professionally. For three, I need to decide whom I want to see it, and whom I don't, if anyone.
Near term, one thing I'll use it for is to point people to this blog. I got as many Facebook friends in one day as I have Twitter follows. Goes to show you, adults are using Facebook, but not Twitter. (I've thought for a long time that that's kind of strange, since Twitter is so much easier to use.)
Would you like to be my Facebook friend?
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Seeing Patterns Where None Exist
Although some very bright people may try to convince you otherwise, the investment marketplace follows no predictable patterns. If it did, the so-called experts would tell you exactly what and when to buy and sell, and you’d never have to worry about money again.
To better illustrate the difficulty of predicting market moves, let’s take a closer look at typical investor logic, using the parallels between gamblers and investors who try to time the market. Like many investors, gamblers tend to rely on hunches and perceived patterns to determine their next move.
For example, a person flipping a coin who gets ‘heads’ five times in a row might believe there is an increased probability that the coin would land on ‘tails’ with the next toss. Others may think that ‘heads’ is on a hot streak and believe it is more likely for that to continue. But in fact, the odds of the next toss being ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ is 50/50 – no different than for any coin flip.
Investors tend to take similar approaches to the stock market. Rather than setting a strategy, they are often gambling on a certain streak, typically one they believe is going to continue. For example, in the early 1990s, investors bought billions of dollars in vastly overpriced dot-com stocks, simply betting those stocks would continue to move dramatically higher. Ultimately, that market crashed and investors holding those stocks were saddled with significant losses.
More recently, the real estate market seemed to be on an endless upward cycle; people bought property, and counted on the value endlessly climbing. But in the past few years, that myth was exposed, and the real estate market tumbled along with economy as a whole.
The lesson here for investors is to realize that we have a human tendency is to see patterns where none exist, and to ignore those perceived investing patterns. With this awareness, one can increase the probability of investing success by avoiding the guesswork of active management, and establishing a very low-cost and diversified portfolio that can perform well in many different types of markets.
To better illustrate the difficulty of predicting market moves, let’s take a closer look at typical investor logic, using the parallels between gamblers and investors who try to time the market. Like many investors, gamblers tend to rely on hunches and perceived patterns to determine their next move.
For example, a person flipping a coin who gets ‘heads’ five times in a row might believe there is an increased probability that the coin would land on ‘tails’ with the next toss. Others may think that ‘heads’ is on a hot streak and believe it is more likely for that to continue. But in fact, the odds of the next toss being ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ is 50/50 – no different than for any coin flip.
Investors tend to take similar approaches to the stock market. Rather than setting a strategy, they are often gambling on a certain streak, typically one they believe is going to continue. For example, in the early 1990s, investors bought billions of dollars in vastly overpriced dot-com stocks, simply betting those stocks would continue to move dramatically higher. Ultimately, that market crashed and investors holding those stocks were saddled with significant losses.
More recently, the real estate market seemed to be on an endless upward cycle; people bought property, and counted on the value endlessly climbing. But in the past few years, that myth was exposed, and the real estate market tumbled along with economy as a whole.
The lesson here for investors is to realize that we have a human tendency is to see patterns where none exist, and to ignore those perceived investing patterns. With this awareness, one can increase the probability of investing success by avoiding the guesswork of active management, and establishing a very low-cost and diversified portfolio that can perform well in many different types of markets.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Squawkeye Nation
Growing up in NW Iowa, I was a football fan of both of Iowa's large universities, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa. In the 70s they both pretty much sucked at it, although ISU was slightly better. Since the 80s, however, Iowa has become a nationally successful program while ISU has languished.
Maybe it's because I moved closer to Ames, or maybe it's my contrarian side, but during this time I found myself becoming a bit more of an ISU fan. I'm still glad for Iowa's football success and all of the attention it has brought to the state, but that success has brought with it a fan base that is not always appealing.
Iowa football fans weren't always like this. Fans sportingly appreciated the success they had in the 80s, after being dismal for so long. Unfortunately, over the years that appreciation has largely become an overconfidence, even an arrogance, that their football team is better than they are.
This overconfidence manifests itself every year during the ISU-Iowa football game. Iowa dominated this series until about 10 years ago, and since then the teams have generally traded victories. But you wouldn't know that from listening to most Iowa fans.
Case in point was this year's game, which I attended and which ISU won in 3 overtimes. Iowa fans were absolutely shocked at losing - it never crossed the minds of many of their faithful that losing was even a remote possibility. Worse still was not accepting that they were outplayed in the game. (One major exception to this was Head Coach Kirk Ferentz, a class act who said right after the game that ISU deserved to win.)
This Iowa football fan reaction is one I've see far too often with their football fans over the past 2 decades. They're like the bully who gets beat up and goes home crying, and it has made it easy to decide whom I'll root for when the Hawkeyes play the Cyclones.
C'mon now, Iowa football fans. Win with grace, but lose with dignity.
Maybe it's because I moved closer to Ames, or maybe it's my contrarian side, but during this time I found myself becoming a bit more of an ISU fan. I'm still glad for Iowa's football success and all of the attention it has brought to the state, but that success has brought with it a fan base that is not always appealing.
Iowa football fans weren't always like this. Fans sportingly appreciated the success they had in the 80s, after being dismal for so long. Unfortunately, over the years that appreciation has largely become an overconfidence, even an arrogance, that their football team is better than they are.
This overconfidence manifests itself every year during the ISU-Iowa football game. Iowa dominated this series until about 10 years ago, and since then the teams have generally traded victories. But you wouldn't know that from listening to most Iowa fans.
Case in point was this year's game, which I attended and which ISU won in 3 overtimes. Iowa fans were absolutely shocked at losing - it never crossed the minds of many of their faithful that losing was even a remote possibility. Worse still was not accepting that they were outplayed in the game. (One major exception to this was Head Coach Kirk Ferentz, a class act who said right after the game that ISU deserved to win.)
This Iowa football fan reaction is one I've see far too often with their football fans over the past 2 decades. They're like the bully who gets beat up and goes home crying, and it has made it easy to decide whom I'll root for when the Hawkeyes play the Cyclones.
C'mon now, Iowa football fans. Win with grace, but lose with dignity.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
9/11/2001
I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing ten years ago on 9/11/2001.
I was sitting in a Boston hotel room waiting to leave for the second day of a conference I was attending. I was watching the Today show on NBC (live on the east coast) when I saw the report of a plane hitting a World Trade Center tower. Obviously something bad had happened, but it sounded at the time like it might be a small single engine plane, and who knew maybe the pilot had a heart attack or something.
After a while I turned over to watch CNBC. They were also showing the smoke coming from the first tower when you saw the explosion in the second tower, and shortly after that, the replay that made it clear it was intentional, an attack was happening. I forgot about the conference, and stayed in the room to watch. The frantic reports were rolling in about the Pentagon, then other planes perhaps going down. I even recall a report about a fire on the National Mall that turned out not to be true.
The rest of the day was just weird, mostly spent trying to figure out what happened, and how I was going to get back to Iowa. Since I was stranded in a highrise hotel in a major city from which most employees had been sent home, I doubted if I'd even be able to find something to eat. In the end, the hotel had food, and let me stay for as long as I needed. The conference had been abandoned, but it still took me two days, until Thursday morning, to find a one-way rental car and make the 20+ hour drive home.
One of the things I remember most about that day was the local news coverage that evening. One of the hijacked planes used in the attacks had taken off from Boston's Logan Airport, where I'd been just a couple of days before. A lot of local New England people had been on that plane, so it was very sad there, a much smaller version of New York City. It certainly made what happened seem more personal, and less like an international story.
I was sitting in a Boston hotel room waiting to leave for the second day of a conference I was attending. I was watching the Today show on NBC (live on the east coast) when I saw the report of a plane hitting a World Trade Center tower. Obviously something bad had happened, but it sounded at the time like it might be a small single engine plane, and who knew maybe the pilot had a heart attack or something.
After a while I turned over to watch CNBC. They were also showing the smoke coming from the first tower when you saw the explosion in the second tower, and shortly after that, the replay that made it clear it was intentional, an attack was happening. I forgot about the conference, and stayed in the room to watch. The frantic reports were rolling in about the Pentagon, then other planes perhaps going down. I even recall a report about a fire on the National Mall that turned out not to be true.
The rest of the day was just weird, mostly spent trying to figure out what happened, and how I was going to get back to Iowa. Since I was stranded in a highrise hotel in a major city from which most employees had been sent home, I doubted if I'd even be able to find something to eat. In the end, the hotel had food, and let me stay for as long as I needed. The conference had been abandoned, but it still took me two days, until Thursday morning, to find a one-way rental car and make the 20+ hour drive home.
One of the things I remember most about that day was the local news coverage that evening. One of the hijacked planes used in the attacks had taken off from Boston's Logan Airport, where I'd been just a couple of days before. A lot of local New England people had been on that plane, so it was very sad there, a much smaller version of New York City. It certainly made what happened seem more personal, and less like an international story.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Tolerating Intolerance
In the past week, I've had a front row seat to witness what I consider to be two separate acts of religious intolerance. It isn't the religious intolerance one might think of though. Someone isn't putting down a religion - a religion is putting someone down.
Incident 1 - a pastor at a conservative church is requiring all employees to sign a document to agree to abide by a certain Christian lifestyles. In other words, he is telling some existing (and all potential) employees they are no longer good enough to work there simply based on how they live their life away from work. This type of discrimination may be quite legal for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention unenforcable.
Incident 2 - a Catholic diocesan pastor vetoed a distinguished alumni award that a school was going to give to a well-regarded community volunteer. The reason - for a short time some years ago, she was on the board of Planned Parenthood. In other words, he is telling her (and everyone else) that all good deeds are usurped by helping an organization he and the church oppose. Again, this type of discrimination may be quite acceptable for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention stupid.
What do these incidents have in common? That religious 'leaders' preach tolerance, but act differently. They actually only tolerate those who agree with them. In both cases, this is not the first time the pastor in question has said or done controversial things that are far more politically based than faith-based. They are, in a word, hypocrites.
It sounds ironic, but I actually think the world would be a better place if people followed certain so-called Christian principles - if those principles are broadly defined. Things like loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as they have done to you, and showing compassion to those less fortunate. What these pastors are doing, however, doesn't jibe with any of those. They demand that people rigidly adhere to their specific, often politically-motivated agendas. (By the way, Christianity doesn't own those broadly based principles.)
Basically, their religion screws up their faith. It makes them tolerate intolerance. It makes atheists look good.
Incident 1 - a pastor at a conservative church is requiring all employees to sign a document to agree to abide by a certain Christian lifestyles. In other words, he is telling some existing (and all potential) employees they are no longer good enough to work there simply based on how they live their life away from work. This type of discrimination may be quite legal for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention unenforcable.
Incident 2 - a Catholic diocesan pastor vetoed a distinguished alumni award that a school was going to give to a well-regarded community volunteer. The reason - for a short time some years ago, she was on the board of Planned Parenthood. In other words, he is telling her (and everyone else) that all good deeds are usurped by helping an organization he and the church oppose. Again, this type of discrimination may be quite acceptable for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention stupid.
What do these incidents have in common? That religious 'leaders' preach tolerance, but act differently. They actually only tolerate those who agree with them. In both cases, this is not the first time the pastor in question has said or done controversial things that are far more politically based than faith-based. They are, in a word, hypocrites.
It sounds ironic, but I actually think the world would be a better place if people followed certain so-called Christian principles - if those principles are broadly defined. Things like loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as they have done to you, and showing compassion to those less fortunate. What these pastors are doing, however, doesn't jibe with any of those. They demand that people rigidly adhere to their specific, often politically-motivated agendas. (By the way, Christianity doesn't own those broadly based principles.)
Basically, their religion screws up their faith. It makes them tolerate intolerance. It makes atheists look good.
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Empty Nest
Our last child went off to college this past week. We've taken kids to college enough that most of it was decidedly routine - pack to leave, drive there, unpack, offer my standard reminder about how there are a lot of people in the world that aren't so nice, tell them to keep their name out of the newspaper, and say good-bye.
What was decidedly unroutine about it, however, was arriving back at home to accept the new reality of an empty nest. The house that was once just big enough is now bigger and quieter than it was meant to be. It's hard to comprehend how it got to be like that.
To help cope with the unofficial end to two decades of child-raising, I keep reminding myself about what a success it has been. My kids are the best. There is absolutely no doubt that they are going to make major positive contributions to society. As far as parenting goes, something must have been done right.
One emotion that I didn't expect to have is that of feeling abandoned. The past 23 years have been spent raising children into adults who are going to improve civilization. This has been done with a fair amount of personal and financial sacrifice - I mean, time and money could have been spent on other things. So now, civilization, where is my parade? In the words of Carl Spackler of Caddyshack, "How about a little something, you know, for the effort!?"
One other thing I'm getting used to is the time. It suddenly seems like there's a lot more time to do things. I suppose this is because there just isn't as much to occupy my mind without kids around. This is something I didn't really expect, but frankly, it's also something it won't take me long to get used to.
What was decidedly unroutine about it, however, was arriving back at home to accept the new reality of an empty nest. The house that was once just big enough is now bigger and quieter than it was meant to be. It's hard to comprehend how it got to be like that.
To help cope with the unofficial end to two decades of child-raising, I keep reminding myself about what a success it has been. My kids are the best. There is absolutely no doubt that they are going to make major positive contributions to society. As far as parenting goes, something must have been done right.
One emotion that I didn't expect to have is that of feeling abandoned. The past 23 years have been spent raising children into adults who are going to improve civilization. This has been done with a fair amount of personal and financial sacrifice - I mean, time and money could have been spent on other things. So now, civilization, where is my parade? In the words of Carl Spackler of Caddyshack, "How about a little something, you know, for the effort!?"
One other thing I'm getting used to is the time. It suddenly seems like there's a lot more time to do things. I suppose this is because there just isn't as much to occupy my mind without kids around. This is something I didn't really expect, but frankly, it's also something it won't take me long to get used to.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Waking Up In Vegas
I recently returned from 3-day, 4-night stay in big, bad Las Vegas, Nevada. It's only the fourth time I've been there, and the first time for a legit 100% leisure stay.
I'm always interested to see for myself how Vegas changes over time, and I've got a few observations:
1) Conventional wisdom is that over the past 20 years, Vegas went from Sin City, to a more family-friendly atmosphere, and back to Sin City again. I'm not sure it ever stopped being an adult playground, but I can confirm that there are still plenty of kids there. In fact, I saw kids with their parents all over the strip. While there may be some benign things for kids to see, like the Bellagio fountains, it's disturbingly dumb for parents to drag small kids around that town, because there are also things kids shouldn't see. My conclusion is, many of the strip hotels are marketing themselves as resort destinations for the whole family, especially in the summer. They have great pools, restaurants, shops, like an all-inclusive resort would have, but the thing is, nobody just stays on the same hotel property when they're in Vegas.
2) The days of cheap lodging and meals on the strip are gone. Same for casino action - it's hard to find a table game with under a $15 minimum bet at night, maybe $10 during the day. This is another reason why it's dumb to bring kids there. If you want deals at Vegas now, you have to go downtown, where table games are cheap, music is live, and you can still get a great buffett for between $5-$10. In a related story, I saw no kids downtown at Fremont Street. There's nothing for them to do there, except watch the Fremont Street Experience light show once an hour at night.
3) Vegas and its strip hotels have come a long way in providing ground transportation by tram or monorail at various points up and down the strip. Still, this is a 5+ mile long piece of real estate, and there is a helluva lot of walking to be done if you want to get around without a car, or don't want to pay for a taxi. If you aren't in shape, the heat and the physical activity will bite you.
4) It didn't look like a town that's supposedly in a major recession. Maybe everything is just tremendously leveraged, but from what I saw the Vegas tourism and hospitality indistries were doing pretty well. I saw plenty of people spending money anyway, on both commerce and gambling.
Bottom line, Las Vegas is still Disneyworld for adults. Cool architecture, lights, music, food, even rides. A lifetime multi-visit venue.
I'm always interested to see for myself how Vegas changes over time, and I've got a few observations:
1) Conventional wisdom is that over the past 20 years, Vegas went from Sin City, to a more family-friendly atmosphere, and back to Sin City again. I'm not sure it ever stopped being an adult playground, but I can confirm that there are still plenty of kids there. In fact, I saw kids with their parents all over the strip. While there may be some benign things for kids to see, like the Bellagio fountains, it's disturbingly dumb for parents to drag small kids around that town, because there are also things kids shouldn't see. My conclusion is, many of the strip hotels are marketing themselves as resort destinations for the whole family, especially in the summer. They have great pools, restaurants, shops, like an all-inclusive resort would have, but the thing is, nobody just stays on the same hotel property when they're in Vegas.
2) The days of cheap lodging and meals on the strip are gone. Same for casino action - it's hard to find a table game with under a $15 minimum bet at night, maybe $10 during the day. This is another reason why it's dumb to bring kids there. If you want deals at Vegas now, you have to go downtown, where table games are cheap, music is live, and you can still get a great buffett for between $5-$10. In a related story, I saw no kids downtown at Fremont Street. There's nothing for them to do there, except watch the Fremont Street Experience light show once an hour at night.
3) Vegas and its strip hotels have come a long way in providing ground transportation by tram or monorail at various points up and down the strip. Still, this is a 5+ mile long piece of real estate, and there is a helluva lot of walking to be done if you want to get around without a car, or don't want to pay for a taxi. If you aren't in shape, the heat and the physical activity will bite you.
4) It didn't look like a town that's supposedly in a major recession. Maybe everything is just tremendously leveraged, but from what I saw the Vegas tourism and hospitality indistries were doing pretty well. I saw plenty of people spending money anyway, on both commerce and gambling.
Bottom line, Las Vegas is still Disneyworld for adults. Cool architecture, lights, music, food, even rides. A lifetime multi-visit venue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)