Success is in the mastery of details and nuanced communication. I'm naturally anal-retentive, and so mastering details for some things comes naturally. I've been working this year to communicate with others in a more nuanced manner.

Given these two drivers, I can see clearly why I am successful at some things in my life while struggling with others, and I think realizing this will allow me to step back from situations where I am not as successful as I want to be and ask, "Mastering which details would help me improve?" I wanted to record this thought somewhere where I'll occasionally revisit it. Also, it wouldn't be a bad "catch-phrase" to be known for. For instance, I remember almost nothing about eighth grade science class, but I do remember Mr. Johnston saying "Adapt or Die" about every ten minutes.

In other news, perhaps due to the mastery of a great number of financial details, I was promoted at work this week. I am now a Manager of Finance and Accounting. It was something that I asked for following the laying off of my co-worker last month, and along with the promotion, I was able to have a frank long-term discussion with my boss and her boss regarding my career path during my performance review. (Stellar as usual. :) ).

So now, I'm excited about some of the changes that will hopefully lead to at work. We walked away with a timeline for implementing those changes and a promise to continue to revisit the discussion as appropriate. It feels great to have a career plan that is two-sided. It's not just me benchmarking myself against others and saying, well I should be able to do that too, but also my employer agreeing that the timeline is realistic and agreeing to work toward that goal with me. That's not a terribly common thing from employers these days, and it affirms again that I work for some great people.

Police assaulting citizens exercising their First Amendment rights of Assembly and Speech.

The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality - Salon.com

And the American Government putting to death one of it's own citizens without due process.

I personally was quite upset at the Bush administration for the warrant-less wire-tapping of American citizens - now, President Obama has his opportunity to trample the Constitution and does so.

Yes, I know, particularly the Anwar Al-Awlaki situation, are complex matters that involve balancing public security vs. individual rights, but there has to be a better way. As Americans we often talk about the "cost" of our Freedoms in referencing military service, but if we truly want to have some of those freedoms, one of the costs that we may have to bear is increased risk at home due to less "effective" methods of defending our country.

To illustrate this, Iran released some American hikers it had imprisoned for crossing into Iranian territory. Here's a paragraph from the article describing their release:

When they complained about conditions in Tehran's Evin Prison, Bauer said, their jailers would "immediately remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay. They would remind us of CIA prisons in other parts of the world."

When we fail to interact with the rest of the world in a way that is consistent with our values, we lose the expectation of receiving those values in return. Chicken or egg, this is one of the outgrowths of the war on terror.

In December, I pointed out that workers would need to save their 2% tax cuts under the principle that you don't get something for nothing. In many ways, economics can be a zero sum game, and if the government gives you a 2% tax cut, that will reduce their ability to provide you with benefits by at least 2%... so no matter which pocket the government says is absorbing the 2% tax cut, all the pockets are connected and the tax revenue is simply not going into the government, making it much more difficult for it to come out.

Recall, prior to these proposed changes, workers paid 6.2% of their income into Social Security, and employers matched that with another 6.2%. Now, the President would like to give workers another 1.1% off their Social Security contributions (down to 3.1%) - but he also wants to cut employers' contribution to 3.1%. As I pointed out last year, the cuts took the already underfunded Social Security contributions down from 100% to 84%, this latest "stimulus" will take contributions down to 50%.

What does this mean for the responsible wage earner? Well, it's a challenge. You see, the first 2% cut was simply a matter of the responsible wage earner deciding to save the 2% - it was essentially a privatization opportunity for workers. Take 2% of your pay, save it on your own, and hope that your savings out-earn the Social Security trust fund. But this year's cut poses a bigger problem for workers:

If this provision passes, your retirement contributions are being cut 4.2%, but you'll only be getting 1.1% of that in your pocket. Your employer will be allowed to pocket the other 3.1%! The responsible wage earner, who wants to continue saving toward their retirement target will now have to find another 3.1% of their income to stay the course - It's as if the President just decided he would like to hand out a 3.1% pay cut to all wage earners, and instead give that money to employers.

As a responsible wage earner - and someone who knows a bit more about personal finance than the average bear - I'm fine receiving up to my entire 6.2% personal contribution in a payroll tax cut. I'll save the money, but I protest allowing my employers to shortchange my Social Security contributions while allowing them to pocket the money. This is a step backwards in the current effort to close the income distribution gap, and workers across the country should insist that employers continue to fully fund their share of Social Security contributions.

Running the numbers, this unit traded at 39 cents on the dollar from the peak transaction. My condo is, unfortunately, a very close analogy to this unit.

I'm assuming the transaction was a cash transaction as banks have been reticent to underwrite new loans in our building due to the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac 80% Owner Occupancy rule. I happen to know that rent on that unit is probably $900/mo, and the assessment for the unit comes in around $350/mo. Taxes are probably $900/year but should be lower given the recent sales price.

So, if you assumed that you could rent the unit 75% of the time, you'd be looking at $8,100 of rental income, offset by $5,100 of ongoing expenses - or a $3,000 pre-tax profit on a $65,000 investment (4.6%). Continuous rental (12 months instead of 9 months/year) would increase your pre-tax profit to $5,700/year or 8.77%. This is in the first year, before the effect of principal appreciation or rent increases is taken into account. Wow!

As we approach the end of another term, I wanted to comment on two cases, and I suppose my evolving understanding of the law, and the courts' role in it.

Up first, we have an 8-0 finding in Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd where the Court held that former Attorney General John Ashcroft's actions in arresting a "material witness" and holding him for 16 days while never calling him to trial were not clearly illegal at the time. I suppose the Court correctly interpreted the law as I'm not going to pit my Law & Order J.D. (A J.D. awarded to oneself after watching greater than 90% of the Law & Order episodes and being well versed in "television law.") against the Supremes... but four of the justices wrote, what I suppose are concurring opinions, differing in points from the Majority opinion.

The question being settled wasn't whether Ashcroft's actions were unconstitutional, but whether they were clearly so at the time, to the point that Ashcroft should be liable. (There is generally some immunity from these types of suits granted to government employees.)

Regardless, I identify with Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer when they express a little discomfort at the way a US Citizen was treated. Imagine for a moment, some DA decides that you're a "material witness" in a case, throws together some affidavit and gets a judge to sign a material witness warrant. Suddenly, you're thrown in the slammer without the normal legal checks (like needing to be charged with a crime)... and you're being held at the mercy of some DA... who doesn't ever need you for a material witness. How long have we held Sheik Mohammed since we captured him? Imagine if you were a material witness in that case. You could be looking at eight plus years of lockup waiting for the government to get around to "needing" your witness - and then when the government doesn't call you, you have no legal recourse against the government.

Scary! I like the limits that make the government charge you with a crime before/within 24 hours of detaining you... and then giving you the right to a speedy trial.

In a similar vein, we also saw the Court rule that California's overcrowded prison system constituted cruel and unusual punishment. A lower court had ruled on the case and determined that 137.5% of capacity was the upper limit for overcrowding in California's prisons, and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling.

This case is an example of both the best things about our judicial system and the worst. 137.5%? How does a court come up with that number. My guess is that the lower court has some great reasons why 137.5% is the right number and not 110% or 140%, or even 200%, but is that really the role of the judiciary to determine this? (No.)

That said, the role of the legislature isn't to make more actions illegal than funding for the prison space needed to enforce those laws. The legislature was derelict in their duty in how they formed the laws and funded the penal system. This is exactly the type of check and balance that the court should be providing... and although almost all the newspaper articles were headlined like this WSJ article ("Top Court Sets Stage for Felons to go Free"), the headlines should have read: "Courts impose balance on legislators, tell them to do their jobs and spend the money to properly imprison felons." After all, the new law for California isn't that the state needs to release 33,630 inmates, it's that California needs to build prison space suitable to hold 73% of the inmates it plans to incarcerate. (73% is the inverse of 137.5%).

OK, enough about the court. I should also note some exciting things from this month:

Congratulations to Wyatt and Ngoshali! They got engaged this month. Wedding date TBD.

Tais toi is french for shut up. Myles and I knew this, Wyatt did not. Wyatt was annoying. So, we got our revenge by telling him to shut up whenever we felt like it, and then told Wyatt we were simply calling him T-3, which was short for Theis #3.

It didn't make a lot of sense, but that's what we did, and Wyatt wasn't stupid, so he cottoned onto the fact that something was amiss... but he was short on resources to find out what we were actually saying. After some months of this, Wyatt decided to email Kyliah, who was in Spain at the time, and inquired as to the true meaning of tais toi.

Of course, Wyatt let us know his plan because we were sure going to be in trouble when Kyliah delivered him from our persecution... so Myles and I got into the email account when Kyliah responded and printed out a doctored copy of the email for Wyatt, which of course explained that tais toi simply meant T3, and his brothers must of been calling him that because he was Theis' third brother. We were geniuses!

Wyatt continued to be smart and checked the original email, thus exposing our game, and learning that we'd been telling him to shut up for the past three months. It was a terrible day for older brother oppression... but not quite as bad as the day that Myles and Wyatt both decided ranks in the ByronLand army were not as worthwhile as I had led them to believe... but I digress.

Anyhow, upon hearing my story, my boss chuckles and exclaims, "That's what's wrong with your family! Nate's brothers get him to call his teacher a scrotum, and your family hazing involves foreign languages and doctored emails!"

So there, I now know what's wrong with me.

Six years later, President Obama just gave Americans the opportunity to privatize a portion of their Social Security nest-egg by asking for and receiving a 2% Payroll tax cut (currently for only two years, but I somehow expect this will become permanent). Unfortunately, this opportunity is being sold to American's as a "stimulus" and no one is being encouraged to save the 2% tax break Americans will be receiving beginning next year.

So, even though the tax cut "compromise" announced by President Obama two weeks ago, and passed by Congress last night is the height of fiscal irresponsibility, there is a silver lining for the disciplined wage earner who decides to save, rather than spend, their tax cut. Consider the extra 2% in your paycheck as your opportunity to establish your own privatized Social Security account, and choose a conservative investment that is likely to grow slowly and steadily - mimicking the portion of your retirement savings that Social Security is supposed to represent. Because after-all, if Social Security was on course for bankruptcy in 2037 (ten years before I can start collecting my benefits), then reducing its funding by 16% while not decreasing benefits must be a great way to fix the system.

My investment advice: avoid US Treasuries.

Microsoft

Shares trading at $25.75
EPS = 2.33
P/E = 11.05 off trailing earnings
Cash per share = $5.15
Share Price less cash = $20.60
P/E with cash excluded = 8.9

Long-Term Debt is about 10% of Market cap. They've been issuing ridiculously cheap debt on the capital market to lower their cost of capital, which is fine for the equity holders.

Dividend Yield = 2.5%, they've been growing the dividend most years since they started issuing one, and are aggressively buying back shares.

Cash generation is very good. They made $24 billion from operations last year and borrowed $1.2 B. They spent $2B on CapEx, paid $4.6B in dividends, bought back $9B of stock, and built cash by $7.4B and allowed Accounts receivable to swell by $2B.

And did I mention, they're virtually a monopoly with low fixed costs and a 30% margin... and you might think that all those companies who will be upgrading to Office 2010 are priced in, except they're not.

2010 was record revenues and profits.

I read through most of the financials last night. Except for a $10B permanent deferred income tax liability (foreign) that doesn't show up on the balance sheet, I didn't see anything too alarming.

I really dislike my Mortgage Servicer. After National City was sold to PNC, my mortgage was packaged into some CDO, or CMO, or CLO, or whatever the term is, and the servicing contract was taken up by a company that I feel is frankly incompetent.

Most of my complaints relate to their sheer inability to manage my property tax escrow properly. They began by not paying my property tax the first time it was their responsibility to pay it. Then, they adjusted my escrow payments without taking into account that they had not paid my taxes, which resulted in a big ole check sent to me, and a much smaller monthly payment.

I called them, explained their error, returned the check they sent me, and continued paying the original amount, marking the difference to go into my property tax escrow. This seemed like a simple enough strategy... except that they routinely ignored the instructions to apply the excess payment toward the escrow and instead applied it toward principal. For four consecutive months, I called them to complain and had them fix the allocation before I finally gave up paying extra into my escrow as a lost cause. Now, the other shoe has dropped and they've recalculated my escrow, which means that for the next twelve months, I'll be overpaying into the escrow... so that twelve months from now, they'll realize they overcharged me, cut me a big check, and the cycle will continue.

It's called maths people, learn it!

Venting and backstory aside, we come to the real point of my post. They are required by law to periodically send me a statement about how they are not using my personal information to sell it to third parties for advertising purposes. This is all fine and good, but each month, with my statement comes a whole chunk of advertisements stuffed into the envelope. Isn't this essentially the same thing? They're using my address and personal information to send me direct mail marketing.

I'd forgive them if they were at least as competent as the electric company, which does the same thing... but ComEd at least charges me the correct amount most months.

/Rant

Sometimes, you have to change things up to get a new perspective. I'm an NIV guy, and there was probably a time I knew this passage word-perfect in under 45 seconds with the reference, but the slightly different phrasing of the Message made me think this passage through differently. The NIV uses 'ask' rather than pray, and although I'm not sure how one would 'ask the Father' that didn't involve praying, that concept got stuck somewhere in the gray jelly of my brain. You know, the stuff that comes between the part of the brain where you know things, and the part where you understand it.

Anyway, I've been praying boldly recently. Way to go, me!

On another front, a long-time friend has a daughter with a brain tumor. In one of the usual prayer request and status updates, I found some wisdom that really floored me. There's something awesome about Godly men and women coming through trials and being able to remember tenet #1 about God: "God is good all the time." Here's an excerpt from that prayer letter... ok, most all of it.

When we pray for people who have serious medical issues, cancer, major operations etc., it is often difficult to know how to pray. Many of us have prayed for serious health situations in the past. Often, despite our prayers, the loved one does not recover or the treatment does not work. We know that God cares and we believe that he hears our prayers. So we do pray for healing, for recovery, for wisdom and for God's grace no matter the outcome. We do not stop praying even in the face of major obstacles.

Sometimes we think that if we have a lot of people praying, that God will be more inclined to answer. But we know from scripture that it is not the quantity of people praying that makes the difference. It is the degree to which those praying are in tune with God's will that makes the prayers powerful. Would it not be God's will to heal in response to the fervent prayers of His people? According to the apostle Paul, it is legitimate to pray that our loved ones would "prosper and to be in good health."

I believe that God allows both good and bad things to happen to believers and non-believers. He "causes it to rain on both the just and the unjust." We are told to pray for God's will, but how do we know what God's will is in these issues? Here is something that I believe is helpful:
• God operates in the "heavenlies"... in the spiritual realm. Think about how Christ told us to pray for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. So there must be a spiritual rather than secular focus to our prayers. A prayer for healing on the physical plane needs to be coupled with a sincere desire for what God wants to happen in the spiritual realm.

Jenni does not blame God for her illness. She recognizes that God allows things to happen and what God allows is "for a reason." Of course she would hope to live a long life and to survive this tumor, but she believes that God will accomplish good through this no matter what the outcome. How to pray for Jenni (notice the spiritual components):
• That God would be glorified through this experience. To "glorify God" means to reveal God's character to the world. "God is light, God is Love, God is compassionate etc."
• That God would guide the surgeon's hand. (Mankind was made in God's image ... despite our fallen condition; God still accomplishes His will through the people that He created. So, we should pray that God Himself would act through the hands of the surgeon.
• That Jenni's treatment (including surgery, radiation and chemo) would bring about healing, both physical and spiritual to all who are impacted by this.
• This brings us back to the concept of asking many people to pray. It is not that the more people who pray will increase the probability of healing. It is that the more people who are involved in seeking God's will (in the spiritual realm), the more people will be drawn closer to God and be witness to His perfect answer.

So, we value your prayers ... so that each of us will be mutually built up in the faith.

And finally, I was just thinking last night and wanted to write down a short prayer:

Dear Jesus,
You are good. Help us to always remember that.
Help us each day to become more like you.
Help us to love others the way you do.
Bear in us the fruit of your spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control.
And let us glorify you in all that we do.
Amen

Post written 9/16/2010, posted 9/20/10