Is that what heaven looks like?

Last week before leaving Thailand (more about that trip shortly), I learned that my brief reader's comment about financial advisory services, would be included in a Wall Street Journal article found HERE. 

The common practice of paying an advisor one percent (or more) of assets under management (AUM) on top of all the other fund investment expenses, is a relic and many people don't realize there are alternatives. 

This is not to say that all financial advisors who are paid a percentage of AUM never provide a valuable service, some do, but the point is that many clients would do better by paying for advice about asset allocation, fund selection, tax planning etc. on a fixed fee, or hourly fee basis. Pay only for what you receive. 

I cringe when I hear commercial pitches like "We do better when our clients do better". Anyone can be a fiduciary and still overcharge for a service. The fact is, an advisor gets paid with the percentage of AUM fee model, even when their clients' portfolios don't perform well, or when the advisor delivers poor advice and/or poor service. 

Still think the traditional fee model is fair because clients are charged the same percentage? Consider two investors paying Joe Advisor 1.25% of AUM. Claude has $1,000,000 portfolio and Julian has a $2,000,000 portfolio. All other factors equal, can Joe justify charging Julian $25,000 vs. only $12,500 for Claude? Has Joe done twice the amount of work for Julian? 

Now, about my recent trip to Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand...

The people in all three countries are generally very poor by our standards. They have little, but they are also happy and peaceful. Beautiful people. In Cambodia, a group of schoolchildren waved, called out to us and smiled so energetically that tears came to my eyes. I won't forget the moment. Most of us in the USA have an abundance of riches compared to these citizens, yet many of us remain unhappy, always wanting more.

Perhaps part of their abundant sense of well being is underpinned by the fact that there is almost NO violent crime in these SE Asian countries. I never felt safer. 

The problem of course, is a demonstrable lack of personal freedoms, freedoms which some of us take for granted. In SE Asia, one can criticize the government(s) until one has developed a group of followers. I was told by a local that initially if criticism is overheard by a party member, one might be escorted to the police station for "tea". Afterwards, repeated speech against the state will land one in jail. 

Why can't we have public safety and peaceable citizens AND also enjoy personal protections afforded us by the US Constitution and our legal system? Is that what heaven looks like?

 

Child of the Line

Catapulted into a summer night

I run out the door, into darkness

thoughts of youth pervade the mind

reminding me of the long line called my life.

The games once played

are mostly forgotten

the people who chased me

are all gone.

But the child is still there

The child of the line is smiling

Freepik image

Winter Whispers

Pointed, brilliant drifts of snow

pierce the evening of winter.

Curving upward they arch

to a luminous, cyclopean moon.

A guest, humble, I stand here

beneath flickers in northern skies.

Icy grains atop snow drifts, 

move obediently for winter gusts.

One drift releases grains to its neighbor.

Tumbling crystals, indifferent, brush sodden drifts.

A rabbit stops to listen.

Paul Krapf image adapted

Old man and the park

Old man walks to

a familiar place with

hand on a park bench

he lowers himself to rest.

He cups a flame, 

cigar smoke 

rises to his hats brim,

curls upward and over.

The grackels,

scampering feet

scurry over scraps

nothing wasted. 

He watches as an orange sun rests, 

contented, the old man rises.

Another day in paradise.

Image by prostooleh on Freepik

Quote of the month - Illegal immigration and "due process"

I apologize for the poor granularity of the picture below which I snipped from a post on LinkedIn (my fault not theirs). For me, Stephen Miller's quote cuts to the core of the debate on due process and lllegal migration.

"The right of "due process" is to protect citizens from their government, not to protect foreign trespassers from removal. Due process guarantees the rights of a criminal defendant facing prosecution, not an illiegal alien facing deportation."

The Atlas Society post on LinkedIn

Timeless advice sadly ignored

In Oliver Stone's 1995 biopic film about President Richard Nixon, there's a memorable passage attributed to H. R. Haldeman.  Haldeman is lamenting the fact that Nixon's key advisors including himself, failed to give Nixon pivotal advice about the Watergate scandal before it consumed his presidency.  The Haldeman character portrayed by actor James Woods says,

"Eight words back in '72.  'I covered up. I was wrong. I'm sorry'. The American public would have forgiven him." 

Flash forward to our present day controversy about Trump senior team members' use of the encrypted messaging app Signal -- an issue the Left has cheerily dubbed "Signalgate"-- and some historical parallels emerge.  

Let's dismiss one trope immediately, this embarrassing episode will not engulf the Trump administration, although NSA chief Mike Waltz may take a fall.  To his credit, Mr. Waltz recently took the Haldemanesque approach with a straightforward admission on Laura Ingraham's show, 

"I take full responsibility. I built the group," "It's embarrassing. We're going to get to the bottom of it."  Smart.  If only the whole administration had followed suit.

I don't know what sort of reputation The Atlantic Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg enjoys in media circles, but the Trump team has little to gain by trashing him now.  Although The Atlantic juts to the Left, they didn't create this mess.  As we now know, Goldberg was mystifyingly added to the chat group by Mike Waltz, or Mr. Waltz's proxy.  Blaming the technology, (or Goldberg) for an errant invitation to a sensitive high level government session, doesn't hold water.  This inspires a personal recollection...

Years ago, a colleague and I attended a competitors' financial conference in Chicago.  From a business development perspective, it was a target-rich affair with several prospective clients in tow.  After soliciting one of the organizer's clients, my colleague and I were thoroughly berated at breaktime by a host because he learned that I had the temerity to approach his client at "their" event.  The executive wanted us to leave immediately.  (We did not).  I protested by pointing out that his own marketing team had invited us.  We'd been mistakenly invited; so we hadn't crashed the party.  Moreover, being direct competitors; the enraged sponsor shouldn't have reasonably expected us to confine conversations with attendees to benign issues like the weather.

image by freepik

What stands out about the recent Signal circus, is that the administration's protestations can do more damage than the original mishap itself and fuel more unwanted media attention.  There didn't have to be enduring fallout from "the chat" other than episodic embarrassment.  No significant secrets were compromised, no duplicity was revealed and the military action at the core of the issue -- was by all accounts -- effective.  So, own up to the error and don't extend the drama the way Defense Secretary Hegseth chose to do so recently.  

Let's instead focus upon the business of apprehending and deporting illegal migrants and stopping waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds.  Those are winning ideals that enjoy broad support and require no public excuses.

A golf lesson for life itself

This morning, I attended a seminar about the "Psychology of Golf".  The topic intrigued me because all of my personal golf instruction -- and that which I've observed for other golfers -- focuses upon the physical aspects of the game. The swing, the grip, addressing the ball, the stance, club selection, etc.

Image by drobotdean on Freepik

At one point during this session on golf psychology, the speaker drew on his chalkboard, a less than or equal sign and the words "three feet". 

Then he stated that professional golfers on average, will sink a putt 96% of the time when the hole is three feet or less away from their ball.

Not sure where he was going with this factoid, I wrote down the figures from the chalkboard anyway.  Then he explained what happens after the 4% of the time that the pros miss those short putts.  

He went on to say that on the very next hole, about 80% of the time, their tee shot will actually miss the fairway. Why?  Instead of letting the missed putt leave their consciousness, they'll often mentally 'carry' that negative experience from the previous hole -- to their drive on the next hole.  His point was all about not letting the past, which is unchangeable, influence one's present frame of mind.  

Even the finest golfers in the world hit bad shots.  Past moments of failure shouldn't degrade our present experience.  Above all else, he wanted others to remember that the game should be enjoyed. Life presents enough obstacles without our help.