'Tis but thy name that
is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
Act II,
Scene II - Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare
We are crossing that fateful anniversary of Edward Smith's
command in the icy waters of the North Atlantic . One hundred and one years ago at this moment,
all of the necessary objects in motion were in motion to conspire to bring
about maritime's most celebrated disaster. Smith, known both as a "safe" and
"the Millionaires'" captain was, by the turn of the last century one
of the most renown captains sailing the upper class from Liverpool to
destinations far flung across the Atlantic. Having credentialed himself as the 'safe'
choice for the aristocratic class of intrepid seafarers who wanted crystal and
chandeliers rather than timber and grog, he sailed right past his little 1911
collision with the HMS Hawke in which
he sheered the bow off of a warship. While
he damaged the RMS Olympic in the
collision and nearly sunk the White Star Line financially, his reputation for
safety among the monied elite put him on the collision course with history 101
year nights ago.
'Safe'?
Gold is the 'safe' investment in economic turbulence. Treasuries are the 'safe' haven in the current
cycle. Why is it that after millenia of
experience, the havens where the wealthy coalesce for 'safety' happen to be the
same places where contagion and destruction are most cataclysmic? With quantitative easing manipulating the
price and supply of 'safe' assets and creating an El NiƱo superstorm-in-waiting, Bloomberg went as far as
to suggest that we're seeing a "safety bubble" forming. Once again blurring the ontology of
"safety" and "risk", the market continues to see massive
asset relocation into assets that are shrouded in near perfect market
ignorance, laden with sovereign manipulation experience, and promoted as 'safe'
and 'low risk'.
What would happen if we called 'safety' what it actually is?
The 'safety' that the market seeks is a
preservation of money so that an isolated individual can horde resources in the
present to manage expectations about a future in which money will have
equivalent utility. Is it the
individuated, miserly, hording impulse that seeks insure that self-interest
will be financed at some point in time when distress happens? 'Safe' investments celebrate past performance
rather than investing capital in productive engagement. They represent capital holders disengaging
from a expansive future; from geographies of heterogeneity; from financial
products that invite broader participation and activism. When will we realize that safety may actually
attend those who build networks of shared trust and success in which mutual
aligned interests are celebrated in success and resilient in times of want?
What would happen if we actually took a step back and
measured risk? I have spent the past
decade working with private wealth managers, families, and institutional
investors. To date, I've yet to meet a
single one who can actually explain what they mean by risk with a definition
that does not include: a) consensus beliefs unsubstantiated by data; and, b)
complete lack of understanding regarding the conditions in which they could
preemptively discern that the 'risk' would change. In other words, 'risk' in the market is a
barrier to inquiry - ignorance arbitrage as I've called it - rather than a quantifiable
unit of expected loss.
If we called safe, low risk investments by their other name
- reclusive miserly ignorance arbitrage - we'd celebrate it a lot less. We'd also spend more time informing ourselves
about the investments we make and the degree to which they build networks of
resilience around our present engagement and future sustainability.
Thank you David. Networks of resilience. I very much like this idea. Integral accounting around present engagement and future sustainability.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Do you think our insight into investments that are resilient in the present and sustainable in the future are as opaque as other types of investments?
People rush to "safe" investments out of tradition/ignorance (aka expertise). I personally do not have sufficient understanding/knowledge to gainsay this expertise. In the face of uncertainty, I also seek investments that will insure my self-interest when distress happens. I don't see an alternative. When is it prudence and when is it miserly?
"When distress happens" is an externalized reality strongly supported by our individuated (and at times victimized) narratives. Ironically, as Joe Jaworski comments in Synchronicity, distress, in a healthy system is precisely when artifacts of deferred "stability" fail. For example, during a flood, a boat is helpful - not a bank account. How many ATMs will work when we have an East Coast blackout? With over 80% of our current 'safety' in electronic records, we won't need a run on the bank - just a blackout. The point is that the illusion of prudence should be invested in elasticity of networks, not in isolation defense mechanisms.
ReplyDeleteCheck out: http://www.amazon.com/Synchronicity-Inner-Path-Leadership-Business/dp/1609940172
ReplyDeleteThe gold bugs including Paulson took a hit with this strategy today...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-15/paulson-gold-bet-loses-almost-1-billion-chart-of-day.html
Perhaps when the U.S. is no longer the worlds reserve currency the blackout won't seem so bad. A recent look back at the British pound in the 1970's should give us a heads up.Don't worry that wasn't an iceberg that passed us was it?
ReplyDelete