Before You Take the Entrepreneurial Plunge, Consider Various Business Models

There are some business models that are more accessible than others, to individuals who have little or no collateral, little or no cash, little or no entrepreneurial experience, little or no training, and little or no choice but to pursue an entrepreneurial dream without the benefit of resources which would ordinarily be nice to have. The purpose of this article is to briefly review some of the alternatives.

First, there are product oriented businesses versus service oriented businesses. In the case of the former, questions arise as to the source(s) of supply, how the inventory is to be managed, whether the product is perishable, and how the product is delivered into the hands of the customer. The business may need a substantial physical infrastructure. In the instance of a product like new cars, you need a lot, a parts department, service and cleanup capacity, and a sales, financing, and administration area. You will also need lighting, security, and other amenities to ensure that buyers have a sense of confidence in the business. If you’re selling ice cream, you need to keep it cold; this implies freezers and refrigerated trucks, perishibility, and substantial energy bills. If you’re selling clothes, you need display and storage space for a variety of sizes and styles. In all of these cases, you need the product itself in inventory. You might also wish to categorize this type of business as having one other similarity among others of like kind: these are “brick and mortar” businesses.

Service businesses may also require “bricks and mortar,” so just because a product is not physically stocked or otherwise identified as tangible, one must not jump to conclusions. A day spa, a bank, or a hotel, are all examples of service businesses that are also brick and mortar businesses. Generally speaking, brick and mortar businesses rely on a “place” where they must exist, and acquiring such a place requires capital. The “place” characteristics of a given business may carry great weight in the eyes of its customers or clientele. It should not be a surprise that many hotels and apartment complexes invest heavily in lobby and entrance areas when designing their facilities.

One might expect that professionals such as attorneys would charge significantly more, or less, simply judging by the type of offices in which their practices are located. Let’s compare two hypothetical situations. The first is the instance of an attorney whose office comes complete with marble floors, collectable paintings, and an attractive, albeit somewhat pouty, reception area representative. We could then compare this to another attorney, whose office is combined with an income tax service and a small engine repair business. The difference between the two is about $300 an hour. There’s a reason that high profile celebrity defendants hire so-called “dream teams” for representation: they get positive results.

Some businesses sell undifferentiated products or services. This means that the product or service offered by one business is the same, or substantially the same, as the one offered by competing businesses. A gallon of gasoline is probably a good example. (At the present time, it appears that every provider has the same goal: reap substantial profits from consumers.) One station may attempt to distinguish itself from another through slight pricing differences. Oil companies may proclaim “we do research to protect the environment with clean burning fuels that are better for your car”; but, a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas in the eyes of most consumers. Any slight price differences, auxiliary services such as clean rest rooms and a convenience store, and location largely determine where consumers will ultimately spend their money (in ever increasing amounts, it seems).

All business models require some form of promotion. The “person on the street” typically confuses terminology that is actually quite specific. The terms promotion, advertising, and marketing are often incorrectly used interchangeably, for instance. Marketing is inclusive of price, product, place, and promotion. A business can be promoted through word-of-mouth and referral; therefore, a good reputation and testimonials should be cultivated by any business. Some products require heavy paid advertising. “Paid” is the critical word here, in that it suggests that the advertiser has some choice in placing a message before a desired audience. By definition, advertising is paid, non-personal communication; ordinarily it is underwritten by an identified sponsor; it is meant to be informative, if not persuasive in nature. By far, most advertising is local, even though one might tend to first think of national advertisers and brands in an advertising recall test (a test of what someone remembers).

Another way to promote a product is through personal selling efforts. Some types of businesses use independent representatives for this purpose, because it makes sense. For example, suppose that one has a line of porcelain figures that are sold primarily through gift stores. However, as a small business, it would be hard to afford a staff of in-house sales representatives to call on thousands of gift stores nationwide. One could use a firm that represents several product lines (such as greeting cards, writing pens, and silver) and simply add the porcelain figurines to the list of products that might be presented to gift store owners and buyers during sales calls. In a small business, it is the management team’s job to make sure that someone is doing the selling. It helps if the owner is comfortable with this role, as his or her passion for the business can usually be leveraged. However, if you are a prospective business founder, and you are not comfortable addressing audiences one-on-one, in small groups, or behind a podium, you’d better enlist one or more individuals who are competent in this area, for the sake of your future success.

After reviewing more marketing and business plans than I can any longer count, I can just about bet that material under the heading “Promotion,” will be the Achilles’ heel in a majority of plans. Authors of these plans, who are often lacking adequate financial wherewithal, tend to sum up an entire treatise on promoting a proposed product, service, or business with: “We will use word-of-mouth to advertise [sic]…” Word-of-mouth is a fantastic way to promote, if is nurtured. A large “buzz” can be created with a great product that is professionally represented through an in-house sales force, or independent representatives. Companies selling encyclopedias, vacuum cleaners, and cosmetics were built through independent representatives who approached consumers directly. More recent examples have utilized network marketing, where an emphasis on building organizational teams has been made. Senior representatives’ roles are to mentor the development of new representatives.

There are labor and equipment intensive businesses, and there are knowledge intensive businesses. Either can be relatively easy, or relatively difficult for a competitor to duplicate. It all depends on the degree of investment and specialization necessary to get into a business. This concept also suggests that there are certain “entry costs” into a given line of business or industry, and these costs represent barriers that must be overcome. The opening statement to this article, where I outlined various “little or no” scenarios, should be reiterated here. You should find a business that meets the “little or no” test according to your set of circumstances. A personal service or consulting-type business is far less expensive to launch than a restaurant or a retail store. If you have speaking skills and a set of overheads and hand-outs, consider a training and development business. If you’re good at matchmaking, become a recruiter or a dating expert.

Most of my own prior business endeavors have been service oriented businesses that required some specialized knowledge. Building a clientele and personally servicing that clientele has been a central premise in each of these entrepreneurial instances. That has often entailed long hours, scheduling dilemmas, and few breaks in between: clients want what they want, when they want it, which, more often than not means “yesterday.” With the advent of the Internet, an entirely new realm of entrepreneurial opportunity was opened to me and millions of other would-be entrepreneurs around the globe. Recognizing some fundamental differences in business models, I registered the Internet domain name, “WebPreneurship.com,” along with numerous others.

The main difference in Internet business models has to do with the fact that one can create an online presence, with the capability to represent numerous types of products or services, many of which can be entirely transacted and delivered using the Web as a facilitator of that process. Digital products can be downloaded; physical products can be delivered through contracted fulfillment services. A related concept, known as drop-shipping, can allow an Internet business to overcome this latter obstacle as well. Drop-shipping means that when an order is generated on an entrepreneur’s Web site, the product supplier or manufacturer will receive the order and send the shipment directly to the consumer. There is a virtual presence facilitated by technology and strategic relationships, as compared to a physical presence with associated brick and mortar costs. Hence, my own working definition of “webpreneurship” began to take shape.

Information products such as electronic books and reports have also created yet another new term in our vocabulary, known as “infopreneurship.” Infopreneurship has to do with making a living (on the part of the infopreneur) by providing information of value. Prior to the advent of the Internet infopreneurs did exist, although they operated under a whole different set of constraints that had to do with the costs of advertising, mailing, shipping, printing, and other expenses that the Internet has largely eliminated.

Even those business types that cannot complete the full product or service creation, selling, and delivery cycle, can enhance their presence over the Internet. For example, you can’t get a haircut on the Internet, but you certainly can look at styling options, pricing and service options, and location information (including interactive maps and directions); subsequently, you can book an appointment time and date. Basic Internet businesses can be created at relatively low cost, and can be maintained with a flexible schedule, assuming that they are fully automated and sell a product such as information and reports as compared to one that requires a physical product to be shipped. An entrepreneur may exercise the drop-shipping or fulfillment services mentioned above, or handle this for him or herself in-house. Of course the latter situation, relative to business models, entails providing availability to customers that confines the entrepreneur to the business during its publicized hours of operation.

Franchises and business opportunities (including buying an existing business) provide one major advantage over other business ventures that are started from scratch: greater certainty derived from a formula that is “tried and true.” If you have no idea where to start, but you are trainable and ambitious with a few dollars to spend, consider a franchise. There are some franchises that use what amounts to a “promote from within” approach, favoring successful managers as candidates for franchise ownership (and providing a helping hand toward financing the franchise fees). Bootstrapping and sweat equity go hand-in-hand, and if you really want a piece of the action, there are individuals out there who are looking for partners–you could quite possibly earn your way into owning a share, or even all, of an existing business.

As for me, I have come to enjoy having multiple roles and avenues for personal as well as professional fulfillment. I teach entrepreneurship at a university, write, and engage audiences as a public speaker. I have invested in several Internet sites. I have created several of these sites myself, while others are turn-key sites. (A turn-key site is one where a system is already in place to provide a product or service as well as technical support, transaction processing, and customer service.) For instance, I have one site that provides Internet domain names, and that is a turn-key site which I purchased for less than two hundred dollars. I am also an independent consultant for a network marketing firm that offers consumable health, wellness and beauty products. A network marketing structure offers me the opportunity to develop, train, and mentor persons who are interested in growing a business opportunity. Meanwhile, as a continual learner myself, I can enhance my skills and knowledge and benefit from peers and individuals who have already blazed a trail before me.

Every business model implies trade-offs and unique characteristics as well as lifestyle choices. I enjoy teaching, but I also think that staying connected as an entrepreneur makes me a better teacher. I like to learn, so I am always pursuing new insights through casual as well as formal research (which I share through writing and speaking). I enjoy helping others, and teaching, mentoring, and guiding others is essential, to me. As a person of humble beginnings whose accomplishments have often been the result of starting from scratch, my most profound lessons have been acquired from the “school of hard knocks.” If I can smooth out someone else’s path, I’d like to do that. I also have enduring financial obligations, like most people, as well as responsibilities and love for friends and family members. Thus, any entrepreneurial decision has a direct impact on every aspect of my life.

In your own way and given your own set of circumstances, you will have to juggle to achieve your own unique entrepreneurial and lifestyle solutions. Before you take the entrepreneurial plunge, consider various business models and their implications completely. Your decisions will impact your life in ways that are to be considered just as seriously as the business models that you scrutinize. The right model will serve as a pattern for your fulfillment and success. Whatever you do, I suggest that you seek spiritual, emotional, and professional balance as a guiding light in your entrepreneurial journey. Making the right choices will enable you to find your “groove,” gain your freedom, and live the kind of life that you’ve always wanted, both on and off the entrepreneurial playing field.

The Not-So-Invisible Hand – How The Plunge Protection Team Killed The Free Market

“We’re now no different from any of those Western European semi-socialist welfare states that we love to deride. Italy? Sure, it’s had four governments since last Thursday, but none of them would have allowed this to go on; the Italians know how to rig an economy.”

– Bill Saporito, “How We Became the United States of France,” Time (September 21, 2008)

October 24 marks the 79th anniversary of the October 1929 stock market crash. Heavy selling started on Thursday, October 24, 1929, and accelerated the following week on Black Monday and Black Tuesday, October 28 and 29. Many feared a repeat of this disaster on Friday, October 24, 2008, after Japan’s Nikkei stock average fell nearly 10% during the night, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng fell 8%, and Germany’s and Britain’s fell 5%.

“In a stunning turn of events,” reported Yahoo! Finance, “the futures for the major indices were ‘lock limit’ down before the start of trading Friday, meaning they had hit a 5% threshold that prevented them from trading any lower until the stock market opened Friday.” Traders prepared for the worst, but remarkably, disaster was averted. The U.S. market fell only 3.5%, just another “ordinary” bearish day.

Why the more modest drop in the U.S., where the financial debacle originated and should have hit hardest? Suspicious observers saw the covert hand of the Plunge Protection Team (PPT), the group set up under President Reagan to maintain market “stability” by manipulating markets behind the scenes. Bill Murphy commented in LeMetropoleCafe.com:

“Today the Muppets on CNBC were remarking how well our market acted, not falling apart as expected. All day long they spoke of how our market was acting differently today than every other stock market in the world. Well hello, the other countries don’t have a PPT, which is WHY our market is so different.

“There are those who might think what the PPT is doing is right. What they don’t realize is their making ‘Everything is fine’ for so long, and not allowing the market to trade freely . . . like allowing the stock market to fall the way it should, has kept the individual in the market . . . when they might have been SCARED out some time ago.”

In response to Bill Saporito’s comment in Time, it might be countered that Henry Paulson’s Plunge Protection Team is quite adept at rigging an economy. The difference between an acknowledged socialist state and the stealth socialism we have in the U.S. today is that in a socialist state, everyone expects the market to be rigged and operates accordingly. In a rigged pseudo-capitalist economy, investors are easily separated from their money because they expect the market to follow “free market principles” based on “supply and demand.” They are seduced into “pump and dump” schemes – artificial manipulations that allow insiders to unload stock at a high price or buy it at a low price – because they trust in Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” which is supposed to automatically set things right in a market left to its own devices. The market today is indeed controlled by an invisible hand, but it is not necessarily serving the interests of small investors.

PLUNGE PROTECTION FOR SOME, PLUNGE CREATION FOR OTHERS

The most egregious examples of market manipulation have been in gold, silver and oil. The official “spot” (or cash) prices of gold and silver were taken down sharply in the week before October 24, despite the fact that physical demand has been inexorable. Gold is available in the “real” market only at huge markups, and popular types of silver are not available at all.1 We were taught in school that communism does not work because when industry is in the hands of a single owner (the government), competition is eliminated and chronic shortages and black markets develop, since the government does not let prices respond to “supply and demand” but dictates them from the top. Today this is happening with gold and silver, with the true physical price varying radically from the reported paper price.

Gold is known as the “contra-investment,” the “go to” investment which historically has gone up when other stocks were failing. Investors see it as something tangible that will hold its value when everything else is falling apart. For that reason, rigging the market to “maintain stability” means suppressing the price of gold.

The current round of gold manipulations started on Thursday, October 16, at 10 am, when the price of gold suddenly suffered a freefall plunge of $45 within minutes. It continued to drop until it was down by nearly $60 in a little over an hour. Nothing happened on Thursday between 10 and 11 am to warrant this vertical drop. If anything, gold should have been shooting up in the same exponential fashion that it was falling. On Wednesday, the stock market had dropped over 700 points, and Dow futures (bets on which way the market would go) were down by 150 points Wednesday night. During the night, the Japanese stock market fell more than 10%, and all European markets were down.2 Thursday morning, among other very bad economic news, U.S. industrial output was reported to have posted its biggest fall in 34 years, and mid-Atlantic factory activity had crashed unexpectedly from September to October. Yet Dow futures were suddenly 130 points higher; and gold was slammed down right at 10 am, although physical gold was available only by paying huge premiums, and gold prices around the world were shooting up. The day continued in the same counterintuitive way, just one more egregious example of an ongoing pattern of manipulation that has become so blatant that either the manipulators have become supremely confident of their invulnerability or they are so terrified of impending doom that all pretense of plausible denial has been abandoned.

“THE MOST MASSIVE INTERVENTION SINCE ROOSEVELT”

Market manipulation is not generally discussed by the commentators on CNBC, but sense can hardly be made of today’s wildly unpredictable trading patterns unless the plays of powerful men behind the curtain are factored in. One commentator who does talk about this manipulation is Don Coxe, strategist for the Bank of Montreal. In a weekly conference call on September 5, 2008, he described what has been going on in the markets since July as “the most massive intervention of government into the capital markets or the financial system since Roosevelt closed the banks back in 1933.”3

According to the British Globe and Mail, Coxe is “no paranoid conspiracy theorist. As the chairman and chief strategist of Harris Investment Management in Chicago, he is one of the most respected investment authorities in North America.”4 The unprecedented intervention he described went back to when the financial establishment was facing a very banker-unfriendly market in July. Gold was about to break through the psychologically important $1,000 mark, oil was above $140 dollars a barrel, the dollar was breaking down, the bank stock index had dropped in six months from 90 to 50, and the Federal Reserve had a balance sheet to match, after making huge loans to banks on shaky collateral. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were on the verge of collapse, and hundreds of billions of their securities were held abroad. As if by magic, these trends all suddenly reversed, beginning with a dramatic reversal in the swooning dollar.

How was it done? The cat was let out of the bag by the Nikkei English News, which reported in late August that finance officials from the U.S., Japan and Europe had drawn up plans to strengthen the dollar following the collapse of investment bank Bear Stearns. The intervention called for the central banks to purchase dollars and sell euros and yen if the dollar’s value dropped significantly, with Japan providing the yen for the currency swap.5

As the dollar strengthened, gold, silver and oil plunged. The pundits read the drop in gold and silver as a reaction to the rise in the dollar, since precious metals rise historically when the dollar falls. But what they failed to explain was why the dollar was rising. As Bill Murphy observed, “the dollar rallies sharply whenever the US stock market comes under pressure. It is almost simultaneous.” He quoted one of his newsletter contributors:

“Since the [stock market] low on 22 SEP we have lost 8.3 trillion bucks worth of asset value within the equities markets and what happens? The US dollar goes up, and up, and up, and up, and up. From what? 72 to 84 now (up 1.14 just today??!!??)? A non-stop rally that is NEVER adversely affected by news or market events. It’s almost been a 45-degree ascent. THAT is pure unmitigated intervention of a huge degree.”6

How to explain the stunning reversal in the dollar’s slide? In Coxe’s September 5 conference call, he candidly laid out how the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, in conjunction with the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) and the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), colluded to manipulate this “necessary” bounce in the dollar, along with a corresponding boost to financial stocks and sudden collapse in the commodities markets. Coxe called it “brilliant,” but the play was at a cost of millions of dollars to commodities investors and short sellers who were betting on what a “free” market “should” do. Oil plunged more than 50%, from a high of $145 a barrel in July to a low of about $64 on October 24. The same pattern was seen in silver and gold, with gold falling from a high of over $1,000 an ounce to a low of $700 on October 23. It all added up to a massive “pump and dump” scheme, with insiders pocketing the fortunes lost by unsuspecting investors. It’s a messy business, but somebody has to rake in these obscene profits for the “greater good” of market stability.

“THE MOST SORDID SCHEME IN THE HISTORY OF FINANCE”

Theodore Butler, writing on SilverSeek.com on September 2, reported that there was more than just central bank collusion going on behind the scenes. He tracked an unprecedented wall of short selling of gold and silver – massive “borrowing” of stock to sell it into the market, forcing down the price, then “covering” by buying the stock back at the lower price. Butler wrote:

“In gold, no more than 3 U.S. banks sold short in one month more than 10% of world annual mine production. This was the largest short position in gold and silver ever recorded by U.S. banks. After the massive and concentrated silver and gold short position was established by these U.S. banks, the [gold and silver] markets experienced a historic decline in price. It all took place during the first widespread retail silver shortage in history. It is completely at odds [with] how the law of supply and demand works.”

Butler called it the most sordid scheme in the history of finance. “It makes a mockery of financial regulation and the rule of law,” he wrote. “It allows a large financial entity, or entities, to rip off the investing public and gouge them for obscene profits. It is cronyism, back-room dealing, market fixing and inside information at its worst.”7

While gold and silver were being shorted to oblivion, the SEC imposed a ban on the short selling of 19 select financial stocks, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was blatant favoritism for the privileged few, but Coxe said it was necessary to make financial stock look attractive to potential buyers (particularly sovereign wealth funds), in order to allow the banks to sell their stock and raise the capital necessary to start lending again.

At the same time, Treasury Secretary Paulson sought and was granted an unlimited credit line to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac directly from the U.S. Treasury, as well as the authority to buy the mortgage giants’ stock. Fannie and Freddie were put into a form of bankruptcy called a conservatorship; but unlike in the ordinary bankruptcy, in which creditors divide up the debtors’ available assets without government help, in this case the claims of the lenders were guaranteed by the Treasury. Foreign lenders were bailed out while the shareholders were wiped out – including banks, pension funds, and other institutions holding the savings of millions of Americans. In the long run, the “bailout” created more problems than it solved; but according to Coxe, it was a necessary sacrifice to keep the mortgage market functional for the near term.

How near? The Presidential election is now only weeks away. Markets have an uncanny way of looking good before elections.

Rob Kirby, writing in LeMetropoleCafe on September 9, observed that there are laws and stiff penalties against market collusion. The U.S. antitrust laws impose fines of up to $10 million and jail terms of up to 3 years for unfair practices that inhibit competition or monopolize markets in restraint of trade. “I admire [Coxe’s] candor,” said Kirby, “but my take on this is that all the perpetrators should face a firing squad, or worse, for treason.”8

That probably won’t happen, however, because the “perpetrators” can claim governmental immunity. The Plunge Protection Team, officially called the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, was formed by President Reagan in response to a stock market crash in 1987 for the express purpose of “maintaining investor confidence” by manipulating markets with public funds. The PPT includes the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).9 Calling the shots is no doubt Secretary Paulson, who now has a $700 billion fund to use for the purpose, after Congress passed his massive bank rescue plan on October 3.

“SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH”

Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at New York University, wrote on his popular blog Global EconoMonitor:

“Socialism is indeed alive and well in America; but this is socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street. A socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized with the US tax-payer being charged the bill . . . .”10

Investment guru Jim Rogers told “Squawk Box Europe”:

“America is more communist than China is right now. You can see that this is welfare of the rich, it is socialism for the rich. . . it’s just bailing out financial institutions. . . .

“This is madness, this is insanity, they have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I’m not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this.”11

If we are going socialist, we should own up to it and have some transparency in what’s going on. We the people need to know how to plan and to invest for an uncertain future. If we’re nationalizing the banks, let’s nationalize them all the way, with the profits going back to the people along with the losses and risks. Better yet, let’s nationalize the Federal Reserve, so it can issue “the full faith and credit of the United States” directly, without having to back this credit with a multi-trillion dollar federal debt that will never get paid back but just continues to grow. It would actually be less inflationary for the government to print dollars directly than for it to print bonds that are swapped for dollars created on a printing press by a privately-owned central bank, because in the latter case both the bonds and the dollars remain in circulation. U.S. bonds not only serve as money around the world, but they count as the “reserves” for banks to create many times their face value in loans. These bonds never get paid off but just get rolled over from year to year, inflating the money supply just as if dollars were printed directly; but the bonds carry the added burden of perpetual debt and interest payments.

The costly bank bailouts and blatant market manipulations going on today are justified as being necessary to save a private banking system that we think we need to get the credit that keeps the economy running. But we don’t actually need private banks to get credit. Many authorities have attested that, contrary to popular belief, banks don’t lend their own money or their depositors’ money. Every dollar lent by a bank is money created out of thin air on a computer screen. It’s just “credit.” The bank “monetizes” the borrower’s own promise to repay. The government could issue its own credit in the same way. There are a number of successful historical precedents for this, including the publicly-owned central banks of Australia and New Zealand, which saved those countries from the devastating effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s; and the publicly-owned bank of the colony of Pennsylvania, which funded the Pennsylvania provincial government without taxes or debt in the first half of the eighteenth century.

Today’s bankrupt banks dug their own black hole when they loaded up their books with lucrative but highly risky derivative bets that are now backfiring on them. Instead of trying to clean up the banks’ books by throwing taxpayer money at this impossible-to-fill black hole, we would be better off simply letting the banks go bankrupt, as President Reagan did with the savings and loan industry in the 1980s. The banks’ bad debts could then be discharged in bankruptcy, and their assets could be absorbed into a public credit system with a new, untarnished set of books, a system that would serve the interests of the people and return the profits to the people.

SO WHAT IS AN INVESTOR TO DO?

That still leaves the question of how to negotiate today’s very unpredictable markets. The Friday before the white-knuckle October 24 ride, investors were being encouraged to get back into the market. Commentators cheerily announced the best market week in 5-1/2 years, after the Dow climbed from a low of 7,774 on October 10 to a high of 9,924 on October 14. But the week still ended below 9,000, and the market was coming off the most historic plunge since the Great Depression, down from a high of 10,845 on October 3 to below 8,000 a week later. By October 24, the Dow was again hovering near 8,000.

“Frankly, I’m sick of this,” said CNBC market watcher Erin Burnett as she tracked the Dow’s wild gyrations on October 23. “Up and down, up and down. It doesn’t seem to mean anything or be linked to anything.”

Beleaguered investors might well decide it’s time to pull their money out of a stock market that is looking more and more like a rigged and risky Las Vegas casino and put it somewhere else. As one talk show commentator quipped recently, “I’m fully diversified. I’ve got some under the mattress, some under the floor boards, some in the backyard.”

Exit mobile version