Do people really believe they can do things without anyone knowing? It’s stunning to see in the news where people - lots of people - do dumb stuff and think they’ll get away with it.

It’s one of the profound bits of wisdom that comes with age. I’ve been walking this earth for over 60 years, and God has revealed a few truths in that time. Most were revealed bit by bit over decades of observation. Some are still unfolding, and I’ll grant that there are some lessons I may never learn (as my wife would gladly testify).

There are no secrets. Is the boss a bully? People already know. Is that neighbor creepy? People know. Is your child’s teacher lazy? People know. Does a colleague take unfair credit for projects or successes? Does a contractor use inferior materials? Did an insurance agent fudge the truth? Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

Nothing drives this point home like the notorious assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai. A team of (at least) 25 assassins killed al-Mabhouh in January,2010, and the entire supposedly clandestine episode was captured by multiple cameras over a 24-hour period. Spies typically cover their tracks and carefully protect their identity, but this operation is fully documented by video. Almost as if the team decided in advance that secrecy was impossible, so why even bother?

Think about it. Who loves secrets? People who do bad things, mostly. Bribers and bribees. Spies. Crooks. Snotty teenagers, and people cheating on their spouses.

But truth is noble, and it rises above petty human manipulations and eventually bubbles up for all to see. Secrets are a force bred and borne in the dark, and they scurry for cover when the lights come on. And - this is very important - bright lights shine 24 hours a day in today’s world.

Celebrities know this. Paparazzi plague their lives with constant surveillance. From scandalous to tedious, a posse of photographers stands watch every minute to record the details of everyday life. Try something bad, or even something good, and it’s instantly posted to some website where it eventually worms its way into our common experience. There really are no secrets.

It’s not just celebrities, though. Do any of us truly believe we can avoid scrutiny? Most of us don’t have photographers lurking in the shadows, but we don’t live in the dark, either. People surround us, and they are instantly, powerfully, intertwined through social and technology connections. If any of us does anything that merits discussing, then someone, somewhere, will immediately discuss it.

I know a woman who is mean and vile and vindictive. But she can also be funny and charming and interesting when it suits her. Over several decades, I’ve watched her churn through assorted friends. Most of her friendships start innocently, but they all eventually sour and end badly. Those of us who know her watch the cycle repeat over and over again. We nod knowingly as she lures new victims, and wince as the inevitable unfolds. The same instinct that makes us want to help them also acknowledges that her initial charm is too powerful to overcome with a friendly warning.

A sincere friend once tried to warn me about another bad egg. “Everyone in our neighborhood was glad to see him move away,” he explained. I foolishly ignored this warning, only to regret it later. The truth was there all along; I just needed some personal experience to confirm that early warning. It was a very painful personal experience, just as helpfully hinted.

College athletics reinforces this point. Coaches come and coaches go, and the ones who are fired – which are many, actually – demand legal secrecy as a matter of course. This dark shroud is designed to protect both coach and university, but, in truth, protects neither one. See, the light of day shone brightly for years before the firing, and any wrongdoing by either party is generally known. The secrecy clause serves to fuel increased speculation, and prevents any official statements by anyone, but it’s a good bet that everyone already knows the truth. There are no secrets.

You might argue that these rotten people continue those bad patterns (as I noted above). Serial badness, if you please. And it is true that a planet with 8 billion people creates lots of new opportunities for them. My simple point is this: we know precisely who they are and what they do because there are no secrets. They think they are clever, but they’re not.

Narcissistic types always believe the world revolves around them, and because of that, they alone control the flow of information. Their world contains manipulation, and spin, and carefully constructed half-truths. As stars of their own movie, they tend to overlook that we’ve been observing them for years.

That’s the huge point they miss. We’ve already branded them as jerks, and bullies, and creeps. We know the crappy things they’ve already done and the secrets they hope to protect. It’s virtually impossible to hide something after it’s already seen the bright light of day.

Really. There are no secrets. That truth is rock solid. People are always watching, and they’ve been watching for a very long time. There are no secrets.

How did we get to a place where lying is normal? I was taught that telling the truth was absolute. Yet, that’s not what I see today.

Lying has become a sad way of life in America. It is modeled from the very top, where political spin (carefully fabricated lies) is expectable fare from both parties. University faculty members and top U.S. intelligence officers offer up their version of events, while many of us scratch our heads in complete frustration. “They must think we are stupid,” we mutter to ourselves.

Truth is not relative. Several times recently, I’ve been in conversations where someone said that there are “versions of the truth.” They suggest that people can witness an event and walk away with different impressions about what happened.

That is undoubtedly true. Ask seven witnesses about a car accident, and you’ll hear seven unique stories based on different viewpoints, focus, attention, and participation. Each will be nuanced by that viewer’s unique perspective.

Still, that’s not what I’m thinking about. No matter what each witness remembers, there is only one thing that really happened. In a car accident, there is likely hard evidence – skid marks, damaged autos, specific injuries – to document what took place. Despite what anyone remembers, we can tell that the car was traveling at a certain pace because it left 75 feet of rubber on the road. Even if the evidence is misleading or confusing, there is still but one true account of the event.

This is very important. Truth isn’t some amalgamation of all seven stories. When people offer different versions, that doesn’t mean the truth lies halfway in the middle. The truth is what happened. Versions of the truth aren’t the truth. No matter how sincere, well intentioned, or credible the witness, the truth is still the truth.

Versions are a lot like opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are created equal. Some are passionate, some are informed, and some are self-serving. Some are reasoned and accurate; others are laughable and ridiculous. We might be amused by Taylor Swift’s opinion about the New York Stock Exchange, but most of us aren’t going to bet our retirement on it. Just because she’s entitled to an opinion doesn’t make it accurate or helpful.

There may be ‘two sides to every story’ but that doesn’t mean both sides are equally right! There are two sides to World War II, and two sides to the Proclamation of Emancipation, and – even – two (dubious) sides to the Christian Crusades. Just because someone claims something doesn’t make it true. Or even close to the truth.

People remember different things. They may offer different versions because someone was distracted, or momentarily absent. Or, in the cases of attorneys and politicians, someone gets paid to spin a particular version of the truth. Maybe there are different versions because one person is lying.

As a society, we’ve been trained to be tolerant. We try to listen to everyone. We focus on being open-minded and acknowledge people’s freedom of expression. We even allow a presumption of innocence when we catch someone red-handed. Versions play a part in all that.

Still, when all is said and done, the truth is the truth.

I’m 54 and my retirement accounts have plunged this year. I know the usual advice is to “hang in there” but it’s so hard to watch. Any suggestions to help cope?

We are all in the same boat, sailing on the same stormy sea.

“We’ve lost $60,000 in our various accounts,” explained an agitated friend a few years back. “When I think about how long and hard we worked to get that money, it just makes me crazy. We will never get that money back in our lifetime.”

I listened, and I hope genuine compassion showed on my face. The truth is that 2022 will be recorded as a pretty rotten year in the markets. People everywhere are expressing similar thoughts, and who can blame them?

There has been no place to hide so far in 2022. In the first three quarters of 2022, the stock market (as measured by Morningstar®) was down almost 25 percent. If you had $200,000 in the market, it was down to $150,000 on September 30, 2022. During the same period, your bond portfolio slipped by 14.57 percent. Even inflation protected bonds – seemingly a good fit for 2022 - were down 13.61 percent!

Later, though, a thought occurred that might help my friend sleep better. I wish I had been quick enough to share it at the time, but fast thinking is not always my strength. Often – as in this case – my best thoughts grow from someone else’s seed.

Let us assume that my friend has a few hundred thousand dollars in investments. Add in the equity value of his family home and a couple of nice pensions, and his family net worth is pretty impressive. Enough to put his family on the higher rungs of America’s economic ladder.

And he is right when he notes that they worked long and hard to get up there. Experience suggests that most folks in the top twenty-five percent are there for precisely that reason. Wealth building takes serious education, effort, teamwork, and patience. (Writer Malcolm Gladwell suggested that a bit of luck helps, too, but that is a different subject.)

Here is a surprising insight. It is easier to stay up there than get up there. Especially regarding investments. Truthfully, there is more similarity than difference when it comes to investing. Why? Because we are all in the same boat, sailing on the same stormy sea.

Everyone with a portfolio suffered a similar fate. Slightly more or less depending on your precise mix of assets. The seas were rough, and everyone got tossed around a bit.

Housing prices have been unusual, too. Maybe you paid $200,000 for your home and it is similar to most others in the neighborhood. So, you hear a house down the street recently sold for $300,000. Wow, you are feeling awfully good about that … until you visit some open house on Sunday afternoon.

The same thing happened to every other house. Does it really matter what the price tag says today if all prices reflect the same adjustment? Sure, if you sold that house today, you would get more than you paid. But, since the same thing happened everywhere, you will also pay way more for a different house. Your relative position in the neighborhood or nation has not changed much at all even though the numbers are bigger! With homes or investment portfolios, the same things happen to all.

My friend’s investment portfolio suffered this fate. The value dropped ten (or twenty, or thirty) percent, but so did most others! And, interestingly, at roughly the same time, and for roughly the same reasons. The opposite will happen when the markets move up again later. And, so far, they always have moved up again later.

But my friend’s relative position has not changed much at all. The numbers are different, but that is about the only change today. Later, when economic uncertainly abates and investment prices rise again, his numbers will adjust again, too. Simply, he was near the ladders’ top, he stayed near the ladder’s top, and – when things get better again – he will still be up there.

Honestly, it is easier to stay up there than it was to get up there in the first place. I hope you sleep better, friend.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1115886/q3-2022-market-performance-in-charts

What does it take to turn a community around? Is it a question of better leadership or is it something else?

Chiefs football is one of the highlights of these past dozen years in St. Joseph. The training camp each summer on the MWSU campus draws thousands, especially in the Andy Reid championship era.

In other ways, those same years have been tough on old St. Joe. The population tumbled, public schools stumbled, car thefts and gun shots rumbled, roadways crumbled, and taxpayers grumbled. Mostly, when pressed for answers, leaders mumbled.

Why? Let’s consider a football analogy: there are cheerleaders, spectators, and players following the game in any community. All three categories come from the larger group of citizens.

Most citizens care about the community and may engage in civic discussions and activities when they coincide (or interfere) with their own interests or passions. Their care is genuine, although in my analogy most do not follow football games at a serious level.

Now, cheerleaders do follow and make a joyful noise; they encourage action on the field and stir enthusiasm among spectators. They are superfans, cheering the best and ignoring the worst. A gorgeous long pass turns into a devastating interception … the same joyful cadence jumps from offense to defense. No change in that high energy enthusiasm at all.

Spectators mostly watch. They care about the game’s outcome mostly because they care about the players. Among spectators, there are supporters, critics (most are supporters and critics!), and people who just love the excitement of game-day.

But the players, well, truthfully, these are the folks on the field. They kick, throw, catch, block, tackle, run - and the game’s ultimate outcome is directly in their hands. Positive energy from cheerleaders and spectators helps a bit, but games are won or lost by players.

Shifting now to my main point. In economic terms, entrepreneurs are a community’s players. It is not enough to have a clever idea, ideas are everywhere, and very cheap. What is rare and necessary is an ability to take a promising idea and build it into a powerhouse company. You know, with products, customers, and employees.

For St. Joseph, think about Hillyard Chemical Company or Gray Manufacturing Company or the economic engines of yesteryear – the stockyards, Dugdale, Wire Rope, or Wyeth Company.

This is easy to understand. When a company prospers, everyone around it prospers, too. That chain of prosperity includes managers and employees who work there, vendors who sell raw materials or supplies, customers who use the products, stores that feed and clothe employee families. And, of course, the company owners or shareholders who created this broad economic magic.

Population and tax revenues go up, crime and despair go down. Vitality is contagious. Communities thrive when successful entrepreneurs begin building a prosperity chain. Communities do not thrive merely because cheerleaders and spectators want them to.

In Kansas City, think about the thousands of people who shared in the early success of Sprint or Cerner – or Lamar Hunt and the Chiefs. In smaller places like Salina, Kansas, or Springfield, Missouri, think about Tony’s pizza or Bass Pro Shops or O’Reilly Auto Parts.

Bless their hearts, but politicians and chambers of commerce are not really football players, either. At best, they are cheerleaders or spectators. Even in their formal roles as “economic developers,” they are merely distributing taxpayer funds or implementing ideas for actual players. At worst, they are desperately throwing money at lost causes or fanciful ideas.

Look around St. Joseph and you will see the legacy of familiar football players from years-gone-by:

Bartlett, Bode, Corby, Goetz, Hillyard, Hyde, Krug, Patee, Wyeth

The key to success is to welcome new people, new ideas, new customers to our community. The same old way of doing things brings the same old results. Do you want this community (or any community) to thrive? Look to ambitious people who can create links for a new prosperity chain. Players.

And - in the case of St. Joseph, Missouri, this analogy explains a lot. We have enthusiastic cheerleaders, engaged spectators, and a growing (I hope) group of players. The long-run key to community prosperity must rise from success on the field. The proof is in the entrepreneurial legacy all around us.

Can you explain the laws governing public board disclosures? The Sunshine Law.

The Missouri State Sunshine law was created to force school boards and other public bodies to conduct business in the open. The purpose was to eliminate back room deals and require full disclosure of budgets, discussions, and actions involving taxpayer dollars.

Other states have similar laws, and the Federal government has the Freedom of Information Act. All these laws serve the same basic purpose – keep the workings of public boards and departments in the light. Eliminate the secrets that hide all types of corruption.

Missouri’s intent is clearly stated in Section 610.011 of the Sunshine Law: “It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed and their exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.”

A complete explanation of the Missouri Sunshine law can be found here: http://www.nfoic.org/sites/default/files/Missouri-Sunshine-Law.pdf

One misunderstanding about the law is that certain discussions require secrecy. That is, in fact, completely wrong. Under the law, budgets, discussions, and actions require openness. Under certain circumstances, a board may close the public door, but only for specific discussions or actions. Lawsuits, personnel issues, and real estate discussions can be held in private, although any votes or action must be released to the public.

However, discussions about lawsuits, personnel issues, and real estate do not require a closed meeting.  Closing them is allowed primarily as a convenience to board members and protection for employees who might be enduring sensitive or private discussions. Both lawsuits and real estate discussions can be sensitive, too, and that is why they are allowed in a private setting. But boards could conduct all business in open session if they choose; open meetings are the statutory default.

Sunshine privacy was not created to protect criminal or abusive behavior. Nor was it dictated to hide shady business deals, real estate transactions, or questionable legal settlements. Secrecy cannot be invoked to hide embarrassing situations or bad management. It is a clear misuse of Missouri Sunshine laws as a curtain to hide bad organizational behavior.

Crafty boards and attorneys can be Houdini-like in finding escapes from the Sunshine law. One such escape is using client-attorney privilege as a cloak of secrecy. This is a legal step up from state Sunshine laws and involves invoking privilege for any discussions, memorandums, or contracts involving the board’s legal team or teams. Simply, activities between a lawyer and a client are rightfully secret, and longstanding precedent keeps them that way (more on this in a moment). Privilege is a good and necessary legal protection, but it can have powerful implications in the board room.

Client-attorney privilege can be used in a board setting to cloak all manner of abusive, shady, and illegitimate deals. Additionally, unpopular or unsavory investigative reports can be protected if they were produced by a law firm. Privilege even extends to e-mail messages, private meetings, and phone calls that involve a board’s attorney. So, a direct complaint from a board member or a conference call between an attorney and several board members might be kept secret. Embarrassing situations? Bad management decisions? If a board attorney is part of these discussions or copied on an email message, it can be hidden by privilege.

Unlike closed Sunshine law meetings, however, there is no restriction about the subjects discussed or a requirement that privileged information be eventually released to the public. Client-attorney privilege is the perfect Sunshine law companion for corrupt public organizations.

But a transparent board can waive client-attorney privilege. There is absolutely nothing unethical about public boards revealing certain activities or discussions involving their attorney.

Investigative or other reports can be made public if a board decides to do so. In reports that document criminal, abusive, shady, or illegitimate deals, the board should vote to notify proper law enforcement authorities and release findings to the public. Bad behaviors cannot be tolerated and hiding them is tantamount to doing them.

What is the school tax problem in St. Joseph?

Tom Pendergast got what he wanted by meting out favors and punishment from his Main Street office. His political power rose from Irish neighborhoods in the city’s West side, but he spent his boyhood on Frederick Avenue in old St. Joe.

Like a new chapter in the Pendergast legacy, a big part of last decade’s school district salary scandal involved stipend favors and fears of employer retaliation. A few hours in the public library’s news archives can rekindle your memory. Or read the Missouri State Auditor’s report here: https://auditor.mo.gov/AuditReport/ViewReport?report=2015006

Two themes draw almost universal praise from donors and fundraisers everywhere: children and buildings. Nothing tugs at the checkbook quite like a smiling child. In similar fashion, bricks and mortar provide a pleasing illusion of permanence that’s hard to match.

Those friendly fundraising images clash with local taxpayers. What ought to be easy, or at least easier, isn’t easy at all for schools. Every tax is a struggle.

It is not a new struggle, either. There is a chronicle of failed elections for both operating and capital projects. Many local politicians and officials routinely talk about repetitive school proposals. “People have to vote it down once and then we’ll run it again to pass.” What an odd idea that is, actually.

But those politicians and officials misdirect their blame. In their eyes, the voter is the problem. Those darned voters make us beg for money every time. They don’t like taxes, they don’t like education, they don’t like teachers, they don’t like kids.

I don’t buy it. I think citizens here love children and they (mostly) admire teachers. Nearly everyone understands the importance of education for the community. Truly, local voters are as caring and enlightened as anywhere.

So, what’s the big disconnect? Institutional history and culture esteems Pendergastian behavior. They seem to believe that secrecy, manipulation, misdirection, and demonization of skeptics are all required political tools. None of those win community supporters.

The old superintendent left, a new one was hired, and all done in secret meetings. No interviews, hearings, or public explanations. The secret hiring was announced on the eve of an election for two new board members. Within 48 hours, another incumbent board member announced her resignation.

Voters knew just two things prior to this election: the former superintendent quit, and two existing board members were leaving. All the rest - hiring, resignation, and contract negotiations - were shielded from public scrutiny. Deliberate choices were reached by the group or by individuals about the timing and transparency of those decisions.

It needn’t be that way. The only reason for secrecy is that they prefer it. It’s just easier if those pesky voters don’t get involved. They’ll cite policies, lawyers, and precedents to support the secrets, but it is simply easier without input.

They remind me of a gangster who spends more energy trying to rig the system than it would take to win fairly. We all know people like that, right? They take weird pride in all their convoluted efforts; they try to make it look like work when it is really just conniving behavior.

All this talk about school taxes with barely a word about students. Unfortunately, that’s common, too. Thousands of words spew at public board meetings, but far too few discuss student performance and learning. Voters aren’t fooled, though. There are other ready sources of information about student achievement.

Running a successful business taught me that no amount of good messaging can offset a bad decision or product. Customers are too smart for that. Communications can be a deft tool, but only if the product delivers on promises. It is a huge waste of resources otherwise.

If you need money, just tell the truth and deliver the goods:

·        Teach the students to read, write, and spell.

·        Treat your employees fairly and right.

·        Spend money efficiently and open the books so voters can see.

·        Open your meetings and discussions so the public can see. Quit using closed meetings to mask your decisions.

The real books. The real scores. The real meetings.

Tom Pendergast left St. Joseph 130 years ago. Forget the awful history and update the culture; it’s a governance issue. It is not the voters who have a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Pendergast

Why do horrid people prosper? From Washington to Hollywood, it’s hard to understand why nasty people succeed.

As a young businessman, I often wondered why anyone would hire a “difficult” lawyer. You know, one of those men or women with a reputation for being a bulldog or worse. That’s not how I roll, and it puzzled me when genial people would deliberately hire someone like that to represent them.

As a grizzled old entrepreneur, I no longer wonder. Experience teaches some painful lessons and I’ve learned that some situations require attitude and anger and an appropriate amount of aggressiveness. Since that’s not how I roll, I’ve learned that kind of tough representation is helpful in some situations. Mean-spirited adversaries don’t much respect a gentler approach.

Churchill famously faced this exact dilemma in the early days of his administration (The Darkest Hour, 2018). Both parties in Parliament argued for a peaceful diplomatic outreach to Adolph Hitler, who was destroying much of Europe; Churchill rightly recognized that Hitler wouldn’t respect that process or any negotiated agreements.

I absolutely prefer friendly people. In my work, neighborhood, family, and acquaintances, I like people who are warm, polite, and respectful. In fact, I’ve gratefully reached a stage in my life where I can ignore or reject many difficult people.

You know the type, too much drama or anger or angst. Needy people who turn minutes into hours or suck the very kindness from my soul. Folks who hijack every conversation and transform it into a monologue about them, or their kids, or their political musings.

Annoying as that is, we sometimes grin post-episode because they never asked about, well, us, or our kids, or our politics. It’s a benign form of Narcissism so common today it is almost as appallingly amusing as those fashion photos from Walmart or contrived political debates on talk radio or television.

As I said, I prefer nice people. Still, our daily lives intersect with a diverse crowd. Some are pleasant, some are difficult, some are just too pre-occupied or busy to be warm and friendly. Certain professionals, medical doctors included, are sometimes deliberately distant or cool. These aren’t bad people, just people from a variety of backgrounds, personalities, training, and professions.

Of course, some folks are just plain mean. They have issues. They lack empathy and social skills. They never learned or have forgotten how to treat others.

Surprisingly, though, it’s dangerous to measure anyone by their outside manner alone. Personality can be a terrible gage of ability. Some remarkably brilliant people play or played badly with others. Steve Jobs comes to mind, but history is full of brilliant scoundrels in the worlds of business (Thomas Edison), literature (Charles Dickens), music (Phil Specter), and politics (Richard Nixon). Misbehavior is almost a requisite for some; terms like prima donna or diva or rock ‘n roll bad boy immediately identify familiar traits.

Nothing excuses bad behavior, but these examples don’t necessarily indict it, either. One of my all-time favorite movies is Robert Duvall’s The Apostle (1997) which earned him an Academy Award nomination. His character, Sonny Dewey, is a preacher who murders his wife’s lover with a baseball bat. No spoilers here, but let’s just say that sometimes bad people still accomplish amazing things. That powerful recurring theme is a tenet of most mainstream religions.

Would you rather have a bad surgeon with a good bedside manner or a good surgeon with a bad manner? Do you only cheer for nice guys on the baseball field? Are your favorite writers also benevolent community leaders? How about entertainers? I have a few favorites who make me cringe every time they spout politics.

Today, our paradox is similar. The world might be more pleasant if everyone were nice. Maybe that’s something of an aspiration, an inspirational target to shoot for. But everyone isn’t nice and, really, that’s okay. There are 8 billion people on this globe and they come in many shapes and sizes and many different temperaments.

That diversity is good for us. In most cases, our consequence is mainly annoyance or inconvenience or emotional discomfort. It’s not life-threatening or injurious at all … and sometimes it’s both healthy and productive. The bottom line is this: it often pays to have other temperaments in the room, even when they aren’t pleasant.

Is Elon Musk a genius? Does business success even count towards genius?

Well, it’s complicated. Musk is certainly very smart, and he has enjoyed genius-like success in business. He’s the world’s wealthiest man.

Some kind of IQ threshold is usually used to define genius. That makes sense simply because the attributes measured by a standardized IQ test – speed, memory, puzzle-solving ability – are often associated with genius-types. I’m sure Elon Musk’s IQ meets that standard.

But that seems a narrow definition. Consider for a minute just the sheer number of people passing an IQ threshold test: with 8 billion people worldwide, that means 80,000,000 people are in the top 1%. Are there 80 million geniuses? It is hard to see strong evidence of that! Even if you go with the top 1% of the 1%, you are still talking about 800,000 people!

So then, I would probably combine some qualitative characteristics. That’s where it gets sticky. Einstein? Sure. Mozart? Yes. Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Georgia O’Keefe? Yes, yes, yes. What about Steve Jobs? Mostly, yes. Warren Buffett or Bill Gates or Elon Musk? All of those last four probably make most lists. Interesting, though, isn’t it, that they excel in business, capitalism, no less. I am not sure their inclusion would be universal.

And what do you say about Taylor Swift or Michael Jackson or Paul McCartney? Does pop music fall into the genius category? Or does it have to be something substantive like physics or mathematics or “serious” art? Was John Lennon more genius than Paul McCartney? I once watched a brief television interview with Eminem, and I swear I found his wordplay to be genius. Or – again - does genius require serious material? Personally, I would need to add Carole King and Jackson Browne to my genius word craft list.

What was the defining factor for Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln? Was it also evident in Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.? What about Churchill? Nixon? Thatcher? Either Clinton? Well, you get the point … perhaps part of true genius is situational? Are they true geniuses when most of us never heard of them?

Frankly, I do not know for sure. My guess is that there are people who are genius at certain things, but that might not define them in your mind as a “true” genius. At the same time, other people have high IQ and intellect without ever achieving universal genius stature.

As I said, it’s complicated.

Cash or Borrow: I have enough to pay cash for a new motorcycle, but the loan sounds good. What do you think?

One odd aspect of personal finance is the amount of wrong information. I guess it’s a byproduct of a diverse population with 330 million Americans.

There are cultural diversities, geographic diversities, and demographic diversities. Basically, what you know about finance likely flows from your relatives, your region, and your age.

One thing many people overlook is the good side of borrowing. Borrowing is convenient, inexpensive, and enhances flexibility. Used properly, it can magnify positive steps as you grow towards financial success.

In your case, you can buy the motorcycle and still have money in the bank! Think how that improves your financial flexibility. If an emergency arises, you can easily withdraw money from your savings to cover it. If you’d paid for the bike, that might not have been practical. The emergency might have required a credit card or personal loan, either one with a much higher rate.

I’m assuming the motorcycle loan interest rate is low. I’m also assuming you can pay it off anytime you want which is another wondrous flexibility. Further, any enhancements that come to your credit score might lower your mortgage interest rate when that time comes.

Your credit score is already good, so qualifying for a mortgage won’t be hard. But the interest rate and terms you get will be better with a higher score. Mortgage rates are likely the best borrowing rates you will ever see, so lowering them further is a very nice bonus.

Debt can become a burden for people struggling to get by. Yet, for other folks, it often provides a way to enhance their situation. It’s a deliberate choice that brings added convenience and liquidity. It’s a luxury with little downside … at worst, you can pay the loans off before their full term if that makes better sense.

You alone decide if and when that works for you. I think you are on the right track.

Should I reduce the stock portion of my portfolio as I near retirement?

Volume is one advantage that professional advisors enjoy. I encounter people every day who have experience and opinions about finance and investing. Some of them are as knowledgeable about stocks, bonds, and economics as members of my own professional team.

What they lack, though, is a broader perspective. They’ve read articles, studied their budgets, browsed the internet, talked with a few friends and family. All good, but sort of isolated in a small bubble of similar situations, time horizons, and ideas. If most your knowledge base comes from these past ten years, that’s a serious limitation on your ability.

A seasoned professional is one way to combat that. Simply, any advisor worth consulting has worked with hundreds of clients, diverse needs, and widely-varied economic climates. No guarantees, but the perspective offered is necessarily broader than your own.

There’s one old (powerful) idea that helps makes this point. It’s very common to hear that you should reduce or eliminate portfolio risk as you near retirement or when your portfolio is large enough to meet your needs. Or, as they say in football, take a knee when you’ve already won the game. This idea sounds great and, since many people are risk-adverse anyway, it encourages them to do what they already want.

But it might not be what is best. I don’t recommend that anyone liquidate a long-term portfolio and take a knee. My recommendation would be to reduce risk assets, perhaps, but maintain a modest portion as an inflation hedge and for a few other reasons. Many advisors recommend 25-35 percent in longer-term (5+ years) portfolios. Liquidity needs and potential taxes must be considered, too.

That very common idea of eliminating risk requires more thought today.

The first point I’d make is that portfolio time horizons often run longer than people predict. So, the guy contemplating retirement at age 60 might assume that his $1 million IRA is sufficient to fund retirement. He’s likely not thinking that he’ll need income for 30+ years. Keep it in a conservative, balanced portfolio and he might draw an inflation-indexed $40,000 per year for life. Shift it to bank certificates or money market funds and he’ll gradually lose ground from year-to-year. The problem is less severe for someone at age 80, but it could still be a factor over another 15 years.

Another point is that market risks are less than they seem for periods longer than 5 years. While anything might happen during the next 5 years, the 5-year investment outcome is more predictable than people think. So, most times, people with 5+ years in their investment horizon will do better than they fear. Importantly, many people at age 80 or 85 still have a time horizon of 5+ years.

Third, even a small amount of portfolio “risk” adds significant compound returns. It’s one thing to say, “we don’t need any more money,” but possibly another to deprive others. Heirs, charities, and other causes will gladly accept more when that day comes. Another way of saying this is that those parties might receive a gift diminished by inflation if you are too conservative with investing.

Comfort is important in retirement and portfolios should be tuned to your targeted risk level.

Yet, too little risk can be as damaging as too much. With longer lives, broader perspective, and better understanding, many old ideas require new attention. The notion of eliminating portfolio risks in retirement sounds good, feels good, and may garner praise from some of your friends and family. My considerable seasoning says to give this idea a bit more thought.

This isn’t meant to disparage the fundamental idea of adjusting risk in your golden years. These are nuances to be considered as you think about retirement investing. And they are likely nuances that rise from outside your personal knowledge bubble.

Are you able to quickly determine when someone's trying to manipulate you? What are the signs?

I have a sixth sense. Okay, not really, but any hint of insincerity makes me bristle. Also, anything that seems unlikely or ridiculous. I'm a businessman and entrepreneur with decades of experience; I don't know everything, but I know enough to question some of the absurd ideas people suggest. If the idea is absurd and the presenter insincere, you can almost bet they are trying to manipulate you. Same with investment opportunities or schemes … I know what normal expectations are, and if the opportunity reaches beyond normal, well, then, I'm being manipulated.

I don't respond well to manipulation. I always feel like the manipulator thinks they are smarter than me, and that angers me. Some professions — attorneys come to mind, but salespeople, fundraisers, politicians, and certain managers — purposely hone manipulative skills. I guess that's expected. Where I really bristle, though, is when friends, colleagues, and family members make the attempt. They should know I'm smarter than that!

Just tell me the truth. Explain what you want from me, and why. I'll gladly help if I can. Just drop the BS. I see right through it.