Ask Uncle Bill

Cause and Effect

Must be my week for female financial commentators.  Flipped through Time or Newsweek (can't remember which) and stopped at Jane Bryan Quinn's column.  She's been around so long they took her picture off the heading but Capital Ideas caught my eye anyway.  I actually miss the picture.  Jane looks pretty hot and makes more sense anytime than Suze Orman but I'm off point.  Jane screams out that --

Dividends Matter! 

Holy smoke!  Get a hold of yourself, Jane. 

Seems Jane has figured out that the Dow 30 "is hitting new highs while the broader market lags.  All the Dow stocks pay dividends.  Of the companies in the S&P 500 stock average--representing most of the market--only about three-quarters do." 

Then she goes on to tell her dunce readers what a dividend is and then these mildly interesting statistics--the Dow on price ONLY is up 2% since its 2000 high but including dividends and price the Dow is up 17.1%.  Seems a bit high to me but I'll take her word for it.

Because it doesn't really matter.  Jane misses the point.  She doesn't answer the question or even ask the question--Why Are Dividend Stocks Up In Value?  This is the real issue.

Dividend paying stocks are in vogue or back in favor because the tax rate on dividends was cut from the marginal rate which could be as high as 38.6% to 15%. 

C'mon Jane, you should have figured this out.  If she had gone to business school anytime in the last fifty years up to 2003 she would have been taught DO NOT PAY DIVIDENDS.  Finance majors have this stenciled on their foreheads.  Why?

Because dividends are subject to double taxation.  Or were.  Actually they still are but at the lower rate to the stock owner of 15%. 

I'm trying to keep this simple here, believe me.  First, the company would pay taxes on the income because dividends are paid out of after tax income.  Tax Number 1.  Then the stockholder gets his/her dividend and is taxed again.  Prior to tax reform the shareholder paid tax at the taxpayers highest marginal rate--the 38.6%.  Tax Number 2.  The new law caps the tax at 15%.

So what is the lesson?  Lower the tax rate and dividend paying stocks shine.  In fact, the whole stock market shines though less in some places than others.

Only Congress may take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going.  Tax reform is scheduled to go away, disappear, dissolve into nothingness in 2010 unless Congress makes the tax cuts permanent.  Watch out for that one.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Fat and global warming.  What do they have in common?  They have or could trigger the law of unintended consequences.  What is the law of unintended consequences?  It is when people, in the name of good or progress, do things that have negative consequences that no one foresaw.

An example is MTBE.  MTBE stands for something like methyl trans... well, it was supposed to be a gasoline additive that would reduce air pollution.  And it worked.  Except it also seeped into the water supply and caused death, pestilence, disease, and so forth.  It was mandated for use against air pollution by that supreme body of scientific research--the United States Congress. 

Then a congressman from the great state of Texas tried to stop lawsuits against the oil companies for putting MTBE in the gasoline because, as he pointed out, they were required by law to do so.  Didn't get very far because the United States Congress, the same people that mandated the MTBE, now gave the green light to prosecute the people they forced to put the stuff in the gasoline.  The law of unintended consequences.

I know the law personally because often I would sit in meetings and someone would make a great presentation about a new product or new project that was going to 1) transform the company and make us all rich or richer or 2) make life easier.  The 'life easier' projects were usually new computer programs/upgrades that invariably failed. 

So I would sit there and my stomach would hurt because I knew, and it knew, this thing wasn't going to work.  And 99% of the time it didn't and then we had to pick up the pieces.  The major exception to this rule--I thought buying Gatorade was about the stupidest decision on the face of the planet.  Was wrong on that big time.

But back to the law of unintended consequences and how to know it when you see it.  Two examples this morning--one already out there and one in the making.  It seems that the city of New York is going to ban or is thinking about banning the use by food companies and restaurants of trans fats.  Good idea?  Beats me.  I have already banned the little bastards from my house so why not New York?  On the surface a great idea.  Except that the restaurants and food companies are bitching a bit because they are using trans fats because they were told to by--none other than the city of New York.  Huh?  Seems the city a few years ago wanted to lower the use of saturated fats so they recommended the use of, what else?  Trans fats.  Those restaurant guys must think they live in an alternative universe.

No big deal but how much taxpayer time and energy as well as corporate cash has gone down the drain over saturated fat vs.  trans fat?  The law of unintended consequences.

The next one is a news report this morning that the British government has hired Al Gore as an advisor on global warning.  I don't really know why this scares me but it will be interesting to see what happens.

Just remember the definition of the law of unintended consequences so you know it when you see it.  It is when people, in the name of good or progress, do things that have negative consequences that no one foresaw.

Suze Orman Makes Me Ill

Suze makes me want to retch.  She is overbearing, condescending and her voice...well, just listen sometime.  She also beats things into the ground.  But she does cover, in excruciating detail, things I don't want to talk about like credit ratings, minimum payments, and house insurance.  So if you have questions about house insurance go to http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/moneymatters/11166

It's actually not a bad article it's just that I don't care about insurance.  Maybe I should but I've got other things to do.  Here's how I handle insurance.  Thirty or so years ago I had a neighbor who was a VP with an insurance broker.  I was usually able to avoid discussions about insurance since Hank could care less.  It was a job where he made a lot of money and let him do other things like shoot raccoons.  Hank was obsessed with raccoons that got into his garbage and bought a high power pellet gun imported from Germany.  Every once in a while you would hear the ping of a pellet hitting the garbage can and then a loud yelp from the raccoon.  Chalk up another one to Hank.  As long as he didn't use the gun on my kids I was okay with it as raccoons are pretty nasty especially the overfed lazy ones that live on the north shore of Chicago.

But one day I did have an insurance question.  What was the best company for insurance?  Asked Hank.  Amica.  House insurance?  Amica.  Car insurance?  Amica.  Called an 800 number, set it up and never changed.  I have never met anyone from Amica, I have only talked to them over the phone.  May be some guy in a closet running a scam for all I know. 

But Hank's word was good enough for me because he was a smart guy and always on the look out for getting screwed. Figured he had done his homework so hey, why reinvent the wheel?

So if you're interested, read the Suze Orman article or look at the category on insurance on the blog.  Or find somebody like Hank.

The one thing you can do, assuming you can afford it, is reduce your insurance cost by going for high deductibles.  I have high deductible health care insurance, high deductible car insurance, and high deductible house insurance. 

Insure yourself against the catastrophic loss, not the broken window.  Plus I'm just cynical enough to think the insurance company will somehow get out of paying so I keep my contacts with the industry as minimal as possible.

Check out Suze and then call Amica.  Not an endorsement just hey, why reinvent the wheel?

The Stock Drought

Some people think the movement of stocks, either up or down, is random.  Most think, correctly, that a stocks path is determined by profitability, or the lack thereof.  Or interest rates.

The one fact that is often overlooked is supply.  The more stocks out there, the bigger the supply and vice versa.  A prime example of stock oversupply was the dot.com bust.  Actually just prior to the bust when everybody and everything was going public.  Eventually the greater the supply the less demand and the market went  in the dumpster.  The lack of earnings didn't help.

So what is going on now?  The reverse actually.  Thanks to our friends at Forbes we have some interesting statistics. 

Fact 1--In 2000 there were $41 billion worth of leveraged buyouts. 

Fact 2--In 2001 there was $20 billion in leveraged buyouts.

Fact 3-2002, $23 billion.

Fact 4--2003, $47 billion.

Fact 5--2004, $94 billion.

Fact 6--2005, $130 billion, and,

Fact 6--In 2006, so far, there has been $171 billion.

That means  a total of $525 billion of stock disappeared, taken off the market.  I don't know how that compares with the total market but $525 billion is not chump change.  So  supply fell and demand increased and the stock market took off.  Aided, of course, by tax cuts and a low base to take off from.   

Yeah, so what?  What do I do NOW, you say?  Little late, isn't it?  My, we are testy this morning.

The thing to do is watch out.  For what?  EUPHORIA.  Because when we get EUPHORIA these stocks are going to reappear.

Huh?  Ok, why do Wall Streeter's do leveraged buyouts?  Find a company on the rocks, badly managed, fat, flabby, and coasting.  Think Burger King.  Go in and slash costs, jobs, close stores and goose cash flow.  It was easy when there were a lot of fat companies around.  Harder now but still doable.  But the payout is not so much in the cash flow now.  It is in eventually going PUBLIC.

Yep.  Clean 'em up, thin 'em out, rawhide. 

So if and when you see a bunch of companies coming back into the market place you may want to head for the exits.  If you don't you probably will be buying at the high. 

Here We Go Again

The world is coming to an end.  Check out http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/environment_wwf_planet_dc

According to the WWF (are they the professional wrestlers?) --Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends.

Looked closer at the article.  Doesn't ever say what WWF stands for.  I'm assuming World Wildlife Foundation.  Am I close?  Guess if you have to ask...

Some other factoids.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

Ok.  What is a two-yearly report?  If things are so bad you would think they would report at least semi-annually.

Now for some required America bashing.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.

But we are not the only ones.  Leape goes after the Arabs.

People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.

How did Finland get in there?  Making too many cellphones?

Even the Aussies are not exempt.

The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.

But some nice words for the Chinese.  I'm not cynical enought to believe the fact that China was the host had anything to do with Leape going easy on the Chinese.

Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.

Promises, promises.  The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Good news, bad news.

Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.

If South Africa needs some help in the vulture department, we can help.  I would be glad to send over a few Texas turkey vultures.  We have plenty.  I'm especially happy to hear about the northern hairy-nosed wombat.  I was getting concerned.

Too cynical?  Perhaps but I am tired of doomsayers with no viable solutions.  The usual answer is cut back and ride bicycles.  Turn out the lights and buy a Prius.  Ok, but then what?  How about something like increase the food supply which is exactly what happened to Malthus. 

Who?  In a minute.  Here is what he wrote.

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

Malthus was saying, in summary, that the world could not feed itself and that massive starvation would level the population to the level of food production.  A scary tale, kind of like Leape. 

The only difference is that Malthus made his arguement in 1798.  Yeah, freaking 1798.  Guess Malthus was wrong.  We're still here!.  Which make Leape a bit suspect in my eyes.  Can't believe he never heard of Malthus but maybe he doesn't get around much.

Hate to do this but thinking like Leape is a giant leape backward.  Malthus was wrong and so is Leape.  How will mankind fix things?  Beats me.  All I know is that when a problem gets bad enough it gets solved.

Modern farming put the lie to Malthus.  Something similar will get Leape.  Like I said, when a problem gets bad enough it gets solved.  Believe me.

Never Complain, Never Explain

This quote is attributed to Henry Ford II who had more wives than Henry VIII and ran Ford Motor Company.  Successfully.

The point is don't look back and don't bitch. 

I just got off the phone with an acquitance.  An acquitance is almost a friend but not quite.  Anyway, I like the guy.  High school education, Vietnam vet, worked at a bunch of jobs, saved some money, has two kids doing pretty good, owns his own house, cash he can get his hands on quickly--about a million.  Hey, pretty good for a working man.

But everytime I talk to him I know that somewhere along the line he will bring up his BIG, STUPID investment.  Seems he invested a big chunk of money--$250,000 or so--into the dot.com deal through a broker with a big name investment firm that will remain nameless.  Went up to about $750,000 and my friend/acquitance sold.  Got out, clean and simple. 

And then got back in.  He blames that move on his wife which must make things a little tense at home because the $750,000 went to $100,000. 

It crawled back up to about $300,000 and he got out.  But he sure hasn't forgotten about it.

Each time I talk to him I try to steer away from the dot bust and back to his kids, his IRA, his paid up house, his rental houses, his great investment in San Diego townhouses but no, the talk always centers around the dot deal and that son of a bitch broker.  My friend expends a lot of energy on that guy who, surpise, got cashiered out of the investment business and is probably in jail right now.  Which is probably a good thing for him since I'm sure my friend would blast him away with a M-16 if he had one.

We all make mistakes, pass on good deals, invest in bad ones.  I should have bought a house in San Francisco when I was three but I didn't.  The real thing to avoid is betting the house on one deal.  Or if you do, be ready to lose it all and walk away.  People that buy businesses or start a business, do this all the time.  That's fine but be ready to lose everything and be ready to start over again.

The only thing I fault my acquintance for is ignoring the good and concentrating on the bad.  It is the human thing to do but try and avoid it.  It is a waste of energy.  Take that energy and focus it elsewhere.

You won't always be successful.  I'm not for sure but I try.

Finally, things could be worse.  When Margot and I went to France to set her up there at school we took a sidetrip to Normandy and Omaho Beach.  Think Saving Private Ryan.  It was a cold, blustery, damp and miserable morning.  Standing on the beach I looked out at where those soldiers had to get out of the boats and where many died.  I turned to Margot and said,  When things really get shitty, think of those guys. 

That will get you through just about anything.

A Nice Place To Visit But I Wouldn't Want To Live There

I love New York.  I used to have to go there once a month and when I started going I hated it.  Getting off a plane at LaGuardia at 10 in the evening and then putting your life in the hands of a New York cabbie was highly stressful.  Then Rudy Guiliani came along and really changed things.  My wife once asked if I would ever want to live in New York.  Without thinking, I said only if I was single.  That ended that but I still liked to visit.

The key word there is 'visit.'  I wouldn't want to live there and maybe you shouldn't either because of taxes and reverse migration--people leaving rather than coming to the state.

First for salaries.  Most people are smart enough to figure out that some places have higher costs than others and the pay is adusted accordingly.  But starting out this is often not the case ie., the gap is narrower.  So assuming there is no great monetary advantage to New York for somebody just starting out lets look at some things that are higher in New York, courtesy of Forbes magazine.

A married couple will hit the state's top rate of 6.85% at earnings of $40,000.  That is $40,000 together.  A single person gets hit with the top rate at $20,000.  Put another way, if you make $50,000 in New York you pay an extra $2,055 in taxes than if you lived in Texas or Florida or one of the other states with no income tax.  Ouch. 

Forbes notes a few results of high taxes--people are fleeing the state and upstate New York is "an economic wasteland."  I used to have to go to Buffalo as well and I loved the people but they all left.

So why are taxes so high in New York?  Spending.  The biggest expense is Medicaid which does not apply to you if you are young and half way healthy.  You are paying for somebody else.  Medicaid costs $46 billion in New York.  So what?  Put another way that is more than what Texas and Florida pay COMBINED.  And there are a lot of old people in Florida.  Why so high in New York?  Fraud and politics according to Forbes. 

If you want to get into theatre or fashion or work for the New York Times, head to New York and put up with the nonsense.  If you don't, look to live somewhere else.  Remember--it is not what you make that matters.  What matters is what you take home.

Watch Out For What You Ask For

Don't want to get into politics but I'm getting a bit concerned about the upcoming elections.  Forget Mark Foley, think economics. 

Things are going pretty good unless you live in the alternate universe of always being miserable which seems to appeal a relatively large segment of the population. 

With a nod to George Will's column today here are some highlights--

Bill Clinton stated in a speech in the UK that America is "now outsourcing college education jobs to India."

John Kerry said in 2004 that we had the "worst economy since Herbert Hoover."

Nancy Pelosi vows that if she is Speaker of the House the Democrats "will jump start our economy."

Here's one I heard the other day.  Charlie Rangel said, in effect, that there is not one Bush tax cut that he would vote for.  Which means he would vote for repeal of the tax cuts or just let them expire.

Ouch.  I'm a big fan of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of economics and I see a bunch of well intended stupid economic "fixes" coming down the line. 

First the facts.

Sorry, Bill, but the unemployment rate among college graduates is 2 PERCENT.  Plus, where does it say that Indian college graduates can't have jobs?

The GDP growth rate since 2003 (date of the Bush tax cuts) has been 3.5%.  That beats the average of the 1980's of 3.1% and the 1990's of 3.3%.

I don't think we need a "jump start."  As Wills points out, jump starts are administered to a stalled vehicle.  The unemployment rate today is 4.6% which is 23% below the forty year, yes forty year, average of 6%. 

An odd thing about low unemployment--economists don't like it .  Below average unemployment leads to inflation because employers have to raise wages to attract canditates and then raise prices to offset the wage increase.  But enough about economics.

As for Charlie Rangel and tax cuts--the tax cuts were widely thought to produce a "cataract of red ink."  Didn't happen.  In 2006 tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is 18.4% or only slightly above the forty year average of 18.2%.  The federal deficit in dollar terms is a record but as a percentage of GDP it is 1.9%.  The average was 2.1% in the 1970s, 3.0 in the 1980s and 2.2% in the 1990s.

And an oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico is projected to increase US reserves by 50%.

Ok, so what?  On economics the Dems make me nervous.  I have yet to hear one (not to say that Republicans all have PhD's in economics) that seems to know anything about the free enterprise system or capitalism.  The vast majority are lawyers and well, you know...

Seriously, the thing that bothers me the most is that these people grew up when I did and capitalism was not big on their agenda.  Also, they think government should do it all.  All government did for me back then was send a draft card which really made me nervous.  For those who don't know what a draft card is, feel lucky.

Getting Off The Dime

Inertia is a great concept.  If you are stuck, you tend to stay stuck.  If you are in motion, you tend to stay in motion.    Here is the dictionary definition.

1 a : a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force b : an analogous property of other physical quantities (as electricity)

Actually I like my defintion better. 

A case in point is financial activity.  If you are not saving, you tend to not start.  If you are not investing, you tend to continue not investing.  Conversely if you do save, you tend to save more.  If you are investing, you tend to invest more.  Like I said, if you are stuck, you tend to stay stuck.  If you are in motion, you stay in motion.

Here are some examples of stupid finanical inertia.  Number 1) Large cash balances.  There is something in our psyche that likes to see piles of money sitting around doing nothing.  I'm as guilty as the next person.  Flip on the computer, go to Chase.com, and look at that big pile of cash doing, like I said, absolutely nothing.   We're not the only ones that like large cash balances.  Banks love them.  Number 2) Tax refunds.  Nothing like getting a big check from Uncle Sam.  Except for one thing--it is our money.  We just loaned it to those morons in Washington at a zero interest rate.  Ok, enough.

What about smart financial inertia?  One is setting up your 401k ASAP and then not touching it until you, well, for a long time.  You start it and inertia takes over with those regular investments cashing in on the greatest investment tool ever--weighted average dollar cost investing.  Not sure that is the right term but close enough. 

Another one, after you max out your 401k, is investing the money you have just laying around.  Here the inertia is against you because banks don't like you doing this.  Case in point--Margot.

Seems with this new job in the oil bidness, Margot is forsaking the usual model (Rolexes, new cars, swinging from the chandeliers) and focusing on saving.  A good rule for this business is Make It and Bank It.  When times are good they are real good and when...

So got an email from her saying she had a bit of cash laying around (after maxing out her 401k) and what is a girl to do?  How about a little reimbursement to good old Dad for braces, horses, soccer, clothes, cars, prom dresses, college tuition, ad nauseum?  Not a chance.    

You got to take a shot, right?  No dice.  So did next best thing.  To keep Margot's focus on her job and continued employment, I went looking for investment opportunities in the short term market.  Thought it would be easy.

I have an account at Chase that is earning 4.9% so went to the Chase site and plugged in 'Savings' and got...1%.  Huh?  Thought I got the wrong page so tried again.  Same thing.  Ok, Chase, screw you.  Over to BOA.  Same thing. 

This can't be right.  So called my personal investment banker at Chase.  When you get a few assets and leave them sitting around at financial institutions like Chase, you get a personal investment banker.  Which is good if you need cash fast but not good for much else.  Hey, what is the deal on the savings?  Seems my rate was a brokerage rate and the low rate was because Margot (and 90% of the rest of the world) has only a checking account.  So for housing a few stocks at Chase, I get close to 5% but Margot gets next to nothing.

I'll show 'em.  On to the mutual funds.  Vanguard and Fidelity and T. Rowe Price.  Great rates.  Some over 5%.  But minimums from $2,500 to $3,000.  Minimums mean the money has to stay there.  Not exactly the definition of an emergency fund.  Not the right financial tool for Margot at this time. 

Getting a bit frustrated so Google.  Type in 'money market, no minimum' and got this.

An easy way to get higher rates on your savings. No fees Free checks and an ATM card* No minimum balance Easy online transfers to and from your existing accounts* FDIC insured for up to $100,000 per depositor Convenient online account access— see how it works Actually I got more than that but I am graphically challenged so can't move everything.  What it said was that Capital One is paying 4.8% with all the things pointed out above like automatic transfers from and, more importantly, back to banks.   The best thing is no minimums. So linked it over to Margot, she called them up, verified no strings and plunked down her $1,500.  Got to love that girl.  She's in financial motion and will continue to be. Plus I like Capital One.  Somebody there is using their head.  I kind of like those Viking commercials, too.  Don't ask me why.

 

I Quit

I have one major failing.  Well, some people would say more than one.  But for me, I have one--I think I can fix anything.  World peace?  No problem.  Cancer?  Piece of cake.  Chicago Cubs?  Well, maybe I can't fix everything. 

But I think I can get anybody a job.  And I can but not if the other person really doesn't make the effort.  The biggest problem I have is that nobody says they don't want a job so I expend a bunch of emotional capital running around doing silly things like

-working on resumes

-recommending the libary as a great source for 'getting a job' books

-roaming, reading and emailing links to jobs in newspapers and websites

-doing industry reviews to find out who is hiring

-generally being a cheerleader for people doing some of the hardest work there is: finding a job.

But no more.  I quit.  If someone wants help ok but I need some reciprocal effort.  My new rule is no effort, no help.  So there.

Lack of effort is so evident that even I, the ultimate fixer, should be able to see it and recognize a lost cause when I see it. 

A quick analysis of our recent correspondence.

I graduated with a general social science degree, with which I intended to go to law school.  I was five credits short of a geography degree and had sufficient credits for the soc sci degree, and took it because I didn't see any particular advantage in a geography degree and wanted to get on with my life.  My coursework included a lot of computer mapping and a minor in comp sci.  I earned 90% of my college expenses and graduated with a debt load which would have been easily manageable on a normal income.  Also, since the cost of law school was soaring at the time, and since I was watching others go to law school and not be able to make a living as a lawyer, in a fit of risk aversion I decided not to go to law school.

The takeaway here is "yeah, I have a college degree but a worthless major."  Well, who picked the major?  You did.  Thought of law school but nobody could make a living as a lawyer.  Nobody?  I don't think so.

My college placement office wouldn't let me interview for IT jobs because it considered my comp sci coursework insufficient to meet employer requirements; I did get one on-campus IT interview: I was beat out for that job by another graduating student who had had related Work-Study employment, i.e. that person had experience I lacked.

This is code for not my fault.  A conspiracy of the placement office.

I graduated in the middle of a recession, in a local economy that was even more depressed.  Two-thirds of our graduating students were leaving the state for employment elsewhere.  I took a data entry job with a startup I knew personally, working with poorly handwritten records.   

Went through this yesterday and a lot of people went through that recession including me.

But enough.  I've had it.  For every suggestion there will be a 'but' or another problem. 

This from a reader with a great insight into this issue.

Sounds like this guy has a lot of excuses... or maybe he's just given up. Probably both. Failure at least means you're trying. A buddy of mine moved out west, started a company (did well for a while, but was a sole proprietor working himself to death), ultimately he "failed" when his wife left him (she didn't like the hours he worked). He moved back east, and used the experience to net a Director-level position in a large company. Doing well now (and has a new wife). My point? Doing something and failing is better than doing nothing and making excuses.

Failure at least means you're trying.  What an insight.  Motion begets motion.  But until I see some I'm not going to be the only one trying so for now, I quit.