Congress’s Extraordinary Hypocrisy – II September 30, 1998February 6, 2017 Who says vibrant political debate isn’t alive and well in America? Your reactions to my comments fell on both sides, vaguely in line with the latest polling numbers: “Today’s article is as poorly reasoned as any defense of President Clinton that I have read. But then arguments by analogy, such as you have made, will almost always disappoint. The differences between the alleged perjury of the tobacco executives and the President’s alleged perjury are too many to detail in one short message. Here’s the obvious one. The President is elected to lead the nation and is the primary agent of law enforcement. When he broke the law and lied to the electorate, he destroyed the trust that is the very foundation of the office. Tobacco executives do not possess the same public trust and so should not necessarily be held to the same standard. One can reasonably argue that they should or should not be held accountable, but one cannot reasonably argue that they must be held to the same standard. You will find that arguments based in logic or evidence serve you better than such a weak comparison.” – Tim Lash “This is the greatest thing you’ve ever written. Here’s another one: Why is it always the same people that claim to be against regulations (of, say, guns) that go to such great lengths to regulate what we can see and hear? I don’t get it. I thought they hated regulations. I thought regulations were for liberals. Right? Unless, of course, we’re talking about a radio show with a few dirty words, or a movie with a little too much of that dirty-birdy ‘sex’ stuff. Then, I hear nothing from these guys about ‘imposing on personal freedoms.’ Then, it’s just fine to regulate and impose. I guess a gun, which can blow a bunch of people’s heads off, is of far less danger than a film projected from a wall. I guess guns don’t kill people, Howard Stern kills people. I guess, maybe this is a blatant double standard. What a shock.” – Joshua Rasiel “What enrages me about the Bill/Monica ‘thing’ is the flagrant hypocrisy of both the press and you liberals concerning the sexual harrassment aspects of it all! Remember the feminazis outrage during the Thomas hearings, the Packwood lynching, and the drill instructor’s execution? We conservative males just ‘didn’t get it!’ But it sure is quiet now, isn’t it, from these same folks! Now it’s ‘consensual sex is ok’ (so was the drill instructors), now it’s ‘a private matter, we don’t need to know!’ It’s enough to make me want to throw up!” – Mark D. Witte A.T.: Before you throw up, Mark, bear in mind that most of us liberals think Clinton should be the first president in the nation’s history to be censured. (Andrew Jackson was censured, but later the censure was repealed.) That’s not entirely nothing. “I now better understand my inclination (along with millions of other Americans) to support President Clinton in this sad situation. No, I am not a liberal Democrat, as you most likely are. I HAD always been proud of my Republican bias. NOW, I am not so sure. Back-lash? I think so!” – JR A.T.: Not to disappoint, but I actually don’t think of myself as a liberal Democrat, but rather as a “DLC Democrat,” also known as a “new Democrat.” The DLC has been chaired by such folks as Governors Bill Clinton and Roy Romer and Senator Joe Lieberman. There’s probably not a lot of difference between a new Democrat and a liberal Republican – say, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld. “He is not perfect?? Give me a break!!! It is truly amazing that I read this line of crap from so many investors. What is obvious is that you are only protecting your bottom line instead of looking at what is best for the United States. It is so important to you that the stock market remain stable and your portfolio increase that you are willing to accept a president that has committed perjury, and had sex with an intern in the oval office. Hello, could you have sex with one of your subordinates and get away with that??? Hello, could you lie after taking an oath to ‘Tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth???’ You are pathetic, stand up, be a citizen, don’t hide behind your stock.” – Aaron Pugh A.T.: Thanks for your perspective, Aaron. I know passions run high on this topic, and I’m happy to hear your point of view. I’m sure you’ve considered the downside to impeachment versus censure. (I do think censure is appropriate – and as the first in the history of the nation, it’s not a small thing.) The precedent impeachment would set could prove unfortunate. But, that said, I don’t fault those who think resignation or impeachment is appropriate. My column only meant to point out that those people had better also be incensed about the tobacco CEOs and the congressmen who protect them, or else they’re being pretty dramatically inconsistent (in my view). Yes, we should hold the president to higher standards than a tobacco CEO. Then again, lying to Congress about an issue that has caused massive death and suffering seems to me several orders of magnitude greater than lying about an affair. After all, I think Clinton pretty well signaled the voters from the get-go that marital fidelity was not his first strength (to put it mildly), yet he was elected then – and reelected after any voter with a brain must surely have realized it wasn’t his second or third strength either. No one disagrees that what he did was wrong. The only issue, I think, is which – censure or impeachment – is the appropriate response. My column merely suggested that those who come down on the side of impeachment should also be calling for the resignation of a lot of tobacco-perjurer-protecting congressmen – and that if they are prepared to call for that, then their position is consistent and I respect it. “I do think the tobacco CEO’s should be jailed for what they did. I disagree with you on Clinton. I do not care about his Sex life, and think he denigrates the office beyond repair in this time when most people believe all politicians are barely better than criminals.” – Roly Hughes “I agree with you completely and I am from a tobacco state. I have already communicated to my congressman, a personal long-term acquaintance, that his actions in this matter have convinced me that he is not the person I want representing me and my neighbors.” – Terry Hough “My Dad died with emphysema, and I remember the lies those tobacco men told. I saw them. Please note, that although I said he died with emphysema, I did not say that he died from emphysema. He committed suicide because he said he could no longer deal with the pain. So that 400,000 number is definitely off. There are many suicides that need to be included. For those claiming Christianity, I’ll say one thing to you. Matthew 7:2.” – Marie # You sent lots more messages, pro and con – thanks for both. Perhaps the most intriguing one came from Robert Brown. (Going to prove, yet again, that the insights you all send me are a lot more interesting than the ones I send you.) I’m not saying I fully understood it, but it grabbed me. He wrote: “I fully agree with you. As a student of biological evolution, I am regularly humbled by the absolutely foundational force of ‘selective attention.’ Imagine any life form being unable to discriminate between molecules. Now, as eons of discrimination have delivered us to our modern high-strung state, the chief challenge may well be the avoidance of having our selective attention hijacked by various parasites with narrow visions not in our interest. (Not to mention our own bungling use of these potent tools!) The game remains unchanged: plucking sustenance/advantage from a sea of noise/poison.”
Profound Advice on 3Com Puts September 29, 1998February 6, 2017 “Can you offer any profound advice about buying puts, as a small percentage of my portfolio, on a company which gets a bump in price on ridiculous takeover rumors? I’m thinking of 3Com, which will not, under just about any circumstances, be taken over by either Cisco or Intel. It seems if I bought a few puts I could make a little bit of income. These options trades are very complex and confusing (a good reason, actually, to stay away). Incidentally, my recent interest in options is all your fault! This is what my successful shorts of the Internet sector (Amazon finally gave in) has done to my already considerable ego. And you started me on it with your Amazon article – despite your frequent admonitions to stay away from options.” – Jeffrey Scwarz A.T.: Knowing nothing whatever about 3Com, here’s my profound advice: Be careful. But puts are obviously much safer than shorts, and with a SMALL amount of money, you will only lose a SMALL amount of money. (Shorting 100 shares of the wrong stock at the wrong time could, by contrast, cost you a fortune.) Over the long run with puts and calls, you are likely to have lots of small losses, some big gains, lots of commissions, taxes, and tax-time paperwork. You will, in short, over the long run, lose a bit of money. But any entertainment has its cost – Super Bowl seats don’t come cheap, and neither does a lifetime of betting on Super Bowls.
Your Own E-Clipping Service September 28, 1998February 6, 2017 Recently I told you how smart the guys at amazon.com are. Today, another smart Internet site: www.reference.com. It is to news groups and forums and “mailing list” discussions what Lexis-Nexis or AltaVista or somebody is to searching newspapers and magazines. And it’s free. It lets you store your queries (so if you are interested in what people are saying about Presley Industries, you can just click the previously stored “PRESLEY NOT ELVIS” search you stored, along with other criteria you used to define the search). It lets you instruct it to search automatically at regular intervals (you tell it how often), gather up the messages that mention Presley Industries (if there is such a company) and then e-mail them all to you in a single file. So it’s like a cyber-clipping service. It’s a good way to find news groups and forums and discussion groups on topics of interest to you. Of course, we are not talking “the media” here. Reference.com won’t turn up neatly edited articles from Fortune or the New York Times. But if you’re the brand manager for Sugar Frosted Flakes, it gives you a way to see what real people, unedited, have been saying about your product. I just picked that topic off the top of my head, but then figured I should go see if Reference.com would pick up anything. Sure enough, on August 31 (for example), Chris Clarke and Peggy M. had this exchange: Chris (responding to a guy named rabbit who had announced he doesn’t eat Brussels sprouts): “You don’t eat Brussels sprouts?” I think of them as another reason to stay childfree: I like them, and I don’t want my choice of them as dinner blocked by someone whose palate hasn’t evolved past the Sugar Frosted Flakes level. Peggy: On the other hand, if I want to eat Sugar Frosted Flakes, or chocolate cookies, or a whole quart of ice cream, for breakfast, I can, because I don’t have to Set An Example. (My digestive system is another matter.) My stepson was remarking the other day how he’d like to be able to eat stuff that’s really bad for you nutritionally when he wants to but he can’t because they don’t let the kids eat junk food so he can’t either. Now you never know. Maybe in that exchange is the kernel of a new ad campaign idea. Or a new insight for the brand manager. (And there were other references to Sugar Frosted Flakes for him to peruse, as well.) If you’re, say, an author with a giant ego, you might search to see what people are saying about you. Remember: it’s unedited, un-fact-checked, and, for better or worse — real. I did a little search and found a couple of people extolling my humorous definition of IPO (initial public offering) — It’s Probably Overpriced. Now, to my knowledge, I never wrote this. I was getting credit for a clever phrase I had nothing to do with. But there it was ricocheting around cyberspace, everybody agreeing it was me. (Actually, if the underwriter does his job perfectly — impossible in an imperfect world — it’s probably underpriced. At least if it’s a top-quality underwriter. A good investment bank will want to bring a company public at a price close to but lower than what the market would be willing to pay so that there’s a little bounce, and it gets off to a good start — and so that people continue to buy its offerings. Of course, there are periods when the market is so hot for new issues, they’re all overpriced — and jump up anyway. And it’s also true that not all IPOs are underwritten by quality firms. So this definition, whoever came up with it, ain’t half bad.)
Let’s Buy Mars September 25, 1998March 25, 2012 I was sitting next to a guy at dinner last night who grew up in Swawaw, Alaska. “Where?” I said. “Seward. Named after the guy who purchased Alaska. Seward’s Folly, they called it.” “Oh. That’s right. The old Interior Secretary or whatever he was.” (He was Lincoln’s Secretary of State, but I don’t want you to think I remembered that right off the bat.) And then I naturally flashed to the Louisiana Purchase, which seemed a folly at the time, too. Only the $23 purchase of Manhattan Island has not been ridiculed among early North American land acquisitions. (And as it has been pointed out ad nauseum, if the Dutch had merely compounded that $23 at 10% instead of buying Manhattan, they’d have been much better off – 57 quadrillion 518 trillion 389 billion 164 million dollars and change is what it would have come to by now – but the fact is the Manhattan Indians did not thus invest it, and “woulda, coulda, shoulda” – the age-old chant of the Wall Street Indians – doesn’t count). But I digress. The point is (and I had had the better part of a Sam Adams on tap, which for me is no small binge, so I was thinking freely), I was soon wondering the obvious thing: What’s the next Alaska? What’s the next Louisiana? Mars! You laugh. But that’s just it. They laughed at Alaska, they laughed at Louisiana, and now you laugh at Mars. But think about it. The moon is a possibility, too, of course, but I think there are already international treaties covering the moon, and I don’t want to start bullying anybody with our wealth, especially with much of the rest of the world in such financial crisis. Our friends in foreign lands could be touchy about the moon. But Mars? Who would feel threatened if we bought their ownership rights in Mars? How many of us can even point it out in the sky? (Summer nights are filled with: “Is that Venus?” “I think it’s Saturn.” “You can tell it’s a planet because it’s not twinkling.” “Yeah, but it’s moving.” “You think it’s a satellite?” “I think it’s a plane.” “You’re moving.”) And what a face-saving thing this could be. Rather than just give the money to the Russians or the Malaysians or whomever else we’re going to have to help bail out, why not get something for it in return – and help them retain their dignity to boot? This isn’t charity; we’re buying up something of possible future value. I suppose we could try to buy their rights to the ocean floor or the moon – more immediately valuable things – but as I say, this could appear to be bullying. Indeed, it might be bullying. But no one particularly covets Mars in the short run. Indeed, we might not even have to come up with all the cash. What if we bought Mars but then turned around and sold the promotional rights for 100 years to the Mars candy company? It’s a private company with billions of bucks (or that’s its image anyway), and in return for just a few of those billions, it could be the only company in the world that owned the bragging rights to another world. Mars could be, at least for 100 years (and not including the mineral and colonization rights), their planet. How are the Gummi Bear people going to compete with that? I actually have something to say about Gummi Bears, too, but that’s another column.
Calton Homes, Again September 24, 1998February 6, 2017 You know I rarely write about specific stocks, if only because I’m not so great at picking them. But I did fall into the trap not long ago of telling you about Calton Homes and then to my amazement see some good news. I think it’s worth a follow-up, because of the curious way it is unfolding. To refresh your memory (and fully disclose my interest): I bought a little of this dog at 5, more at 3, and lots more at three-eighths. It is an American-Stock-Exchange-listed homebuilder that did pretty well under its founder, a guy named Calderone, who then I guess figured he should take some time to enjoy his success and largely sold out. The new guys didn’t do nearly so well, witness the stock price, so when we entered this story (or at least when you did), Calderone had reacquired control to try to rescue his investment (and maybe us shareholders). Of the 29 million shares outstanding, he and his family own 11 million. And when I wrote about it here this summer, the stock was trading between 50 cents and five-eighths of a dollar. Sure, it could go to zero, I acknowledged (and still do), but here’s a guy with 11 million reasons not to let it – and who apparently has demonstrated the ability to build a decent house and perhaps even a decent company. (Not that I’d ever been to one of the Calton-built homes or met or spoken with Calderone – I still haven’t.) Anyway, less than a month later (after years of waiting on my part), Centex announces on September 2 that it will acquire CN’s principal (only, I think) asset, its homebuilding subsidiary, in return for assuming all CN debt and $50 million in cash, which works out to a little better than $1.70 a share. So the stock jumped to $1 but last I looked was trading a few pennies below $1. Huh? Well, there was the fear the deal might not go through (which is still a fear, though it seems to be headed for completion). And there was the issue of taxes (I really should have checked this out, but even if the subsidiary had a zero basis and the entire purchase price were a taxable-to-CN capital gain, they’d still be left with a pretty penny). And there was the issue of what CN would do with all that cash. Because, you see, the public company was not being bought – that would remain and I would still own my little piece of it – only the public company’s homebuilding subsidiary. What if Calderone took that $50 million and managed to turn it into $3 million? That is certainly a possibility. But, again, he has 11 million reasons not to do something dumb with it. So my sense has been that he’s at least as likely to make it grow as to make it shrink. And then there’s also the smallish but real value of being a public company in good standing with the various stock exchanges and regulatory authorities. Now, just a few days ago, CN filed its proxy statement explaining its plan for the future. If I read it right (and you should absolutely do more research on this than I have if you are considering investing any of your hard-earned dollars in this speculation), the plan is, first off, to repurchase up to 10 million shares in the open market. If this doesn’t include any of Calderone’s own, then that would be about half the remainder. So if the deal goes through, it seems unlikely the stock would drop much, given this repurchase plan. And think about it. If you could buy $1.70 coins for, say, $1 each, wouldn’t you? Between all the people just eager to get out of CN after all this time, or anxious to take their tax loss, maybe a lot would sell an uncertain $1.70 for $1. (Remember, that $1.70 may be diminished by taxes CN will owe; I haven’t checked.) So the more shares CN can buy for less than their worth, the more the remaining shares are worth to Calderone and those of us who don’t sell. Let’s say CN really gets $1.70 a share after tax (I’m not sure about the taxes) and that for $10 million it can buy up 10 million shares. Now there are 19 million shares outstanding, not 29 million, and the shareholders have a $40 million pile of cash, not $50 million. Well guess what: that’s $2.10 a share. The proxy says the company will explore other investment alternatives, or it may just wrap everything up after 18 months and distribute the cash. So am I suggesting you buy shares in this? No. That would be really dumb, because if it works out, you’ll forget who suggested it (you’re human) and if it all turns to disaster, you’ll remember exactly who suggested it. But is this something perhaps to research and consider? Well, that could be a useful exercise. Tomorrow: Let’s Buy Mars
Save for the House or Prepay the Education Loans? September 23, 1998February 6, 2017 From Eric: “Here’s our situation. My wife and I just finished getting our credit card balance down to $0. I have one year left on a car loan at 7.5%, ten years left on three education loans at 8-9%, and we both do pretty well, so we have about $1,800 per month left over after expenses. We are trying to put money away for a down payment for a house next year (we have about $10,000 put away already). The question is, should we put everything away for the house, start pre-paying some of the loans, or a combination of both?” A.T.: Your answer will likely be better than mine, because you will give it/have given it hours of thought. But here’s the 30-second reaction: Good for you re the credit cards. And good for you re the car … just keep paying the monthly payments and then, with luck, keep driving an old car with no payments. (At which point you may have $2200/month left after expenses.) From a numbers point of view, if you expect the house you buy to appreciate at 3% a year (say), then on a 20% down payment, your investment is appreciating at 15% a year because of the leverage. And to earn 15% is better than the 9% tax free you earn prepaying your education loan. Then again, the house will have lots of extra expenses versus renting, so in figuring whether it will appreciate 3% a year, you should try to subtract from the expected appreciation the extra costs of home ownership. (This is easier said than done, because (a) you can’t know for sure how much extra, if anything, owning will cost versus renting (i.e., when you might need a new boiler); (b) you should adjust your calculations for taxes (on which you will get a break for the mortgage interest and property taxes); (c) you should allow for the possibility rents might rise faster than your home-ownership costs (so that renting might one day seem more expensive than owning); (d) you should not “charge” to this equation any extra happiness you derive from owning the home (charge it to “spending” rather than investing, as no one says you’re not allowed to spend some extra money to have a happier life); and (e)how the heck can you know how much the home will appreciate?) Then again then again, the larger the down payment you save up, the better loan terms you are likely to be able to get. If you can put down 20% or more, you may not have to pay for mortgage insurance — and that can save you a pretty penny, also. Another case for saving extra hard for the house. In short, there is so much guesswork here, you should probably do what you want; i.e., probably save up for the home now (much more fun) and then, as soon as you can thereafter, start earning 9% tax free and risk free by prepaying the education loan. (I like to think that apart from all this, you are also making steady contributions to employer-matched retirement plans, with much or all of that money being steadily added to your holdings of stocks here and abroad.)
Congress’s Extraordinary Hypocrisy September 22, 1998March 25, 2012 “Public disclosure of once-secret industry documents,” reported the Associated Press recently, “has shown that Big Tobacco privately considered tobacco addictive and harmful at least four decades ago, even as it brushed aside claims that it manipulated nicotine in cigarettes to hook smokers.” It is now clearer than ever that those seven tobacco-company CEOs were lying April 14, 1994, when they raised their right hands and swore to Congress and the American people that they did not believe nicotine was addictive. This lie was part of a decades-long attempt to addict millions of people to a product that, in about 400,000 cases a year in the U.S. alone, leads to premature death and, often, terrible suffering. Why is that perjury not worth investigating and punishing? What would be the downside to the nation if those CEOs suffered some consequence? Yet the Republican-led Congress – financed not insignificantly by the same tobacco interests that so hate the Clinton administration – has in four years called for no action whatever in this regard. But have an affair and lie to cover it up, if you are president – that is a matter of such gravity that swift and devastating action must be taken. To be the second president in history to be censured is not enough. Remember, we are talking here about SEX between two consenting adults. This – and lying about it in hopes of getting away with it without dragging everyone through the mud – rises well above the small matter of 400,000 premature deaths a year. Thus it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to deluge the Internet and airwaves with precisely the sort of material they fervently hope our young people will not see. It is perfectly appropriate for Congress to risk destabilizing global economic confidence by plunging the government into paralysis and possibly beginning impeachment hearings for only the second time in the history of the republic. After all, the president had an affair and lied about it! Let me turn the sarcasm off for a moment and acknowledge that the president’s behavior truly was disappointing. He is not perfect. And I understand people legitimately differ on the gravity of his actions (both the sex and the deception). But if you are one who believes he should actually be forced out of office, at least promise me this: that you will scream bloody murder until the tobacco CEOs are called to account. And until the congressmen who have protected them – mostly the same ones so outraged by Clinton – are voted out of office for their incredible hypocrisy. If you don’t think all those congressmen should be kicked out of office (surely condoning willful deception that contributes to widespread death and disease is more serious than an affair), then maybe, upon reflection, you don’t really think the president should be kicked out of office either.
POSH September 21, 1998February 6, 2017 Many of you joined Mark Brady in setting me straight. “Your comments today on Posh being a travel acronym [Port Out, Starboard Home] are a little misplaced. Actually, the acronym was supposed to refer to travel to India from England. There was a long discussion about this on the urban legends newsgroup. The relevant URLs are: www.urbanlegends.com/language/etymology /posh_etymology_of.html where they reference The Browser’s Dictionary by John Ciardi and www.urbanlegends.com/language/etymology /posh_etymology_of_more.html. They also reference the OED, which has six entries, one where Posh is a nickname of a friend and another referencing a Murray Posh. Still, my favorite use of it was in Ian Fleming’s Chitty Chitty, Bang, Bang.” Adds Robin Sahasranam: “The Port Outbound Starboard Home referred to the desirable cabin bookings on journeys between Britain and its Asian and Pacific colonies like India, Malaya, and Australia. These journeys were before the days of air-conditioning. Port-side cabins on outbound journeys from Britain and Starboard-side cabins on inbound journeys to Britain were on the shady side, and thus more desirable. By the way, all etymologists are not in agreement over this origin of the word posh. There are some who have traced the origins of this word to some Indian languages.” And this from Mike Schiffer: “John Ciardi, in his Browser’s Dictionary series, argues that the word derives from the Romany word ‘posh’ meaning ‘half,’ which entered into London thieves’ cant as meaning swag or loot, and hence became ‘rich’ or ‘fancy’ in more general slang, but I don’t have that book in front of me. I highly recommend the Ciardi books both because they’re interesting in themselves and because they’re great for checking derivations like this. (A check at Amazon indicates that they are out of print, but they shouldn’t be hard to find used.) In my experience, just about any derivation based on an acronym from before the twentieth century is suspect, though I’m sure there are exceptions. (‘Cop,’ meaning policeman, doesn’t come from ‘Constable On Patrol’ either, even though the World Book Encyclopedia of my youth told me that it did, and ‘tips’ aren’t originally To Insure Promptness.) On the other hand, there are still some neat discoveries to be made: daisies are called that because they look like the Sun, or the ‘day’s eye,’ for example.”
Fun September 18, 1998February 6, 2017 “A difficult question I’d like your insight on: How might I identify stocks which I have a reasonable chance of holding forever and enjoying roughly a (U.S.) market rate of return? I am primarily interested in holding in taxable accounts.” – Gilman Miller A.T.: Your question is either very simple or very difficult, so let me take the simple way out: Just buy SPY, a synthetic security that trades like a stock and mimics the Standard & Poor’s 500, and you will be assured of getting essentially a market rate return (minus a mere two-tenths of one percent) all your life — and with relatively mild tax consequences. You will, thus, outperform most — very possibly 90% — of all your friends and neighbors. Of course, simply buying SPY is boring. Your friends and neighbors will have more fun. And speaking of fun … Thanks to Brooks Hilliard for turning me on to www.bobsfridge.com/skew.htm. The day I looked, the lead story had Janet Reno very convincingly calling for the arrest of Congress for posting 445 pages of porno on the Internet. It’s a very funny site.
How Long IS the Long-Term? September 17, 1998February 6, 2017 “In your recent article, you stated that if a person may need the money in 5 years do not consider putting in the stock market. Why do you feel that way? Five years seems to be a nice length of time for your stocks to grow as opposed to leaving it in a bank and getting 3-5% interest a year.” – JPNappy A.T.: Well, say you have $10,000 you may NEED for something in the next five years and that when you DO need it, it’s only worth $6,300, because stocks are down. That would not only leave you short of cash but force you to sell at what might be close to the bottom. Better to have bumbled along in a bank or money market or Treasury Direct and have $11,500 instead. Obviously, five years is arbitrary. If you will literally need the money in five years and one day, that doesn’t make the market a completely safe place for it, any more than at four years and 11 months it’s suddenly dangerous. But the notion that stocks can never go down and stay down for more than a few months — or even a few years — is a very modern one with little regard for reality. To me, for money you really can’t afford to lose, five years would be a sensible minimum — and even then there are no guarantees. One reason “the rich get richer” is that they can afford more risk. They have that first $5 million safely in bonds. <grin> (Hey, I hate “<grin>s” as much as the next guy — what a tragedy it would be if writers had to begin signaling <irony> or <humor> or <tears> with brackets. But I have this morbid fear one of you might actually think I don’t realize how preposterous $5 million IS to most of us — let alone $5 million safely in bonds. <downward-drooping envious pout>)