Welcome to the Money Maven's Financial Blog

Money Maven Blog by Sheryl Sutherland, Authorised Financial Adviser and Director of The Financial Strategies Group

Recommended Reading

Recommended Reading by Sheryl Sutherland: Girls Just Want to Have Fund$ - Every Women’s Guide to Financial Independence, Money, Money, Money Ain't it Funny - How to Wire your Brain for Wealth, and Smart Money - How to structure your New Zealand business or investments and pay less tax.

The Financial Strategies Group

We think for ourselves and make unique recommendations. We only recommend investments and insurances that are in the best interest of our clients.

The Financial Strategies Group

Most of us spend 40 years working to secure our financial future; the most important investment you can make is to purchase appropriate financial planning advice.

Contact us for a review of your investments and insurances.

Begin to experience the serenity that accompanies financial responsibility and integrity: email sheryl@strategies.co.nz, call 0800 64MONEY or visit our website http://www.strategies.co.nz

Showing posts with label Finance and Investments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Finance and Investments. Show all posts

Thursday, 9 November 2017

Musings and Amusings

Don’t Lean In. Opt Out



Manifestoes for working women, much like working women themselves, are often held to an impossibly high standard. Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In was a best-seller, but critics – male and female – tore it apart because it asked women alone to fix their broken work environment. The criticism is valid; Sandberg has since admitted that it would be hard for a single mother to follow her advice. And yet male-authored advice books hardly get torn apart for failing to address intersectionality, privilege, and structural racism and sexism along with tips on how to climb the corporate ladder.

Sallie Krawcheck wants us to know, even before we open Own It: The Power of Women at Work, that she excels in the face of such impossible standards – in heels, no less. The cover features Krawcheck, the co-founder and chief executive officer of Ellevest, an online investment service for women, perched atop a stepladder in black stilettos. Krawcheck gets how difficult it is for women to break into the executive class. She worked her way up in the banking industry, only to be let go from C-suite jobs at Citigroup and Merrill Lynch. 
Reflecting on her tenure at Citigroup, which ended about nine years ago, she says she believes gender played a major role in the tensions she experienced. The final straw, Krawcheck writes, came when she made an unpopular suggestion that she believed was in the company’s best interest: reimbursing some Citigroup customers for losses they’d suffered in the early days of the 2008 financial crisis.

Given how she frames her experiences, you wouldn’t expect Krawcheck to write that “being a woman in the business world is not a liability: it’s power.” The liability, she says, manifests primarily when women try to affect a masculine demeanor around the office: when women speak up, as she did, they’re judged more negatively than men. Women who negotiate the way men do are considered too pushy. So throughout the book, Krawcheck scatters tips on how to successfully leverage feminine traits. In a chapter titled “The Obligatory Ask-for-the-Raise and How-to-Negotiate Chapter (With a Twist),” she suggests that women pretend during salary negotiations that they’re at a PTA meeting. Research shows that women perform better when they’re fighting on behalf of someone else, such as their kids.
Her approach makes sense, but does it work? Here, Krawcheck runs into some trouble. She argues that companies resistant to women-friendly policies and practices will fail – but they haven’t, even as inhospitality remains the norm. The pay gap persists. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission got almost 13,000 complaints of sexual harassment in 2015, a number that’s held steady since 2011. Women enter corporate America at near-parity with men but occupy only 19% of C-suite positions, according to a recent survey by McKinsey and LeanIn.org. Sandberg’s nonprofit. In another recent survey, by MWW Public Relations and Wakefield Research, three-quarters of respondents said they believe women are worse at delivering financial returns for companies. The opposite is true: Numerous studies say that organisations with female managers perform better on average than those led by men. Whatever Krawcheck’s hopes, women tend to get penalised no matter how they act on their way to the top. Those who get there are often set up for failure, tapped to lead only in moments of crisis, when the odds of succeeding are slim to none, a phenomenon known as the glass cliff.

Ultimately, Krawcheck argues, there may be no way for women to work within the system and win, no matter how often they transform perceived liabilities into assets. Her most useful – and radical – advice comes in chapters that urge women to opt out. In “Literally Own It: Start Your Own Thing,” she encourages women to start businesses. When that happens, “there’s no playing by the boys’ club rules,” she writes. “No asking permission.” Since the system isn’t working for us, it’s time for us to build our own.


Source: Bloomberg.com

Thursday, 2 November 2017

Womenomics

Why Put a Ring on It?



In America, women are waiting longer to wed than ever, and many are choosing not to do so at all. The freedom to pursue high-powered careers and sexually diverse lives without fear of pregnancy or stigma has turned marriage into a choice, not destiny. By 2009 nearly half of all American adults younger than 34 had never married, a rise of 12 percentage points in less than a decade. Unmarried women outnumber married ones for the first time ever.

Single women are reshaping politics. As women tend to worry more about reproductive rights and fair pay, they have favoured Democrats for president since 1988. But the overall women’s vote hides a divide: in 2012 Mitt Romney narrowly carried married women, while the unmarried rushed to Barack Obama in their millions, giving him a 36-point margin. Single women cast almost a quarter of the votes, nearly guaranteeing his re-election.

Delaying marriage is also having economic effects: women aged 25 to 34 are the first generation to start their careers near parity with men, earning 93% of men’s wages. Single women now buy homes at greater rates than single men, a big step in independent wealth-building.

These trends have some conservatives fretting about the decline of the family. The divorce rate rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s, as women who had rushed into unhappy marriages discovered they could make their own way. The boom in divorce encouraged many in the next generation to abstain from marriage rather than enter a flawed one. Now that marriage is simply one option among many, fewer women are exchanging vows, but those that do tend to be in happier, more co-operative relationships.

The divorce rate, now falling, has plunged fastest among those who stay single longest. Despite the stereotype that high-achieving women are doomed to spinsterhood, the truth is that these women are now the most likely to tie the knot, and can afford to hold out for the right match.

Not all women are celebrating. For some, singlehood is less a choice than bad luck. Outside big cities, women who are unmarried into their late 30's are often pitied. For those who hope to become mothers, biology imposes harsh deadlines – though breakthroughs in fertility treatments have raised the number of women giving birth after age 35 by 64% between 1990 and 2008.

In particular, poor single women face a different landscape. Not all are unmarried by choice: America’s high incarceration rate has shrunk their pool of men. Single parenthood is strongly correlated with poverty. Conservatives duly push marriage as the antidote: the federal government has spent almost a billion dollars on pro-marriage programmes, to little avail.


Source: economist.com

Tuesday, 24 October 2017

Everyday Money

This is One Inheritance You Don't Want


You may have received a big inheritance, even if you're not aware of it: how you handle your money.

Economics professors at the University of Copenhagen have found that if a parent was in default on a loan at the end of the year (their study looked at data from 2004 to 2011), the chance of default for their children was more than four times as high as for those whose parents were model financial citizens. And that’s across all levels of parental income, loan balances and other measures, including that of intelligence.

The study analysed about 30 million personal loans held by some 5 million Danes ages 18 to 45. It linked that information to government data, including income level and education for the borrowers and their parents.

The key finding: The share of 30 year olds in financial trouble – narrowly defined in this study as being at least 60 days late on a loan at the end of the year - was 5 percent among those whose parents showed no similar sign of financial trouble. It was 23 percent for kids whose parents’ records showed financial trouble.

The study follows other research concluding that risk attitudes seem to be handed down by generation. It couldn’t rule out the chance that long-lasting health shocks had an effect on income that carried over to the next generation, but it did find evidence that shared common shocks tied to the business cycle, such as a parent and child unemployed at the same time, weren’t likely causes for the correlation.

An earlier study that lends support to the Copenhagen work found that adoptees with parents who take on more investment risk in their portfolios tend to make financial decisions for their own portfolios that reflect similar levels of risk. It concluded that nurture plays a substantially larger role than nature in financial risk-taking among parents and children.

That’s not to say our hard wiring plays no role. A 2015 study of identical and fraternal twins in Sweden concluded that “genetic differences explain about 33 percent of the variation in savings propensities across individuals,” finding that parenting plays a part in the differences in the twins’ savings behavior early on but that the effect waned over time.

Even if some of our attitudes toward money are hard-wired, no one wants to pass along a legacy of financial instability. There are many ways to nurture self-control and highlight the difference between “wants” and “needs.”

If you’re able to be a smart saver and shopper and make the tough budgeting tradeoffs – and if you let your kids see all that at the grocery store and when you’re paying the bills – they’re likelier to adopt these behaviors as adults.

Source: Bloomberg.com

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

Finance & Investment


Finance industry fails to attract female investors

Women savers alienated by ads for ‘older rich men.’

The finance industry is failing to attract cash from female investors who feel “alienated” by jargon-filled marketing campaigns designed to appeal to wealthy older men, given my experiences in that industry can’t say I’m surprised.

Advertisements used by the investment industry are confusing women rather than inspiring confidence, a new study has claimed, citing this as one reason women are more likely to hold their savings in cash rather than invest them in funds.  Read Girls Just Want to Have Fund$ for more on this.

“In a workshop we held, women were literally shrieking at the investment and financial services advertisements we showed them,” said Deborah Mattinson, founding director of Britain Thinks, the consultancy that conducted the research for the Financial Times. She added they were described as “alienating, overly complicated and riddled with jargon”. The least successful ads assumed a level of knowledge that women did not have, including the “profit hunter” campaign by Artemis Fund Managers, which women thought was aimed only at “older men” who had a “substantial amount to invest”. If women were featured in adverts at all, they tended to be “yummy mummies with idealised lives” which women felt “did not reflect their reality”, Ms Mattinson added. Previous studies have found only 10 per cent of British women have a stocks and shares Isa, compared to 17 per cent of men, meaning they are missing out on long-term growth potential. Women were more likely to describe themselves as “less knowledgable about investing” than men, and rely on their male partners to come up with investment ideas, according to a survey of 2,000 male and female investors conducted on behalf of the FT by Britain Thinks. Personal Finance Why do most women fear the stock market? Why women lack the confidence to invest — and what to do about it Senior women in the asset management industry believe a substantial marketing makeover is needed to help address this, with new methods — such as videos and online tools — as well as a broader message. “Asset managers are extremely good at talking to each other, but extremely bad at talking to anyone else,” said Diana Mackay, chief executive of MackayWilliams, the research house. Recognising that many women tended to sit on cash as they were “terrified at the thought of investment”, she urged fund managers to “start talking in a language the end investor can understand” adding that this would benefit both sexes. Sue Noffke, a senior fund manager at Schroders, said she believed it was a lack of confidence, rather than competence, that was holding women back. The investment trust she manages is using videos to broaden its appeal. “There really is a market opportunity for financial services firms,” Ms Noffke said. “Women are a large part of the market. Financial services firms are not doing what is required to access that market opportunity.”

Source: Financial Times

Friday, 15 July 2016

Finance & Investments

Here are three common myths about women and money — happily debunked. 

The Stereotype: Women Are More Risk Averse

Many studies have found statistically significant differences in how men and women view risk. But economists and pundits have a habit of extrapolating those findings into the broad-brush statement that "women are more risk averse than men."


Clearly, this isn't universally true. As economist Julie Nelson pointed out, "just one example of a cautious man and a bold woman disproves it."


The Reality: Some Women Are Big Risk-Takers

At least one group of women seem to be greater risk-takers than their peers: those who earn more than $200,000.


A recent Spectrem Group survey of about 400 high-earning women found more than half (54 percent) said they were willing to take a significant risk to earn a higher return on their portfolios. Compare that to just one-third (32 percent) of all other affluent investors who said the same thing. The high-earning women were also more likely to own higher-risk investments, including commodities, hedge funds, and venture capital, than their affluent peers.


The Stereotype: Women Are Less Knowledgeable About Investing

Numerous studies have shown that women tend to be less financially knowledgeable than men (although financial literacy in both sexes is abysmally low, both in the U.S. and abroad). Women are also more likely than men to say they're ignorant about finances.


But many women may know more than they think. In one study of financial literacy in eight countries, women were less likely to correctly answer a question about diversification


The Reality: Some Women Know a Lot
High-income women once again buck the trend. Spectrem's study found 75 percent said that they were very or fairly knowledgeable about financial products or investments, compared to 68 percent of all other affluent investors.


The Stereotype: Women Are Less Interested in Investing

If you buy the notion that women are scared of risk and lack confidence in their financial knowledge, it makes sense that we would be less likely than men to be actively engaged in investing and more likely to hand off those responsibilities to someone else.


The Reality: Some Women Are More Hands-On
The gap disappears when high-income women are compared to their peers: 43 percent of the women in Spectrem's study said they enjoyed investing and liked to be actively involved in the day-to-day management of their finances. That compared to 38 percent of other affluent investors who said they enjoyed investing and 42 percent who wanted to stay involved day to day.

Source: Dailyworth

Friday, 19 February 2016

Finance & Investments

The key component of personal finance is financial planning, which is a dynamic process that requires regular monitoring and reevaluation. In general, it involves five steps:

1. Assessment: A person's financial situation is assessed by compiling simplified versions of financial statements including balance sheets and income statements. A personal balance sheet lists the values of personal assets (e.g., car, house, clothes, stocks, bank account), along with personal liabilities (e.g., credit card debt, bank loan, mortgage). A personal income statement lists personal income and expenses.
2. Goal setting: Having multiple goals is common, including a mix of short- and long-term goals. For example, a long-term goal would be to "retire at age 65 with a personal net worth of $1,000,000," while a short-term goal would be to "save up for a new computer in the next month." Setting financial goals helps to direct financial planning. Goal setting is done with an objective to meet specific financial requirements.
3. Plan creation: The financial plan details how to accomplish the goals. It could include, for example, reducing unnecessary expenses, increasing the employment income, or investing in the stock market.
4. Execution: Execution of a financial plan often requires discipline and perseverance. Many people obtain assistance from professionals such as accountants, financial planners, investment advisers, and lawyers.
5. Monitoring and reassessment: As time passes, the financial plan is monitored for possible adjustments or reassessments.

Areas of focus
The six key areas of personal financial planning are:
1. Financial position
2. Adequate protection
3. Tax planning
4. Investment and accumulation goals
5. Retirement planning
6. Estate planning

Yes, I know I’ve written about this before but it is always worth repeating. More on this topic in “Girls Just Want to Have Fund$,” “Money, Money, Money Ain’t it Funny” and “Smart Money” available now as ebooks.

Monday, 14 September 2015

Finance & Investments

One of the interesting points fleshed out in a report released recently by Deloitte on the future of the financial advice industry is the curious mismatch between growing demand for financial advice and increased levels of distrust in the community toward advisers.

The NZ experience is little different in my experience.

Baby boomers dominate the industry’s customer segment, with Australians aged over 55 accounting for two-thirds of all financial planning customers and a whopping 80 per cent of all dollars under advice. There has also been a recent focus on capturing high net worth customers.

One of the problems is the increased variety and complicated abundance of options can leave consumers “spoiled by choice and overwhelmed by difference” the report says, especially when it comes to the comparison of products and services with complex features.

Source: Business Spectator

Monday, 18 May 2015

Finance & Investments


Understanding Behavioral Aspects of Financial Planning and Investing





People often view financial planning and investing as overwhelming, intimidating, and scary, especially if they must tackle these tasks on their own. They are fearful of making costly mistakes that could influence both their present and future financial well-being. Their trepidation often stems from a lack of background, education, or experience to help them adequately cope with the financial side of living. In reality, the world of financial planning and investing can be highly complex and difficult. What should investors do?
Investors sometimes find themselves in a similar position as Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland who, when coming to a fork in the road, asks the Cheshire Cat:
Alice: “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
Cat: “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.”
Alice: “I don’t much care where.”
Cat: “Then it doesn’t matter which way you go.”
Unlike Alice, investors should make decisions based on their goals and then determine the appropriate path to get there.

A large part of investing involves investor behavior. Emotional processes, mental mistakes, and individual personality traits complicate investment decisions.

Investors often allow the greed and fear of others to affect their decisions and react with blind emotion instead of calculated reason. In fact, emotions can help explain asset pricing bubbles and related market behavior. According to the old investment adage, investors can make money as a bull or a bear but not as a pig. In short, investors need to understand the psychology of financial planning and investing. Investor behavior often deviates from logic and reason.

Read more about this in Money, Money, Money Ain't it Funny.

Source: Journal of Financial Planning

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Finances & Investments

Emotions and finances seem like oil and water. We logically write out a budget and make plans and then our emotions (such as fear, guilt, shame, etc.) can take over and cause us to stray.

It makes many of us want to throw in the towel. We blame and berate ourselves.

Stop the Blame Game

Money may be concrete but it can wreak havoc on our emotions. People feel their money reflects their self-worth. If we manage our money well, we feel we’ll be viewed as responsible and successful. If we have trouble managing our money (regardless of our income), we fear we’ll be viewed as irresponsible, floundering, and maybe even failures.
What really matters is our ability to get up and keep going after we fall. 
Never Say You’re Bad with Numbers
Raise your hand if you’ve ever said you’re bad at math. If you’ve ever let your dad, brother, boyfriend, or husband deal with the finances because you trust that he’ll do it better. If you fear you’ll never understand how to pay off debt or learn to invest because it’s too complicated.
You can handle the math that goes into budgeting. And you can utilise tools to help understand compound interest and investing. And you can find help from an expert (male or female) if you know you need it.

Source: DailyWorth

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Finance & Investments

9 Depressing Facts From the Latest Women in Media Report

Jennifer Lawrence makes $11 million less than Adam Sandler. Women are inching towards media equality, but it’s slow going.

  1. The highest-paid female movie star, Angelina Jolie, makes about the same per movie as the two lowest-paid male stars, Denzel Washington and Liam Neeson. Her $33 million paycheck is dwarfed by the $75 million Robert Downey Jr. rakes in as the highest-paid movie star for the Iron Man movies.
  2. Female representation in newsrooms has budged very little since 1999: back then, women made up 36.9% of the newsroom staff– now, it’s 36.3%.
  3. Women are vastly underrepresented in sports journalism: Of the 183 sports talk radio hosts on Talkers magazine’s “Heavy Hundred,” only two were women.
  4. Women were quoted in only 19% of news articles in January and February of 2013. This follows a pattern of men being 3.4 times more likely to be quoted on the front page of The New York Times, 4.6 times more likely to be quoted in political stories, and 5.4 times more likely to be quoted in international stories.
  5. Women are faring worse at making movies in 2013 than they were in 1998. Of all the top-grossing movies of 2013, women accounted for only 16% of the writers, directors, producers, executive producers, editors, and cinematographers.
  6. Women had fewer speaking roles in movies in 2012 than in any year since 2007–only 28.4% of speaking roles in the top 100 films went to women.
  7. The Melissa Harris-Perry Show on MSNBC has more diversity than all other Sunday news talk shows combined, with 67% non-white guests, compared to the 16% of guests on NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox combined.
  8. Only 33 directors of the 500 top-grossing movies from 2007 to 2012 were black, and only 2 of those were black women
  9. Our columnists are still overwhelmingly old white men. There are four times as many male columnists as female columnists at the three biggest newspapers and four newspaper syndicate.           
Source: business.time.com

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

Finance & Investment

Too few Japanese companies are pushing for change, and even then usually at the behest of a foreign CEO. NISSAN is a good example, with Carlos Ghosn. The company’s hottest-selling car in Japan, the Nissan Note hatchback, is the result of a team led by a woman.

Now the government is getting in the game, and the gender issue has become a part of Abenomics, the Prime Minister’s push to revitalize the Japanese economy. In a recent speech to Wall Street, he declared that “If these women rise up, I believe Japan can achieve strong growth”.

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is also recognizing the increasing power of women, reporting that “three out of every four big-ticket purchasing decisions are made by women alone or jointly with their husbands.”

Abe’s economic plan includes financial incentives for companies to promote women, expanded maternity leave, and increased day-care funding in an effort to get more women, especially mothers, back into the Japanese work force.

Japan needs more women working and more babies (yes, these two are mutually reinforcing) to counter an aging workforce and a flaccid economy. Japan may be the only OECD nation where the number of pets (25 million) exceeds the number of children (18 million under the age of 15).

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Finance & Investment

Don't think we will be investing this credit union any time soon:

"A credit union offering "Loans For Ladies" and encouraging women to go on shopping sprees and have makeovers has sparked fury on social media from the company's target demographic.

Customer-owned credit union NZCU Baywide launched a website called Loans For Ladies just over a month ago, encouraging women to borrow any amount from $1000 to $50,000 for "an all-day makeover, a shopping spree, or that second car you've always dreamt of - anything goes honey!"

Sprinkled among the retro-style imagery and garish colour scheme are inspirational messages such as: "Cinderella is proof a pair of shoes can change your life."

The website also carried fake - or, as the company initially called them, "indicative" - testimonials, from the likes of ‘Frankie Olson': "I got a loan for [sic] Loans For Ladies and got nipped and tucked from ear to ear. I feel like a million dollars."

Angry women took to social media to voice their disapproval soon after. "I want to use Loans For Ladies but it looks so complicated. Maybe if I get a man to explain the big words to me," tweeted Alessandra Rachael.

"I don't think you've used quite enough pink on your website, or nearly enough images of impossibly high-heeled shoes," said Facebook user Lisa Cullimore Ryder. "When it comes to misogyny though, it's two thumbs up!"

Interestingly "most applicants for Loans For Ladies had been turned down because of strict lending criteria. The approval rate was around "six or seven per cent". He said it was better to borrow from a credit union than to be "ripped off" by finance companies."

Source: stuff.co.nz

Thursday, 1 November 2012

Finance & Investments

Thanks to my favourite economist Mr Brent Wheeler for sharing this:

If this looks complex just examine NZ. Twenty years ago we were ranked at number 19 of the top 20 safest bond investment haven and now we have clawed up to number 13. Japan, number one 20 years ago didn’t make the top 20 this time round. At number one, currently, is Norway, which, you will be interested to know, has a 40 percent requirement for women on boards.

Monday, 16 July 2012

Finance & Investments

Over the years, the phrase "emerging market" has become all but meaningless. No group that includes China, Argentina, Kenya, the Philippines, and Romania can possibly qualify as a single coherent class. 

To pick the likeliest winners in this vast category, Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs has given us the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and now South Africa), the "Next 11" (Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey, South Korea, and Vietnam) and, more recently, MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey). Robert Ward of the Economist Intelligence Unit has added the CIVETS (Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, and South Africa.) 

But all these constructions include a dizzyingly diverse set of economies that don't have much in common.

We live in a crisis-prone age.

The countries that are best positioned to prosper are those that are resilient as well as strong. That's why pivot states, those able to build profitable relationships with multiple partners without becoming overly reliant on any of them, are the likeliest winners in the G-Zero era. 

Brazil will continue to enjoy excellent trade ties with the United States. But China is now its largest trade partner, helping Brazil's economy ride out the U.S. slowdown with minimal damage. NATO membership gives Turkey lasting influence in Brussels and Washington, and many in the Arab world look to Turkey as a dynamic, modern Muslim state. Add its position at the crossroads of Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union, and Turkey has a range of political and commercial options. As in Brazil, this advantage helps absorb the sorts of shocks that are now all too commonplace. 

Asia is home to several pivot states. Indonesia, with nearly 240 million people, enjoys a well-diversified economy with trade ties balanced among China, the United States, Japan, and Singapore. Vietnam receives most of its aid from Japan, its arms from Russia, and its tourists from China; its biggest export market is the United States.

Not all pivot states are developing countries. Far-sighted policy ensures that Canada is now less vulnerable to a slowdown in the United States. The percentage of Canada's exports to countries other than the U.S. jumped from 18% in 2005 to more than 25% just four years later.
The likeliest losers in this more volatile world are shadow states, the opposite of pivots, those whose political and commercial possibilities are determined almost entirely by a single powerful partner. Mexico's largest sources of foreign currency are oil sales, tourism, and remittances from nationals working abroad. In all three cases, the vast majority of that currency comes from the United States.

Mexico's domestic- and foreign-policy choices are determined by its political process, not the demands of a domineering sponsor. But when compared with Canada, Mexico's commercial opportunities and the speed of its development are largely defined by conditions inside one foreign country.

Ukraine, another shadow state, wants to escape Russia's gravitational pull and become a pivot state, preserving relations with Moscow while building new ties with Europe. In fact, Kyiv wants to ink a free-trade deal with the European Union. But Russia has threatened to sharply increase the price of natural gas shipments to Ukraine and throw up new trade barriers if Kyiv moves forward with Europe. The EU, for its part, will end trade talks with Ukraine if it joins a customs union with Russia. Ukraine can't win because it can't pivot. It lacks the strength and independence to improve its bargaining position with either side.


Source: Harvard Business Review

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

Finance & Investments

A recent Forbes article by Mindy Crary identified the four stages of awareness we need to master before learning a new skill.

Unconsciously Incompetent. This is the stage where you don’t know what you don’t know. This skill or thing isn’t even on your radar. Many people are unconsciously incompetent with wealth creation because while growing up, it wasn’t an issue for them. Things got bought and paid for and no one ever talked about money.  

Consciously Incompetent. You know you want to be able to do something. This is where people start to apply their individual problem solving styles; some people jump in anyway, some people try to intellectually and theoretically understand before applying the new knowledge. People usually become aware that they are consciously incompetent with wealth creation right after they make a money mistake, like accumulate credit card debt.

Consciously Competent. When you’re consciously competent, you know how to perform the required skill, but you have to do it carefully. With wealth creation, you might limit your options with investing because you KNOW you don’t understand the more complicated investment products; or you manage your debt, but only because your credit cards are in your freezer, submerged in a tin car filled with water (because you can’t microwave a tin can).

Unconsciously Competent. Unconsciously competent people perform the skill without even really thinking about it. When people are unconsciously competent about wealth creation, it usually looks like they just got lucky—often the way people perceive other successful people. The specific reasons for their competency vary between individuals; but one thing that DOESN’T vary is an early awareness about money and an environment that supported the idea that people do in fact have complete control over their financial situation.

In my day job as a financial planner I deal with people in all these categories, mostly in the "unconsciously incompetent" and "consciously competent" stages. Its my job to move them through to "unconsciously competent."

Friday, 27 January 2012

Finance and Investments

Women in developed economies have made substantial gains in the workplace during recent decades. Nevertheless, it’s still true that the higher up in a company you look, the lower the percentage of women.

Research in Europe and the United States suggests, for example, that companies with several senior-level women tend to perform better financially. Hiring and retaining women at all levels also enlarges a company’s pool of talent at a time when shortages are appearing throughout industries.

Many countries and regions face talent shortages at all levels, and those gaps will worsen. By 2040, Europe will have a shortfall of 24 million workers aged 15 to 65; raising the proportion of women in the workplace to that of men would cut the gap to 3 million. In the United States, the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers will probably mean that companies are going to lose large numbers of senior-level employees in a short period of time; nearly one-fifth of the working-age population (16 and older) of the United States will be at least 65 by 2016.

In recent years, McKinsey has done extensive work on the relationship between organisational and financial performance and on the number of women who are managers at the companies they have studied. The research has shown, first, that the companies around the world with the highest scores on nine important dimensions of organisation—from leadership and direction to accountability and motivation—are likely to have higher operating margins than their lower-ranked counterparts do. Secondly, among the companies for which information on the gender of senior managers was available, those with three or more women on their senior-management teams scored higher on all nine organisational criteria than did companies with no senior-level women.

Work by professors at the business schools of Columbia University and the University of Maryland lends support to this point. demonstrate the “strong positive association between Tobin’s Q, return on assets, and return on equity on the one hand and the [female top-management] participation rate on the other.”

It’s exasperating to see these studies and be aware of the pool of talented women who are not being advanced in their careers either as senior management or directors.

Monday, 26 September 2011

Finance and Investments

The acceptable face of Facebook. Few corporate types can charm hardened hacks so effectively. Sheryl Sandberg, the number two at Facebook, the world’s biggest social network, has been glad-handing reporters with spectacular results. The New Yorker says she may “upend Silicon Valley’s male-dominated culture”. New York magazine puts her in line for Secretary of the Treasury. Bloomberg Businessweek speculates that she might one day be the president of the United States.

Her sudden lionisation is well-timed. Facebook is expected to go public soon, perhaps this year. It may be the biggest internet flotation ever, with a market capitalisation of more than $100 billion. Investors might be less bullish if the 27-year-old Mark Zuckerberg, the founder, were in sole charge. Many consider him somewhat socially awkward.

Ms Sandberg, a 42-year-old former Google executive, joined Facebook in 2008; without her, insiders say, it would not have grown from a cash-bleeding start-up to a titan with estimated sales of $2 billion last year. She complements Mr Zuckerberg well. He is technologically brilliant and knows it. She is a good listener with a keen financial brain (she was once an aide to Larry Summers, the then treasury secretary). She provides adult supervision and a professional face to a firm growing so powerful and so quickly that it is bound to clash with governments. Were Mr Zuckerberg to be grilled by senators who have not yet grasped the concept of e-mail, he might let his irritation show. Ms Sandberg would not have that problem.

Since Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman left HP and eBay, female bosses of big Silicon Valley firms have been rare. Ms Sandberg is doing her part to change this by encouraging women to be more assertive and by building an “old girls’ network”. Thanks to her efforts Facebook has more female executives than the average technology firm.

It is to be hoped she succeeds in forming a powerful “old girls network.”

Thursday, 28 April 2011

Finance and Investments

The biggest investment we make, emotionally and financially is in marriage. Figures vary but almost half of marriages end in divorce. It therefore makes a lot of sense to sort out financial issues prior to marriage - it should in fact be a priority. Here are four areas that should be at the top of the discussion list.

ANCESTRY
How did your parents deal with money, how does that impact how you deal with it, and how might that impact a couple's relationship?

Because so many of our money behaviours are learned, couples should share their earliest money memories - whether their father hid money from their mother or how either parent fretted over the funds available.

CREDIT
While it's about the least romantic subject imaginable, your credit history holds a chunk of your permanent financial record.
Full disclosure on the credit front is useful for two reasons. It is a good starting point for a discussion about what you've learned (or still need to learn) about handling money.

CONTROL
Figuring out who will pay the bills each month may not seem to be an important conversation or assignment. But it gets tricky when both people want to take it on.

AFFLUENCE
Here's another question that tends not to come up during courtship: Just how rich do we want to be one day?

There is no right or wrong answer, it's just about understanding, going into a marriage, what that would really mean.

More on these sorts of discussions can be found in my book "Girls Just Want to Have Fund$."

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

Finance and Investments


Money illusion feeds into the kiwi obsession with property but as a recent Sunday Star Times article points out, many factors should be considered when weighing up the rent-or-buy options. The article quotes economist Shamubeel Eaqub from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research who says the case for "active" renting instead of buying a home is stronger than ever.

"I think house prices are completely unsustainable on pretty much every valuation methodology," he said. "It seems very expensive not only from the perspective of buying an investment, but also from the perspective of an owner-occupier."
There may be no bubble bursting, and it may take a number of years of zero house price growth, but Eaqub has a "strong view" that prices will fall in real terms.
The Retirement Commission’s David Kneebone gives two scenarios:

1. The home buyer
To buy a median-priced home in July 2010, a median-wage earning buyer would have had to pay $350,147 and have a deposit of around 20%, some $70,029.
At a 6% mortgage rate, the annual repayments over 30 years would take $20,153 or about 32% of household income. At an 8% mortgage rate, closer to the norm, it would cost $24,665, or 39% of income.

That leaves the buyer with $756 a week (out of $1231) for everything else a household needs: food, electricity, phone, petrol, clothes, healthcare and so forth.
Plus, homeowners have to pay for rates, insurance for the house and maintenance that goes with it. If nothing goes horribly wrong, then budgeting $4000 a year provides a reasonable estimate.

2. The renter
Median rent in New Zealand is $300 a week, making the annual cost $15,600 – about $9000-$13,000 less than what the homeowner has to come up with for mortgage repayments, maintenance, insurance and rates.

If the renter invested that $9000 that the homeowner is spending every year at 7% (as per sorted.org.nz), he or she would have $50,000 saved in five years.
If house prices are stagnant in the period, the homeowner would be $100,000 behind the renter (that is, the $50,000 that the renter has gained and the $50,000 the owner paid in extra costs).

If the renter then bought a house, he or she would be buying at a lower "real" price, given inflation over the five years, and the price of the home would have fallen in proportion to the median wage.

Ultimately of course each householder must make their own decision. Generally speaking though renting is the most fiscally sensible option.

Friday, 1 October 2010

Finance and Investments

It’s long been known that women make better investors than men, although frankly that’s not a particularly difficult thing to do as most males have the patience of a small child with a full bladder and a tendency to hair-trigger trading for all sorts of behaviourally induced reasons. However, what’s a bit more surprising is that this difference is seen in professional investment circles as well while at the same time biases against female fund managers ensure they have less money to manage more wisely.

Female investment managers are more risk-adverse than their male colleagues and tend to stick closer to benchmarks and their own investment styles. Although they also find there are no significant differences in investment returns between the sexes they also note that women achieve greater performance persistence – which is another way of saying that they don’t tend to be amongst the outliers of great success or great failure.

Given that there are essentially no differences in returns between male and female managers you’d assume that there’d be no difference in the relative amount of funds under management but, of course, you’d be wrong as the researchers find that women only attract half the funds that men do. Which leads them to pose the provocative but interesting question: this being the case, why do fund managers bother employing women at all?

In my experience investment industry is rife with gender bias – although it’s no different from most industries in this regard – and it rather looks like our innate stereotyping mechanisms are behind this. We regard money management as a male preserve and regard successful women as odd and dangerous creatures to be avoided. In reality if we want our money managed conservatively with the minimum of fuss and risk we should seek out female fund managers. On the other hand, if we like to see our net worth changing rapidly then a red-blooded male’s the best choice: just don’t bet on the direction of net worth change being in a positive direction.

From the Psy-Fi Blog