Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Client Segmentation
To segment clients, assigned each client a number from 1-5 in two catergories; existing assets with us and potential new assets with us (including referrals). Those with 10's and 9's are A+. Those with 5-8 are A. Those under are B.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
An Indian Vegetarian Meal- By Asmita Modi
A basic meal consists of 1 bread, 1 vegetable dish, 1 lentil dish, and 1 rice dish. A kofta dish, paneer dish, or egg dish can be added as well. The frozen appetizers are usually fine to serve also (samosas, kachoris, etc).
* A pressure cooker works best for the lentils. Wash the lentils and then make sure they are soaked in water that extends about 1/2 inch above the lentils. Start with them since they take the longest.
* Types of dhaal to use include toor, masoor, and mung.
* Basic spices are: mustard seed or cumin seed; coriander and cumin powder (mixed); chili; turmeric; salt. Also can get oregano seeds and asofoeteda powder. Sugar, lemon juice, and coriander leaves are good toppings.
* Basic curry is onions, garlic, tomato, water (makes a gravy). Can add yogurt, peas, paneer.
* For vegetable dish, all can be cooked the same way. Green beans must be cut very small. Cauliflower has a lot of water in it, so don't add any water.
* For kofta, can make either malai kofta or vegetable kofta.
* For veggie kofta, blend potatoes, peas, carrots, green beans into a paste. Blend with a little chili peppers, spices, corriander. Mix with flour, and drop in oil.
* For malai kofta, boil milk, put lemon juice in it to curdle it, let it sit. Mix the curds with flour, salt, corriander, chili. Mix with flour, drop in oil.
* For Kofta curry, use: 4 large tomatoes, 4 oz. cream, oil, chili, salt, and spicy base (1 onion, 2 tbsp. coconut, 7 cloves garlic, 2 green chilies, 2 tsp. corriander, 1 tsp. cumin, 2 tbsp chanoli, 2 tsp. poppy seeds, 1 inch ginger, 2 tbsp. corriander leaves).
Cut tomatoes, add 4 cups water, make into a soup. Fry paste. Add chili powder, add soup, cream, stir.
* Pav Bhaji: chop, steam and mash- potatoes, peas, carrots, green peppers, green beans, cauliflower. Sautee onion, garlic, butter. Add veggies and masala, eat with bread.
* A pressure cooker works best for the lentils. Wash the lentils and then make sure they are soaked in water that extends about 1/2 inch above the lentils. Start with them since they take the longest.
* Types of dhaal to use include toor, masoor, and mung.
* Basic spices are: mustard seed or cumin seed; coriander and cumin powder (mixed); chili; turmeric; salt. Also can get oregano seeds and asofoeteda powder. Sugar, lemon juice, and coriander leaves are good toppings.
* Basic curry is onions, garlic, tomato, water (makes a gravy). Can add yogurt, peas, paneer.
* For vegetable dish, all can be cooked the same way. Green beans must be cut very small. Cauliflower has a lot of water in it, so don't add any water.
* For kofta, can make either malai kofta or vegetable kofta.
* For veggie kofta, blend potatoes, peas, carrots, green beans into a paste. Blend with a little chili peppers, spices, corriander. Mix with flour, and drop in oil.
* For malai kofta, boil milk, put lemon juice in it to curdle it, let it sit. Mix the curds with flour, salt, corriander, chili. Mix with flour, drop in oil.
* For Kofta curry, use: 4 large tomatoes, 4 oz. cream, oil, chili, salt, and spicy base (1 onion, 2 tbsp. coconut, 7 cloves garlic, 2 green chilies, 2 tsp. corriander, 1 tsp. cumin, 2 tbsp chanoli, 2 tsp. poppy seeds, 1 inch ginger, 2 tbsp. corriander leaves).
Cut tomatoes, add 4 cups water, make into a soup. Fry paste. Add chili powder, add soup, cream, stir.
* Pav Bhaji: chop, steam and mash- potatoes, peas, carrots, green peppers, green beans, cauliflower. Sautee onion, garlic, butter. Add veggies and masala, eat with bread.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Why I Bought Life Insurance on My Son
For many years, my case for life insurance on children was half-hearted at best. To interested people, I would talk about the virtues of preserving their childrens' insurability while putting away systematic savings for them, a rare foresight they would appreciate decades later. A few people would take me up on my lukewarm offer.
But the fact is, my case was weak; moreover, in my heart, I really believed that parents had a variety of better things they ought to be doing with their money, most notably (of course) saving for college; and life insurance is simply not a good vehicle for this. Compounding my belief was the fact that I had read several of those "know it all" financial columnists who would talk about life insurance on children being nothing but a scam to sell insurance policies.
My opinion on this matter changed 2 years ago, when my wife and I lost our firstborn son, Aren. He passed away on the day he was born; at 23 weeks, we had no hope short of miracles that anything positive could come of these circumstances. To say we were devastated is, as anyone who has been in remotely similar circumstances knows, a woeful understatement.
Looking back almost 2 years later, aided by the birth of our second son, I can honestly say that my wife and I were disabled for about 18 months following Aren's death. It took me months to muster enthusiasm for my work again- my paid for premium that year was $40,000. My wife was even more affected; it took a lot of togetherness for my wife and I to begin to cope with this.
But the fact is, my case was weak; moreover, in my heart, I really believed that parents had a variety of better things they ought to be doing with their money, most notably (of course) saving for college; and life insurance is simply not a good vehicle for this. Compounding my belief was the fact that I had read several of those "know it all" financial columnists who would talk about life insurance on children being nothing but a scam to sell insurance policies.
My opinion on this matter changed 2 years ago, when my wife and I lost our firstborn son, Aren. He passed away on the day he was born; at 23 weeks, we had no hope short of miracles that anything positive could come of these circumstances. To say we were devastated is, as anyone who has been in remotely similar circumstances knows, a woeful understatement.
Looking back almost 2 years later, aided by the birth of our second son, I can honestly say that my wife and I were disabled for about 18 months following Aren's death. It took me months to muster enthusiasm for my work again- my paid for premium that year was $40,000. My wife was even more affected; it took a lot of togetherness for my wife and I to begin to cope with this.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Interest vs. Riba, Part 2
Throughout human history, we have devised several economic systems. If the debate can be boiled down to its essence, it has revolved around two main ideologies: "hands on" or "planned" economies (communism; socialism) and "hands off" economies (capitalism).
In our world today (and throughout human history), both have been tried to certain extents, but neither one in their "purest" form. The criticisms of planned economies include: 1) that human planning cannot possibly equal the market as a fair and effective arbiter of resources, (as it never has in actual practice); 2) that planning tampers with naturally competitive markets, which results in inferior products and services and thus lower quality of life; 3) that centralizing planning opens opportunities for corruption by those in control, which, coupled with lack of fair competition, quells ambition for innovation
Completing the circle, criticisms of hands-off economies mirror those above: 1) that the market cannot (and has not) been a fair and effective arbiter of resources, and some planning is necessary; 2) that competition without limits reduces quality of life by creating a culture of consumerism and a society-wide overemphasis on production; 3) that capitalism's focus on "the bottom line" while not scrutinizing the means allows greed to seep into the system, resulting in dishonesty and other unscrupulous business practices
Though both ideologies have their unabashed and uncompromising proponents, I believe the mainstream position is that ALL of these criticisms are correct to some degree, and that it is simply a question of choosing between the lesser of two evils. No system is the "ideal" system, but perhaps it is the ideal system available, despite its faults. Furthermore, no economy in the world today is purely one or the other. If I could sum up my observation of the trend in the world today, I would say that the most "successful" societies in the world are leaning towards capitalism, but recognize that certain institutions must be kept in the hands of the state for society to remain cohesive and functional. Across the spectrum, from the US, through Europe, India, and China (to name a few), this is true in varying degrees (i.e. the US is a country that is capitalist in philosophy, but feels it must retain some government intervention; China is communist in philosophy, but has benefited greatly by strategically opening up its markets to a degree).
It is hard to dispute the success of capitalism in fostering a free society that encourages innovation and equal opportunity (to a reasonable degree). But no mixed economy that has ever seen its capitalist elements produce these economic benefits has ever felt comfortable simply shedding all its "socialist" leanings in favor of unbridled capitalism. They know that the free market must be checked and balanced to be good for society, or the "side effects" of capitalism will overrun its benefits. Can you imagine the United States, the symbol of free market success, without a minimum wage law? Without an Food and Drug Administration to regulate products? Without its governmental monopoly on law enforcement? Without some social welfare for its poorest citizens (though the debate over whether we provide too much or too little rages on)? Even the United States recognizes that we must be "hands on" with our "hands off" economy. If there is one thing nearly ALL economies have in common, it is that we hold onto at least some checks and balances that mitigate the potential pitfalls of an unbridled free market system. The fact that some countries (like Cuba) restrict the market altogether, while others (like the US) embrace it with a few "safety" clauses is, in a way, only a matter of degree!
Which brings us to Riba. None of the checks and balances that man has put on the market system has produced ideal results- as listed earlier, lean too far left to warrant one set of criticisms; lean too far right and earn the other. There is room for improvement on how we order our economic activity. Could banning interest- while it seems oppressive to those who say it is our capitalist right to deal in it as we see fit- help us curb capitalism's excesses without the typical drawbacks that come with planned economies? This is the question the rest of this paper explores.
In our world today (and throughout human history), both have been tried to certain extents, but neither one in their "purest" form. The criticisms of planned economies include: 1) that human planning cannot possibly equal the market as a fair and effective arbiter of resources, (as it never has in actual practice); 2) that planning tampers with naturally competitive markets, which results in inferior products and services and thus lower quality of life; 3) that centralizing planning opens opportunities for corruption by those in control, which, coupled with lack of fair competition, quells ambition for innovation
Completing the circle, criticisms of hands-off economies mirror those above: 1) that the market cannot (and has not) been a fair and effective arbiter of resources, and some planning is necessary; 2) that competition without limits reduces quality of life by creating a culture of consumerism and a society-wide overemphasis on production; 3) that capitalism's focus on "the bottom line" while not scrutinizing the means allows greed to seep into the system, resulting in dishonesty and other unscrupulous business practices
Though both ideologies have their unabashed and uncompromising proponents, I believe the mainstream position is that ALL of these criticisms are correct to some degree, and that it is simply a question of choosing between the lesser of two evils. No system is the "ideal" system, but perhaps it is the ideal system available, despite its faults. Furthermore, no economy in the world today is purely one or the other. If I could sum up my observation of the trend in the world today, I would say that the most "successful" societies in the world are leaning towards capitalism, but recognize that certain institutions must be kept in the hands of the state for society to remain cohesive and functional. Across the spectrum, from the US, through Europe, India, and China (to name a few), this is true in varying degrees (i.e. the US is a country that is capitalist in philosophy, but feels it must retain some government intervention; China is communist in philosophy, but has benefited greatly by strategically opening up its markets to a degree).
It is hard to dispute the success of capitalism in fostering a free society that encourages innovation and equal opportunity (to a reasonable degree). But no mixed economy that has ever seen its capitalist elements produce these economic benefits has ever felt comfortable simply shedding all its "socialist" leanings in favor of unbridled capitalism. They know that the free market must be checked and balanced to be good for society, or the "side effects" of capitalism will overrun its benefits. Can you imagine the United States, the symbol of free market success, without a minimum wage law? Without an Food and Drug Administration to regulate products? Without its governmental monopoly on law enforcement? Without some social welfare for its poorest citizens (though the debate over whether we provide too much or too little rages on)? Even the United States recognizes that we must be "hands on" with our "hands off" economy. If there is one thing nearly ALL economies have in common, it is that we hold onto at least some checks and balances that mitigate the potential pitfalls of an unbridled free market system. The fact that some countries (like Cuba) restrict the market altogether, while others (like the US) embrace it with a few "safety" clauses is, in a way, only a matter of degree!
Which brings us to Riba. None of the checks and balances that man has put on the market system has produced ideal results- as listed earlier, lean too far left to warrant one set of criticisms; lean too far right and earn the other. There is room for improvement on how we order our economic activity. Could banning interest- while it seems oppressive to those who say it is our capitalist right to deal in it as we see fit- help us curb capitalism's excesses without the typical drawbacks that come with planned economies? This is the question the rest of this paper explores.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Northwestern Mutual vs. Other Providers
This posting pertains to the advantages of staying with Northwestern Mutual vs. moving to another financial services organization.
The fact is that we have never conducted a comprehensive search of all the available options to know exactly how good or bad NML is vs. the competition. My father did this 30 years ago to his credit, and that is how he ended up with NML. But a lot has changed in 30 years, and perhaps it should be done again.
We do have some idea of how NML ranks, as well as some opinions. Obviously, as far as whole life insurance is concerned, NML is second to none, particularly with the flexibility of its ECL product. NML's Advanced Planning department is an excellent resource. Its culture of well educated professionals is very valuable. Our branch office in particular is a great work environment, with knowledgeable staff.
However, there are many drawbacks as well, that I have tended to put up with. I realize that perhaps it is not necessary to put up with them; I believe there is probably an other organization out there that can provide a better platform overall, and maybe fall short slightly on the insurance side, but that this shortcoming will be made up for by improvements in other areas.
The drawbacks are as follows, in relative order of importance to me:
1) While NML's insurance is of the utmost quality, its investment program seems to be two steps behind. Its new signature choice product removes all flexibility that I as an advisor have to make recommendations. The fact that we are not allowed to add specialty funds is borderline insulting to our own education. The fact that we are not allowed to increase international exposure is disturbing. Overall, NML sees investments as purely a commodity, and WE are the value added. It is basically a package of mutual funds; I believe it is overpriced, and while it is certainly worth it for the investor because he gets MY input on it, NML takes TOO MUCH of the cost for itself- that money should go to us, and I should be able to lower it if I think I am overcharging the investor.
Its lack of exposure to alternative investments is disturbing. While the buzz about hedge funds these days is probably overblown and quite annoying in general, I do believe that, as everyone starts to do the "asset allocation" model, it will indeed become commoditized and outdated. Furthermore, the "buttonwood" effect (the increasing correlation of the financial markets which is taking away the benefit of diversification) leads me to believe that new and better ways of investing need to be found. NML seems to "stick to the old way" of doing things. I would like to be with an organization that at least tries to innovate, albeit cautiously and with an eye on what is already tried and true.
2) NML's lack of support and low compensation with regard to its investment products is upsetting. Their refusal to keep me at a 65% payout after the transition from my father's accounts is illogical, disruptive to my business, and shortsighted on NML's part. There is no reason for them to have done this. Certainly, I am upset about the lost revenue; but I would be able to tolerate that if I thought there was a good reason for it. For some reason, NML does not see the folly in this as a business policy; it does not bolster my faith in their judgment to make other business decisions.
Furthermore, in general, I find NML's lack of expense allowance and even partial salary to be very crass and outdated. NML seems to pay huge producers quite well; it also seems to be a good place for people that do very little investment business and a lot of insurance. It does NOT seem good for someone who does moderate investment business. The fact that Oppenheimer would see fit to give Ozi 65% to start, while they are keeping me at 35%, makes no sense to me. NMIS pays too little, and they are not doing enough to earn their 65%. In fact, NMIS seems to do LESS than the average brokerage firm when it comes to good procedures, innovative products, etc.
3) I do not like NML's unwillingness to deal with international accounts. From what I have seen, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Oppenheimer all have no problem with international applications. Moreover, from the insurance side, I have found that other companies have greater flexibility with international clients. I find NML's stance on this to be annoying and insulting. Furthermore, I think that in the coming years, as the world becomes more globalized, and as other countries catch up to the US, it may be increasingly desirable to be able to have overseas clients, or even to relocate. This would be completely impossible with NML. Why should I stand for this?
Investor services are lacking compared to other organizations, but I'm not sure how big a problem this is. Probably not such a big deal. Our technology should be better. Not all clients need or want it, but a better online system would be nice. I'm not sure if this exists elsewhere. I know it does with the discount brokerages, but perhaps not with full-service firms. Must investigate this.
4) Another service that would be nice to have is banking services, so that everything can be integrated. However, I'm not sure how necessary this is, as not many people would feel compelled to move ALL their banking to us. People seem fine keeping their advisory services separate from their banking.
5) I would like to be able to be paid as an advisor, not through sales. Furthermore, there is an overreliance on insurance sales, particularly on NML insurance. I have never pushed NML insurance on my clients, but I have suffered as a result.
The NML model would work better if a) they lowered the prices on their term, di, and ltc insurance by a little bit, so that we could feel comfortable selling it in all cases. In my opinion, it is currently too high, and therefore, I have to go outside half the time. This disrupts the streamlined services I'd be able to provide if I was NML only. It would also work better if I had a better Broker Dealer.
The fact is that we have never conducted a comprehensive search of all the available options to know exactly how good or bad NML is vs. the competition. My father did this 30 years ago to his credit, and that is how he ended up with NML. But a lot has changed in 30 years, and perhaps it should be done again.
We do have some idea of how NML ranks, as well as some opinions. Obviously, as far as whole life insurance is concerned, NML is second to none, particularly with the flexibility of its ECL product. NML's Advanced Planning department is an excellent resource. Its culture of well educated professionals is very valuable. Our branch office in particular is a great work environment, with knowledgeable staff.
However, there are many drawbacks as well, that I have tended to put up with. I realize that perhaps it is not necessary to put up with them; I believe there is probably an other organization out there that can provide a better platform overall, and maybe fall short slightly on the insurance side, but that this shortcoming will be made up for by improvements in other areas.
The drawbacks are as follows, in relative order of importance to me:
1) While NML's insurance is of the utmost quality, its investment program seems to be two steps behind. Its new signature choice product removes all flexibility that I as an advisor have to make recommendations. The fact that we are not allowed to add specialty funds is borderline insulting to our own education. The fact that we are not allowed to increase international exposure is disturbing. Overall, NML sees investments as purely a commodity, and WE are the value added. It is basically a package of mutual funds; I believe it is overpriced, and while it is certainly worth it for the investor because he gets MY input on it, NML takes TOO MUCH of the cost for itself- that money should go to us, and I should be able to lower it if I think I am overcharging the investor.
Its lack of exposure to alternative investments is disturbing. While the buzz about hedge funds these days is probably overblown and quite annoying in general, I do believe that, as everyone starts to do the "asset allocation" model, it will indeed become commoditized and outdated. Furthermore, the "buttonwood" effect (the increasing correlation of the financial markets which is taking away the benefit of diversification) leads me to believe that new and better ways of investing need to be found. NML seems to "stick to the old way" of doing things. I would like to be with an organization that at least tries to innovate, albeit cautiously and with an eye on what is already tried and true.
2) NML's lack of support and low compensation with regard to its investment products is upsetting. Their refusal to keep me at a 65% payout after the transition from my father's accounts is illogical, disruptive to my business, and shortsighted on NML's part. There is no reason for them to have done this. Certainly, I am upset about the lost revenue; but I would be able to tolerate that if I thought there was a good reason for it. For some reason, NML does not see the folly in this as a business policy; it does not bolster my faith in their judgment to make other business decisions.
Furthermore, in general, I find NML's lack of expense allowance and even partial salary to be very crass and outdated. NML seems to pay huge producers quite well; it also seems to be a good place for people that do very little investment business and a lot of insurance. It does NOT seem good for someone who does moderate investment business. The fact that Oppenheimer would see fit to give Ozi 65% to start, while they are keeping me at 35%, makes no sense to me. NMIS pays too little, and they are not doing enough to earn their 65%. In fact, NMIS seems to do LESS than the average brokerage firm when it comes to good procedures, innovative products, etc.
3) I do not like NML's unwillingness to deal with international accounts. From what I have seen, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Oppenheimer all have no problem with international applications. Moreover, from the insurance side, I have found that other companies have greater flexibility with international clients. I find NML's stance on this to be annoying and insulting. Furthermore, I think that in the coming years, as the world becomes more globalized, and as other countries catch up to the US, it may be increasingly desirable to be able to have overseas clients, or even to relocate. This would be completely impossible with NML. Why should I stand for this?
Investor services are lacking compared to other organizations, but I'm not sure how big a problem this is. Probably not such a big deal. Our technology should be better. Not all clients need or want it, but a better online system would be nice. I'm not sure if this exists elsewhere. I know it does with the discount brokerages, but perhaps not with full-service firms. Must investigate this.
4) Another service that would be nice to have is banking services, so that everything can be integrated. However, I'm not sure how necessary this is, as not many people would feel compelled to move ALL their banking to us. People seem fine keeping their advisory services separate from their banking.
5) I would like to be able to be paid as an advisor, not through sales. Furthermore, there is an overreliance on insurance sales, particularly on NML insurance. I have never pushed NML insurance on my clients, but I have suffered as a result.
The NML model would work better if a) they lowered the prices on their term, di, and ltc insurance by a little bit, so that we could feel comfortable selling it in all cases. In my opinion, it is currently too high, and therefore, I have to go outside half the time. This disrupts the streamlined services I'd be able to provide if I was NML only. It would also work better if I had a better Broker Dealer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)