Advertisements



Socialism Sounds Good On Paper But It Was Deadly For The Pilgrims

Socialism Sounds Good On Paper But It Was Deadly For The Pilgrims Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com, When I was a kid, we used to say some things only “sound good on paper.” In other words, they seem like good plans, but there is no way they’re going to work in the real world. That’s socialism in a nutshell. The Pilgrims found this out the hard way during their first couple of years in North America. Their experiment in socialism turned out deadly. Turns out, you can’t just ignore economics and human nature. Socialism really does sound good on paper though, right? We’re all going to own everything together and take care of each other. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.“ It sounds so nice. And we all want to be nice, right? People are emotionally drawn to socialism because it sounds so good. It sounds fair. It sounds — nice. But do you know what’s not nice? Corpses. That’s exactly what happened the Pilgrims got when they took a stab at socialism. Most Americans don’t know that the Plymouth colony was originally an experiment in socialist utopianism and were it not for a complete 180 a couple of years in, we probably wouldn’t have enjoyed the bountiful feasts most of us will indulge in today. There would have been no Thanksgiving because there would have been nobody left to give thanks. When the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts on November 11, 1620, they placed all their food and provisions in a “common store.” These folks were forward thinkers. They didn’t even have Marx’s scribblings to appeal to. They set things up on the socialist principle of, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Things got off to a bad start in the new world. Conditions were miserable, as William Bradford described them. That which was most sad and lamentable was, that in two or three months time half of their company died, especially in January and February, being the depth of winter, and wanting houses and other comforts; being infected with the scurvy and other diseases, so as there died sometimes two or three of a day, in the aforesaid time; that of 100 and odd persons, scarce 50 remained.” Now, the Pilgrim’s initial struggles didn’t really have anything to do with socialism. They just had the misfortune of landing in Massachusetts at the onset of winter. If you live in New England, you understand their pain. But even after their first summer, things didn’t improve much. The following fall, the Pilgrims harvested their first crops and again, they all went into the common store. Now, wasn’t that nice? No greed. Nobody getting any more than they should. Of course, nobody was getting much of anything at all – but still – they had to feel good about themselves, right? Because, after all, the system was fair. So, in November the ship Fortune arrived with more than 30 new settlers, mostly young men. More manpower was welcome, but according to accounts, they brought “not so much as a bisket-cake” with them. Now they had a meager supply of food in the common store and even more mouths to feed. The future looked bleak as food supplies ran out and the “planned socialist” community faced starvation yet again. The following year, the harvest was poor in spite of the added manpower. Nevertheless, the pilgrims again put the meager harvest in the common store. Because, you know, it’s going to work this time! It didn’t. That winter, they starved. The colonists were learning economics the hard way. Richard Grant in his book The Incredible Bread Machine wrote: “For two years the Pilgrims faithfully practiced communal ownership of the means of production. And for two years nearly starved to death, rationed at times to “but a quarter of a pound of bread a day to each person.” Governor Bradford wrote that “famine must still ensue the next year also if not some way prevented.” He described how the colonists finally decided to introduce private property: [The colonists] began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. [In 1623] after much debate of things, the Gov. (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set down every man for his own … and to trust themselves … so assigned to every family a parcel of land. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Gov. or any other could use, … and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” Reflecting on the experience of the previous two years, Bradford goes on to describe the folly of communal ownership: “The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Platosand other ancients, applauded by some of later times; — that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young-men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more indivision of victuals and cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice…” Woah! Some people resented doing all the work? They didn’t work as hard when they knew they weren’t going to directly benefit? Shocking. Actually, it’s not shocking at all. It’s human nature. And we all know it. Now, we can lament the fact. We can say it shouldn’t be that way. We can finger-point and talk about greed. We can get all holier-than-thou and say we wouldn’t act that way (in other words lie). But people will still be people. Here’s a harsh truth: good intentions and feel-good policies can’t trump basic economics. You can dream of unicorns and lollipops all day, but it won’t change reality. Scarcity. Human behavior. Incentives. The experience of the Pilgrims vividly demonstrates basic economic principles. Their good intentions could not overpower the cold hard realities of economic principles. They never have. They never will. Tyler Durden Thu, 11/24/2022 - 15:40.....»»

Category: dealsSource: nytNov 24th, 2022

The Pilgrims Did Socialism And Died Trying

The Pilgrims Did Socialism And Died Trying Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com, When I was a kid, we used to say some things only “sound good on paper.” In other words, they seem like good plans, but there is no way they’re going to work in the real world. That’s socialism in a nutshell. The Pilgrims found this out the hard way during their first couple of years in North America. Socialism really does sound good on paper though, right? We’re all going to own everything together and take care of each other. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.“ It sounds so nice. And we all want to be nice, right? People are emotionally drawn to socialism because it sounds nice. It sounds fair. It sounds good. Except when people start dying. Do you know what’s not nice? Corpses. That’s exactly what happened when the Pilgrims took a stab at socialism. Most Americans don’t know that the Plymouth colony was originally an experiment in socialist utopianism and were it not for a complete 180 a couple of years in, we probably wouldn’t have enjoyed the bountiful feasts most of us will indulge in today. There would have been no Thanksgiving because there would have been nobody left to give thanks. When the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts on November 11, 1620, they placed all their food and provisions in a “common store.” These folks were forward thinkers. They didn’t even have Marx’s scribblings to appeal to. They set things up on the socialist principle of, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Well, things got off to a bad start. Conditions were miserable, as William Bradford described them. That which was most sad and lamentable was, that in two or three months time half of their company died, especially in January and February, being the depth of winter, and wanting houses and other comforts; being infected with the scurvy and other diseases, so as there died sometimes two or three of a day, in the aforesaid time; that of 100 and odd persons, scarce 50 remained.” Now, the Pilgrim’s initial struggles didn’t have anything to do with socialism. They just had the misfortune of landing in Massachusetts at the onset of winter. Anyway, the following fall, the Pilgrims harvested their first crops and they all went into the common store. Now, wasn’t that nice? No greed. Nobody getting any more than they should. Of course, nobody was getting much of anything at all – but still – they had to feel good about themselves, right? So, in November the ship Fortune arrived with more than 30 new settlers, mostly young men. More manpower was welcome, but according to accounts, they brought “not so much as a bisket-cake” with them. The future looked bleak as food supplies ran out and the “planned socialist” community faced starvation yet again. The following year, the harvest was poor in spite of the added manpower. Nevertheless, the pilgrims again put the meager harvest in the common store. Because, you know, it’s going to work this time! It didn’t. That winter, they starved. The colonists were learning economics the hard way. Richard Grant in The Incredible Bread Machine wrote: “For two years the Pilgrims faithfully practiced communal ownership of the means of production. And for two years nearly starved to death, rationed at times to “but a quarter of a pound of bread a day to each person.” Governor Bradford wrote that “famine must still ensue the next year also if not some way prevented.” He described how the colonists finally decided to introduce private property: [The colonists] began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. [In 1623] after much debate of things, the Gov. (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set down every man for his own … and to trust themselves … so assigned to every family a parcel of land. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Gov. or any other could use, … and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” Reflecting on the experience of the previous two years, Bradford goes on to describe the folly of communal ownership: “The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Platosand other ancients, applauded by some of later times; — that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young-men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more indivision of victuals and cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice…” Woah! Some people resented doing all the work? They didn’t work as hard when they knew they weren’t going to directly benefit? Shocking. Actually, it’s not shocking at all. It’s human nature. And we all know it. Now, we can lament the fact. We can say it shouldn’t be that way. We can finger-point and talk about greed. We can get all holier-than-thou and say we wouldn’t act that way (in other words lie). But people will still be people. Here’s a harsh truth: good intentions and feel-good policies can’t trump basic economics. You can dream unicorns and lollipops all day, but it won’t change reality. Scarcity. Human behavior. Incentives. The experience of the Pilgrims vividly demonstrates basic economic principles. Their good intentions could not overpower the cold hard realities of economic principles. They never have. They never will. Tyler Durden Fri, 11/26/2021 - 17:00.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 26th, 2021

...Turns Out Keynes Was A Commie

...Turns Out Keynes Was A Commie Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com, Why The Cantillon Effect Creates Communism Awareness of the centuries old concept of The Cantillion Effect has been experiencing a revival of late, particularly since the extraordinary acceleration of monetary injections that occurred under COVID. Named for the French-Irish economist who died in 1734 (he was murdered), the Cantillon Effect is when you create a bunch of new money and inject it into an economy. What happens is the people at the front of the line who receive the new money first become wealthier, while the people at the end of the line who receive it last are further impoverished. The Cantillon Effect This is not peculiar to the post-Covid era. For more than a decade I’ve been describing how rampant money creation and credit expansion skews formerly free markets into a kind of economic vampirism, without actually knowing there was a term like this to describe it. From my vantage-point as a tech CEO running a company that has never taken on VC funding, it unfolded as having to compete with multiple deep-pocketed 800lb gorillas and billion dollar unicorns who were losing money on every transaction and driving a race to the bottom across the entire industry. Companies like ours have to be profitable or perish. Serially funded unicorns just have to keep their burn rate below their fund-raising tempo. Marc Andreesen, the noteworthy VC icon touched on it with his famous “Software is eating the world” euphemism, but it failed to capture the financialization aspect of it. It’s more like “serial up-rounds are eating the world”. The dynamic intensified dramatically under COVID. Not only were the monetary injections accelerating, but governments globally shut down small and independent businesses for nearly two years, and then central banks went out and bought the bonds of the quasi-monopolies who were left. Via Statista – the Fed purchased bonds of companies controlled by every person on this list. But even if the people at the front of the line have a privileged position, why does this necessarily translate into them either using that position to launch, fund and flip money-losing unicorns, or hollowing out via financial engineering what would have otherwise been long term viable businesses? It’s the currency debasement, stupid When the cost of capital is cheap, like near-zero cheap, companies never have to be profitable. In fact if the capital pool is growing faster than the operating earnings are, you’re actually incentivized to eschew profits in favour of taking on funding – provided you have a short-term time horizon. Here’s the thing about printing money: because it devalues the currency, it compresses time horizons. If you think of currency as “shares” in the economy they denominate, then it should be easy to grasp that by increasing the number of currency units, you aren’t magically growing the economy. You’re just increasing the numerator (the currency units) while keeping the denominator (the actual goods and services available) the same. If the numerator grows, that means it takes more currency to buy the same goods and services, so it is experienced as variations of “number go up”: For people who are already wealthy: assets increase in “value” because they are being measured in more units For everybody else: food, shelter and essentials get more expensive, same reason. In fact government metrics that define some arbitrary “poverty line” as being based on some level of income almost completely misses the point. The line between poverty and wealth should more accurately be measured in terms of net assets. The wealthy have assets – that compound. The poor have bills – that get more expensive. Whenever the monetary authorities increase the currency supply or expand credit, it is always proffered as a necessity of saving the system. The fact that the reason the system needed saving in the the first place was a direct consequence of previous expansions is ignored or shouted down. There are only three real moves in the central banker toolbox: print money, expand credit, suppress interest rates. The intellectual basis of this approach is often rationalized as a prescription dictated by  “Keynesianism” or “Keynesian economics”, after John Maynard Keynes, the intellectual father of mainstream “economics” as it is known today. Keynes was a bit of a mixed bag. Though often cited for his “gold as a barbarous  relic” quote, he ended up heavily allocated in South African gold miners years after he wrote that. Mid-way through his career he swore off macro investing, coming to the opinion that no amount of macro knowledge would give you an edge at the company level: he had become a sort of proto-value investor. He was also a pederast, having kept detailed records of  numerous young, mostly male partners, their names and ages, which are preserved still in the archives at King’s College, Cambridge …he was a Malthusian believing it was “the salvation of the British economy” and eugenicist – having served on the board of the British Eugenics Society. …and, as it turns out, Keynes was a raving pinko. Full blown Commie. The Socialist scaffolding of Keynesian Economics Vladimir Lenin is often attributed as saying “the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.” However the quote is possibly apocryphal, because the earliest reference to it is a citation by Keynes in his Economic Consequences of Peace.  Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. … As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless;… Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. Keynes is describing The Cantillon Effect, and yet, as we’ll see, Keynes may not have been viewing this as a bad thing. While Keynes clearly understood that government spending and money creation drove wealth inequality, it seems as though he viewed this as a beneficial dynamic, because it would inexorably lead toward the ultimate wealth inequality: Communism. Contrary to the popular platitudes that socialism and communism are about achieving equality for all, going so far to prescribe absurdities like “equality of outcome”. The reality, documented by the likes of Dr. Kristian Niemietz in his “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”, is that the only equality brought about by collectivism is where everybody beneath the thin scab of elites and their apparatchiks are equally mired in poverty and servitude. In Edward W Fuller’s “Was Keynes a socialist” paper, published 2019 in The Cambridge Journal of Economics, Fuller looked at whether John Maynard Keynes, the chief architect behind the entire edifice of conventional economics (and arguably it’s intellectual descendants like Modern Monetary Theory) was a socialist. He compared the defenses of Keynes as “a liberal who wanted to save Capitalism” against various writings, correspondence and accounts of Keynes himself and from those who knew him, including his own father. John Neville Keynes,  journaled on Sept 6, 1911 ‘Maynard avows himself a Socialist and is in favour of the confiscation of wealth’. Turns out this was not a passing fad, it was a lifelong devotion. Young Keynes first came out as a socialist in February 1911, declaring that: “the progressive reorganization of Society along the lines of Collectivist Socialism is both inevitable and desirable” Over the course of his career Keynes authored numerous odes to socialism, fraternized with notorious socialists like George Bernard Shaw (head of the Fabian Society) and Owen Mosley, who founded the socialist New Party in 1931, which later morphed into The British Union of Fascists. Keynes supported the Bolshevik Revolution, even though it had seized power in a coup d’etat against what was then the only democratically elected government in Russia’s history (“the only course open to me is to be a buoyantly bolshevik”.) Keynes became a regular attendee at the 1917 Club, a Soho meeting place in vogue amongst socialists of the day, named to honour the year of the revolution. It was at the 1917 Club where members of The Fabian Society met. The Fabians wanted to usher in global communism, but instead of doing that through, sudden, violent revolutions (a la Marx) they would take their time. They thought in generational increments and proposed the slow, steady infiltration of higher education, government bureaucracies, cultural chokepoints (theatre, pop-culture, the media and the press), and posited that over time they could pull society toward collectivism without anyone realizing it. Their emblem was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As per Keynes: “Socialism can be introduced gradually... the economic transition of a society [into Socialism] is a thing to be accomplished slowly”. Fuller’s paper concludes that Keynes was a non-Marxist socialist, meaning he eschewed the obsession with the idea of class struggle and focused his thinking around increased State control over the economy. If Keynes was a commie, why does it matter? In a previous incarnation of this blog, I wrote about Keynes’s predictions of a theoretical future where humanity would be freed from all care of day-to-day concerns through expert management of the economic cycle by credentialed technocrats. He called this future state “Bliss” and described it in his essay The Economic Possibilities of Our Grandchildren (coincidentally cited via marxists.org) The pace at which we can reach our destination of economic bliss will be governed by four things – our power to control population, our determination to avoid wars and civil dissensions, our willingness to entrust to science the direction of those matters which are properly the concern of science, and the rate of accumulation as fixed by the margin between our production and our consumption; of which the last will easily look after itself, given the first three. Economic bliss sounds a lot like fully automated luxury communism. But you can’t get there if the rabble is still making economic decisions for itself. Free markets must be destroyed, and only credentialed elites can be permitted economic autonomy. (That’s why nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe whenever the World Economic Forum is in session). Keynes laid out a path to get there. Through endless money printing, the Cantillon Effect would lead to the destruction of the middle class. By wrapping it within a cloak of crypto-socialism, he gave it a veneer of intellectual acceptability: “The work of monetary cranks like John Maynard Keynes taught in the modern universities the notion that government spending only has benefits, never costs. The government, after all, can always print money and so faces no real constraints on its spending, which it can use to achieve whatever goal the electorate sets for it” - Saifedean Ammous, The Bitcoin Standard. In Saifedean’s follow up, The Fiat Standard, Keynes and Marxism are mentioned as having large areas of overlap, goals and practically identical results: “The number and influence of third-world leaders who were educated in British and American universities from the 1930s onward is staggering…anyone familiar with the economic history of developing countries, or with the rhetoric of any development agency or ministry in a developing country, will see this influence in the distinct stench of Marxist and Keynesian notions of central planning.The entire framing of the notion of economic development is driven ultimately by a highly socialist view of how an economy works.” “By the 1970s, the development failures piled high, and a lot of soul-searching within the misery industry would lead to more government control and more centralized economic planning. As the “dependency school” approach became more popular, government central planning became far more pervasive. The combination of global easy money, following the U.S. government’s decision to suspend gold redeemability, and governments and international bureaucracies staffed with Keynesians and Marxists proved disastrous.” Fuller’s paper goes a long way in providing an explanation on why collectivism and Keynesianism seem to resemble each other: it’s the same thing. It is all statist, centralized technocracy under the guise of a) high-minded collectivism for the useful idiots of the working class, and b) high-powered intellectual macro-economic policy for the useful idiots in the universities and think tanks. This could be why we’re demonizing capitalism, energy, self-reliance, family, spirituality and anything else that falls to the right of Stalin. This is why Big Tech unicorns are by their own admission “commie as f*ck”, and why many of the celebrity class these days are self-proclaimed “woke” socialists. Especially the super-rich ones. The good news There was a time, especially under lockdowns, when I looked at the direction things were going, and I thought the Fabians had achieved complete victory. World socialism was practically here, having arrived under banners with names like The Great Reset, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Stakeholder Capitalism. Even worse, large swaths of the public seemed to be clamouring for it. COVID stimulus showed how the lubricant for a globalized socialism was the monetary printing press. In his day, Friedrich Hayek (the anti-Keynes) realized this as well and was similarly pessimistic. “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop.” - Hayek, quoted in The Bitcoin Standard, p72 Enter, Satoshi. The epiphany I had, and I’m not alone, is that we are not entering an age of centralized, technocratic authoritarianism, we are in the process of departing from it. We’re in the end game now. The crescendo of an age which has been unfolding for over a century – the era of the welfare state. With the arrival of the Internet, and then Bitcoin, we’re undergoing a phase shift into the decentralized era of network states and micro-sovereigns. The near universal mismanagement of COVID, from the possibility of a lab leak in the first place to being absolutely wrong about everything after that, pulled forward about 20 years of this tension and crammed it into 18 months. Too much, too soon. We were on track to gradually transition to a decentralized society via an interim phase of technocratic authoritarianism that could have lasted for decades, before giving away to the inevitable decentralized society. But now, we’re looking instead at a disorderly phase shift into deglobalization and decentralization. It’s already happening. We’re at a point where reality is intervening with ideology and it was the pandemic that brought us here a few decades before I would have otherwise expected it. The conventional COVID narrative has all but broken down completely. Trust in institutions and experts is plummeting, the corporate media is a joke. We may have already blundered our way into World War 3, while incumbent politicians around the world are being swept out of office on a wave of public backlash. Then there’s the economic and physical consequences of batshit policies that threaten to overwhelm our supply chains and energy availability everywhere. Woke capitalism is being exposed as a sham. The public increasingly sees The Party at Davos as saturated with hypocrisy and arrogance. Make no mistake, we’re talking about the end of an epoch and the demise of the legacy power structure. Not only in terms of who the incumbents are, but the very architecture and fabric of how geopolitical and economic power is configured. The old guard will not go down without a fight, and for the moment, they have the institutions and the media, but that is already changing. “We’re all Keynesians now” was the intellectual rallying cry of the fiat era. Laser eyes will be the defining meme of the next one. If I had to offer advice to anybody who was looking for ways to pivot their existing affairs and navigate the coming changes I would bullet point them as follows: Do not be reliant on government entitlements: these will soon be delivered via CBDCs and be full-throated social credit systems Turn off your TV, cancel all mainstream media subscriptions: read more books, get your news through alternative / indie media channels (start with The Sovereign Individual, both Saifedean Ammous books, and George Gilder’s Life After Google) If you’re a business owner: start taking crypto payments and HODL them If you’re not a business owner: Start one. Even a kitchen table business that you can grow over time. And stack sats. Always be stacking sats. Buying Bitcoin is calling bullshit on everything — Interstellar (@InterstellarBit) May 27, 2022 We’re going through a Fourth Turning-style phase shift. It will be turbulent, violent and at times terrifying.  But it will also bring boundless opportunity. Never before have we lived in age where nearly anybody can go from a standing start to spectacular success in the shortest amount of time with the lowest barriers to entry. This dynamic will only intensify over the coming years and in the long run, this is what will propel a quantum leap in the human endeavour. *  *  * The world is undergoing a monetary regime change. Get the Crypto Capitalist Manifesto free, when you join the Bombthrower mailing list. Follow me as @bombthrower on Gettr or if you haven’t been kicked off Twitter (yet), @StuntPope Tyler Durden Sun, 05/29/2022 - 17:30.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytMay 29th, 2022

Stocks Have "Considerably More Downside" & Commodities Have A "Brand New Tailwind" In 2023

Stocks Have "Considerably More Downside" & Commodities Have A "Brand New Tailwind" In 2023 Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance Friend of Fringe Finance Mark B. Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital released his most recent investor letter last week, with his updated take on the market’s valuation and Tesla. Mark is a recurring guest on my podcast (and will be coming back on again soon hopefully) and definitely one of Wall Street’s iconoclasts. I read every letter he publishes and only recently thought it would be a great idea to share them with my readers. Like many of my friends/guests, he’s the type of voice that gets little coverage in the mainstream media, which, in my opinion, makes him someone worth listening to twice as closely. Photo: Real Vision Mark was kind enough to allow me to share his thoughts from his November 2022 investor letter. Mark’s Thoughts On Macro Despite the stock market’s recent rally (we were up a hell of a lot more this month before today!) we  continue to carry a large SPY short position, as I believe the major indexes—although not all individual  stocks—have considerably more downside to go, the inevitable hangover from the biggest asset bubble in U.S. history. For far too long, the Fed printed $120 billion a month and held short-term rates at zero while the government concurrently ran a record fiscal deficit. Now, thanks to the massive inflationary  hangover from those idiotic policies (November’s “not as bad as feared” data not withstanding), the Fed is reducing its balance sheet and raising interest rates, and although the current rate of high-7% year over-year inflation is unsustainable, the eventual end of China’s “zero-Covid policy” and its November reversal on bailing out its real estate industry combined with the end of Biden’s SPR drawdowns will give commodity prices a brand new tailwind in 2023. Longer term, the war on fossil fuel, expensive “onshoring,” fewer available workers and perpetual government budget deficits make a new baseline of  around 4% inflation (double the Fed’s 2% target) likely.  Even a 2023 Fed interest rate “pause” at 4.75% (and remember, a “pause” is not a “pivot”!) would,  combined with $90 billion a month in ongoing QT, make current stock market valuations unsustainable,  as stocks are still expensive. [QTR’s note: This echos Kenny Polcari’s sentiments & my sentiments of recent.] According to Standard & Poor’s, with 97% of companies having reported, Q3 S&P 500 GAAP earnings came in at around $44.79, which annualizes to $179.16. (And these were the sixth  highest quarterly earnings in history; i.e., they were not “trough.”) A 16x multiple on that—generous for  a rising rate, recessionary (or even just slow-growth) environment—would bring the S&P 500 down to 2867 vs. November’s close of 4080.11. And remember, just as in bull markets, PE multiples usually overshoot to the upside, in bear markets they often overshoot to the downside. A bottom formed at a  considerably lower multiple is not unfathomable.  Additionally, we can see from CurrentMarketValuation.com that the U.S. stock market’s valuation as a  percentage of GDP (the so-called “Buffett Indicator”) is still very high, and thus valuations have a long way  to go before reaching “normalcy”: Regarding sentiment, we can see from Ed Yardeni that in the Investors Intelligence poll the highest the “bear percentage” got so far in the current market was only around 45% (in the most recent poll it was just 31.5%), yet there were multiple times during the 1980s, 1990s and 2008 that it climbed much higher:  Also, we can see from this old academic paper that during the grinding bear market of 1973 to 1975, when  the S&P 500’s GAAP PE multiple dropped from 18x to 8x, the bears in the Investors Intelligence poll climbed to around 75% and went over 80% during the bear markets of the 1960s. So if you think that based on this bear market’s sentiment we’ve “seen the bottom,” I wish you luck! Meanwhile, interest costs on the Federal debt are already set to grow massively. Does anyone seriously think this Fed has the stomach to face the political firestorm of Congress having to slash Medicare, the  defense budget, etc. in order to pay the even higher interest cost that would be created by upping those rates to a level commensurate with crushing even just 4% inflation? Powell doesn’t have the guts for that, nor does anyone else in Washington; thus, this Fed will likely be behind the inflation curve for at least a  decade. And that’s why we remain long gold (via the GLD ETF).  Mark On His Fund’s Positions (Positions May Change At Any Time) We continue to own automaker Stellantis (STLA), which has a great balance sheet with plenty of net cash (and a 7% dividend yield!) and which—at a current price of $15.62/share—sells for only around 3x 2022 earnings estimates of $5.26/share. I believe Jeep alone (which in September announced a full  electrification strategy) could be worth more than what we paid for the entire company, which also  includes Dodge, Chrysler, Ram, Fiat, Citroen, Peugeot, Opel, Alfa Romeo, Vauxhall, Lancia and Maserati. And if current EV sales are your interest, Stellantis already has Europe’s best-selling mass-market model.  We continue to own Volkswagen AG (via its VWAPY ADR, which represent “preference shares” that are  identical to “ordinary” shares except they lack voting rights and thus sell at a discount). VW currently sells  for around 4.2x estimated 2022 earnings due to a combination of “recession fears” and short-term issues obtaining energy (until either the Ukraine war is over or alternative supplies are in place), but it controls a massive number of terrific brands including Porsche, of which it recently IPO’d a small percentage at  a $73 billion valuation, thus valuing the rest of the company at only around $10 billion; I believe Audi  alone is worth 4x that! And a Lamborghini IPO may be next. Additionally, VW will pay a January special  dividend of around $1.90 per VWAPY share in proceeds from Porsche’s IPO, and the regular yield is  currently over 5%! Meanwhile VW Group’s EVs (several of which are more technologically advanced than  any Tesla) combine to heavily outsell Tesla in Europe and by 2025 may outsell Tesla worldwide. We continue to own General Motors (GM), which currently sells for only around 6.5x the $6.26/share  midpoint of its 2022 GAAP EPS guidance (which was reiterated in November). GM is doing all the right  things in electric cars, autonomous driving (via its Cruise ownership) and software, yet it’s cheap because,  as with other established automakers, many investors have (for now) forsaken it in favor of “electric car  pure-plays,” a sector which has thus become the largest valuation bubble in history. Get 50% off: If you enjoy this article, would like to support my work, I would love to have you as a subscriber and can offer you 50% off for life: Get 50% off forever And regarding  “autonomy,” keep in mind that unlike Tesla, which sells a LiDAR-less fraud to rubes, Cruise is already  running a fleet of fully autonomous cars in San Francisco (and soon Phoenix and Austin); you can see many  videos of this on its YouTube channel. GM will also benefit more than any other manufacturer from the  proposed new EV tax credit, as it will soon have the largest variety of North American-made (a requirement of the credit) EV models fitting within the new price restrictions. Additionally, in August the  company reinstituted a modest dividend. I thus consider these positions (Stellantis, GM and VW) to be both “freestanding value stock buys” and “relative-value paired trades” against our Tesla short.One oft heard knock against “the autos” is a belief  that their recent earnings have been “peak,” but keep in mind that due to supply chain issues they all  sold around 20% fewer cars than they otherwise could have. Thus, I believe those recent earnings are more like “strong midcycle” and should likely have around a 10x run-rate PE, not the current 3x to 6x. Also, thanks to those same supply chain issues they’re much lighter on inventory than they’d normally  be heading into a recession. Therefore, I believe these stocks have considerable upside from here.  We continue to own Fuel Tech Inc. (FTEK), a seller of air and water pollution control technologies, which in November reported a solid Q2, with revenue up 6.1% year-over-year (although at a lower gross margin),  .01/share in GAAP earnings and around $600,000 in free cash flow. At a current price of $1.24/share with  30.3 million shares outstanding and $33.9 million in cash and Treasuries (and no debt), this is a 43% gross  margin business selling for an enterprise value of only around 0.14x 26.4 million in TTM revenue. This is  the kind of company that will either ignite growth and its stock will take off (its new “Dissolved Gas  Infusion” water treatment technology is a potential medium-term catalyst for that), or it’s so cheap that  it will make for a good strategic acquisition target, as removing the costs of being an independent public  company could make it instantly earnings-accretive while allowing the buyer to acquire a nice chunk of  revenue very cheaply. In short, I think it’s a good “value stock” in which to park some money and see what  happens.  And now, Tesla…  Despite big, margin-slashing price cuts in both China and Europe, Tesla delivery wait times worldwide  have declined substantially, down to just one week in China while in the U.S. (where Musk’s Twitter boondoggle is rapidly destroying the brand) Tesla is choking on Model 3 inventory and offers December Model Y delivery, while Europe’s backlog is expected to be completely gone by year-end. This means Tesla’s production capacity now outstrips its rate of incoming orders despite the new German and Texas  factories producing at only around 10% of capacity!  Meanwhile, combined deliveries for the last two quarters (Q2 & Q3 2022) were lower than those for  the previous two quarters (Q4 2021 & Q1 2022). As Tesla slashes prices it will undoubtedly sell more  cars (I expect Q4 deliveries to be in the range of around 400,000 vs. previous quarters in the 300,000s,  thanks to the cuts plus a rush to beat year-end expiring EV incentives in China, Germany and France), but any other car company can slash prices and do the same thing. (Welcome to the auto business,  which currently sells for around 5x earnings!) Tesla’s apparent market saturation rate of around 1.6 million cars/year worldwide (at least until it slashes prices yet again!) is massively below its current factories’ production capacity, much less the bulls’ absurd expectations of adding a new factory every six months for the next ten years! For some valuation perspective, BMW sells around 2 million cars a year with very high margins  (including the best electric SUV now on the market (the new iX), the best luxury EV( the new i7), and  among the best small luxury EVs (the new i4), and has a market cap of around $59 billion. If Tesla grew annual deliveries to the size of BMW’s and had BMW-level margins, at BMW's current market cap it  would sell for less than $19/share vs. this month's closing price in the $194s! (Remember: Tesla now  has 3.16 billion shares outstanding!)  Meanwhile, Elon Musk remains the most vile person ever to head a large-cap U.S. public company, and  we remain short Tesla, the biggest bubble-stock in modern market history, because:  1) It has a sliding share of the world’s EV market and a share of the overall auto market that’s less than 2%, yet a market cap almost as big the next 6 largest automakers (by market cap) combined.  2) It has no “moat” of any kind; i.e., nothing meaningfully proprietary in terms of its electric  car technology (which has now been equaled or surpassed by numerous competitors) and its previously proprietary Superchargers are being opened to everyone), while existing  automakers—unlike Tesla—have a decades-long “experience moat” of knowing how to  mass-produce, distribute and service high-quality cars consistently and profitably.  3) Excluding working capital benefits and sunsetting emission credit sales Tesla generates only  minimal free cash flow.  4) Growth in sequential demand for Tesla’s cars is at a crawl relative to expectations. 5) Elon Musk is a pathological liar.  In October Tesla claimed that it had Q3 GAAP earnings of around .87/share excluding sunsetting emission  credit sales. If you believe that after viewing this chart (courtesy of Twitter user @Keubiko), I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn: Orange is revenue, green is operating expenses Furthermore, Tesla’s minimal depreciation of its new factories appears fraudulently low, as does its  warranty reserve.  Even if you believe Tesla’s clearly nonsensical earnings number, it annualizes to only $3.48/share, which  based on November’s closing price of $194.70 = a run-rate PE ratio of around 56 for a now slow-growing (or growing-but-margin-slashing) car company in an industry with a current average PE of around 5.  Meanwhile, Tesla has objectively lost its “product edge,” with many competing cars now offering comparable or better real-world range, better interiors, similar or faster charging speeds and much better quality. (Tesla ranks near the bottom of Consumer Reports’ reliability survey while British consumer  organization Which? found it to be one of the least reliable cars in existence.) Thus, due to competitors’ temporary production constraints, waiting times are now longer for many of Tesla’s direct EV competitors than they are for a Tesla.   In fact, Tesla is likely now the second, third or fourth choice for many EV buyers, and only maintains its  volume lead though a short-lived edge in production capacity that will disappear over the next 12 to 36 months as competitors rapidly increase the ability to produce their superior EVs. Tesla’s poorly-built  Model Y faces current (or imminent) competition from the much better made (and often just better)  electric Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, Ford Mustang Mach E, Cadillac Lyriq, Nissan Ariya, Audi Q4 e-tron, BMW  iX3, Mercedes EQB, Volvo XC40 Recharge, Chevrolet Blazer EV & $30,000 Equinox EV and Polestar 3. And  Tesla’s Model 3 now has terrific direct “sedan competition” from Volvo’s beautiful Polestar 2, the great  new BMW i4, the upcoming Hyundai Ioniq 6 and Volkswagen Aero, and multiple local competitors in  China.  And in the high-end electric car segment worldwide the Porsche Taycan (the base model of which is now  considerably less expensive than Tesla’s Model S) outsells the Model S, while the spectacular new BMW  i7, Mercedes EQS, Audi e-Tron GT and Lucid Air make it look like a fast Yugo, and the extremely well  reviewed new BMW iX, Mercedes EQS SUV and Audi Q8 eTron (as well as multiple new Chinese models)  do the same to the Model X.  Indeed, for years I’ve said “Tesla is Blackberry”—the maker of a first-generation version of a product  that—once the market was proven—would be supplanted into niche obscurity by newer, better versions;  now I can provide a much more recent analogy: Tesla is Netflix. For years Netflix had an absurd valuation  based on its pioneering position in streaming media, but once it proved that such a market existed myriad  competitors swarmed all over it, and this year the stock collapsed when we learned that not only is Netflix  no longer in “hypergrowth” mode but for the first time since 2011 (when it transitioned from physical  DVDs) it actually lost subscribers. I believe Musk knows that Tesla is “the next Netflix” (hence his recent  “Twitter buying distraction”), with VW, Hyundai/Kia, Ford, GM, Stellantis, BMW, Mercedes, BYD & other  Chinese competitors and, in a few years, Toyota & Honda, being the Disney, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, Peacock, Hulu, Paramount +, etc., of the electric car market, stealing Tesla’s share and eventually  pounding its stock price down 90% or so from today’s, into the valuation of “just another car company.” Despite this obvious “writing on the wall,” many Tesla bulls sincerely believe that ten years from now the  company will be twice the size of Volkswagen or Toyota, thereby selling around 20 million cars a year (up  from the anticipated Q4 annualized run-rate of around 1.6 million); in fact in May Musk himself even  raised this as a possibility. Setting aside the absurdity of selling that many cars into the limited market of Tesla’s high price points, the “logistical absurdity” of selling 20 million cars/year in ten years means that  in addition to 2.4 million cars a year of sold-out existing claimed production capacity (once the German  and Texas factories are fully operational), Tesla would have to add 35 more brand new 500,000 car/year  factories with sold out production; i.e., a new factory approximately every single quarter for the next ten years! Only a Teslemming could be dumb enough to believe this!  Meanwhile, in June the NHTSA announced that its investigation of Tesla’s deadly Autopilot has  expanded into “an engineering analysis,” the last required step before (finally!) demanding a full recall,  and in October it was reported that this deadly scam is being investigated by both the SEC and the DOJ.  The refund liability potential for Tesla for this is in the billions of dollars, and possibly even the tens of  billions if a class action lawsuit proves that the cars involved were purchased solely due to the  (fallacious) promise of “full self-driving.” And, of course, there will be a massive “valuation reappraisal”  for Tesla’s stock as the world wakes up to the fact that Tesla’s so-called “autonomy technology” is deadly, trailing-edge garbage. In fact, the NHTSA has reported a slew of Autopilot-related deaths just  since last year. For all Tesla deaths cited in the media—which is likely only a small fraction of those that  have occurred—see TeslaDeaths.com. And Tesla has sold this trashy software for over six years now:  …and still promotes it on its website via a completely fraudulent video! Another favorite Tesla hype story has been built around so-called “proprietary battery technology.” In fact  though, Tesla has nothing proprietary there—it doesn’t make them, it buys them from Panasonic, CATL and LG, and it’s the biggest liar in the industry regarding the real-world range of its cars. And if new-format 4680 cells enter the market some time in 2024 (as is now expected), even if Tesla makes some of its own,  other manufacturers will gladly sell them to anyone, and BMW has already announced it will buy them  from CATL and EVE.  And oh, the joke of a “pickup truck” Tesla previewed in 2019 (and still hasn’t shown in production-ready  form) won’t be much of “growth engine” either, as by the time it’s in mass-production in 2024 it will enter  a dogfight of a market; in fact, Ford’s terrific 2022 all-electric F-150 Lightning now has over 200,000 retail  reservations (plus many more fleet reservations), GM has introduced its fantastic 2023 electric Silverado which already has nearly 200,000 reservations, Rivian’s pick-up has gotten excellent early reviews, and  Ram will also be out with a great truck in 2024. About Mark Spiegel Mark manages Stanphyl Capital, established in 2011, a deep-value equity & macro long-short investing fund based in New York City. Mark can be reached at mark@stanphylcap.com or at @StanphylCap on Twitter. Disclaimer: This letter was not reproduced in full. I may own Tesla call and put options and may be long/short TSLA and or any names mentioned. You should assume I have positions in any names I publish about. I have no position in Mark’s funds. Mark is a subscriber to Fringe Finance via a comped subscription I gave him and has been on my podcast. The excerpts from Mark’s letter, above, shall not be construed as an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to sell, any securities or services. Any such offering may only be made at the time a qualified investor receives formal materials describing an offering plus related subscription documentation. There is no guarantee the Fund’s investment strategy will be successful. Investing involves risk, and an investment in the Fund could lose money. Tyler Durden Sun, 12/04/2022 - 15:40.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedge10 hr. 15 min. ago

Transcript: Boaz Weinstein (Live!)

     The transcript from this week’s, MiB: NAME, TITLE, is below. You can stream and download our full conversation, including the podcast extras on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google, Bloomberg, and Acast. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here. ~~~ ANNOUNCER: This is Masters in Business with Barry… Read More The post Transcript: Boaz Weinstein (Live!) appeared first on The Big Picture.      The transcript from this week’s, MiB: NAME, TITLE, is below. You can stream and download our full conversation, including the podcast extras on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google, Bloomberg, and Acast. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here. ~~~ ANNOUNCER: This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio. BARRY RITHOLTZ, HOST, MASTERS IN BUSINESS: This week on the podcast, I have an extra special guest and a funny story about how this podcast came about. I interviewed Boaz Weinstein back in May of 2022. It was one of the most popular podcasts we did this year. And when the folks over at the Bloomberg Invest Conference came to me and said, “Hey, we’re looking for somebody who’s a little out-of-the-box thinker and kind of interesting, who might you suggest as an interviewee?” That was easy, I said, “We just did this interview with Boaz six months ago. Everybody seemed to really like it. He’s very much an outside-the-box thinker, covers everything from credit derivatives to SPACs, to stocks and bonds, but from an unusual perspective, not your typical investor.” For example, he’s been an investor in SPACs because he looks at it as a guaranteed fixed income return in a time of zero, with potential upside. So he’s done that really, really successfully. He’s one of the five largest SPAC investors in the world. In case you don’t know who Boaz Weinstein is of Saba capital, he’s the person who made the bet against the London Whale, and then went to JPMorgan Chase and presented at one of their conferences and said, “By the way, you guys, you have this person in London that’s sucking up all of the energy options. It’s a wildly lopsided bet and it’s going to blow up. Oh, and PS, I’ve bet against him.” And lo and behold, when the London Whale blows up six months later, Saba Capital nets $300 million or $400 million on the trade. Just an amazing story and incredible ability to look at risk and figure out when it’s a fair bet, or when it’s an asymmetrical bet, where, hey, if we lose, we lose a little bit. But if we win, it’s a giant homerun. So he’s really an intriguing person. We did the interview at the Bloomberg Invest Conference. So when you hear the audio of this, it’s a live event. You’ll hear the audience. You’ll hear people rustling papers. It’s not the usual, hey, we’re in a studio that’s pristine and you don’t hear anything other than the two of us speaking and breathing. So this was a live event. But it was so well received, and it was so interesting. And he just is such a fascinating investor, we thought it would be perfect for the holiday weekend. So with no further ado, here is my live interview with Saba Capital’s Boaz Weinstein at the Bloomberg Invest Live Conference. So this is the first time I’m wearing a suit and tie, and I don’t know how long. And I’m glad– BOAZ WEINSTEIN, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, SABA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP: He didn’t tell me about the tie. Sorry, guys. RITHOLTZ: So we previously had a conversation. Was it early this year? Last year? I can’t even tell anymore. And there were a lot of really interesting things that came up. I think this audience would love to hear an update on what’s happened since then. But I have to start by asking, you were a highly-ranked chess player as a young kid. You have a reputation as a killer poker player and dangerous blackjack player. These involve making probabilistic assessments about an inherently unknowable future, seems like you’ve been setting yourself up for tail risk and derivatives and trading since you were a kid. WEINSTEIN: You’re giving me a lot of credit for having planned everything since I was 5. I think the only tail risk I would think then when I was 5 was pin the tail on the donkey, to be quite honest. So you know, really, I enjoy games of strategy. And it turns out that Wall Street is the ultimate puzzle and challenge and so, yeah, I’ve been working on Wall Street since I was 15. And I think, at a young age, I’ve already seen a lot. RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk about what’s going on right now. We’ve discussed and you’ve brought up how different this bear market has been from recent bear markets. What are the similarities? What are the differences? What makes 2022 so unique? WEINSTEIN: Yeah. So when you think about not only what’s happened, but even the investor behavior that it engenders, a lot of the tail events that I’ve lived through, I was trading while 9/11 happened. I was at the New York Fed the weekend that Lehman was failing. A lot of those events, not all of them, but a lot of them were bolts from the blue. COVID, you’ve kind of had a month from when people knew it’s a thing before the market started falling. But there were bolts in the blue, and if you had not done anything about it, you had plenty of air cover to say who knew this would happen? What could I have done in advance? Whereas this one has been so telegraphed, at least, the initial part of it about inflation being transitory, and then transitory and then transitory. They’re not transitory. So there was a lot of time in 2021 to get worried, and very little places to hide, to say, you know, it was not reasonable to have thought what if this 40-year bull market in bonds not only comes to an end, but does a sharp reversal. Those were things that we and other managers were talking about, where the 60/40 plans that were using Treasuries as their antidote to a sell-off, it turns out the Treasuries were the poison. And so, you know, this has been different in that respect. It’s also been different because you have so many different problems swirling around, some of them in conflict with each other. So solve one at the expense of the other. And then the number of new things showing up, whether it’s, you know, maybe untoward rumors about Credit Suisse, or what’s happening in the U.K. gilt market. It just makes the number of balls in the air enormous in terms of things, known unknowns that could really cause more than a sell-off, but more like a crash. RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk about that. You’ve discussed multiple problems in multiple areas taking place at the same time. How do you distinguish between what’s a genuine risk, what’s a known risk, and what’s truly an unknown unknown? WEINSTEIN: So usually, you have your known unknown, like, something is bad, we just don’t know how bad and you can respond to it. So, you know, 9/11 happens, it’s not a good time to buy airline stocks. You know, COVID happens, it’s not a good time to buy airline stocks. ’08 happens, probably you should derisk from financials, even like the moment after it happened. And here, you just don’t know exactly what to do. So normally, for example, European investment grade trades 5 basis points lower than U.S. investment grade. Now, it trades 30 basis points higher, 25 basis points higher. Is that enough? Europe is going to have a much more severe recession, according to those that pontificate. And so whether or not you underweight or overweight, Europe is all about what do you think happens with Ukraine? Is there a chance it gets asymmetric? What can be done to mitigate? And then at the same time, you have these other theaters, whether it’s zero COVID policy in China may be extending well past the Party Congress, continuing to cause disruption in the economy. So really, what’s happened is people just feel risk all over. They felt it now for 10 months, and they’re derisking the things that are in their book. And that has led to some things that I don’t view as particularly risky, blowing out as much as things that I do view as risky, and that’s created some interesting distortions, interesting opportunities. RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk about those opportunities. What has been overly derisked? What are looking attractive after investors throw the baby out with the bathwater? WEINSTEIN: Right. So not knowing where to focus your arrows, and instead just focusing on derisking. And the comments that Jamie Dimon made about bracing for a hurricane, and another CEO said bracing for a tornado, and someone else mentioned some other weather disaster. You know, like, what did they actually mean when they do that? How do they actually brace other than like, you know, a physical brace? What are they doing? They’re a bank. They have loans. They go to their loan portfolio hedging group, and they say, “Please increase the amount of hedging.” So what does the bank do? It looks at the loans that it’s made, often to the best companies in America or in the world, and derisks where the risk is. And so we did a number of trades with banks, where they’re coming to us to say, “In the middle of all this, we want to buy protection on Coca-Cola, on Johnson & Johnson, on Home Depot, on Walmart, you know, AT&T, Verizon,” these big companies that have a lot of debt outstanding in terms of revolvers, and not relative to their balance sheet, but relative to just the quantity of debt. And so there are a bunch of names, in fact, I think everyone I mentioned, where if you look at where it is today, it’s above the worst day of COVID. So those names that are not even candidates for discussion about could they run into trouble as credits are above their worst day of COVID. Whereas the index that they sit in is only trading at two-thirds of the worst day of COVID. Why would those names be worse? Why would they be at the widest levels and the average be only at two-thirds? It’s because of this technical in the market, and I think technicals are the biggest force in the credit market now, much more than fundamentals, much more than any time in my career, where if somebody has something to do, which is to buy billions of dollars of Verizon one year or two year CDS, that’s going to move the price to levels that just doesn’t make sense from a fundamental point of view. And so what we’ve been doing is going long those names, selling that insurance to fund protection on companies with a history of blowing out, if actually there is a real recession or some other kind of crisis. And so that would be found usually in consumer finance companies, economically-sensitive company, cyclicals, steel, shipping, paper. And so we found it very interesting in the middle of this problem to be able to find attractive long/short trades because of the technical distortion. RITHOLTZ: So are you looking at the fundamentals of these equities? Are you looking at the technicals of how they’re trading? Or are you looking at the credit spreads and saying, hey, people are way too frightened beyond what they should be? WEINSTEIN: Yeah. So we probably more than most, on the credit side, do look at equities for clues. And sometimes there is one market above, faster or slower than the other. But we’re sourcing the tail protection that we provide our investors, which is one of the main things we do through the credit market. And we’ll get to that I’m sure. And we’re paying for it because there are many investors that want it paid for. They don’t want to just leave the negative carry through some of these, I view as ultra-low risk trades in Verizon or Coca-Cola. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) RITHOLTZ: So do we want to get more specific? Is it strictly an equity bet, or is it equity combined with some derivative? How are you putting together these paired trades? WEINSTEIN: So you could look at their history. And first, you could use common sense and say, is this the kind of company that could run into trouble? Is it not? And the price is not efficient compared to the past, where fundamentals were the biggest driver. We’re looking at the credit, a little bit about the fundamentals, but the fundamentals are sort of not in question on the long side. It’s really, have these served us well and investors well as tail hedges in the past? We look at ’08 and 2000, 2012 and say, is this the kind of company that regularly blows out from 100 basis points to 400 basis points? Take General Motors, for example, they defaulted in ’08, problems with the UAW behind them, they’ve still been enormously volatile as a credit, as a company, super exposed to the U.S. economy and global economy, and pressures. The credit in 2020 went from 100 to 700 back to 100. And it’s had that kind of roller coaster. And so we looked at and said, that’s a really volatile credit. And when it’s low, that’s really asymmetric. You could buy protection. And if things change, it might move out a lot. Right now, it’s at 250. It has moved out a lot more than the index. And so we’re looking at histories to give us a clue. We’re looking at forward-looking models, equity, vol, fundamentals. But what we’re, at the end, also doing and I should make sure I say this, is we’re providing liquidity to the banks that need it. And if they come and say they want to buy protection on Pepsi, or LVMH, or Nestle, that’s amazing. You’ve now given me the ammunition I needed to go and fund protection and companies that really may run into trouble. RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk a little bit about history. You mentioned ‘08 and 2020, we can also mention 2000 in the same sentence, that were fairly rapid and disorderly dislocations. Maybe 2020 might be the exception. You’ve described 2022 was sort of a slow motion implosion, and yet it’s still been very orderly. What makes this year so unusual compared to previous collapses that really seem to make a bottom and snapback pretty abruptly? WEINSTEIN: Yeah. So first, the market is still trying to figure out what it should most worry about. And so, you know, it’s like just when you think of something, maybe we’re at peak inflation past us, maybe the supply chain problems are coming down, but then you have new things. And so there’s just been this sell-off that continues to find new rationale. And then you have the Fed leaning on the market, actually. And when Powell sounded too dovish, you know, first, all of his peers came out to say, “No, no, you know, the market, we’re going to keep going.” And they’ve continued to say that, Kashkari, most recently. So you have the Fed kind of intent on showing that they mean what they say. And so they’re probably liking that the market is going down on an orderly way, even if it’s created some disorder in other markets. Look what’s happening in the U.K. And so I’m used to, and we’re all used to sell-offs that are fairly quick, that we know even ’08 was five or six months from Lehman to the lows of March ’09, where at the end of it, you can kind of wonder, is there an all clear sign? We have the Fed behind us, quantitative easing. Now, we don’t really know who the savior is because at the end of all of this, we’re still going to have quantitative tightening and shrinking the balance sheet. Whereas a lot of sell-offs were just a prelude to a bull market one or six months later, you know, this has the feeling to me, like, we’re going to be worried about some number of these things, or new things for potentially quarters and maybe even years to come. RITHOLTZ: So no capitulation yet, no flash which gives us that all clear signal. How much of that is based on truly not knowing what the Fed is going to do? Or is it we don’t know which potential problem is real and which is fake news? WEINSTEIN: These things are so hard to predict. I even want to be cautious about, you know, opining too much because it’s just such a confusing market. And there hasn’t been a single thing to say, okay, this is why 20% is not enough, it should be 40. Let’s take inflation, if you look at its forward inflation, it’s expected to come down a lot. So you could look at tomorrow’s CPI print, if it comes in a 10th or below or high, and get excited about it. But the market is still telling you inflation is not going to be the problem that it is one year from now. Now, if a few months from now, that conviction is shaken, then we’re going to have a real strong sell-off. If somehow Russia, heaven forbid, becomes more asymmetric, we’re going to have a real problem. And so we just don’t know we’re in a fog, and we should not rely on the lessons that people learned maybe incorrectly for this environment, that we’re good between ’08 and 2022, which was the Fed is your put, don’t fight the Fed, and dips should all be bought, and being short is fighting the Fed. You know, this really does not feel like that environment, in particular, because of where the central banks are versus then. RITHOLTZ: But the one lesson that should carry through sounds like continue not to fighting the Fed when the Fed reverses their position. WEINSTEIN: I’m glad you said that, Barry, because about nine years ago, I had a prospective investor in my own office. We’re long vol funds. One of our main products is long volatility. And I don’t know if he didn’t quite know that because he kind of wagged his finger at me and said, you know, he’s like, “Sonny, didn’t someone ever tell you don’t fight the Fed?” Just to be long volatility, when Mario Draghi said, “Trust me and I’ll do whatever it takes. But that psychology of don’t fight the Fed, don’t be short is, in my opinion, a lazy person’s way of saying, “Let’s always be long.” Because if that person was around today, I don’t exactly remember who he even was, to make that call back and say, “If you really believe in don’t fight the Fed,” how much of your risk did you take down when the Fed said that they really meant business and we’re going to be selling assets for years to come? And plus all of these problems that when you add up the number of problems in different theaters, I can’t think of a corollary that, you know, to me, it does feel worse in many respects than any other experience in the market I’ve had. RITHOLTZ: So you hinted at U.K. gilts and what’s going on over in London. The strength of the dollar is another factor. How do you think about those when you’re considering tail risk and volatility? WEINSTEIN: So we’re not experts in foreign exchange. But I look at the gilt market, for example, and you see like the U.K. half a percent bond of 2061. Somebody, you know, in 2021, bought a 40-year bond that was going to pay, not someone, a lot of people is going to pay half a percent a year for 40 years. And at the end of all, that the most you could possibly make was half a percent times 40, minus some inflation. And so that would be 20 points without discounting, without inflation, the thing is down 73 points. So when you think about boundary conditions, you know, and what I like to do in the derivative markets is look at boundary conditions and say, how much can I make? How much can I lose? And where is there some asymmetry? And by the way, we were not short any U.K. bonds, to be clear. But there are a lot of trades that looked like this kind of, I can only lose a little bit. But just in case, it’s not transitory, or just in case, there’s an unknown unknown that is really problematic. You might be able to make 8 to 10 or 20 times when you might have lost. And to see this move, and it may continue of higher rates, whether it’s the U.S. or Europe, where the investor loses three or four times what they could possibly make, at the end of the day, with bonds. I think it reminds me of how investors don’t really think about fixed income and equities in the way that I do, which is, you know, equities give you this unbounded upside. So it could be Tesla. It could be Faraday Future or Fisker. But you know, you’re minus 100 and you’re plus 20,000 and that’s the range. But in fixed income, often there’s so little to earn that when I see my peers talk about high yield at 5% is amazing because it used to be at 3%. I feel like, wait a second, how many defaults do we expect this year? There’s a lot of companies in that index that are going to run into trouble. So how excited can we really get just because high yield has, you know, widened by 2 percentage points. And so I think fixed income can end up effectively being an option, but people don’t look at it as an option. And I view it often as asymmetric short, and that’s one of the guiding principles of our tail hedge strategy. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk about another credit-related issue. A couple of weekends ago, people were talking about the widening credit defaults on Credit Suisse. And surprisingly, you came out and said, “Everybody, catch your breath. Credit Suisse isn’t Lehman Brothers. Just look at various ratios.” What made that so attractive to shorts and what led you to the conclusion that Credit Suisse was more or less okay? WEINSTEIN: Yeah. I didn’t start out thinking I want to say something public. I basically have zero Twitter followers before this. Then all of a sudden, you know, it became a thing. I noticed that people with hundreds of thousands of followers were saying Credit Suisse spreads are out there decade high. It’s an imminent default according to secret sources. And when you see like people with 100 followers saying that’s fine. But, you know, kind of at the same time, you could almost read that it was the same person sending it from accounts or team with hundreds of thousands of followers, that this sounds like scare-mongering. It sounds like someone is trying to make something about it. And well, what do I know? I know that this quote, it’s a decade high, you know, can be used as fake news to say, therefore, it’s going to default. But if you look at the spread at the time the five-year credit spread of CS was 2.5%. Now, if it defaulted back to our boundary conditions, it could go to zero, it could go to 50. You’d be like 2.5 to lose or make, to make or lose 50 to 100. It’s still priced like 25 to 1, right? And– RITHOLTZ: Low probability. WEINSTEIN: Very low probability, but it’s discussed as something that’s about to happen. And so I kind of took offense to it. I am supposed to know a thing or two about CDS. So I wrote a little bit about it, and then I posted, “Coca-Cola, by the way, also a decade high, better stock up on Coca-Cola.” And you know, articles come out saying that I was saying Coca-Cola may go to business, which, you know, reminded me about sarcasm and how it doesn’t naturally translate to at least some of the users. But this point of, you know, some things that a decade widest level, therefore crisis, I took offense to it. And I don’t have any special connection to Credit Suisse, but I felt like weighing in. RITHOLTZ: And so far, Credit Suisse is still hanging around, right, has yet to default. WEINSTEIN: I did get some very nice messages from the fine folks at Credit Suisse. So, yeah. RITHOLTZ: So since we’re talking about tail risks, let’s talk a little bit about that and hedges. Why have equity puts or VIX calls so disappointed this year as insurance? WEINSTEIN: Oh, that’s a brutal question, actually. Because there are people, you know, it’s like if you say, look, I didn’t study hard for the test. I didn’t do well on the test. Okay, mom, dad, whatever, study harder. But when you study hard and you say, I’m going to be prudent. I’m going to buy tail protection. I was there, I was there in January to buy it. And then it doesn’t work. It’s like, you know, tail hedges have to be reliable because they serve a greater purpose. It’s not just how did this manager do unto themselves? It’s, “I was counting on this tail hedge to do me some great service in my portfolio.” And I think the really interesting thing is that the VIX is cited all the time as the barometer of fear. Well, so I remember and probably many of you remember that in the period, let’s say, 2012 to 2019, we even talked about there was a single digit day for the VIX. It went below 10. It was often between 10 and 12 in good times. But something happened after 2020 which is, you know, we had COVID. And that enormous volatility, it actually destroyed the people picking up nickels in front of the steamroller, aka the short volatility crowd. They were no longer there after March 2020. And then came a new breed of investor that love to buy options, whether it was options on meme stocks, and you saw the volatilities go nuts there. SoftBank set up unit to buy options on short, you know, in tech stocks. And culturally, I think in this country, on the investing side, things became fast. Think about, you know, when someone, when your friend, because it wasn’t me, would tell you that some NFT went up by 10x. And you’d say 10x, I would like 1x in five years. I’d be really excited about that. And everything became fast, and options are way to get there fast. So the long-winded way to say when we came into 2022, the VIX, by prior measures, was already at a 4 alarm fire. We were at like 22 to 28 on the VIX, and that kind of number would have been a bear market, the prior decade. But we were at the peak for the S&P. So tail protection through equity options was incredibly expensive and it has served investors very poorly. Whereas credit spreads came into the year near the lows that they were pre-COVID. They’ve widened and they’ve done their job, even if there’s still a lot of widening potentially to come. RITHOLTZ: So let’s dive a little deeper into that. So the end of 2021, peak bull market and the VIX very, very high. So how are investors supposed to put two and two together? What did that signify? WEINSTEIN: It meant that if you said I’m going to spend a certain amount of premium, like you think about with your car insurance or home insurance and say, I have this much premium, I’m going to buy a put, struck 5% out of the money or 10% on the money. If I’m right, if this insurance was good to buy, what kind of payoff profile would I get? And you were getting nothing like you would get not just pre-COVID, but, you know, over the past let’s say 20 years, you were getting pretty miserable payouts for a bull market. When times are rough and vol is high, you understand why you have to pay a lot. But coming into this year, vol was stubbornly high, and so equity options were extremely expensive. We did a webinar for our clients, where we showed that basically across assets, a bank, Bank of America put out some neat research that had the S&P and the Nasdaq as literally out of 50 assets, the two worst you could get interesting payouts from. And so those things are not necessarily undecipherable. But credit in every sell-off, credit has blown out, whether it’s the credit crisis, of course, but even the flash crash. I remember being surprised that the flash, I was trading during the flash crash, May 2010, maybe I’ll get the date wrong by a little bit. And credit spreads, because of a glitch in the New York Stock Exchange, moved that day almost as much as they did the day of 9/11. So credit is an option. This low spread thing can move a lot. You can get an option like payout being short, or be exposed to the loss being long. And it is, in my view, a much more reliable tail hedge that’s been backed up in academic research. And it also stands to reason that, you know, credit as an option, whether you look at an emerging model, or you just think about, I’m taking this little spread in return for exposing myself to a wider credit spread environment or defaults. And this is why I feel very fortunate that my sandbox where I grew up in the credit sort of market, you know, is a really viable forum for tail hedging. RITHOLTZ: So I have the last question before we go to audience questions in the last few minutes. Given where we are, how wide have credit spreads gone? And if the put side wasn’t attractive on equities at the top in the market, how does the call side look on equities today? WEINSTEIN: So credit spreads today are like in absolute terms, they’re slightly elevated. Like, let’s say it this way. Remember December 2018, Trump and Xi were having a skirmish. The Fed was, you know, was being tough on the market, while growth was faltering. That seems like a walk in the park compared to now. And credit spreads then were roughly the same as they are today. So maybe they shouldn’t have been that wide then, or maybe they’re too low now. But spreads now are elevated, but in my view, nowhere near what the risks, the hidden risks and observed risks are in the marketplace now. In terms of call options, you know, there’s moments where credit falls enough that it isn’t asymmetric, that it’s symmetric, or it looks like if you locked it away in a box, you’re going to get a high return compared to defaults. We’re not near that yet. And I still believe equities are much more attractive long, even though there’s going to be this sort of technical of people looking with loving eyes at a, you know, 5% yield or 6% yield. And you can find in some investment grade corporates, 7% or 8% yields if you go out far enough from the curve. And so there will be probably some people saying I want the certainty of that yield. But that also comes with plenty of interest rate risk. RITHOLTZ: Yeah, to say the very least. All right, a couple of questions from the audience, starting with, where do you see the largest realignments of capital coming in the next 5 to 10 years? I don’t know if that’s really your sort of question. But– WEINSTEIN: I don’t even know what’s going to happen in the next five months, so five years, with respect, I really don’t know. But what I do believe is that the QT world, when all this is behind us, there’s still a giant balance sheet. There’s a headwind to the market. It’s going to be really brutal for investors that have survived the QT. RITHOLTZ: Meaning $4 trillion in Fed assets that have to come off the balance sheet? WEINSTEIN: Just in the U.S., and maybe they’ll go slow or less low. But I think this is going to be a period of much higher volatility than the last decade was. RITHOLTZ: So future volatility is going to increase; whereas it was modest, but not low over the past decade? WEINSTEIN: Yeah. There were punctuated moments, but there was a long period of very low volatility. And it seems like that may be behind us because even if some of the problems go away, you still have the undoing of QE, which is more than just no QE, it’s the opposite of QE is I think a really underrated continuous headwind. RITHOLTZ: And final question and I’m going to modify this, given where 10-year Treasury yields are today, what does that mean for future GDP growth? What does that mean for the possibility of a recession, either mild or more significant? WEINSTEIN: So, you know, until March, there really weren’t any banks calling for a recession as the most likely case. It was around then, maybe one or two banks. Obviously, Larry Summers and others did speak out. I think that these kinds of forecasts are really folly. Literally, we’re standing in a thick fog, trying to like play tennis and we can’t even see the ball. And by the way, that’s a great question you asked. But, like, when people answer it, I kind of shutter, so I’m going to try to not shutter on myself and say who knows, but what I know is that we should be aware that this is not the market we were in. And still, I can feel this thinking of, you know, as soon as CPI misses, as soon as we come in at 7 something, okay, it’s going to be off to the races with the market. Firstly, I think it’s a sell the rally market because people are not yet accustomed to all of the issues hanging over us. And anyway, that’s my two cents. RITHOLTZ: Thank you, Boaz, for being so generous with your time. We have been speaking with Boaz Weinstein, founder of Saba Capital. If you enjoy this conversation, well, be sure and check out any of the 400 previous ones we’ve done over the past eight years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, wherever you find your favorite podcasts. We love your comments, feedback and suggestions. Write to us at mibpodcast@bloomberg.net. Follow me on Twitter @ritholtz. Check out my daily reads at ritholtz.com I would be remiss if I did not thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together each week. Mohamad Rimawi is my audio engineer. Sean Russo is my head of Research. Paris Wald is our producer. Atika Valbrun is our project manager. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. END   ~~~   The post Transcript: Boaz Weinstein (Live!) appeared first on The Big Picture......»»

Category: blogSource: TheBigPictureNov 29th, 2022

Live: 90+ best Amazon Cyber Monday deals still available: Apple, Kindle, Roku, and more

Shop the 90+ best Amazon Cyber Monday deals before they sell out, including Kindle, Fire TV, and Apple products. We'll be keeping this page fresh with the latest Cyber Monday deals from Amazon.Amazon; Alyssa Powell/InsiderWhen you buy through our links, Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more.Cyber Monday is nearly over, but if you hurry you can still get discounts during Amazon's Cyber Monday sale on 4K TVs, mattresses, and everything in between. Throughout the rest of Cyber Monday, we'll update this page with deals vetted by our expert team of editors and reporters. In other words: If the deal is highlighted here, it's worth your consideration. For more deals, be sure to check out our Cyber Monday deals liveblog for all the best ways to save. Top Amazon Cyber Monday deals right now2022 Kindle: $85 (Save $15)Crest 3D Whitestrips: $28 (Save $12)ChomChom Pet Hair Remover: $24 (Save $7)Roku Streaming Stick 4K: $25 (Save $25)Waterpik Aquarius Water Flosser: $45 (Save $55)Hisense 50-inch U6 Series Smart Fire TV: $300 (Save $165)Apple AirPods Pro (2nd Generation): $200 (Save $50)Meta Quest 2 Cyber Monday Bundle: $350 (Save $50)Beats Studio Buds: $90 (Save $60)LifeStraw Personal Water Filter: $13 (Save $8)Shop the best Amazon Cyber Monday salesKindles e-readers: Up to 34% offFire TV streaming sticks: Up to 50% offFire tablets: Up to 47% offEcho show devices: Starting at $35Anker charging accessories: As low as $16iRobot Roomba vacuums: Starting at $174Samsung QLED and OLED TVs: Up to 30% off29% off Mario Badescu Facial Spray with Aloe, Herbs, and RosewaterEllen Hoffman/Business InsiderWhether you spray this after your skincare routine or to refresh makeup throughout the day, the Mario Badescu Facial spray is designed to rejuvenate and soothe skin whenever it's in need. This is one of our favorite affordable skincare brands, and during Cyber Monday, you can find the spray nearly 30% off on Amazon.$30 off the Bentgo Kids Stainless Steel Leak-Resistant Lunch BoxAmazonThis bento-style lunch box is made from resilient, BPA-free stainless steel to lock in freshness, and it comes with a removable silicone container for more food than its portioned segments. Plus, lunches just look amazing in it. Down to $40, right now you can save $10 on any of the available colors. Save 25% on the Sunbeam Power Steam Fabric SteamerAmazonThe Sunbeam Power Steam Fabric Steamer stands out among similarly priced competitors thanks to its adjustable steam flow settings and clever additional features. Our pick for the best steamer on the market is at a new all-time low price during Cyber Monday.40% off Redken Pliable PasteAmazonRub the Redken Pliable Paste in your hands and apply it through either damp or dry hair to style hair just the way you like. During Cyber Monday, save 40% off the styling paste that twists, molds, and texturizers tresses. 10% off the Singer Heavy Duty 4423 Sewing MachineAmazonThe Singer Heavy Duty 4423 Sewing Machine is designed with the beginner in mind with its intuitive interface, ability to handle all types of fabrics, and one-step buttonholes. Currently on sale for Cyber Monday, it's 10% off its regular price.Save 33% on the Fjällräven Kanken 15-Inch BackpackAmazonThe Fjällräven Kanken is lightweight and spacious. It has a cool, contemporary look that looks great in a variety of settings. Right now, you can snag your own for only $80, a rare low price for this iconic backpack.$6 off the Blue Orange Games Kingdomino Board GameAmazonOne of our favorite board games for ages 8 and up, we especially love Kingdomino for families, but adults love it, too. Two to four players can have fun strategizing to lay the perfect tile. It's an award-winning game, and this is a great price for a game you can play over and over.20% off the Anker USB-C Hub for iMacAmazonThis Anker USB-C Hub is specially crafted to work with old and new Thunderbolt 3 iMacs to make it even easier to access ports. It includes an SD slot, micro SD slot, two USB-A ports, and one USB-C port. Down to $48, this is a very rare chance to save.Save 30% on Differin Gel with Adapalene 0.1%AmazonDifferin Gel is a tried-and-true treatment that targets both whiteheads and blackheads. It's one we always keep on hand, even after testing dozens of other products. Now 25% off for Cyber Monday, it's the best time to restock your skincare shelf.Save $85 on the Nemo Stargaze ReclinerREIThe Nemo Stargaze Recliner is almost comfortable enough to use in your living room. Made of water-resistant mesh and with a 300-pound weight capacity, the recliner is one of the best camping chairs we've tested. It's perfect for your next bonfire or outdoor movie night. It weighs just over 6 pounds, so it's fairly portable, too. It's currently on sale for $85 off.Coop Home Goods Original PillowLauren Savoie/Insider The Coop Home Goods Original Pillow offers thoughtful features like adjustable fill, a washable pillow cover, and an unparalleled 100-night trial that make it the best choice for most people. It's our favorite pillow we've tested because it works for so many sleeping styles. We recommend it even when it isn't on sale, but getting 20% off is always a bonus.$25 off the SanDisk 256GB microSDXC Card for Nintendo SwitchAmazonDesigned for Nintendo Switch, this huge microSD card will let gamers spend less time waiting and more time gaming. It offers 256GB of storage for keeping digital games, screenshots, and video captures on your console. We think SanDisk makes some of the best microSD cards, and at only $28, this is a must-buy for Switch owners who don't already have one.Save 40% on the Philips Premium Digital Air FryerWilliams SonomaThe Philips Premium Digital Air Fryer heats up within seconds, turning out evenly cooked, crispy food with greater efficiency than an oven and many other air fryers. In fact, it's the best air fryer we've tested. At 40% off, this is one of the lowest prices we've seen in months.24% off the Petkit Eversweet Pet Water FountainAmazonThis two-liter water fountain is designed for cats and small dogs. It uses a circulation system to provide oxygenated, fresher, and better tasting water for your furry friend. Right now it's down to only $34, a rare price drop from its typical retail price of $46. For more pet deals, we've rounded up Chewy's best Cyber Monday discounts.50% off on the Exploding Kittens Original Card GameExploding KittensThis highly-strategic, kitty-themed game is a true phenomenon and a great way to get the family together and is fun for almost any age group. It's currently half off, just in time for a great stocking stuffer or White Elephant gift.$35 off the MVMT Men's Legacy Slim Analog WatchMVMTMVMT makes some of our favorite affordable luxury watches, and all versions of this model are currently on sale for under $90. It features a minimalist analog design with different variations of watchbands, from brown leather to gold mesh.9% off the Asus VA24DCP 1080P MonitorAmazonIf you're in the market for an affordable monitor that doesn't forgo quality, the Asus VA24DCP is a solid choice. It's a good option for laptop users looking to up their productivity, with its decent color accuracy and contrast along with HDMI and USB-C ports offering up to 65W of charging. It rarely drops in price, making this discount to $150 especially worthwhile. For more options, check out our guide to the best gaming monitors.20% off the Thayers Alcohol-Free Rose Petal Witch Hazel Facial Toner with Aloe Vera FormulaAmazonThis "Holy Grail" witch hazel facial toner is free of alcohol, parabens, or propylene glycol, which can be harsh for some skin. It helps balance oily skin without drying it out. We tested it out, and it lived up to the hype. With the 20% discount, it's under $10.37% off the Osprey Men's Skarab 18 Hydration PackOspreyWe think Osprey makes some of the best hiking backpacks you can buy. The Skarab 18 hydration pack is perfect for trail runners and cyclists, featuring a 2.5-liter water reservoir and a comfortable design. It's on sale for under $70 during Cyber Monday.Save 25% on the Loftie Alarm ClockAmazonLoftie earned our recommendation for the best alarm clock thanks to its two-phase alarm system, which gently awakens you instead of a blaring beep. It also has customizable alarm sounds, white noise features, and excellent integration with WiFi and Bluetooth. The 25% Cyber Monday discount brings it to one of the best prices we've seen all year.25% off Splatoon 3 (Nintendo Switch)AmazonSplatoon 3 is a must-have for fans of the Splatoon universe. The latest game in the series lets squid kids and octolings play classic modes like Turf War and Salmon Run, along with a ton of fun new additions. At $45, this is the lowest price drop since its release, and there are more Switch sales still available if you're looking for more games and accessories.$230 off the Vitamix Professional Series 750 BlenderWilliams SonomaVitamix blenders are expensive but worth it. The Vitamix Professional Series 750 has everything you need in a blender, and its proven longevity makes it worth the price. This Black Friday deal is the lowest price we've seen by $60.15% off the Outward Hound Hide-A-Squirrel Puzzle Dog ToyAmazonPuzzle toys provide complex play for pups that will keep them entertained. The Outward Hound Hide-A-Squirrel toy specifically is one of our favorites for its durable build and high-quality features. The small size is down to only $5 right now, and the large is 15% off. Check out our full review of Outward Hound's toys. 32% off the Melissa & Doug Cookie Play SetAmazonFor any future star bakers, this sweet cookie kit comes with 12 cookies and toppings as well as all the kitchen tools they need to bring their creations out of the (metaphorical) oven. Beyond being a cute, screenless activity, this under-$20 kit is a great way to have kids develop their counting and motor skills. It's a perfect holiday gift for kids.Save $15 on the Koolaburra by UGG Women's Lezly SlipperMacy'sUGG is already famous for its plush boots, but its slippers are arguably even cozier. Complete with faux fur lining and a sturdy sole, they're perfect for lounging at home but also suitable for running outside if needed. Currently 25% off, they make a great stocking stuffer they'll appreciate.  $60 off the Beats Studio BudsBest BuyFor those looking for high-quality sound without the clunkiness of over-ear headphones, these buds from Beats fit the bill. They come in two listening modes — noise-canceling and transparency — and offer up to eight hours of listening time when charged. They make a thoughtful gift, and right now you can save $60 on them during Cyber Monday. Save $200 on the Eufy RoboVac X8AmazonThe Eufy Robova X8 features the brand's top features, including twin turbines, intelligent laser navigation, and intuitive smartphone controls. It's not one we've tested ourselves, but we do like other Eufy robot vacs. Down to $300, this is a solid deal with a $100 discount. Save $61 off the Orolay Women's Thickened Down JacketMaria Del Russo/InsiderDubbed by the internet as the "Amazon coat," this down jacket actually lives up to its hype of blending style with warmth and functionality. It comes in a range of colors from muted neutrals to bright red or yellow and is a perfect, practical gift as the winter season gets colder. Check out our full Orolay jacket review and see why it's a great deal at $61 off.25% off the Rumpl Original Puffy BlanketRumplRumpl's puffy blanket is designed for picnics, camping, and other outdoor use, but you can curl up on the couch with it, too. Made of recycled materials, it weighs around 2 pounds so it's very portable. More than a dozen different designs are discounted for Cyber Monday, and the 25%-off sale is the best price we've seen.$55 off the Waterpik Aquarius Water FlosserAmazonThis water flosser removes up to 99.9% of plaque from treated areas and is up to 50% more effective than floss. It also has a massage mode for gum stimulation and 10 pressure settings. It's typically closer to $70, but right now it's $45, a great place on a product Insider Reviews editors tend to snag for themselves during deal days. Save $25 on the Roku Streaming Stick 4KRokuCompared to the Roku Streaming Stick+, the new Streaming Stick 4K provides an improved viewing experience by adding support for Dolby Vision. This advanced high dynamic range (HDR) format can provide better picture quality on TVs that support it. Right now you can get it on sale for only $25, the best price we've seen for it yet. Get more details in our Roku Streaming Stick 4K review.Save $7 on the ChomChom Pet Hair RemoverBrenna Darling/InsiderThis pet hair remover does an amazing job of picking up fur off couches, rugs, and other surfaces without needing to replace sticky lint paper over and over. You can currently save $7, a great bargain for an already affordable tool you'll use almost daily. You can see why we love it so much in our full review. Save $15 on the 2022 KindleBlack Friday 2022 All-New KindleAmazonAmazon's newest Kindle is now on sale for $15 off. You can get it for just $85, which is a great deal if you're looking for a small, lightweight e-reader. The All-New Kindle is actually Amazon's lightest e-reader yet, weighing in at just over a third of a pound. Read more about why this is a great Kindle deal here.57% off NBA 2K23 (Xbox Series X/S)NBA 2K23 / 2K GamesThe NBA season is less than 20% complete, but this year's NBA 2K game is already 50% off two months after release. This is the best price we've seen, so grab it now if you've been wanting to play. Check out more worthwhile Xbox deals here.Save $16 on the Crest 3D White Professional Effects WhitestripsWalmartOne of the most popular purchases among our readers, Crest's Whitestrips are down to one of the best prices we'll see all year for Cyber Monday. The kit includes strips for a 20-day whitening treatment and two one-hour express treatments.6% off on the Apple 2022 11-Inch 4th-Gen iPad ProNYC Russ/ShutterstockThis 6% deal isn't the biggest in the world, but it's rare for an Apple device that was so recently released in October. It's still worth including here should you be looking to buy the latest iPad Pro. If you're looking for a different model, we can help you find the right iPad for your needs.29% off the Sony HT-A3000 3.1ch Dolby Atmos SoundbarAmazonSony discounted this 3.1-channel soundbar with built-in subwoofers and 360 spatial surround sound for Cyber Monday. It comes with a four-month trial for Amazon Music, and it's also on sale in bundles with two of Sony's 4K TVs: the 65-inch Bravia OLED, and the 75-inch Bravia LED. Save $30 on the Oxo Good Grips 7-Piece Pop Container SetAmazonAirtight containers are a must-have for any kitchen. You can store all your baking necessities, including flour, sugar, brown sugar, and more. We can't recommend the Oxo Pop containers enough because they keep cupboards and pantries organized and food fresher. Right now, you can save 30% on this set, which comes with two medium square containers, two tall medium containers, and three small ones. Read our full Oxo Pop container review here.25% off Brooklinen's Luxe Core Sheet SetBrooklinenA favorite set of sheets among the Insider Reviews team, the Luxe Core Sheet Set is noted for being durable and comfortable after many washes and nights of sleep. Right now, you can buy these sheets for 25% off during Brooklinen's Cyber Monday Sale, which is the lowest price we've seen all year. Find more great Brooklinen deals here. 15% off the Cuisinart CPT-122 2-Slice Compact ToasterAmazonThe budget pick in our best toasters guide, the Cuisinart CPT-122 is compact, speedy, ultra-affordable, and turns out toast just as evenly golden-brown as many of its much pricier competitors. During Cyber Monday, it's priced even more affordably when you click the coupon on the Amazon product page. 20% off the Fellow Stagg EKG Electric Pour-Over KettleAmazonThis stylish matte kettle has several features to give you the perfect pour-over: a precision pour spout, counterbalanced handle, 1,200-watt quick heating element, and variable temperature control. During Cyber Monday, you can get it for 20% off, which is the lowest price we've seen since July.20% off PopSockets PopGrip for MagSafePopsocketsIf you're looking to take advantage of Apple's MagSafe, the best grip you can buy is from old an standby: PopSockets' PopGrip. All you need to do is snap the oval in place and you've got an easy to way hold onto your phone. While these go on sale regularly throughout the year, PopSockets is currently offering 20% off sitewide.50% off the JBL Tune 230NC True Wireless Noise Cancelling In-Ear EarbudsAmazonJBL's affordable Tune 230NC earbuds offer active noise cancellation, great bass, and up to 40 hours of battery life on one charge. They're also water resistant and sweatproof. This 50% discount for Cyber Monday is the lowest price we've seen since they were released last year.44% off the Otterbox Amplify Glass Screen Protector for iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 ProAmazonThis Otterbox Amplify Glass Screen Protector says it's for the iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 Pro, but it's also compatible with the iPhone 14, too. Just note it won't properly fit the iPhone 14 Pro models of the iPhone 14 Plus. At 44% off this Cyber Monday, it's a well recommended screen protector from a trusted brand.20% off the Codenames BoardgameAmazonThe enormously fun Codenames boardgame is 20% this Cyber Monday. The rules are simple and quick to learn, and the game tests how well you truly know your friends and family.32% off the Brightworld Galaxy Moon LightAmazonThe Brightworld Galaxy Moonlight usually sells for around $24 rather than its $35 full price, so this deal is almost $10 off a beautiful decorative ambient light.$25 off the Nvidia ShieldAmazonThe regular Nvidia Shield model isn't as powerful as the Pro version, but it's still a very capable Android streaming device with access to every major service. It also features a unique, compact tube-shaped design that makes it easy to hide out of sight. At $125, this deal price matches the lowest we've ever seen. Save 20% on the Samsung 43-inch Frame QLED 4K TVAmazonThis is one of the smallest sizes you can get Samsung's gorgeous Frame TV in, which makes this an excellent choice for shoppers who want to hang a compact yet stylish display on their wall. The panel is made to look like a picture frame, so it can serve as a subtle design piece that can display art in your room with its matte screen. This deal price matches the all-time low. 36% off the Bosch PS31-2A 12-Volt Drill/DriverAmazonThe Bosch PS31-2A 12V is small and lightweight, the perfect tool to have on hand to tackle most light-duty household tasks. Often priced between $100 and $120, it's currently on sale for under $90.$10 off Ring Fit AdventureNintendoRing Fit Adventure is a fitness-centric game that challenges you to get off the couch and perform crunches, sit-ups, and more to defeat enemies. It even comes with a special accessory called the Ring-Con to track your movements. This game rarely goes on sale, so this $10 discount from Amazon is a good deal.40% off Jane Iredale Eyebrow KitAmazonGet perfect, natural-looking brows that are lustrous and smooth with this pigmented brow powder and nourishing botanical brow wax. This kit comes in a compact, travel-sized pack and at 40% off its normal price, it's around the lowest we've seen.$70 off Anova Precision Cooker NanoAmazonThe Anova Precision Cooker Nano offers accuracy and ease of use at a price unmatched by other sous vide machines. This model rarely goes to a lower price, so it's a good time to buy. When you apply the coupon on the Amazon product page, it's at the lowest price we've seen in years.$82 off Sony-Inzone H7 Wireless Gaming HeadsetAmazonThis wireless headset comes from Sony's new line of gaming products for PlayStation and PC, offering 360-degree spatial sound and a boom mic that can be folded away when not in use. It supports both Bluetooth and a dedicated wireless signal and lasts for up to 40 hours on a full charge.$80 off Apple AirPods (2nd Generation)A pair of white Airpods.iStock / Getty Images PlusThe second-generation AirPods are the company's most basic, affordable model. And they're still a good choice if you're looking for a no-fuss pair of wireless earbuds. For the Cyber Monday, they're now down to $90, which is just $11 more than their all-time low of $79.30% off Casper Essential PillowCasperWe're fans of Casper's pillows; we ranked the Original as the best pillow for side sleepers in our buying guide to the best pillows you can buy. The Essential pillow is soft and breathable on the outside and supportive on the inside. At $42, it matches the lowest price we've come across this year.Save 44% on Black + Decker 20V Max Flex Handheld VacuumAmazonThe powerful Black+Decker 20V Max Flex Handheld Vacuum (model BDH2020FL) has a narrow, flexible, 4-foot hose that can clean hard-to-reach areas of your car. This Cyber Monday deal matches the lowest price we've seen it offered.45% off Ecoprsio Nightstand Set of 2 Industrial End Table Side Table with Drawer and Storage ShelfAmazonAt up to 45% off (depending on what color you choose), this duo set of side tables can be used on opposite ends of a couch or divvied up between rooms. Each has a lower shelf and drawer for extra storage. This is the best price we've seen on this set.$60 off Apple Watch UltraLes Shu/InsiderThis isn't a huge deal for the Apple Watch Ultra, but it's the best deal we've seen for this model that was only released in September, and a discount is a discount for such a popular and expensive smartwatch.68% off SanDisk 128GB MicroSD cardSanDiskIf you own a GoPro or Nintendo Switch, you'll need a good microSD card to store your photos, videos, and games. SanDisk microSD cards are the best around, and right now, this 128GB card is 68% off.31% off Roku UltraAmazonThe Roku Ultra is our favorite streaming device. It delivers simple access to popular services and supports advanced features like Dolby Vision. This $69 deal price is an all-time low.25% off Magic Bullet Blender 11-Piece SetKohl'sAt under $30, this 11-piece Magic Bullet set is a great, space-conscious gift for anyone in need of a small, sturdy blender. It comes with three different mugs as well as lids for optimal freshness.25% off set of 8 Wüsthof Stainless-Steel Steak KnivesAmazonKnown for their durability and edge-retention, Wüsthof knives are a legacy addtion to your kitchen. The steak knife set comes in a wood case that's perfect for gifting. We haven't seen this set go on sale since last Cyber Monday, so it's a good time to buy for 25% off.30% off Amazon Smart ThermostatAmazonThe Amazon Smart Home Thermostat is a simple, Alexa-enabled, inexpensive smart home thermostat to control your home's temperature. It doesn't have a microphone or camera, so Alexa voice commands rely on another voice-enabled Alexa device, like an Echo smart speaker. It's down to an all-time low price during Cyber Monday.30% off Yeti Rambler 10 oz Wine TumblerAmazonNow 30% off, the Yeti Rambler holds up to 10 ounces of your favorite wine whether you're on a camping trip or the back patio. The stainless steel interior paired with the double-wall vacuum insulation is what keeps your drink exactly at the temperature you like.$20 off Apple Watch SE 2nd-genApple Watch SE.Mary Meisenzahl/Business InsiderThe 2nd-gen Apple Watch SE was only released in September, making it a rare deal for such a recently released Apple device, even if it's "only" 8% off. The 2nd-gen Apple Watch SE was already an excellent affordable option, so this deal only makes it an easier recommendation.$55 off Amazon Fire TV Gaming BundleAmazonThis gaming bundle includes two of Amazon's most sought-after devices. Together, the Fire TV Stick and Luna Controller are 46% off during Cyber Monday, which is one of the best deals we've seen on these products. $122 off Sony WH-1000XM4 noise-canceling headphonesSonySony's WH-1000XM4 is our go-to pair of headphones when we look for balance, sound quality, noise-canceling performance, and price. They're on sale for $228 during Cyber Monday, which is the lowest price we've ever seen them at.27% off De'Longhi Nespresso VertuoWilliams SonomaNespresso's Vertuo machine makes rich, frothy espresso at the touch of a button. This isn't the lowest price we've seen, but it does match last Cyber Monday's deal and it's still a solid discount.30% off Ring Floodlight Cam Wired PlusAmazonRing's Floodlight Cam Wired Plus combines the standard Spotlight Cam with a set of motion-activated floodlights for better lighting. The camera itself streams and records at 1080p resolution and is also motion-activated, and it includes a siren and two-way talk. The Cyber Monday sale matches the lowest price we've seen it available for.43% off Amazon Echo GlowAmazonThe Echo Glow is Amazon's child-friendly and Alexa-compatible smart lamp. It's able to change its color and brightness by voice control and is a great introduction to smart home devices. At full price, it's a great deal, so the fact it's on sale for just $17 gives this excellent value.56% off Amazon Halo ViewIsabel Fernández and Crystal Cox/InsiderThe Amazon Halo View is a basic fitness tracker that offers a comprehensive suite of features designed to help improve your overall health and wellness. At just $35 during Cyber Monday, you won't find a better deal on a wearable as good as this.25% off Hydro Flask ToteHydro FlaskThe Hydro Flask Tote makes for the perfect travel bag especially when storing food because its lightweight, insulated, and fully lined. For Cyber Monday, the tote is 25% off.32% off Kindle PaperwhiteAmazonThe Kindle Paperwhite is our favorite Kindle model so far for its big screen and adjustable warm light. At 32% off, you can snag it for under $100 to gift to the avid reader in your life.$180 off Insignia 50-inch F30 4K Fire TVAmazonThis Insignia 4K display is a standard entry-level smart TV. It's no frills when it comes to picture quality, but it features the Fire TV OS built-in for easy access to popular streaming apps. This isn't a set you'll want to build a home theater around, but it gets the job done for casual viewing, especially in a bedroom. This $220 deal price matches the all-time low we saw over the summer.$40 off Bissell Cleanview Rewind Pet Deluxe Upright Vacuum CleanerAmazonGreat for stuubborn pet hair nestled firmly in rugs and carpet, the Bissell Cleanview Vacuum Cleaner is now available for an all time low. For $40 off, save big on the home essential that includes the Pet TurboEraser Tool, the Pet Hair Corner Tool and so much more.Save $35 on two Blink Mini security camerasAmazonAffordable and user friendly, the Amazon Blink Mini home security camera is an indoor security for first timers. It has both 1080p camera footage quality and a black-and-white night mode. Save 54% on the security system this Cyber Monday.33% off Echo Dot speakersAmazonThe latest of the Echo Dot lineup, the 5th Gen comes with a handful of new features including better audio and built-in Eero. Right now it's down to only $40, matching the lowest price we've seen for this new speaker so far. You can also trade-in your old Echo speaker for an additional 25% off.33% off Coleman Beach Sun ShelterAmazonIt's hard to call the Coleman Beach Sun Shelter a tent when it offers great air ventilation from the back window, a zip away wall for privacy, a hanging line for drying wet clothes and so much more. Save 33% off on this outdoors must-have thats easy to set up and even easier to camp away in.25% off NuFace Trinity Starter KitAmazonNow 25% off for Cyber Monday, the Nu Fae Trinity Toning Device reduces the appearance on fine lines while stimulating the muscles in your face.41% off Instant Pot Pro 10-in-1 Pressure CookerAmazonSave 41% off on an instant pot with a Premium Cookware Grade Inner Pot that's stove top friendly, has overheat protection and a safe locking lid.80% off Amazon Smart PlugAmazonOver half off its original price using code PLUG at checkout, save 80% on the smart plug that pairs with your Alexa to control the lights, fans and appliances automatically at home or remotely when you forget to.42% off Coodoo Magnetic Blocks Tough Building Tiles Starter SetAmazonSimilar to ultra popular Magna-Tiles, these magnetic building blocks snap together quickly so you can build creatively. You can grab this starter set of 30 pieces for 39%, plus an extra 5% off when you clip the coupon on the page. For under $20, this set makes a great gift for the kiddo in your life.20% off Sengled Smart Light BulbSengledSengled's smart color-changing light bulb is significantly more affordable than bulbs from big names like Philips. For about $12, this single bulb is more affordable than ever.33% off Fitbit Charge 5Jenny McGrath/InsiderPriced at an all-time low, the Charge 5 hits a budget-friendly price point while offering stellar activity tracking in a smaller footprint than a smartwatch.20% off AirPods Pro (2nd Generation)AppleThe AirPods Pro (2nd generation) are the latest addition to their AirPods Pro series, a line of mid-range earbuds that feature spatial audio and noise canceling. And for just $200, this is the lowest price we've ever seen. 20% off Beats Fit ProBeats by DreBeats Fit Pro are among our top-rated wireless earbuds, thanks to Apple's wireless technology, solid noise-canceling, and flexible wingtips that tuck into the ear for a secure fit. They are are excellent everyday buds, but even better for fitness activities. $160 is the lowest we've seen it all year.28% off Tile Mate Bluetooth Tracker (2022)AmazonThe Tile Mate is designed to help you find easily misplaced items and attaches to keys, pet collars, and other important items. During Cyber Monday, it's at the lowest price we've seen this year.24% off Roborock S7 MaxV Ultra Robot VacuumRoborockWe haven't tested the Roborock S7 MaxV Ultra Robot Vacuum yet, but Roborock has consistently performed well in our tests, and this is the most innovative vacuum yet from the brand. It mops and vacuums simultaneously and features a charging base that empties the dustbin. Right now, it's on sale for the first time.40% off SodaStream Terra Sparkling Water MakerAmazonIf you're a seltzer fan, then you should consider investing in a sparkling water maker. The Terra is SodaStream's newest model that is also cordless. It comes with one CO2 cylinder and a bottle of lime Bubly Drops. For Cyber Monday, it's an all-time low price.33% off JBL Boombox 2AmazonWhen you need music for your gathering, the JBL Boombox 2 brings powerful sound and bass to keep the party going. It's one of the best Bluetooth speakers that you can get, and right now it's on sale with an excellent and rare $200 discount.39% off Coway Airmega AP-1512HHCowayCoway makes some of the best air purifiers on the market. The AP-1512HH is a reliable compact unit that's equipped with a 4-stage filtration sustem that reduces up to 99.6% of air pollution particles. This Cyber Monday deal is the lowest price we've seen since early 2021.37% off Amazon 55-inch 4-Series Fire TVAmazonIf you're in the market for a 55-inch entry-level smart TV, the 4-Series is a solid option when it's on sale. The TV's image performance is pretty basic, but it supports 4K, HDR10, and the Fire TV OS, which offers access to all the major streaming services. This $330 sale price doesn't quite match the all-time low of $293 we saw over the summer, but it's still a great discount.26% off Hydro Flask 32 oz. Wide Mouth BottleMarathon SportsHydro Flask makes some of our favorite water bottles — they're basically indestructible without being bulky or heavy, and keep hot and cold beverages at their original temperature for at least 12 hours. It's a solid, pragmatic gift for anyone who complains about forgetting to hydrate or is on the hunt for a reliable thermos.37% off Revlon One-Step VolumizerAmazonWhile Dyson's Airwrap definitely lives up to its reputation of a coveted hair tool, it's over $400. The Revlon One-Step brush, however, is a much better value for similar results and is additionally even cheaper thanks to its current Cyber Monday discount.33% off Keurig K-Mini Coffee MakerTargetAvailable in a range of cute colors, this slim, 5" Keurig fits easily on even the most crowded counters. At 33% off, it's a great gift for anyone who prefers the ease of coffee pods.50% off Fire TV Stick 4KAmazonFor 4K TV owners, the Fire TV Stick 4K offers sharper and more detailed streaming at the resolution you need. Currently down to $25, this discount matches the previous all-time low we've seen for the Fire TV Stick 4K, making now an excellent time to buy.50% off Fire TV Stick LiteAmazonAmazon's most affordable and simple Fire TV device, the Fire TV Stick Lite works by simply plugging into an HDMI port and connecting to the internet to bring your favorite services to your TV. Currently down to $15, this is a new all-time low and an especially worthwhile deal for an entry-level streaming device.46% off Amazon Echo Show 8In addition to a touchscreen, the Amazon Echo Show 8 has buttons for mute and volume, and a privacy slider that hides the camera.Isabel Fernández and Crystal Cox/InsiderThis mid-range, 8-inch smart display in Amazon's Echo Show line up is the best for most people who want a smart speaker that also lets you conduct video calls and stream videos. Priced at $70 for Cyber Monday, it's at the lowest price we've ever seen it.20% off Olaplex Hair Perfector No 3 Repairing TreatmentAmazonThough pricey, Olaplex's Hair Perfector is a cult favorite in beauty circles. At 20% off, it makes a thoughtful gift for anyone heard complaining about their split ends in the winter, this immensely popular hair treatment repairs brittle, dry hair and adds much-needed moisture.75% off LifeStraw Personal Water FilterAmazonLifeStraws are portable filters that can make even some of the murkiest standing water drinkable. For backpackers and hikers, a LifeStraw can be an invaluable tool in dire situations. Down to only $13 (that's a whopping 75% off), now is a great time to stock up.43% off Chamberlain myQ Smart Garage Door OpenerBest BuyThe Chamberlain MyQ Smart Garage Door Opener is a useful device that lets you open and close your garage door from anywhere with the companion mobile app on your phone. It was a reader favorite during Prime Day last year, and now for Cyber Monday, it's offered at its lowest price in a year.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytNov 29th, 2022

6 red flags a company isn"t what it seems — and you probably shouldn"t take the job

Before you accept a job offer from a company, don't overlook certain hiring manager or HR behaviors during interviews. "If the description says, 'You'll wear a lot of hats,' make sure you know what those hats are and if you think they'll support your goals," Dani Monaghan, the vice president of global cloud recruiting at Google, said.Shutterstock Several experts told Insider what red flags indicate a company may not be great to work for. If they ask you to do a test early in the process, they may be trying to get free work out of you. If they won't let you meet with team members, they may be hiding low morale or high turnover. When you're interviewing for a new job — especially if it's with a company you've long admired — it's easy to overlook a few bumps in the road in favor of getting an offer. But employers should be trying to woo you just as much as you should be wooing them. And if a hiring manager exhibits certain bad behaviors during the recruiting process, you're likely going to find yourself working for a bad boss or under a terrible company culture if you accept the role. No matter how appealing a job sounds on paper, if you come across these six red flags when interviewing at a company, it might be best to pass it over for a better opportunity.1. They're unreliable in their communication or timetableLars Schmidt, the founder of Amplify Academy, a community for HR leaders, told Insider it's a red flag if a hiring manager or HR team seems to dismiss you or blow you off — or worse, sets an expectation around the timeline of the recruiting process, then completely blows that up and institutes a new timeline with no explanation. If they do that to someone they're trying to recruit, think of how uncertain the employee experience might be, with ever-changing timelines and inconsistent communication. Another not-so-great sign? Radio silence from a recruiter you've been in touch with before.Dani Monaghan, the vice president of global cloud recruiting at Google, said the best way to  suss out whether poor communication or confusing directions is a one-time fluke or a sign of a bigger issue is to ask yourself questions such as: Are they constantly rescheduling interviews? Do the recruiters or hiring managers rarely show up on time? How responsive are they to emails, and how quickly do they usually get back to you? Is the interview well organized, or did your interviewer show up unprepared? Do they provide updates when they say they will? 2. You're asked to complete a test or project early on in the processIn some industries, it's normal for employers to require applicants to complete steps beyond an interview, such as completing a coding test, creating a slide deck, or writing something according to the job's specifications. This can be a valid way to assess a candidate's skills, but if an employer is requiring it early on in the recruiting process, it could also signal that the company doesn't respect your time or might be using this step to collect free work. Skills tests or assignments should happen later, after you've completed at least one interview and gotten a good sense of whether the company is interested in you and would be a good fit, Schmidt said.3. The job description is vagueEven for a brand-new role, the hiring manager should have a clear picture of what it entails. Otherwise, the company might be setting you up to fail."If the description says, 'You'll wear a lot of hats,' make sure you know what those hats are and if you think they'll support your goals," Monaghan said. "If the interview questions are ambiguous, applicants should always clarify." 4. They're being cagey or defensive around compensation The last thing any job seeker wants is to interview multiple times for a job without knowing if the pay meets their expectations. Fortunately, several states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington, now require pay transparency, either in the job listing or when a candidate asks. Even if you aren't in one of those states, the market is trending toward pay transparency. Janine Yancey, the CEO of Emtrain, a tech platform that uses data and analytics to identify toxic workplace issues, told Insider it's reasonable to ask the pay band on a role early on in the process. If they don't have the pay band yet, they should at least say, "That's a good question, let me get back right to you," she said. That question shouldn't elicit a negative reaction.  5. They're being evasive around negative eventsIf you've done your homework before an interview, you'll know if a company has negative Glassdoor reviews or recently faced some bad press — and you'll probably want to know more about it before making your decision to accept the job. "If you ask questions about perhaps negative press or even Glassdoor and that gets brushed off and dismissed, that can be a red flag," Schmidt said. On the other hand, if they acknowledge it and explain how they're working to improve company culture or recover from a scandal, that could be a more positive sign of growth. 6. You're not able to access other team membersDon't just talk to your potential supervisor — talking to as many current employees as possible, including people you'll be managing or peers you'll be working with regularly, can help you feel out the company culture. "If a company won't accommodate, that's also a red flag," Monaghan said. By brushing off such a request, a hiring manager may be trying to cover up high turnover or low morale on the team. "If an applicant speaks with several people who seem unhappy, listless, disgruntled, then it could be indicative of a negative work environment," Monaghan added. While everyone has days when they're off their game or say the wrong thing, looking at the sum of interactions can clue you into a company's culture. "If they don't have really talented individuals at the leading edge of the organization, I think that's also an indicator of what you can expect in their people team and their HR team," Yancey said. Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 26th, 2022

Transcript: Dave Nadig

     The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Dave Nadig, Financial Futurist at VettaFi, is below. You can stream and download our full conversation, including the podcast extras on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google, YouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here. ~~~ ANNOUNCER: This is… Read More The post Transcript: Dave Nadig appeared first on The Big Picture.      The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Dave Nadig, Financial Futurist at VettaFi, is below. You can stream and download our full conversation, including the podcast extras on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google, YouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here. ~~~ ANNOUNCER: This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio. BARRY RITHOLTZ, HOST, MASTERS IN BUSINESS: This week on the podcast, I have an extra special guest. His name is Dave Nadig. And if this sounds like two old friends just yammering about all sorts of market esoterica, well, that’s because it is. I know Dave for a long time, and we kind of fell in love with each other’s books, music, film, and financial history when we first met 100 years ago. And so if it sounds like just two idiots talking about really interesting stuff in great detail, and me probably speaking more than I usually do during the podcast, well, that’s probably because it is. Dave is really a fascinating person, with an incredible depth of knowledge about, well, he’s probably best known as the ETF guy. And we literally talk about during the show, I got a tag to present to the SEC, about their new single stock product. And my answer was, well, I get all my information about this from Nadig. Why don’t you speak to him? And they said, “We already do.” But he also has an incredible depth of knowledge about market structures, about what people get wrong about thinking about systems, about what we get wrong about humans, and capitalism and finance. And I find Dave to be really just an intriguing, fascinating guy, full of great humility and insights. And I think you’ll find this conversation to be really fascinating. With no further ado, my interview with VettaFi’s Dave Nadig. Let’s start in the 1990s when you were at Barclays, which eventually becomes BlackRock iShares. Tell us about what you did at Barclays. DAVE NADIG, FINANCIAL FUTURIST, VETTAFI: I mean, mostly I got coffee at the beginning. In 1992, when I joined, they gave me the highfalutin title of Managing Director of Corporate Strategy. What it really meant was I was picking up little businesses nobody else wanted to pay any attention to — RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: — through all the acquisitions they were doing. So for a while, I ran Wells Fargo’s 401(k) business because they had acquired that as part of Wells Fargo Nikko Investment Advisors. When we did the Barclays acquisition, when Barclays acquired Wells Fargo Nikko, I then spent most of my time in Asia shutting down Barclays de Zoete Wedd businesses which were brokered shops in Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. So I went around and sort of did some rationalization. They basically sent a young kid out to get his, you know, one hand to get fire — RITHOLTZ: Go get blood on your hands. NADIG: Yeah. Go fire a bunch of, you know, 69-year-old Japanese salarymen. RITHOLTZ: That had to be a crazy experience being in Australia and Japan in the ‘90s. NADIG: It was bonkers. To be clear, I was young and incredibly stupid. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: Now, I’m just older and slightly less stupid. RITHOLTZ: Isn’t that a little redundant? I say this not to mock the young, but to reflect on my own youthful indiscretions and stupidity. NADIG: Well, the story of growing your career is recognizing how little you knew every previous move you made. RITHOLTZ: Five years or so, right? NADIG: Yeah, exactly. RITHOLTZ: That five-year review is like, wow, I had no idea what the hell I was doing. Now, I know, and then you find out you really don’t. NADIG: Yeah. So I started there. I was lucky enough to be on the edges of a product which became WEBS, which became iShares. I was absolutely not somebody driving the train on that. I was the one reviewing marketing copy and doing presentations to groups of institutions about how to use the darn things. RITHOLTZ: Who was driving the train on that? NADIG: Oh, my gosh, there were so many. I mean, you know, success has a thousand fathers at this point. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: I mean, so the people I was working with on the Wells Fargo Nikko side, because this was a joint project with Morgan Stanley — RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: — and other folks like that, I was working with Don Luskin, Patti Dunn, Fred Grauer who were sort of the main group. Blake Grossman was the chief investment officer there. RITHOLTZ: Interesting. NADIG: He stuck around it, you know, posed into BGI for the rest of his career. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: And so that was the crew that was really doing the hard work there. And then, you know, on the Morgan Stanley side, I was working with folks like Joanne Hill, who you know at Morgan Stanley, one of the quants there. And then, of course, all the folks who were coming in from the Amex like Nate Most. I mean, it was pretty big group of folks — RITHOLTZ: You left out Jim. Was he there at State Street — NADIG: Yeah, Jim Ross was at State Street a little bit after that. But that was, you know, when the SPDR build out. This was very much counter to SPY having been launched. RITHOLTZ: Oh, really? NADIG: We were the other side of the fence from that. RITHOLTZ: Wow. NADIG: Even though Amex was the key, you know, Amex was the glue holding it together because they’ve figured out how to do creation and redemption, and how to handle book. RITHOLTZ: So let me fast-forward a couple of years, you end up at ETF.com, which clearly at least at that time was a dominant force in the ETF space, when a lot of the world of finance looked at ETFs a little askance, a little skeptically. NADIG: Yeah. And that was really Jim Wiandt, he started something called IndexUniverse with Steven Schoenfeld, somebody else you know in the industry, who’s now working for, I believe, MarketVector Indexes. And you know, they had this vision of understanding that ETFs, which at that point, were still largely institutional vehicles, early 2000s, right? I mean, there were some advisor pickup, but you had to be kind of on the front edge of finance, or a quant, or running your own models, which in 2003, was not that common. They had the vision there that, oh, no, this is where all of wealth management is going to head, and built a business which eventually through, you know, acquiring the right names and URLs became ETF.com. And then, you know, we, myself, Matt Hogan, Jim Wiandt, a bunch of other folks built that business up into, you know, a pretty respective chunky business that had a big conference and a huge data. I was focused almost exclusively on the data side. And then we broke that into pieces, so I ended up — RITHOLTZ: That was sold, though. Wasn’t it broken? So when you say broke into pieces, acquires — NADIG: In a positive way. RITHOLTZ: Yeah. That wasn’t like — NADIG: Yeah. You know like the pieces ended up being worth more than the part — the whole. RITHOLTZ: Right, as a whole, which is not uncommon. NADIG: Not uncommon at all, especially when you’re bolting together businesses that do, in fact, have silos themselves. So the data business was a natural fit for FactSet, which needed U.S. ETF data. So Elisabeth Kashner — RITHOLTZ: And FactSet is a big, big operator in that space. NADIG: And now, we relicensed the data that I helped build over VettaFi, right. I mean, they are now I still think the go-to source for primary ETF data. So that business continues to run over there. And now, here I am at VettaFi, doing largely a lot of the same work, also pushing a big conference that we’re excited about, ExchangeF in Miami, in Florida. RITHOLTZ: We’re going to talk about VettaFi. We’re going to talk about Exchange, which is one of my favorite events every year. It’s always a blast. When you were running the conference beforehand — NADIG: The old conference. Yeah. RITHOLTZ: — this was at the Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood, Florida. It was always late January, early February, which occasionally would interfere with my vacation schedules. NADIG: I’m so sorry. RITHOLTZ: But, you know, to get out of New York in February and spend time with 3,000 people and just absolutely A-list speakers, you know, Derek Jeter. And I remember Joe Montana, like the sports figures were always fascinating, but so do were the finance figures, people that were very much rock stars in that space. NADIG: Yeah. And that was an interesting time. I think the 10-years pre-pandemic, so between GFC and pandemic, whatever you’re going to call that window, it’s not a lost decade. It was a great decade. But in that window, I mean, you were on it too. The conference circuit was elite. RITHOLTZ: Yeah, Absolutely. NADIG: There was a really interesting finance relevant event every other week, at least, all year long. RITHOLTZ: Well, keep in mind what was going on back then. So first, you had the rise of ETFs. You had a radical expansion of passive. My theory is post great financial crisis, mom and pop said, “You know, we’re done playing this game.” NADIG: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: We’re just going to put our money. Let Mr. Market do his thing and we’ll find out how we did when we get ready to retire. But you had that, you had ETFs. You have the rise of passive. But you also had this incredible, I’m reluctant to call it PTSD, but following the financial crisis, there was this pervasive negativity that lasted years and years and years, and to run around and say, “Hey, markets are positive here. You need to be more constructive because Dow 57% is a fantastic reset.” That was kind of a lonely voice for a few years. I think that’s a big part of why you had the hard metals people doing a lot of stuff. You had the rise of crypto. I mean, think about that — NADIG: But it’s a crypto. Crypto is where that enthusiasm went. Everybody who is finance-adjacent, tech positive, growth-oriented, all went into crypto, in that window, in that sort of GFC, the pandemic window. RITHOLTZ: That makes a whole lot of sense. So there’s a lot of other things I want to get to with you. But before we do, there’s a quote of yours that I think is a great leaping-off point for more discussion, “Finance is a problem that has been solved.” Explain. NADIG: Yeah. So you know, when we think about finance, particularly when we think about investing, which is what we spend most of our time talking about, right? How to take your wealth and turn it into more wealth through all of these tools out there from, you know, IPOs to derivatives? How those pieces fit together is no longer a mystery. I mean, that’s really the core of it. The academic side of how to build a portfolio, we can argue about the details, right? And certainly, we could have a whole conversation about, you know, okay, well, this combination of interest rates and inflation and expected returns on equities is different, and so maybe we need to adjust. But the tools to do that are largely baked. Anybody who has the curiosity and the basic intellectual capacity to learn about the markets can become a fairly sophisticated investor. So if you’re an advisor, and I spend most of my time talking to the wealth management institutional business, if you’re an advisor, you should not be spending a lot of your time trying to add alpha through understanding investing better than the rest of the market. That is a mug’s game, right? So don’t try to solve that problem. It’s largely solved. You can go get some turnkey asset management program. As an advisor, you could get somebody’s model portfolio, or you could hire some, you know, three CFAs and do it yourself. But it shouldn’t be your primary focus. Your primary focus should be solving the much harder problem, which is actually working with human beings, right? The advice part of being a financial adviser is the hard part. That’s the part where you should earn the money. We’re kind of upside down in how we compensate and how we think about markets, right? Some advisor that’s out there can say, “I have generally 1% alpha for the last three years in my model portfolio.” Everybody is going to talk about that. But when you talk to that same advisor, and they say, “Yeah, you know, they’re these five families I’ve worked with for 10 years. And because I’ve worked with them, generations of wealth are going to be preserved and these philanthropical exercises are going to be put forth. Like, that’s the real success story. I don’t need to tell you that. That’s your business, right? That’s the real success story, and that’s much harder than investing. RITHOLTZ: Really, really, quite, quite an interesting. You have to explain to me the name of this firm. I’ve given you grief about this. What is that VettaFi? NADIG: All right. So, well, the shortest answer about how to think about VettaFi is we’re Morningstar without a ratings business, right? RITHOLTZ: Okay. Sort of like a financial think tank? NADIG: Yeah. We’re in the business of sitting in between asset owners, financial advisors, institutions, retail and asset managers, right, the BlackRock, State Street, PIMCO’s of the world, and helping them understand each other. What I spend most of my time doing is helping advisor to understand the thousands of crazy ideas the asset management comes up with every year. And then I work with the asset management community to help them understand the hundreds of thousands of financial advisors and institutions who may or may not be interested in any of those products, whatsoever. And so what that entails is a lot of good data, understanding what both sides want of each other, and understand that it means having to understand markets. Because if you’re going to understand the asset management industry, you need to understand, well, why are managed futures part of the conversation here today, but not six months ago? And it means spending a lot of time talking to individual advisors and investors who are out there trying to do the real work. So that’s where VettaFi sits. The company like the meat and the bones underneath it, brands folks know ETF trends, ETF database. We recently merged with Advisor Perspectives, which is the largest advisor newsletter in the country. So we’ve sort of cornered the market on this dialogue between asset managers and financial advisors. And it goes both ways. We also do a lot of polling with financial advisors. We meet them at conferences. We do surveys of them. We track their behavior as they’re doing research using our data and analytics tools. And that lets us really get an interesting picture of, hey, what are advisors thinking this week? Well, we can kind of tell you because we know what they’re researching. We know how they answered poll questions last week. We know how they answered a survey two weeks again. And then we write about that. We produced 50 odd pieces of content today. RITHOLTZ: So here’s the question. Are your clients, the advisors, or are your clients, the institutional asset managers or both? NADIG: Both is the real answer. I think the way to think about this is we’re a business-to-business organization in terms of if you’re going to look at the revenue lines, but with B2C responsibilities, right? We take our relationship with the financial advisor very, very seriously. In my position, that’s really almost exclusively what I focus on. RITHOLTZ: All right. And this leads me to a question that I never in a million years thought I would get to ask on the show, but what the hell is a financial futurist? Your title is a financial futurist. NADIG: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: Who came up with that? What are the responsibilities? What does a financial futurist do? Like, I expect you to be in a one of little storefronts with the red light. And people go in, “Tell me my financial future.” NADIG: And they hand you a card — RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: — through the glass. RITHOLTZ: Right, exactly. NADIG: The Madam Zola with the — RITHOLTZ: Exactly. NADIG: — and the whole nine yards like big. RITHOLTZ: Zoltar. NADIG: Zoltar. Thank you. Yeah. RITHOLTZ: Right. I know my bet. NADIG: And I think it’s actually a dude in the movie. But anyway — RITHOLTZ: Yeah, it is. NADIG: — neither here nor there. So look, about a year ago, I had a conversation with the senior management of a company as we were putting VettaFi together, right? And one of the things we use as a hook when we talk about the companies, we’re trying to turn it from an industry to a community. What we mean by that is that we focus in finance a lot on rules, regulations, process, operations. None of which matter at all. And we’ve often just ignore the fact that they’re human beings at the end of this equation. Now, that’s changed because of a lot of what’s gone in behavioral finance, and I think that’s great. I don’t think if it goes nearly far enough. I think human-centered organizations are always going to win. So we really tried to skew the organization towards that. So with that context, I said, here’s a bunch of stuff I want to write about, which is the stuff we’ve been talking about, being how the how the markets work, how people fit into them. And I literally just started putting adjectives and nouns on piece of paper, trying to figure out like how do I describe the work that I think I should be doing, and that hopefully, people find at least entertaining, if not valuable? And a little from column A, a little column B, you know, I’ve spent most of my career writing and thinking about finance. Most of what I’ve done has been taking an understanding of the status quo, which is very brief, because tomorrow it’s gone. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: And trying to help people understand what that means for next week, and the next year, and the next decade, to position products underneath it, like ETFs in 1992, or model portfolios in 2000, or direct indexing in 2010. Right,? Really trying to focus on that. Now, it would be tokenized asset management. It’s like, you can see these things if you’re paying attention. But it’s super easy to get really excited and spend lots of money chasing them. Having some context is important. RITHOLTZ: So you mentioned direct indexing. Let’s go there because I always disliked the broad context of direct indexing as how it was done previously. I couldn’t stand the 50 pages of stock holdings every month or every quarter. But I give you credit for the person who kind of turned me around on that. I don’t want to say it was 10 years ago, but it was probably like five years ago, maybe a little longer, that you pointed out there are a lot of things you can do with direct indexing in terms of, and you were way ahead of the software. You had talked about things before it was available, that you could tilt towards a variety of ESG things. Hey, show me companies where the board has at least two women on it, or you could tilt towards value, or you could tilt towards small cap, or you can use it for tax loss harvesting or philanthropy. And you kind of opened my eyes up. Full disclosure, we work with O’Shaughnessy’s Canvas, which was recently purchased by Franklin Templeton. And we’re the largest client to that, about a billion or $3 billion is in that. But I give you credit because if you hadn’t opened my eyes to the advantages of what you can do with that, we might not have stepped as aggressively into it as we did. I was primed and receptive to see the things that were possible. So full credit to you. Now tell us about what is tokenized financial investment? NADIG: Well, so you know, if you think about right now, I have a million dollars, I want to put the work. I wish I have $100,000backslash I want to put to work. I have lots of different ways I can get that number to go up. And ultimately, let’s be honest, that’s what you care about as an individual investor. I have $100,000, I would like to have $110,000, how do I get there? And right now we throw it into the stock market and we effectively use a tokenized system, right? I mean, nobody really carry shares around anymore. You got a ledger entry of Seton company down on Water Street, right? Like, it’s all just this fiction that we’ve created to keep track of notional ownership. And then we built this enormous infrastructure around it. So now we have payment for order flow in 17 market centers. And you know, Reg NMS got judging what has to get broadcast to who, when. We made all this up. I think it’s really important to remember that this is fiction. We just created this system out of whole cloth. You can trace why, and there’s lots of reasons. But you could invent another one. Inventing another one is what crypto has done. If you’re in Europe right now, for instance, and you open up an account it Ftx.De, which is you know FTX is European business in Germany. You can trade Tesla, but not as a stock. You can trade what is effectively a fungible token, right, a unit of Tesla. You and I can trade that in the FTX closed ecosystem all day long, with no trading costs, no settlement, no slippage, no nothing. It’s a bearer instrument. It’s like me handing you a pencil. You just now have the pencil, and I don’t. And the legal claim is the fact that you’ve got it and I don’t. That’s scary for all sorts of reasons. But it’s also incredibly powerful because if you imagine that world where instead of it being this closed ecosystem in Germany, it’s just sort of how global markets work. All of the sudden, almost any beta, any risk, any ownership stake that you want, as long as you can get two people to agree on what the tokens mean, and how they unwind to unlock some sort of underlying value, we can do all sorts of crazy stuff through the crypto rails that we could never have done before. You want to put together a portfolio? Great. Here’s a smart contract. It owns these 15 other tokens that happen to be stocks. That can be managed in real time by the contract itself. Creation redemption literally just becomes buying the thing, RITHOLTZ: Meaning creation redemption of ETFs, where you’re assembling all the individual holdings within in. NADIG: Right. You can create an ETF on the blockchain. People have already done this. This is not new. There’s a thing called the set protocol call. You can create a portfolio with a set of rules. And you can even put in a fee of how much you want to get paid because you came up with this smart contract. And there’s hundreds of thousands of these things out there already. So the rails for doing it, the smarts, people talking about a theory in being the world’s computer, right? There’s real truth to that. There’s work being done by a computer there to keep track of ledger entries and to move those ledger entries around, which is the entire stock market. It’s moving ledger entries around. RITHOLTZ: So we’re recording this on the same day that Matt Levine’s BusinessWeek — NADIG: (Inaudible) RITHOLTZ: Right. Dropped like this is the second time in BusinessWeek’s history where one writer has written the entire — NADIG: A book. Yeah. RITHOLTZ: — issue, right? It’s like 50,000 words. And it begins by saying everything in the world these days that reflects ownership is a database. NADIG: Is a database. RITHOLTZ: You remind me of that in what you were talking about at FTX, which really raises the question, if everything is a database and the blockchain is a public and verifiable, transparent database, the pushback to crypto continues to be, hey, it’s been around for 15 years. How come it isn’t doing anything yet substantially? Why is it still so experimental and so small? And I honestly don’t know how to answer that question. NADIG: It’s regulatory. That’s literally the one-word answer is it’s regulators. RITHOLTZ: That’s the thing that is keeping the entirety of normal markets from collapsing and being replaced by free crypto software is the rules that won’t let that happen. And they’re rules that are there for a very good reason, right? I mean, we have a lot of securities laws in this country, not because we’re obsessed with lawmaking, but because some bad stuff happened and we fixed it by making rules about it. Right? You know, going back to the ‘20s, actually going back to the 1400s, we have rules about how we engage in these transactions and the rule of law is a big deal. How that interacts with this sort of bearer bond instrument world, where literally ownership as the entirety of the law is unknown territory, right? We have to rewrite how we think about intellectual property, how we think about property rights themselves, how we think about ownership and escrow. RITHOLTZ: And security is a huge one. NADIG: And security is a huge one, knowing your customer is a big one, anti-money laundering. Those are real issues. I don’t want to pretend that those aren’t real issues, and they’re going to take years to solve. This is not something we’re not going to flip a switch tomorrow. But what I fear is going to happen is because the block is now regulatory, we’re going to end up in the world’s biggest regulatory arbitrage race. And we’ve already seen this, their jurisdictions where you can kind of get away with doing anything in crypto, and hey, I’m sorry if you lost a million dollars. Call Interpol, maybe they’ll figure it out for you, right? RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: And then there’s jurisdictions like the United States, which are quite locked down. The problem is that if I’m right, if the world does move more quickly towards this, and you start seeing capital follow it more than it even has already, you end up with these weird haves and have-nots world where the United States actually ends up on the sort of bud end of innovation, and plays catch up for the next 20 years. And another financial center will emerge, where the IPOs are happening, where private equity is really congealing, where interesting M&A activity is happening in any company in New York. I’d like to push against that. I’m kind of a fan of the United States. I wouldn’t mind us leading here. RITHOLTZ: I think you live here also. NADIG: I believe I do. Yeah. RITHOLTZ: So you would like to see leadership from the U.S. and it’s just there — NADIG: They’re hopping on. RITHOLTZ: There’s seems to be no interest in a crypto ETF. What’s that about? NADIG: Well, yes. RITHOLTZ: It’s just Gary Gensler? Is that more institutional? NADIG: So the Bitcoin ETF debate, right, and Grayscale is now suing the SEC, always a great move, suing your regulators. That always works out great. RITHOLTZ: They love to be sued. NADIG: They love to do that. RITHOLTZ: They love it. NADIG: So they just say yes after you sue them here nor there. Yeah. So people have been trying to put Bitcoin in ETF wrapper, frankly, since Bitcoin was invented. And the problem is it you have to define what Bitcoin is, because there’s certain things you can put into a mutual fund or ETF wrapper and certain things you can’t, right? You can’t put a steak dinner in an ETF wrapper. There are rules about it. And nobody has been able to agree yet whether or not Bitcoin belongs in those wrappers. So we’ve ended up with these weird edge cases where the futures-based products get approved, but the species finished product — RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: — I mean, the species products can’t be. And it’s an absolute mess. It’s the frontend of the problem we’re talking about, where crypto regulation is actually the largest problem in this space. RITHOLTZ: So let me push back a bit because I became dramatically enamored of an idea of smart contracts and using them. Let me preface this by saying I’m not a big fan of Ticketmaster and Live Nation, which is now a monopoly. There are some just ridiculous fees. And the whole thing is just an egregious affront to free market capitalism. Hold that aside. But the idea behind smart tickets that if Taylor Swift says, “I’m going to put all of my concert seats on a blockchain, and so therefore, I’m going to offer the first round to my hardcore fans who have been newsletter subscribers for years. And the next I’m going to give to my junior fans. And then the last one, I’ll open to the public. And by the way, built into this is if you decide to sell it at a markup, I get half of that markup. But in no case is going to be higher than X.” You know, you basically demolish the entire StubHub, SeatGeek, absolutely egregious. How do we use bots? You know, if they were just reselling tickets, it’s one thing. But they seem to have gained the system so — NADIG: Oh, yes. They buy all the tickets. Yeah. RITHOLTZ: They buy the tickets first. And you know, there’s a reason why artists offer their tickets at affordable prices, to their fans, and these rentiers in the middle are abusive. So all this comes back to if the technology exists for that, why haven’t we seen a major artist? Who was it? Was a Pearl Jam tried to buy — NADIG: They tried to, yes, get out of Ticketmaster. Yeah. RITHOLTZ: Way back when? Nobody seems to be able to come up with a way to do this. NADIG: So the reason is because, you know, when we look at how the corporate economy works, there are investments that you have to make. Like, the Ticketmaster one is a great example because the technology to do that is trivial. We could stand up on three of the computers here in this control room right now. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: That’s the easy part. The hard part is it’s Madison Square Garden, Friday night. It’s 7 o’clock and you have 25,000 people you have to get through the gate in the next hour, to get to the Taylor Swift concert that’s about to go live. That infrastructure, having 45 guys standing there with the scanners, going through the network, confirming your ownership, but this ticket has already been used once, it hasn’t been used twice. That infrastructure — RITHOLTZ: But you use that right now. I saw Hadestown and they don’t even scan the ticket. You put your phone on the device. NADIG: And it goes big. Yeah. RITHOLTZ: Right. You’re not even looking at QR code. NADIG: All of that is a whole bunch of trust infrastructure — RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: — that says the digital signature coming off Barry Ritholtz’s wallet is the thing that says they can go see Hadestown. Right. That infrastructure is actually the hard part because implied in that is a whole lot of rule of law stuff. Like, wait a minute, Barry and I show up at the same time with the same ticket. How do we determine which one of us is the one that actually got to go in? How do we determine which one of us owns it? What’s the recourse if you stole it from me? RITHOLTZ: In other words, if someone took a scan of that QR code, that’s the problem with the code. NADIG: So enforcement and the last mile of all of these things, right? This is the part that I always sort of come back to. RITHOLTZ: Was it blockchain who solved that? I’ve been told over and over again, “Oh, Bitcoin fixes that.” NADIG: Bitcoin solves everything, except it’s not molecular, right? RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: It’s still digital. At the end of the day, most of the things we actually give a, “You know, what about” are molecular. We want the coffee cup. We want to go to the space to see the event. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: The sound waves propagate through the air from another human being on stage. At the end of the day, you’ve got to have that interface between the virtual and the real. Otherwise, none of this matters at all. And it’s precisely that boundary that is the problem right now. RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk a little bit about a conference I have participated in ETF Exchange over the years. VettaFi just purchased this from Advisor Circle. I’m an investor and Advisor Circle. So — NADIG: I don’t know any of that. RITHOLTZ: Right. So for disclosure, we’re talking about something that I kind of have an interest in or used to have an interest in. But I’m still a participant in the event. NADIG: Well, we’ll see what they’ll get you in. RITHOLTZ: Right. That’s right. Listen, I always feel like more disclosure is better than less disclosure. NADIG: Fair enough. RITHOLTZ: So I’ll let the lawyers sort that part, but — NADIG: The part I pay attention to is the content. RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk a little bit about ETF Exchange. This has always been just a massive event, you mentioned earlier, in the heyday of financial conferences. This, I think, was one of the biggest events I went to each year. NADIG: Yeah. We probably need to point out that like this is, in some ways, the spiritual successor to the old Inside ETFs event. That event is still going on and I don’t want to pretend that it doesn’t exist. It is now owned by a big conference company named Informa and they still put on those events. WealthStack was an event that you all used to do with them. That’s now part of that event. RITHOLTZ: Right. Again, more disclosure, so Informa ran — NADIG: Wealth Stack, Inside ETFs. Yeah. RITHOLTZ: Right. We were partners with them for Wealth Stack, which ran one year. We were ready to do the next one when the pandemic hit. That’s the only reason that we didn’t do it at all. NADIG: And then everything got juggled. RITHOLTZ: And then after everything reopened, their staff had left. There was a whole craziness, the whole world sort of reset. And so we worked with Advisor Circle and Future Proof, not with Informa because they were in Europe, and they were a little skittish when the U.S. was reopening. But for all that nonsense aside, tell us a little bit about why have an ETF conference, you know, has an ETF settled area? Tell us a little bit about this event. NADIG: Well, no, because ETFs are where everything interesting in the world is still happening. And I think that’s part of the reason I’m still in the ETF business, although I don’t have it in my title anymore, is that regardless of what you’re trying to get done with that $100,000 you’re trying to make go up. ETFs are probably the right answer under the hood in terms of the structure. So whether you’re trying to get managed futures from an active manager or, you know, two months Treasuries, T bills, like the whole spectrum is now available in lose to 3,000 ETFs we are trading here in the U.S. It’s like the mutual fund business back in the 80s. RITHOLTZ: So you have more ETFs than there are stocks, just about. NADIG: Getting close. RITHOLTZ: Was it like 3,500 stocks to 5,000? NADIG: Yeah. Well, in the world, it’s like 30,000 actual tickers out there in the world. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: But the point is there are more ETFs than you could ever possibly use in one portfolio. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: Most people probably only need a handful to accomplish whatever objectives they’re going to do. But the reason why we have an event around it is because so much of the interesting innovation in finance happens through that structure. because the ETF structure lends itself naturally to this sort of movement of risk from bucket to bucket in a very retail-friendly package, it’s sort of like the best thing we’ve come up with. And so people ask like, “Well, why our train has a certain width?” Well, because history just sort of got us to this configuration, where now everything runs that way, and nobody is going to invent a new gauge of train track. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: This ditch of the rails that we have at the moment, and probably for the rest of my career, the ETF still looks like the most efficient set of rails anybody has figured out how to put down. So why have a conference about it? Well, largely, because we want to get those interesting conversations going. My perspective on Exchange is I’m there to have interesting conversations. And when I’m talking to a bunch of financial advisors and a bunch of finance investment management types, that tends to be the most interesting conversation because you get the real human use in the room, and you get the real human smarts in the room. And that’s when the magic happens. So whether it’s getting a bunch of folks on stage to have a really interesting conversation about, you know, geopolitical concerns in Ukraine, or whether it’s just being able to have a small breakfast with four or five advisors and some academic, where we talk about behavioral finance, those are the interesting conversations. So Exchange is really all about creating that sense of community between groups of folks. And some of that is content that’s on the stage, and a lot of it isn’t. We learned that I think at Future Proof. This is a community event. RITHOLTZ: Yeah. NADIG: This is about people getting together and exchanging ideas. And I think that’s a lesson we’ve learned from the pandemic, not just from that conference. People want to get together and talk. RITHOLTZ: You know, it’s funny because financial conferences, and maybe conferences in general, everything is based on an academic model, and people took the big lecture halls out as their frame of reference. Hey, a bunch people on stage talking to a bunch of people in the audience taking notes. But the most interesting part of college wasn’t necessarily the big lecture halls, it was the class lets out and you start to talk to people about, “Hey, could you explain this? I don’t understand what’s going on here.” And then the subsequent conversations, that’s the really exciting driver, not, you know, the panel of people telling you, “Here’s why interest rate is going to go up or down.” NADIG: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: “And what’s wrong with inflation today?” So based on that, let’s dive a little bit into some of the innovations in finance and ETFs you referenced. Let’s start with active ETFs. They were looked at kind of skeptically a few years ago. Hey, ETFs are all about low cost passive indexing. Why do I want an active ETF? NADIG: Well, the short answer is because if you’re an active manager, it’s the only way you’re going to get any customers. RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: There’s just a bit of reality in that. I mean, at this point, we’re still something like 10%, 12% of the flows. The assets are inactive. It’s still a fairly small number. RITHOLTZ: How much of that is just ARKK and Cathie Woods versus everybody else? NADIG: A decent chunk. But remember, a lot of the fixed income complex is actively managed, right? RITHOLTZ: Right. NADIG: Most of the products — RITHOLTZ: I want to say most or the vast majority of it. NADIG: Well, I mean, there’s like TLT, with the big Treasury funds, LQD and HYG. And those are sort of big betas in fixed income, and that’s where the biggest funds are. But if you get below that tier, you know, all the PIMCO funds, anything sort of interesting that’d be done at the short end. Even like a lot of the short Treasury stuff is techn.....»»

Category: blogSource: TheBigPictureNov 15th, 2022

53 subscription box gift ideas for every interest and hobby

Subscription gift boxes and services provide unique discoveries and make life easier. We rounded up the 53 best subscriptions for friends and family. When you buy through our links, Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more.Shaker & Spoon delivers the ingredients and recipes you need to make unique cocktails, just add liquor or keep it alcohol-free.CratejoyAlthough you typically order them for yourself, subscription boxes are also an excellent gift choice because there's one for every interest and hobby you can think of. It's easy to purchase online and send, but best of all, no pesky gift-wrapping is necessary. The best subscription services provide unique discovery opportunities, curate high-quality brands, and automate everyday routines to make life easier. Even if the actual subscription box doesn't ship in time for the occasion, your recipient will still receive a notification that their gift is on its way so they know you didn't forget about them. Cloth & Paper: journals and stationery for plannersCratejoyGift a Planning + Stationery Box by Cloth & Paper subscription, from $37The Planning + Stationery Box from Cloth & Paper is for the organized planner on your Christmas list. Each month, it comes with 8 to 12 items, including sticky notes, notebooks, planner inserts, stickers, page flags, and more. Home Made Luxe: crafting kits for the DIYersHome Made LuxeGift a Home Made Luxe subscription, from $29.99/monthThe Home Made Luxe monthly craft kits include everything the DIYer in your life needs to complete a beautiful home decor project. It comes with step-by-step video, photo, and written instructions. Past boxes included pumpkin wreaths, mason jar string art, and wood bead wreaths.Call Number: celebrate contemporary Black literature with this quarterly boxCratejoyGift a Call Number subscription, from $25/boxCall Number's boxes arrive at your book lover's home every quarter with a selection of books from Black authors and authors from the African Diaspora. There are fiction, nonfiction, indie, and young adult boxes to choose from. Choose the Complete Box to include library-related items, including catalog cards, label protectors, buttons, and more.Shaker & Spoon: a monthly box for the cocktail loverCratejoyGift a Shaker & Spoon Cocktail Club subscription, from $49.92/monthShaker & Spoon Cocktail Club sends cocktails to your best friends and family every month. Each box has enough ingredients to make 12 drinks (minus the liquor) and original recipes. Ingredients include mixers, syrups, garnishes, bitters, and more.TheraBox: monthly self-care products for a little extra loveTheraBoxGift a TheraBox subscription, from $39.99/monthEach TheraBox includes full-sized wellness items for nurturing your mind, body, and soul. Your loved one will also get a research-based happiness activity curated by a therapist. Hunt A Killer: a monthly mystery for true crime fansAmazonGift a Hunt A Killer subscription, from $19.99/monthDo you have a true crime or murder mystery lover in your family or friend circle? A Hunt A Killer subscription is an excellent gift for them. Each month a new box full of clues and a mystery will arrive at their doorstep. They can either work alone or with others to find the killer. This is an excellent option for couples looking for quality screen-free time.Ipsy: personalized monthly makeup and beauty productsIpsyGift an Ipsy subscription, from $13/monthIpsy is the smart choice for anyone on your Christmas shopping list who whiles away the hours watching makeup tutorials on TikTok and YouTube. Each month, the company will send them a box of beauty products that cater to their skin tone, eye color, hair color, comfort level, and other preferences.Raw Spice Bar: a new spice blend every month for the chef in your lifeRaw Spice BarThe Spice Subscription Builder, from $12/monthWhether it's for a birthday, anniversary, or just because, the foodie in your life will look forward to a new spice blend and complimentary recipe every month. Previous blends include Ras el Hanout Blend, a seasoning perfect for a Moroccan recipe; Za'atar, a Middle Eastern blend often used as a dry rub for meats and veggies; and Xinjiang, a spicy blend that's also known as Szechuan seasoning.Wickbox: monthly candles with scents they'll loveWickboxMy Wickbox Subscription, from $34.95/monthYour recipient will receive a new candle each month. Fragrances are selected based on their personal preferences, which Wickbox calls a "customized scent profile." Each candle arrives in an elegant gift box and its container features a unique decorative design.Nourish: a monthly beauty box for the eco-conscious skincare devoteeNourishNourish Beauty Box, $29.95/monthThis monthly beauty box comes with with four full-size skincare and makeup products. Everything is cruelty-free, vegan, and paraben-free. Selections include eyeshadow, lip shimmer, misters, and serums.Murray's Cheese: an assortment of gourmet cheese to tryMurray's cheeseClassic Cheese of the Month Club, from $63Whether you're a certified cheese lover or a newcomer, this gourmet collection fits any cheese preference. This cheese subscription gift provides up to four delectable cheese options to snack on each month.Calm: a sleep and meditation appCalmCalm Subscription, from $69.99Help them to unwind by gifting a subscription to Calm, a soothing solution to their stress. Calm is known for helping its app user maintain mindfulness, achieve better sleep, and reduce anxiety.The Criterion Channel: A streaming service for classic and contemporary filmsthe criterion channelThe Criterion Channel subscription, $10.99/monthThe Criterion Channel offers a refreshing selection of films to discover, even for the cinephile who believes they've seen everything. The streaming service features a diverse library of hidden gems from classics, independent films, to international discoveries.Scentbird: a monthly perfume and cologne subscription boxScentbirdGift a Scentbird subscription, from $16.95/monthLet them unwrap the gift they really want – infinite new designer scents and none of the smelly sample strips. They can avoid the commitment to just one bottle and instead find their signature smell. Each month they will get a 30-day supply of the fragrance they want. Menlo Club: a wardrobe revamp for the person who doesn't have time to shopMenlo ClubGive a Menlo Club membership, $30/monthMenlo Club is an affordable men's clothing subscription that will supplement their existing wardrobe with fresh pieces. The membership gives them the opportunity to take a style quiz and receive two to three items from Menlo Club's brands based on their personal style. Senior reporter Amir Ismael tested it out and found it's the easiest way to dress nicely without overspending or going to the store.Read our full Menlo review here.My Garden Box: bonsai and terrariums that satisfy green thumbsMy Garden BoxMy Garden Box, from $50/monthTurn their home into their own personal plant nursery with this monthly gardening and crafting package. Each month, they'll get everything from a planter, soil, and living plants, plus gardening tips.Loot Crate: a curated bundle of fan collectiblesLoot CrateLoot Crate, from $9.99/monthWhether they are a gamer, anime fan, or pop culture aficionado, there's an exclusive crate for them. Each box is filled with multiple fan collectibles and apparel. Find the box that best aligns with your giftee's interests and get it delivered directly to their door. Cloth & Paper: stationary and planners for the organization enthusiastCloth and PaperGift a Cloth & Paper subscription, from $21.99The one who can't stop planning, jotting down notes, and sending cards will appreciate Cloth & Paper's subscriptions. There's a box filled with writing utensils, a box for planning and stationary, and one that merges the two. From brush pens and fineliners to sticky notes and postcards, they'll be planning nonstop. Hygge Box: Danish coziness in a boxHygge BoxGift a Hygge Box subscription, $46-$52/monthHygge is the Danish concept of coziness, and this subscription brings just that to the table, featuring items like candles, fairy lights, tea, and snacks. The deluxe box also includes home decor, accessories, wellness products, and other full-size treats. They'll be celebrating the comfort and joy in the ordinary when you give this subscription. Winc: full-sized bottles of wine to enjoyWinc/InstagramGift a Winc gift card, $50-$700Winc is a California-based company that both creates its own wine and curates bottles from top vineyards. It sends three full bottles of wine based on their "Palate Profile," so they'll get something that suits their particular taste. Its community rating system also points them to new names to try. Read our full review of Winc here. Goldbelly: their favorite food delivered to their doorGoldbellyGift a Goldbelly Subscription, from $49You can choose from subscriptions to their favorite food like pizza and BBQ, their favorite cities like NY and New Orleans, or let the editors at Goldbelly curate the month's best sellers for a surprise box. Read our full review of Goldbelly here.Nest: Beautiful, fragrant candlesNestNest Candle Subscription, $42/3 monthsNest is known for its unique and innovative fragrances like Black Tulip and Wisteria Blue. The brand's monthly candle subscription delivers a new, expertly chosen scent to the recipient every month, each of which comes in a sleek glass vessel with up to 60 hours of burn time. BarkBox: toys and treats for their best animal friendBarkboxGift a BarkBox subscription, from $35/monthThe best way to please a dog owner is to gift not to them, but to their dog. Bark Box's adorable toys and all-natural treats are the highlight of the month for more than two million dogs nationwide. Read our full review of BarkBox here.Date night in box: a custom-curated date night sent right to their doorDate night in a boxGift a Date Night in a Box Subscription, from $45.98/monthIf you're shopping for a couple that you know, this will take the stress out of planning date night. Each box is themed and comes with activities, ambiance for the night, and of course, snacks or recipes to make. Adult and Craft: all that you need to make your Pinterest project dreams come trueCratejoyGift an Adult and Craft Subscription from Cratejoy, from $35/monthCrafting lovers, rejoice because this box provides you with all you need to make your Pinterest dream projects come true. The box provides you with enough supplies to create the projects which range anywhere from photo transfer to woodworking.Disney Plus: entertainment options for every mood and interestDisney PlusGift a Disney+ subscription, $79.99/yearThe popular new streaming subscription features unlimited, ad-free access to thousands of movies and series (including original, exclusive programming), and the ability to stream on up to four devices simultaneously and add up to seven profiles. If you know someone who still hasn't subscribed, you can help them tune into all the Disney, Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars content they've been craving. Read our full review of Disney+ here.Birchbox: beauty and grooming samples tailored to their style and needsBirchboxGift a Birchbox subscription, $13/monthThe grooming, skincare, and beauty industries couldn't be more packed with products for all types of needs and concerns. Birchbox digs through the clutter for them and picks out five samples each month that they should use. At $15 a month, the value of the service is unparalleled. Read our full review of Birchbox here.Harry's: razors and accessories needed for a close and comfortable shaveHarry'sGift a Harry's custom shave plan here, starting at $5 one time payment with a $21 refill every 5 monthsThe gift of a clean, smooth shave is more cherished than you might think. Harry's full line of shaving products work together seamlessly, and you can customize this combination of blades, creams, foaming gels, and post-shave balms to send to your recipient. Read our full review of Harry's here.HelloFresh: convenient, easy-to-cook, and delicious meal kitsHelloFreshGift a HelloFresh subscription, from $75HelloFresh is one of our top meal kit subscription choices because of its tasty dishes, creative features like "Dinner-to-Lunch" recipes, and accompanying wine club. There are plans and menus to suit all types of cooks and family sizes, from vegetarian couples to omnivore families of four. If HelloFresh doesn't look like it'll suit your recipient, check out the gift options from one of these services. Read our full review of HelloFresh here.Atlas Coffee Club: the ability to travel the world, one cup of coffee at a timeAtlas Coffee ClubGift an Atlas Coffee Club subscription, from $60/3 monthsMore than one area of the globe boasts amazing coffee, and around-the-world subscription Atlas Coffee Club is out to prove that by sending coffee from a different region every month. Each order includes tailored brewing recommendations and a postcard with information about the country's coffee-growing methods so they'll fully appreciate the flavor and history of each cup. Read our full review of Atlas Coffee Club here.Book of the Month: the perfect gift for people who appreciate the feel of a physical bookBook of the Month/InstagramGift a Book of the Month subscription, $49.99/3 monthsThis national book club is still going strong after more than 90 years. Every month, the bookworm in your life can choose a hardcover from five new titles and settle into a story that, more often than not, goes on to gain national attention and win major literary awards. Read our full review of Book of the Month here.KitNipBox: toys and treats for their other best animal friendKitNipBoxGift a KitNipBox subscription, from $32.99/monthOf course, cats also deserve to be spoiled. The toys will entertain them for hours and the treats will keep their bellies full through lazy afternoon naps. KitNipBox supports more than 100 animal welfare organizations by donating a portion of proceeds and products every month. Read our full review of KitNipBox here.FabFitFun: the seasonal subscription box filled with the best full-sized productsFabFitFun/InstagramGift a FabFitFun gift card, $50-$300Curating eight to 10 full-sized, premium products across beauty, wellness, and fitness for only $49.99, FabFitFun sounds almost too good to be true. Members can customize their boxes and add on other products, enjoy exclusive offers and discounts from brand partners, and access workouts through FabFitFunTV. Read our full review of Fab Fit Fun here.KiwiCo: activity-filled boxes that make kids forget they're even learningKiwi Co.Gift a Kiwi Crate subscription, $68/3 monthsThis kids' subscription is divided into eight different types of "crates" based on the age group. The Panda Crate (0-24 years old), for example, helps develop their imagination and fine motor skills; the Kiwi Crate (5-8 years old) blends crafts, science, and engineering into hands-on projects; and the Atlas Crate (6-11 years old) explores nature and art. Read our full review of Kiwi Co Panda Crate here.Hint: delicious, healthy waters that kick their soda habitHint/FacebookGift the Hint Flavor of the Month Bundle Subscription, from $17.99/monthFans of this flavored water stock it in their pantries by the caseful. The calorie-, sugar-, and GMO-free water comes in refreshing flavors like watermelon and strawberry-kiwi, which they can rotate through with this drink subscription. Anyone who's bored with regular water but wants to stay hydrated and healthy will look forward to each month's delivery. Read our full review of Hint Water here.Causebox: products for the socially and environmentally consciousJulia Guerra/InsiderGift an Alltrue membership, $54.95/monthCausebox curates ethically made, vegan, and charitable products from the top socially conscious brands in beauty, fashion, wellness, home, and art. Each quarterly box has a retail value of more than $250 but only costs $49.95 and has the added benefit of doing good — for artisans, the environment, and your body. Read our full review of Alltrue here.Rent the Runway: designer clothing rentals for lessRent the RunwayGift a Rent the Runway membership, $69/monthRent the Runway's innovative model means they no longer have to waste money on clothes they'll wear once or twice. Another clothing subscription to consider is competing rental service Stitch Fix, which caters to personal styles and budgets. Read our full review of Rent the Runway here.Mouth: gourmet treats from makers you've never heard ofMouthGift a Mouth subscription, from $47.75/monthGourmet PopTarts, single-origin chocolate, and unusual chips made in small batches by independent American makers fill the boxes from this elevated snack company. There are seven different subscriptions to choose from, including a Best of Mouth tasting sampler and the hyper-specific Pickles assortment.Vinyl Me, Please: exclusive vinyl records to build their collectionVinyl Me, Please/InstagramGift a Vinyl Me, Please membership, $149/3 monthsAdding to their vinyl collection isn't difficult when they can choose one exclusive LP each month from a collection of Essentials, Classics, and Rap and Hip Hop. The three-month gift membership includes one bonus record, while the six- and 12-month ones include two bonus records.Read our full review of Vinyl Me, Please here.ArtSnacks: supplies for artists of all levelsArtSnacksGift an ArtSnacks subscription, from $25/monthPart of the fun of being an artist is trying out new products and techniques. ArtSnacks' collection of four to five premium, limited-edition art products (brushes, pens, paint, paper) encourages artists to incorporate supplies and techniques they might not use otherwise. They can join in on the #artsnackschallenge by using only that month's products to create and share a work of art. Goby: the first electric toothbrush they'll be excited to receiveGoby/InstagramGift a Goby gift card, $50-$100The gift of good oral care is both thoughtful and useful. The Goby electric toothbrush is vigorously thorough, with the ability to be switched between sensitive and standard modes. Choose the eye-catching monochrome or metallic style, and throw in the brush head subscription so they always have an effective brush head. Read our full review of Goby here.Next Big Idea Club: the best nonfiction books, as recommended by bestselling authorsNext Big Idea Club/FacebookGift a Next Big Idea Club Hardcover Book subscription, from $69.99/yearThe book selections from Next Big Idea Club are curated by some of the biggest names in business and psychology non-fiction. Your recipient will read only the books that really matter, receive course materials that delve deeper into the content, access exclusive interviews, and discuss learnings with fellow members. Read our full review of Next Big Idea here.Frank And Oak: stylish yet composed closet basicsFrank & Oak/InstagramGift a Frank And Oak Style Plan gift card, $25-$500Canadian clothing startup Frank And Oak offers Style Plans for both men and women who are looking to build the foundation of their closet with long-lasting, versatile basics. The box contains items like simple crew necks and button-downs they can't go wrong with, plus they're all ethically sourced and sustainably made. Read our full review of Frank and Oak here.Carnivore Club: cured meats to snack onCarnivore Club/InstagramGift a Carnivore Club gift card, $25-$100Hopefully they'll invite you to the picnic after they receive a box of delicious, handcrafted cured meats from Carnivore Club. The local salami, prosciutto, pancetta, and other cured meats taste far better than the kind they get from the grocery store. The price ranges from $29.99 per box, and each contains four to six meats. The Bouqs Co.: flower bouquets every week or every month, just becauseBouqs Co.Gift a Bouqs Co. subscription, from $44/monthWe would never turn down a regular shipment of beautiful flowers to adorn our desks or tabletops. With a subscription, you can save 30% on bouquets, enjoy free delivery, and set customizable dates for your lucky recipient. Daily Harvest: the easiest way to eat and drink healthyDaily HarvestGift a Daily Harvest gift card, $50-$5,000From breakfast to dinner, Daily Harvest is the purveyor of all things healthy. Its pre-portioned smoothies, harvest bowls, lattes, soups, parfaits, and overnight oats are far from rabbit food and will actually fill them up with the nutrients to attack the day. Read our full review of Daily Harvest here.Bokksu: authentic snacks from Japanese makersBokksuGift a Bokksu subscription, from $49.99/monthExperience the creative snack culture of Japan through Bokksu, the subscription where they won't know which one to tear open first. Think: Kit Kat flavors they can't find in the US, shiitake mushroom chips, kabocha bread, and citrus shortbread cookies. The themed boxes contain 20 to 24 snacks and a tea pairing. Read our full review of Bokksu Club here.Universal Yums: snacks from a different country each monthUniversal YumsGift a Universal Yums subscription, from $19/monthAnother delicious snack box option from Universal Yums, this one spotlights treats from a different country each month. Each box contains at 10-12 unique snacks, plus a guidebook with trivia and games from the country. Past boxes have featured snacks from Spain, Greece, Indonesia, and Israel. Read our full review of Universal Yums here.Facetory: the best Korean sheet masksFacetory/FacebookGift a Facetory subscription, from $59.70/3 monthsSoothing sheet masks are essential to an at-home spa day. Facetory sends high-quality Korean sheet masks for half their retail price. Made from unique ingredients like banana milk, yogurt, marine collagen, and 24 karat gold extract, they address a range of skin concerns and simply feel great on their skin. Read our full review of Facetory here.Breo Box: high-end and boutique brand name productsBreo Box/FacebookGift a Breo Box subscription, from $175/seasonPast boxes from Breo Box have included TRX fitness accessories, smart home devices and smartwatches, and Bluetooth headphones. The high-end products aren't geared toward any gender — as long as they appreciate quality everyday essentials, fitness and health gear, and tech, they'll love Breo Box. Read our full review of Breo Box here.Stitch Fix: an inclusive and personalized styling experienceStich FixGift a Stitch Fix gift card, $20-$1,000Stitch Fix offers the most styling options for different ages and body types: men, women, kids, plus size, maternity, and petite. The average price for men's and women's items is $55, but they can set their own budget to receive clothes they're comfortable with, and you can give a gift card in amounts up to $1,000. Read our full review of Stitch Fix here.Tippsy: premium Japanese sake from top breweriesTippsyGift a Tippsy subscription, from $46/boxWhile you have plenty of wine clubs to choose from, other types of alcohol are quietly waiting in the background for their moment to shine. Sake is one example — it's harder and more expensive to find, and it lacks the mainstream education afforded to beer and wine. Tippsy sources its sake directly from the best Japanese breweries for a more affordable price and teaches your recipient everything they need to know to become a sake expert. Read our full review of Tippsy here.Candy Club: curated treats to satisfy a sweet toothCandy ClubGift a Candy Club subscription, $29.99/monthGiftees with a hankering for something sweet will appreciate receiving a Fun Box with six 6-ounce candy cups. The brand partners with smaller artisans as well as famed candy shops for a curated selection of delicious treats every month based on a personalized flavor profile. Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 14th, 2022

The WEF’s Stakeholder Capitalism Is Just Global Fascism By Another Name

The WEF’s Stakeholder Capitalism Is Just Global Fascism By Another Name Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us The concept of “fascism” was originally entered into the Encyclopedia Italiana by Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who stated that “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” Benito Mussolini would later take credit for the quote as if he had written it himself, but it’s important to note because it outlines the primary purpose of the ideology rather than simply throwing the label around at people we don’t like as a dishonest means to undermine their legitimacy. Despite the fact that leftists today often attack conservatives as “fascists” because of our desire to protect national boundaries and western heritage, the truth is that all fascism is deeply rooted in leftist philosophies and thinkers. Mussolini was a long time socialist, a member of the party who greatly admired Karl Marx. He deviated from the socialists over their desire to remain neutral during WWI, and went on to champion a combination of socialism and nationalism, what we now know as fascism. Adolph Hitler was also a socialist and admirer of Karl Marx, much like Mussolini. It is actually hard to find where Marx, the communists and the fascists actually differ from each other – A deeper sense of nationalism seems to be one of the few points of contention. Though Marx saw the existence of nation states as temporary to the proletariat and to the ruling class, he noted that the industrialists were erasing national boundaries anyway. Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto with some optimism: “National differences and antagonisms between peoples are already tending to disappear more and more, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, the growth of free trade and a world market, and the increasing uniformity of industrial processes and of corresponding conditions of life.” Marx saw the development of corporate power as useful and the next necessary step towards socialism, noting that joint-stock companies (corporations) and the credit system are: “The abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself.” In other words, corporations are viewed as a tool for the eventual transition to a socialist “Utopia” and the death of free markets. Once again, we see there is very little difference in motive between the political left and the fascists. The natural progression of every form of Marxism, communism, socialism, fascism etc. all ultimately lead to a kind of globalist ideology and erasure of cultural separation. The methods might differ slightly but the end result is the same. Some think this is a good thing, but it is actually quite poisonous. Globalism requires an overarching social dynamic, a single hive mind, otherwise it cannot survive. If people have the ability to choose or create better options (or different options) for living then globalism loses significance. The existence of choice has to be erased. This is a behavior that the political left has fully embraced and they are more than happy to work hand-in-hand with corporate oligarchs to make their ideal system a reality. Long gone are the days of the anti-corporate progressive – They LOVE corporate dominance, but only if those companies promote and enforce leftist models for society. Mussolini’s fascism is at the root of the very corporate governance that leftists applaud and lust after today. They have far more in common with fascists than they realize. The new fascism is a re-branded philosophy best represented by something called “Stakeholder Capitalism.” It is a term often used by globalists at the World Economic Forum and the head of the WEF, Klaus Schwab. The media friendly definition of Stakeholder Capitalism is: A form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large. But who are “all stakeholders” in the opinion of the WEF? Well, according to Klaus Schwab they are all of human civilization, now and in the future. In other words, the goal of SHC is for corporate leaders and globalist bureaucracy to take responsibility for the entire world, not just their own employees, shareholders and profits. And such leaders would not be acting as individuals, they would be acting as a collective. In other words, SHC requires all major corporations to act as a single unit with a single purpose and a unified collectivist ideology – An ideological monopoly. As Klaus Schwab states: “The most important characteristic of the stakeholder model today is that the stakes of our system are now more clearly global. Economies, societies, and the environment are more closely linked to each other now than 50 years ago. The model we present here is therefore fundamentally global in nature, and the two primary stakeholders are as well. …What was once seen as externalities in national economic policy making and individual corporate decision making will now need to be incorporated or internalized in the operations of every government, company, community, and individual. The planet is thus the center of the global economic system, and its health should be optimized in the decisions made by all other stakeholders.” The SHC concept is deceptive on its very face because it pretends as if corporations will be held accountable by the public within some form of “business democracy,” as if the public will have a vote on what the corporations do. In reality, it will be corporations telling the public what is acceptable to think and do and corporations in conjunction with governments using their power to punish people who do not agree. The great magic trick is that these same unified corporations use the shield of “private property” and business rights as a means to control society without repercussions. After all, a primary principle of conservatism and the US constitution is private property rights. So, stepping in to disrupt corporate governance would be violating one of our own beloved ideals. It sounds like a Catch-22, but it’s really not. As mentioned above, corporations are at their very core a socialist concept: They are created through government charter, handed legal personhood and given special protections from government. They are NOT free market entities, and Adam Smith, the originator of most free market ideals, stood against corporations as destructive and prone to monopoly. As long as they receive protections from government including monetary stimulus and bailouts, corporations should not enjoy the same private property protections as regular businesses do. They are parasitic creations, alien to the natural business world. In a freedom-based society they would be dismantled to prevent authoritarian outcomes. Shareholder Capitalism is also an incredibly arrogant premise because it assumes that corporate leaders have the wisdom or objective intelligence to expand their role beyond business and into social and political spheres. This has already happened in many respects with much chaos created, but open corporate governance is the end game and it is anything but objective or benevolent. What are some examples of this kind of corporate/political governance (fascism) in action? How about Big Tech social media censorship leaning HEAVILY against conservatives and liberty activists? How about evidence of collusion between Big Tech companies and government, such as the Biden Administration and the DHS working closely with Twitter and Facebook to actively remove voices and viewpoints they don’t like? How about corporate leaders colluding to destroy conservative based social media competitors like Parler? How about ESG loans funded by corporate backers such as Blackrock or globalist non-profits like the Rockefeller Foundation? If all corporate lenders applied ESG to their loan practices, all individuals and businesses would have to adopt leftist social ideologies and dubious environmental claims in order to have access to credit. ESG is a monetary incentive created by corporate elites to keep all other businesses in line. If it continues, ESG could wipe out political opposition to globalism in the span of a single generation. And, what about the Council For Inclusive Capitalism? This is the most blatant expression of open global fascism I have ever seen, with money elites and politicians working in concert with the UN and even religious leaders like Pope Francis. Their goal is to institute a single centralized world governing platform built around the same agendas outlined in ESG and SHC, making corporations members of a new global council which they refer to as “The Guardians.” They aren’t even trying to hide the conspiracy anymore, it’s right out in the open. Klaus Schwab takes special care to mention often that global crisis events are the “opportunity” that is needed to push the public into the arms of Stakeholder Capitalism through a nexus point called “The Great Reset.” Meaning, he thinks that widespread fear and desperation must exist (or be engineered) to perpetuate the SHC framework quickly. Obviously, the globalists are on a shrinking timeline, though it’s hard to say why. They are tearing off the mask faster in the past two years than they have in the previous decade. More than likely they understand to some degree that if they go too slow the public will have time to mount a defense against them. They will conjure all kinds of distractions and scapegoats to prevent liberty minded people from hitting them back. They’ll aim us at Russia, they’ll aim us at China, they’ll aim us at useful idiots among the leftists. They’ll aim Russia, China and the leftists at us. They will try to send us to war, they will call us insurrectionists, they will call us terrorists, they will say we started the whole collapse and that we are to blame for the world’s ills. None of this matters. What matters is that the globalists at the top pay the price for the harm they cause. When the head of the snake is removed, only then can we sort out who is to blame; who were the heroes, who were the villains, and who were the idiots. Only then can we rebuild with true freedom in mind. Tyler Durden Wed, 11/09/2022 - 23:40.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 10th, 2022

Are You Ready For The Coming US Government Default?

Are You Ready For The Coming US Government Default? Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com, The vast herd of investors are a deluded crowd.  Following the Federal Reserve’s much anticipated 75 basis point rate hike on Wednesday the major stock market indexes jumped upward. Optimistic investors keyed in on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) statement and, in particular, the remark that the Fed, “will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation and economic and financial developments.” Somehow this was perceived as being the precursor to a policy pivot.  Yet during the post-FOMC statement press conference, Powell clarified that, “It’s very premature to be thinking about pausing.” Stocks then fell off a cliff.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) closing out the day with a loss of 505 points. Will there be a pivot, pause, or no pivot?  This is the wrong question to be asking.  The reality is the major stock market indexes have much farther to fall before the bear market is over, regardless of if the Fed pivots anytime soon. If you recall, the Fed began cutting interest rates in September of 2007.  Yet the stock market didn’t bottom out until March of 2009.  Similarly, the Fed began cutting interest rates in January of 2001.  Still, the stock market didn’t bottom out until October of 2002. Thus, using these two most recent bear markets as a guide, once the Fed finally begins cutting interest rates, which would come after inflation has begun to abate and a period of interest rate pause, the stock market will continue to fall for another 18 to 22 months. In other words, this bear market may not bottom out until well into 2025.  What’s more, the entire dollar based financial system will likely blow up sometime beforehand. How’s that for a grim outlook? Investors, as you can see, are incredibly twisted up by the Fed’s money games, and how they’ve enhanced the peaks and valleys of the stock market.  As for workers and voters, many don’t have a clue as to the ramifications for the real, Main Street economy.  Here’s why… No Clue Fiscal policy, as opposed to monetary policy, is more readily understood by workers and voters.  Income taxes, budget deficits, the national debt.  These are all real things the average person of moderate means and mental capacity can grasp a hold of, should they care to. The effects of zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) or quantitative easing (QE), however, are less apparent to the casual observer.  Politicians may make superficial remarks about consumer price inflation if they think it will score points with voters.  But actual currency debasement policies are rarely mentioned. Certainly, workers experience the wild booms and busts of central bank caused price distortions.  Still, few ever trace the genesis back to the Federal Reserve.  Instead, they see what appear to be extreme price increases and place the blame on producers. For example, workers may falsely condemn capitalism for rising prices, especially when provoked by populist politicians.  Yet they never scratch below the surface where the Fed’s money and credit games are lurking.  If they did, they’d find a system that stacks the deck against them. Take the industrious wage earner.  As he goes about his day-to-day business, he may find that, despite working harder and harder, his lot in life never improves.  In fact, it may even regress. But many won’t recognize heavy handed monetary policy as reasons for their disappointment.  The erosion of purchasing power can be subtle over long periods.  Moreover, the effects of currency debasement policies extend to all corners of the economy. Take the recent college graduate, making a subsistence wage at a franchise coffee shop, buried under $50,000 in student loan debt.  He may be deeply aware that something is radically wrong.  He may even ask, ‘How come the cost of school is at such disparity with the value it provides?’ Nonetheless, many college graduates won’t correlate the bubble in student loan debt, or the massive building boom on college campuses, to the Fed’s mass credit creation machine.  Nor will they contemplate the broken promises that led them down such a futile path.  Rather, they look to the President, like an ancient Egyptian pharaoh, to cancel their debts. Gimme My Stimmy Similarly, voters may celebrate a new stimmy check, while disparaging greedy capitalists for making their daily cup of coffee so expensive.  Some will even use their free government money to buy a “GIMME MY STIMMY” T-Shirt.  Yet few will bother to ask, ‘Where’s the money coming from?’ The answer, of course, is as hollow as it sounds.  That is, it’s created out of thin air. Still, the majority of Americans are incapable of putting two and two together.  In fact, this week spectacular evidence was given proving that the majority of Americans are, indeed, mildly retarded. What are we talking about? The following Newsweek headlines will leave you questioning the enlightenment of democratic rule… “Majority of Americans Back New Stimulus Checks To Combat Inflation” The Fed’s ruse, no doubt, works exceedingly well when consumer prices are suppressed over a multi-decade experiment in globalization and increasing international trade.  The Fed can get away with debasing the currency to juice financial markets and finance bloated government spending programs when cheap, imported goods fill the shelves of Costco and Walmart.  Workers are none the wiser. But after flooding the economy with upwards of $5 trillion to combat the effects of despotic coronavirus lockdowns, the Fed has produced a problem that won’t simply go away.  The money is out and about, chasing prices higher.  But the majority of Americans want more stimmy checks to somehow combat this. At the same time, a geopolitical shift is reversing the 50-year trend in globalization.  This structural change in the economy will propel prices higher for decades to come.  Hiking interest rates several percentage points won’t cut it. Obviously, one can’t assign all liability for the broad population’s financial malaise to the Fed.  Lethargy and sloth remain principal culprits for many folks’ immobility. Poverty, remember, for a majority of people that live with it, is more of an attitude than a financial condition.  Giving someone free money does nothing to adjust their attitude of poverty.  To the contrary, it reinforces their dependence. We’ve seen how industriousness and ingenuity can still overcome ZIRP.  Though for wage earners this is an increasingly difficult task.  What good is a 3 percent pay raise when the official rate of consumer price inflation is 8 percent, and the real inflation rate is over 16 percent? Are You Ready for the Coming U.S. Government Default? The point is, more than anyone else, Fed Chair Jay Powell has his fingerprints all over today’s raging consumer price inflation and the now destructive rate hiking means for containing it.  The Fed’s efforts to smooth out the peaks and valleys of the business cycle and keep the gravy flowing to its private member banks have had the ill effect of magnifying them. The consequences to workers, savers, and retirees alike are remarkably harmful.  Furthermore, as the current financial order strains to preserve the status quo, the level of intervention into the economy and financial markets will continue to mushroom like mold spores on wet drywall.  Radical policies will be hatched to cover the shortcomings of prior blunders. The U.S. national debt has topped $31.2 trillion.  Tack on the debt of households, businesses, state and local governments, and financial institutions, and you’re looking at a total U.S. debt over $92.9 trillion. As the Fed hikes interest rates to contain the raging inflation of its making, the cost of servicing government debt increases.  Total U.S. tax revenue is approximately $4.9 trillion.  Total U.S. interest paid is over $3.4 trillion.  Before long it will take 100 percent of tax revenue just to service the debt interest. Then what? The popular American myth is that the U.S. government has never defaulted on its debt.  Quite frankly, that’s an unadulterated lie.  The U.S. government has (unofficially) defaulted on its debt twice within the last hundred years. Executive Order 6102 of 1933, which forced all American citizens to turn in gold coins and bars, was, in fact, a default.  Gold ownership in the United States, with some small limitations, was illegal for the next 40 years. Under EO 6102, Americans were compensated $20.67 per troy ounce of gold.  They were paid with paper dollars.  Immediately following the government’s gold confiscation, the price of gold was raised by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 to $35 per ounce.  Just like that, American citizens were robbed of over 40 percent of their wealth. The second default occurred in 1971, when President Nixon “temporarily” suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold. Prior to 1971, as determined by the Bretton Woods international monetary system, which was agreed to in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944, a foreign bank could exchange $35 with the U.S. Treasury for one troy ounce of gold.  After the U.S. reneged on this established exchange rate, when foreign banks handed the U.S. Treasury $35, they received $35 in exchange. In both instances, the U.S. government didn’t overtly default on the debt.  Instead, it changed the fundamentals – the terms and conditions – of the dollar.  By all honest accounts, these are defaults. What dirty trick does Uncle Sam have up his dirty sleeve this time? One possible swindle is the issuance of a digital dollar – a Fed or government issued central bank digital currency (CBDC) – which is traceable and programmable.  When it is introduced, your accounts will be credited one for one, as in one federal reserve note for one digital dollar.  But what you’ll be able to buy in return with your digital dollars will be far less. You see, the digital dollar roll out will provide elaborate cover. Make no mistake.  This is a default.  And it is coming much sooner than you think. Are you ready? *  *  * Quite frankly, it’s maddening.  But you must not be a victim.  For this reason, after nearly two decades of research, I damn near killed myself putting together the Financial First Aid Kit.  Inside, you’ll find everything you need to know to protect your wealth and privacy as the U.S. government defaults for the third time in the last 100-years. Tyler Durden Mon, 11/07/2022 - 07:20.....»»

Category: dealsSource: nytNov 7th, 2022

Hudson: Germany"s Position In America"s New World Order

Hudson: Germany's Position In America's New World Order Authored by Michael Hudson, Germany has become an economic satellite of America’s New Cold War with Russia, China and the rest of Eurasia. Germany and other NATO countries have been told to impose trade and investment sanctions upon themselves that will outlast today’s proxy war in Ukraine. U.S. President Biden and his State Department spokesmen have explained that Ukraine is just the opening arena in a much broader dynamic that is splitting the world into two opposing sets of economic alliances. This global fracture promises to be a ten- or twenty-year struggle to determine whether the world economy will be a unipolar U.S.-centered dollarized economy, or a multipolar, multi-currency world centered on the Eurasian heartland with mixed public/private economies. President Biden has characterized this split as being between democracies and autocracies. The terminology is typical Orwellian double-speak. By “democracies” he means the U.S. and allied Western financial oligarchies. Their aim is to shift economic planning out of the hands of elected governments to Wall Street and other financial centers under U.S. control. U.S. diplomats use the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to demand privatization of the world’s infrastructure and dependency on U.S. technology, oil and food exports. By “autocracy,” Biden means countries resisting this financialization and privatization takeover. In practice, U.S. rhettoric means promoting its own economic growth and living standards, keeping finance and banking as public utilities. What basically is at issue is whether economies will be planned by banking centers to create financial wealth – by privatizing basic infrastructure, public utilities and social services such as health care into monopolies – or by raising living standards and prosperity by keeping banking and money creation, public health, education, transportation and communications in public hands. The country suffering the most “collateral damage” in this global fracture is Germany. As Europe’s most advanced industrial economy, German steel, chemicals, machinery, automotives and other consumer goods are the most highly dependent on imports of Russian gas, oil and metals from aluminum to titanium and palladium. Yet despite two Nord Stream pipelines built to provide Germany with low-priced energy, Germany has been told to cut itself off from Russian gas and de-industrialize. This means the end of its economic preeminence. The key to GDP growth in Germany, as in other countries, is energy consumption per worker. These anti-Russian sanctions make today’s New Cold War inherently anti-German. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said that Germany should replace low-priced Russian pipeline gas with high-priced U.S. LNG gas. To import this gas, Germany will have to spend over $5 billion quickly to build port capacity to handle LNG tankers. The effect will be to make German industry uncompetitive. Bankruptcies will spread, employment will decline, and Germany’s pro-NATO leaders will impose a chronic depression and falling living standards. Most political theory assumes that nations will act in their own self-interest. Otherwise they are satellite countries, not in control of their own fate. Germany is subordinating its industry and living standards to the dictates of U.S. diplomacy and the self-interest of America’s oil and gas sector. It is doing this voluntarily – not because of military force but out of an ideological belief that the world economy should be run by U.S. Cold War planners. Sometimes it is easier to understand today’s dynamics by stepping away from one’s own immediate situation to look at historical examples of the kind of political diplomacy that one sees splitting today’s world. The closest parallel that I can find is medieval Europe’s fight by the Roman papacy against German kings – the Holy Roman Emperors – in the 13th century. That conflict split Europe along lines much like those of today. A series of popes excommunicated Frederick II and other German kings and mobilized allies to fight against Germany and its control of southern Italy and Sicily. Western antagonism against the East was incited by the Crusades (1095-1291), just as today’s Cold War is a crusade against economies threatening U.S. dominance of the world. The medieval war against Germany was over who should control Christian Europe: the papacy, with the popes becoming worldly emperors, or secular rulers of individual kingdoms by claiming the power to morally legitimize and accept them. Medieval Europe’s analogue to America’s New Cold War against China and Russia was the Great Schism in 1054. Demanding unipolar control over Christendom, Leo IX excommunicated the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and the entire Christian population that belonged to it. A single bishopric, Rome, cut itself off from the entire Christian world of the time, including the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem. This break-away created a political problem for Roman diplomacy: How to hold all the Western European kingdoms under its control and claim the right for financial subsidy from them. That aim required subordinating secular kings to papal religious authority. In 1074, Gregory VII, Hildebrand, announced 27 Papal Dictates outlining the administrative strategy for Rome to lock in its power over Europe. These papal demands are strikingly parallel to today’s U.S. diplomacy. In both cases military and worldly interests require a sublimation in the form of an ideological crusading spirit to cement the sense of solidarity that any system of imperial domination requires. The logic is timeless and universal. The Papal Dictates were radical in two major ways. First of all, they elevated the bishop of Rome above all other bishoprics, creating the modern papacy. Clause 3 ruled that the pope alone had the power of investiture to appoint bishops or to depose or reinstate them. Reinforcing this, Clause 25 gave the right of appointing (or deposing) bishops to the pope, not to local rulers. And Clause 12 gave the pope the right to depose emperors, following Clause 9, obliging “all princes to kiss the feet of the Pope alone” in order to be deemed legitimate rulers. Likewise today, U.S. diplomats claim the right to name who should be recognized as a nation’s head of state. In 1953 they overthrew Iran’s elected leader and replaced him with the Shah’s military dictatorship. That principle gives U.S. diplomats the right to sponsor “color revolutions” for regime-change, such as their sponsorship of Latin American military dictatorships creating client oligarchies to serve U.S. corporate and financial interests. The 2014 coup in Ukraine is just the latest exercise of this U.S. right to appoint and depose leaders. More recently, U.S. diplomats have appointed Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s head of state instead of its elected president, and turned over that country’s gold reserves to him. President Biden has insisted that Russia must remove Putin and put a more pro-U.S. leader in his place. This “right” to select heads of state has been a constant in U.S. policy spanning its long history of political meddling in European political affairs since World War II. The second radical feature of the Papal Dictates was their exclusion of all ideology and policy that diverged from papal authority. Clause 2 stated that only the Pope could be called “Universal.” Any disagreement was, by definition, heretical. Clause 17 stated that no chapter or book could be considered canonical without papal authority. A similar demand as is being made by today’s U.S.-sponsored ideology of financialized and privatized “free markets,” meaning deregulation of government power to shape economies in interests other than those of U.S.-centered financial and corporate elites. The demand for universality in today’s New Cold War is cloaked in the language of “democracy.” But the definition of democracy in today’s New Cold War is simply “pro-U.S.,” and specifically neoliberal privatization as the U.S.-sponsored new economic religion. This ethic is deemed to be “science,” as in the quasi-Nobel Memorial Prize in the Economic Sciences. That is the modern euphemism for neoliberal Chicago-School junk economics, IMF austerity programs and tax favoritism for the wealthy. The Papal Dictates spelt out a strategy for locking in unipolar control over secular realms. They asserted papal precedence over worldly kings, above all over Germany’s Holy Roman Emperors. Clause 26 gave popes authority to excommunicate whomever was “not at peace with the Roman Church.” That principle implied the concluding Claus 27, enabling the pope to “absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.” This encouraged the medieval version of “color revolutions” to bring about regime change. What united countries in this solidarity was an antagonism to societies not subject to centralized papal control – the Moslem Infidels who held Jerusalem, and also the French Cathars and anyone else deemed to be a heretic. Above all there was hostility toward regions strong enough to resist papal demands for financial tribute. Today’s counterpart to such ideological power to excommunicate heretics resisting demands for obedience and tribute would be the World Trade Organization, World Bank and IMF dictating economic practices and setting “conditionalities” for all member governments to follow, on pain of U.S. sanctions – the modern version of excommunication of countries not accepting U.S. suzerainty. Clause 19 of the Dictates ruled that the pope could be judged by no one – just as today, the United States refuses to subject its actions to rulings by the World Court. Likewise today, U.S. dictates via NATO and other arms (such as the IMF and World Bank) are expected to be followed by U.S. satellites without question. As Margaret Thatcher said of her neoliberal privatization that destroyed Britain’s public sector, There Is No Alternative (TINA). My point is to emphasize the analogy with today’s U.S. sanctions against all countries not following its own diplomatic demands. Trade sanctions are a form of excommunication. They reverse the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia’s principle that made each country and its rulers independent from foreign meddling. President Biden characterizes U.S. interference as ensuring his new antithesis between “democracy” and “autocracy.” By democracy he means a client oligarchy under U.S. control, creating financial wealth by reducing living standards for labor, as opposed to mixed public/private economies aiming at promoting living standards and social solidarity. As I have mentioned, by excommunicating the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and its Christian population, the Great Schism created the fateful religious dividing line that has split “the West” from the East for the past millennium. That split was so important that Vladimir Putin cited it as part of his September 30, 2022 speech describing today’s break away from the U.S. and NATO centered Western economies. The 12th and 13th centuries saw Norman conquerors of England, France and other countries, along with German kings, protest repeatedly, be excommunicated repeatedly, yet ultimately succumb to papal demands. It took until the 16th century for Martin Luther, Zwingli and Henry VIII finally to create a Protestant alternative to Rome, making Western Christianity multi-polar. Why did it take so long? The answer is that the Crusades provided an organizing ideological gravity. That was the medieval analogy to today’s New Cold War between East and West. The Crusades created a spiritual focus of “moral reform” by mobilizing hatred against “the other” – the Moslem East, and increasingly Jews and European Christian dissenters from Roman control. That was the medieval analogy to today’s neoliberal “free market” doctrines of America’s financial oligarchy and its hostility to China, Russia and other nations not following that ideology. In today’s New Cold War, the West’s neoliberal ideology is mobilizing fear and hatred of “the other,” demonizing nations that follow an independent path as “autocratic regimes.” Outright racism is fostered toward entire peoples, as evident in the Russophobia and Cancel Culture currently sweeping the West. Just as Western Christianity’s multi-polar transition required the 16th century’s Protestant alternative, the Eurasian heartland’s break from the bank-centered NATO West must be consolidated by an alternative ideology regarding how to organize mixed public/private economies and their financial infrastructure. Medieval churches in the West were drained of their alms and endowments to contribute Peter’s Pence and other subsidy to the papacy for the wars it was fighting against rulers who resisted papal demands. England played the role of major victim that Germany plays today. Enormous English taxes were levied ostensibly to finance the Crusades were diverted to fight Frederick II, Conrad and Manfred in Sicily. That diversion was financed by papal bankers from northern Italy (Lombards and Cahorsins), and became royal debts passed down throughout the economy. England’s barons waged a civil war against Henry II in the 1260s, ending his complicity in sacrificing the economy to papal demands. What ended the papacy’s power over other countries was the ending of its war against the East. When the Crusaders lost Acre, the capital of Jerusalem in 1291, the papacy lost its control over Christendom. There was no more “evil” to fight, and the “good” had lost its center of gravity and coherence. In 1307, France’s Philip IV (“the Fair”) seized the Church’s great military banking order’s wealth, that of the Templars in the Paris Temple. Other rulers also nationalized the Templars, and monetary systems were taken out of the hands of the Church. Without a common enemy defined and mobilized by Rome, the papacy lost its unipolar ideological power over Western Europe. The modern equivalent to the rejection of the Templars and papal finance would be for countries to withdraw from America’s New Cold War. They would reject the dollar standard and the U.S. banking and financial system. that is happening as more and more countries see Russia and China not as adversaries but as presenting great opportunities for mutual economic advantage. The broken promise of mutual gain between Germany and Russia The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 promised an end to the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact was disbanded, Germany was reunified, and American diplomats promised an end to NATO, because a Soviet military threat no longer existed. Russian leaders indulged in the hope that, as President Putin expressed it, a new pan-European economy would be created from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Germany in particular was expected to take the lead in investing in Russia and restructuring its industry along more efficient lines. Russia would pay for this technology transfer by supplying gas and oil, along with nickel, aluminum, titanium and palladium. There was no anticipation that NATO would be expanded to threaten a New Cold War, much less that it would back Ukraine, recognized as the most corrupt kleptocracy in Europe, into being led by extremist parties identifying themselves by German Nazi insignia. How do we explain why the seemingly logical potential of mutual gain between Western Europe and the former Soviet economies turned into a sponsorship of oligarchic kleptocracies. The Nord Stream pipeline’s destruction capsulizes the dynamics in a nutshell. For almost a decade a constant U.S. demand has been for Germany to reject its reliance on Russian energy. These demands were opposed by Gerhardt Schroeder, Angela Merkel and German business leaders. They pointed to the obvious economic logic of mutual trade of German manufactures for Russian raw materials. The U.S. problem was how to stop Germany from approving the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Victoria Nuland, President Biden and other U.S. diplomats demonstrated that the way to do that was to incite a hatred of Russia. The New Cold War was framed as a new Crusade. That was how George W. Bush had described America’s attack on Iraq to seize its oil wells. The U.S.-sponsored 2014 coup created a puppet Ukrainian regime that has spent eight years bombing of the Russian-speaking Eastern provinces. NATO thus incited a Russian military response. The incitement was successful, and the desired Russian response was duly labeled an unprovoked atrocity. Its protection of civilians was depicted in the NATO-sponsored media as being so offensive as to deserve the trade and investment sanctions that have been imposed since February. That is what a Crusade means. The result is that the world is splitting in two camps: the U.S.-centered NATO, and the emerging Eurasian coalition. One byproduct of this dynamic has been to leave Germany unable to pursue the economic policy of mutually advantageous trade and investment relations with Russia (and perhaps also China). German Chancellor Olaf Sholz is going to China this week to demand that it dismantle is public sector and stops subsidizing its economy, or else Germany and Europe will impose sanctions on trade with China. There is no way that China could meet this ridiculous demand, any more than the United States or any other industrial economy would stop subsidizing their own computer-chip and other key sectors. The German Council on Foreign Relations is a neoliberal “libertarian” arm of NATO demanding German de-industrialization and dependency on the United States for its trade, excluding China, Russia and their allies. This promises to be the final nail in Germany’s economic coffin. Another byproduct of America’s New Cold War has been to end any international plan to stem global warming. A keystone of U.S. economic diplomacy is for its oil companies and those of its NATO allies to control the world’s oil and gas supply – that is, to reduce dependence on carbon-based fuels. That is what the NATO war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine was about. It is not as abstract as “Democracies vs. Autocracies.” It is about the U.S. ability to harm other countries by disrupting their access to energy and other basic needs. Without the New Cold War’s “good vs. evil” narrative, U.S. sanctions will lose their raison d’etre in this U.S. attack on environmental protection, and on mutual trade between Western Europe and Russia and China. That is the context for today’s fight in Ukraine, which is to be merely the first step in the anticipated 20 year fight by the US to prevent the world from becoming multipolar. This process, will lock Germany and Europe into dependence on the U.S. supplies of LNG. The trick is to try and convince Germany that it is dependent on the United States for its military security. What Germany really needs protection from is the U.S. war against China and Russia that is marginalizing and “Ukrainianizing” Europe. There have been no calls by Western governments for a negotiated end to this war, because no war has been declared in Ukraine. The United States does not declare war anywhere, because that would require a Congressional declaration under the U.S. Constitution. So U.S. and NATO armies bomb, organize color revolutions, meddle in domestic politics (rendering the 1648 Westphalia agreements obsolete), and impose the sanctions that are tearing Germany and its European neighbors apart. How can negotiations “end” a war that either has no declaration of war, and is a long-term strategy of total unipolar world domination? The answer is that no ending can come until an alternative to the present U.S.-centered set of international institutions is replaced. That requires the creation of new institutions reflecting an alternative to the neoliberal bank-centered view that economies should be privatized with central planning by financial centers. Rosa Luxemburg characterized the choice as being between socialism and barbarism. I have sketched out the political dynamics of an alternative in my recent book, The Destiny of Civilization. *  *  * This paper was presented on November 1, 2022. on the German e-site BraveNewEurope. Tyler Durden Fri, 11/04/2022 - 02:00.....»»

Category: dealsSource: nytNov 4th, 2022

Transcript: Jeremy Siegel + Jeremy Schwartz

   The transcript from this week’s, MiB: The Jeremies! Schwartz and Siegel on SFTLR!, is below. You can stream and download our full conversation, including the podcast extras on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google, YouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here. ~~~ ANNOUNCER: This is… Read More The post Transcript: Jeremy Siegel + Jeremy Schwartz appeared first on The Big Picture.    The transcript from this week’s, MiB: The Jeremies! Schwartz and Siegel on SFTLR!, is below. You can stream and download our full conversation, including the podcast extras on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google, YouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here. ~~~ ANNOUNCER: This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio. BARRY RITHOLTZ, HOST, MASTERS IN BUSINESS: This week on the podcast, oh, how much fun was this? I can’t begin to tell you what it’s like to sit in a room with the Jeremy’s, Professor Jeremy Siegel and I keep calling him Professor Jeremy Schwartz, but he’s just Jeremy Schwartz, chief investment officer of the $75 billion ETF and mutual fund company, WisdomTree. I am just a fan of both of these guys. I have interviewed Professor Siegel several times. He’s always fascinating. You’ll hear him sort of zip in and out of focus like this, because he’s sitting on the chair spinning around, just having fun, telling stories. So if you hear his audio cut in and out, he’s all but spinning in circles. He’s just charming, as is Jeremy Schwartz is one of the smartest people you meet in finance, just a thoughtful, intelligent person who really understands what value is about, how to find investments that will outperform the broader markets with less risk, less volatility. He’s been a big advocate, along with Professor Siegel, of fundamental indexing, where you’re focusing on things like earnings and dividend and value. And they have some fascinating things to say. Latest version of “Stocks for the Long Run” has just come out. It’s sold ungodly numbers of copies, and is on everybody’s best finance books of all-time list. I found this conversation to be so much fun. We could have gone for another couple hours, but I had to stop and send them off to the New York Stock Exchange to do whatever they’re going to do there. I think you’ll enjoy this conversation; I know I did. With no further ado, my sit-down with the Jeremy’s, Professor Jeremy Siegel and Jeremy Schwartz. Professor Siegel, you began at Wharton back in ‘76. Did you ever imagine half a century later, you’re still teaching in the same place? JEREMY SIEGEL, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF FINANCE, WHARTON: Well, I’m still associate. I’m emeritus professor, Barry. I actually left active professor in July of 2021, after 45 years of teaching at Wharton. I had taught four years in University of Chicago before that. So 49 years of university teaching. I’ve been as busy, because finishing, as we’re going to talk about, sixth edition of the book and conferences more than ever because now you can do them on Zoom. So I can do San Diego at 9:00 a.m. And at 10:30, I can do New York, which of course never used to be possible. RITHOLTZ: Modern technology. And Schwartz, you went to Wharton. You had Professor Siegel as an instructor. Tell us what that experience was like. How was he as a professor? JEREMY SCHWARTZ, GLOBAL CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, WISDOMTREE: So I got to Wharton in 99, which was the peak of the tech bubble. I was coming into my own, seeing the tech bubble living through it, having some experience investing until those tech stocks, watched them crashed. And he was on — I got to meet him through, who’s now the Philly Fed President Patrick Harker, I was on a team called the Dean’s Advisory Board. We organized sessions with the Professor and I got to meet him through that. And then he got me into his class. I didn’t even know you have to apply to his class. He got me into his class. And the summer — RITHOLTZ: What do you think, he’s just walking in off the street and say, “Professor Siegel, I’m here?” It doesn’t work like that. SCHWARTZ: You have to apply. You have to apply. I didn’t know that. But I was lucky to meet him. And then — so ’01 was when I was sitting in his class. So this is after March of 2000, his famous op-ed “Big-Cap Tech Stocks are a Sucker’s Bet.” RITHOLTZ: I remember that vividly. SCHWARTZ: So he’s on CNBC all the time talking about this, and I needed something to do for the summer. And that was the third edition. Back in ’02, we helped — that was my first project with him was the third edition of “Stocks for the Long Run.” RITHOLTZ: Really? So you have a 20-year relationship with “Stocks for the Long Run,” as well as with Professor Siegel. SIEGEL: That’d be great. RITHOLTZ: So the question for you is, you come out of Wharton, how do you end up at WisdomTree? SCHWARTZ: Well, WisdomTree now — I’ve been there 17 years. The Professor — we knew the founder, Jonathan Steinberg. RITHOLTZ: Sure. SCHWARTZ: He had a magazine. The Professor was publishing for the magazine, and the Steinberg family is very involved in Wharton. So we were looking at their indexes. The second book, “The Future for Investors,” which we did, came out in ’05, had a lot of work on dividend investing, value investing. And we helped validate their initial research, which got the company funded in ’04. The Professor invested and joined as an advisor. And they saw — I did all his research. And I’m now the second longest employee and have been there from the very early days. RITHOLTZ: Wow. You’re right behind Jono, who remains elusive and is a phantom figure who I can’t get to the studio, but we’ll talk about that later. So WisdomTree goes public, the two of you are affiliated with it. But I recall vividly Professor Siegel as a traditional market cap-weighted index sort of guru. SIEGEL: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: How did you find dividend weighting or evaluating, or other ways of looking at what some people terribly call smart beta? SIEGEL: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: But how did you find your way to those sorts of indexing, which is what WisdomTree has become known for? SIEGEL: And as Jeremy mentioned, the tech bubble itself was quite instrumental in saying, just a minute, it’s cap weighting at the very best. And Jon Steinberg had called me up and said, “We were thinking of fundamentally weighting instead of buy just market cap, which is the assumption of an efficient market hypothesis by either earnings or dividends. Would you do historical research on stocks to see whether it gives you a better risk-return trade-off?” And that’s where Jeremy came in because he was my right hand man, to say the least, in doing all this. We did it not only for the U.S., we did it internationally. We wrote a white paper that was associated with it. And when we did it, I said, “You know what, it is significantly better risk-return trade-offs.” It makes sense for me. I was formulating a theory called the noisy market hypothesis instead of the efficient market hypothesis, where this sort of fundamental indexing would do better. And Jono asked me and I said, “You know, I’ve spoken for dozens of companies, I’ve never really taken any official position.” But I said I would be willing to certainly consider being an advisor on WisdomTree. And I am a senior investment strategy advisor to WisdomTree since that beginning. RITHOLZ: So let’s not bury the lead, if market cap isn’t the most efficient way to organize an index, what is? SIEGEL: What is? Well, fundamentals. RITHOLTZ: More specific — SIEGEL: And more — well, we like dividends and/or earnings as the weighting procedure. RITHOLTZ: So value with a dividend? SIEGEL: Yeah. So — and yes. And what it does give you is a value tilt. There’s no question about that. And I remember telling Jono, “I’ll go with you on this, but we have to be inexpensive. I don’t want to charge 100 basis points.” RITHOLTZ: Right. SIEGEL: And he said, “I want as many people to use it. I want it to be inexpensive.” We came out with the lowest cost. But for now, it became more competitive since then. But when we came out, we’re really lowest — definitely lowest cost of all, I think, the fundamental weighted indexes. RITHOLTZ: And you guys prefer the name fundamental as opposed to smart beta? I think kind of smart beta has fallen out of — SCHWARTZ: It’s semantics and branding. We actually use the term modern alpha now. RITHOLTZ: Modern alpha? Okay. SCHWARTZ: So it’s, you know, more in line with what you’re trying to achieve and not just trying to be beta. You can say you’re being dividend beta — RITHOLTZ: I like dumb beta, but that’s just me. That’s my preference. I don’t — it’s so weird how these names sort of catch fire for a while and they go viral. We’ll talk a little bit about your recent viral TV appearance a bit. But before I get to that, I have to ask, so how do you two guys meet? You’re an undergraduate or graduate student? SCHWARTZ: Undergraduate. RITHOLTZ: Undergrad. So you’re just a Pennsylvania kid walking around. SCHWARTZ: Lucky place, right time. SIEGEL: Well, you know, I have to tell you actually, he invited me to be a talk to an — some student group, and I was so busy, it slipped my mind. And I felt so embarrassed. And he came up with a smile and said, “Oh, Professor Siegel, we can reschedule.” And I said, “This is a truly wonderful” — SCHWARTZ: I was worried. I was like, “Is he okay?” SIEGEL: Yeah, he was worried if I was okay. But I would say and I repeat this in the preface of this new edition, when he offered to work for me, we were working through some risk-return type of analysis. And I said, “Listen, this is going to take a little bit of time, but I want to get too familiar with the data.” I know this was a Friday. “Come in Monday, you know, familiarize yourself with the data. Come in Monday and we’ll discuss how to do it to get the results.” RITHOLTZ: I know the answer to this. Keep going. I love this story. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. I mean — and so he came in on Monday, and I said — SCHWARTZ: Probably Saturday. SIEGEL: Yeah, Saturday probably. I — you know, who knows. I was in on Saturdays. SCHWARTZ: It’s definitely on Saturday. SIEGEL: It was a Saturday. All right. Jeremy remembered better than I. And you know, I said, “Okay, let’s talk about it.” And he said, “Well, Professor Siegel, I do have, I think, all the answers that you want.” RITHOLTZ: Yeah. I’ve done this already. SIEGEL: I said, “You do?” And we looked — I looked them over, I said, “This looks right.” And I said, “Okay, I’ve got someone special here.” And I did. RITHOLTZ: You know, I know I have a lot of business professors who listen to this podcast and assign specific ones to their students. But that should be a lesson to somebody who says, “Hey, how do I stand out from the crowd?” When a professor says, “Come in, we’ll talk about the assignment,” and you come in and say, “I’ve already crunched the number. Here’s the data. Most of what you’ve written previously is right. Here’s a couple of little mistakes I caught.” That has to impress you, right? SIEGEL: Oh, definitely. It definitely impressed me. I mean, all through our relationship, you know, I mean, it’s amazing because he travels back and forth, living in Philadelphia and working in New York, although he doesn’t necessarily have to do it as much now because of, you know — RITHOLTZ: How much you’re splitting your time? SCHWARTZ: So we recently went to be fully remote first organization. And you talked about Jono, he was the most New York in-person. I mean, I tried to move to Miami, call it, 12, 13 years ago, he said, “No, you can’t move to Miami.” RITHOLTZ: Right. SCHWARTZ: That’s where I grew up. And we’re now completely remote. First, we find it to be very productive. We are — you know, we have global team. We have a team in Europe. My research team is almost 30 people, and almost half — you know, half of them in Europe. And we can be more interconnected doing — talking to them weekly in a different format — RITHOLTZ: Right. SCHWARTZ: — through Zoom or Teams that were on. So I don’t come up as much. But you do find the benefits. I was — in the office yesterday, we had six of our team members in the office, and you do find little things. There is the benefit of the collaboration that you find things you wouldn’t have found on a Zoom call because you’re bantering. RITHOLTZ: That’s the key word, though, is collaboration, to have everybody schlep into the office to sit and stare at a computer, or worse, do Zoom calls from the office is kind of pointless. SCHWARTZ: Yes. RITHOLTZ: But when you could get together face to face and have conversations, that’s a very different experience. So let’s talk a little bit about this book, which has really become a classic. Really, the first question I got to ask is, how do you go about updating and editing a book that really has stood the test of time for, geez, it’s almost 30 years. It’s on everybody’s must-have list, top 10 finance book, best investment books of all time. Do you approach updating this with a little bit of trepidation? What’s the experience like? SIEGEL: Well, you’re right. The first edition came out in May of 1994, using data up through 1992. So we have 30 years more of data. RITHOLTZ: So now it’s really stocks for the long — SIEGEL: And now, of course — RITHOLTZ: –stocks for the longer run. SIEGEL: This is the sixth edition. But it’s also — the fifth edition was written just after the financial crisis — a couple of years after the financial crisis and a lot of things had gone. I mean, the huge bull market, the COVID which has a whole chapter on. It’s up-to-date. I mean, it even to some data on the recent bear market, which most general books can’t get as far as we got. RITHOLTZ: The 2022 bear market? SIEGEL: A little bit is in there. RITHOLTZ: Really? SIEGEL: Yeah. A little bit is in there. You know, we don’t know if it’s exactly over yet. We’ll certainly talk about that later. But — RITHOLTZ: Jeremy will let you know. SIEGEL: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: We’ll nail — we’ll try to nail that. SIEGEL: But there was so much more — I had to say this is the biggest revision and the most new material of any of — there’s been almost five new chapters that have been added. And there’s been parts that have been added. I mean, you know, obviously, I deal with cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin, which was not an issue 10 years ago. You can feel how heavy it is. RITHOLTZ: I know. This is vaccinated and boosted. SIEGEL: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: This is really — not that the other books were skimpy, but you could tell, this has a little bit of a heft to it. So — SIEGEL: Yeah. For instance, in the past, I had one chapter basically on value and growth. There’s four chapters that are directly related to value and growth. RITHOLTZ: Really? SIEGEL: And I mean — and other factor investing which became very popular in the last 10 years. One section I had to do, another one was on real estate. I’ve never had anything on real estate returns before. I mean — and these are just some of the changes that I wanted to put in to make it more complete. RITHOLTZ: So let’s talk about some of these additions that you added. We’ll start with real estate. SIEGEL: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: Your friend Professor Bob Shiller of Yale puts out the Case-Shiller Housing Index. And I believe if you look at housing for the long run, it doesn’t do much better than inflation, does it? SIEGEL: So this is the interesting thing. The price doesn’t do much better than inflation, but there’s a return. RITHOLTZ: Well, you got to live somewhere to start, right? SIEGEL: Yeah. First of all, there’s two types. First of all, your it’s your own house residential. And then we now have and this is sort of the research we have, we have 50 years of REIT data that we never had before. So I felt it was long enough. I mean, it’s not the 220 years of stock market data. RITHOLTZ: Right. SIEGEL: But 50 years is still a good time. RITHOLTZ: Respectable. Sure. SIEGEL: So I did a very complete analysis on that. And let me just summarize I think the most interesting part. The return on the REIT index is virtually exactly the same as the S&P 500. Most people say, “Oh, my God, it’s the same and it’s so much more stable.” No. This is the interesting thing. People think real estate is more stable than the stock market. In every recession, except one and that was the tech bust of 2000, the drawdown of REITs was greater than the S&P 500. RITHOLTZ: That’s really interesting. You know, people don’t get a print on their house second by second. SIEGEL: Every second. Yeah, exactly. RITHOLTZ: So it feels stable because you’re not seeing prices. SIEGEL: Exactly. RITHOLTZ: But in reality, any day you want to put your house up for sale, you might get a different price then — SIEGEL: If you — I mean, you know, if times are bad and then you say, “I got to sell it the next five minutes,” you don’t want to look at that price. RITHOLTZ: That’s right. So you mentioned you have a couple of new chapters on value and growth. Up until this year, value seem to have been struggling against growth. SIEGEL: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: Certainly in the 2010s, growth wildly outpaced value. SIEGEL: That’s a euphemism, Barry, struggling. RITHOLTZ: I’m being polite. Well, you know, okay, so value — SIEGEL: It’s hard. It’s been hard. RITHOLTZ: I could say that, right? SIEGEL: Yeah. RITHOLTZ: Value and growth struggled. SIEGEL: It has mightily struggled. RITHOLTZ: Why do you think that is, given the historical advantage of value over everything? SIEGEL: And you know, I mean, everyone has said this way before me, and it was the worst 10 years, actually the worst 15 years in history. And we have value and growth back to 1926. There’s never been anything that has approached the underperformance. And I would say the major reason for that was the boom of the giant tech firms. RITHOLTZ: So it’s Apple. It’s Amazon. It’s Google. SIEGEL: Yeah. I mean, it’s used to be called FANG. They had gone out of favor obviously with the bear market or have shifted. And arguably, they went from an underpriced position in 2004 I’d say — RITHOLTZ: Right. SIEGEL: — or 2006, ’07, ‘08. They were underpriced probably at that time, given their tremendous further growth. And as is usual, they got overpriced at the top. But that — I’m not going to say the word hijack the market because that sounds like they did something illegal. RITHOLTZ: They had a lot more mindshare relative to — SIEGEL: I mean, you know, the percent that was wrapped up in that. And then, of course, your cap-weighted index, you were there in that. And it’s been virtually impossible for any value strategy to have overcome the great bull market of the big tech companies of the last 15 years which probably ended in, you know, early ‘20 or late 2021 or ’20, early ’21. RITHOLTZ: So the obvious question for both of you is, what does this suggest about near term future performance? And by near term, I mean, the next decade, because I’m talking to you guys, it’s normally we’re talking about centuries. But for the rest of the 2020s, what does this say about value versus growth? SCHWARTZ: Interestingly, this year, you’ve had a big correction, and a lot of the mega growth stocks and profit tech stocks collapse the hardest. RITHOLTZ: Right. SCHWARTZ: It’s interesting with — RITHOLTZ: Unprofitable tech stocks. SCHWARTZ: Unprofitable tech. RITHOLTZ: Right. SCHWARTZ: What’s interesting is even within value, there has been a big dispersion. So value is being growth by — like in the Russell Value versus Growth, call it, almost 2,000 basis points. But — RITHOLTZ: Geez, that’s giant. SCHWARTZ: But there’s even still high dividend stocks versus the traditional price-to-book value. It got like another 1,000 basis points. RITHOLTZ: Wow. SCHWARTZ: And so high dividend stocks are definitely doing well relative — so some of that is — well, what is a high dividend stock that’s not in the price-to-book index? It’s overweight energy stocks which had been — RITHOLTZ: Killed over the past year. SCHWARTZ: And then S&P cut down to 3%. Right? It was double digits 50. This is the challenges of cap weighting; it writes things down, will never add to the weight. RITHOLTZ: Sure. SCHWARTZ: But high dividend stocks, you know, in one of our baskets of high dividend DHS is 18% to 20% energy. And then that rebalances every December, it’s going to stay that way. RITHOLTZ: So a high dividend index, how has something like that done in 2022? SCHWARTZ: It’s up about 2,000 basis points ahead of the S&P. I mean, it’s basically largely flat. RITHOLTZ: Meaning if — meaning it’s flat while the S&P is down 20%, 25% — SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Yes. RITHOLTZ: — depending on what we see in there? SCHWARTZ: And still, where you say, well, you had all your outperformance and so what? It’s an 11 times earnings and 9% earnings yield. RITHOLTZ: So it’s still cheap 9%. SCHWARTZ: 9% earnings yield before rebalancing, and if you, you know — RITHOLTZ: 9? That’s a pretty substantial earning yield, isn’t it? SCHWARTZ: Versus the 1.5% TIPS rate with a real yield, bond yield, almost an 8% equity — probably an 8% equity premium on this basket. And so for the volatility of the markets, I do think it is still — you know, you can say decade ahead. All right. But the next three to five years, I think it is a very attractive place to be. RITHOLTZ: So the product that focuses on high dividend yielding, value stocks at WisdomTree, which funds would be covered by that? SCHWARTZ: DHS is the U.S. version. There’s a whole family. DHS is the U.S. DTH is the International. DEM is the emerging. You know, you go to the emerging markets, which has been way out of favor — RITHOLTZ: For years and years and years, and it’s been given. SCHWARTZ: This is like five P/E-type stocks. Now, this is — now, you’re going to China, China banks. You’re going to energy materials, commodities, cyclical stocks, but you’re getting close to double digit yields. RITHOLTZ: And what is the dividend yield now on something like DEM? SCHWARTZ: The average yield of the stocks, I mean, I want a stock to look at Petrobras in Brazil, almost a 40% dividend. RITHOLTZ: The problem is it’s in Brazil and people are .....»»

Category: blogSource: TheBigPictureOct 31st, 2022

Watch Live: Oz-Fetterman Pennsylvania Senate Race Debate

Watch Live: Oz-Fetterman Pennsylvania Senate Race Debate One of the most anticipated events leading up to Election Day on Nov. 8 will unfold tonight when Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Mehmet Oz take the stage in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for their only scheduled debate. The 60-minute debate will be televised live and begin at 8 p.m. ET. As Jeff Louderbeck write at The Epoch Times, the candidates are vying to replace retiring Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey in a race that will help determine which party has control of the chamber in 2023. Fetterman suffered a severe stroke days before the May primary and cast his vote from a hospital bed. Since then, he has made limited public appearances and conducted a handful of media interviews. Fetterman made his first public appearance since his stroke on Aug. 12. Oz immediately challenged him to appear on the debate stage. Oz asked for five debates from Sept. 6 to Oct. 5. Fetterman eventually agreed to one on Oct. 25, two weeks before election day. Early voting started in Pennsylvania on Sept. 19. During the debate in Harrisburg, Fetterman is expected to use closed captioning, which he has relied on in interviews and public appearances as he continued to recover. According to recent polls, the race is tightly contested and within the margin of error. The high-stakes debate could be a decisive moment in a contentious campaign. “I have not spoken to a Democrat in Pennsylvania or in Washington, D.C., who is not concerned about the debate,” a senior Democrat strategist from Pennsylvania told Reuters. A Fetterman campaign spokesperson also expressed apprehension about the forum. “Even before the stroke, John was not a great debater. Meanwhile, Oz is a showman who spent years in front of a camera, so we know what we are up against,” the Fetterman spokesperson said. Oz will likely discuss his plans for fighting crime and talk about Fetterman’s progressive record on criminal justice reform.  On Oct. 24, Oz announced a six-point plan to fight crime. The highlights, according to a press release, include stopping drug crimes, smart sentencing reform, increasing resources for safer streets, prosecuting crime, relief for victims and users, and reducing crime in prisons. As Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor, Fetterman heads the Board of Pardons. Fetterman has bragged that he “conferred more pardons in Pennsylvania than any administration in history” while also saying that one-third of the prisoners in Pennsylvania state prisons could be released and “we wouldn’t be any less safe.” Last week, Jahmir Harris surrendered to police in connection to a Philadelphia shooting that killed 50-year-old Charles Gossett after security footage showed he was the alleged getaway driver. Harris served eight years in prison for a 2012 first-degree murder before he was exonerated and released last year by Philadelphia’s “Conviction Integrity Unit,” which is led by progressive district attorney Larry Krasner. Fetterman has praised the unit for being “crucial” and “truly groundbreaking.” In 2021, Fetterman endorsed Krasner, who is facing impeachment as a Pennsylvania House investigates his prosecutorial policies in a city afflicted with rampant crime. Fetterman has declined to comment on Krasner’s current issues. In May 2021, he tweeted: “[Krasner’s] unwavering commitment to systemic criminal justice reform was resoundingly affirmed with a true mandate. His efforts have literally saved the innocent from dying in prison. “His Conviction Integrity Unit model should be mandatory in all of PA’s 67 counties,” Fetterman added. Fetterman is endorsed by Brand New Congress and Reclaim Philadelphia. Both groups have called for defunding the police. Recently, he told reporters that, “I think we need to be having a better relationship with the police. And making sure that the police feel they feel supported by the DA.” In an interview with Fox & Friends last weekend, Oz addressed the Harris case and hinted at what would be discussed in the debate. “If you walk through the streets of Philadelphia and most of the large cities in Pennsylvania, it’s the same story,” Oz said. “People feel like the folks in charge value the criminals more than the innocent. The families are in pain. No one seems to care. “The fact that Jamir Harris could have been released from prison by this Conviction Integrity Unit, which sounds Orwellian, is shocking to me, and it is to everybody else. But only days ago, John Fetterman praised it, and talked about how it was groundbreaking. It was a beacon of light,” Oz added. “He actually said we should have similar mandatory programs in all the counties of Pennsylvania. The parole board that he serves. He wanted to have it do exactly what this conviction integrity unit was doing, which is go back, find people who are guilty, and get them out in the streets.” Fetterman’s health is another topic likely to be addressed in the forum. He has used a closed captioning system during interviews with reporters. His campaign says it helps compensate for auditory processing challenges. He will use the system on stage during the debate. Under frequent scrutiny from Oz and multiple media outlets regarding questions about his health, Fetterman released a letter on Oct. 19 from a doctor who wrote that he “is recovering well from his stroke” and “has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office.” The author—Dr. Clifford Chen—has donated to Fetterman’s campaign at least four times, according to Federal Elections Commission records. In September, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board called on Fetterman and Oz to release their medical records in September. Oz agreed, and the results indicated that he was in “excellent health,” according to his doctor. Fetterman had repeatedly refused to reveal medical information until the report from Chen. The letter was released days after Fetterman stumbled over his words and used a closed-captioning monitor to read questions in an interview with NBC News reporter Dasha Burns that aired on Oct. 11. “I hear and understand everything in terms of words, on paper, and understand what I hear, but when we are talking about very specific and heavy things like this, we’re going to need captioning. I need captioning,” Fetterman told reporters earlier this month. How Oz addresses Fetterman’s health issues is among the many anticipated parts of the debate. Oz and his campaign have drawn criticism over “mocking” Fetterman’s health conditions. After Chen’s letter was published, Oz’s campaign released a statement saying it was “good news that John Fetterman’s doctor gave him a clean bill of health.” “The bad news is that John Fetterman still supports releasing convicted murderers out on the streets and has zero explanation for why he didn’t pay his taxes 67 times,” an Oz campaign spokesperson said. “And now that he apparently is healthy, he can debate for 90 minutes, start taking live questions from voters and reporters, and do a second debate now too.” Political pundits also believe that Oz will link Fetterman to rising inflation and gas prices, and the overall cost of living increase. Fetterman’s campaign has focused on bolstering the working class, battling corporate greed, and supporting abortion rights. Fetterman has attacked Oz for his backing of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) proposed nationwide 15-week abortion ban. On Oct. 24, Fetterman’s campaign released a statement referencing a Rolling Stone article that claims former president Donald Trump is encouraging Pennsylvania lawmakers to repeal a 2019 no-excuse mail-in voting law. The story also alleged that Trump is setting the groundwork to challenge the results of the Pennsylvania Senate race if Oz loses. “It’s clear that Donald Trump, Dr. Oz, and the GOP will do whatever it takes to try and steal this race on Election Night. Trump has already said he ‘needs’ people like Oz in office to challenge the 2024 election,” Fetterman spokesperson Joe Calvello said in a statement. “Trump is trying to steal the 2022 election for Oz so that Trump can steal the 2024 election for himself.” Pennsylvania is considered one of the Democrats’ top chances to at least maintain control of the Senate. The current makeup is 50-50 with Vice President Kamala Harris having the tie-breaking vote. A victory in Pennsylvania could offset Democratic party defeats in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. Tyler Durden Tue, 10/25/2022 - 19:55.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeOct 25th, 2022

Chinese scientists say they"re working on an anti-ship missile that can fly as high as an airliner and dive as deep as a submarine

The super-torpedo uses dangerous fuel and sounds similar to a Soviet system that was of questionable value. US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Mustin fires an RUM-139 anti-submarine rocket during an exercise near Guam.US Navy photo by Culinary Specialist 2nd Class Fidel C. Hart Chinese scientists say they're working on a ultra-fast weapon that is both missile and torpedo. It will fly at supersonic speeds and use supercavitation to reach high underwater speeds, they say. Previous attempts to develop such weapons have been scrapped or produced weapons of limited utility. Chinese scientists say they are developing a weapon that is both a supersonic missile and an ultra-fast underwater torpedo.The concept may be better than the weapon itself. The super-torpedo uses dangerous fuel and sounds similar to a Soviet system that was of questionable value. Nonetheless, the Chinese project sounds impressive.According to the South China Morning Post, which cited an article in a Chinese aerospace engineering journal by researchers working on the weapon, the missile will be just over 16 feet long and able to cruise at 2.5 times the speed of sound at an altitude of roughly 32,800 feet, traveling up to 124 miles before diving to skim at wave-top level for another 12 miles.When it's within roughly 6 miles of its target, "the missile will go into torpedo mode, travelling underwater at up to 100 meters per second (200 knots) using supercavitation — the formation of a giant air bubble around it which significantly reduces drag," the Post said. "It will also be able to change course at will or crash-dive to a depth of up to 100 meters [328 feet] to evade underwater defense systems without losing momentum."Taiwanese frigate Yi Yang fires an anti-submarine rocket during a drill off eastern Taiwan in May 2019.HSU TSUN-HSU/AFP via Getty ImagesThe idea of mating a rocket and a torpedo isn't exactly new.The US RUM-139 VL-ASROC anti-submarine weapon, for example, is a rocket that is launched from surface ships and jettisons a Mark 54 torpedo over a target area. The torpedo floats down to the water with the help of a parachute and then homes in on the submarine.But the Chinese weapon appears to be a missile that turns into a rocket-propelled torpedo once it hits the water. The missile-torpedo would be powered by a boron-fueled ramjet that could function both in the atmosphere and underwater.Thus it would be far faster than conventional torpedoes like the US Mk-48, which has a reported speed of around 55 knots.The problem is designing a propulsion system that functions equally well in the atmosphere and underwater. Researchers at China's National University of Defense Technology believe the problem can be solved by adding boron to the fuel, according to the Post."The cross-media ramjet uses a fuel-rich solid propellant, which burns with the external air or seawater entering into the ram to generate high-temperature gas and generates thrust through the nozzle," the scientists said in a paper published in the Journal of Solid Rocket Technology.A US Navy officer unveils a model of a new rocket-launched anti-submarine torpedo in February 1958.Los Angeles Examiner/USC Libraries/Corbis via Getty ImagesBoron is an element found in many substances, from food to detergent and even in human bones. (It has been touted as a cure for osteoporosis.) It also generates a great deal of energy when mixed with other substances to create a fuel.But as might be expected with such an energetic substance, boron is nasty stuff. In the 1950s, the US Air Force and Navy examined boron-based jet fuel — "zip fuel" — for aircraft such as the proposed B-70 supersonic bomber.The idea was eventually dropped because boron-based fuel was volatile, corrosive to engine parts, and toxic to humans.However, the advent of hypersonic missiles has created a need for a lightweight but powerful fuel. Some scientists today believe that boron can be tamed to meet that need. In 2021, for example, the US Navy solicited ideas for boron-based fuel.Interestingly, the Chinese team has actually increased the amount of boron in the missile-torpedo's fuel."Boron usually accounts for about 30 percent of the total fuel weight in an air-breathing missile because of the many other chemicals required to control and prolong the strong combustion," the Post notes, but the research team "doubled the share of boron in the fuel and estimates the result could produce a thrust greater than that of aluminum in water."A visitor tours a torpedo room in a submarine that served the Chinese Navy in 1960s at a Navy museum in Qingdao in September 2012.REUTERS/StringerThe other significant aspect of the proposed Chinese weapon is that once underwater and behaving as a torpedo, the weapon will use supercavitation, which uses engine exhaust gases to surround the torpedo with a bubble, reducing drag and allowing it to achieve high underwater speeds.The most well-known example was the Soviet Shkval ("squall") torpedo: Rather than using propellers or pump-jets for propulsion like conventional torpedoes, the Shkval was an underwater rocket.Shkyal was developed in the 1960s and is still in service with Russia's navy. It reportedly has a speed of speed of 200 knots.While Western navies initially worried that their aircraft carriers and submarines couldn't evade such a fast weapon, the Shkval may actually be a bit of a dud: It has a short range and is unguided, which makes it difficult to hit moving targets.That may be why the US ended its tentative research into supercavitating torpedoes a decade ago, even as Russia continues to develop supercavitating weapons. A missile that doubles as a torpedo may be too good to be true.Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds a master's in political science. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytOct 20th, 2022

A Scarcity Mindset Feasts On Generational Poverty

As with assets and wealth, scarcity and poverty are also passed down through families. “Generational poverty” is a family’s learning of beliefs and behaviors rooted in poverty after only two generations. At the same time, the idea of being poor is unattractive to anyone, especially to a child. However, without a feeling of hope, you […] As with assets and wealth, scarcity and poverty are also passed down through families. “Generational poverty” is a family’s learning of beliefs and behaviors rooted in poverty after only two generations. At the same time, the idea of being poor is unattractive to anyone, especially to a child. However, without a feeling of hope, you believe you’re doomed if you’ve never seen your life trajectory change. It is because of this that this scarcity mindset feeds generational poverty. if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined') { document.write(''); } .first{clear:both;margin-left:0}.one-third{width:31.034482758621%;float:left;margin-left:3.448275862069%}.two-thirds{width:65.51724137931%;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element input{border:0;border-radius:0;padding:8px}form.ebook-styles .af-element{width:220px;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer{width:115px;float:left;margin-left: 6px;}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer input.submit{width:115px;padding:10px 6px 8px;text-transform:uppercase;border-radius:0;border:0;font-size:15px}form.ebook-styles .af-body.af-standards input.submit{width:115px}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy{width:100%;font-size:12px;margin:10px auto 0}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy p{font-size:11px;margin-bottom:0}form.ebook-styles .af-body input.text{height:40px;padding:2px 10px !important} form.ebook-styles .error, form.ebook-styles #error { color:#d00; } form.ebook-styles .formfields h1, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-logo, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-footer { display: none; } form.ebook-styles .formfields { font-size: 12px; } form.ebook-styles .formfields p { margin: 4px 0; } Get The Full Walter Schloss Series in PDF Get the entire 10-part series on Walter Schloss in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues. (function($) {window.fnames = new Array(); window.ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';}(jQuery));var $mcj = jQuery.noConflict(true); Q3 2022 hedge fund letters, conferences and more   Find A Qualified Financial Advisor Finding a qualified financial advisor doesn't have to be hard. SmartAsset's free tool matches you with up to 3 fiduciary financial advisors in your area in 5 minutes. Each advisor has been vetted by SmartAsset and is held to a fiduciary standard to act in your best interests. If you're ready to be matched with local advisors that can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now. Breaking Down Generational Poverty What exactly is generational poverty? Well, poverty of this kind is deeply rooted in a parent’s (or guardian’s) relationship with their child. Often, it’s taught and learned unintentionally. In fact, according to the Center for Poverty and Inequality Research at UC Davis, one-third to one-half of children who are poor during their childhood will be impoverished as adults. For families to survive, external financial and internal psychological factors must work together. Unfortunately, children become accustomed to the persistent scarcity mindset as their default way of life. Comparatively, situational poverty is the result of suddenly losing one’s job, getting divorced, or losing one’s spouse or partner. We who experience situational poverty know deep down that, despite being devastating, our circumstances will pass. In turn, we remain optimistic. People living in generational poverty do not have that option. The link between generational poverty and a scarcity mindset It is natural for children to pick up on their parents’ patterns, beliefs, and behaviors. Unfortunately, as a consequence of generational poverty, ineffective parenting practices may be passed down to the next generation. An example of this is putting little emphasis on education. Let’s clear one thing up right now: poverty does not imply stupidity, so we should stop portraying it that way and putting that stigma on it. Several reasons can cause education to be neglected. For instance, a single mother may have to juggle three jobs in addition to making sure her children are fed and safe. In addition, as a result of unmet needs at home, children may miss school often. The resources needed to ensure children receive an education can be lacking for some families living in poverty as computers, access to the internet, or not having a home. Children are also affected by generational poverty by constantly pressing present-day needs. Affluent people enjoy the privilege of planning ahead and believe in the power of their scheduling and planning. Our future holds great potential, and we plan for it accordingly, whether it’s college, a vacation, or living a comfortable retirement. In contrast, families living in poverty experience scarcity as a way of life. Because every day carries a risk of not enough, full attention is required. For example, today, there wasn’t enough food, childcare, or money to cover utility bills. What’s the point of thinking about the future when you don’t have enough to meet basic needs tomorrow? There is no control in poverty, and everything seems like a threat to the safety of you and your family. Children’s brain development is affected negatively by poverty on a cumulative basis. Additionally, this contributes to how they view themselves and what they are entitled to — and as an adult, that continues. What is a Scarcity Mindset? Why Does it Attack Generations? A scarcity mindset is a mental shift resulting from a perception of limited resources. We have a limited amount of bandwidth in our brains, so any attention we devote to one problem cannot be used to solve another. There are some benefits to having a scarcity mindset, though. Once upon a time, it was an evolutionary advantage. In the early days of human civilization, when food and shelter were scarce, this mindset helped humans focus on acquiring the essentials. Even today, it can be beneficial. For example, this mindset may assist you in developing excellent prioritization skills. Additionally, many people with a scarcity mindset develop a trade-off mindset. You will therefore be more aware of the fact that having one thing in your life, such as $100 for groceries, may mean that you cannot spend $100 on those shoes you’ve been lusting over. In order to feel safe — you plan and budget financially, and you understand and abide by this concept. Despite this, escaping poverty is extremely difficult due to the scarcity mindset. Investing in the future is impossible if you don’t take care of your current needs. Furthermore, having limited funds and focusing on the short term makes planning ahead difficult. In other words, it is buying cheap shoes over and over again rather than investing in a pair of high-quality shoes that will last a lifetime. While it may seem more convenient to buy food than pay your bills at the time, delaying those tasks ultimately ends up costing you more in the long run. Poverty does not result from bad decisions made by people; it is caused by the fact that poverty inhibits people from making good decisions. A Scarcity Mindset’s Impact on Your Life To begin with, you teach your mind and yourself how to be poor. Then, instead of looking forward and pursuing what you want, you are too focused on maintaining what you have. If you’re afraid you might run out of money, you stay in your current situation. Secondly, researchers found that thinking about a high car repair bill significantly impaired cognition in low-income participants in a 2017 study. Likewise, these researchers studied sugarcane farmers in India, who produce most of their income at one time. It doesn’t take long for the farmers to go from being poor to being relatively wealthy during harvest time. Despite controlling for stress and other factors, the farmers performed significantly worse on cognitive tests before the harvest when they were poor than after that harvest. According to the researchers, poverty compromises cognitive function. This is equivalent to losing roughly 13 IQ points, which is equivalent to not getting enough sleep for a whole night. But wait, there’s more Additionally, it makes impulse control more difficult. ‌The part of the brain that controls your decision-making is also responsible for controlling your impulses. As your brain function is reduced by tunnel vision, you are more likely to give into impulses that you would not normally act upon. But it’s not just the brain that’s affected by poverty and scarcity. We know that poverty is associated with poor health. In addition to heart disease, depression, and weight gain, chronic stress puts millions of Americans at an increased risk for several preventable illnesses. Moreover, kids raised in poverty suffer the consequences all their lives. As a result of poverty, children may develop brain disorders that may lead to mental illnesses such as depression and substance abuse in their later years. In addition, it has been found that children from low-income families perform worse on standardized tests, are more likely to drop out of school, and have fewer prospects of attending college in the United States. How to Tell If You Have a Scarcity Mindset Are you stuck in a scarcity mindset? Check out the signs of poverty below and decide whether you could benefit from developing a more abundant mindset. Everything seems permanent to you Fixed mindsets and poverty mindsets have a lot in common. In my opinion, these two mentalities are inseparable. After all, an individual with a fixed mindset, such as a scarcity mindset, does not accept change. That’s the way things are. In the face of setbacks, you don’t change your way of thinking and keep returning to it. It is important to remember that nothing is permanent. All things are temporary. Bad feelings and challenging situations will inevitably pass. Even though they might seem to last forever, they don’t. It is common for you to say, “I am not able to get the money,” “I will go without,” or “I am not able to do this.” You become what you think by what you say. You create negative thought patterns when you speak negatively. As you continue to say what you are saying, you begin to believe it. Therefore, you should choose your words carefully. Consider saying more positive phrases, such as, “I can do this, and I have everything I need,” to yourself instead. You overspend Scarcity mindsets are commonly associated with people who do not spend. However, it can also be an indication that someone is overspending. When you are unfulfilled, you may spend to get instant gratification. Meanwhile, you avoid spending in other areas. In order to balance these spending habits — budgeting is essential, and you must plan your budget and finances correctly. You may wish to seek the advice of a financial advisor. In addition, many federal and local government agencies can help you with this budgeting for free. You rarely show generosity When you have a poverty mindset, you may be inclined to be frugal and don’t want to spend any more money. A generous person is one who is willing to give to others as well as to themselves. In other words, you must put yourself in a state of mind where you think you have more than enough. Ultimately, this allows you to be more generous to others and move away from the mindset that is holding you back. What others have makes you jealous There are few emotions worse than jealousy. There is no winner when you’re green with envy. Furthermore, jealousy tends to extinguish appreciation in almost all forms, which results in you focusing on what you lack even more. Because of this, psychologists and therapists often emphasize gratitude. The practice of gratitude every day can help you start seeing the world from a new perspective. As a result, health and happiness can be improved. Scarcity Mindset: Breaking Free of This Generational Poverty Issue Take the first steps toward a full and abundant life by letting go of the scarcity mindset. While not easy, it is entirely possible. Make an inventory of what you currently have You may feel as though there isn’t enough pie to go around for everyone if you have a scarcity mindset. Since there’s enough for you, you feel like you’ll be stuck with crumbs. By taking inventory of the things you already have, you can begin to overcome a scarcity mindset. To get started, write down everything you already have on a piece of paper. The following could be on your list: A place to live Food on the table The kind of job that pays the bills Having a loving family or partner Great friends A pet Your health The act of being grateful begins when you actively consider how much you already have. When you focus on gratitude, you can avoid thinking there’s never enough. In addition, it can demonstrate how rich you already are. But, of course, money isn’t the only definition of wealth. After all, it is possible to be wealthy regarding your health, relationships, and career options. Avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy “A negative money mindset — that you’re no good with money, that you can’t hold onto money, that you’re stuck in the financial situation you’re in with no way out — these thoughts can be paralyzing,” said financial coach and planner Maggie Klokkenga, CFP, CPA. Often, these negative thoughts can keep you in a rut financially. “You may not be able to take action, such as asking for that next raise, because you are already telling yourself, ‘What’s the point? I’m just going to spend it all anyway,'” Klokkenga said. Use positive words and phrases Are you crystal clear about what you want? That’s great. Put it down in writing. From there, list positive phrases that reflect your goals and desires. For example, use alternative statements, such as “I am abundantly wealthy” or “I recognize abundance and opportunity throughout my day.” Also, replace “I cannot” with “I can” when speaking out loud. Make your life story your own, and do not let others write it for you. In a wealth mindset, there is no room for pity parties. Remember this, and make sure you check yourself accordingly. It is also a good idea to leave reminders in your office or home and read your list of phrases or affirmations daily. Learn more about money and expand your horizons A good financial education is never too late, whether you’re a teenager or a retiree looking to stretch your savings. Why? “Your financial stability will improve, and your ability to manage your money will improve,” explains Due founder and CEO John Rampton. “At the same time, the purpose is not to become an expert in this field,” he adds. “No matter what, getting a grasp on personal finance topics such as tax deductions, investing, and retirement planning is essential.” You may find the following suggestions helpful in increasing your financial knowledge: Keep up with financial news by reading magazines, journals, and online articles. A book can teach you how to manage your money. Listen to podcasts on finance and money. Don’t miss out on financial management tools, such as robo-advisors. If you are interested in learning more about financial literacy, consider taking a course. Plan your finances with the help of a professional. Take a new look at wealth To break the poverty cycle, you must also change your perception of wealth. Rather than viewing money as something you lack and fear, you’ll benefit from viewing it as something you welcome and expect. You can help yourself with this by doing visualization exercises. By visualizing yourself manifesting money, you can feel confident, happy, and calm each day. How does this exactly work? Instead of linking money with anxiety, jealousy, and insecurity, associate it with opportunity, growth, and well-being. Get rid of unhealthy financial traditions Traditions that are unhealthy pass from generation to generation. But, in order to break yours, you must be committed to it. That sounds easier said than done. But here are some pointers to get the ball rolling. You must make a decision. Are you satisfied with your financial situation? Is debt causing you stress? If so, commit to achieving financial independence today. Replace your poor skills with new ones you learn from others. Repeated practice leads to skill development. The repetition of poor financial skills led to poor financial skills. On the flip side, the repetition of excellent financial skills led to significant financial skills. As such, make sure you learn from the right people. Learning from someone with money is better than learning from someone who looks wealthy. Financial independence is far from the reach of most people. Overall, you can change your financial future by changing your traditions. Put an end to comparing Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Comparison is the thief of joy.” You do yourself a disservice when you compare yourself to someone else. Why? When you compare, you take away valuable time you could use to earn more money or get your finances in order. And more importantly, comparisons make you feel miserable. The moment you start comparing, stop. Take a moment. Next, look at the parts that are making you angry. Do they have a better education, a job, or a more successful career? Allow that to inspire you instead of leading to existential dread. In other words, you should run your own race. Put your focus on yourself. The only thing that matters is you and your well-being. Spend time with successful and wealthy people In the words of motivational speaker Jim Rohn: “You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.” To put it another way, you are defined by the people you spend the most time with. Take a closer look at your inner circle. Your friends are molding you into what you want to be. “According to my Rich Habits research, in which I interviewed 177 self-made millionaires over five years, long before they became rich, the self-made rich made an intentional, conscious effort to only forge relationships with individuals they aspired to be: other rich and successful people,” says Thomas C. Corley. Rearrange the timeline “Instead of thinking, ‘I have no money,’ you should think, ‘I have no money…yet,'” suggests Paul Sundin, CPA and tax strategist at Estate CPA. “This makes you more optimistic about your situation and, therefore will encourage you to find ways to improve your income and earn more money.” Put a plan in place Planning is the key to achieving your goals. What are you trying to accomplish? Map out how you will get there, and write it down. Organize small goals under larger ones. Plan your actions, then get them on your calendar. Last but not least, let go of things that no longer serve you. Get rid of all the things you don’t need and only keep the things you really want and need. You can learn that you don’t need money or stuff to be happy. It can also be very therapeutic. FAQs What is a scarcity mindset? Scarcity mindset is characterized by a persistent feeling of not having enough-whether it’s money, time, or connection. A scarcity mindset can cause you to stay stuck in scarcity because these beliefs make it hard to move forward. For many people, scarcity is more than just a mindset. Having difficulty affording food, housing, and paying your bills is neither your fault nor a matter of changing your mindset. Poverty is linked to behavioral and mental health problems due to brain changes caused by living in scarcity. Changing your mindset to one of abundance won’t solve all of your problems immediately. But it will make it easier for you to cope with them and find solutions. How do you recognize a scarcity mindset? A scarcity mindset may have similar effects and feelings as depression, or other mental health problems-and scarcity can also contribute to mental health problems. Scarcity mindsets can be identified by the following signs: Feeling behind all the time Overwhelmed by bills and other obligations Being overscheduled Accepting opportunities that aren’t right for you out of fear of missing out on another What effect is scarcity having on America “There’s a very large proportion of Americans who are concerned and struggling financially and therefore possibly lacking in bandwidth,” says Princeton University psychology and public affairs professor Eldar Shafir, Ph.D. “Each time new issues raise their ugly heads, we lose cognitive abilities elsewhere.” “These findings may even suggest that after the 2008 financial crisis, America may have lost a lot of fluid intelligence,” he adds. “People are walking around so concerned with one element of their lives that they don’t have room for things on the periphery.” How a scarcity mindset can keep you in generational poverty “When you’re hungry, it’s hard to think of anything other than food; when you’re desperately poor, you constantly worry about making ends meet,” explains Sendhil Mullainathan, an economics professor at Harvard who has worked with Shafir. “Scarcity produces a kind of tunnel vision, and it explains why, when we’re in a hole, we often lose sight of long-term priorities and dig ourselves even deeper.” Can you overcome a mindset of poverty? Rather than merely a matter of lack of money, poverty is a “chronic, mind/body condition exacerbated by the negative, synergistic effects of multiple, adverse, economic risk factors.” Researchers Gary Evans and Michelle Schamberg of Cornell University have also found that poverty is transmitted from one generation to the next because scarcity entails stress, which affects children’s brain development and ability to learn, leading to another generation living in poverty. Therefore, poverty is not only caused by external factors but also by internal factors, such as mental and physical well-being. Many neuroscientists and neuropsychologists have examined alternative education methods and techniques for overcoming poverty-related barriers in this context. One of the most important factors in breaking a mindset of poverty, especially in children, is hope, according to Jensen, in addition to implementing novel teaching methods, physical activity, stress management, and a supportive social climate. Jensen argues that despite being widely perceived as an intangible ideal, hope is capable of triggering change by influencing gene expression and changing the brain. According to neuropsychologist Rick Hanson, the brain can be changed by focusing on positive experiences, then the positive (and not the negative experiences) become neural structures. Article by John Rampton, Due About the Author John Rampton is an entrepreneur and connector. When he was 23 years old, while attending the University of Utah, he was hurt in a construction accident. His leg was snapped in half. He was told by 13 doctors he would never walk again. Over the next 12 months, he had several surgeries, stem cell injections and learned how to walk again. During this time, he studied and mastered how to make money work for you, not against you. He has since taught thousands through books, courses and written over 5000 articles online about finance, entrepreneurship and productivity. He has been recognized as the Top Online Influencers in the World by Entrepreneur Magazine and Finance Expert by Time. He is the Founder and CEO of Due......»»

Category: blogSource: valuewalkOct 18th, 2022

About 17 Americans die waiting for transplants each day. Scientists are trying to make more organs in 5 creative ways.

Organ shortages are causing preventable deaths and risky transplants. New experimental methods of growing and altering organs could help. Pigs stand in a test farm of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich in Oberschleissheim, Germany, where scientists are using genetic engineering to grow donor organs in pigs, on January 24, 2022.Lukas Barth/Reuters Organ scarcity means patients accept risky transplants, die on the waitlist, and are sometimes denied life-saving treatment. This year scientists have advanced experimental paths to make more organs available. From gene-edited pig hearts to growing synthetic embryos, here's what researchers are trying. Leilani Graham was just 13 years old when she went into cardiac arrest for the first time. A congenital issue made her heart stop suddenly, almost killing her, until medical workers shocked it back to life with a defibrillator.It would happen three more times before Graham, age 24, had to have her heart replaced.She was lucky to have gotten a heart. On average, 17 people die every day on the waiting list, out of nearly 106,000 people listed for a transplant. Some never even make the waiting list.But Graham would have picked a different heart if she'd had a choice. Coming from a 52-year-old donor, it was a risky, or "marginal," donation — one of many Band-Aid fixes for the lack of organs across the US.Leilani Graham had a heart transplant at age 24.Courtesy of Leilani GrahamWhen the time comes to replace her heart again — sooner rather than later, she fears, because of its age — she'll likely be lower on the list than people awaiting their first transplant.Between deadly delays, marginal donations, and sticky ethical questions about who gets prioritized for transplants, the shortage of life-saving organs is a medical crisis. That's why researchers are pursuing everything from pig organs to blood-type conversions in order to make more hearts, lungs, and kidneys available."The idea of getting an organ that didn't necessarily have to come from a dead donor, that could come from a pig that has been genetically modified, is something that definitely intrigues me," Graham told Insider. She now sits on an ethics advisory committee for transplant research at New York University Langone Hospital, including pig-organ research.Leilani Graham holds her original heart after her transplant procedure.Courtesy of Leilani GrahamIf pig organs turn out to be just as effective as human organs, she added, "That is more appealing to me than using marginal donors."While much of the shortage is driven by imperfect logistics and bureaucracy rather than supply, cutting-edge research could make organs — human, pig, or synthetic — more accessible in Graham's lifetime.Here's what researchers are trying.1. Transplanting organs from genetically engineered pigs to humansDavid Bennett, right, with his surgeon, Dr. Bartley Griffith, at University of Maryland Medical Center.University of Maryland School of MedicineIn January, surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center transplanted a pig heart into a human patient for the first time. Hospitals had declined to list the man, David Bennett, for a human heart because supplies are short and he had a history of failing to follow doctor's orders. The pig-heart procedure was highly experimental."It's got danger written all over it," Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at NYU, told Insider at the time, saying it would be a "miracle" if the man survived. Two months later, Bennett died, possibly related to a pig virus lurking inside his new heart.NYU Langone is taking a more incremental approach to learning to put pig organs into human bodies.This year, researchers there transplanted genetically modified pig kidneys into two deceased humans, then pig hearts into two brain-dead humans. Eventually, if procedures like this continue to be successful, they could move into phase 1 clinical trials with consenting patients like Bennett.A human heart after removal, left. A genetically modified pig heart for human transplantation, right.Joe Carrotta for NYU Langone Health, Hilary Brueck - Insider"There will be an iterative process of learning, changing tactics," Dr. Robert Montgomery, director of NYU Langone Transplant Institute, said during a press conference in July.He added that he hopes gene-edited pigs will become a "renewable, sustainable source of organs, so no one will have to die waiting."2. Stopping organ decay after deathImages of electrocardiogram tracings in the heart (top) and immunostainings for albumin in the liver (bottom) in organs perfused by traditional methods (left) and OrganEx (right).David Andrijevic, Zvonimir Vrselja, Taras Lysyy, Shupei Zhang; Sestan Laboratory; Yale School of MedicineIn a study published in August, researchers at Yale School of Medicine restored dead pigs' heartbeats and stopped organ decay, seemingly halting the death of cells. If the technique works for human organs in the future, it could allow clinicians to preserve many more organs for donation after death. One hour after the pigs died, the researchers connected them to a system of pumps, heaters, and fillers called OrganEx. By artificially flushing the pigs' organs with blood — a process called perfusion — they restored molecular and cellular function in the heart, brain, liver, and kidneys.The hearts even contracted to pump blood, indicating renewed electrical activity, and restored full blood circulation in the pigs' bodies. There was no sign of electrical activity in the brain. Still, the scientists say they've uncovered a previously unknown capacity for mammal cells to recover after blood has stopped flowing."Cells actually don't die as quickly as we assumed that they do, which basically opens up the possibility for intervention," Zvonimir Vrselja, a neuroscientist on the research team at Yale, said in a briefing at the time. "If properly intervened, we can maybe tell them not to die."3. Changing organs' blood typeEnzymes are delivered to a lung inside a perfusion machine at Dr. Marcelo Cypel’s lab.UHNPart of the reason getting an organ can be difficult is because it has to be compatible with the patient's blood type. Some researchers are working to eliminate that criterion.In a February paper, scientists announced they had removed the Type A antigens, or signature sugar molecules, from the blood of human lungs. If a person receives an unmatched organ, the organ's antigens activate the body's immune response, which can lead to rejection. Type O blood and organs don't have antigens and can be donated to anybody of any blood type. So the researchers essentially converted Type A lungs into universal lungs.The conversion may have been temporary, but they plan to run more trials in mice.At Northwestern University Medical Center, surgeons recently took the opposite approach: scrubbing antigens from the blood of the transplant patient. Using this method for the first time, they transplanted mismatched lungs and kidneys into a living patient and sent her home in August, The Chicago Tribune reported.4. Growing synthetic organs from stem cellsResearcher Stormy Chamberlain holds a tray of stem cells at the University of Connecticut's Stem Cell Institute.Getty Images/Spencer PlattSome scientists believe they could one day grow synthetic organs using stem cells — self-replicating, nonspecialized cells, which develop into all the other types of cells in our bodies.In an August paper, researchers announced they had grown synthetic embryos from mouse stem cells, with no eggs, sperm, or womb."The embryo is the best organ-making machine and the best 3D bioprinter — we tried to emulate what it does," Jacob Hanna of Weizmann's Molecular Genetics Department, who headed that research team, said in a statement.Hanna started a company called Renewal Bio to pursue the possibility of turning stem cells into organs for transplants. But much more research is needed before growing human embryos this way.5. Tricking the body into accepting a new organ without immune-suppressing drugsTransplant patients usually have to take immunosuppressants for the rest of their lives.Joe McNally / Contributor / GettyIn June, a team of Stanford physicians announced that they had transplanted new kidneys into three children who had a rare genetic disease, and the children didn't need immune-suppressing drugs afterward.Normally, transplant patients take medication for the rest of their lives so that their bodies don't launch an attack against their new organ. That doesn't always prevent rejection and it significantly increases risk of cancer and various infections. Eliminating the need for immune-suppressing drugs could increase the quality and length of transplant patients' lives."Everybody I know who's a transplant patient has shielded from COVID and had to really change their lifestyle for the past couple years. So getting rid of immunosuppression would be incredible," Graham said.The Stanford doctors first injected the children with stem cells from the bone marrow of their parents, who were also their organ donors. They hoped that those stem cells would mature into immune cells, arming the children with new immune systems that would recognize their new organs. Five to 10 months later, they transplanted the kidneys. At the time of the report, two or three years after the procedures, the children were back in school, playing sports, with no signs of illness and no immunosuppressants, the doctors reported."I just think it's important to highlight the good work that doctors are doing to try to increase quality of life, and then the bravery of the patients who are willing to undergo it," Graham said.This story has been updated. It was originally published on September 24, 2022. Hilary Brueck and Marianne Guenot contributed reporting.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderOct 18th, 2022

Generational Poverty: How To Break The Cycle Of Poverty

Are you familiar with escape rooms? The only way you can escape is to solve a complicated problem. But what happens if you fail to escape the room on time? Having lost, you are then “imprisoned” in the room. OK, not literally. However, you will not be able to leave the room until a staff […] Are you familiar with escape rooms? The only way you can escape is to solve a complicated problem. But what happens if you fail to escape the room on time? Having lost, you are then “imprisoned” in the room. OK, not literally. However, you will not be able to leave the room until a staff member enters the room and shows you the clues you missed, walks you through the solution, and escorts you safely outside. .first{clear:both;margin-left:0}.one-third{width:31.034482758621%;float:left;margin-left:3.448275862069%}.two-thirds{width:65.51724137931%;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element input{border:0;border-radius:0;padding:8px}form.ebook-styles .af-element{width:220px;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer{width:115px;float:left;margin-left: 6px;}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer input.submit{width:115px;padding:10px 6px 8px;text-transform:uppercase;border-radius:0;border:0;font-size:15px}form.ebook-styles .af-body.af-standards input.submit{width:115px}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy{width:100%;font-size:12px;margin:10px auto 0}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy p{font-size:11px;margin-bottom:0}form.ebook-styles .af-body input.text{height:40px;padding:2px 10px !important} form.ebook-styles .error, form.ebook-styles #error { color:#d00; } form.ebook-styles .formfields h1, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-logo, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-footer { display: none; } form.ebook-styles .formfields { font-size: 12px; } form.ebook-styles .formfields p { margin: 4px 0; } Get The Full Ray Dalio Series in PDF Get the entire 10-part series on Ray Dalio in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues (function($) {window.fnames = new Array(); window.ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';}(jQuery));var $mcj = jQuery.noConflict(true); Q3 2022 hedge fund letters, conferences and more   Find A Qualified Financial Advisor Finding a qualified financial advisor doesn't have to be hard. SmartAsset's free tool matches you with up to 3 fiduciary financial advisors in your area in 5 minutes. Each advisor has been vetted by SmartAsset and is held to a fiduciary standard to act in your best interests. If you're ready to be matched with local advisors that can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now. What if the moderator never arrived and you were stuck waiting for your kids to figure the puzzle out? During your wait, all you have is what you brought into the room. As a result of generational poverty, it is as if you are locked in a room full of puzzles. In addition, you only have a limited time to escape before you are permanently imprisoned. As another way of putting it, generational poverty is the opposite of generational wealth. Instead of learning about finance and gaining a leg up in life, kids grow up living hand to mouth. In the United States, millions of people are affected by it. But is it possible to break the cycle of generational poverty? Well, let’s find out. What is Poverty? First, we must understand poverty overall in order to understand generational poverty. Poverty is a state of economic hardship. More specifically, it is a situation where people lack certain commodities that they need for their lives, such as money and material goods. As a result, poverty encompasses social, economic, and political aspects. Poverty is derived from the French word “poverté.” If you’re case, this translates to poor. Poverty is a complex concept. The reason? This is due to the many factors that influence it, such as geography, inequality, lack of education, or economic conditions. Listed below are some quick facts about poverty provided by Poverty USA: The poverty threshold for an individual is approximately $13000 per year, and for a family of four, it is roughly $26000 per year. The poverty rate in America is 11.4%, which corresponds to some 37 million people living in poverty. Poverty affects over 11 million children. The number of Americans living in deep poverty is 3 million. Nearly 93 million Americans live in poverty. In terms of poverty, there is a racial disparity. Approximately 20% of black families live in poverty, 17% of Hispanic families, and 10% of white and Asian families. families. Native Americans have the highest rate of poverty, at 25%. Moreover, in terms of social, economic, and political factors, there are many ways to identify poverty: Absolute poverty Poverty, which includes the lack of basic foods, clean water, health, shelter, education, and information, is also referred to as extreme poverty or abject poverty. In absolute poverty, there is a high death rate among children from preventable diseases like malaria, cholera, and water-borne diseases. In developed countries, absolute poverty is rare. Absolute poverty was introduced in 1990 to measure absolute poverty by the standards of the poorest countries in the world. The World Bank reset it to $1.90 a day in October 2015. Due to the controversy surrounding this number, each nation has its own measure of absolute poverty. As of 2022, the poverty threshold for individuals in the United States is $13,590. This amounts to $27,750 per year for a family of four. As defined by Robert McNamara, who was the president of the World Bank from 1968-1981, “It is a condition so limited by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency.” Relative poverty In social terms, it is the standard of living compared to those living in the surrounding area. In other words, it measures income inequality. An example of being poor is not having the money for vacations, buying presents for the kids at Christmas, or sending them to college. In general, relative poverty is measured as the portion of the population with incomes below a certain median income level. Furthermore, developed nations with wealth use it to assess poverty rates. In European Union, the “relative poverty measure is the most prominent and most–quoted of the EU social inclusion indicators.” Situational poverty This type of poverty occurs as a result of adverse events such as environmental disasters, job losses, and serious health problems. Even a small piece of assistance can make a difference since this type of poverty comes from unfortunate events. Generational poverty Individuals and families inherit it from one generation to the next. Since the people are trapped in the cause, there is no escape since they cannot access the tools needed to escape. “Generational poverty occurs in families where at least two generations have been born into poverty,” Eric Jensen writes in Teaching with Poverty in Mind. “Families living in this type of poverty are not equipped with the tools to move out of their situation.” Rural poverty Typically, it occurs in rural areas with populations below 50,000. Compared to other parts of the country, these areas have fewer job opportunities, fewer services, and less support for people with disabilities. In the surrounding areas, most people depend on farming and menial labor. “Most of the world’s poorest live in rural areas,” writes Homi Kharas, Constanza Di Nucci, Kristofer Hamel, and Baldwin Tong for Brookings. A total of 400 million rural people live in extreme poverty, which is greater than the combined numbers of Americans and Canadians living in extreme poverty. Approximately half of that population (approximately 200 million) lives in cities. Urban poverty Usually, it occurs in metropolitan areas with a population of over 50,000. Among the major challenges facing the urban poor are: There is limited access to health care and education. A lack of adequate housing and services. Due to overcrowding, the environment is violent and unhealthy. There are few or no mechanisms for social protection. “According to the World Poverty Clock’s projections, rural poverty is expected to decline by 100 million (or 26 percent) from 395 million to 293 million over the next decade, largely due to economic growth and rural-urban migration that is reducing the absolute size of the rural population in many countries,” the authors adds. “Urban poverty, on the other hand, is not expected to decline very much (from 203 million today to 200 million), due to the expected increase in urbanization over the next decade, especially in Africa.” Generational Poverty: A Closer Look The phrase ‘extreme poverty’ is usually associated with generational poverty: poor parents, poor children, and poor grandchildren. Like genetics, poverty seems to be passed down from generation to generation in this situation. As a result, these families tend to be trapped in poverty until an external influence can help them escape poverty. A family that has lived in poverty for at least two generations is considered impoverished, according to Urban Ventures. In many cases, families facing generational poverty have lived in poverty for a much longer period of time. When a particular change in life results in a reduction of income and support, such as losing a job, getting divorced, or losing a parent, a person or family can experience situational poverty. Situational poverty can have a domino effect, but families tend to remain hopeful, knowing it will only last a short time. With generational poverty, this is typically not the case. Key Factors Associated with Generational Poverty Hopelessness Generally, poverty is defined as being unable to meet basic living needs, explains Urban Ventures. As a result of generational poverty, families are also challenged by three other types of poverty: Educational Poverty Parental Poverty Spiritual Poverty Generational poverty sometimes results in the most damaging outcome – a perpetual sense of hopelessness made worse by the cumulative effects of these different types of poverty. One generation follows another in a cycle of hopelessness. In the absence of hope and the belief that life can be better, motivation and energy are insufficient to break the cycle. Surviving vs. Planning Generational poverty traps people in the cycle of survival. Their attention is focused on today’s issue/challenge. A person may need money for food, a place to live, help with family issues, or unresolved health problems. Every day presents a new problem. However, there is an air of urgency surrounding all of this. Most individuals don’t plan, unfortunately, in part because they believe they have sufficient control over their lives. Values and Patterns In contrast to those who have grown up middle class, those caught in generational poverty have very different values. There will be a greater focus on survival and short-term outcomes in generational poverty. The values of the middle class are generally those of education and work. They are also regarded as productive citizens. As a result of generational poverty, counterproductive traditions like low educational emphasis may also be passed down. What Causes Generational Poverty? It is often assumed that poor people are responsible for their own circumstances. Their limited budget is spent on junk food, cigarettes, and alcohol. Perhaps they could dig themselves out of poverty and provide a better future for their children if they saved that money. Or maybe they just need to work harder. Then again, saving anything you can is a good idea, but it won’t help them pay for college or buy a house if they save twenty dollars every week. It is more difficult to accept reality, however, because it involves acknowledging the systemic policies that perpetuate generational poverty. It’s true that some of those systems have given some of us an edge, but they’ve also limited some options for others. A society that prizes rugged individualism can make it hard to acknowledge all the support that helped us succeed. Examples include tax breaks, parental support, or even not having to overcome unconscious biases regarding race and gender. In short, generational poverty is caused by a number of factors. It is a multifaceted issue that is influenced by everything from racism to financial policies. However, generational poverty is heavily influenced by the following three factors. Inadequate education. Education determines a household’s wealth and well-being. Therefore, a lack of appropriate knowledge and skills is the primary reason why so many families cannot escape poverty. As an example, literacy, an essential skill for higher-paying jobs, is still absent in many remote and challenging regions of the world. In fact, UNESCO states that “about 124 million children today do not go to primary and lower-secondary school. Almost 2 in 5 who do finish primary school have not learned how to read, write or do simple arithmetic.” Furthermore, chronic absenteeism, defined as missing more than 10% of the school year, is higher in low-income areas. “The most alarming part is that multiple studies across various states show kindergartners to have the highest rate of absenteeism outside of high school students,” Marc Cutillo writes in Education Week. “Educators and policymakers have known for years that falling behind before 3rd grade has a high correlation not just with high school dropout rates, but with incarceration rates as well.” “Children this young are not playing hooky or uninterested in learning—five minutes alone with any 1st grader yields more questions than you can answer without jumping on Wikipedia,” he adds. “The reasons these children stay home can all be traced to poverty.” As a child falls behind in school, they have a greater likelihood of dropping out of school, being incarcerated, earning less in the future, or living in poverty later in life. Resources are not available Generational poverty is often characterized by psychological issues related to finances. For parents to make ends meet, they often work multiple jobs. This behavior is also a part of “the scarcity mindset.” This is a mental shift due to the perception of scarce resources, which traps people in a cycle of insecure thinking and struggle to obtain short-term goals. As a result of perceptions of scarce resources, this behavior is associated with “the scarcity mindset,” which traps people in a cycle of fear and insecurity. Since they are focused on surviving for the next few days or weeks, people trapped in poverty are unable to think about the future. A mindset like this doesn’t allow adults or kids to think about college, careers, or higher achievements. Whatever dreams they do have, they often feel unreachable, and their lot in life is just to survive. Additionally, this mindset and environment lead to a shortage of resources. Those who live in underserved areas may encounter difficulties when it comes to generating income. In addition, living in constant worry about money can cause toxic stress, which can affect learning, behavior, and overall health. There is a lack of determination As opposed to the previous two factors, this last one refers to an internal characteristic that determines why poverty persists through generations. The majority of people afflicted by generational poverty lack determination and have a rather pessimistic and passive outlook on poverty. “Perhaps more damaging in the long term are the findings on how people feel about themselves when they’re in poverty,” Dawn Foster writes in The Guardian. “They are less confident in their ability to succeed, leading to decreased professional and educational attainment, depression, and anxiety.” They also reported a ‘negative self-stereotyping effect, whereby people living in poverty absorbed media stereotypes of those on benefits or unemployed as lacking warmth and competence. “Believing themselves to be fundamentally flawed, any achievement is tempered by a lack of confidence and subconscious self-loathing.” A child raised in such an environment is at risk of developing “a condition in which children feel as if they have no power to change or control their circumstances,” notes Matt Repka in the Chicago Policy Review. “Children growing up in poverty find themselves in surroundings characterized by chaos, an absence of structure, and a perceived lack of control. Helplessness is then conditioned by continued exposure to uncontrollable, unpredictable stimuli.” Even so, stress and external factors may push people into a state of hopelessness and devastation. As a result of poverty and financial concerns, a 2017 study proved that cognitive function can be affected by these concerns: poor financial management, insensitive parents, and less efficient employees are among the counterproductive behaviors caused by poverty and finance concerns. How to Break the Poverty Cycle Cultivate an abundance mindset Changing a scarcity mindset is perhaps the biggest hurdle to overcoming generational poverty. You experience drained brain activity in your prefrontal cortex (the area of the brain associated with decision-making), like a computer attempting to handle too many tasks simultaneously. Decision-making takes longer, and stress and low confidence are more common. Planning for the long term becomes too demanding as well. Similarly, scarcity on a larger scale can influence mindsets and decision-making. In recent years, the ability to make decisions quickly has been weakened by events such as the 2008 financial crisis. In addition, the Coronavirus pandemic and economic uncertainty may have exacerbated the situation. The solution? Cultivating an abundance mindset If we adopt the opposite mindset, a growth mindset, we will experience increased performance and more flexibility in the brain, among other benefits. As soon as we take risks and successfully complete them, our brains release dopamine. This primes us to seek out more dopamine by increasing those growth behaviors that initiated the release of dopamine. That’s all well and good. What are the best ways to accomplish this? Here are some strategies you might find useful. Acceptance When you do this, you stop fighting where you are now with your precious limited resources. Taking stock of where you’ve been will help you know where you’re going. Self-compassion Regardless of what you have done in life up to this point, you should be proud of yourself for making it this far. Every habit or mindset you have today that you want to change once had a purpose or reason for existing. In short, be kind to yourself. It’s all about finding that one thing Don’t have enough money? There may be a great deal of love in your life, whether it comes from a spouse, parent, or friend. Your life is likely to include at least one abundant thing, regardless of how small it may be. Set your own definition of abundance. Everyone has a different definition of abundance and an abundance mindset. Depending on your perspective, abundance might be perceived as scarcity by another. Without knowing what you’re aiming for, it’s hard to get into the mindset of abundance. Start small Change your mindset, thereby making small changes. Have you been feeling the pinch on your bank account lately? Identify areas where you can save money by creating a budget. Getting rid of your Netflix subscription could save you $10 a month. Even if it seems small, it adds up. Mindfulness The scarcity mindset gets ingrained in our minds for obvious reasons. To survive, they constantly analyze what needs to be done. This takes us out of the present. Mindfulness can help us think more clearly by slowing down our brains through meditation or simply paying attention to the present moment. Journaling The act of journaling may help you identify areas where you are abundant and areas where you would like to become more abundant if you are struggling with defining abundance. Make education a priority In order to overcome poverty, you need an education. Do your best to succeed in school, but do not feel responsible for doing it alone. If you have a teacher, a tutor, a guidance counselor, an administrator, a mentor, friends, or family members who are interested in helping you achieve your educational goals, you should accept their assistance. You can develop your note-taking, studying, and test-taking skills with the help of teachers and other supportive individuals. You may be able to get accommodations or extra assistance if you struggle in certain areas, such as reading or math. Make a commitment to completing your high school education The greater your education, and, especially your diploma — the more likely you are to rise out of generational poverty. It isn’t necessary to complete a high school diploma as your ultimate educational goal. But it is certainly a good place to start. There is a significant difference in average lifetime earnings between people with high school diplomas and those without. It may be a good idea to set another goal, such as earning a college scholarship, depending on your situation. Or, you might set a goal to enter a trade school or apprenticeship program. Identify your post-educational goals and set them in action Due to the struggles they’re facing today, people stuck in a cycle of poverty often find it difficult to plan for or even think about their future. You can, however, navigate yourself out of poverty by planning for the future and setting goals. Again, education is vital here, as it both encourages you to think about the future and allows you to explore it. Think about how you want your life to be in 5, 10, or 20 years. Next, list both the obstacles and what you will need to do to succeed. Describe your future goals to those who can help you, such as teachers, coaches, or community mentors. Increase your financial literacy “When there is a financial crisis, you should always stop the bleeding of money,” writes Deanna Ritchie in a previous Due article. Buying a cup of coffee every morning or not packing a lunch. When left unchecked, these little everyday expenses can add up. “Of course, there are also much bigger problems than enjoying a daily latte,” says Deanna. “And that’s because you may not have basic money management skills.” For instance, you may not know where your money goes or curb unnecessary expenditures. The good news is that there are many tools and resources available to help improve your financial literacy. The best part? The majority of these are free. A number of financial blogs, such as Due, offer expert advice on everything from debt management to retirement planning. Besides blogs, you can also connect with others in similar situations by joining financial forums. Visit your local library and read books like You’re So Money: Live Rich, Even When You’re Not by Farnoosh Torabi or The Index Card: Why Personal Finance Doesn’t Have to Be Complicated by Helaine Olen and Harold Pollack.” Podcasts such as Bad With Money With Gaby Dunn and DIY Money provide useful personal finance information. Subscribe to Debt Free Millennials on YouTube if you’re a visual learner. When you have the time, you can also enroll in a financial course. FYI, Khan Academy offers 100% free personal finance classes. In addition, you can try a number of free online budgeting tools. You can use these tools to track your spending, automate savings, and reach your financial goals. You can even have some devices make intelligent suggestions, find better utility rates, and cancel unnecessary expenses. Leverage community resources Shifting your mindset and educating yourself are both excellent starting points. Let’s be honest, though. You can only go so far with these. At some point, it’s all about the opportunity. As comedian Trevor Noah says in his book Born a Crime, “People love to say, ‘Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll eat for a lifetime.’ What they don’t say is, ‘And it would be nice if you gave them a fishing rod.'” In order to achieve mindset change, you need tools and support. Fortunately, your local community has resources to help you in this situation. Are you looking for financial advice or more active assistance? Would you like to learn how to start investing or understand your taxes? Need assistance in another area of finance? Rather than struggling alone, take advantage of the resources available to you. Even though reading books or articles can be great, it can sometimes be helpful to interact with people in person. The following places offer free or low-cost help: Nonprofit organizations, such as United Way or Home of Hope. The IRS Tax Assistance Center provides tax assistance specifically. Public libraries or schools. Community centers and churches. A number of these organizations provide tax preparation services, financial literacy education, and help with finding legitimate financial products. Sometimes they even provide one-on-one coaching in addition to hosting financial speakers. You might also consider hiring a certified financial educator, counselor, or advisor, who could assist you in improving your financial situation. Invest without fear It’s no secret that many people are afraid to invest. However, some populations are more affected than others. Among African Americans, for example, Prudential’s African American Financial Experience study found most people focus on debt reduction and household management. In addition, they may not be comfortable discussing topics such as investing and wealth transfer. Unfortunately, much of what is offered in financial literacy training is focused on budgeting and debt relief. Obviously, having a good grasp of these topics is essential for financial success. To build wealth, however, and to pass it from generation to generation, investing is a crucial component. So, how can you get over your fear of investing? To start, make every effort to live within your means. You can then use the money you’re saving to pat down debt or build an emergency fund. After that? Invest it. “I know that investing can give some of you a panic attack,” says Jeff Rose, founder of Good Financial Cents. “But, there are plenty of low-risk investment options out there. Some of my favorites include;” High-yield savings account. In addition to being federally insured, these savings accounts pay higher interest rates than the average savings account. Short-term bonds. In a short-term bond fund, investments are made in securities that are due within one‌ ‌to‌ ‌three‌ ‌years. ‌A commercial paper, a certificate of deposit, or a government security can be included in this category. TIPs. This a type of U.S. Treasury bond ‌that protects against‌ ‌inflation. Dividend-paying stocks. ‌With dividend stocks, you can generate another income source and gradually build your wealth. Preferred stocks. A preferred stock protects shareholders and gives dividends priority. Annuities. Once you’ve maxed out your other retirement accounts, buying an annuity offers a guaranteed lifetime income. With a rider, you can pass any remaining assets to your beneficiaries. Online real estate. Real estate can be purchased on these platforms for commercial or residential use. “Also, you can use robo-advisors to automate investments, such as Betterment, M1 Finance, or Wealthfront,” adds Jeff. Stimulate your mind and body You might feel like wasting your time on hobbies when you’re struggling just to get by. Children, teens, and young adults benefit most from activities that stimulate their minds and improve their moods — especially those that make them think and improve their moods. Crossword puzzles or free or low-cost activities like cooking, photography, or foreign language classes offered after school or at local community centers might be a good idea. When you’re struggling with poverty, spending money on fresh fruit and vegetables or taking time out to run may seem wasteful. However, in order to change your circumstances, you will need to strengthen your physical, mental, and emotional health. Utilize any before- or after-school food programs and school lunches available to you as a student. Getting advice on healthy food options from cafeteria staff, school nurses, or nutritionists is never a bad idea. Your food budget should be spent on fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins first, then fewer healthy options if necessary. When possible, take advantage of food assistance programs and farmer’s markets to save money. You don’t need to spend a fortune on exercise. For instance, a 30-minute brisk walk five times a week can have a significant health impact. Steer clear of predatory payday lenders From the name alone, a payday loan sounds like a one-day loan, doesn’t it? Getting sucked into the cycle of payday loans, however, can lead to years of paying off those loans. Payday loans are used by 12 million American adults each year. Annually, borrowers take out eight $375 loans and spend $520 in interest. As far as I’m concerned, those math equations just don’t add up. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, payday loans can cost you $10 to $30 per $100 borrowed. To put that another way, a two-week payday loan at a fee of $15 per $100 borrowed would result in a 400% Annual Percentage Rate (APR). For a sense of perspective, credit card APRs range from 12-30%. But are there any alternatives to credit or credit cards if you do not have access to credit? Paycheck advance Employees are often given the opportunity to receive their earnings before their paychecks are due. It may be possible for a company to pay an employee for seven days of work if the next paycheck is five days away. This is not a loan. Rather, at the end of the month, it will be deducted from your next paycheck. Borrow from family or friends. To get yourself out of trouble, borrowing money from friends or family is often the fastest and least expensive option. If you are going to take out a business loan, you would expect to pay a lower interest rate and have a longer payback period than two weeks. However, make sure this is a business deal that benefits both parties. Make sure the loan terms are clearly spelled out in the agreement to avoid any bad blood. Credit counseling Various nonprofit agencies offer free advice on setting up a budget and chipping away at debt, including InCharge Debt Solutions. InCharge credit counselors can connect you with resources in your area that can help with food, clothing, rent, and utility bills. Debt management plans Credit counseling agencies, such as the previously mentioned InCharge, offer debt management plans to reduce credit card debt for a monthly fee. Depending on your agreement, the creditor may offer the agency a lower interest rate. As a result of the agency paying the creditors, you have more money to pay your bills and reduce the amount of debt you owe. Debt settlement As a debt-relief option, debt settlement can be helpful if you’re struggling to keep up with unsecured debt (credit cards, hospital bills, personal loans). If you settle your debt, you will pay less than you owe, but it will damage your credit report and score greatly. Local charities and churches The number of charities and churches that are willing to offer free assistance when you hit a bump in the road is surprising. If you need help with a few hundred dollars, organizations like the United Way, Salvation Army, and church-sponsored ministries such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society may be able to help. Community banks and credit unions Local banks and credit unions are allowed to make smaller loans on easier terms than large regional or national banks. Comparing interest rates could save you 10%-12% as opposed to 400%-500% on payday loans. Peer-to-Peer Lending Check out peer-to-peer lending websites if you’re still having trouble finding a lender. Interest rates might be closer to 35% than 6% for those with great credit. At the same time, 35% remains better than the 391% from payday lenders. Find a mentor Take steps to overcome generational poverty by seeking help from a mentor. After all, fixing your finances doesn’t have to be a one-man show. Having a mentor can be extremely beneficial in finding a job that pays better and setting you on a path that is more lucrative. In terms of your career and finances, it is not easy to take the next step. It is even harder to see yourself as a successful person. But mentors can assist you in moving forward. You can transform your own life with the help of a mentor who can provide you with educational and informational resources. One organization that aims to provide career training and mentorship is Management Leadership for Tomorrow. Mentorship can help you learn from those who have come before you and get a leg up. As you improve your finances and take the next steps to grow your wealth, it can greatly shorten the learning curve. Keep your credit score in mind “Credit scores and history play a critical role in an individual’s ability to achieve economic security and build wealth in the U.S., but that opportunity is not easily attainable for communities of color,” states a report by CFSI. In the long run, having bad credit can cost you a lot of money, no matter who you are. Why? Poor credit can increase interest rates, car insurance costs, and make it difficult for you to borrow money. Additionally, credit problems could cost you more than just money. It can even affect your ability to qualify for certain jobs in many states. Approximately 95% of companies check potential employees’ backgrounds, according to a 2018 HR.com report. Also, 16% of companies pull credit or financial checks on all job candidates, and almost one-third do so for some candidates. Therefore, building your credit responsibly is one of the best ways to break the cycle of poverty. Depending on your situation, you can establish or rebuild your credit in several ways, such as: Pay all of your bills on time. This includes rent, utilities, and credit cards. If you have a credit card, try to pay more than the minimum payment. Don’t use more than 30% of your credit. For example, if you have a card with a $1,000 credit limit, you should never carry a balance over $300. Don’t open more than one credit account at a time. Avoid applying for a new credit card if you don’t think you’ll be approved. Use your credit cards at least once a year to avoid your accounts being closed for inactivity. Don’t give up hope When you grow up in generational poverty, you develop a fatalistic attitude. In other words, this is a mindset of “that’s just how it is” and “it will never change.” In some cases, you may even believe that poverty is your fault — if only you had worked harder, tried harder, and so on. But, holding these beliefs limits your ability to see an escape from poverty unnecessarily. Many people blame poverty solely on themselves. However, others blame others, such as the wealthy or the government. Some people do both. But, it won’t help you overcome poverty if you decide who to blame. Accept the fact that poverty is the result of a wide range of social, economic, environmental, political, and individual factors rather than assigning blame. When we understand why poverty exists, we can recognize potential ways out. Frequently Asked Questions About Generational Poverty Why does poverty still exist? For those born into poverty, breaking free from the cycle is nearly impossible. Poverty still exists for a number of reasons. Economics, cost of living, education, wages, health insurance, housing, transportation, and mental health all have an impact. What is generational poverty? Worldwide, millions of families live in poverty due to generational poverty. In general, poverty affects multiple generations when it becomes a family pattern for at least two generations. Generational poverty is different from situational poverty, in which a family experiences poverty briefly due to a crisis. Because of its intergenerational nature, people affected by it lack any means to change their situation for themselves or their children. How is poverty defined? In many cases, poverty is used as a relative term. A low-income family in America may be considered a middle-class family by the standard of living in another country, depending on that country’s economic environment and minimum wage. But globally, the standard definition of poverty is earning less than $1.90 per day. Living on this wage is extremely difficult. Yet surviving below the $1.90 per day poverty line is a reality for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Poverty isn’t just about economics Income alone does not determine global poverty or generational poverty. There are three dimensions to poverty, according to the Oxford Department of International Development: Health. Education. Living standards. Poverty can be caused by a lack of access to health care, education opportunities, affordable housing, nutritious food, clean water, or social services such as food stamps or Medicaid. It is rare for someone to be affected by only one of these dimensions of poverty. It is especially difficult to escape generational poverty due to its multidimensional nature. After all, there are still many obstacles standing in the way of someone even if they can overcome one dimension. It is also possible for generational poverty to perpetuate itself. When the parent of a low-income family struggles to make ends meet, the child knows only hardship. Often, it seems impossible to imagine a different future, and hope is smothered. What causes generational poverty? Poverty does not occur overnight. Many factors contribute to its development over time. Resources or education are lacking Education is the process by which people acquire the skills they need to pursue a profession, as described by Horace Mann as “the great equalizer.” Individuals cannot obtain the knowledge and training required for a well-compensated and fulfilling occupation without access to high-quality educational resources. Geography Sub-Saharan Africa is home to 27 of the world’s poorest countries, where 30% or more of the population lives in poverty. Compared to high-income countries, living in a low-income country presents its own set of obstacles. Social safety nets may not be provided to families in low-income countries, for example. The challenges of growing up in a high-income country are also significant. A report from the National Center for Children in Poverty notes that among Americans who were low- to middle-income in their youth, 12% to 13% remain in poverty in their twenties. Being unable to earn a living wage When families earn a livable wage, they can afford basic, everyday living expenses without relying on government assistance. Family members are unable to take advantage of opportunities to improve their circumstances if a livable wage is hard to come by. Minimal or no capital The term capital refers to wealth or assets that can be invested, produced, or used to generate income. In order to make money, you must first have money. Income growth is prevented, and generational poverty is perpetuated when there is no capital to begin with. A vulnerability to natural disasters. Environmental catastrophes like earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and flooding can strike anywhere in the world. The devastation of natural disasters is intensified in some regions due to poor government, bad infrastructure, high population density, and unequal living conditions. And the poor often pay the highest price. When families live in poverty, natural disasters rob them of what they have, making recovery difficult and advancement difficult. As a result, generational poverty is perpetuated. Are Americans who experience poverty now better off than a generation ago? “Material deprivation is not as widespread in the United States as it was 30 or 40 years ago,” write Nancy K. Cauthen and Sarah Fass for the NCCP. “For example, few Americans experience severe or chronic hunger due in large part to public food and nutrition programs, such as food stamps, school breakfast, and lunch programs, and WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children).” Over time, Social Security contributed significantly to the reduction of poverty and economic insecurity among the elderly. With increased wealth and technological advances, ordinary families can afford larger homes, televisions, computers, cell phones, stereo equipment, air conditioning, and multiple cars. There is some debate as to whether or not a family with air conditioning or a DVD player is poor. The majority of Americans, however, consider cars, computers, TVs, and other technologies to be normal rather than luxury items. You need a car to commute to work and a computer for your children to keep up with their education. Remember Hurricane Katrina’s devastating effects as well. “Prior to the hurricane, New Orleans had one of the highest child poverty rates in the country — 38 percent (and this figure would be much higher if it included families with incomes up to twice the official poverty level),” the authors add. “One in five households in New Orleans lacked a car, and eight percent had no phone service.” In addition to the widespread social and economic isolation, displaced families and children suffered devastating effects from the hurricane as well. Often, families ignore the other types of resources they need to provide their children with a decent life, such as safe homes, good schools, good jobs, basic services, and life skills. Article by John Rampton, Due About the Author John Rampton is an entrepreneur and connector. When he was 23 years old, while attending the University of Utah, he was hurt in a construction accident. His leg was snapped in half. He was told by 13 doctors he would never walk again. Over the next 12 months, he had several surgeries, stem cell injections and learned how to walk again. During this time, he studied and mastered how to make money work for you, not against you. He has since taught thousands through books, courses and written over 5000 articles online about finance, entrepreneurship and productivity. He has been recognized as the Top Online Influencers in the World by Entrepreneur Magazine and Finance Expert by Time. He is the Founder and CEO of Due......»»

Category: blogSource: valuewalkOct 11th, 2022

Trump called Puerto Rico a place with "absolutely no hope" while bungling Hurricane Maria aid efforts, book says

After the category five storm devastated Puerto Rico, Trump tossed rolls of paper towel into crowds of people and privately derided the island. Former President Donald Trump tosses a paper towel roll into a crowd of people at Calvary Chapel in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico on Oct. 3, 2017.AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File According to "Confidence Man," Trump was reluctant to provide Puerto Rico aid after Hurricane Maria. Trump called the island a place with "absolutely no hope," New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote.  Videos of Trump throwing paper towels intro crowds in the commonwealth went viral at the time. After Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico in 2017, President Donald Trump was slow to support adequate disaster aid and suggested the island wasn't part of the United States.Trump called Puerto Rico a place with "absolutely no hope," New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote in her new book, "Confidence Man." Haberman wrote that Trump viewed it as a "distressed property."In order to get the former president on board with providing aid to the island, whose residents were without power or water for months, his team learned to frame it on a "personal level," so he would show interest, Haberman wrote. Trump told top aides that he didn't want "a single dollar" going to Puerto Rico hurricane relief, The Washington Post reported in 2019. When visiting Puerto Rico to assess damages following the storm, Trump was criticized for tossing paper towels into a crowd filled with hurricane victims and reporters, telling them to "have a good time" and that they were a "good crowd." Trump said in a meeting with officials working on the response to Hurricane Maria that the number of deaths, which reached over 3,000, as a result of the deadly storm were far lower than those of a "real catastrophe," like Hurricane Katrina which devastated Louisiana in 2005 and killed about 1,800 people. Hurricane Maria was the deadliest natural disaster in the US in over a century. Despite criticism, Trump called his efforts in response to the hurricane in Puerto Rico an "incredible, unsung success" and "one of the best jobs that has ever been done."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderOct 4th, 2022

Transcript: David McRaney

    The transcript from this week’s, MiB: David McRaney on Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion, is below. You can stream and download our full conversation, including the podcast extras on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google, YouTube, Bloomberg, and Acast. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here. ~~~ VOICEOVER: This… Read More The post Transcript: David McRaney appeared first on The Big Picture.     The transcript from this week’s, MiB: David McRaney on Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion, is below. You can stream and download our full conversation, including the podcast extras on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google, YouTube, Bloomberg, and Acast. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here. ~~~ VOICEOVER: This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio. BARRY RITHOLTZ, HOST, MASTERS IN BUSINESS: This week on the podcast, I have an extra special and fascinating guest. His name is David McRaney and he is a science journalist and author. I first came to know David’s work through his blog and book, “You Are Not So Smart” which was a fun review of all of the cognitive foibles and behavioral errors we all make. But it turns out that David was looking at how people change their minds, how you persuade people and he thought the answer was found in all of these cognitive errors. And if you could only alert people to the mistakes they were making whether it be fact checks or just showing them their biases and the heuristics they use and the rules of thumb they use that were wrong, hey, the would come around and see the light. And as it turns out, that approach is all wrong and his mea culpa is essentially this book, “How Minds Change.” It turns out that persuading people about their fundamental beliefs involves a very, very specific set of steps starting with they have to want to change, they have to be willing to change, which only occurs when people come to the realization that they believe something for perhaps reasons that aren’t very good. And it’s a process, it’s an exploration. It’s fascinating the people he has met with and discussed whether it’s deep canvassing or street epistemology or some of the other methodologies that are used to persuade people that some of their really controversial political beliefs are wrong. He’s met with various people from — everything from flat earthers to antivaxxers to the folks who have left the Westboro Baptist Church, a pretty notorious and controversial institution. I found this conversation really to be tremendous and fascinating and I think you will also. With no further ado, my interview with David McRaney. Well, I’ve been a fan of your work and I thought when this book came out, it was a great opportunity to sit down and have a conversation with you. Before we get to the book, let’s talk a little bit about your background. You started as a reporter covering everything from Hurricane Katrina, test rockets for NASA, halfway home for homeless people with HIV, what led you to becoming focused on behavior and psychology? DAVID MCRANEY, JOURNALIST, BOOK AUTHOR: Well, I thought this was I was going to do for living. I went to school — to university to study psychology. I thought I would be a therapist. I got that degree with an — as I was doing that, there was a sign-up on campus that said opinionated in big Helvetica font. I was like, yes, I am. That would have been — that seems new, what is that? And they said, come down to the offices of the student newspaper. I went down there and said, how does this work? They said just emails stuff. Do you have an opinion piece you want to do? I’m like — and I wrote a really like sophomoric thing about Starbucks on campus because they were just about to come in the campus and I’ve wrote that and wrote a couple of things. And then there was a study that just recently come out and who knows if it’s replicated through the test of time but it was when your favorite sports team loses, men’s sperm counts go down. And I thought our team at our school had lost every single game that year so far. RITHOLTZ: What does mean for the future progeny of alumni? That’s frightening. MCRANEY: And I thought it would be a great headline that would be funny and the headline wrote was Evidence suggests that sperm counts reach record lows on campus and one of my professors laughed about it and asked the whole class if they had read it but they didn’t know that I was in the class. I was like, this could be fun. So, I switched to journalism and went all the way through the student paper then went into print journalism and TV journalism. But I — once I reached a certain point in that world, I wasn’t able to write any more. I was doing editing and helping other people and I just really wanted to write something and it just so happened bogs are becoming very popular that time. My dad says and the others that were like — RITHOLTZ: That’s way later. MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: I’m thinking back to Yahoo’s GeoCities in the late ’90s. MCRANEY: I played in that role, too. RITHOLTZ: I mean, I’m the OG when it comes to blogging and I go way, way back. MCRANEY: I feel you. I just happened to be there when they blew up in the point of like they got book deals and I’ve started a blog called “You Are Not So Smar” about all the cognitive biases and fallacies and heuristics that I really enjoyed. And I wrote a piece about brand loyalty that went viral and the rest is history. I was asked to write a book about it and then I was like I will continue playing in this role. But I started a podcast to promote the second book because the first book did so well, they said do another really quickly and I did. RITHOLTZ: “You Are Less Dumb Now.” MCRANEY: Yes. “You Are Now Less Dumb.” Yes. RITHOLTZ: “You Are Now Less Dumb.” MCRANEY: And it just so happened I started a podcast right when podcasts were becoming a thing. I sent email to Marc Maron because he had the number one podcast. I said, how do you do this? And he actually sent me an email with a bullet point — RITHOLTZ: Really? MCRANEY: — like each with links to Amazon items and — RITHOLTZ: No kidding? MCRANEY: And he was very nice and like — and I got all the stuff and started it up and that has now become sort of the centerpiece because that’s — I was there when I got a go. RITHOLTZ: My pitch for this podcast was WTF meets Charlie Rose and — MCRANEY: That’s a good pitch. RITHOLTZ: — and nobody knew what WTF was. But, I mean, they didn’t know the acronym nor did they know the podcast because you have to be a little bit of a comedy junkie to found that in the nearly days. MCRANEY: Right. RITHOLTZ: Later on, it was ubiquitous. So, sticking with journalism, when you were still writing, you seemed to have covered some really unusual and interesting stories. Tell us about one or more surprising things that you covered. MCRANEY: I always wanted to do feature pieces. That was the world that I love when I was in journalism school and Frank Sinatra has a cold, electric Koolaid acid test, I just wanted to write features. I wanted to be there in person and like tell you explore humanity from the inside out and way in. The halfway home for HIV-positive men for homeless people in the Deep South, that was a real turning point for me because I had to spend about three weeks on that story, visited all the different people, went to all the different meetings. And the homelessness is very invisible the Deep South. They often live in the woods. They live in the forest. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: They — there is — a lot of people in the Deep South noted that (ph) that there is a homeless problem and that was a really interesting way to break that story into the public consciousness of there’s a problem here. It’s just hidden from a very particular way. And a lot of people aren’t even aware that there were organizations that dealt with that and that really showed me this is the world I want to be and this is the kind of stuff I want to do. RITHOLTZ: So, I’m picking up a theme in both your writing columns and books which is there’s a problem you don’t know about and it’s hidden and here it is. MCRANEY: Just that whole thing, hidden worlds are it for me. Like I grew up in a trailer in the woods in the Deep South and as an only child, I was always searching for the others. I didn’t know how I was going to get there and once I got it, a hand was extended into the stage, that’s all I want to do. Like I call them tiramisu moments because I remember — RITHOLTZ: The first time you had tiramisu? MCRANEY: I was — I went to — I was — when I was still in — working for TV station, we had a little conference where people in my position went and we went there and we got tiramisu as a dessert and I remember I took a bite of it and I was like, my God, this is so damn good. What is this? And everyone, they were like, it’s tiramisu, and I was like, yes, yes, yes, tiramisu, love this stuff. And– and — but that’s — yes, that’s what I’m pursuing now. I want more of those things I didn’t know I didn’t know. RITHOLTZ: That’s really quite interesting. So, I guess it’s kind of natural that you evolve towards behavior and cognitive issues. I was going to ask you what led to it but it seems like that’s something you’ve been driving for your whole career. MCRANEY: Yes. So, unity through humility. It’s — it’s — we’re all absolutely stumbling and fumbling in the dark and pretending like we know what we’re up to. Even here on these fantastic Bloomberg offices like the thing I want to avoid is the sense that I’ve got it all figured out and there are massive domains in psychology, neurosciences or social sciences that just start from that place and then investigated And I find that when I discovered these things that we all share that should give us a pause, should cause us to feel humility, I feel like I’m in the right spot and I want to like dig deeper in those places and reveal them so we can all be on the same page that way. RITHOLTZ: So, blind spots, unknown unknowns. MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: Things that we are just clearly clueless about MCRANEY: And the biases there. When I started out, things like confirmation bias wasn’t – it wasn’t as just tip of tongue as it is now and survivorship bias, things like that. RITHOLTZ: So, I noticed in this book nothing written about Dunning-Kruger, nothing about Cialdini’s persuasion. Is that a different approach to decision-making and psychology like or — because I always assumed there would be a little bit of an overlap there. MCRANEY: I didn’t want to rethread anything. There’s some foundational stuff that I do talk about in the book that I feel like you can never not talk about things. RITHOLTZ: Some which goes back a century. MCRANEY: And like the introspection illusion has to always be a talk about we don’t know the antecedents to our thoughts, feelings and behaviors but we are very good at creating narratives to explain ourselves to ourselves and if you always have to mention that in any book about this topic is one of my concerns. And so, there’s a little bit of that. But like Dunning-Kruger and all the other big heavy hitter, I definitely did not want to write how to win friends and influence people part two because I wanted to come from a very different perspective on all of this and I didn’t want it to be a book specifically about persuasion because I don’t think they’re start talking about actual persuasion techniques to about page 200. Like I show you people who are doing things that could be labeled as persuasion techniques but I don’t get on like the science of it later. Now that you mentioned Dunning-Kruger, I just recently spent some time with old Dunning, Professor David Dunning. He — RITHOLTZ: A former guest on the show. MCRANEY: Wow. RITHOLTZ: I don’t think he’s that old. I think he’s — MCRANEY: I say old in a chummy patch on the back that way. He — I keep asking him to come back to my show but he’s working on a new project and he’s — RITHOLTZ: A new book on Dunning-Kruger. MCRANEY: Yes. Yes. Because lot of people — there’s been always few who want to knock it down and he’s — RITHOLTZ: There had been attempts but none have really landed a blow. MCRANEY: So, we helped him out or he helped us out. My good friend, Joe Hanson has a YouTube channel and does exposures on science stuff, it’s called “Be Smart” and we were talking about that recent — there was a story about someone who — the pilot went unconscious and they’ve landed the airplane but they got help from the tower And we were talking about that and I was like, I feel like I could land an airplane based off on my videogame experience, and Joe said he thought he could, too. I said, this has got to be Dunning-Kruger, right? And I said, it would be cool if you did a video where you’re going to like one of those — RITHOLTZ: A simulator, a real simulator. MCRANEY: — a commercial flight simulators. RITHOLTZ: Yes. MCRANEY: And I just said, yes, try, go ahead, land. RITHOLTZ: Knock yourself out. MCRANEY: And so, he get — I got in touch with Dunning and Dunning was like, I can’t wait to be part of this project. So, he done interviews back and forth with Dunning before and after and, of course, he gets in the simulator and they hand him the controls and they say, okay, land it, and, of course, he crashed and he crashed it three times. RITHOLTZ: Right. That’s impressive. Even David Dunning tells a wonderful story about they never expected the research paper, Dunning-Kruger on metacognition, to explode and he goes, I never thought about trademarking it. He goes, go on — go on Amazon and you’ll see Dunning-Kruger University. MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: Shirts, keychains, all sorts of stuff because there’s million dollars there. I just had no experience in that and I got little Dunning-Kruger for David Dunning, right? MCRANEY: That’s a little Dunning-Kruger for David Dunning. RITHOLTZ: Did not — did not think about the commercial side of it. So there’s a quote I want to share because it sets up everything and I’m sort of cheating, it’s from — towards the end of the book, “We do this because we are social primates who gather information in a biased manner for the purpose of arguing for our individual perspectives in a pooled information environment within a group that deliberates on shared plans of actions towards a collective goal.” MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: Kind of sums up everything we do in a paragraph. MCRANEY: Yes, it does. That was — a lot of work with it, years of work within that little paragraph. RITHOLTZ: One paragraph. MCRANEY: That a lot of that comes from something that’s called the interactionist model. There’s sort of a peanut butter and chocolate that have come up that’s in this book because I’ve spent years talking to people through “You Are Not So Smart” and I could argue that we’re flawed and irrational, right? And that was — there was a big pop psychology movement for that about a decade ago, things like predictively irrational and even the work of Kahneman-Tversky like a lot of the like interpretation of that was like look how dumb we are, right? Look how easily fooled. Look how bad we are with probabilities. And one of the incepting moments of this book was I did a lecture and someone came up to me afterward. Her father had slipped into a conspiracy theory and she asked, what do I do about that, and I told her nothing. It was like — but I felt grossed saying it. I felt like I was locking my keys, my car. I felt like I think I know enough to tell you that but I know I don’t and also, I don’t want to be that pessimistic and cynical. And at the same time, the attitudes and norms around same-sex marriage in the United States had flipped like very rapidly. RITHOLTZ: We’re going to go into that MCRANEY: Right. So, those two things together, I was like, I would — I want to understand this better. So, I invited on my podcast Hugo Mercier and he teamed up with Dan Sperber and they created something called the interactionist model, which is a model that I only want to talk about changing minds or arguing, and it opened up this whole world. And through them, I also met with Tom Stafford and there’s the interactionist model and there’s the truth wins scenario and those are sort of the peanut butter and chocolate muffins because instead of looking at people’s being flawed and irrational, now I see this just as biased and lazy, which is different. And what you were just talking about with that paragraph is about the interactionist model, which is a lot of the research that went into all those books from about a decade ago, they were pulling from studies that were done on individuals in isolation. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: When you pool all of their conclusions together and you treat people as a group of people based off that research, we do look kind of flawed, right? We do look very irrational. But if you take that exact same research and you allow people to deliberate in groups, you get much different reactions, much different responses. That’s been furthered by the work of Tom Stafford. He’s been taking some of the old stuff from those old studies and putting them to groups and even creating social media similar acronyms that worked like Twitter and Facebook and stuff but have a totally different context, allows people to deliberate and argue in different ways and you get much different results, you get better results. A good example of that is like you take something from a cognitive reflection testy or something — like — I’ll make it real simple so we don’t have to like do the weird math on this. Like you’re running a race and you pass the person on second place, what place you’re in. And the intuitive answer, you sort of trying to work it out in your head but the answer was, if you like lean back, is, well, I replaced second place, I’m in second place. But if you ask people individually, you get a pretty high response rate where they get the wrong answer. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: But if you take that exact same question and you post it to a group of people, and I do in some lectures now, and you say, okay, I’m going to ask this question, keep the answer to yourself, now does anyone have the right answer, you know you have the right answer, raise your hands, somebody raises their hands. I said, okay, what’s the answer? They give me the answer and then you say, explain your reasoning, and then they explain the reasoning. When they give their answer, there will be a grumble in the crowd. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: When they explain the reasoning behind it, the crowd goes okay. Now, if you took everyone’s individual answer and pooled it together, you’re like, wow, 80 percent of this group got the wrong answer. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: But if you allow that deliberation moment to take place where I explain my reasoning to you, you get a group of people who would go from 80 percent incorrect to 100 percent correct. It really sets up for that. The interactionist model is all about this story. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, they have a great book about this called “The Enigma of Reason.” It’s not a light read. It’s really sort of academic. But it’s great because they found, looking through the old research and their own new research, that we have two cognitive systems, one for producing arguments, one for evaluating arguments. And the one that produces arguments does it very lazily and very — in a a very biased manner. You can think of it like you ask where do you want to go eat and you have three or four people after a movie like hanging out in the lobby, they’re like, I want to go — I want to go here, I want to go here, I want to go here, and they have biased reasons for that. One person goes over and says, hey, let’s go get sushi and somebody is like, where, over here, no, no, my ex works there or someone would say, I had sushi yesterday or I don’t like sushi. You can’t predict what are going to be the counterargument. So, you present your most biased and lazy argument up front and you let the deliberation take place in the pooled evaluation process. You offload the cognitive labor to that. We’re all familiar with that. Everyone has their ideas. You trade back and forth and we decide on the group goal in the plan, which is what this is ought to do. But we’re also very familiar with the way that plays out on the Internet which is my good friend — RITHOLTZ: Which is removed and you don’t get the same — MCRANEY: That’s right. RITHOLTZ: — social cues coming. MCRANEY: Right. So, you get like to say — my good friend Alistair Croll who runs conferences, he put it to me like this as like, yes, on the Internet, when you say I want a grilled cheese sandwich, it’s not an argument for who wants grilled cheese sandwiches, should we get grilled cheese sandwiches, anyone else agree with me. On the Internet, on most platforms we use today, it’s saying I want grilled sandwiches, who wants to go with me to the grilled cheese sandwich room. And so everyone who agrees with that position is already like, yes, that’s what I want, too. They get pooled off into a community of people who want this and then a whole new set of psychological mechanism is going to play which is all about being a social primate and be in a community. RITHOLTZ: So, there’s no iteration, there’s no debate, there’s no consensus forming as to what the best solution to that problem is. MCRANEY: Right. MCRANEY: You just have some salient issue and people form like — MCRANEY: Right. And what looks like madness or what looks like some sort of nefarious thing going down, one of the things that the Internet gives us is the ability to group up very quickly. And we are social primers, if we go into a group, we start being worried about motivations like I want to be a good member of my group, I want to be considered a trustworthy member of my group and so on. And you get a lot of the weird stuff we see today that falls into the domain of being polarized or being in a system where everyone is, if you have — in a group of people who agree with you in your current position, it’s very difficult to argue out of it because that can always fall back to them for backup. And so, that’s some of the stuff that goes into that paragraph and it gets more complicated from there. But, yes, it’s — that was very illuminating to me and a lot of the new material in this book relates back to them. RITHOLTZ: Not that the earlier books were wrong or incorrect in any way but I kind of took this as a little bit of a mea culpa in terms of, hey, I was focusing on one area but really, we need to focus on a broader area in terms of not just why we make these cognitive errors but how you can change somebody’s mind who’s trapped in some heuristic or other cognitive problem that is leading them the wrong way. MCRANEY: I did not intend for this to be like some sort of marketing phrase or trick but it’s the truth. I — in writing the book of “How Minds Change” I changed my mind on a lot of stuff that I was like depending on for like career and I’m happy to do that. It feels really great to be on the other side of some of these things and see it more clearly and with more dimensionality to it. RITHOLTZ: So, let’s talk a little bit about the blog that led to the book — MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: — that really put you on the map, “You Are Not So Smart.” I love the title of this. Why you have too many friends on Facebook, why your memory is mostly fiction, and 46 other ways your deluding yourself. MCRANEY: Yes. MCRANEY: Were there 46 chapters? Was that just a random — MCRANEY: No. No. It was exactly how many things are explored in the book. Yes. RITHOLTZ: That’s great. So, we already discussed what led you to this area of research. Why did you decide to go from blogging, which is easy and short form, to writing a book, which anyone who had done it will tell you it can be a bit of a slog? MCRANEY: It was — here’s how that happened. I was just blogging way back in the early days, maybe had a thousand people reading my stuff and those back way before medium in Twitter and the other way to get your stuff out there. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: And I — RITHOLTZ: When did you launch “You Are Not So Smart” as a book? MCRANEY: Maybe like 2008, 2007, around there. RITHOLTZ: Okay. MCRANEY: I got into an argument with two of my friends about what was better, the PlayStation 3 or the Xbox 360. We got so mad at each other that it was like I might not be able to like hang out with them. RITHOLTZ: Really? MCRANEY: And I — RITHOLTZ: This — this isn’t a political Trump versus Biden debate. This is — MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: But it’s just as hard. MCRANEY: But it is. We’ve been together — it’s the same psychology. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: And I couldn’t get over like why would I get mad about this, it’s just a box of wires and — RITHOLTZ: I like that. MCRANEY: And I — since I had a background in psychology, I went — and I had access to the university library, I just was like, well, there’s got to be some material about this. RITHOLTZ: Right, MCRANEY: I found a bunch of material on brand loyalty and identification and group identity. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: And I wrote a little blog about it but I framed it as Apple versus PC, those commercials were out right then. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: And at that time, the blog Gizmodo had stolen the iPhone prototype. RITHOLTZ: I recall that. Yes. MCRANEY: And then like Steve Jobs sent an email — RITHOLTZ: They didn’t steal it. They found it in a bar. MCRANEY: Yes. They found it — they found it in a bar. And Steve Jobs sent them an email that says give me back my iPhone and they just — they just went for the hits and they got super viral and I just assumed they had like a Google alert for stuff written about Apple stuff. And I got an email that said, can we maybe blog your blog post on this, and I was like, yes, for sure. And I went from a thousand to 250,000 people and I was like, I should write a bunch of stuff on it. So, that week, I just started going like things in that sort of area and I wrote a lot of more things about like learned helplessness and other issues And I had an audience and it was maybe four months later, an agent reached out who had worked on Freakonomics and said, I think this could be a book, and she’s still my agent. I actually met with her today. If I’m in town, I always try to meet with her because she changed my life, (inaudible), amazing human being. And we turned it into a book and about half of it was already in blog form. I wrote the rest of it for the book. And that book just really took off like it’s still — even today, it’s like in 19 different languages. RITHOLTZ: Wow. MCRANEY: Every once in a while, it will be the number one in a different country. It was recently number one in Vietnam. Well, that’s how I went from blog to book world. But then they were like, hey, could you write another book, and I said, I sure can. And I wanted to promote it and at that time, podcasting had just become a thing. I was listening to Radiolab and This American Life and I was like you’re always listening WTF and I said, I want to do something like that, and I just started up a podcast to promote it. And it just turned out that the podcast was really where I could actually explore the stuff and I jumped into it. RITHOLTZ: So, there is a quote, I think this might be from the back of the book. So, I don’t know if this is your words or a blurb I’m stealing. But, quote, “There is a growing body of work coming out of psychology and cognitive science that says you have no clue why you act the way you do, choose the things you choose or think the thoughts you think.” MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: Explain it MCRANEY: That’s called the introspection illusion that’s been a real centerpiece of my work for longtime. We don’t have access to the antecedents of our thoughts, feelings and behaviors but we do have thoughts, feelings and behaviors that require some kind of explanation and we are very good at coming up with these post hoc, ad hoc rationalizations and justifications for what we’re doing. And those eventually become a narrative that we live by, become sort of the character we portray and we end up being an unreliable narrator in the story of our own lives as of the two is like a one-two punch. You’re unaware of how unaware you are and that leads you to being the unreliable narrator of the story of your life. And that’s fine like this is something that is adaptive in most situations but there is — when we get into some complex stuff like politics running a business, designing an airplane, you should know about some of these things because they’ll get you into some trouble that we never got into 100,000 years ago. RITHOLTZ: So, a lot of this evolutionary baggage that we carry forward. But you touched on two of my favorite biases. One is the narrative fallacy that we create these stories to explain what we’re doing as well as hindsight bias where after something happens, of course, that was going to happen, we saw it coming. Tell us about those two biases. MCRANEY: Well, narrative fallacy, I love this, my good friend Will Storr who writes — RITHOLTZ: It’s a question I have for you. MCRANEY: I love Will. RITHOLTZ: Enemies of Science. MCRANEY: I love Will so much and he has a book not too long ago that came up with the science storytelling and I love that domain. All — the whole hero’s journey, the — RITHOLTZ: Sure. MCRANEY: — Campbell. RITHOLTZ: Joseph Campbell. Right. MCRANEY: The science side of that is most storytelling takes place exactly along the same lines as retrospection. So, retrospection looking back, perspective looking forward. We tend to look back on our lives as we’re the hero, we’re the protagonist and whatever we’re looking at specifically, it’s like, okay, we started out in this space and then we went on an exploratory journey and then we basically came back over — RITHOLTZ: Make a quest. MCRANEY: Yes. Eventually, we came back around with that new knowledge and applied it. RITHOLTZ: A changed person. MCRANEY: Yes. Yes. We have the synthesis and the anti-thesis, all those things are how we kind of see ourselves, it’s how we make sense of our past because if we couldn’t remember everything, that would be horrible. So, we have — so we edit it to be useful in that way, That’s why when you’re watching a movie or reading a book and it doesn’t seem to be working for you, it’s because it’s not really playing nice with that retrospective system. But it’s also how our personal narratives seem to be very nice and tidy in that way and — although they never are. If you’ve ever told a story about something with someone who’s also there and they’re like, it didn’t happen that way. RITHOLTZ: My wife — yes. My wife says that all the time. I don’t know what — what experience he had but I was there, none of that happened. MCRANEY: That’s right. And you — if without people to check you, what does that say? It says that a whole lot of what you believe is the story of your life is one of those things that if we had a perfect diary of it or a recording of it or someone who is there who could challenge you, it wasn’t exactly the way you think you are. RITHOLTZ: Who is the professor after, was it 9/11 or some big events, had everybody write down their notes as to what they saw, what they felt, what they’re experiencing, and then — I guess these were freshmen and then by the time they become seniors, they circle back and asked them now it’s three years later and not only do they misremember it but when shown their own notes, they disagree with themselves. MCRANEY: Yes. Yes. That’s been repeated a few times. I talked about in “How Minds Change” Robert Burton did this experiment after the Challenger incident. That was his — that was the big one, right? But the one in that study was when it’s signaling above the noise and, yes, that’s the most amazing part of it, you –you — they have the write down whatever happened and what you thought happened. They also do it prospective wise. I think they’ve done — they’ve done it where — tell me what you think is going to happen, and he put it to a Manila envelope and the thing — whatever event takes place and then you ask people, what did you — what did you predict was going to happen and they tell you I predicted exactly what happened. We take out the Manila envelope and it’s not that and they’re like, come one, there’s no way. RITHOLTZ: Even though that’s my handwriting, I never would have written that. MCRANEY: And that’s the weirdest thing in the — in the Challenger study. When he showed people that their memory was absolutely not what they thought it was, their first reaction was to say, you’re tricking me. Like this is — you wrote this, like somebody else wrote this. And that seems so similar to something called anosognosia. RITHOLTZ: Yes. MCRANEY: And anosognosia is the denial of disorder and you can have like a lesion or a brain injury that imposed something is wrong in your body but then on top of that, you have this other thing which is denial, nothing is wrong in your body. So, I’ve seen cases where people have an arm that doesn’t function properly and they’ll ask like, why can’t you lift your arm, why can’t you pick up this pencil and they’ll say, what are you doing, I can pick that up. What’s going on with this arm? They’re like that’s my mom’s arm. She’s playing a joke on me right now. RITHOLTZ: It’s like the split-brain patients — MCRANEY: Yes RITHOLTZ: — where they don’t understand what they’re seeing. MCRANEY: Right. RITHOLTZ: They come up with — MCRANEY: This is the greatest example what we’ve been discussing is if you have someone who has a — they call split-brain patient. You take the corpus callosum that connect the two hemispheres. A corpus callosotomy is often perform in a person who has a certain kind of — they have seizures that they don’t want cascading. You end with basically two brains and you can use the dividers so that one eye is going to one hemisphere, one is going to the other. You can show a person an image, let’s say you show them a terrible car wreck mangled bodies and they feel very sick. But the portion of the brain you’re showing that to is not the portion that delivers language. So, then you ask the person who is feeling sick, why you feel sick right now, what’s going on, they’ll say, I ate something bad at lunch. We will very quickly come up with the narrative or explanation for what we’re experiencing and we do so believing that narrative even if that narrative is way far away from what’s actually taking place. RITHOLTZ: So, let’s quickly run through some of our favorite cognitive biases and heuristics. MCRANEY: Boy, this is going to be tough, it’s going to be tough. I hope I remember this. Let’s go. RITHOLTZ: Well, let’s start with an easy one, confirmation bias. MCRANEY: Confirmation bias. When people write about confirmation bias, they usually get it pretty wrong. Here’s the way I look at it. RITHOLTZ: But it confirms what they were (inaudible). MCRANEY: It’s a great way to put it. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: The least sexy term in psychology is the makes sense stopping rule. You think they come up with a better phrase and that means when I go looking for an explanation of something, when it finally — when it makes sense, I’ll stop looking for information. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: Confirmation bias is what happens –here’s the way I prefer to frame it. Let’s say you’re in a tent in the woods. You hear weird sound and you think of that might be a bear, I should go look. So, what you have is a negative affect and your body have an anxiety. You go out looking for confirmation of that anxiety is just or reasonable because there’s a social aspect to it at all times because we can’t escape our social selves. And so, you go looking and you maybe don’t find it. Either maybe you don’t find evidence that points that direction. Eventually, you — you modify your behavior base of what you see with your flashlight. If you do that online though when an environment — there’s some information rich environment, you have some sort of anxiety and you’re looking for justification that that anxiety is reasonable, you’ll find it. RITHOLTZ: Very quickly, too. MCRANEY: You’ll find something, right, and that will confirm that you — that your search was good and justified and reasonable to other human beings. So, confirmation bias very simply is just something happens that doesn’t make sense, you want to disambiguate it. It’s uncertain. You want to reach some level of certainty. So, you look for information that base of your hunch, your hypothesis. And then when you find information that seems to — it’s like confirmed your hunch, you stop looking as if you like — RITHOLTZ: You solved the problem. MCRANEY: Yes, if you solved it. Yes. RITHOLTZ: Why don’t we, as a species, look for disconfirming information just to validate? MCRANEY: In most situation, it’s not adaptive. Like confirmation bias is actually the right move in most situations. Like if you’re looking for your keys, I got to — RITHOLTZ: You find your keys, you’re done. MCRANEY: Yes. You don’t go looking for your keys on Mars. You go looking for them in your kitchen, right? Like it’s the faster solution and most of our — most of these biases go back to the adaptive thing is the thing that caused the least calories and gets you to this solution as quickly as possible so you can go back to trying to find food and not getting eaten. And in this case, most of the time, most of the time, confirmation bias serves us well. It’s in those instances where it really doesn’t serve us well. They end up with things like climate change. MCRANEY: Or what have you. What about ego depletion? MCRANEY: Man, ego depletion is one of the things that, boy, it goes back and forth — the original scientists are still like hard core into it. I love it. Whether or not ego depletion is properly like defined or categorized, the phenomena does exist. The actual mechanisms of it aren’t well understood. But when you have been faced with a lot of cognitive tasks, you start to have a hard time completing more cognitive tasks in general. RITHOLTZ: As well as issues that require willpower and discipline. MCRANEY: That’s right. So, the more you — the more you use willpower, the less willpower you have to use. RITHOLTZ: It’s finite not — not an ending. MCRANEY: And this is — not all understood. A lot of you like here’s why this is happening like have — they failed to replicate. So, we have this phenomenon but we still don’t quite understand what is the mechanism underlying it, RITHOLTZ: Well, let me do one last one, the Benjamin Franklin effect. MCRANEY: Yes. That’s my favorite. Benjamin Franklin effect goes back to — a lot of my new book is in this domain of justification and rationalization. Benajami Franklin had someone who is opposing him at every track, call him a hater in the previous book back when that was — MCRANEY: A term. MCRANEY: Yes. And he just had this political opponent that he knew was going to cause him real problems for the next thing he was going out for and he also knew that this guy had a really nice book collection and everybody also knew that Benjamin Franklin had a nice book collection. And so, he sent them a letter that said there’s a book that I’ve always want to read that I can’t never find. I hear you got a copy of it. No. Who knows, it seems from reading the literature that Benjamin Franklin totally had this book and — but the guy gave him the book as a favor. He was like very honored that Benjamin Franklin asked for it. I like to think that Benjamin Franklin just like put it on a shelf and then waited — RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: Waited a month and then took it back to him. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: But he said, thank you, I’m forever in your debt, you’re the best. And from that point forward, the guy never said another negative thing about Benjamin Franklin. So, what that comes to is I just observe my own behavior, I did something that produce cognitive dissonance, I have a negative attitude toward Benjamin Franklin but I did something that a person with a positive attitude would do. So, I must either think a strange thing about who I am or what I’m doing or I could just take the easy route out and go, I like Benjamin Franklin. And that’s — I think we call that the Benjamin Franklin effect. RITHOLTZ: I find that really just fascinating. There are two phrases that I made a note of in one of the books that I have to ask about, extinction burst and I have to ask what is wrong with catharsis. MCRANEY: What is wrong with catharsis? Extinction burst is a real thing that I love — I see that everywhere. I’ll say I see that all — in the society right now in many different ways. Extinction burst is when you have a behavior that has been enforced many, many times and you — it’s — your body even expects that you’re going to perform this behavior and you start doing something like say dieting or you’re trying to quit smoking or you’re trying to do — you’re trying to just extinguish the behavior. Right at the moment before it fully extinguishes, you will have a little hissy fit. You’ll have a, — as they say back home, you’ll have a toddler outburst sort of thing where your — all of your systems, cognitive systems are saying, why don’t we really, really try to do that thing again because we’re about to lose it. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: And the — they call this an extinction burst, it’s that moment of like if you’re watching it on a slope and sloping down, down, down, down, there’s a huge spike and that could either be the moment you go back to smoking or — RITHOLTZ: Right. Relapse or the moment you finish. MCRANEY: It could be the death rattle. It depends on how you — how you deal with your extinction burst. RITHOLTZ: I thought that was fascinating. And then catharsis comes up. Why is the concept of that cathartic surrender or finish your things problematic? MCRANEY: Yes. It’s related to the extinction burst. RITHOLTZ: Yes. MCRANEY: There’s a — for a while, this is especially in like 1950s psychology, the idea that like just get it out. Like if you’re angry, go beat up a punching bag or — RITHOLTZ: Yell at people from the safety of your car. MCRANEY: Yes. It used to be a thing in like ’80s, scream therapy. RITHOLTZ: Yes. I recall. MCRANEY: The — unfortunately — RITHOLTZ: The primal scream therapy. MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: Unfortunately or fortunately, the — RITHOLTZ: Any evidence that works? MCRANEY: The evidence suggests that what this does is reward you for the behavior and you maintain that level of anger and anxiety and frustration. RITHOLTZ: Because it’s self-rewarding. MCRANEY: Yes. And so, it’s — there are ways to have cathartic experiences but the ones we reward yourself for being angry tend to keep you angry. RITHOLTZ: That makes a lot of sense. And last question on “You Are Not So Smart” do we ever really know things or do we just have a feeling of knowing? MCRANEY: It’s unanswerable question thankfully. From — from — RITHOLTZ: You don’t know? MCRANEY: No. No. RITHOLTZ: Do you feel like you know the answer to that? MCRANEY: I feel like I know. There’s — here’s what’s important to know about this. Certainty is an emotion. This is something that gets me in trouble, I think, in like rationalist in circles. RITHOLTZ: It won’t get you in trouble here. MCRANEY: Well, thank you. Because like the ideas like facts not feelings or let’s not get emotional, let’s not make emotional appeals. There is no dividing emotion from cognition. Emotion is cognition and certainty is one of those things that lets you bridge the two because certainty is the emergent property of networks waiting something in one direction or another and you feel like if you want to do percentagewise, it’s — it’s — you can feel it if I ask you percentagewise. Like if I ask you, did you have eggs last week on Tuesday and you’re like, I think I did, and like — well, like, on a scale from like one to 10, like percentagewise — RITHOLTZ: On Saturday morning, I went to the diner, hundred percent I had eggs. MCRANEY: So, that feeling that you’re getting it, there’s something in generating that 100 percent certainly feeling right. So, the feeling of knowing is something that separate from knowing. But as far as objectively, it’s the exact same thing. We only get to see this objectively in some way especially in those like open up the Manila envelope, let’s see what you actually said kind of thing. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: Yes. RITHOLTZ: So, this is a pet peeve of mine because here in finance, there is this, for lack of a better phrase, meme that the markets hate uncertainty and whenever people are talking about what’s going to happen in the future, well, it’s very uncertain to which I say, well, the future is always inherently uncertain. When things are going along fine and the markets going up, we feel okay with our uncertainty. So, we can lie to ourselves about it very, very easily. MCRANEY: Exactly. RITHOLTZ: But when everything is terrible, the markets are down, the feds raising rates, inflation, the market hates uncertainty, now, at the uncertainty level, you didn’t know the future before, you don’t know the future now — MCRANEY: Exactly. RITHOLTZ: — but you can no longer lie to yourself that you have a sense of what’s going on. This is, by the way, very outlier view because everybody loves the uncertainty. MCRANEY: Well, I’m happy to sit here — RITHOLTZ: I despise. MCRANEY: I’m happy to sit here and surrounded by all these people and take the position of you’re very wrong. RITHOLTZ: They are less smart. MCRANEY: There is no such thing as certainty. This is — from a scientific or psychological even philosophical domain, everything is probabilistic. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: We can hedge our bets but the concept of certainty is way outside the domain of any of these topics. Yes. MCRANEY: And we’ll talk about Bertrand Russell later but it’s a quote from your book that always makes me think. Well, let’s talk about it now because it’s such an interesting observation, quote, “The observer when he seems to himself be observing a stone is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself.” MCRANEY: God, I love that quote so much. RITHOLTZ: Right. Isn’t that awesome? MCRANEY: I was — RITHOLTZ: That is right from this book, “How Minds Change” by David McRaney. MCRANEY: Man, I hear it’s a good book. The — I got that from interviewing the late Lee Ross who created the term naïve realism. RITHOLTZ: That’s another phrase I love. MCRANEY: And this — this is a way to kind of get in a naïve realism. Naïve realism is the assumption that you’re getting a sort of a video camera view of the world through your eyeballs. RITHOLTZ: Right. Right. MCRANEY: And that you’re storing your memories in some sort of a database like a hard drive and that when I ask your opinion on say immigration or gun control that whatever you tell me came from you went down to the bowls of your castle to your scrolls and hold up the scrolls by candlelight and read them all then one day came up from that and emerged from the staircase and raised your finger and said, this is what I think about gun control. And it might — what’s invisible in the process are what becomes invisible when we’re tasked with explaining ourselves is that all the rationalization and justification and all the interpretation that you’ve done and all the elaborations and all these psychological terms and that you — this concept of naïve realism is that you see reality for what it is and other people are mistaken when you get into moments of a conflict. And the thing that Bertrand Russell said is so nice because he is alluding to the fact that all reality is virtual reality that the subjective experiences is very limited, what the German psychologist called an umwelt (ph). RITHOLTZ: The thing related to naïve realism that was so surprising in the book and we keep alluding to evolution and various things, I did not realize that the optic nerve does not perceive the world in 3D. MCRANEY: No. RITHOLTZ: It’s only two dimensional. MCRANEY: That’s right. RITHOLTZ: And, okay, so have two eyes so we’re able to create an illusion of depth of a third dimension but the human eye does not see the world in full 3D. MCRANEY: Yes. I just — while visiting New York, I spent time with Pascal who’s in the book and he’s the one who were like ramming through all this. RITHOLTZ: That’s amazing, isn’t it? MCRANEY: It’s a– the retina, I mean, obviously, microscopic levels is three-dimensional. But for the purposes of vision, it’s a two-dimensional sheet. RITHOLTZ: Right. MCRANEY: And so, we create within consciousness the third dimension but it’s an illusion just like every color is an illusion. RITHOLTZ: It’s a very realistic illusion but it’s an illusion wise. MCRANEY: Right. And that’s why paintings can look nice because you play with the rules of illusions to create depth, right? RITHOLTZ: Depth, light, et cetera. MCRANEY: And even people who have gained vision late in life, understanding depth and three dimensionality is something that takes a lot of experience. You have to learn how to do it. And they oftentimes though — an experiment with people who just gained vision late in life, they’ll like put a telephone and run — like far away from them and they’ll try to reach out to it, it’s like 30 feet away, because you have to learn depth. That’s something that we learn over time. We did to children who don’t recall it. RITHOLTZ: So, you now remember, you don’t really think about it. So, let’s talk about “How Mines Change.” I want to start by asking how did a flat earther inspire this book? MCRANEY: They — I actually came a little later in the process. I was — there is a documentary on Netflix, you may have seen it, “Behind the Curve” and the producers of that were fans of my podcast and they grabbed a couple of my guests for the show and everything and I thought it would be — I would love to help promote something. I didn’t know this but someone told me I was in the credits and I looked in the credits, it was like David — thanks to David McRaney, I was like wow. So, I emailed them and said, hey, you want to come on my podcast? We’ll talk about your documentary because if I’ve gotten a chance to make on Netflix show, it would have been very similar because that’s — it seemed like it’s about flat earth but it’s actually about motivated reasoning and identity and community and things like that. RITHOLTZ: And community. Community is the big one. MCRANEY: It’s a huge part of that, right? RITHOLTZ: Yes. MCRANEY: Group identity. And they — that — after that episode, they — a group in Sweden, they put on something like South by Southwest called the Gather Festival. They asked, hey, we got this crazy idea, what if you go to Sweden and will get Mark Sargent who is sort of the spokesperson for the flat earth community and will put you on stage and I know you’re writing a book, “How Minds Change” you can try some of those techniques on them, and I was like that sounds awesome. So, I did, I went, and I met Mark and I found him something very nice, very lovely man and I did try some — at the point where I met him, I was about halfway through and I wasn’t great with the techniques. But I did an okay job. RITHOLTZ: That’s towards the end of the book where you actually described he said it was one of the best conversations he ever had. MCRANEY: That’s right. RITHOLTZ: You don’t call him an idiot. You don’t challenge his views. You’re really asking how did you come to these sorts of perspectives — MCRANEY: That’s right. RITHOLTZ: — to get him to focus on his own process. MCRANEY: That’s the whole idea. The techniques I learned about in the book — when writing this book, I met many different organizations, deep canvassers, street epistemology, people who work in motivational interviewing and therapeutic practices, professional negotiation and conflict resolution working in those spaces and what really astounded me was when I would bring the stuff that I was witnessing to scientists or experts, they — there is this underlying literature that made sense but none of these groups had ever heard of this literature for the most part and they definitely hadn’t heard of each other. But they did a lot of AB testing, thousands of conversations, throwing away what didn’t work, keeping what did, and they would arrive at this is how you ought to do this. And they were also — RITHOLTZ: Very similar, all these different groups. MCRANEY: Yes. And if it was in steps, the step would be on the same order. And I sort of think it like if you wanted to build an airplane, the first airplane ever built no matter where it was built or who did it, it’s going to look kind of like an airplane. RITHOLTZ: It’s going to have wings......»»

Category: blogSource: TheBigPictureOct 4th, 2022

Is An Annuity A Good Investment?

Pop quiz. What springs to mind when you think of investing? You probably envision Wall Street and the frantic pace of the New York Stock Exchange floor. There are some of you who may visualize Fortune 500 ticker symbols. You could also think of the less exciting pie chart on your annual mutual fund report […] Pop quiz. What springs to mind when you think of investing? You probably envision Wall Street and the frantic pace of the New York Stock Exchange floor. There are some of you who may visualize Fortune 500 ticker symbols. You could also think of the less exciting pie chart on your annual mutual fund report if you’re not much of a risk taker. if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined') { document.write(''); } .first{clear:both;margin-left:0}.one-third{width:31.034482758621%;float:left;margin-left:3.448275862069%}.two-thirds{width:65.51724137931%;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element input{border:0;border-radius:0;padding:8px}form.ebook-styles .af-element{width:220px;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer{width:115px;float:left;margin-left: 6px;}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer input.submit{width:115px;padding:10px 6px 8px;text-transform:uppercase;border-radius:0;border:0;font-size:15px}form.ebook-styles .af-body.af-standards input.submit{width:115px}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy{width:100%;font-size:12px;margin:10px auto 0}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy p{font-size:11px;margin-bottom:0}form.ebook-styles .af-body input.text{height:40px;padding:2px 10px !important} form.ebook-styles .error, form.ebook-styles #error { color:#d00; } form.ebook-styles .formfields h1, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-logo, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-footer { display: none; } form.ebook-styles .formfields { font-size: 12px; } form.ebook-styles .formfields p { margin: 4px 0; } Get The Full Henry Singleton Series in PDF Get the entire 4-part series on Henry Singleton in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues (function($) {window.fnames = new Array(); window.ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';}(jQuery));var $mcj = jQuery.noConflict(true); Q2 2022 hedge fund letters, conferences and more   Find A Qualified Financial Advisor Finding a qualified financial advisor doesn't have to be hard. SmartAsset's free tool matches you with up to 3 fiduciary financial advisors in your area in 5 minutes. Each advisor has been vetted by SmartAsset and is held to a fiduciary standard to act in your best interests. If you're ready to be matched with local advisors that can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now. But, have you ever thought about annuities? Probably not. Financially speaking, annuities are not considered investments. Instead, annuities are insurance products that guarantee income at retirement. However, this does not mean you should not invest in annuities. And, on the flip side, it doesn’t mean you should either. I know. That sounds contradictory. However, your personal investment objectives will determine whether or not an annuity is a good investment for you. It’s also important to consider your age, time horizon for investing, risk tolerance, and lifestyle when determining your investment objectives. However, if you’re unsure whether annuities make sense for you, the following guide may help. What is an Annuity? Annuities are confusing to a lot of people. In fact, only 25% of consumers passed an annuity knowledge test (70%) according to a study by Secure Retirement Institute (SRI). Due to this confusion surrounding annuities, it can be difficult to decide if they are a good investment and worth adding to your retirement portfolio. But let us simplify it for you. What exactly are annuities? Annuities are simply contracts between a person and an insurance company. Annuities are best known for protecting principals, providing lifetime income, and planning for long-term care needs. You might see annuities marketed as investments when you’re shopping for them. In retirement, this investment is aimed at generating income for you. It’s important to remember that this is a contract, not a retirement plan. In the event of a breach of a contract, expect hefty penalties. Consequently, annuities are not as accessible as savings accounts. How are annuities investments? During retirement, annuities can provide income and growth that are tax-deferred. Annuities can be categorized into two types: fixed annuities and variable annuities. Variable annuities are based on the performance of a market index, such as the S&P 500, whereas fixed annuities pay a guaranteed rate of return. The use of annuities as a retirement income supplement is becoming more and more popular. This is mainly due to the fact that pensions are becoming extinct like the Dodo. In fact, only 15% of workers in the private sector have access to one, according to the March 2021 National Compensation Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). However, those who have invested heavily in stocks or bonds may find annuities particularly beneficial. Why? Annuities provide a source of income independent of market fluctuations. Annuities come in many forms, but a fixed index annuity is among the most popular. As well as providing tax-deferred growth, these annuities protect you from downside risk. In this regard, fixed index annuities can be an effective retirement planning tool. As an example, you’ll earn 3% interest on every dollar you put into your Due annuity plan. And, that’s guaranteed. How does an annuity work? An annuity is an arrangement in which the owner of the policy transfers the risk to an insurance/annuity company. Through the premiums it charges, the company offers the annuity assumes the risk for the owner. Annuities can have a single payment or several payments, depending on the type. Premiums are paid during the accumulation phase. As opposed to other types of insurance, annuities do not require continuous premium payments. As time goes on, you’ll no longer need to make annuity payments and will begin receiving payments instead. This is when the payout phase of your contract begins. There are a number of ways in which annuities can be paid. You can design an annuity to provide you with payments throughout your lifetime or the lifetimes of your heirs. You can also combine a lifetime income stream with a guaranteed payout over a specified period. How does a “life with a certain period” annuity work? It promises lifetime income. But, your beneficiary will receive the remaining value of the account if you die within a specific timeframe. It is common for annuities to be paid over an extended period of time. Like Social Security, they are also based on life expectancy. As a result, if you begin receiving income much earlier in life or if the term is longer, you should anticipate smaller payments. Annuities can be paid monthly, quarterly, annually, or even as a lump sum. Furthermore, they can be begun immediately or deferred for a long time. The different types of annuities. We briefly touched on fixed and variable annuities. But, there are actually five types of annuities that you can choose from. It’s like ordering a taco. Although pretty much the same, you have the choice between beef, chicken, pork, fish, shrimp, or beans. And, each protein slightly modifies your meal. Fixed annuities. Throughout the term of the contract, owners of annuities receive a fixed interest rate. With Due, for instance, you will receive 3% on all deposits. So, it is similar to a certificate of deposit. It is a safe and predictable option, even when market performance is good. Variable annuities. The returns on a variable annuity differ from those on a fixed annuity since they are linked with the stock market. In other words, its performance determines how much it will gain or lose, making it a less predictable and riskier option. Fixed indexed annuities. An annuity of this type combines the advantages of both a variable annuity and a fixed annuity. It provides investors with a minimum guaranteed rate of return, similarly to a fixed annuity. However, it also tracks an underlying index (e.g. the S&P 500). Therefore, rising stock markets can result in higher gains. You should always read the fine print, as there are caps, spreads, and participation rates that can impact the upside. Immediate annuities. Basically, you pay a lump sum to the insurance company and start receiving income payments right away. After the payment has been made, payments are usually made within 30 days. Lifetime payments are available in some immediate annuities, while fixed payments are available in others. In general, interest rates affect annuity income, which will impact payouts. Deferred annuities. In this case, there is also an upfront payment involved. Annuity payments will, however, be issued later. Since deferred annuities have more time to grow, they may offer higher payouts than immediate annuities. In exchange, early withdrawals are difficult. How Do Annuities Benefit Investors? A key benefit of investing in annuities is that they provide regular income before or during retirement. Moreover, your contributions are tax-deferred. Annuities are also exempt from a contribution limit or required minimum distribution (RMD). There are several additional benefits, including: Guaranteed income source. Having a guaranteed income source reduces the worry that retirees and pre-retirees will lose retirement savings in a downturn or outlive them. You fund the account with an annuity and typically earn a predetermined amount of interest, regardless of market conditions. With variable annuities, this can be different as they’re exposed to the market. Premium protection. In my opinion, this cannot be emphasized enough. An insurance company guarantees a minimum interest rate and principal in a fixed annuity. Therefore, the value of your fixed annuity will not decrease as long as the insurance company is financially sound. Tax advantages. Contributions to an annuity are tax deductible as well. It has no contribution limit, unlike IRAs and 401(k)s, which do have a limit on how much you can contribute annually. In the event that you have maxed out your other retirement accounts, annuities may be a good option for tax-deferred savings. The right annuity can help you hedge against inflation. Variable annuities are better suited to inflation hedges than fixed annuities. When used properly, variable annuities can guarantee you maintain your purchasing power throughout retirement if you boost your periodic payments by at least the cost of inflation based on your investment decisions. Long-term care. Many retirees overlook this costly expense. But, it is possible to insure against some of these costs with an annuity. No RMDs. Traditionally, withdrawals from retirement accounts must be made by the age of 7 ½. In contrast, retirement annuities do not carry that stipulation, so the funds may grow until needed. Flexibility. Through what’s known as a 1035 exchange, you can transfer money from one annuity to another, even if they’re with different companies. Taxes are not applied to your annuity earnings when using this method. It’s also possible to hold an annuity in a retirement plan, such as a 401(k) or IRA, or outside of one. Are There Any Risks Associated with Annuities? Yes. There are risks associated with annuities, just as with any investment. As such, despite the fact that annuities promise retirees a steady income, they also come with some sacrifices. Annuities are complex. The complexity of some annuities makes them difficult to understand without professional assistance. In fact, the structure of an annuity is the most complex of all retirement payment plans. Most insurance providers offer lifelong benefits as their most attractive selling point. However, retirees are grossly misled about the high taxes and the payment calculations. There is a missing income benefit. Annuities provide a lifetime income stream by saving money now. At the same time, you would lose that long-term benefit if you passed away suddenly. A beneficiary can be designated with some annuities, but there may be an additional charge. Locking up money you may need. If you suddenly need those funds, it can be difficult to access your annuity investment or cash it out. In some immediate annuities, after investing your principal, you lose access to it even though payments begin immediately. In some cases, you may be able to withdraw your principal or select time periods during which you can do so. But your monthly payment may be smaller. Also, you will usually have a 10% penalty if you withdraw from a deferred annuity before you turn 59 ½. Annuities can be pricey. Depending on the type of annuity, owners may have to pay high fees. Variable annuities, for instance, can charge fees between 2% and 3%, decreasing the value of your account and your investment return. You may also run into mortality and expense risk charges, administrative fees, and charges for add-ons like stepped-up death benefits. Conservative payouts. Even though annuities offer security and predictability, their returns aren’t as high as other investment options. Insolvent insurance companies. It is important to ensure the company you purchase an annuity from is around for the long haul since annuities are long-term investments. An investor should research annuity providers’ credibility, history, and credit standing. Annuities: When They’re a Good Investment Let’s be crystal clear. Annuities are insurance products. This means you buy it to mitigate some of the investment risks. At the same time, not all annuities are alike. With some annuities, such as variable annuities, you can choose from stocks and bonds as investment options. In other cases, they are true insurance rather than investments. There’s one thing an annuity does extremely well. It can protect you from longevity risk. For those unfamialir, this is the risk of living a lot longer than you expected. Basically, annuities are ideal if you’re healthy and look forward to living a long and meaningful life. If this is the case, annuities ensure you won’t outlive your money. So, an annuity can be a wise investment if you are buying it for this reason. The right annuity might be right for you if you know what you want out of retirement. Aside from that, you should find out how the annuity will help you achieve those goals, as well as what fees and restrictions the product has. Having an understanding of how annuity income is taxed, what investment options are available, and how annuities work with other investments is also important to know. A good rule of thumb for determining whether you are a good candidate for an annuity is: Your retirement savings goal is to grow steadily at a low level of risk. As a retiree, you want to earn interest on your nest egg in a safe manner. In addition to your other income sources, you would like to supplement your retirement income. Long-term investing is important. Finally, a white paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research states that “standard economic models of life-cycle spending patterns imply that the portfolio of a risk-averse individual should include a substantial portfolio share in life annuities as a hedge against uncertainty about length of life.” When viewed along with the notion that annuities are investments rather than insurance, this statement supports the notion that annuities can be a valuable addition to a balanced and diversified investment portfolio. Annuities: When They’re a Bad Investment Do not purchase an annuity without checking your entire financial picture first. There are some people who sell them with good intentions, but they may not have a complete understanding of what they’re selling. For instance, their understanding of tax issues might be limited. In addition, they cannot see how the product fits into your retirement plan if they haven’t done any planning for you. It is also important to be aware of the fees associated with annuities. After all, your returns will be lower if you pay high fees. And, in most markets, you will not earn a lot of money from some annuities due to high fees. If you do not have a plan in place, never buy an annuity. So, until you have done your research on annuities, you shouldn’t feel pressured or obligated to buy one. You might hear from a sales agent that an annuity’s sale will be short-lived. There are times when insurers stop selling specific products, which could explain this. Even so, you should not rush into making a decision. And, always remember that a similar product will likely be available elsewhere. The Bottom Line There are a lot of controversy surrounding annuities. But, in the end, whether an investment is sound for a particular individual depends on various factors. At a minimum, your age, current retirement savings, and retirement goals. In addition to their fees, annuities have some disadvantages compared to other retirement accounts. Even so, you may decide that an annuity is a smart investment option. Primarily, it may make sense if you want a lump sum distributed over a longer period of time. Or, if you have already maxed out other retirement accounts like your 401(K) or IRA. If not, you might be better off investing elsewhere for your retirement. FAQS How can annuities be invested? Unlike variable annuities, fixed-rate annuities offer a predetermined return determined by the insurance company. With a variable annuity, though, you determine how to invest your money within the subaccounts. Do annuities have high fees? Despite the misconception, there are some annuities with low fees. There are some annuities sold by investment companies without sales commissions or surrender charges, known as direct-sold annuities. Also, annuities can be purchased from a variety of brokerage firms at a low price. For more information, you should contact a financial advisor. What are the drawbacks to annuities? The majority of people can benefit from annuities. But they also have some drawbacks to be aware of. The major concerns are long-term contracts, losing control over your investment, and low or no interest earned. Other possible disadvantages are the fees and complexity. In addition, annuities have fewer liquidity options, and you have to wait until age 59 ½ before withdrawing money from them. What happens to my annuity after I die? Your annuity account can be assigned a beneficiary, but doing so may come at a cost. In other annuities, the payout only lasts until you die, and payments stop after you do. Prior to investing, find out what payout options are available for beneficiaries. Who shouldn’t buy annuities? Generally, individuals seeking short-term investments to invest around frequently and those with little or no liquid assets should not purchase annuities. Article by Deanna Ritchie, Due About the Author Deanna Ritchie is a financial editor at Due. She has a degree in English Literature. She has written 1000+ articles on getting out of debt and mastering your finances. She has edited over 40,000 articles in her life. She has a passion for helping writers inspire others through their words. Deanna has also been an editor at Entrepreneur Magazine and ReadWrite......»»

Category: blogSource: valuewalkSep 27th, 2022