Run from actively managed securities funds

Dan Solin at Huffpo has repeatedly pointed out the folly of paying an investment "expert" to manage a securities fund. His advice goes against the grain; innumerable books, magazines and websites pretend that if you want to grow your investments, you need to pay someone to actively manage them. As Dan Points out in this post, the great majority of fund managers hyperactively stir your investments (which costs you money for all these transactions) and the fund typically does less well than passively managed index funds that cost a fraction of the cost of actively managed funds to maintain. Vanguard, for example, is a prominent company offering many passively managed funds that cost less than 1/10 as much to maintain as actively managed funds. After pointing out new statistics showing the follow of active management, Dan offers this hypothetical conversation that you should have with the next investment professional who offers to help your funds "grow," for a fee, by wheeling and dealing securities for you:

Broker: I recommend this [hyperactively managed] stock [or bond] fund. You: You get a commission if I follow your recommendation, right? Broker: Of course. You: Based on data from both Morningstar and S&P, your recommended fund is likely to underperform a low cost index fund of comparable risk, right? Broker: Yes. You: Is this a farce or a con? Then hang up.

Continue ReadingRun from actively managed securities funds

Whence school leadership?

At ASCD Leadership, Tom Hoerr asks a string of easy-to-understand questions, all of which lack easy answers. The topic is school leadership--how will we recruit the next generation of people to lead our schools? Here's the main problem:

Each week I read about the impending shortage of school administrators. There aren't enough people choosing to pursue administration, and the attrition rate of those playing a leadership role is too high.
Under the reasonable assumption that maintaining quality school leadership is one of the most critical jobs in the entire country (even more important than being a Wall Street Banker who earns 100 times the salary, I would maintain), why hasn't more national attention been focused on this problem of recruiting the best and the brightest to become school leaders? Perhaps it's that too many of us only give lip-service to the need for quality education. Tom is the principle of New City School in St. Louis. He is also a friend, at least in part, because he is a thoughtful person whose opinions I respect. ASCD is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that represents 175,000 educators from more than 135 countries and 58 affiliates. According to the website,

Inservice is the ASCD community blog—a place for educators to gather and share ideas. We hope it will promote the kind of exchange that happens in inservice meetings, where educators discuss how best to support their students. We want it to be a resource for everyone who cares about and serves education, learning, and teaching.

Continue ReadingWhence school leadership?

Fans, Freedom, and Frustration

Over on her blog, Kelley Eskridge has a video of a "Bono Moment" in which you see two distinct types of fans interacting with U2's lead singer. Check it out and come back here. Okay, the guy in the t-shirt obviously is carrying on a conversation. he may be being a fan, but he hasn't lost his mind. The female is being...a groupie, I guess. Though the groupies I've met in my time have been a bit more specific about what they wanted and had a better plan on how to get it. In any event, the questions Kelley raises are interesting and relate on so many levels to so many different things. The fan reaction---mindless adulation bordering on deification---looks to me, has always looked to me, like exactly the same kind of nonsense people put into religion. Mindless, utterly uncritical adoration of an image and the set of emotions with which that image is connected in the mind of the adulant. You can see the same thing in politics. To a lesser degree with less public personalities---writers, painters, photographers (I never knew anyone who elevated a photographer to the level of sex god, but I have known people who got off on sleeping with painters, and of course there's a kind of Nabokovian/Bellow/DeLillo-esque subculture of writer groupies...) and other creative types---but actors and musicians seem to get all the dedicated obsessives. I've never had this happen to me. I'm not sure if I'm grateful or resentful---having somebody want to associate themselves with you in a mindless swoon because your work has made them, I don't know, climax maybe is on a certain level appealing. But it's appealing the same way porn is---something most people, if they're at all sane and grounded, kind of grow out of and get over. I know I would not find it very attractive now. When I was twenty-five? You betcha. Bring 'em on. But if I'd had that then I think I'm fairly sure I would have wearied of it very quickly. I long ago realized that sex, to me, involved the other person---emphasis on Person---and the best sex I ever had included the good conversations before and, especially, after. (There is a point, of course, where you realize that sex is a conversation, of a very particular sort, and takes on a whole new dimension, which one-night-stands, no matter how good they might be, just can't provide.) But the real problem with all this is that art is more than just any one thing and the artist is not the art. The two are inextricably linked. Here is a video discussing the question of artist-in-relation-to-muse which I find illuminating. The notion that the talent "arrives" and you act as conduit through which creativity happens is not, as the speaker suggests, a new one, and it's not one I'm particularly in sympathy with---it all happens in my brain, it's definitely mine---but I certainly find her analysis of the psychology of following through intriguing and true. Once the muse is finished with you on a given project, you do not continue to exist as though in the grip of the work. There is a person there that pre-figures the work and who will be there after it's done that has all the needs and wants and sensibilities of a normal human being. To be treated as some kind of transcendence generating machine by people is in some ways disenfranchising. For a writer, if the well from which inspiration and material are drawn is the honesty of human interaction, then the gushing idiot fan robs the writer, for a few minutes at least, of exactly that. But it also sets the artist up to become a prisoner. A prisoner of other people's expectations. Those expectations always play a part in anyone's life, but certain aspects---the most artificial ones---get exaggerated in the instance of fan adoration. Watch Bono shift from one stance to another when he finally acknowledges the female. No, he doesn't stop being Bono, but it's almost as if he says "Oh, it's time to do this sort of thing now" as he first recognizes her presence and then automatically poses for the camera, with this not-quite-disingenuous smirk. Because he also recognizes that, however silly this person is being, what she's feeling right then is her's and to claim it is artificial is wrong. Maybe an artificial set of expectations led her to this point, but now that she's In The Moment, the emotions are real. If he'd ignored her or told her something snarky in an attempt to snap her out of it, all that would have resulted would have been an ugly moment, a bit of cruelty, and a lot of confusion on the fan's part. [more . . . ]

Continue ReadingFans, Freedom, and Frustration

Fundamentalism, Fox, and … Scientology?

I was recently chatting with a friend who has been a Scientologist for several decades. He was attacking the White House for its conspiracy with other networks to censor and muzzle Fox News. He later sent me this screed on the Campaign for Liberty blog under the Subject "Fox News is Right". The CfL is one of the political arms of Scientology. Check out their mission and board if you want. The introduction to the post is (in part, go read it yourself):

Why is America under such a vicious and prolonged [internal] attack against its basic beliefs? Why are some Americans attacking the hand that feeds them? Why tear down a working system? None of the attacks make sense. It is as though we are living in a looking glass world. I am looking backwards and it seems left is right and wrong is right and right is wrong. Politically correct speak replaced plain speak and the silent Christian majority are called domestic terrorists.

Okay, I paused at this point and replied (in part):

Lost me at "silent Christian majority". An iconic building in every neighborhood, billboards every mile, ads every hour on radio and TV channels not already owned outright by Christian networks, and their creed printed on money and embedded in children's daily oath to the flag does not fit my definition of "silent".

I didn't mention the wholesome Christian activities of blockading health clinics, continuous protests with gory signs on streets and campuses, bombing clinics and shooting doctors. But the actual point of the article is that the KGB is alive and well and still trying to take over America via a conspiracy with the Psychiatric Industrial Complex. They have (the article claims) powerful mind control methods that are being used on the public. If so, I asked in reply, how did we ever manage to get rid of CheneyBush? Today, my friend sent me (among other Scientology political pieces) a YouTube video attacking Obama's plan to sign the latest international emissions control treaty. It took a while of watching to figure this out, among the doomsayer speech of One World Government, global warming denialism, and the demise of America and such. Many of the positive comments to the video seem to be from garden variety End Days Christians, but the platform is quite visibly Scientology. The point of all this is, Why are the Scientologists aligning with Fox and Christian Fundamentalists? For recruitment? For political palatability? To hijack a powerful propaganda machine? Read and listen to what they actually say, and get back to me.

Continue ReadingFundamentalism, Fox, and … Scientology?

College classes free, for anyone

If you'd like to attend college classes over the Internet at a wide variety of prestigious colleges, consider visiting Academic Earth. According to the about page,

We are building a user-friendly educational ecosystem that will give internet users around the world the ability to easily find, interact with, and learn from full video courses and lectures from the world’s leading scholars. Our goal is to bring the best content together in one place and create an environment in which that content is remarkably easy to use and where user contributions make existing content increasingly valuable.
The participating universities include Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA, and Yale. I just finished watching an informative lecture on "The Origins of the Financial Mess." I'm wondering what I'm going to view next. Maybe I'll watch some more of Shelly Kagan's 26-part series on the topic of "Death."

Continue ReadingCollege classes free, for anyone