Posts
I have decided to accept the employment offer of a large computer game corporation. I will be starting at their office in Orlando, Florida on Monday.
I had a couple of other offers available in Silicon Valley, both of them start-up gaming companies without a released product or current revenue. Although I definitely see myself returning to Silicon Valley, now is not the time. I am certain the recession that has just begun in the US will last a good two to three years. My judgement is that this is neither the time to work for startups nor the time to move to a high cost-of-living region. One of my friends responded to this reasoning by exclaiming, "Who would have ever thought you would choose stability over opportunity?" This is a pretty good question. Let me say in response that I feel there is a time for every type of strategy. You won't find me choosing stability over opportunity in the future, when the NASDAQ and S&P500 indexes cross back above their 200-day moving average lines. But for now, it feels like the right thing to do.
A recruiter friend of mine who set up some of the interviews in California asked me, "If plans don't work in Silicon Valley, there are always other software companies to work for. But if your plans don't work in Orlando, who else can you work for down there?" Another good point. Cost-of-living trumps again. I'd rather sweat out a period between jobs in a city where you can share an apartment for $500 per month than in an area where that would run $750 per month. (again, given the current economic climate)
But the bottom line is, I'm not planning for contingencies if this job doesn't work out. I'm focusing on the idea that it will work out spectacularly. It will be the best job I've ever had and I'll be the best me in it I've ever been. There's a subtle difference in how to think about these things - it's OK to weigh the good against the bad while in the cloud of uncertainty, considering competing possibilities. Once you have crystalized your intelligence upon a course of action and made a commitment, however, I've learned it's best to focus your attention on the best outcome you intend to experience.
What you focus on expands. It grows to form the foreground of your experience.
So wish me luck!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Bigger Big Picture
One of the things I love about the age of the Internet is that we are no longer beholden to a single version of any given story. One who pays attention to this dynamic over a period of time comes to the conclusion that there is no one truth, no really objective voice out there. Unless you want to be content being spoon-fed by your favorite information provider, curiosity and intellectual rigor are required in order to come to reasonable, satisfying conclusions.
Take the current so-called economic "crisis". I have heard Barak Obama and other Democrats say that Republicans' penchant for deregulation has been the root cause of the irresponsible lending and opaque securitizing that led to our present difficulties. Interestingly enough, Republicans tried repeatedly in the last 15 years to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be blocked at every turn by Democrats. Why would Democrats block stricter regulation of these government sponsored enterprises? They blocked regulation because they felt they had fought hard to ensure fairer mortgage lending to Americans through the various incarnations of the Community Reinvestment Act. Tightening Freddie and Fanny's capitalization requirements would have required stricter lending policies which were seen at the time to be a euphemism for denying credit access to under-served portions of the population.
Why were Democrats concerned that stricter lending policies would put fair house ownership opportunity in danger? Because stricter lending laws _had_ been used for this purpose in the past. The Community Reinvestment Act was sponsored in 1977 to counteract the practice of something called "redlining". Until then, many lending institutions would literally draw lines around low-income communities on municipal maps in red pen and automatically deny mortgage applications from these areas. This lazy, crude strategy for financial risk management meant that lower income whites were able to get loans that middle or upper income blacks and latinos could not obtain. Which tends to piss you off if you happen to be in the latter category.
Obviously, we could continue further back in history to see more examples of this kind of back and forth, but these two snippets are enough for the point I'd like to make: In both of these cases (lenders unfairly redlining and politicians being unwilling to effectively regulate) we have a group of people who were paralyzed from doing what was clearly reasonable due to an irrational fear that any movement in the "opposite" direction would cause some kind of cascading domino effect to an undesired outcome. What is ironic is that, in both examples, it was not the perceived enemy, but their own misguided obstinance that produced an outcome they were hoping to avoid.
Bankers have no one to blame for disruptive community organizations like ACORN but themselves. Indeed, they produced them. And Congressional Democrats could do well to take to heart the words of one of their own, Rep. Arthur Davis of Alabama, who recently said, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."
What I am interested in is that we as a nation (and as a species) make progress toward noticing this tendency to irrational obstinancy and interrupt the pattern. It is not sufficient in any particular circumstance to say, "This is the situation I find myself in, I guess I'll just perpetuate it." It takes guts and a determination to transcend the mental paths of least resistance so that we can create the kind of world we'd all rather have. But nothing less that this makes anything worthwile of us.
Take the current so-called economic "crisis". I have heard Barak Obama and other Democrats say that Republicans' penchant for deregulation has been the root cause of the irresponsible lending and opaque securitizing that led to our present difficulties. Interestingly enough, Republicans tried repeatedly in the last 15 years to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be blocked at every turn by Democrats. Why would Democrats block stricter regulation of these government sponsored enterprises? They blocked regulation because they felt they had fought hard to ensure fairer mortgage lending to Americans through the various incarnations of the Community Reinvestment Act. Tightening Freddie and Fanny's capitalization requirements would have required stricter lending policies which were seen at the time to be a euphemism for denying credit access to under-served portions of the population.
Why were Democrats concerned that stricter lending policies would put fair house ownership opportunity in danger? Because stricter lending laws _had_ been used for this purpose in the past. The Community Reinvestment Act was sponsored in 1977 to counteract the practice of something called "redlining". Until then, many lending institutions would literally draw lines around low-income communities on municipal maps in red pen and automatically deny mortgage applications from these areas. This lazy, crude strategy for financial risk management meant that lower income whites were able to get loans that middle or upper income blacks and latinos could not obtain. Which tends to piss you off if you happen to be in the latter category.
Obviously, we could continue further back in history to see more examples of this kind of back and forth, but these two snippets are enough for the point I'd like to make: In both of these cases (lenders unfairly redlining and politicians being unwilling to effectively regulate) we have a group of people who were paralyzed from doing what was clearly reasonable due to an irrational fear that any movement in the "opposite" direction would cause some kind of cascading domino effect to an undesired outcome. What is ironic is that, in both examples, it was not the perceived enemy, but their own misguided obstinance that produced an outcome they were hoping to avoid.
Bankers have no one to blame for disruptive community organizations like ACORN but themselves. Indeed, they produced them. And Congressional Democrats could do well to take to heart the words of one of their own, Rep. Arthur Davis of Alabama, who recently said, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."
What I am interested in is that we as a nation (and as a species) make progress toward noticing this tendency to irrational obstinancy and interrupt the pattern. It is not sufficient in any particular circumstance to say, "This is the situation I find myself in, I guess I'll just perpetuate it." It takes guts and a determination to transcend the mental paths of least resistance so that we can create the kind of world we'd all rather have. But nothing less that this makes anything worthwile of us.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Back Into The Fray
Earlier this week, I concluded the self-evaluation begun during my wilderness getaway. After taking everything into account, I decided to pursue returning to full-time work as a software engineer. I love the work and it pays well. There is still surprisingly strong demand in the market for my skills and it never hurts to make hay while the sun shines. (as my farmer relations used to say)
My other major option, raising capital and starting a small business, is still an important goal for me. A good portion of my getaway was invested in creating a specific business plan, including estimating startup costs, on-going cashflow, expansion plans, etc for the venture I had in mind. This was a valuable exercise and the plan I created may, one day, be the plan I pursue.
During my previous years of employment, I did a good job saving money in retirement plans and I feel like that part of my financial picture is in good shape. So beginning with my next job, I intend to divert my savings into a taxable investment account that will be dedicated toward helping to fund future business ventures and investment real estate purchases. I hear it works best to have a good chunk of your own money on the line when you present an opportunity to invest to others.
This decision (returning to employment) will likely mean another geographic relocation for me. If that turns out to be true, it will also likely mark the end of a short but incredible romance. Yet I feel the magnetic pull of my capacity for greatness in this world, and it is not a force that my spirit is inclined to resist. When you're in on the secret that love is not scarce, it is abundant - well, it doesn't make things easy, but it does make them possible.
My other major option, raising capital and starting a small business, is still an important goal for me. A good portion of my getaway was invested in creating a specific business plan, including estimating startup costs, on-going cashflow, expansion plans, etc for the venture I had in mind. This was a valuable exercise and the plan I created may, one day, be the plan I pursue.
During my previous years of employment, I did a good job saving money in retirement plans and I feel like that part of my financial picture is in good shape. So beginning with my next job, I intend to divert my savings into a taxable investment account that will be dedicated toward helping to fund future business ventures and investment real estate purchases. I hear it works best to have a good chunk of your own money on the line when you present an opportunity to invest to others.
This decision (returning to employment) will likely mean another geographic relocation for me. If that turns out to be true, it will also likely mark the end of a short but incredible romance. Yet I feel the magnetic pull of my capacity for greatness in this world, and it is not a force that my spirit is inclined to resist. When you're in on the secret that love is not scarce, it is abundant - well, it doesn't make things easy, but it does make them possible.
Friday, October 10, 2008
A Different Lesson in Stock Market Humility
From an emotional point of view, I shouldn't have looked, I really shouldn't have.
But I did.
In the three day period since I sold DUG, it rocketed from the 42% gain I locked in, to a 95% gain from my original buy point. And it's still not showing signs of weakness.
Dad's voice in my mind is asking, "What did you learn?" and I've come up with an answer. If I had held on to the stock into the last half hour of the trading day (instead of selling it mid-afternoon) I would have been able to see a clearer picture of its behavior for the day. In DUG's case, this would have shown me that there was no clear sell signal and it is likely I wouldn't have sold.
Jesse Livermore, a famous (or infamous, to some) stock investor at the beginning of the 1900s used to say, "People fear when they should hope, and hope when they should fear." I used to think this was a kind of indictment on those other traders who are somehow weak. But now I see that he was just making an honest observation about how we all act sometimes.
T. Harv Eker writes about each person having a financial thermostat that is defined by his or her upper and lower financial comfort zones. If the person's financial situation goes below or above that range, he or she tends to subconsciously "correct" it so that the comfort zone is maintained. Evidently, my upper comfort zone for stock trading profits is somewhere around 42%. Well worth noticing.
But I did.
In the three day period since I sold DUG, it rocketed from the 42% gain I locked in, to a 95% gain from my original buy point. And it's still not showing signs of weakness.
Dad's voice in my mind is asking, "What did you learn?" and I've come up with an answer. If I had held on to the stock into the last half hour of the trading day (instead of selling it mid-afternoon) I would have been able to see a clearer picture of its behavior for the day. In DUG's case, this would have shown me that there was no clear sell signal and it is likely I wouldn't have sold.
Jesse Livermore, a famous (or infamous, to some) stock investor at the beginning of the 1900s used to say, "People fear when they should hope, and hope when they should fear." I used to think this was a kind of indictment on those other traders who are somehow weak. But now I see that he was just making an honest observation about how we all act sometimes.
T. Harv Eker writes about each person having a financial thermostat that is defined by his or her upper and lower financial comfort zones. If the person's financial situation goes below or above that range, he or she tends to subconsciously "correct" it so that the comfort zone is maintained. Evidently, my upper comfort zone for stock trading profits is somewhere around 42%. Well worth noticing.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The McCain Nausea Reflex - Guilt By Association?
With the 2008 election coming up, I'm asking myself, "Who will best lead the USA as president in the next four years?" From where I sit, it's not as cut-and-dried a decision as one might think.
I am a believer in limited central government - as you might have guessed from this previous post. One of the reasons why I am so disappointed with the current US administration is that "W" won me over during his campaign in 2000 with his talk of "learning the lessons of Vietnam" and "reaching across the aisle". I had no idea the neo-conservative branch of the Republican party would render him into little more than a goofy-talking sock puppet mascot for their agenda of global economic and military supremacy. Yeah, this from a guy who bought the Iraq WMD argument and voted for "W" again in 2004.
Of the two major candidates, John McCain embodies my political and philosophic views more accurately. (of all cadidates, that would be Ron Paul) Yet, I am just as susceptible to a reaction of disgust for what we have all been through in the past eight years (let alone the shocking meltdown of the US financial system in recent weeks) as anyone else. In 1993, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives was implicated in a sordid fraud scheme that involved the House post office. That straw was enough to break the camel's back and give the House of Representatives a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. 1980 gave us Reagan Democrats and I suspect 2008 will have its share of Obama Republicans.
And yet, I wonder, is all this reactionary decision-making serving us well? Taking a step back from the whole scene, it is highly unlikely that a John McCain presidency would look anything like "W"'s regime. He's not one of the Washington good ol' boys with a hundred butts to kiss, he wouldn't have a rabid war hawk with ties to the defense industry as a VP, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he (or any other Republican president for the next decade) will get a rubber-stamping legislature. Put simply, just because he voted the party line 90% of the time doesn't make him a "W" clone. It makes him a Republican. George H. Bush's presidency didn't look anything like Reagan's did before him.
A Democrat president with a Democrat-majority congress could lead to the kind of "We've got a mandate" mentality that leads to cures far worse than the diseases they intend to cure.
Well, I'll tip my hand. All I want for Christmas is some old-fashioned gridlock in Washington for the next four to eight years. Like the kind we had under Clinton, where congress would squash the president's agenda and then the president would veto congress's bills. As far as I'm concerned, that was a key contributor to the prosperity we experienced from 1995 to 2000. And if this somehow manages to suffocate the global military hegemony we've got going on (long after its purpose, winning the Cold War, died out) as well as atrophy the federal bureaucracy by oh, say one third to one half, that would be nice too. OK, now I'm really dreaming, but hey - why not?
See, my problem is, I'm just old enough to remember the reactions to oil, war, and power which swept Jimmy Carter into the presidency. Such a great smile. Such a thoughtful, gracious person. Such a disaster for the country, policy-wise. Whoops, that looks like guilt by association as well. Maybe I'll just stick to my guns and write in "Ron Paul" on my ballot.
Not Too Shabby
Recently, I blogged about holding on to a security during the US economic bailout crisis. I can now reveal that I was holding shares of DUG, the ultrashort ETF for US oil industry stocks. I sold my shares yesterday and locked in a 42% gain.
I was confident enough in the weakening demand for oil (due to turbulence in the general economy) that I did not check up on my position while I was out of town last week on my retreat. Yet I knew the market might rally once the wall street bailout went through. It turns out that the turmoil in the European credit markets bought my ETF a little more upside Monday and Tuesday.
Stocks headed lower yesterday as well. But when the Fed announced a rate cut coordinated with rate cuts in Europe, the S&P 500 seemed to rally and at 2:30 PM, DUG was trading near the bottom of its intraday range on higher trading volume. In other words, it looked like more people who held DUG were starting to doubt its value than the ones who felt it would go higher. With all the uncertainty in the economy, I decided to pull the trigger and lock in my gain.
Maddeningly, the general markets turned bearish from 3:30 to 4:00 PM and DUG ended up right in the middle of its trading range today - not a clear "sell" signal after all. Nevertheless, I feel good about following the instincts I've developed as a result of studying the market over the past 10 years. That goes for holding it last week as well as selling it yesterday.
I was confident enough in the weakening demand for oil (due to turbulence in the general economy) that I did not check up on my position while I was out of town last week on my retreat. Yet I knew the market might rally once the wall street bailout went through. It turns out that the turmoil in the European credit markets bought my ETF a little more upside Monday and Tuesday.
Stocks headed lower yesterday as well. But when the Fed announced a rate cut coordinated with rate cuts in Europe, the S&P 500 seemed to rally and at 2:30 PM, DUG was trading near the bottom of its intraday range on higher trading volume. In other words, it looked like more people who held DUG were starting to doubt its value than the ones who felt it would go higher. With all the uncertainty in the economy, I decided to pull the trigger and lock in my gain.
Maddeningly, the general markets turned bearish from 3:30 to 4:00 PM and DUG ended up right in the middle of its trading range today - not a clear "sell" signal after all. Nevertheless, I feel good about following the instincts I've developed as a result of studying the market over the past 10 years. That goes for holding it last week as well as selling it yesterday.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Journey Within: Wilderness Getaway 2008
Five years ago, I went on a week-long trip to Hawaii and took the journals I had written with me. (five years' worth) I spent my days reading my life like a book, noticing tendencies about myself, and distilling the insights into a foundation for intentional growth that propelled me in in a very positive direction. 18 months after that trip, it was hard to recognize me as the same guy in the areas of self-worth, ambition, and tolerance. For example, I no longer approached dating out of fear of loneliness or a position of need. My deeply felt position had become, "I am loveable, and I generously share my loveableness with others." The results in my life were dramatic, from income to relationships to my sense of purpose and beyond.
I now have five more years of journals in my library. I decided at the beginning of this week to get away for eight days, starting Sunday Sept. 28, and repeat this process. This time I'm renting a remote cabin in the mountains of West Virginia. No Internet, no cell phone reception. Just what doctor ordered.
Back in 1992, I heard Jim Rohn talk about journaling. He said, "Too many people try to just get through the day. I've got something better for you to go for: learn to get from the day. Capture the insights and ideas. Don't trust your memory." I can be a bit slow on the uptake (as can we all) so I didn't formally start keeping a journal until 1998. In fact, my first journal entry went something like this: "I probably won't keep this up, but here's what happened today..." I've since learned not to dismiss a day of small beginnings in my life. Starting journaling earlier would definitely be one of those things I would counsel my younger self to.
My dearly beloved friends and family think this trip is about my next career step, and to be fair, that's how I've presented it to them. But quite beyond that, I foresee it as a launch pad for areas of personal growth I can't even imagine as I write this. Wiping the white board clean and starting fresh with a clean set of markers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)