Much discourse in the investment world relates today's situation to one of the past. Therefore, the ability to see through the fog of comparison is very important.
Lumping similar kinds of investment vehicles together for performance comparison is the way of the world. But there's an important dimension that's often forgotten.
No matter the asset class or investment strategy, there are limitations that exist to the generation of attractive returns. Beware managers who don't acknowledge them.
Investment firms and advisors market their wares using pitch books, but the pages that are meant to illustrate how they do what they do are often counterproductive.
Going back to the land is a popular investment theme of the day, but what economic calculations support the notion? It's time to pencil out some answers.
"All the world's a stage," wrote the Bard, and another play hundreds of years later prompts analogies to the world of investments.
A relentless focus on comparative performance has resulted in patterns of decisions by the buyers and sellers of investment services that are good for neither.
Dealing with the deluge of information at our disposal requires us to consider when to submerge ourselves in it and when to seek understanding elsewhere.
Our images of great investors and business managers can impede our ability to objectively see whether they have a plan for the future that makes sense.
The structuring of investment organizations often is done along lines that ignore the way that information flows through the markets.
In trying to determine what to pay for a stock, investors use all kinds of calculations and metrics. Unfortunately, one of the most common just isn't very good.
You have an investment task, be it a job or a hobby. How much time do you spend contemplating your approach versus executing it? An Olympic lesson for us all.
When it comes to judging which research firms are best, investment people naturally look to some measure of performance. Beware the traps.
As the plane went cruising over my head last week, I didn't know it would become an international story, but one quote led to inescapable metaphors worth pondering.
Making investment decisions in a group setting is fraught with issues. Let's return to the table and focus on the leader of the group for now.
As market players gain fame, it is easy to identify too closely with them. You never know when they are going to lose their luster.
Brokerage firms are in the habit of paying handsome sums to get those that can produce commissions to come to work for them. By the way, those commissions come from you.
To avoid the tunnel vision that accompanies much decision making, it is good to force a three-sided attack on the problem.
The spectacular frauds that make headlines reinforce the need to apply exacting standards and processes to the due diligence of investment products and managers.
When "everyone else is doing it," it might be time to step back and assess whether it is time for you to go along or time to stand apart.
What do the dials, gauges, and warning lights say about how you are meeting your goals and those of your firm?
We are in a time of contraction and confusion in the financial markets, and at many of the most important firms. Maybe things could be done differently.
An errant move has left you or your firm with what seems like an insurmountable goal; maybe it's time to think about golf.
The story of Starbucks is yet another in a long line of situations where reaching to meet Wall Street expectations has been a failed strategy.
A horse race on television provides a moment of reflection about whether the frame of reference that we employ matches the subject matter at hand.
The emergence of price charts with a certain geometric look attract attention and spawn dreams of opportunity that may not come to be.