My Review of "The Drunkard's Walk"

The book, "The Drunkard's Walk: How randomness rules our lives," looks at randomness and really randomness plays a greater role in what happens with humans than people, in general, think. I found the book to be exceptional. Although I have always suspected what the book claims, the book backs up its conclusions with mathematics. Plus, it does it in a fun way, making for a very enjoyable book, also. Although not specifically a financial or investing book, the book really is helpful in understanding such stuff. Some points which I noted are....

1. Human intuition is ill suited to uncertainty since in the 1930's researchers noted that people couldn't make sequences of random numbers nor recognize a random sequence.

2. Sometimes in life things happen which can't be foreseen.

3. The amygdala in the brain is active when making a decision, hence decisions are emotional.

4. Rewards work, but punishment doesn't. The opposite is just regression to the mean.

5. Examples which are more likely due to randomness - Roger Maris/1961, success of certain movies and studio heads.

6. Research has shown that people will assign greater probabilities to outcomes which are described in greater detail, the "availability bias."

7. Arithmetic didn't really exist until the 16th century, hence probability not understood before then.

8. DNA in courts - lab error = 1/11, DNA = 1/1B, so chance of error more like 1/10.

9. The Law of Sample Space - Gerolano Cardano - the Book of Games of Chance - 16th century.

10. The Probability of Points - 2 entities competing.

11. Pascal's Triangle - if need to know # of ways in which you can choose some # of objects from a collection that has a > or = #. Pascal's wager -odds about consequences of a pious life, 1/2 if G-d exists, ie. if pious. Confusing, but discussed.

12. Sweepstakes - cost of mail cheaper than chance of winning. Lottery, odds of winning same as one person dying driving to place which sells lottery tickets, but not advertised that way. Dice and roulette wheel are not perfectly balanced, so some uncertainty, not predictable.

13. The book mentions calculus and how it is composed of 1) a sequence, a succession of elements,b) a series which is the sum of the sequence of elements, and 3) a limit where the sequence is heading. But, in Zeno's paradox, the paradox is resolved because of constant motion, no stops. That's how Bernouli attacked the the relationship between probability and observation - toss a coin 10x maybe 7 heads, toss a zillion times expect 50% heads. Bernouli's Golden Theorem - large enough sample to ensure confidence within a certainty. Too small of a sample = the law of small numbers. For instance 1/3 chance that 5 of a CEO's performance will reflect his ability, so better to analyze his abilities rather than just look at results.

14. Bayes's Theorem is discussed where conditional probabilities. Prosecutor's fallacy/ mistake of inversion - just because A happens then B doesn't mean if B happens A will happen. Examples are SIDS deaths and OJ trial.

15. Understanding and quantifying random error led to a new field - mathematical statistics.

16. Wine tasting influenced by all kinds of things, price, context. Statistical measurements include standard deviation, standard deviation squared = variance. Also the Error Law known as a normal distribution or bell curve - in certain cases can expect certain proportionality of results. But, social physics not all normal, like Pareto principle - 80/20 rule or regression to the mean concept. Brownian motion shows Drunkard's Walk, randomness.

17. Book mentions V2 rocket attacks in WWII and cancer clusters, more due to randomness than predictable patterns. The human need to feel in some control interferes with the accuracy in perceiving natural events.

18. Lorenz's Butterfly effect - just small changes can lead to massive differences in results. Plus, unlike laws of physics, human affairs are too complex to predict. Asymmetry makes things impossible to predict, yet look predictable on retrospect, like the stock market. Also, people failing or in poverty may be more random than predictable.

In summary, a terrific book - will likely change the way a reader looks at things, or if a reader does think that way the book will show the mathematics behind it, in a very readable form. 5 out of 5 stars.

Portfolio - "Update"

I've done a few things to my portfolio. When a CD came due, rather than roll it over, with interest rates on CDs not as good as dividends for the kind of quality stocks I own, I added more shares of some stocks I already owned and added stocks of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and Walgreens (WAG). I added JNJ because it was now selling for much lower than I had previously sold it at and it remains a quality company with a nice dividend which is raised annually, plus it has a super great balance sheet. WAG, I have never owned, but have always wanted to if the dividend was in the range which is acceptable. Now it is, also with a pristine balance sheet and a policy of raising dividends generously each year. So, now with my kind of stocks generally paying more than CDs, stocks now make up about 23% of my assets - higher than my usual goal of about 15%.

Plus, I have sold the shorter term TIPS I owned since they were at a profit and reinvested the funds in longer term TIPS which I was able to buy below par, so I was guaranteed a profit with them, plus they offer protection against future inflation. Plus, some of the profit from the TIPS I sold, I used to buy more shares of the stocks I own.

Stocks are listed in order of largest position to least:

KMB (Kimberly Clark)
PG (Procter & Gamble)
MMM (3M Corp)
PEP (Pepsico)
KO (Coca Cola)
SYY (Sysco)
KFT (Kraft)
ADP (Automatic Data Processing)
T (AT&T)
GPC (Genuine Parts)
BMY (Bristol Myers Squibb)
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson)
WAG (Walgreen)

My major asset remain CDs. I don't own a home, though I do think that is OK, as long as one doesn't go into much debt to do so. I have no debt at all, and never want any, though I do think some is OK for a home, especially in the areas which were first to collapse during this Housing decline. I also own US Treasuries, about 6% of my assets. Right now I own inflation protected ones (TIPS). The ones I hold are...

2028's

I like them because they protect both against deflation and moderately against inflation. I also own some gold (coins), but it is only about 3% of my assets and use a safe deposit box to store it. Gold does not qualify as an investment, but I do think it is warranted as a small insurance policy on US currency.

The "Joseph Oppenheim Specu-Vestment."

It is possible to speculate with stocks, yet at the same time invest in them. I am an investor - investing being buying stock in a company I would like to own fully if I could, which deals in products or services used all the time. And, the company must pay a good dividend and has a record of raising it each year. As an investor, I don't want to speculate - speculating being hoping for a short-term profit based on the price of a stock rising. But, there is a way to speculate, without really speculating. That is, by buying a stock I would be content to hold long term, no matter what it does in the short term, but I suspect there is an opportunity for a short term gain. So, if I buy the stock and it goes up quickly, I can sell and take a quick speculative profit. However, even if I am wrong about the short-term, worst case is I have just bought some shares in a stock I am content to hold long term at what I think is a good price. It is win-win and what I call a "Joseph Oppenheim Specu-Vestment." Note, that this also includes what I have termed previously, the "Joseph Oppenheim Kicker Theory" to investing - that is by buying a stock which has both a short term price gain potential and is also a long term investment quality - buying a stock at a time when it also has an extra kicker - a speculative one..

This is the only way I think speculating is OK, and like I say, is also an investment if the short term gain doesn't happen.

The "Joseph Oppenheim Kicker Theory" to Investing

For everything in life, including investing, I always look for what I call a "kicker," something extra which increases the chances for success and/or reduces the chances for failure, or just adds something beyond the main goal(s). Let's say you are looking for a job. Maybe one pays less but is located where people come to vacation - with many fun things to do and great weather - I would say it has a kicker. Same with investing. Some investments protect against inflation, some against deflation, but there are also some which protect against both even if the don't offer bigger rewards. This "kicker" is really a built-in hedge or diversification. I like the word, kicker.

For instance, let's say I want an investment which will protect me against deflation, but in case I am wrong and the opposite happens, inflation, then I can also win. This would be different that just buying a hedge or diversifying. Hedging and diversifying are also important tools, however, if one can essentially find the equivalent already built into the investment or decision, that is a "kicker" and in my opinion makes for a better investment.  So, in the case of such an investment, like a higher rate long-term Certificate of Deposit (CD) would be a protection against deflation, however if the CD has a low or reasonable early withdrawal penalty, one could always easily exit the CD and open a new one with a higher rate at a minimal cost, if inflation happens and interest rates unexpectedly go up significantly.

Another example. when selecting a stock, first I look at it as I would in buying a business, essentially shares of a company I would like to own completely if I could. So, thinking along that line, I would want a businesss which would do well no matter what happens with the economy. That would lead me to a company providing some kind of low-priced staple or service which people need all the time.

Another example, I always recommend investing in quality assets, be they stocks, bonds, etc. Even though potential rewards might be less than with riskier assets, there is always a premium paid for quality and due to unforeseeable situations, it might be difficult to dispose of a non-quality asset. So, in such a case, I call quality a kicker. Another case, CDs come without paying a commission, again, a kicker. Same with buying a home, look for a kicker -like it can be also used as a vacation home, etc

Sure, some might want to speculate and thereby obtain a greater return if one is right, that is by taking greater risk, but that is where I separate a speculator from an investor and I only want to think of myself as an investor, that is building in some protection while not getting greedy. Greed is not good and speculation and greed seem to go hand in hand.

Comment on the Economy - "America's Economic Crossroads"

It is a little past the middle of 2010 and we are in what has been called, "The Great Recession," since the end of 2007. Thus far, we have rebounded from the extreme panic which began in 2008 and bottomed in March of 2009, but recently some indicators suggest that we might be on the cusp of a "double dip" recession which could turn from recovery to some severe nastiness. Indicators are the weakness of some European economies, signalling hardship for Europe which could threaten demand for US exports and other assets like US securities, etc. And, there is concern for US government debt levels which could threaten the US currency and the US's ability to issue debt to finance further economic recovery. Plus, US unemployment remains  a concern, with the economy not creating enough jobs, especially by private employers.

So, I say, we are at an economic "Crossroads." I think the most important indicators to watch to see where the US goes from here are 1) The US stock market - I use the Dow since it has been around longer than the S&P and does track the S&P pretty accurately anyway, and 2) The US bond market - I like to most watch the 10-year Treasury Bond interest rate.

As for the Dow, after rebounding to about 115000, it recently declined to around 10,000, an acceptable profit taking from the recovery rally, but further deterioration from there could cause real worry.

As for the Bond market, 10-year Treasuries have an interest rate of about 2.70, which is cautionary of upcoming weak economics, though there is strong demand for the bonds, hence a somewhat healthy sign still for the US economy. So, both stocks and bonds each indicate some good things, but also some worry - in effect the "crossroads" I mention.

It looks like this crossroads will likely be resolved in one direction or the other with the upcoming Congressional elections in November. The way I see it, with the economy still deleveraging (the removal of private debt - foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc), there is no immediate risk for the government to take on more debt as long as the money is well spent. By well-spent, I mean things which are investments, which eventually return more than they cost. Things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, and energy efficiency. So, for sure we should not lose jobs which work in that direction, hence the federal government should help state governments so as not force them to layoff such workers or cut such programs.

Since the indicators I mention are still positive from the depths of the Recession, it does seems Obama and Democratic leadership in Congress can be judged as successful, albeit modestly. Plus, it seems other than a few Republicans, most have been working against the President and Democrats actually hoping they fail, that is America fail. And, what almost all Republicans propose is exactly the opposite which the economy needs now, like I mention above.

Yes, the deficit and national debt are problems, but not right now. And, like I say with the stock and bond markets up from the end of 2007, that should mean improved government tax revenues in 2011 as long as they remain healthy for the rest of the year. So, as for our government debt, all that is necessay now, is to come up with a plan to lower it, and there is a bi-partisan committee chartered with that, in place now.

So, we are at a crossroads and much is to be determined with the November elections and anticipation of what the results might be. Plus, the stock market does usually experience stress in September and October.

My Review of "The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition"

The reason I wanted to read The Communist Manifesto now is that I don't remember reading it in school and this current financial mess, called the Great Recession, seems at its core the result of greed gone wild, underpinned with our system of capitalism which seems to have in it the very incentives to bring on this excessive greed. So, I was hoping this book would give me some meaningful thoughts with which to further have clues to the way things might play out during this financial mess including the political ramifications. And, from what I do know about Marx, I suspect what happened here is something he had thought out, in a general way, many years before. The Manifesto and the book's foreword cover things like......

 

1. 1847, Marx and Engels joined the League of the Just (renamed the Communist Party) with its object to overthrow the bourgeoisie with rule by the proletariat and a new society without classes or private property.

 

2. 1871, Civil war in France - Marx defended it and it then gave him notoriety as a dangerous leader of international subversion and feared by governments.

 

3. Over the next 40 years the Manifesto conquered the world and carried forward a rise of new (socialist) labor parties. None were called Communist until the Russian Bolsheviks. Mostly in central Europe to Russia. Small in SW Europe.

 

4. When a major state (Russia) represented Marxist ideology, the Manifesto became a  text in political science and still remains so.

 

5. It was written for a particular time in history

 

6. Marx and Engel's Communist Party was not an organization - more of a historical document.

 

7. Two things which gave the Manifesto its force - a) the vision that capitalism was not permanent/stable, b) The revolutionary potential of a capitalist economy.

 

8. We live in a world where this transformation has largely taken place.

 

9. Capitalism can't provide a livelihood for most of the working class.

 

10. There will always be the oppressors (capitalists - bourgeoisie) versus the workers

 

11 The Bourgeoisie has stripped all occupations down to paid workers.

 

12. The need for constantly expanding market for its products means ultimately global.- effecting even a world literature, cheap prices - will make all nations bourgeoisie.Eventually overproduction leading to barbarism because of too much civilization. The proletariat/workers  become mere appendages and lose all character. Brings more collisions between societies and trade unions will flourish. The worker groups get bigger and more powerful through education provided by the bourgeoisie. Other classes except the proletariat will decay.

 

13. Wage labor rests on the competition between laborers. Communists flourish independently of national borders.

 

14.Communism abolishes bourgeoisie property, no big deal since 90% of private property belongs to the bourgeoisie. Small peasant property is destroyed daily by industry. Average wage of laborers is the minimum wage, just for subsistence. Education is rescued from the influence of the ruling class. Since family is a bourgeoisie thing affirmed by property, family is destroyed - children are transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor. Working men will have no country. Communism's desire is to abolish countries and nationality. National differences and antagonisms will vanish. External truths like freedom and justice will be common to all states. But, communism will abolish eternal truths like religion and morality - a new basis. Communism will raise the working class to the ruling class.

 

15. Specifically, communism will:

    a) Abolish property in land and application of all rents to public purposes.

    b) Abolish inheritance.

    c) Confiscate property of emigrants and rebels.

    d) Have a national bank.

    e) Centralization of communication and transportation by the state.

    f) Factories and instruments of production to be owned by the state.

    g) Combine agriculture and manufacturing so there will be no distinction between town and country.

    h) Free education.

 

So, I would say the Communist Manifesto, though really just applied to a time in history and times have surely changed quite a bit since then, but I would also say what it was concerned about also shouldn't be ignored when trying to understand the current economic stress we are in. Our capitalism, though obviously very successful especially in many respects, does show strain in the following areas, as Marx could have likely anticipated like a) the gap between the well-off and the poor and even middle-class has dangerously widened such that our political divisions reflect that and has turned more heated and split, making compromise among our politicians very difficult - hard to govern the country efficiently. b) He warned that the bourgeoisie (today's well-off) has been unable to effect the tools to elevate everyone enough, judging by our failing infrastructure, healthcare costs the highest in the world, etc. c) He anticipated the global impact, ever searching for the least cost workers, such that our manufacturing workers are left without jobs. We can even see this global force in our illegal immigration problems - workers from Mexico, etc coming here, somehow even breaking down our borders - something Marx  apparently could see. I did leave off some other things in how the Manifesto was relevant now, in this short paragraph, but from the points, above, it can be seen there are others.

 

In conclusion, I give the book 5 out of 5 stars. It is a short enough book and just its impact has been monumental in history, it is worthwhile to keep in mind as one tries to figure out what might come next from this Great Recession.

My Review of "The Big Short."

The book, by Michael Lewis, is very good at detailing the situations and characters involved in the financial mess caused by the recent housing bubble and how a few people anticipated it and bet big on it happening.

The book starts with a quote by Tolstoy about the importance of being open-minded in order to understand complex things and being close-minded keeps someone from understanding even simple things. The author was amazed how in the mid 1980's, Salomon Bros. would pay him good money, a 24 y.o. with no clue. Yet, he figured out then that the big money was made in the bond market not stocks, leading up to the junk bond collapse in the 80s. He then wrote about it, and here it was essentially happening all over again with the bond people. CEO's knew nothing of the risks their bond traders were taking. He hoped bright college students would avoid Wall Street, rebel against it and just pursue what they loved. But, no, the financial system would again be discredited. He then goes into these key things in this mess like:

1. Meredith Whitney, then an obscure analyst at Oppenheimer & Co, with just a BA from Brown who studied English, said Citicorp was so mismanaged it would cut its dividend or go bust. The so-called experts were still not acknowledging the risk in the sub-prime mortgage market - not that they were corrupt, just stupid. She was trained by Steve Eisman who also gave her a world view - how to see the big picture when analyzing stuff. She read about John Paulson, a hedge fund manager, who made big bets against the bonds and there were a few others. Eisman, U. Penn and Harvard, but also yeshiva trained and loved the Talmud because of its contradictions - he had the mind set to look for investment contradictions. He saw Wall Street going where it never went before - into the debts of ordinary Americans - cash flow from pools of mortgages - the only risk back then was of borrowers paying off soon, but never not at all. So, this new market, never really tapped into to such an extent, homes, and let less credit-worthy people to buy homes, but the real risk was in letting them cash out and refinance to get more money, basically a fast buck business with the issuers of the mortgages just selling them off and not caring what happened long term. Society had changed, with incomes more skewed, more wealthy and more struggling - so this was a way to let those left behind in the economy to prosper, even feel wealthy - letting them borrow easily. Oppenheimer was getting into this new market. Eisman needed Vincent Daniel, from Queens and SUNY Binghamton whose father was murdered - so different roots, to parse data. Found that delinquency rates were hidden, only profits from prepayments were visible.

2. 1997 Russia defaulted, 2002 Eisman saw HFC was a fraud - tricking customers on interest rates, Eisman was aware of ACORN -was a Republican until he saw an entire industry, consumer finance, existed just to rip people off.

3. By 2005, 75% subprime loans were floating rate, fixed for just 2 years. Long Beach Savings was the first to get into this, soon followed by big WS banks - run by the bond departments.

4. In 2004, Michael Burry got into them, seeing decline in lending standards, but hard to short, then he discovered Credit Default Swaps (CDSs). Charlie Munger gave lecture about the "psychology of human misjudgment."

5. 2ndQ 2005, credit card delinquencies at all-time high, but home prices continued going up. Hallmark of a bubble/mania/fraud.

6. AIG on the other side of the bet, issuing the CDSs. Goldman created the CDO and synthetic CDOs which had in them CDSs. Home prices didn't need to fall, just not go up as fast. Tom Fewings, the first in AIG to spot trouble - when seeing WSJ article on New Century. Joe Cassano, head of AIG FP didn't think home prices would fall, at least not nationally, all at once - eventually did change his mind, but still exposed. Mid 2006 home prices began to fall.

7. FICO scores had blind spots - didn't acct. for people's income, could be rigged by getting a new credit card and paying off right away, no differerence between "thin file" and "thick file" borrowers, teaser rates hid risks, averages were used for pools of mortgages which hid the amount of low FICO scores of those who should never have been given mortgages, "silent seconds" allowing borrowers to have no equity in their home.

8. Few used CDSs as outright bets against housing, most were used as hedges while still hoping for the bonds to work out. Exceptions were those who listened to Greg Lippman's pitch, like John Paulson. Paulson/Eisman/Burry understood the risk. Ledley/Hockett/Mai just bet on the least likely possibility - their strategy. Rule of thumb - buy homes when price equal or less than 10X rent and sell when 20X.

9. Names and acronyms hid risks - CDOs not called subprime backed CDOs, but structured finance CDOs, RMBS, HEL, HELOC, ALT-As were just no-doc crappy loans, Rockridge community not called Oakland so homes would sell for more. Actually, 80% of a CDO was overrated, so even better to bet against the higher tranches, since the CDS would be cheaper but the same likelihood of default.

10. Wing Chao, called a CDO manager, which were essentially front men for WS firms, could collect bigger salaries and imply they actually studied the CDOs.

11. Rating agency people were underpaid- should have been paid more to attract talented people - they just made their money by collecting fees for each rating, so just pushed them through quickly. Like a Ponzi scheme - more morons than crooks, but the crooks were higher up. WS just propped up CDO prices while it could - fraud was rampant - neither the WSJ nor SEC was interested.

12. Now Bear Stearns at risk. Merrill had advised Orange county before their bankruptcy, was in the middle of the Internet bust, 80's bond market bust, so naturally they would be in the middle of this.

13. Jim Grant couldn't figure out CDOs then realized that was the story to be told.

14. When Goldman got into the bet against CDOs, then CDOs began to tank. 4/2007 New Century went bankrupt. BS leverage 40:1,Lehman & ML 32:1, Morgan Stanley & Citicorp 33:1, GS 25:1. Only a slight decline could bankrupt them all. 9/2008 Lehman went bankrupt, ML $55B loss - sold to BA. WS firms were the dumb money, CEOs stupid. Bear Stearns Chioffi and Tannin arrested.

!5. It was greed, sure, but more the incentives which channeled the greed. Then, the people who didn't see it happening were the ones to clean it up - H. Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke,etc. Then H. Paulson engineered the $700B bailout of the worst culprits.

An important book, the only criticism I have is that it could have been shorter, but I guess the author did want it to read like a story and illuminate some specific personalities, which will probably make the book easier to make into a movie.

4 out of 5 stars.

My New Book is Just Published - "Become a Private Investor"

It's available at Amazon.com.

Portfolio - "Update"

I've added a position in AT&T (T) to my stock portfolio. The stock pays a high dividend (about 6.5%) and raises it annually. With a PE of around 12 and the price having dropped recently, it was very attractive. Stocks represent about 15% of my investment portfolio.

Listed in order of largest to smallest holdings:

KMB (Kimberly Clark)
PEP (Pepsico)
PG (Procter & Gamble)
MMM (3M Corp)
SYY (Sysco)
KFT (Kraft)
ADP (Automatic Data Processing)
KO (Coca Cola)
BMY (Bristol Myers Squibb)
T (AT&T)
GPC (Genuine Parts)

My major asset remain CDs. I don't own a home, though I do think that is OK, as long as one doesn't go into much debt to do so. I have no debt at all, and never want any, though I do think some is OK for a home, especially in the areas which were first to collapse during this Housing decline. I also own US Treasuries, about 7% of my assets. Right now I own inflation protected ones (TIPS). The three I hold are...

2015's
2013's
2028's

I like them because they protect both against deflation and moderately against inflation. I also own some gold (coins), but it is only about 3% of my assets and use a safe deposit box to store it. Gold does not qualify as an investment, but I do think it is warranted as a small insurance policy on US currency.

My review of "Drive"

"Drive" is an excellent take on what motivates people in modern society compared with times past. Things it covers are:

1. A couple of decades ago rhesus monkeys solved a puzzle without a reward of food, water or sex. They began playing with it and solved it, implying a thrid drive - some intrinsic reward. They even made more errors when an external reward was used - raisens. Then, more recently similar results were found in an experiment (a Soma puzzle) with humans, implying humans also have this third, intrinsic, drive - for novelty, challenge, with scientific proof counter to what business usally does to motivate workers.

2. Like computers, societies have operating systems - a) Motivation 1.0 - in older times just for survival, b) Motivation 2.0 - the industrial revolution led to rewards and punishments, carrots and sticks to motivate workers, c) Motivation 2.1 - some refinements like flex hours and casual dress, d) Motivation 3.0 - purpose driven rather than monetary compensation - think Wikipedia versus Microsoft's Encarta encyclopedia, Firefox, Apache web server, Linix. Strongest motivation - enjoyment. Vermont - first state to implement a new business organization, "low profit limited liability corporation" with purpose maximized rather than profit.

4. Behavioral economics shows people motivated also by irrational motives. US census showed many non-employer businesses. Financial rewards can turn play into work - reducing performance, loss of creativity. - the Sawyer Effect.

5. Extrinsic rewards can work for left-brain algorithmic tasks, but not for right-brain flexible problem-solving, creative solutions - can lead to bad, even unethical behavior and sort-term thinking like what led to the recent Great Recession - too much pay caused epic problems. Goals which lead to mastery are good - rewarding the activity better than rewarding the result.

6. Rewards best if unexpected, not if-then but now-that.

7. Self Determination Theory (SDT) - Type I person - 3 needs of a Type I person: a) autonomy - over 4 T's - task, time, technoque, and team, b) mastery - a flow - 3 laws to get in the flow - mindset, pain, asymptote - getting closer and closer to perfection but never reaching it, c) purpose - words are important like having an oath, when an employee says "we" rather than "they" for the company.

8. Toolkit for a Type I person - a) flow test - one sentence for a person like freed the slaves for Lincoln, b) small question - like was today better than yesterday, c) take a "sagmeiter" - a sabbatical like every 7 years - do something different like travel, d) do annual personal performance reviews, e) get unstuck by going oblique - by pushing out of a mental rut, f) move 5 steps closer to mastery - deliberate practice, g) 3x5 cards with question/answer to give meaning to each day, h) create your own motivational poster.

9. Nine ways to get your organization to be Type I - have 20% free time, encourage peer-peer now-that rewards, conduct an autonomy audit, take 3 steps to giving up control, play "whose purpose is it?", Reich's pronoun test - we or they, design for intrinsic motivation, Goldilocks for groups - not too easy, not too hard tasks, turn offsite into "FedEx day."

10. Type I compensation - get it right then get out of sight. Ensure internal, external fairness - harder job gets paid more, etc. Pay more than average.

11. Tips for parents on how to motivate kids: homework - autonomy, mastery, purpose, have a FedEx day, Do It Yourself (DIY) report cards, don't combine allowances and chores, praise strategy and effort not IQ, let kids see the big picture of things.

Overall, this book is very insightful and an easy read - recommended - 5 out of 5 stars.

My Review of "SuperFreakonomics"

As a sequel to "Freakonomics" this one is fine, with some insightful behavioral economic thoughts like:

1. A drunk walker is eight times more likely to die than a drunk driver, on a per mile basis.

2. Lower birthrate in India when cable TV introduced because of more autonomy of women.

3. Negative externalities using horses for transportation, too much manure and accidents, led to more modern form of transportation. Title 9 for women's athletics led to more male coaches of women's teams.

4. Averages can be misleading because the "average" person has one breast and one testicle, but a good place to start. People are more scared of sharks than elephants yet elephants kill many more people per year than sharks.

5. Expert performers are almost always made, not born, so best to work at what you love since likely you'll worker harder at that.

6. Terrorists are less likely to come from poor families.

7. "Cognitive drift" can lead to many errors, because people can become distracted easily in just a few seconds.

8. Women ER doctors generally are better than men.

9. Nobel Prize winners live longer, so do baseball Hall of Fame members. Also, do annuity buyers because of incentive to collect more.

10. Chemo for cancer is questionably effective.

11. TV watching increases crime - any kind of TV programs.

12. Humans are naturally altruistic, but affected by context, like when being under scrutiny.

13. Law of unintended consequences is very powerful, Seemingly good laws many times lead to the opposite happening more.

14. Simple and cheap fixes are more frequent than one might think. Ammonium nitrate most responsible for feeding the world. Polio vaccine to conquer polio. Car seat belts to save lives. Book offers some possible simple ways to stop bad hurricanes (send some surface warm water down deep) and solve global warming (send sulfur dioxide high in the sky). Don't have doctors wear ties - ties hardly ever cleaned, have doctors follow good hand hygiene in hospitals.

15. Capuchin monkeys can be taught to use money, hence basic economic laws hold for them, also like humans show irrational economic behavior like favoring loss aversion even if it isn't the wisest choice.

If the book is not as rigorous in its proof of assertions, that is OK with me, as it is an easy read and made me think a little deeper about some subjects worthy of deeper thought.

4 out of 5 stars.

My review of "Predictably Irrational"

This is a behaviorial economics book by Dan Ariely, I listened to the audiobook, which looks at how we are predisposed in certain situations to make irrational choices like:

1. When people are given a third choice, a different version of one of two similar choices, the person will likely chose the choice with two options, like a trip to Paris with or without a free breakfast or Rome with a free breakfast, the person would likely chose Paris simply because the two choices of Paris predisposes the person to thinking of Paris. So, sometimes just adding a more expensive version of the same product will cause more of the product to be sold.

2. Creating a new "anchor" can change the attractiveness of something, like Starbucks creating an attractive ambiance of its shops can make people want to pay more for coffee than at Dunkin' Donuts. Or, when a person moves from a city with inexpensive homes to a city with more expensive ones, the person is conditioned to buy a smaller home because he/she is 'anchored' to a certain price range. The same thing can work in reverse, affected by the particular 'anchor.'

3. Social versus market norms can affect choices. People sometimes are likely to do more work for free if for a social cause, rather than being paid. Sometimes small gifts work better than more expensive ones, because they keep the relationaship more social and less market-driven. The implication is important as companies have become less generous with creating a family atmosphere with free healthcare and other things like free lunches, company picnics, etc workers likely will feel more dedicated and work harder.

4. Ariely shows how sexual arousal alters a person's think so he/she will act less rational.

5. The book also looks at procrastination and how just having a person set his/her own deadlines works better than having no deadlines.

6. Ownership cause people to value something more than not owning it. That's why trial offers and money return guarantees work well.

7. The book covers the placebo effect and why a 50 cent pill might be more effective than the same one costing $2.50.

8. Thje book covers cheating and why simply having people contemplate the morality of doing something predisposes the person to be more honest - like saying, you know we use the honor system here or asking them if they can list the Ten Commandments even if they make mistakes in doing so. Also, context can affect cheating. People are less likely to steal cash than when someting which is removed from actual cash, like pencils at work, getting stock options at work when acting unethically, etc.

Overall, the book amplifies how human psychology must be considered in economics and how we are conditioned to make economic choices sometimes irrationally and in doing so is worthwhile in making a person think a little deeper about some things which have economic consequences.

Portfolio - "Update"

I've added a position in Genuine Parts Corp. (GPC) to my stock prtfoilio. It is a solid auto parts company with little debt and a good dividend, along with a history of raising the dividend annually. I've also added some 2028 US Treasury (TIPS) bonds as added protection against future inflation. Stocks represent about 15% of my investment portfolio.

Listed in order of largest to smallest holdings:

KMB (Kimberly Clark)
PEP (Pepsico)
PG (Procter & Gamble)
MMM (3M Corp)
ADP (Automatic Data Processing)
SYY (Sysco)
KFT (Kraft)
KO (Coca Cola)
BMY (Bristol Myers Squibb)
GPC (Genuine Parts)

My major asset remain CDs. I don't own a home, though I do think that is OK, as long as one doesn't go into much debt to do so. I have no debt at all, and never want any, though I do think some is OK for a home, especially in the areas which were first to collapse during this Housing decline. I also own US Treasuries, about 7% of my assets. Right now I own inflation protected ones (TIPS). The three I hold are...

2015's
2013's
2028's

I like them because they protect both against deflation and moderately against inflation. I also own some gold (coins), but it is only about 3% of my assets and use a safe deposit box to store it. Gold does not qualify as an investment, but I do think it is warranted as a small insurance policy on US currency.

My Review of "Too Good to be True"

Although the book doesn't really offer anything new about financial scams that isn't already covered in 1852's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," since this one was the biggest ever and happened so recently, it is worth understanding it closer and this is a pretty good book for that. Some points worth remembering from the book are:

1. Bernie Madoff and his brother Peter had become famous in the 70's-80's for starting electronic trading by taking over the Cincinnati stock exchange, converting it to electronic trading and competing with the NYSE and ASE. Built reputation for quick turnarounds on trades. Plus, regulators knew Bernie because he sat on committees to advise the SEC. Popularized payments for order flow, so he made extra bucks for diverting trades from other exchanges. Was sought after at elite clubs and by money managers because he promised and delivered 10-12%, as long as customers didn't ask too many questions.

2. Madoff graduated Hofstra College in 1960 with a BA in political science, but wanted people to think he also had a law degree, which he didn't, but his brother, Peter, did.

3. Customers were his best sales force because he would frequently pay commissions for referrals. Alpern and Heller accounting firm, later run by Avellino and Bienes, passed along a lot of referrals. Alpern was his father-in-law. Family would play a big part with Madoff - lots of nepotism. First really big customer was Carl Shapiro, wealthy from the garment industry. Cohn and Delaire partnered with Madoff to form Cohmad and fed lots of funds to Madoff. Jaffe ran Boston's Cohmad office and fed lots of funds. Fairfield Greenwich Group in mid 90's was a big feeder after the SEC shut down Avellino and Bienes. Madoff worked closely with Chase Bank from 1992 and with Bear Stearns after JPMorgan took over Bear Stearns.

4. Secretly built his advisory business separate from his legitimate trading operation. DiPascali was the actual operations boss. Later called it a hedge fund because of the popularity of them. Repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 led to banks getting involved with hedge funds. Plus, securitization of debt led to more and more money available for investment for all hedge funds and Madoff. Never registered as an investment advisor so always illegal. The business grew because he promised what he delivered, and commissions, paid employees well. Everyone was happy, therefore attracted lots of investors and portfolio managers. Even if some questioned whether it was all legit, everybody was happy and no one wanted to dig deeper - sort of a shared greed. Also, Madoff just charged commissions, not heavy fees like hedge funds did, so, again everyone was happy. And, predictably consistent good returns caused no customers to be nervous. Love of hedge funds so great, Vikrim Pandit had run one and Citicorp bought it and paid Pandit a lot and made him CEO, but hedge fund ran into problems and Citi shut it down. Hedge funds had shown they weren't successful in bear markets - preservation of capital absent with them.

5. In 2005, decimalization was introduced for stock trades which put a squeeze of Madoff's legal trading business - less profits to funnel into his advisory business to cover periodic losses.

6. Plus, Madoff built in an aura of exclusivity, having a reputation that he didn't need customers. Hence attracted Swiss and European clients, even nobility. Bank Medici a big feeder through Sonja Kohn, which no longer exists and she is in hiding.

7. Collapse of stock market in 2008 signaled the end for Madoff's Ponzi scheme because his customers were squeezed for cash and wanted massive redemptions from him.

8. Harry Markopolos, working at Rampart in 1999 raised questions because Rampart used the split-strike strategy the same as Madoff claimed to use, but Markopolos said no way Madoff could have achieved such consistent returns unless crooked. The SEC was understaffed, plus tied to the industry it regulates. Plus, mostly staffed with lawyers who weren't even trained to understand Bloomberg terminals. Plus, Chairman Cox was terrible, part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America to limit lawsuits against financial institutions accused of fraud. Gary Aguirre fired by SEC for going after a hedge fund. Plus, Madoff's daughter, Shana, married an SEC guy.

9. Madoff cared not only about profits but status at elite clubs, etc.

So, to sum it up, greed by everyone based on a trust in a guy known as Uncle Bernie who promised good returns and delivered consistently and rewarded everyone connected with him and his operations. "Too Good to be True" is a perfect title for this Ponzi scheme.

4 out of 5 stars.

Portfolio - "Update"

Other than adding to positions in SYY and ADP because of favorable price points, and renewing maturing CDs, I have kept my portfolio intact. That approach is consistent with my overall approach of essentially having a permanent portfolio subject to managing it. Stocks represent about 14% of my investment portfolio.

Listed in order of largest to smallest holdings:

KMB (Kimberly Clark)
PEP (Pepsico)
MMM (3M Corp)
PG (Procter & Gamble)
SYY (Sysco)
ADP (Automatic Data Processing)
KFT (Kraft)
BMY (Bristol Myers Squibb)
KO (Coca Cola)

My major asset remain CDs. I don't own a home, though I do think that is OK, as long as one doesn't go into much debt to do so. I have no debt at all, and never want any, though I do think some is OK for a home, especially in the areas which were first to collapse during this Housing decline. I also own US Treasuries, about 7% of my assets. Right now I own inflation protected ones (TIPS). The two I hold are...
2015's
2013's
I like them because they protect both against deflation and moderately against inflation. I also own some gold (coins), but it is only about 3% of my assets and use a safe deposit box to store it. Gold does not qualify as an investment, but I do think it is warranted as a small insurance policy on US currency.

My review of "Nudge"

"Nudge", a behavioral economics book, is very good at giving a reader perhaps a peak into President Obama's mind as he attempts to tackle some pretty big issues like healthcare, the environment, education and the financial urgencies of Medicare and Social Security. In his first few months in office, he does seem to be trying to win the support of political moderates just as this book presents such a case with its concept of "libertarian paternalism". The concept presents a case for giving people many choices while at the same time trying to have them lean toward directions which would likely be in their best interests. Some points from the book which caught my attention are:

1. Small details can have major impacts on people's behavior.

2. A "nudge" is an aspect of choice architecture which alters human behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or changing their economic incentives.

3. Never underestimate the power of inertia. The power can be harnessed by default options, for example. 'Econs' are people who respond to economic incentives. 'Humans' are people who respond to incentives AND nudges. Therefore, incentives and nudges help everyone.

4. It is false to assume almost everyone all the time makes choices in their best interest.

5. There are two kinds of thinking: intuitive/automatic (the oldest, like with voters and teenage drivers) and reflective/rational.

6. The book goes into rules of thumb like 'anchoring', 'availabilty' and 'representativeness' which affect how people make decisions.

7. Optimism/overconfidence and loss aversion affect decisions.

8. Temptation/dynamic-inconsistency can be handled.

9. 'Following the herd' must be managed.

10. 'The spotlight effect' - people unnecessarily tend to think others are watching them. So, investment clubs with conformists tend to do poorly, for instance.

11. The golden rule of 'nudges' is when they are most likely to help and least likely to cause harm.

12. Expect errors - humans are prone to making errors.

13. If Social Security is changed to allow investment choices, well thought-out defaults would be good. Medicare Part D is too cumbersome the way it is now, with about 2/3 making the wrong choices.

14. Asymmetric paternalism - help the least sophisicated while imposing the least on the most sophisticated.

The book also goes into over thirty nudges on various issues. Overall, the book is timely in giving a reader a clue into how some major issues facing the government might be handled, in order to have the best chance of progressing and working. 4 out of 5 stars.

Comment on The Economy - "The Window", update

It now looks like the "Window" which had opened where it was OK for the US to issue more Treasury debt (see previous comments), is beginning to close, pursuant to the recent S&P cutting UK's debt rating outlook to negative. This has created a worry in the markets for a weakness on US currency and US Treasury debt. This is a signal that although the markets are still OK for US currency and debt as Moody's just reaffirmed its AAA rating for US debt, they could turn on a dime if market psychology turns from currently 'nervous' to 'panic'.

So, although it is still technically OK for the US to issue more debt or print dollars, since unemployment still appears to be worsening, especially with California voters rejecting 5 of the 6 budget propositions, and asset values (stock market, housing, etc) still depressed, it has to be careful since the dollar and debt markets have become decidedly nervous.

Probably the reason that the recent nervousness hasn't turned immediately into panic mode is because the recent stimulus measures by the Fed and Administration/Congress have actually been successful in stabilizing the banking system, stock market and also other depreciating markets like housing and commodities. Though, it is important to watch oil, as it has nearly doubled to the low 60s and gold is near its high.

Portfolio - How to become a "Private Investor".

Calling oneself a private investor is when one earns one's money entirely by managing their portfolio of investments.

There are many ways to become one, like by winning a lottery then quitting one's job then investing the money, or likewise through inheritance or another way by essentially starting with enough money. However, I'll cover the approach which is possible for basically the average person. These are steps which can work. Obviously, it could be possible to skip some of the earlier steps, depending on an individual's circumstances and how one might have altered their life's goals over the years.

1. Start with a goal of wanting to be a private investor. Perhaps, like from childhood, wanting to reach an early stage in one's life where they no longer want to either be an employee or be self-employed which requires running day-to-day actual operations in a business. Another way to look at it, is by owning assets where other people do the "work", per se. This is not much different from owning a business, just one step removed. In fact, Warren Buffett essentially has done that, by buying entire companies, then using the cash flow from those companies to buy other investments -like shares of stock in major companies plus holding other securities. In this case, though, I would envision a child expecting to work at a normal job, but using the cash flow to build up savings and investments in order to no longer need the job. Plus, it is an advantage to have one's job(s), and education leading up to it, serve to prepare a person for such a vocation, I'd say being well-versed on lots of things.

2. Learn that it isn't how much you earn, but how much you spend and save from what you earn, that is important. I have noticed that there basically are two kinds of people, those who never save no matter how much they earn and those who save no matter how little they earn. Sure, there may be a middle road, but rarely. It is a mindset. Obviously, it is the latter mindset which is necessary to become a private investor from humble beginnings, and the sooner one can embrace that mindset the better. What goes along with that is to learn that it really is possible to enjoy life to its fullest, really very simply - public parks, home cooking, using coupons, etc, etc. In fact, it can become a pleasant challenge, in learning how to navigate such a lifestyle.

3. Start early in saving and investing, and reading about investing. Even if you just have just one FDIC-insured CD and one stock, you begin to build up a knowledge of investing. Knowledge and experience are the keys. Let's say one begins as a teenager, by the time the person is in their 30's or 40's, one has maybe 20-25 years of experience and accumulated knowledge. So, targeting perhaps the mid-40's to be in a position to become a full-fledged private investor is certainly reasonable.

4. Then, just follow my post, Portfolio -"Investing Approach". It really isn't very difficult, just requires a mindset and a desire to learn.

Also, it should be remembered that if one has embraced the mindset of being able to enjoy life to its fullest while living inexpensively, one's portfolio need not be extraordinarily large. I do have a blog, "Joseph Oppenheim Philosophy" which does look at some thoughts which might be of help to potential private investors.

Portfolio - "Investing Approach"

My general approach to investing is:

1. Stocks - I want to think of myself as a businessman, that is, only owning stocks of companies I would like to own completely if I could. As such, I would only want to own a business which offers products or services which will always be in demand in good times or bad. Plus, the products or services are top quality ones and the company is recognized as a great one in its industry. Plus, the company must have a sterling balance sheet, preferably with little or no debt. And, like any business I might own, it must regularly return a good income to me by way of a good dividend which ideally the company regularly raises annually. Hence, one is protected, to a degree, against both deflation and inflation. Obviously, the stock would also offer a reasonable chance of capital appreciation, by way of having a business which offers reasonable growth prospects.

Also, key to stock holdings, are that they must be managed, often adding or subtracting to/from positions as situations merit. Plus, although the goal is to hold a stock forever, as one would a business, a serious adverse situation which faces a company could warrant closing out the position in the stock.

As for speculation, the only way I think it is OK is to buy more of a stock I already own or want to own long-term, thinking it might move up for a short term gain, however since it is a stock I already want to own, worst case is that in case it doesn't go up right away, I just have added to my position at what I think is a cheap price. So, essentially it is a win-win kind of bet, especially as I always recommend keeping some cash in reserve - never being in a situation where I am overloaded with stocks. It should always be remembered that deep and prolonged bear markets are always possible, so stocks by their nature do carry risk. However, one other benefit of considering such trades, is that it keeps the investor more current on stock and market situations, thereby keeping one more informed. Staying informed is key.

Plus, I only want to own companies which I think are in moral businesses. Not tobacco, etc. By doing so, I get some additional feelings of satisfaction. Since there are thousands of stocks from which to pick, I don't see that as a disadvantage.

2. Bonds - I only want US Treasury bonds, notes or bills, the safest of safe. Among them, I might prefer, regular ones which pay fixed interest rate or inflation-protected ones (TIPs), as the situation presents itself. Also, GNMA collaterized debt obligations are OK as they, too, have the full faith and credit of the US government behind them. Like with stocks, positions must be managed.

3. CDs - I only want FDIC (Banks) or NCUA (Credit Unions) insured CDs. Also, I prefer ones of long term duration, mostly five year terms. I do consider these CDs as investments since there is a long-term component to them. However, I also like that they serve the dual purpose as being used as savings, since I only want CDs which have low or reasonable early withdrawal penalties. Again, some protection against both deflation and inflation, plus are liquid investments.

4. Gold or Silver - Not an investment, but reasonable to have a small amount as an insurance policy on our currency. Gold, preferably coins. Silver, preferably pre-1965 90% silver coins.

5. Homes - although I don't own any, it is fine to own one's home, as long as one treats it as a consumer item with only a limited investment component, plus I don't recommend having a large mortgage on it. If a person doesn't have the means to buy a home for cash or maybe 50% cash, he/she should rent, in my opinion. Owning a home has a lot of other costs associated with it, like maintenance, add-ons, etc which many people forget to include when considering buying their home. But, if one just wants to own a home because of choice of lifestyle, therefore recognize it is mostly a consumer purchase. As for buying investment homes, I recommend as a rental property only, using little, if any debt, and which produces net profits which would equal or beat CD rates. Plus, remember, that rental properties mean either being a landlord or paying for a property manager. Being a landlord is a labor-intensive business, so I really only look at it as favorable if a really good opportunity presents itself. As for having a property manager, either way, one of the real risks with rental properties is having tenants which severely damage the property. Therefore, investment homes may sound great, but they come with lots of hidden costs, extra time, and worry - and they are not liquid, sometimes they require a long time to sell.

Comment on the Economy - "Teabaggers"

What "Teabaggers", those people who wanted to create a spectacle on Income Tax Day, April 15th, because they were outraged at taxpayer money going to the banking system and banks turning the money into profits, don't understand that with such profits, banks pay income taxes back to the American people by way of their elected government.

"Teabaggers" don't understand that with such profits, banks are able to create jobs for the American people, who in turn spend, invest, etc which result in even more jobs which result in more taxes back to the American people by way of their elected government.

Etc, etc...

Plus, such "Teabaggers" will never understand the importance of the concept of fractional reserve banking, in that it is the most effective way to stimulate an economy, because of the multiplier effect. That is, for every dollar which is inserted into the banking system, it results in about ten dollars or so inserted into the economy.

Plus, what such "Teabaggers" also don't understand is that any recent failings of such system can be addressed with improved regulation. Greed and panic are always at odds with capitalism, and regulation will always be in need of adjustment.

Plus, even with the recent failing, it still created the greatest economic boom in the history of the planet - record low unemployment and reduction of poverty from about 12% to 9% in the 90's in the US while also fostering a lifting of about 300,000,000 Chinese out of poverty, fostering a massive global boom even helped by the dot.com/communications bubble collapse which allowed India to buy up a communications/broadband infrastructure and make them a big player in the world economy - creating even more jobs, etc.

It's called investment!

Comment on the Economy - "Competitive Devaluation"

What is happening is a competitive currency devaluation, industrial countries trying to get an advantage over other industrial countries, by having weaker currencies so as to make their exports sell better and create/keep jobs. These countries are in effect trying desperately to export their own deflation to other countries. The greatest risk globally is an all-out massive deflationary economic collapse.

Luckily, at least for now, for the US, is that the world needs us to lead the global economy out of this mess, since we are the largest and most massive creator of demand for other countries exports. The rest of the world needs us, even developing/emerging countries which have commodity-based economies. Sure, a big risk is eventual high inflation for the US. However, fighting deflation is of utmost importance now - if we can't stop that - worse things will happen.

On the bright side - we have had modest success so far, and there is a real chance that we can head off the bad inflation as long as we do start generating jobs while at the same time restructuring our economy regarding energy, health care, science. and education, and set a plan for reducing deficit/debt. But, for now, trillions of US money/debt has been destroyed -asset prices - sure asset values aren't included in M1. M2, etc - but it is still money, albeit potential money, but nevertheless it takes away any near term risk of severe inflation. It is deflation which is the biggest risk.

There is nothing wrong with a fiat currency as long as a country has valid assets, albeit indirect ones, backing it - like a healthy and educated workforce, great universities, a solid physical infrastructure, and other assets which make it a desirable country to live, visit, invest, etc.

It's a big challenge, but so far indicators show some good signs. And, anyone who understands behavioral economics, understands that public support is critical in calming financial markets and generating investment. And, right now, it is clear there is general public support, the people, in the US and around the world. The only real exceptions are the extremists, both on the Left and the Right, but so far moderates are in charge and they represent the real solid majority.

By the way, the stock market is officially in a new bull market - having risen over 20% from its lows. Sure, there is no guarantee how long it will last - it could end next week, and surely is due for a correction, but it is an important leading indicator. Financial markets key off of such things.

Portfolio - "Update"

I've altered my stock positions slightly, by adding a small position in SYY (Sysco). It is the top distributor to the food service industry, has a top-notch balance sheet with little debt, and a good dividend which it raises annually. Good dividend-paying stocks have greater value at this time since interest rates have been so low that CD and US Treasury rates are generally less than those for top-notch dividend-paying stocks. Listed in order of largest to smallest holdings.

• KMB (Kimberly Clark)
• PEP (Pepsico)
• PG (Procter & Gamble)
• MMM (3M Corp)
• KO (Coca Cola)
• KFT (Kraft)
• BMY (Bristol Myers Squibb)
• ADP (Automatic Data Processing)
• SYY (Sysco)

My major asset remain CDs. I don't own a home, though I do think that is OK, as long as one doesn't go into much debt to do so. I have no debt at all, and never want any, though I do think some is OK for a home, especially in the areas which were first to collapse during this Housing decline. I also own US Treasuries, about 7% of my assets. Right now I own inflation protected ones (TIPS). The two I hold are...

• 2015's
• 2013's

I like them because they protect both against deflation and moderately against inflation. I also own some gold (coins), but it is only about 3% of my assets and use a safe deposit box to store it. Gold does not qualify as an investment, but I do think it is warranted as a small insurance policy on US currency.

Comment on the Economy - "The Fortune Tellers"

Financial bubbles are very similar to other manias like those involving witches, the Crusades, etc, well-documented in the 1852 classic, 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' . We, humans, are prone to all kinds of manias, plus, I think America has been especially prone to manias like with celebrities, the dot.com bubble, Harry Potter Books, Ipods, holiday shopping sales where crowds run over other shoppers, excessive debt, etc, etc. I found it particularly interesting that the book went into a mania involving fortune tellers.

So, Sharon Begley's recent article in Newsweek made me think that guys like Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, etc - were nothing more than a current form of 'fortune tellers' and how a mania-predisposed society, like ours, especially during times of extreme uncertainty, just comes up with another mania - looking to people who are certain about what lies ahead - a current incarnation of fortune tellers - just because they might have made one great prediction is certainly no indication that they might make another - but it is their 'certainty' about the future which is the really dangerous thing about them and which mania-predisposed people are most likely to exhalt.

Bertrand Russell once wrote something like 'the problem with the world is that fools are certain and the intelligent are full of doubt'.

So, I think it wise to be extra wary of financial pundits who are so certain about what will happen with this financial mess. It would be safer to place a heavier weight on analysts who have more nuanced expectations, maybe even ones who suggest percentages about various things which might happen - like 15% chance of Depression, 50% chance of severe recession, and ranges like unemployment peaking between 15%-20% lasting 2-3 years, for example. Plus, a good analyst would be likely to also mention the positive things happening, especially since some positive things are indeed happening now, which would caution against relying too much on pundits with only worst-case scenarios.

Comment on the Economy - "The Fed's Bold Move"

Yesterday, the Fed made a pretty big move. It announced an additional $1.15 trillion of stimulus, saying it would buy up to $300 billion of longer-dated Treasury securities, and $850 billion more of mortgage agency debt and mortgage-backed securities than previously planned.

The way I sum it up is:

1. The Fed was basically doing an "end-around" to the obstructionists in Congress who caused the government's stimulus package to be watered down so as to not have enough spending to reduce unemployment fast enough, specifically in the area which was the worst hit - housing. The Fed wants to speed up bank lending - both by buying mortgage-backed assets and hoping to lower interest rates.

The Fed wants to take a deflationary depression off the table.

2. However, in the process, the Fed significantly risks inflation, a weakening dollar, rising commodity costs and long-term interest rates rising significantly.

3. Let's take a worst case scenario resulting from this move, with #2 spiking significantly. In that case, the Fed could back off from the program and return to having the government issuing debt rather than the Fed monetizing debt, and raising interest rates slightly to choke off any building inflation. This would mark the Fed's move a failure and while some damage would have been caused, but likely the damage could still be mitigated.

4. Now, for the potential good. As long as #2's risks were just moderate for a reasonable length of time, that could really help things. a) Some inflation is actually good b) a moderately weakened dollar is also good - both to spur exports and help other economies around the world b) rising commodity costs will certainly help many of the emerging and developing nations' economies where many are resource-based. This mess is global and we need other nations to also recover, in order to help us.

5. Since this is such a bold move, we need to wait awhile before being too quick to judge the move, at least a week - maybe up to a month, to see how the financial markets react. So, I'll wait awhile.

6. A few comments - a) The Fed is basically creating disincentives to saving - with a lot of incentives for people to spend and borrow. b) As for stocks, it has been said "not to fight the Fed", and the Fed is basically saying buy stocks. So, buying some stocks is reasonable, especially ones which pay dividends higher than CD or Treasury rates, while also keeping some money in reserve in case the market goes lower. Also, having some gold and inflation-protected Treasuries (TIPs) is reasonable.

7. Again, a bold move, and really too soon to judge it.

Comment on the Economy - "The Follow-Through"

First, the "Window" opened up (commodity prices collapsing and mass asset destruction which essentially removed tons of potential money which meant inflation was not an immediate threat and there was a worldwide demand for US Treasury debt) - evident 1/19.

Second, "Some Interesting Things" happened (bottoms forming in the first economic areas to turn down - US housing - most importantly in San Diego where the boom/bust first started, the US stock market, and commodities) - evident 3/4.

Third, now we have the "Follow-Through", with the stock market further confirming some sort of bottom actually happening in concert with some solid economic indicators. Some of the indicators are 1) Citicorp actually showing some reason for hope in the financial sector even if Citicorp isn't safe yet as they still will have large writeoffs in about a month. But, it does show that Fed actions and TARP have had some positive effects - a favorable yield curve plus LIBOR rates now reasonable - so well-run banks will surely be doing pretty well. Plus, recent buyouts of Wyeth by Pfizer, Schering-Plough by Merck and a pending completion of the Roche takeover of Genentech - indicate several things -money is available, investment banking has awakened, plus as our healthcare system begins to change, healthcare companies are beginning their adjustment by eliminating costly duplications, building synergies, etc.

Sure, this mess will still get worse as unemployment is still rising, commercial RE has much further to fall, same with credit card debt, likely some Eastern European nation will collapse and some Latin American country - maybe Mexico, plus some major geopolitcal event(s) will likely happen. But, the important thing is there are some positive indicators where this mess first hit. Sure, likely this is just a bounce in the stock market and further lows could be hit, but some stabilizing is happening for some fundamental reasons.

Comment on the Economy - "Some Interesting Things"

Though this mess has further to go on the down side, some very interesting positive things are happening.

In any economic downturn it is wise to look at the areas which were first to collapse, and watch for indicators of bottoming there. Plus, with all of the government stimulus, flooding markets with capital, there is bound to eventually be some general upturn, its duration all dependent on how long this "window" remains open where there is a global need for US government debt and how solid such a recovery turns out to be - actually putting people back to work, spending and returning tax revenues to the government, etc - a combination of short term and long term measures reinforcing each other - and inflation doesn't get too bad - some is OK, even healthy.

Since the US was the first nation to begin this collapse, since housing was the first section of the US economy to collapse, and since San Diego was perhaps the first US housing market to top out and begin the collapse, it is wise to look at these areas closely, bottom up.

So, I notice San Diego median housing seems to be bouncing around, up a little one week, down a little another, looking for a bottom.Plus, when I look at other US housing markets (I watch HousingTracker.net) and I see many cities up during the last month or so. Probably foreclosures are tempting a lot of buyers, so some kind of bottom is opening. Plus, anecdotally, I see around the LA area, many Chinese investors are coming in to buy homes because they are so reasonable for them. Plus, I see in San Francisco, median home prices are up about 7% in the last month. I see San Francisco being a beneficiary of the administration's goals in restructuring the economy, rewarding science, new technology, education (many good to excellent colleges and universities which will benefit, there, etc).

Plus, commodities have been bottoming. Stocks are at a critical point, but it is too soon to say they aren't looking for a bottom rather than making a further sharp spike down - which is still possible.

I don't want to say the coast is clear, plus some major unforseen event(s) could happen, geopolitically or whatever. Heck, we just had a close call from some asteroid plowing almost head on to the planet.

Plus, the world is looking to the US for leadership and this new administration does have a solid popularity during its first two months, along with a vision, all taken together seems to be supported by most Americans and most world leaders and populations. Sentiment is important at turning points in financial markets. Simply, that is the way they work, on human emotion - at critical points.

Update - Stocks, etc

I've altered my stock positions slightly, by removing AEE (Ameren). AEE, like most utilities paying good dividends, are loaded with debt, so I think their dividends are too risky and will be under pressure to be cut. I've also added a small position in ADP (Automatic Data Processing). ADP, a solid company, has little debt and raises its dividend annually. Listed in order of largest to smallest holdings.

• KMB (Kimberly Clark)
  
• PEP (Pepsico)
  
• PG (Procter & Gamble)
  
• MMM (3M Corp)
  
• KO (Coca Cola)
  
• KFT (Kraft)
  
• BMY (Bristol Myers Squibb)
• ADP (Automatic Data Processing)

My major asset are CDs. I don't own a home, though I do think that is OK, as long as one doesn't go into much debt to do so. I have no debt at all, and never want any, though I do think some is OK for a home.

I also own US Treasuries, about 7% of my assets. Right now I own inflation protected ones (TIPS). The two I hold are...

• 2015's
  
• 2013's

I like them because they protect both against deflation and moderately against inflation (yielding about 3% annually for the 2015's, more if inflation picks up).

I also own some gold (coins), but it is only about 3% of my assets and use a safe deposit box to store it. Gold does not qualify as an investment, but I do think it is warranted as a small insurance policy on US currency.

Comment on the Economy - "2004"

If you want one year, more critical than most, where deregulation went amuck, it was 2004, when Henry Paulson, then CEO of Goldman was the main pusher, with the SEC approving, regulations were eased allowing non-bank financial institutions to use leverage above 15:1 to as much as 30:1 or so. So, then these megabanks moved much of their lending to the investment divisions of their banks to issue less capitalized loans.

There are more details which made these banks undercapitalized even more, like being allowed to use their cash (or even borrow) to buy back stock, reducing their capitalization, etc. Mark to market is another factor, though that part I think is necessary, but in this perfect storm it may need to be adjusted.

And, letting Paulson dole out TARP funds, when he was a key guy behind this whole mess, was just asking for trouble.

Nationalization may be the only option, because TARP money has been used to get preferred stock of the banks in exchange. All that effected was to essentially increase the banks' debt load. We probably should have been getting equity in exchange for the TARP funds, not preferred stock. So, nationalization, temporarily, at least gives taxpayers equity which sometime will be worth more, when the banks are turned private, likely smaller and with a better regulatory environment.

Comment on The Economy - "The Window", update

1) When did the window open, the window being a time when assets (hence a form of money supply) depreciated to the point where the government actually should increase the money supply and/or debt to stimulate the economy, without risking serious currency weakness or serious inflation?

2) How long will the window be open?

Housing began to depreciate the beginning of 2006, unemployment began increasing in the beginning of 2007, the Dow started its decline in the middle/toward the end of 2007, and finally oil/commodities in the middle of 2008.

So, I calculate the approximate time when the window opened being the middle of 2008.

I would look for the first sign of the window closing being when unemployment starts decreasing. At that point housing prices probably would have stopped going down and begun increasing.

Obviously, there could be some unexpected event or series of events, particularly of a geo-political nature, which closes the window, but there is a window and it has been open for about half a year.

The bottom line is the window opened around the middle of 2008 and shows no immediate risk of closing, at least for a few more months, but likely longer.

Also, I would add that if it is a choice between the government increasing the money supply (by buying Treasury bonds, notes, etc - monetizing our debt or just printing money) versus issuing more Treasuries, there is such a global demand for Treasuries which has driven yields down so much that the US should be issuing debt rather than buying back debt. So, with this "window", right now, the global markets want US debt to flow through it.

Comment on the Economy - "The Window"

As this economic downturn continues, I think it is worth a comment about the recent, unexpected by most, dramatic drop in oil prices to as low as about $32/barrel, with other commodities also dropping significantly.

Plus, with the dramatic drop in RE prices and stock prices, much money, and debt, has been removed from circulation or debt burden or possible circulation or debt burden, in the near term. So, as the government is essentially printing money by the trllions of dollars in trying to stabilize the financial system, stimulate the economy, etc, we have been granted a "window" to allow the "printing of money and issuing debt" as long as it is wisely used - like for investment in our infrastructure, energy, education, healthcare, etc - things which will eventually return more than they cost plus create jobs as unemployment has been increasing significantly.

The stock market has already had about $7T vanish, and RE probably more if commercial RE is included. So, for now, the expansion of money and debt to the amount of even a few trillion dollars, I just don't see as inflationary or of imminent danger to our currency. Yes, we must also come up with a plan to begin paying down our budget deficits and the large national debt, but for now, we have a "window". Sure, some want to argue that asset values, like stock prices, home prices, etc aren't money because they aren't included in pure monetary statistics like M1, M2, etc, but that simply is not true.

My review of "The Great Depression Ahead"

Harry Dent's "The Great Depression Ahead" offers a lot of well-thought-out scenarios, using studies of cycles. Using them, he was pretty good in his 1993 book in calling for the 1990's economic boom and seeing the beginning of this decline. He might have missed the amplitude of the boom, but his approach does seem to have some value as a guide.

Things in the book, I think worth remembering are:

1. Leaps in science finally apply to economics, with micro-cycles being more probabilistic than macro-cycles which are more deterministic - cause and effect.

2. His S-Curve principle for new products overtaking old ones is helpful. Demographic and technology trends are perhaps the most helpful.

3. Oil/commodity booms tend to follow 30 year cycles. Though, he might not have caught the recent oil/commodity drop, it doesn't invalidate all his thinking.

4. Georege Soros is mentioned as calling 'an end of an era' in foreseeing the bursting of the credit bubble.

5. Demographics and low interest rates led to the housing bubble.

6. Geo-political cycles restrict a stock boom by about 50%.

7. He thinks 2011 will be the worst, with unemployment 12-15%, with the 'depression' lasting until about 2013.

8. Kind of funny, but he tracks potato chip spending, and he documents it peaking when a family head reached about age 42.

9. He sees 2008-2012 as survival-of-the-fittest among businesses, with the strong ones getting stronger.

10. He tracks 5000, 2500, 500, 250, 20, 10, 4, and one year cycles also. Perhaps, this is the book's weak point, since so many intersecting cycles may add too much confusion. But, he does focus on a few main ones, so I guess it could help a reader as things play out.

11. Stocks do better from May 1 - Oct 31. Although others have noticed this, he provides a helpful chart.

12. Estate taxes from dying baby boomers could be an unexpected windfall for stressed state budgets, since never before have we had such a large prosperous generation.

13. Globally, the innovation cycle will continue, if managed well.

14. Errors of LTCM are the same which are affecting the 'quants' in today's hedge fund meltdown. They are a) assuming the future will be like the past, b) assuming large gains/losses are too rare, and c) assuming investment returns are independent variables.

15. Dent mentions the book, 'Black Swan', when thinking just because you don't observe something doesn't mean it can't happen.

16. Stock/financial markets are not casinos. Casinos are closed systems with predictable odds. Markets are worse, because they contain induction errors, where price movements, themselves, affect future ones. Data points are not independent, so can't use standard bell curve distributions. Again, he mentions Soros, his 'reflexivity' concept - prices affecting prices. Volatility increases during phase transitions. Volatility is not a constant. However, the S-Curve can help somewhat.

17. Besides knowns and known unknowns, there are unknown unknowns, like the Russian bond default which caused the LTCM meltdown.

18. Republicans do better during growth and innovation phases, benefiting mostly the wealthy. Democrats handle shakeout and maturity phases better. helping everyday people. Need both.

19. Infrastructure investment is best when labor is freed up, like during economic downturns. The US spends about 2.4% of GDP on infrastructure, Europe - 5%, China - 9%, so we can handle added infrastructure spending during our downturn.

20. World trade during the 30's collapsed 67%. Something to keep in mind. Unlikely it will get that bad this time.

21. Iraq - the good thing is that maybe we learned not to try to be the world's policeman, an expensive thing.

22. The US regenerates its population at a better rate than other mature societies like Japan, Europe and Russia. Not great, but relatively better than a lot.

23. The green revolution could help the economy.

So, this is a good book, which should help a person evaluate what happens from here, in this economic meltdown.

My review of "The Shock Doctrine"

A must-read!, review originally written on April 12, 2008

"The Shock Doctrine", by Naomi Klein, is a must-read for anyone who wants to get a clearer picture about what the US has done in Iraq relating to the 2003 invasion, from an economic perspective. The book begins decades before, from the lens of Milton Friedman and his advocates' approach to laissez faire, free-trade corporatist economics and government's role in making it happen.

She does seem to come from a viewpoint as seeing free trade, etc mostly just punishing the less fortunate. It should be noted that Milton Friedman did advocate a negative income tax to replace welfare. So, it is not that he and some of his advocates are either totally misguided or heartless. However, there are indeed excesses by many in powerful positions who really are either misguided or heartless or both.

From tsunamis to Hurricane Katrina to changes in government in Chile, the Soviet Union, Argentina, etc and the 'shock and awe' in Iraq, there are people with power who either wait for or effect some cataclysm to panic everyday people to accept what is really not in their best interest and looks to reward the well-connected.

I'll just mention a few things from the book which come to mind and I feel noteworthy:

1. The author uses the term, 'useful crisis', like with the Canadian debt crisis in the 90's, to create a sense of panic to justify potential cuts to social programs. This term is appropriate in generalizing what has happened around the world in different situations.

2. Donald Rumsfeld was a board member of ASEA Brown Boveri, the Swiss firm that sold nuclear technology to North Korea. Interesting!

3. Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, maker of Tamiflu, the preferred treatment for bird flu, setting up Gilead to make tons of money as the government which he became a part of, then stockpiled the drug while Americans were warned of a possible mass outbreak of the disease. When Rumsfeld left the government, the value of the Gilead stock he still owned had gone up 807%. Interesting!

4. The 2006 Defense Authorization Act grants the president the power to employ the armed forces, overriding the wishes of state governments during a 'public emergency' which could include hurricane, mass protest or public health situation. Previously, the president could only invoke martial law in case of insurrection.

5. US orchestrated foreign coups seeking to protect corporate favorites, can sometimes try to sell the coup because the country is being alien to Americans simply because it is alien to an American company and thereby trying to undermine the US.

6. Paul Bremer, given the responsibility to remake Iraq, enacted a 15% flat tax and allowed foreign companies to own 100% of the profits in Iraq, not re-invest in Iraq and not be taxed. Plus, 40 year leases for foreign investors so any future Iraqi governments would be stuck with the deals.

7. The author reminds the reader of what the political scientist, Michael Wolf, had to say that conservatives never govern well because they believe that government, itself, is bad. Surely not always true, but it is certainly a thought to keep in mind when evaluating a conservative candidate for office.

8. The White House ignored most of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations except to now allow companies like Shell and BP to get long oil leases and keep most of the profits, effectively keeping millions of Iraqis in perpetual poverty.

This book is well documented with references and definitely a must-read.

My review of "Gangster Capitalism"

A very timely book! Review originally written on November 16, 2008

What makes "Gangster Capitalism" so worthwhile is that it helps in understanding what has led us to the 2007-8 financial meltdown. As the book shows, like during the 1920's, deregulation led the way for powerful companies to allow the very wealthy to get wealthier at the expense of average people by using poor working conditions, low wages, etc, plus at the same time supporting supposedly moral movements (against gambling, alcohol, drugs, etc) which mainly served the purpose of making these trades more profitable to crooks and therefore created rampant gangsterism there. The result was such a society wracked with gangsterism at all levels, but because most people felt they were prospering, few complained. But, then it all collapsed with the 1929 crash and resulting Depression, which led the way for FDR and the New Deal programs which increased regulation of corporations, repeal of Prohibition, etc. Though the Depression lingered until WWII, the New Deal was successful in restructuring our laws and public infrastructure to create a better footing for the prosperity which would follow. The book effectively traces how much of this regulation was reduced piece by piece, beginning in earnest with Nixon, using Cold War fears to tilt the nation toward more corporate power and away from reform, support of right-wing dictators around the world, re-energizing a 'moral crusade' especially by beginning the War on Drugs, thereby making the illegal drug trade super profitable, etc. The nation had shifted Right and even Democratic presidents like Carter who was instrumental in deregulating industry and Clinton who signed into law the repeal of Glass--Steagle weren't able to stop the shift. Then, the 'Gangster Capitalism" went on steroids with G. W. Bush. By 2003, corporate taxes only amounted to 7% of revenues, while payroll taxes amounted to 40%.

Of note, the book makes clear it is opportunity which leads to much crime, so the approach of massive deregulation of corporations, plus focusing on arrests and imprisonment for victimless crimes ends up with the wrong results, more entrenched crime, even allowing corporations to capitalize on a prison industry. The book is also good at highlighting how corporations and outright gangsters were able to corrupt legal drugs (price-fixing), tobacco, asbestos, body parts, autos (Pintos), etc. Some other things in the book, of note: Hamid Karzai included drug traffickers in his Afghan administration. And, our support of Suharto (Indonesia), Mobuto (the Congo), and Marcos (the Philippines) allowed 'looting' of these countries. A corrupt financial infrastructure included the BCCI bank and offshore banking to evade taxes also developed. Plus, laundering money from illegal arms sales, drugs, and so many other illegal activities passed through our financial system.

The book is definitely tilted toward a liberal way of looking at things, therefore it doesn't go into the good things about capitalism, but there are disturbing patterns which are important to understand, and this book does that very well.

My review of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

A classic, well worth reading! Review originally written on November 22, 2008.....

For a long time, I have wanted to read this 1852 classic, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", by Charles MacKay, but why I decided to do so recently, was because I was hoping to get some insights into understanding our recent Housing bubble and 2007-8 financial meltdown. I am glad I read it, because I did indeed come away with some 'extraordinary' insights.

Sure, this book goes into some historic financial bubbles, like Tulipmania, the South Sea Bubble, and the Mississippi land scheme. But, when it got into other manias involving witches, the Crusades, alchemy, popularity of certain phrases/expressions, fortune tellers, slow poisoners, duels, admiration of thieves, haunted houses, etc., it awakened me that our financial meltdown wasn't simply a repeat of other financial bubbles. We had the Internet bubble only a few years prior to what was happening with Housing, so most of us should have not been so blinded as Housing got out of hand. But, it is clear that we were also suffering from an overload of all kinds of manias, which I think, because of the depth of this book, appeared to condition so many in our society to find an even greater safety in 'crowds'. In particular, words like liberal and socialist were not just argued against, but actually successfully demonized, along with targeted uses of words like 'traitor' for anyone not supporting a US war, even trying to affix the term, 'terrorist' to Barrack Obama. Witness the success of Ann Coulter books, Fox News, etc. It is like if you just wanted to be a renter, there must have been something wrong with you, even anti-American, not wanting to participate in 'the ownership society', another term feeding into a financial mania. Plus, was anyone warning that this 'ownership society' was based almost entirely on debt, hardly real ownership? Heck, we were told after 9-11, the patriotic thing to do was shop, never mind sacrificing for the war. Also, our almost maniacal adoration of celebrities, outrageous salaries for athletes and CEOs, long lines for new introductions of new Apple products, Harry Potter books, etc, etc.

We were a society primed with all kinds of 'extraordinary popular delusions', especially susceptible to a meltdown of generational proportions. Will we change? It does look like many are looking for some deeper societal transformation. But, as this book seems to show, transformation will be difficult, and we probably need to worry about transforming to just another mania, just as bad. We have a big task ahead.

Too bad Mr. Mackay isn't around to write about our current manias. Though the book is about 700 pages long, unless you are particularly interested in every detail of each mania, you can skim over lots of the details and complete the book in just a few days and still come away with a thorough understanding.

Update - Stocks, etc.

Since it has been about 1 1/2 years since I updated my blog, here's my update....

The main reason I created this blog several years ago was basically to track my investment approaches, particularly with stocks, allowing me to reflect on them as times change. So, here we are, a lot has happened, financially, during the last year or so. Well, my approach remains the same. I always want some stock investments, looking at them as I would in owning businesses, albeit just a fractional ownership in them, companies I want to own long term, having products which will likely always be in demand, are in good financial shape and which return good dividends. Plus, I will consider adding or subtracting from my positions as situations present themselves.

Like I said, my stock position remains basically the same, as follows, in order of biggest position to least. For perspective sake, stocks make up about 12% of my asset holdings, and that is about where I always intend to be.

• KMB (Kimberly Clark) - My top holding.
• PEP (Pepsico)
• AEE (Ameren Corp) - I always want a utility and I will swap one for the other over time, the latest swap was PNW (Pinnacle West) for AEE. I did this swap for tax purposes.
• PG (Procter & Gamble)
• MMM (3M Corp)
• KO (Coca Cola)
• KFT (Kraft) - it has more debt than I like so I will probably keep only a smaller position in it. I do like its product mix and top brand names and track record of a good dividend. But, I'll watch it closely.
• BMY (Bristol Myers Squibb) - Although I am wary about drug companies because of litigation risk, I'll go with a small position in it because it pays a good dividend, is in good financial shape, healthcare is something people will always need, might be a buyout candidate, and adds a little more diversification to my portfolio.

My major asset are CDs. I don't own a home, though I do think that is OK, as long as one doesn't go into much debt to do so. I have no debt at all, and never want any, though I do think some is OK for a home.

I also own US Treasuries, about 7% of my assets. Right now I own inflation protected ones (TIPS). The two I hold are...

• 2015's
• 2013's

I like them because they protect both against deflation and moderately against inflation (yielding about 3% annually for the 2015's, more if inflation picks up).

I also own some gold (coins), but it is only about 3% of my assets and use a safe deposit box to store it. Gold does not qualify as an investment, but I do think it is warranted as a small insurance policy on US currency.

I intend to further update my blog with some investment links which I like, and other stuff.

Recommended List (Updated)

• KMB
• KO
• PG
• MMM
• PNW (PNW replaces EAS since EAS had just received a buyout offer. PNW now has a higher dividend, which also has a history of raising it annually, and is also a potential takeover candidate).
• PEP (PEP has been on the recommended list before. I only removed it when they announced a new CEO, since that created a degree of uncertainty. I am now comfortable with the new CEO, so PEP is back on my list).

Recommended List (updated)

• KO
• MMM
• KMB
• PG
• MAT
• EAS

I replaced PEP with KO, because PEP has a new CEO, creating risk, while KO for the last 11 quarters or so continues to exceed analyst earnings estimates, along with the fact that KO has a huge 13% stock buyback, which just began 11/1/2006, plus KO has a much higher dividend than PEP. I still view PEP as a great company, and like that it has the blockbuster snack food business, and would consider preferring it to KO, but for now, I view KO as the better choice of the two great companies.

I added EAS because I do want a utility stock in the portfolio. It does meet my criteria of annually raising its dividend and being in a business which people need irrespective of business cycles.

I removed ABT because I worry about the litigation risks relating to their stent business. Plus, I do think drug companies present too much litigation risk, in general.

MMM does have some business cycle risk, but I think it is a reasonably manageable risk. Any portfolio does want some balance, and MMM meets so many of my criteria.