2/18/2010
MAKING 'GOOD' BETTER
ITERATION
Definition
A process for arriving at a progressively ‘better’ decision or a desired result by repeating the rounds of analysis or the cycles of operation
The objective is to bring the desired decision or result closer to discovery with each repetition (iteration)
The iterative process can be used where the decision is not easily irrevocable (such as a marriage or war) or where the consequences of revocation could be costly
While a high number of iterations is desirable, it is usually constrained by the limited availability of time, energy, other resources and presence of other pressures.
The iterative process is a an incremental process of approximation used to define a result whose parameters have numerous variables which do not lend themselves to a mathematically designed solution.
Our planning services integrate complex mathematical and non mathematical less tangible variables (goals, hopes, objectives) into a meaningful outcome.
To cover our need for the assurance of a sustainable 30 - 40 year lifetime retirement we develop answers to 2 key questions:
"Will I be OK?"
"Will I be able to retire - without running out of income?"
The iterative process is central to our analysis.
Weigh House
2/14/2010
ENCOUNTERING FINANCIAL 'DEPENDENCY' - DURING RETIREMENT
Insights common in the pursuit of personal and financial health
A Medical Analogy
We develop type 2 diabetes because our pancreas does not supply sufficient insulin to carry the sucrose in our bloodstream to the fatty cells which require them.
We must supplement the insulin upon which we are dependent through medication for the remainder of our life.
We develop Financial 'Dependency' when after our first 30 - 40 years of earning an income we do not have sufficient capital to provide a sustainable income for us during a further second 30 - 40 years during our retirement.
To supplement our income we may have to continue to work during retirement and supply the necessary financial 'insulin' that we need.
Both events have a common cause.
Simply put, we are unaware that either condition has been developing for years.
Both the medical and financial versions are at epidemic levels.
The Financial version is impacting 1 out of 2 Canadians who are preparing for retirement - the boomers.
Without a Financial prescription retirement will not take place either as planned or as expected.
There is a solution to the financial condition.
It includes awareness, time and discipline in its application.
We would pleased to share it with you.
Ask us and we will share it with you.
Dan Zwicker
Certified Financial Planner
Charted Financial Consultant
Chartered Life Underwriter
Professional Engineers Ontario
Weigh House
Email: dan.zwicker@weighhouse.com
Tel: 416-726-2427
2/12/2010
THE RELATIONSHIP ECONOMY......SOCIAL GAME CHANGERS
Everyone is chasing “social” as if it was the cure all and end all. Whether you’re a brand, a non-profit, a politician or a small business the lure of social media is being applied in many different ways.
Over the past several years the stories of how people are using social media has dominated the web and is now bleeding into main stream media. How? People and organizations are creating eye-opening stories about how they applied social media to accomplish an objective. Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts senate race is but one example and when you examine the factors that created his win social media stands out front and center.
There are inspiring lessons from the BIG and small stories of how people and organizations successfully applied social media. The irony of these stories is that most people who actually used social media to achieve and objective don’t understand “why” social media actually influenced the outcomes.
Lessons From Use
Social media is in its infancy stages and current usage is organic growth of a message propagated to the masses. A simple message from one person or organization can “catch the crowds” attention in profound ways that previously was not created by traditional media. The lessons from usage illustrate the simplistic yet profound nature of viral communications whose reach and richness has accelerated due to the internet.
Some lessons to consider:
1. Enable consumers and constituents to be the influence, not your ads or your marketing but rather your message that appeals to the masses.
2. Innovate the message with the medium even if you don’t understand why or how. Barack Obama leveraged social media to get elected into the highest office in the nation. His party doesn’t understand “why” this worked and neither did Scott Brown. All they know is that it worked. Now both parties are jumping into the use of social media but neither understands why or how it works.
3. Social media reaches outside the traditional market and taps into people who have an affinity to your message, your product/service and you individually regardless of geography or traditional demographics that have defined your market.
4. Leverage social technology with relevant and relative media. Relevant and relative media is different than traditional media because it is relational rather than institutional. Social technology enables relational media to spread like wildfire because of the distributed power of reaching hearts and minds.
We live in a world of unprecedented change, increasing globalization, and the explosive influence of distributed communications fueld by this thing we call social media. Innovative uses of social media is the central driving force for any business, any cause or any nation that wants to grow organically and succeed in the new economy. This is a game-changing dynamic which will evolve rapidly as will the influence and impact on everything.
The game has just begun. There are no spoken rules rather the rules are hidden in the fiber of human relations and only spoken to the hearts and minds of those participating in the game of change. A game changes when people learn “why” people play the game and not necessarily “how” they play the game today. The rules of the game change when we learn why which then changes how we use something as simple yet profound as the ability to “connect” to and with the human network like never before in the history of mankind. The crowds learning why are the game changers.
Jay deragon,
Author
02 03 2010
THE RELATIONSHIP ECONOMY......WILL SOCIAL TECHNOLOGY CHANGE BUSINESS?
The impact of social technology on business as usual is and will continue to be profound. Profound in that social technology fuels never-ending change caused by the markets of conversations. These markets represent intelligence that is transparent, fluid and engaging by crowds of suppliers, employees and consumers.
Change is now fueled by the rate of interest and the rate of change caused by interactive conversations from everywhere and everyone.
Instead of the old model of change, from the inside out, the new model of change is from the outside in. Markets are shifting at the speed of a mouse click. These markets represent the rate of interest change (both economic interest and consumer interest) and the interest is changing based on the consumption of information and knowledge.
The voice of the customer used to be analyzed based on old feedback mechanisms and survey’s which were poorly designed and time-consuming. Today the voice of the customer is instant, transparent and designed by the content and context of open and transparent conversations. The new world of instant communications controlled and influenced by the end consumer is the outside force forcing fueling organizational changes for those businesses wishing to thrive or survive. However, the pace and strength of these outside forces is changing the very change models used before by the leading management consulting firms and guru’s on organizational change.
McKinsey, one of the top management consulting firms in the world, is even changing their own approach to the creation and implementation of organizational change models. The video below illustrates their commentary on changes fueled by the current technological revolution. The irony is that the current rate of technological change is not static but, as they show, revolutionary. The irony of a “revolution” is that is not only fueled by change but its outcomes create even more change and it doesn’t seem as though the rate of change and interest in new technology will ever become static.
Organizations will have to learn change is now a permanent process and the only thing that should be managed is the rate in which you adjust to it. Not adjusting or accepting that change is permanent means you’ll be left by those that do. Get it?
What say you?
Jay Deragon,
Author
11 09 2009
Lenny Mendonca: How Can You Make The Most Of Technological Revolution?
The chairman of McKinsey Global Institute analyzes how technology is catalyzing business successes—and failures.
Lenny Mendonca
Chairman, McKinsey Global Institute
Change is now fueled by the rate of interest and the rate of change caused by interactive conversations from everywhere and everyone.
Instead of the old model of change, from the inside out, the new model of change is from the outside in. Markets are shifting at the speed of a mouse click. These markets represent the rate of interest change (both economic interest and consumer interest) and the interest is changing based on the consumption of information and knowledge.
The voice of the customer used to be analyzed based on old feedback mechanisms and survey’s which were poorly designed and time-consuming. Today the voice of the customer is instant, transparent and designed by the content and context of open and transparent conversations. The new world of instant communications controlled and influenced by the end consumer is the outside force forcing fueling organizational changes for those businesses wishing to thrive or survive. However, the pace and strength of these outside forces is changing the very change models used before by the leading management consulting firms and guru’s on organizational change.
McKinsey, one of the top management consulting firms in the world, is even changing their own approach to the creation and implementation of organizational change models. The video below illustrates their commentary on changes fueled by the current technological revolution. The irony is that the current rate of technological change is not static but, as they show, revolutionary. The irony of a “revolution” is that is not only fueled by change but its outcomes create even more change and it doesn’t seem as though the rate of change and interest in new technology will ever become static.
Organizations will have to learn change is now a permanent process and the only thing that should be managed is the rate in which you adjust to it. Not adjusting or accepting that change is permanent means you’ll be left by those that do. Get it?
What say you?
Jay Deragon,
Author
11 09 2009
Lenny Mendonca: How Can You Make The Most Of Technological Revolution?
The chairman of McKinsey Global Institute analyzes how technology is catalyzing business successes—and failures.
Lenny Mendonca
Chairman, McKinsey Global Institute
THE RELATIONSHIP ECONOMY......WILL YOUR SOCIAL STRATEGY CHANGE THE GAME?
Those who do extraordinary things change the game for those who don’t. Changing the game for others means you do something which changes the rules of the game before those following the old rules know it.
Apple changed the game for mobile device manufacturers and for mobile users. Apple is now attempting to change the game for “laptops” with the IPad. Google changed the game for internet search engine utility. President OBama changed the game of politics when he leveraged the internet to raise contributions ($600 million compared to McCann’s $50 million) and to take his message of change directly to voters.
Social media is a game changer. It is changing how people interact with markets. How buyers influence sellers and how old media adapts to this thing we call new media. The dynamics and disruptive nature of all things social are emerging on a daily basis.
Individuals and organizations are looking for and trying innovative ways to garner attention, awareness, affinity, audiences and subsequent actions. The flow of new technology enters the marketplace faster than most people and entire organizations can keep track of never mind comprehending the pending implications. Jumping from one technology to another there is a frenzy of tactical maneuvers, creative uses are all indicative of a race with no clear end in mind. While garnering people’s attention for the moment the next moment moves the audience because someone else applies tactical maneuvers and creative uses of social media to get our attention. The limelight of tactical and creative attempts to get the audiences attention are but for a moment.
Strategy is What Changes the Game Not Tactics
There is no road map for use of social technology, only temporary roads. Temporary roads are tactical uses aimed at getting attention and awareness. Fueled by creativity these tactics are short roads with a dead end unless there is an overriding strategy that creates new “highways” for others to follow and use.
A highway for use of social technology requires deep thinking about users wants, needs and intentions. Since there is no preplanned highway and the objective of a sound strategy is to create a highway where none exist. Doing so takes creative thinking long term and the development of tools and experiences that users find valuable, useful and serving their intentions. Time, convenience and valuable experiences are the strategic elements that can create new highways. Slick marketing and tactical attempts to get the audiences attention are side roads not long term highways.
A sound Social strategy is one which changes the rules of the game for more than a moment. If you can change the rules of the game and users like the new rules then competition will have to follow your highway.
Social media and related social stuff currently grabbing everyone’s attention represents an explosive map of new roads where everyone wants to discover where the roads go. Those who can think strategically will create highways for all to follow and use and subsequently these people and organizations will change the game and pull all the traffic from the side roads. Why? Because highways are faster routes for users to get from point A to B with better experiences.
If you are not thinking strategically about all this social stuff you may end up on a dead end road. Get it?
Jay Deragon
Author
02 12 2010
THE RELATIONSHIP ECONOMY......SOCIAL 'PRODUCTION' MENTALITY
With all the emphasis on social media ROI you would think that companies believe that social media is a production line in a factory. This mentality is reflective of how management thinking is still in the industrial era.
Production thinking is about producing something for consumption by the masses. The results of “production” are reflected by subtracting the gross revenue from the cost. Thus the emphasis is placed on selling more to make more. To enhance sales opportunities companies adopted marketing strategies and tactics.
The process of marketing has been focused on reaching the masses using numerous forms of media. Marketing has been designed to create attention and awareness of an offering targeted to a specific audience. Marketing followed “production thinking”. The more we market the more sales we’ll “produce”.
The model of “production thinking” creates environments in which “people” are used to “produce more” at less cost. The aim is to make profits from producing more and production is enhanced by optimizing people, processes and technology. Management methods to optimize production evolved around measuring anything and everything with the aim of finding out how effective people, processes and technology are at producing a result. The problem with the “production model” is that the people part has changed while the model for using people has not.
Now Measure Social Media Production
The internet has changed a lot of things for people and business. Every evolution of the internet creates yet another change and business tries to apply old management methods and thinking to these changes. The problem is that most of the changes brought on by the internet are centric to how people and markets interact. These interactions are changing how business ought to manage people and markets. People and markets are no longer for use rather both are now the users. The change from being used to being the user means “production models” for business are no longer viable rather the model for has shifted to a “conductor model”.
The term conductor means a person who directs an orchestra or chorus, communicating to the performers by motions of a baton or the hands his or her interpretation of the music. Conductor also means a substance, body, or device that readily conducts heat, electricity, sound. The “conductor model” for business is more about enabling people to conduct commerce, internally and externally, rather than management trying to “produce” commerce with a “production mentality”.
Now reflect on what the social web, and all this social stuff, is creating. The fundamental change is that people are being empowered to “conduct” their own commerce, whether buying, selling or simply conversing. The term commerce deals with the exchange of goods and services from producer to final consumer.
The social web is self organized orchestras formed by conversational threads that readily “conduct” ideas, information and knowledge threaded throughout the internet and propagated on most any device.
The optimum business model is one of embracing the “conductor” function aimed at providing people with “ideas, information and knowledge” they in turn can use to produce what they want with their community of friends and followers. Giving people the “right instruments to create their own orchestras” of conversations will ultimate lead to the creation of commerce.
To adopt the “conductor model” for business means you have the recognize that measuring social media ROI is more about measuring your ability to enable people, internally and externally, to use you rather than you using them. Measuring your ability to be used is a lot different than measuring how you use people to use your stuff. To optimize in a world gone “social” it is wiser to think as a conductor rather than a producer.
Conductors measure the synchronization of efforts aimed at giving the audience of people more than they expected. They don’t measure the results of people producing rather what they produce for the people.
Jay Deragon,
Author
02 09 10
THE RELATIONSHIP ECONOMY......SOCIAL PRODUCER VS CONDUCTOR: BIG DIFFERENCES
If you haven’t noticed organizations and individuals are trying to produce something using social media. The efforts are intended to fulfill the desire for results, more sales, brand awareness and yes more followers.
The proliferation of social tools, social media and all things social is creating a frenzy to “produce” something, anything and everything aimed at getting results. The chase for the secret sauce to get results has the marketplace consumed with the production of content aimed at attracting awareness, attention and an audience. Marketers are trying everything to get our attention so they can move us to a transaction, the result.
The process of marketing has been focused on reaching the masses using numerous forms of media. Marketing has been designed to create attention and awareness of an offering targeted to a specific audience. Marketing followed “production thinking”. The more we market the more sales we’ll “produce”.
The model of “production thinking” creates environments in which “people” are used to “produce more” at less cost. The aim is to make profits from producing more and production is enhanced by optimizing people, processes and technology. Management methods to optimize production evolved around measuring anything and everything with the aim of finding out how effective people, processes and technology are at producing a results. The problem with the “production model” is that the 'people part' has changed while the model for using people has not.
The Difference Between Producer vs. Conductor
A producer creates things aimed at producing results using people, processes and technology.
A conductor helps people optimize their use of something which synchronizes with the talents and interest of others. The producer aims to use things to create a result for them or their organization. The conductor enables people to use things to create the result they want, desire and need.
The optimum business model is one of embracing the “conductor” function aimed at providing people with “ideas, information and knowledge” they in turn can use to produce what they want with their community of friends and followers. Giving people the “right instruments to create their own communities” of conversations will ultimate lead to production of commerce.
A producer tries to “pull people” to their business.
A conductor enables people to find the people, products and services they want, need or desire. A producer pulls people to their web site and the people are confronted with an anti-social experience and tricked into a “capture, control and frustrate” process. A conductor ensures that people are enabled to access, collaborate and share information seamlessly with no tricks, no intents to capture, control or frustrate people trying to use something to their benefit and the benefit of others.
Pepsi opted out of the Super Bowl Ads and chose to “conduct” a social experiment by giving away $20 million for the best community development ideas. Coke Cola chose to spend millions to run Super Bowl ads aimed to producing a lasting impression on viewers.
Which was the producer vs. the conductor?
Which method produced the best results?
You decide.
Jay Deragon
Author
02 09 10
THE RELATIONSHIP ECONOMY......IS PEPSI A SOCIAL CONDUCTOR?
A social conductor is an individual or organization that enables people to use their organization to achieve wants, needs and desires. The opposite is a social producer who uses people to create direct benefits to their organization.
Pepsi Initiates the “Conductor” Model
Time Magazine States: To Pepsi, and to companies around the world, the days when mass-market media is the sole vehicle to reach an audience are officially over. Instead of pouring millions of dollars into a Super Bowl commercial, Pepsi has started a social-media campaign to promote its “Pepsi Refresh” initiative. Pepsi plans to give away $20 million in grant money to fund projects in six categories: health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighborhoods and education.
People can go to the Pepsi website refresheverything.com — which can also be accessed through Facebook and Twitter — to both submit ideas and vote on others they find appealing. Among those on the site now: “Help free healthcare clinic expand services to uninsured in rural TN” and “Build a fitness center for all students in Hays, Kansas community.” Every month, the company will offer up to 32 grants to worthy projects.
“This is such a fundamental change from anything we’ve done in the past,” says Lauren Hobart, chief marketing officer for Pepsi-Cola North America Beverages. “It’s a big shift. We explored different launch plans, and the Super Bowl just wasn’t the right venue, because we’re really trying to spark a full-year movement from the ground up. The plan is to have much more two-way dialogue with our customers.”
5 Elements of the Conductor Model
The conductor model leverages five elements of interaction with the marketplace. These are:
1. Attention: They do things that create attention from the marketplace. However, the things they do draw attention to are people’s ideas, wants, desires and needs rather than direct attention to themselves. They build social capital by doing things that people can participate in and benefit from. They provide content that is in context to people’s intentions rather than the intentions of their organization. The Pepsi campaign will and is drawing the right attention not just for one event rather 24/7 and 365 days of the year. Main stream media is discussing the Pepsi move away from Super Bowl to the above social media campaign and will likely report the results continuously.
2. Awareness: Social conductors draw attention to people and things that are social. Such things could be anything that people desire, want or need and the conductor enables people to easily access information that is in alignment with their intents. By raising awareness of issues of importance to people conductors are in fact raising awareness to their brand. Main stream media and the participants are likely to discuss the Pepsi campaign and the blogosphere will explode with commentary for a long long time.
3. Affinity: Social conductors create affinities to people by enabling people to interact, support and communicate relevant information that is important to people’s wants, needs, desires and intentions. By creating such affinities the social conductor is indirectly creating an affinity to themselves for the value created by the experience and interaction they enable.
4. Audience: By creating attention, awareness and affinity the social conductor builds an audience who relates to the conductors actions, intents and value created on behalf of the audience.
5. Action: The social conductor enables people to “act” on their desires, wants, needs and intention thus becoming the enabler of action on behalf of the audience. Being the enabler builds trust and confidence in the conductor. Something every brand and individual aspires to accomplish.
The social conductor model is well socially oriented and aimed at giving people tools, content and experiences that enhance an individual's or other organization's objective. The results produced by a conductor come from the results that produce for people. Enabling people to produce results comes back to the conductor in ways typically not measured or considered.
The bottom line grows because of the context of being a social conductor that people appreciate. Such sentiment creates a transaction of appreciation which translates to a transaction for the conductor. A social conductor draws in support from the audience because of its intent rather than its marketing. On Twitter, Ashton Kutcher reveals to his nearly 4.5 million followers that he can barely wait for the voting to begin for the Pepsi campaign. Pepsi just may have started the race for organizations to learn how to become social conductors.
You decide.
Jay Deragon
Author
02 11 2010
Pepsi Initiates the “Conductor” Model
Time Magazine States: To Pepsi, and to companies around the world, the days when mass-market media is the sole vehicle to reach an audience are officially over. Instead of pouring millions of dollars into a Super Bowl commercial, Pepsi has started a social-media campaign to promote its “Pepsi Refresh” initiative. Pepsi plans to give away $20 million in grant money to fund projects in six categories: health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighborhoods and education.
People can go to the Pepsi website refresheverything.com — which can also be accessed through Facebook and Twitter — to both submit ideas and vote on others they find appealing. Among those on the site now: “Help free healthcare clinic expand services to uninsured in rural TN” and “Build a fitness center for all students in Hays, Kansas community.” Every month, the company will offer up to 32 grants to worthy projects.
“This is such a fundamental change from anything we’ve done in the past,” says Lauren Hobart, chief marketing officer for Pepsi-Cola North America Beverages. “It’s a big shift. We explored different launch plans, and the Super Bowl just wasn’t the right venue, because we’re really trying to spark a full-year movement from the ground up. The plan is to have much more two-way dialogue with our customers.”
5 Elements of the Conductor Model
The conductor model leverages five elements of interaction with the marketplace. These are:
1. Attention: They do things that create attention from the marketplace. However, the things they do draw attention to are people’s ideas, wants, desires and needs rather than direct attention to themselves. They build social capital by doing things that people can participate in and benefit from. They provide content that is in context to people’s intentions rather than the intentions of their organization. The Pepsi campaign will and is drawing the right attention not just for one event rather 24/7 and 365 days of the year. Main stream media is discussing the Pepsi move away from Super Bowl to the above social media campaign and will likely report the results continuously.
2. Awareness: Social conductors draw attention to people and things that are social. Such things could be anything that people desire, want or need and the conductor enables people to easily access information that is in alignment with their intents. By raising awareness of issues of importance to people conductors are in fact raising awareness to their brand. Main stream media and the participants are likely to discuss the Pepsi campaign and the blogosphere will explode with commentary for a long long time.
3. Affinity: Social conductors create affinities to people by enabling people to interact, support and communicate relevant information that is important to people’s wants, needs, desires and intentions. By creating such affinities the social conductor is indirectly creating an affinity to themselves for the value created by the experience and interaction they enable.
4. Audience: By creating attention, awareness and affinity the social conductor builds an audience who relates to the conductors actions, intents and value created on behalf of the audience.
5. Action: The social conductor enables people to “act” on their desires, wants, needs and intention thus becoming the enabler of action on behalf of the audience. Being the enabler builds trust and confidence in the conductor. Something every brand and individual aspires to accomplish.
The social conductor model is well socially oriented and aimed at giving people tools, content and experiences that enhance an individual's or other organization's objective. The results produced by a conductor come from the results that produce for people. Enabling people to produce results comes back to the conductor in ways typically not measured or considered.
The bottom line grows because of the context of being a social conductor that people appreciate. Such sentiment creates a transaction of appreciation which translates to a transaction for the conductor. A social conductor draws in support from the audience because of its intent rather than its marketing. On Twitter, Ashton Kutcher reveals to his nearly 4.5 million followers that he can barely wait for the voting to begin for the Pepsi campaign. Pepsi just may have started the race for organizations to learn how to become social conductors.
You decide.
Jay Deragon
Author
02 11 2010
2/08/2010
CAN YOU DO BETTER THAN THE MARKET?
The short answer is NO.
The investment industry is the market.
What is does is the best all its investment analysts and advisors can do cumulatively.
To do better the consumer must accept risk
Risk includes doing better and doing worse
The consumer accepts risk because they conclude that it is the only solution to achieving their financial objectives given the constraints of the time available.
Investment advisors profit from trades. They are predisposed to encourage them ......as a solution to a client 's need for investment portfolio growth.
That is the business model they operate in. They do not have an alternative. The industry is institutionally centric. The solution to the consumer's needs requires a client centric process.
The consumer's choice is the best of the worst because the industry does not have a client centric process based choice. The consumer can only measure his or her investment performance against the industry norm which is a relative measurement....i.e. the best of the worst since the industry does not provide the best independent client centric solutions available - except for their own objectives. They have the tools. They use the tools. For the enhancement of their own bottom line.
We have made the institutional tools and the process available to allow the consumer to do better with minimal risk. i.e. the amount of risk they need to achieve their objectives - and no more. We have levelled the playing field.
To do this we must operate outside the industry 'box'.
We do.
Have a look at the results.
Ask us and we'll be pleased to show you.
Dan Zwicker
Weigh House Investor Services
2/05/2010
THE SECOND 30 - 40 YEARS
WE KNOW HOW TO EARN AN INCOME FOR OUR FIRST 30 - 40 YEARS.
CAN YOU PROVIDE A SUSTAINABLE INCOME FOR THE NEXT 30 - 40 YEARS DURING YOUR RETIREMENT?
We work one 30 - 40 year lifetime for which we were educated and trained.The income we produce is largely our responsibility.If we do what is expected we can control our income.
We live a second 30 - 40 year lifetime or more for which we were not trained to fund a sustainable lifetime income throughout a 30 - 40 year retirement period.
We rely on our 'Advisors' who were not trained to fund a sustainable lifetime retirement income.
They were trained to offer products with various rates of return - with no control over the end result. The market controls the end result. Past performance does not assure us that we will remain in control of the results we need.
We can control our own work performance. We can't control our capital accumulation performance. We rely on others - advisors - trusted financial advisors.
To retain control over the end result we give our trust and must back it up through own due diligence - inspect what we expect. There are no 2nd chances.
The financial services industry is institutionally product driven.
Institutions get paid when products are sold.
Advisors get paid when products are sold.
Clients are rewarded with the remaining proceeds.
What the market offers is the best return possible in this paradigm.
It does not offer the best return possible in an alternative paradigm.
The consumer has no shortage of advisors or products.The key shortage is time.
The solution requires a client centric process - devoid of product centric conflicts of interest.
We provide a process driven unbiased client centric regulatory compliant solution - independently of product centric financial institutions.
Comprehensively planned, transparent, with minimal market risk, continuously monitored investment bench marked performance with client privacy is at the forefront of our process.
We put the financial tools available to the institutions into the hands of each client so they can answer two questions:
"Will I be OK?"
"Can I retire for 30 - 40 years - without running out of income?"
Ask us.
We will be pleased to show you how.
Check us out at: http://www.weighhouse.com/
For immediate help call me at: 416-726-2427
Or
email me at: dan.zwicker@weighhouse.com
Dan Zwicker B.Sc. (Hons.) P. Eng. CFP CLU CH.F.C. CFSB
Certified Financial Planner
Chartered Financial Consultant
Chartered Life Underwriter
Professional Engineers Ontario
2/02/2010
VALUE IN EXCHANGE
ETF pioneer Sam Sief gets aggressive with business of passive investing
SAM SElF HAS been called a near-pop star of Bay Street and a money-managing titan, but such accolades make this self-described anxious person a little, well, anxious. Not because he doesn't deserve such praise. After all, not everyone can raise $1 billion in three years without any real background education in the fund business. And it's certainly not because the CEO and president of Claymore Invesnnents in Canada lacks self-confidence. He's good at what he does - whether it's starting a firm from scratch, developing an innovative fund or playing water polo - and he knows it.
But bring up the full-page U'eaUnent he once received in a national newspaper - where he was first called a "titan" - and he just about snorts. "1 haven't lived that down," Seif says. "My friends still call me that as a joke. My brother, who is one of my key mentors in business, once told me to never assume 1 am smarter than everyone else, because if! ever felt that way he would show me 10 people smarter than me right away."
That might be easier said than done. In less than five years, the 33-year-old Seif has built Claymore InvesU11ents, a subsidiary of Chicago-based money-manager Claymore Group Inc., into one of the most innovative financial firms on Bay Street. His core strategy: exploiting investor's appetite for exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, as they're c~mmonly referred to. ETFs - typically baskets of equities and bonds that passively track a benchmark and trade like stocks - account for 95% of the $4.1 billion in assets that Claymore controlled as of the end of November. Although the market is led by Barclays Global Investor division, iShares, Claymore's book still accounts for about 14% of the industry.
"This year alone we've almost tripled our market share in Canada on ETF assets and we're growing quite dramatically in terms of sales flow," Seif says. "We're capturing over 27% of the actual market flow that is going into the Canadian ETF industry right now. That's pretty impressive coming from nothing three years ago."
Even more impressive given that the idea of improving ETFs for Canadians was sketched out by Seif and three American Claymore execs on a napkin in 2004. At that time, Seif was working at REC, where he'd been employed since graduating from the University of Toronto with a degree in industrial-mechanical engineering. F ortuitously, Claymore Group, a client of Seif's at the bank, was looking for someone to start up its Canadian operations, and decided that the then 28-year-old was the best man for the job.
Events unfolded quickly after that. Seif left RBC and, in early 2005, raised $135 million by himself. Another $200 million was raised that summer after hiring a couple of employees, and the company started to direct its attention on ETFs rather than being just another asset manager. The change worked and Claymore ended 2008 with $1.1 billion in assets. That rapid rise and heady sum were completely dwarfed in 2009. When the final tallies are in, Claymore should end the year with almost four times that amount. "We're the only firm in Canada that saw net positive sales in every single month of 2008 and every single month of 2009," Seif says. "It's not just new money that's being invested, but existing money that's moving away from high-cost active money management to lower-cost passive management."
Claymore's rise coincides with the growing popularity of ETFs on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Almost 30% of the new listings on the TSX in 2008 were ETFs, and trading activity more than quadrupled 2007's total. Another 30 ETFs were listed as of Nov. 30, 2009, and trading had already doubled over the previous year.
ETFs make sense in a down market because they're safer and cheaper than betting on equities individually and have lower expense ratios than mutual funds. Traditional ETFs typically tracked an index
- such as the S&P 500 or another broad range of securities - or were a simpler way to gain exposure to foreign markets. Today's ETFs allow investors
to put money into just a bout any asset class or market, whether
it's equities in Brazil, fixed-income bonds or even specific market sectors such as mining, oil and agTiculture. SOlmds simple enough, but when Claymore entered the Canadian market there was just one ETF provider, iShares, which has the vety popular Canadian LargeCap 60 Index Fund (TSX: XIV).
That gave Seif a big opportunity to offer something different. He started with the Claymore Canadian Fundamental Index (TSX: CRQ), which in Canada pioneered the fundamentals-based ETF approach that is based on the Research Affiliates Fundamental Index. In short, such an approach takes a lot of the
emotion out of investing. Instead of building a portfolio based on market cap and investor sentiment, Claymore looks at cash flow, sales, book value and dividends and rebalances its funds based on pre-determined rules. That means Claymore doesn't get caught up in the hype if one company's market cap soars higher than its fundamentals would suggest and vice-versa.
Seif says Claymore has since become the first firm in the world to put together ETFs that offered DRIPs (dividend reinvestment programs) PACCs (pre-authorized cash contributions) and SWIPs (systematic withdrawal programs), which allow investors to get into the game a few hlUldred dollars at a time instead of thousands. Claymore was also the first to offer dividend and income-based ETFs and a balanced (or wrap) ETF that invests in multiple asset classes in one portfolio.
"I hate the idea of 'no,' or 'it can't be done' or 'it's never been done.' I hate that. I love innovation," Seif says. "The truth of this business is that we always have to find ways to make products that are easier for the investor al\Q better for the investor."
An admitted' workaholic, Seif is all too aware of that character trait's pitfalls, and takes care to make time for family (he and his wife, Kerry, recently had their first child, a daughter) and other pursuits, such as his passion for water polo. "You have to be a workaholic to accomplish something and be successful," Seif says. "Ultimately, though, you have to have a commitment to things beyond work." On that front, Seif gives his time to charitable causes, such as the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Edmond Odette Cancer Centre Cabinet at Toronto's Sunnybrook Hospital.
Still, the job of building Claymore Investments remains top of mind. "I Jive and play for the current opportunity," Seif says. "I don't really have a vision for when I'm 35 or 40. I believe you have to test yourself and think about how you could be doing things differently to the point that every day you could walk in and say, 'We're going to change our business."
Seif has already changed gears three times in his career, so don't bet against him doing it again.
FP
by Andy Holloway
February 2010
SAM SElF HAS been called a near-pop star of Bay Street and a money-managing titan, but such accolades make this self-described anxious person a little, well, anxious. Not because he doesn't deserve such praise. After all, not everyone can raise $1 billion in three years without any real background education in the fund business. And it's certainly not because the CEO and president of Claymore Invesnnents in Canada lacks self-confidence. He's good at what he does - whether it's starting a firm from scratch, developing an innovative fund or playing water polo - and he knows it.
But bring up the full-page U'eaUnent he once received in a national newspaper - where he was first called a "titan" - and he just about snorts. "1 haven't lived that down," Seif says. "My friends still call me that as a joke. My brother, who is one of my key mentors in business, once told me to never assume 1 am smarter than everyone else, because if! ever felt that way he would show me 10 people smarter than me right away."
That might be easier said than done. In less than five years, the 33-year-old Seif has built Claymore InvesU11ents, a subsidiary of Chicago-based money-manager Claymore Group Inc., into one of the most innovative financial firms on Bay Street. His core strategy: exploiting investor's appetite for exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, as they're c~mmonly referred to. ETFs - typically baskets of equities and bonds that passively track a benchmark and trade like stocks - account for 95% of the $4.1 billion in assets that Claymore controlled as of the end of November. Although the market is led by Barclays Global Investor division, iShares, Claymore's book still accounts for about 14% of the industry.
"This year alone we've almost tripled our market share in Canada on ETF assets and we're growing quite dramatically in terms of sales flow," Seif says. "We're capturing over 27% of the actual market flow that is going into the Canadian ETF industry right now. That's pretty impressive coming from nothing three years ago."
Even more impressive given that the idea of improving ETFs for Canadians was sketched out by Seif and three American Claymore execs on a napkin in 2004. At that time, Seif was working at REC, where he'd been employed since graduating from the University of Toronto with a degree in industrial-mechanical engineering. F ortuitously, Claymore Group, a client of Seif's at the bank, was looking for someone to start up its Canadian operations, and decided that the then 28-year-old was the best man for the job.
Events unfolded quickly after that. Seif left RBC and, in early 2005, raised $135 million by himself. Another $200 million was raised that summer after hiring a couple of employees, and the company started to direct its attention on ETFs rather than being just another asset manager. The change worked and Claymore ended 2008 with $1.1 billion in assets. That rapid rise and heady sum were completely dwarfed in 2009. When the final tallies are in, Claymore should end the year with almost four times that amount. "We're the only firm in Canada that saw net positive sales in every single month of 2008 and every single month of 2009," Seif says. "It's not just new money that's being invested, but existing money that's moving away from high-cost active money management to lower-cost passive management."
Claymore's rise coincides with the growing popularity of ETFs on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Almost 30% of the new listings on the TSX in 2008 were ETFs, and trading activity more than quadrupled 2007's total. Another 30 ETFs were listed as of Nov. 30, 2009, and trading had already doubled over the previous year.
ETFs make sense in a down market because they're safer and cheaper than betting on equities individually and have lower expense ratios than mutual funds. Traditional ETFs typically tracked an index
- such as the S&P 500 or another broad range of securities - or were a simpler way to gain exposure to foreign markets. Today's ETFs allow investors
to put money into just a bout any asset class or market, whether
it's equities in Brazil, fixed-income bonds or even specific market sectors such as mining, oil and agTiculture. SOlmds simple enough, but when Claymore entered the Canadian market there was just one ETF provider, iShares, which has the vety popular Canadian LargeCap 60 Index Fund (TSX: XIV).
That gave Seif a big opportunity to offer something different. He started with the Claymore Canadian Fundamental Index (TSX: CRQ), which in Canada pioneered the fundamentals-based ETF approach that is based on the Research Affiliates Fundamental Index. In short, such an approach takes a lot of the
emotion out of investing. Instead of building a portfolio based on market cap and investor sentiment, Claymore looks at cash flow, sales, book value and dividends and rebalances its funds based on pre-determined rules. That means Claymore doesn't get caught up in the hype if one company's market cap soars higher than its fundamentals would suggest and vice-versa.
Seif says Claymore has since become the first firm in the world to put together ETFs that offered DRIPs (dividend reinvestment programs) PACCs (pre-authorized cash contributions) and SWIPs (systematic withdrawal programs), which allow investors to get into the game a few hlUldred dollars at a time instead of thousands. Claymore was also the first to offer dividend and income-based ETFs and a balanced (or wrap) ETF that invests in multiple asset classes in one portfolio.
"I hate the idea of 'no,' or 'it can't be done' or 'it's never been done.' I hate that. I love innovation," Seif says. "The truth of this business is that we always have to find ways to make products that are easier for the investor al\Q better for the investor."
An admitted' workaholic, Seif is all too aware of that character trait's pitfalls, and takes care to make time for family (he and his wife, Kerry, recently had their first child, a daughter) and other pursuits, such as his passion for water polo. "You have to be a workaholic to accomplish something and be successful," Seif says. "Ultimately, though, you have to have a commitment to things beyond work." On that front, Seif gives his time to charitable causes, such as the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Edmond Odette Cancer Centre Cabinet at Toronto's Sunnybrook Hospital.
Still, the job of building Claymore Investments remains top of mind. "I Jive and play for the current opportunity," Seif says. "I don't really have a vision for when I'm 35 or 40. I believe you have to test yourself and think about how you could be doing things differently to the point that every day you could walk in and say, 'We're going to change our business."
Seif has already changed gears three times in his career, so don't bet against him doing it again.
FP
by Andy Holloway
February 2010
2/01/2010
WE KNOW HOW TO EARN AN INCOME FOR OUR FIRST 30 - 40 YEARS. CAN YOU PROVIDE A SUSTAINABLE INCOME FOR THE NEXT 30 - 40 YEARS DURING YOUR RETIREMENT?
We work one 30 - 40 year lifetime for which we were educated and trained.
The income we produce is largely our responsibility.
If we do what is expected we can control our income.
We live a second 30 - 40 year lifetime or more for which we were not trained to fund a sustainable lifetime income throughout a 30 - 40 year retirement period. .
We rely on our 'Advisors' who were not trained to fund a sustainable lifetime retirement income.
They were trained to offer products with various rates of return - with no control over the end result. The market controls the end result. Past performance does not assure us that we will remain in control of the results we need.
We can control our own work performance. We can't control our capital accumulation performance. We rely on others - advisors - trusted financial advisors.
To retain control over the end result we give our trust and must back it up through own due diligence - inspect what we expect. There are no 2nd chances.
The financial services industry is institutionally product driven.
Institutions get paid when products are sold.
Advisors get paid when products are sold.
Clients are rewarded with the remaining proceeds.
What the market offers is the best return possible in this paradigm.
It does not offer the best return possible in an alternative paradigm.
The consumer has no shortage of advisors or products.
The key shortage is time.
The solution requires a client centric process - devoid of product centric conflicts of interest.
We provide a process driven unbiased client centric regulatory compliant solution - independently of product centric financial institutions.
Comprehensively planned, transparent, with minimal market risk, continuously monitored investment bench marked performance with client privacy is at the forefront of our process.
We put the financial tools available to the institutions into the hands of each client so they can answer two questions:
"Will I be OK?"
"Can I retire for 30 - 40 years - without running out of income?"
Ask us.
We will be pleased to show you how.
Check us out at: www.weighhouse.com
For immediate help call me at: 416-726-2427
Or email me at: dan.zwicker@weighhouse.com
Dan Zwicker B.Sc. (Hons.) P. Eng. CFP CLU CH.F.C. CFSB
Certified Financial Planner
Chartered Financial Consultant
Chartered Life Underwriter
Professional Engineers Ontario
The income we produce is largely our responsibility.
If we do what is expected we can control our income.
We live a second 30 - 40 year lifetime or more for which we were not trained to fund a sustainable lifetime income throughout a 30 - 40 year retirement period. .
We rely on our 'Advisors' who were not trained to fund a sustainable lifetime retirement income.
They were trained to offer products with various rates of return - with no control over the end result. The market controls the end result. Past performance does not assure us that we will remain in control of the results we need.
We can control our own work performance. We can't control our capital accumulation performance. We rely on others - advisors - trusted financial advisors.
To retain control over the end result we give our trust and must back it up through own due diligence - inspect what we expect. There are no 2nd chances.
The financial services industry is institutionally product driven.
Institutions get paid when products are sold.
Advisors get paid when products are sold.
Clients are rewarded with the remaining proceeds.
What the market offers is the best return possible in this paradigm.
It does not offer the best return possible in an alternative paradigm.
The consumer has no shortage of advisors or products.
The key shortage is time.
The solution requires a client centric process - devoid of product centric conflicts of interest.
We provide a process driven unbiased client centric regulatory compliant solution - independently of product centric financial institutions.
Comprehensively planned, transparent, with minimal market risk, continuously monitored investment bench marked performance with client privacy is at the forefront of our process.
We put the financial tools available to the institutions into the hands of each client so they can answer two questions:
"Will I be OK?"
"Can I retire for 30 - 40 years - without running out of income?"
Ask us.
We will be pleased to show you how.
Check us out at: www.weighhouse.com
For immediate help call me at: 416-726-2427
Or email me at: dan.zwicker@weighhouse.com
Dan Zwicker B.Sc. (Hons.) P. Eng. CFP CLU CH.F.C. CFSB
Certified Financial Planner
Chartered Financial Consultant
Chartered Life Underwriter
Professional Engineers Ontario
WHY DO PEOPLE OFTEN VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS? THE CASE FOR ENGAGEMENT VS PUSH MARKETING
The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.
Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
Drew Westen argues that stories rather than facts convince voters
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."
Reverse revolution
He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank thinks that voters have become blinded to their real interests
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."
As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted. This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.
BBC News
01/24/2010
Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
Drew Westen argues that stories rather than facts convince voters
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."
Reverse revolution
Thomas Frank thinks that voters have become blinded to their own interests
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank thinks that voters have become blinded to their real interests
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."
As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted. This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.
BBC News
01/24/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
