I have always tried to live by a certain standard: "Question everything." This stance has raised an eyebrow or two. In fact, even my wife dislikes my "devil's advocate" stances. So I will defend it here.
While reading a FORTUNE magazine article titled The Best Advice I ever got (here) I was reminded of how important and powerful this stance can be. Fortune interviewed titans of their spheres (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Tiger Woods, Colin Powell, Eric Schmidt, etc.) to glean wisdom from their experience. One such interviewee was the CEO and Co-Chief Investment Officer of PIMCO, Mohamed El-Erian, a man you would have never heard of unless your into finance. PIMCO runs the worlds largest mutual fund, and a total of $756 billion of assets under management. Basically ... he's a big deal.
The advice El-Erian gave was this:
"We were living in Paris, back when my father was Egypt's ambassador to France. Each day we used to get at least four daily newspapers, from Le Figaro on the right side of the political spectrum to L'Humanité, which was the newspaper of the Communist Party. I remember asking my father, Why do we need four newspapers? He said to me, 'Unless you read different points of view, your mind will eventually close, and you'll become a prisoner to a certain point of view that you'll never question.' … There's a tendency for everyone to operate in a comfort zone and to want to read what is familiar to them. But if you are just used to following one person or one newspaper, you will miss these big shifts."
He applied this advice to understanding the financial markets, but I think we can internalize it in a broader sense. I have known many people in my life that subscribe to only one point of view (or newspaper) and refuse to even consider the merits of another view. Views may come in the form of politics, religious convictions, future financial performance, self-esteem, whatever. If we stay open and aware of all views within that sphere we are more apt to make better, rational judgments and avoid becoming "a prisoner to a certain point of view."
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
I Will Harm
In the last post I ended by asking: can our minds deliver a negative reaction to sugar pills? The answer, interesting, is yes. Its called the nocebo reaction (Latin for I will harm). This is an even more confounding notion.
Think of it this way, you take in a sugar pill thinking its some sort of medication - and your mind, essentially, wills and creates a negative reaction. TO SUGAR!
Often times these negative reactions, or side-effects, are associated with the side-effects of real treatment. A strong example of this is that of hormone replacement therapy for menopause. The study (here), conducted by the Women's Health Initiative, had given a large group of women either correct hormones or a placebo for years (an average of 5.7 years!). They then took them off the pills. Upon discontinuing the treatment, moderate to sever withdrawal symptoms were reported by 40.5% of those who were taking the placebo compared to 63.3% of those on hormone replacement.
Think about it! You are taking a pill that they said was a hormone replacement pill, but unannounced to you, you have been taking a sugar pill for nearly six years - the whole time thinking that this little pill are replacement hormones and is helping you cope with your menopause. You stop taking it, and you begin to feel the very same withdrawal symptoms as someone who actually had the chemical hormones flowing through their blood for nearly six years.
My guess is that these women knew of the withdrawal symptoms and figured that the same would happen to them. That is when the mind then takes over and turns it into reality.
Minions, after reading these two posts (placebo and nocebo) you should see that your mind has incredible control over your body and, as an extension, the way you view the world.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Talmud
Think of it this way, you take in a sugar pill thinking its some sort of medication - and your mind, essentially, wills and creates a negative reaction. TO SUGAR!
Often times these negative reactions, or side-effects, are associated with the side-effects of real treatment. A strong example of this is that of hormone replacement therapy for menopause. The study (here), conducted by the Women's Health Initiative, had given a large group of women either correct hormones or a placebo for years (an average of 5.7 years!). They then took them off the pills. Upon discontinuing the treatment, moderate to sever withdrawal symptoms were reported by 40.5% of those who were taking the placebo compared to 63.3% of those on hormone replacement.
Think about it! You are taking a pill that they said was a hormone replacement pill, but unannounced to you, you have been taking a sugar pill for nearly six years - the whole time thinking that this little pill are replacement hormones and is helping you cope with your menopause. You stop taking it, and you begin to feel the very same withdrawal symptoms as someone who actually had the chemical hormones flowing through their blood for nearly six years.
My guess is that these women knew of the withdrawal symptoms and figured that the same would happen to them. That is when the mind then takes over and turns it into reality.
Minions, after reading these two posts (placebo and nocebo) you should see that your mind has incredible control over your body and, as an extension, the way you view the world.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Talmud
Monday, March 23, 2009
I Will Please
Minions, I am going to break from my recent economic kick with a subject that I know very little. That subject is the mind-body connection. I've picked it because it perplexes me.
Let’s talk about the placebo effect (Latin for I will please). Think about it, you give a person a sugar pill (or some other inert substance) and suddenly their depression is gone. What does this tell us? It tells us that our mind has an incredible amount of control over our bodies, despite what some people think.
Here are some enhancing factors to the placebo effect:
* Color. Red, yellow, or orange worked better as stimulants. While blue, green, or purple worked better as depressants. (here)
* Big rather than small capsules.
* Two tablets are more effective than one.
* Branded proprietary tablets are more effective than unbranded ones. (here)
* The higher the price the more effective. By telling patients that a drug cost $2.50 rather than 10 cents pain relief increased from 61% to 85.4%.
* Injections have larger effect than pills. (here)
* Devices (like sham acupuncture) are more effective than inert pills.
* If administered by authority figures.
* If inert substance is pre-associated in past experience with a real effect. (here)
* Regularly taking placebo pills as opposed to forgetting to take them sporadically. (here)
* Enthusiastic supportive attitude of the doctor about their effectiveness. Example: the response of a placebo increased from 44% to 62% when the doctor gave the placebo with "warmth, attention, and confidence." (here)
All of these enhancing factors help us understand just how much our mind can influence our bodies’ response. The placebo effect happens when your mind delivers a positive reaction to an inert substance. The next question you should be asking yourselves is: do our minds ever deliver a negative reaction?
Let’s talk about the placebo effect (Latin for I will please). Think about it, you give a person a sugar pill (or some other inert substance) and suddenly their depression is gone. What does this tell us? It tells us that our mind has an incredible amount of control over our bodies, despite what some people think.
Here are some enhancing factors to the placebo effect:
* Color. Red, yellow, or orange worked better as stimulants. While blue, green, or purple worked better as depressants. (here)
* Big rather than small capsules.
* Two tablets are more effective than one.
* Branded proprietary tablets are more effective than unbranded ones. (here)
* The higher the price the more effective. By telling patients that a drug cost $2.50 rather than 10 cents pain relief increased from 61% to 85.4%.
* Injections have larger effect than pills. (here)
* Devices (like sham acupuncture) are more effective than inert pills.
* If administered by authority figures.
* If inert substance is pre-associated in past experience with a real effect. (here)
* Regularly taking placebo pills as opposed to forgetting to take them sporadically. (here)
* Enthusiastic supportive attitude of the doctor about their effectiveness. Example: the response of a placebo increased from 44% to 62% when the doctor gave the placebo with "warmth, attention, and confidence." (here)
All of these enhancing factors help us understand just how much our mind can influence our bodies’ response. The placebo effect happens when your mind delivers a positive reaction to an inert substance. The next question you should be asking yourselves is: do our minds ever deliver a negative reaction?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Baby You’re A Rich Man, Too?
I am a huge fan of NPR's Planet Money and This American Life podcasts, and I encourage all to start listening to them. Anyways, recently This American Life did a collaborative story (Bad Bank) with Planet Money - it was a very well thought out story on the economy. One part really stuck out to me and I felt that I should share it:
Alex Blumberg (host): ...But beyond the balance sheet, David Beim [Columbia Business School Professor] has a much more profound reason why banks shouldn't lend. He shows me something on his computer.
David Beim: Ok, so here is a picture, a graphic, and a chart that goes back to 1916 and up to…
Alex Blumberg: We’re in his office, and we’re looking at a graph, and it's, basically, a measure of how much debt we the citizens of America, are in. How much we all owe--on our mortgages and credit cards and auto loans--compared to the economy as a whole, the GDP. And for most of history, the amount we owed was a lot smaller than the economy as a whole. This ratio, household debt to GDP bounces along around between 30 and 50 percent, for most of the '30s and '40s 50s, 60s, and 70s, right into the 80s. Then it breaks through 50 % in the 80s, starts heading up in the 1990s. And then ..
David Beim: From 2000 to 2008, it just goes, almost a hockey stick, it goes dramatically upward.
Alex Blumberg: Like a rocket.
David Beim: It hits 100% of GDP. That is to say, currently, consumers owe $13 trillion when the GDP is $13 trillion. That’s a 100 % of GDP owed by individuals. That is a ton.
Alex Blumberg: I'm going to ask a leading question, because I’m looking at a graph right now. Tell me professor, has there ever been a time where we owed that much before?
David Beim: I’m glad you asked me that. And guess what? The earlier peak, which is way over on the left part of the chart, where debt is 100% of GDP, was in 1929. This is a map of twin peaks. One in 1929 and one in 2007.
Alex Blumberg: Does that chart scare you?
David Beim: Yes. That chart is the most striking piece of evidence that I have that what is happening to us is something that goes way beyond toxic assets in banks, it’s something that had little to do with the mechanics of mortgage securitization, or ethics on Wall Street, or anything else. It says the problem is us. The problem is not the banks, greedy though they may be, overpaid though they may be. The problem is us. We have over-borrowed. We have been living very high on the hog. We are, our standard of living has been rising dramatically over the last 25 years, and we have been borrowing much of the money needed to make that prosperity happen.
Alex Blumberg: And so, when you see Congress, sort of saying we need more, we need to make sure there are strings attached to this money, to make sure the banks are lending it out, that doesn’t make any sense.
David Beim: It makes, not only no sense, it makes reverse sense. It’s nonsense. Because what the banks have done is already lend too much. The name of this problem is too much debt. I really think that's the heart of what's wrong with this. We have over-borrowed, and we have done that over many, many decades. And now it’s reached just an unbearable peak where people on average cannot repay the debts they’ve got. In the face of that, it is no solution to try to lend more.
I don't mean to get on a pulpit or anything, but those who belong to the same religion as me (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) have heard this over and over again. The quote oft heard is "live within our means." The earliest I could find it in print was in an April 1957 General Conference Talk by Ezra Taft Benson (here). Fifty-two years ago. Perhaps its time we start listening.
Alex Blumberg (host): ...But beyond the balance sheet, David Beim [Columbia Business School Professor] has a much more profound reason why banks shouldn't lend. He shows me something on his computer.
David Beim: Ok, so here is a picture, a graphic, and a chart that goes back to 1916 and up to…
Alex Blumberg: We’re in his office, and we’re looking at a graph, and it's, basically, a measure of how much debt we the citizens of America, are in. How much we all owe--on our mortgages and credit cards and auto loans--compared to the economy as a whole, the GDP. And for most of history, the amount we owed was a lot smaller than the economy as a whole. This ratio, household debt to GDP bounces along around between 30 and 50 percent, for most of the '30s and '40s 50s, 60s, and 70s, right into the 80s. Then it breaks through 50 % in the 80s, starts heading up in the 1990s. And then ..David Beim: From 2000 to 2008, it just goes, almost a hockey stick, it goes dramatically upward.
Alex Blumberg: Like a rocket.
David Beim: It hits 100% of GDP. That is to say, currently, consumers owe $13 trillion when the GDP is $13 trillion. That’s a 100 % of GDP owed by individuals. That is a ton.
Alex Blumberg: I'm going to ask a leading question, because I’m looking at a graph right now. Tell me professor, has there ever been a time where we owed that much before?
David Beim: I’m glad you asked me that. And guess what? The earlier peak, which is way over on the left part of the chart, where debt is 100% of GDP, was in 1929. This is a map of twin peaks. One in 1929 and one in 2007.
Alex Blumberg: Does that chart scare you?
David Beim: Yes. That chart is the most striking piece of evidence that I have that what is happening to us is something that goes way beyond toxic assets in banks, it’s something that had little to do with the mechanics of mortgage securitization, or ethics on Wall Street, or anything else. It says the problem is us. The problem is not the banks, greedy though they may be, overpaid though they may be. The problem is us. We have over-borrowed. We have been living very high on the hog. We are, our standard of living has been rising dramatically over the last 25 years, and we have been borrowing much of the money needed to make that prosperity happen.
Alex Blumberg: And so, when you see Congress, sort of saying we need more, we need to make sure there are strings attached to this money, to make sure the banks are lending it out, that doesn’t make any sense.
David Beim: It makes, not only no sense, it makes reverse sense. It’s nonsense. Because what the banks have done is already lend too much. The name of this problem is too much debt. I really think that's the heart of what's wrong with this. We have over-borrowed, and we have done that over many, many decades. And now it’s reached just an unbearable peak where people on average cannot repay the debts they’ve got. In the face of that, it is no solution to try to lend more.
I don't mean to get on a pulpit or anything, but those who belong to the same religion as me (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) have heard this over and over again. The quote oft heard is "live within our means." The earliest I could find it in print was in an April 1957 General Conference Talk by Ezra Taft Benson (here). Fifty-two years ago. Perhaps its time we start listening.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
You Only Give Me Your Funny Papers
Now that we have completed the Show Me The Money series, lets focus on you, my minions. How can you get paid more? How can you avoid getting laid off? How can you get promoted? In troubling economic times sometimes mere survival is the name of the game. To receive positive answers to those questions we must identify what management values (additional reading - Show Me The Money: Economics of Exchange) in order to increase your value. Answer these questions:
• Do you add directly to the companies bottom line? How much?
• Do you directly make (or save) them money? How much?
• How good are you at what you do?
• If you quit today…
○ how long will it take to find a suitable replacement?
○ how long will it take to train this replacement?
○ how much would the company lose in profits in that time?
• How often do you actively use your brain while at work?
• Are your job tasks easy to learn?
• Are the requirements for the job in great supply (high school diploma)?
• Do you consider your tasks easy or difficult? Note: time consuming is not difficult.
• Does management think that every time they hear from you that they are going to have to put out a fire for you? OR, do they know that you have already put out the fire and redecorated while you were at it? Management wants solutions, not problems.
• Are you an asset or liability to the company as a whole? To your management? To your customers/clients? To those you manage?
• Do you make your management look good?
• Are you good for your word?
• Are your managers aware of your abilities and accomplishments (work related)? Note: Tread lightly on this issue, it could backfire.
• Do you play well with others?
• Are you indispensable to your manager as a person? Employee? Contributor?
These questions will help you determine your value within the corporation. If you feel that your value is low, increase it! Ask for more responsibility, seek out problems and solve them, be the best [insert job position here] in the company, and make your manager look good. Do what it takes to get the better position, increase your pay, or avoid the chopping block.
One final question for you to stew on:
Think of a top paid professional athlete (Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, etc.). Why are/were they so successful? How would they answer those earlier questions? How can they do better?
• Do you add directly to the companies bottom line? How much?
• Do you directly make (or save) them money? How much?
• How good are you at what you do?
• If you quit today…
○ how long will it take to find a suitable replacement?
○ how long will it take to train this replacement?
○ how much would the company lose in profits in that time?
• How often do you actively use your brain while at work?
• Are your job tasks easy to learn?
• Are the requirements for the job in great supply (high school diploma)?
• Do you consider your tasks easy or difficult? Note: time consuming is not difficult.
• Does management think that every time they hear from you that they are going to have to put out a fire for you? OR, do they know that you have already put out the fire and redecorated while you were at it? Management wants solutions, not problems.
• Are you an asset or liability to the company as a whole? To your management? To your customers/clients? To those you manage?
• Do you make your management look good?
• Are you good for your word?
• Are your managers aware of your abilities and accomplishments (work related)? Note: Tread lightly on this issue, it could backfire.
• Do you play well with others?
• Are you indispensable to your manager as a person? Employee? Contributor?
These questions will help you determine your value within the corporation. If you feel that your value is low, increase it! Ask for more responsibility, seek out problems and solve them, be the best [insert job position here] in the company, and make your manager look good. Do what it takes to get the better position, increase your pay, or avoid the chopping block.
One final question for you to stew on:
Think of a top paid professional athlete (Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, etc.). Why are/were they so successful? How would they answer those earlier questions? How can they do better?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Show Me The Money! (Part 5)
(This post is part of a multi-post thread, and is in response to Part 4.)
Show Me The Money: Go to Jail Card
So everyone hopefully feels that a CEO's salary is based on market forces (namely: supply and demand, scarcity, skill sets, value for value, and opportunity costs). If you haven't been convinced why CEO's deserve this money then I have one last ditch effort: jail time!
Go To Jail Card: Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Everyone should have heard of Enron by now, if not…Titled officers deceiving investors and the public while lining their pockets. Today's anti-CEO sentiment very well could be tracked back to Enron or other corporate scandals like it. The legislation following Enron (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) was an attempt to stop scandals like these from happening again. Now it very well may have done that, but a side effect was that it actually increased CEO pay. Basically, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires CEO's to personally sign off on all financial reports verifying that they are correct. This is an attempt to put more responsibility on the heads of CEO's - causing CEO's to double check all numbers. What are the consequences of incorrect financial reports? According to section 404 of the act a CEO faces:
Up to 20 years in prison and $5 million in fines for intentionally certifying false earnings, OR
Up to 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines for mistakenly certifying false earnings.
I don't know about you but being a CEO seems to have a high level of liabilities. Let me ask you this: If, all of the sudden, it was determined that your current job had the penalty of up to 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines if you mistakenly messed up the numbers, you probably wouldn't want that job anymore. My guess is that the only way to keep you in your job is if the company agreed to basically throw money at you.
In a way it is similar to dangerous jobs. If your potential job is being an Alaskan Crabber and you may accidently die, they are going to have to pay you a pretty penny to get convince you to get on that boat.
Show Me The Money: Go to Jail Card
So everyone hopefully feels that a CEO's salary is based on market forces (namely: supply and demand, scarcity, skill sets, value for value, and opportunity costs). If you haven't been convinced why CEO's deserve this money then I have one last ditch effort: jail time!
Go To Jail Card: Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Everyone should have heard of Enron by now, if not…Titled officers deceiving investors and the public while lining their pockets. Today's anti-CEO sentiment very well could be tracked back to Enron or other corporate scandals like it. The legislation following Enron (Sarbanes-Oxley Act) was an attempt to stop scandals like these from happening again. Now it very well may have done that, but a side effect was that it actually increased CEO pay. Basically, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires CEO's to personally sign off on all financial reports verifying that they are correct. This is an attempt to put more responsibility on the heads of CEO's - causing CEO's to double check all numbers. What are the consequences of incorrect financial reports? According to section 404 of the act a CEO faces:
Up to 20 years in prison and $5 million in fines for intentionally certifying false earnings, OR
Up to 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines for mistakenly certifying false earnings.
I don't know about you but being a CEO seems to have a high level of liabilities. Let me ask you this: If, all of the sudden, it was determined that your current job had the penalty of up to 10 years in prison and $1 million in fines if you mistakenly messed up the numbers, you probably wouldn't want that job anymore. My guess is that the only way to keep you in your job is if the company agreed to basically throw money at you.
In a way it is similar to dangerous jobs. If your potential job is being an Alaskan Crabber and you may accidently die, they are going to have to pay you a pretty penny to get convince you to get on that boat.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Show Me The Money! (Part 4)
(This post is part of a multi-post thread, and is in response to Part 3.)
Show Me The Money: Value for Value Applied
Ok minions, now that we have taken that giant step back to look at the big picture lets take the knowledge that we have learned from our lessons on Corporations and Economics of Exchange and apply it to the question at hand: Why do CEO's make so much money?
Value For Value Applied: Change in the Ranks at Minions, Inc.
Lets say, theoretically, that you are a member of a board of directors for Minions, Inc. Your current CEO (Brian) is making $1 million, and is about to retire. Brian has been doing a good job around the place, in fact he regularly pulls in $9.9 million for the owners in pure profits. Now you need to pick a new CEO.
Through your recruiting efforts you have narrowed that search down to two candidates. You feel that the first, Charles, will increase your profits by $0.2 million (bringing profits to $10.1 million). The other recruit shows more promise, he is a high level executive from Followers, Inc, named Erwin. You feel that Erwin can do a better job than Brian and Charles because Erwin has been in the industry longer, he has been able to manage his employees better, and he has a stronger skill set. You feel that Erwin will increase your profits by $1.1 million (bringing profits to $11 million).
As a member of the board you need to look out for the interests of your bosses (the owners) and give them as much of a return on their money as possible. In negotiations with Erwin you offer him the same compensation as your current CEO, $1 million. But, unknown to you and the rest of the board, Erwin has been heavily recruited by other corporations who left their final offer at $1.3 million. Erwin feels that he can make the corporation at least $0.5 million more money than Brian so he says, "You know, I'd really like to work here, but I've been offered a better offer elsewhere…. If you offer me $1.4 million we'll call it a deal."
Here are the thoughts of the board: Charles would increase our profits by $0.2 million with no change in costs; Erwin would increase our profits by $1.1 million with the increase cost of only $0.4 million; the owners would see an increase in profits of $0.7 million with Erwin, while with other candidates it would only increase $0.2 million with other candidates. They perceive the value of Erwin to be greater than value of the money they need to pay him (Erwin > $).
If Erwin knew his competition (Charles) better and if he knew what the board valued his performance at ($1.1 million minus costs) he could have increased his compensation to $1.9 million and thus matched the increase in profits ($0.2 million) that the next best candidate (Charles) could have brought the firm (that’s called opportunity cost), and still would have been hired.
Value For Value Applied: Scarcity
Now tie this lesson on value-for-value to scarcity. In this case it would be the large demand of companies needing competent CEO's while being supplied with a small supply of competent CEO's. Forbes wrote an interesting article with this tag line: "What does it cost to attract first-class talent to a chief executive job? A lot. What does it cost to hire a clunker? Almost as much."
Hopefully this post wasn't to dense to be easily grasped, the next post will be shorter and make it more apparent why CEO's make so much money.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Show Me The Money! (Part 3)
(This post is part of a multi-post thread, and is in response to Part 2.)
Show Me The Money: Economics Of Exchange
In this post, we are going to go a bit abstract and broad in order to set the groundwork for subsequent posts, so please bear with me (and feel free to ask questions in the comment area).
Economics Of Exchange: Spicy Chicken Sandwich
Four years ago, I would often go to Carl's Jr. and order a delicious Spicy Chicken Sandwich (SCS) for only $1 [although I still do but the SCS is now a lot smaller so I go a lot less]. Oh, how I loved the SCS - and at only a buck, WHAT A DEAL! After all, I value the SCS at about $2.50 (meaning I would be willing to pay as much as $2.50 for it) - this means that I am getting a consumer surplus (what I value the SCS at minus actual price) of $1.50.
Now let’s say that I develop Gastric Reflux Disease and cannot handle spicy food anymore, heaven forbid, without experiencing excruciating heartburn. Suddenly a SCS is not nearly as enticing; in fact, I now value it at only 25 cents. This means that for my spicy hot sandwich I am only willing to pay (I only value it at…) 25 cents. Therefore, every time I go to Carl's Jr. I would not purchase a SCS because I value my $1 more than the value I would receive from the sandwich (which is now only 25 cents). At any amount of money above my 25-cent mark, I would not buy, but if they were selling it at 25 cents or less, I would then feel that it is a good deal and would then be willing to buy one.
Economics Of Exchange: Value for Value
Believe it or not, my minions, you make decisions like this every day - mostly subconsciously. Really think about it … Why did you do you get BLANK Consumer Good for $BLANK? The first Spicy Chicken Sandwich example enables us to boil down exchange to the very root: value ($) in exchange for value (SCS). My viewpoint: I value my $1 less than I value Carl's Jr.'s SCS, therefore I am willing to give up the value I would have with my $1 in exchange for the value I would gain from Carl's SCS [$ (less than sign) SCS]. Carl's Jr.'s viewpoint: I (Carl) value my SCS less than I value your $1, therefore I am willing to give up the value I would have with my SCS in exchange for the value I would gain from your $1 [$ (greater than sign) SCS].
In the heartburn example the actual sandwich didn't change - it still had a spicy and juicy breaded chicken fillet, mayonnaise, crisp green lettuce, all in between a sesame seed bun. The ONLY thing that actually changed was the amount of value I placed on the sandwich - its perceived value - how I viewed the sandwich and how much I would gain from it. That is exactly how exchange works, everyone values everything differently – and somehow we all are able to make trading decisions based on that knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
