Don't Drink the Kool-Aid

“Heads we win, tails you lose.”

Mark’s First Maxim for Wall Street Denizens

My apologies friends. I have started this blog several times in the last few weeks or so. But every time I began outlining its content, my WIFF (Whitmore’s Indignation and Fulmination Factor) began to escalate uncontrollably. Since I have lived in a virtual 24/7 state of outrage since the government bailouts began last Fall, this was not a good thing. And unlike Dr. Evil, I do not have a Mr. Bigglesworth to stroke in order to reduce my frustration level.

But this missive could not be delayed any further, regardless of its health implications for moi. Maybe it was Citigroup having the audacity to tell its employees that the bank was actually profitable thus far this year (assuming of course you do not factor in the $300+ billion in toxic assets still on its books, the $45 billions in government funds it has received, its tax liabilities, and a variety of other trifling details). Perhaps it was the laser like focus upon which the public has directed its attention to the AIG bonus fiasco. At least $450 million (when properly characterized) in extra compensation appears to have been given to the geniuses that managed to put the company in a position in which it needed $160 billion in government aid simply to remain solvent. It also could have been the adroit display of verbal pugilism (even if some of it was below the belt) by Jon Stewart when CNBC personality/buffoon Jim Cramer came on his show last week.

Whatever the impetus, I am going to eschew my traditional outline (lest my WIFF go red-line), and let this be more of a stream of consciousness endeavor. Please bear with me.

Separating Wheat from Chaff

Back when I practiced law, I learned to make an important distinction. While I generally disdained the field, some of the most diligent, scrupulous and upstanding individuals I knew were attorneys. I have great respect and admiration for these people, and many are among my closest friends.

Similarly, I have family members and friends who are in both the financial services industry and real estate. While I have heaped great scorn upon these sectors as a whole, obviously there are really talented, earnest and hard-working individuals employed in these fields. I am fortunate enough to know many such people. Indeed, the long run health of our economy largely depends upon folks such as these transforming their industries. So please do not mistake my vitriol directed at the boneheads, scoundrels, loafers, scofflaws and boorish know-nothings who generally compose the financial sector of our economy as applying to any specific individuals who are employed therein (other than those I specify).

When Doing Something is Worse than Doing Nothing

When the financial crisis really began to pick up steam last Fall, a huge lie was perpetuated by policy-makers, pundits and financial executives alike: What was good for Wall Street was good for Main Street. This simple little deception allowed all manner of shenanigans, tom-foolery and hood-winking to take place.

The logic of this great lie was superficially sound. The financial sector of our economy had grown substantially over the last two decades. A greater percentage of stock market wealth was concentrated in that sector than had ever been the case in our history. A huge percentage of the population was employed in financial services, and many others were dependent upon the health of this industry.

So in comes Henry Paulson, scion of the Wall Street elite, and proposes that there might be some loose change in the sofas of the Treasury Department, say to the tune of $800 billion or so, that should be used to bail out all the poor financial institutions in tatters. Of course he argued that circumstances were so exigent that this massive program must be implemented immediately. There was no time for dispassionate reflection upon the specific merits of TARP, or worrying about how the money was going to be earmarked. No, action must be taken, as confidence was ebbing, and the credit markets desperately needed greasing. Moreover, Mr. Paulson represented that this money was actually an investment, or at worse a loan to Wall Street (in reality, funds used for TARP have already seen 30-35% losses that do not expect to be recouped according to Barron’s).

You see dear old Henry and most of the Wall Street executives continued to maintain that their impaired assets were artificially undervalued by a marketplace that had just gone crazy. Once the marketplace returned to normal, and asset prices resumed their lofty levels, the crisis would pass and the government could recoup its money.

But this was only part of a unified effort by republicans and democrats alike to save the likes of AIG, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, etc.

Hypocrisy, Moral Hazards and Social Injustices

I have discussed at length why I think it is bad policy-making to spend trillions of dollars trying to avert an unavoidable, and indeed necessary, recession (see Save (for) Yourself, Save the World). But let me focus my acrimony on how the bailouts for the financial sector are pure and simple just ethically repugnant.

First, for the financial services sector to aver that it is deserving of any government assistance is the height of hypocrisy. Without boring the reader ad nauseum with history, the titans of finance lobbied Congress tirelessly throughout the last 25 years for Congress to remove government oversight and regulations (many of which had been imposed as safeguards in the wake of the financial crisis which caused the Depression). Throughout this time period, the constant justification was that if government would simply “unshackle” the industry and let free markets work, the financial sector would be more efficient and everyone would make more money. And boy, did it work. Between 1981-2003 the financial services portion of the S&P 500 index grew three times more quickly than the rest of the index (which itself appreciated hugely). People were making more money than many ever thought possible (recall the priceless ETRADE commercial during the 2000 Superbowl – “he’s got money coming out the wazoo.”) For Wall Street, laissez-faire capitalism was the greatest thing ever.

Well, until it was not. Apparently the vaporization of mid-six figure plus bonuses cause investment bankers and their ilk to bust out their Marx-Engels readers and become rabid socialists! Wall Street executives went from being Masters of the Universe to hat-in-their-hand mendicants. But instead of seeking nickels and dimes, they begged for hundreds of billions of dollars collectively. They have been hoisted on their own petard, as the very oversights and regulations they removed could have prevented these idiots from taking speculative and leveraged positions that ultimately proved their undoing. But now, they ask, nay expect, you and me via Uncle Sam and all their chums in DC to bail them out by taking on all their bad investments and impaired assets. Needless to say, they are not getting much sympathy from yours truly.

Second, the bail out of financial institutions is beyond outrageous due to the moral hazard that is perpetuated in the marketplace. I have previously discussed the notion of the “Greenspan put” and its deleterious impact on asset markets and the economy (see From Whence We Came Part II). In brief, for almost a full decade now, the Fed via Mr. Magoo (aka Alan Greenspan) and “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke have been moving heaven and earth monetarily in an effort to keep their game of musical chairs going.

Wall Street figured out how to master this game very early on. They would speculate recklessly with all kinds of overpriced, often highly leveraged assets that were still going up in price (first tech stocks, then mortgage backed securities and credit derivatives). Wall Street firms would make billions and billions of dollars for themselves, their clients and their shareholders. Then these kooky, inflated assets would, as is always the case, decrease in price.

Now in a functioning capitalist economy, this is where the notion of “market discipline” would come into play. You see if someone in the late 90’s speculated that Beannie Babies would keep appreciating, they would have lost a lot of money. Hopefully they would have learned something about imprudence and act differently in the future. If not, they would eventually go bankrupt, while other economic actors survived. This is economic Darwinism, and I embrace it. The smart never lost money. The adaptable learn from their mistakes and avoid making the same ones in the future. The incompetent make the same mistakes and eventually do not have the resources to recklessly and foolishly speculate.

But in his sage-like wisdom, Greenspan determined that nobody on Wall Street, no matter how dim-witted, should have to suffer the consequences on their incompetence! Hence, whenever these over-priced assets in which Wall Street idiots had substantial investments began to deflate, Greenspan was there to artificially cut interest rates to zero, thereby insuring other assets would inflate absurdly. Wall Street was thus always bailed out from its own stupidity.

At least until last year. As I have said before, you can only keep stimulating an economy artificially before it no longer responds (the law of diminishing returns). This is where the game of musical chairs ends and everyone realizes that all the seats are taken. First Bear Stearns needs help. But by bailing out Bear Stearns, the government sent two very clear messages to Wall Street and its owners/investors: 1) we will shield you from your own past stupidity; and 2) as a precedent for the future, certain enterprises will be deemed to be too important to fail. Somehow Lehman must have been on the outs with DC insiders, as it was the only entity of any significance that was allowed to go bankrupt.

But instead of Bear Stearns being the precedent, it should have been Lehman. Companies fail all the time. People lose jobs. While it is justifiable for the government to provide need-based assistance to those affected individuals and families who are having difficulty sustaining themselves, it is not justifiable to extend corporate welfare to enterprises whose mean incomes oftentimes exceeded $300,000. The message sent simply encourages future speculation, as now there is virtual certainty that no matter how moronic/reckless their actions, financial institutions will be able to siphon tax dollars ad infinitum to cover up their losses.

Finally, any concept of social justice is done great violence by these bailouts. This is almost so obvious that it does not warrant elaboration. This is evident by the way in which the AIG bonus issue has sparked the collective ire of the nation with such ferocity (just today AIG’s CEO stated that some of its employees were receiving death threats).

But one thing makes my blood virtually boil. Thousands of individuals making six, seven, and even eight figure incomes will receive more in income that is attributable from taxpayer sponsored bailouts than they will pay in taxes. Think about that. Or maybe you should not, as I would hate to spread an offshoot of the WIFF virus. But seriously, how can any society in good conscious create the most expensive bailout program ever seen on earth in which its most wealthy citizens benefit so disproportionately???

This is among the most massive wealth redistribution plans ever seen on earth, yet until recently, no one seemed to give the fairness issues much attention. The spin-masters were initially successful in making this a program deemed necessary to save the economy. But now reality is beginning to hit. Namely, that the economy will not likely be saved by this, and that in the process we are providing the greatest degree of assistance to those who are most able to care for themselves financially.

I had one discussion with an extremely bright investment banker a couple of months ago in which my WIFF reached what may be heretofore unsurpassed levels. Our a wide-ranging debate related to the state of the economy and government actions in the face of our economic crisis. Now this is someone who is quite vocal in their opposition to most government support programs for welfare recipients, mentally ill individuals and the like. Yet he was arguing for the TARP program that doled out money to troubled financial institutions. When confronted with the apparent contradiction, he conceded that he had a “soft spot” for the bailout program. Well, few things warm my heart like knowing there will not be investment bankers deprived of purchasing Patek Phillippes as gifts to themselves for a year of great work!

Concerning Weak Retorts

Oh, you may hear nonsense like these bailouts and bonuses are needed to keep bright capable people that are the only ones that can get us out of this mess. I doubt if I am not the only one that realizes that these are the people that got us into this mess. Needless to say, I am not overly optimistic that they will deftly navigate financial waters going forward.

Moreover, this sounds like the most hollow threat I can imagine. I mean the implication of this counter argument is that if we do not continue to employ these morons in the financial services industry they will take their impressive skill sets elsewhere. Let’s think about this. Resumes noting one’s experience at: losing billions of dollars through idiotic, leveraged trades; managing a division that earned a -75% return; running a company that required more than $100 billion in government bailouts. These people will clearly be in high demand everywhere.

In fact, the only compelling thing I have read arguing for the TARP program and the Wall Street bailouts that have accompanied it has come from Barron’s gifted columnist Alan Abelson. He noted that hundreds of billions of dollars is actually a small price to pay in order to prevent the thousands of investment bankers and other financial service professionals from entering the workplace as teachers, nurses, engineers, or a wide variety of other occupations that really matter. We may be dodging a bullet there.

The Worst Investment Advice Ever

When a wise man gives thee better counsel, give me mine again.

Shakespeare, King Lear

I am convinced that 99.9% of reported financial news/analysis is at best a waste of time. Investors tend to be focus upon “noise,” such as a drop in some particular economic indicator, and risk losing sight of the forest through the trees. But once in a while I come across something in the financial media so much more abominable that it warrants special opprobrium.

Let’s travel back in time together nine years, to the halcyon days of early 2000. Ahhh, doesn’t everyone feel better already? Y2K was perhaps the biggest non-event of our lives. Asset prices everywhere were buoyant. Jobs were plentiful. The government actually had a budget surplus, and was thereby reducing the national debt!! Sorry, I am a little dizzy here from the disorientation . . . . Ok, better now.

Of course everyone was happy other than yours truly. My delicate psyche was already troubled by disturbing trends in both personal spending and overall debt levels, as well as what appeared to be unsustainable increases in the stock market. And no sector had experienced greater gains than the tech sector. Now I am just a naïve simpleton; technology largely eludes my ken of understanding. I have to be tutored in the use of Excel. But as an investor, I simply could not see how companies that employed really smart, tech-savvy individuals, yet operated businesses with no track records, tiny customer bases and paltry revenue streams could be valued at billions and billions of dollars.

So while this Chicken Little was warning of the impending sky-earth collision in March 2000, I stumbled across an investment advice column online. In it, the “advisor” recounted the content of a letter he received from a reader seeking guidance. The poor fellow was in a very common situation. He was in his mid-late 50’s and was employed in a lower management position with some company. So here he was in the twilight years of his working life, yet had never gotten around to putting away much money in his retirement account. He had begun to do some back-of-the-napkin calculations one day and realized that his projected financial needs/wants upon retirement would exceed his social security payments. This epiphany suddenly made him a very motivated saver/investor. So he was going to max out his retirement contributions to try and “catch up.” But even at a maximum level, he was concerned about falling short of his retirement needs. He thus asked for this advisor’s portfolio allocation suggestions, both for what relatively small amount he had in his 401(k) at the time, as well as for future contributions.

The advisor began by making some general observations about how in younger years, investors should generally be invested heavily in equities, since stocks have higher long-term returns. These investors can also handle short-term losses given their long investing horizon. Conversely, older investors should start to funnel an increasing amount of their investments into more stable, fixed-income securities, even if they have less up-side. This percentage for someone like the reader might be 40% stocks and 60% bonds if he were an individual with a large sum in his 401(k). Even though I was advising that people have little or no money in the US stock markets at that time, I cannot take issue with the fact that this is good generic advice for any time equity markets are not at bubble levels.

The advisor went on to talk about the reader’s specific situation. Since this investor was way behind in saving for retirement, he would have to take on greater risk with his 401(k) allocation (my eyes began to widen). Specifically, the investor should be putting 80%+ into the stock market (my jaw dropped). And within the stock market he should put most of the money into the tech-laden NASDAQ due to its expected “higher returns” (incredulous, I was in a virtual apoplectic trance)!

This advice was imbecilic and deleterious on three levels. First, if someone has inadequate funds to maintain a desired lifestyle, the most important goal should be capital preservation, not capital appreciation. As such, advising this poor gentleman to place most of his saved income into the riskiest asset class at the time that was not a start up was utterly negligent, and placed the investor in financial harm’s way.

To understand the need to emphasize capital preservation better in this case, let’s imagine that after saving and scrimping all year, this fellow is able to sock away $10,000. Should he make 30%, he banks $3000 and feels good. But in the event his investment goes South 30%, he is now down to only $7000 in savings. But importantly, in order to get back to his initial $10,000 level, he must now obtain returns of 40%+. So volatility to the downside is much worse to his financial health that a commensurate gain is beneficial.

Economic behaviorism is a school of thought to which I adhere. Studies by economic behavioralists have shown that individuals suffer a greater magnitude of displeasure when an investment goes down x% that they receive satisfaction from the investment going up x%. This makes sense intuitively. When you receive something you have not had, you are generally pleased, but not necessarily ecstatic. But when you lose something that you have had, the sting can be very great indeed.

From a pragmatic perspective, it was even more important to prevent significant losses in this man’s retirement account. Assume he wanted to retire at 65 and then take a couple of trips a year with his wife and enjoy life. He figures out how much he needs to have saved to do all that, and then concludes that his investments would have to go up a total of 70% to make that happen. So he eschews bonds and safer equities, and plunks down his hard earned savings in high-flying tech stocks. But instead of gaining 70%, they lose the same amount. The effect? Now it is not an issue of trying to fit in that second trip each year. Rather, he may be unable to make his mortgage payments (more older Americans owe significant amounts on their houses than ever before, so this is not an unrealistic problem). Similarly, the man may conclude that he cannot retire until he is much older.

The second way in which this ranks as the worst investment advice I have seen in the financial media is that this counsel was provided on the eve of the great tech implosion of 2000. Now many financial advisors/professionals at the time claimed that they could not be blamed for being caught unawares, as most of their colleagues we similarly blind-sided by the precipitous fall in stock prices. Rubbish! The same reason the current housing crash should not have surprised people who claim to be real estate experts applies to tech crash of 2000: anytime there is an unprecedented increase in the magnitude of returns for a particular asset class, investors (as opposed to speculators) should generally run for the hills.

Stocks are like any other asset. There is some notion of intrinsic value that applies to companies. Those of us who invest based upon fundamentals look at a variety of metrics to determine how attractive stocks are priced. This method can be applied to individual companies, or markets as a whole. And while its application is far from scientific or fool-proof, it can give one a general idea of whether the stocks in question are investment worthy. When applying these analytical tools to the NASDAQ in the early part of 2000, it was apparent that the market was over-valued to an extent never seen before. So for this advisor to justify his recommendation of tech stocks based upon very recent, ephemeral and unsustainable gains in the NASDAQ was appalling by any standard of responsible financial advising. But this was not unique. I talked to dozens of people that were getting similar advice from their financial professionals as well.

Finally, the advisor made the mistake of treating stock market returns like an actuarial table. Sure, if one charts out the last 80 years or so, average returns in the stock market look pretty impressive (although a lot less impressive than they did back in 2000!) And in 2000, even ten year returns for tech stocks looked remarkable. But this is like driving by looking at nothing else but the rear-view mirror. Generally when one sees such complacency in the markets, danger is lurking around the corner. Of course even being able to see the corner and adjust one’s direction assumes that one is looking at the road. In this case, investors and their advisors en masse drove right through the barrier and off a cliff. One should never forget that asset markets make very quick and violent reversals. Expected returns can be dashed in the process.

I periodically think of the poor gentleman and the terrible advice he received from the investment "professional." I hope he got a second opinion that was remotely sensible given his situation. You see, the 70%+ loss scenario I outlined above was not arbitrary. In the nine years since March of 2000, that is the magnitude of losses in the NASDAQ index. It would have been far better advice to have told the reader to go to a roulette table once a year and put his entire annual savings on black. The total expected losses would have been much less than buying tech stocks in early 2000.

This topic came to mind due to the fact that I have had numerous inquiries from friends who are trying to assist their parents, many of whom have suffered huge losses in retirement funds, manage the money that is left. Since many older individuals rely upon these accounts for a stream of income, the relevant question is usually whether they should cut their losses in stocks and get out, or stick it out expecting some imminent rebound. However, without doing a painstaking analysis of someone’s entire finances, it is impossible to proffer general advice on this topic responsibly.

But it is possible for me to implore folks, whether you are managing your own personal finances, or those of your parents, to determine what level of income is needed to support a minimally accepted lifestyle. Frankly we in this country are blessed, as no one will ever be in a position of starving, and few will be unable to find long-term shelter. Social security and other state programs alone address these needs. But once the investor determines one's future acceptable standard of living, the savings that will support that level should be in very secure investments. Generally this would be something like Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, short-term fixed income instruments, and possibly certain investment grade corporate bonds.

Reader Appreciation

I began this enterprise in a rather sputtering manner last July. While always having a passion for assisting people who might not be otherwise financially inclined make smart decisions concerning their money (or at least avoid making poor ones), I am not by nature a self-promoter. However, after a close friend told me that a “blog unread is simply a diary,” I realized I hate diaries and needed to do something about that. Accordingly, I started to let people know this personal endeavor exists, mostly through contacting Facebook friends.

In the month that I have spread the word, this is now the most tracked blog dealing with either investing or personal finance that is networked through Facebook, with 100 individuals who have signed on as followers. It is also the most followed blog under the topic of “ranting.” I am not sure how I should feel about that.

Since letting folks know about this blog, I have received excellent and supportive comments, as well as ideas to make it better. All of the input is greatly appreciated, and please keep it coming.

I would encourage any of you that are reading this to pass along my blog link to friends who may also find it of interest or use. The more people who follow this, the less likely I am to feel like these entries are akin to those of a 13 year-old girl.

The Abyss Deepens

A trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money

Me

Since my last fulmination, government intervention in the economy continues to escalate. The new administration announced Friday that taxpayer ownership stake in Citigroup is now greater than 35%. Citigroup used to be the most highly valued bank in the world, worth in excess of $300 billion. Now you can buy two shares of the formerly storied financial institution for less than the price of a morning latte. Absent government intervention, Citi would have been forced into bankruptcy months ago (by way of full disclosure, I had been short Citigroup for over a year until recently covering my position).

Just this morning the Treasury and Fed threw another $30 billion of taxpayer money at what used to be the most highly valued insurance company in the world – AIG. Total government support for this hapless corporation has thus increased to a mind-numbing $160 billion. This is more than $500 in support for every man, woman and child in the US. The government calls its bailout an “investment.” I do not know about you, but I would rather take my $500 and choose how I will invest it myself.

In my last blog, I mentioned that there were plans in the works for a massive $50 billion federal mortgage bailout program for “homeowners.” Actually, that is a bit of a misnomer, as the problem is that the people being bailed out generally own very little, if any, of their homes. But apparently $50 billion seemed too inconsequential of a sum, so the Obama administration upped it to a $75 billion program in a futile effort to arrest falling home prices, as well as spare Americans from rising foreclosures.

Oh, and late last week the new administration announced it will be setting aside an additional $250 billion to purchase “toxic assets” from banks in its budget proposal for Congress. This is on top of the $700+ billion set aside by the Bush administration for the same purposes. For taxpayers this is great news of course. We get to have almost $1 trillion of our hard-earned dollars buy assets that are deemed by financial institutions to be so impaired that they cannot sell them on the free market to anyone else. This will clearly be a fantastic government investment. In the meantime financial institutions and their owners can breathe a collective sigh of relief that H.L. Mencken was literally correct: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” This is particularly true when that intelligence is channeled through its politicians. Financial institutions throughout the country will have foisted upon us poor saps “assets” which are in actuality liabilities. This will undoubtedly cost the American taxpayers billions and billions in losses.

Some people are doing the math as to what the price tag of all this spending will cost this coming year should Obama’s budget get approved: $3.6 trillion dollars!! This constitutes more than one quarter of the entire economic output of the nation. By way of a minor detail, the government will be coming up just a tiny bit short in terms of balancing the budget under the proposed spending plan. The shortfall? Let’s see, add this, multiply that, carry the one. Ah, a mere $1.75 trillion dollars. That will add more than 15% to our existing national debt of almost $11 trillion dollars, which is already increasing at a rate of almost $25,000 per second. It took the federal government until the second Reagan administration, or almost 200 years, for the national debt to reach $1.75 trillion. But if the administration has its druthers, fiscal year 2010 alone will rack that up.

The government is clearly pouring money into the economy at a heretofore unprecedented scale. So how is that working out for us thus far? Hmmm. This morning the overall stock market officially pierced the previous lows of last November. The S&P 500 (a market-weighted index of the largest 500 companies in the nation) had its worst opening two months for a calendar year ever (depression era included). The index is actually at a lower level than it was at the end of Clinton’s first term twelve years ago!!

But twelve years ago is nothing when it comes to the fall in national output as measured by the fourth quarter gross domestic product (GDP) numbers. The economy shrank at an annual rate of 6.8%. This was the worst contraction since 1982, harkening me back to the day when I was blithely listening to Duran Duran and reeling from the fact that my new nickname at middle school was “Zitmore.” Consumers certainly do not appear to be taking much stock in the government’s efforts to jump-start the economy. At no time in the last 50 years have so many people polled voiced concerns over a deepening recession and rising unemployment.

"Economic developments in recent months have been consistently worse than the worst-case scenarios," noted Stephen Stanley, chief economist for RBS Greenwich Capital, on Friday. Well, that is not true. There were a small minority of us Nervous Nellies who thought that the logical result of the biggest credit bubble in history would be the worst economic fallout since at least the Great Depression. I will say that most of us who were in that camp have been stunned at the rapidity with which things have unraveled in the last several months, without any signs of a meaningful short-term bounce along the way.

Even Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world and one of its greatest investors, is struggling. Berkshire Hathaway lost 11.5 billion in net worth during 2008, the worst performance in Buffet’s 35 years of running the company, even accounting for inflation. Since peaking with the rest of the US stock market in the Fall of 2007, Berkshire’s share price is down 45%, sending it to the same level it was almost ten years ago.

Unlike 99% of CEOs or investment professional, Buffet issued a very forthright mea cupla: “During 2008 I did some dumb things in investments.” Wow. What a breath of fresh air. Unlike most of the logic-impaired (I am trying to be diplomatic for once) financial company executives that have been grilled by shareholders, the media and Congress alike, Buffet shouldered responsibility for making bad decisions that cost real people very real sums of money (although at $74,000 for a single A share in Berkshire Hathaway, one can safely assume that widows and orphans were not the primary victims of Warren’s lapses in judgment).

While 2008 was not a year of excellence for the Oracle of Omaha, I would not count Mr. Buffet out. He has proven himself to be one of the shrewdest, most canny investors ever. So unlike my contrarian babble, we should all sit up and take notice about what he thinks concerning the economy: “We're certain, for example, that the economy will be in shambles throughout 2009 -- and, for that matter, probably well beyond” (emphasis added).

Something about “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men” seems fitting when it comes to the Obama administration’s colossal fiscal efforts to revive the economy.

There is a noticeable trend for my blogs to be getting longer. In an effort to spare my readers eye strain, I will try to post shorter blogs more frequently. This will mean some will be more current events driven like today. The next one will relate to a more practical financial advising matter, which I will post by Wednesday. Social justice and government programs will have to wait. Cheers!