Dr. DOA, by Simon Green

When I picked this off the library shelf I recalled having read another of Mr. Green's novels, but didn't recall how I had felt about it. Oops.

This was interesting enough for me to slog through it. I was confused most of the time.

I guess I liked it. But I don't have the energy to summarize this book.

The Pleasure Trap, by Doug Lisle

This is a must-read book for anyone who has read a headline about an "obesity epidemic" and wondered why. It has its flaws -- in particular, it is a bit on the wordy side, even though it is a thin book. But still worth reading.

The authors start by explaining that all creatures are motivated to reproduce, gain pleasure, and avoid exertion. Then they explain satiety: the notion that how much an animal eats is automatically regulated by fullness indicators. This includes humans of course. With this simple and clear background under our belts, we move to the really interesting part.

It turns out that our response to certain foods precisely mimics our response to addictive drugs. An aside: the absolute best way to understand Dr. Lisle's point here is to watch one of his videos; I suggest his 2012 TEDxFremont talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX2btaDOBK8.

Whether you see yourself reading this book or not, that video is really worthwhile. Watch it. Its discussion is actually much clearer (at least to me) than the book's.

An interesting comment in the book about the addictive nature of some food components (e.g., salt, sugar, fat): "Most people think that if they were to consume a diet of whole natural foods, they would not enjoy their food - or their lives. Indeed, most believe that they would suffer if they consumed a health-promoting diet. Like those addicted to drugs, they cannot imagine a better life, free from the drug-like effects of magic food."

Let's imagine this book convinced you to change your food composition to one less unhealthy. How would you deal with the skepticism of colleagues, friends, and family? The authors provide strategies to help deal with this effectively and kindly. (There's also another video from Dr. Lisle on social disapproval.)

They also address what they call the "myth of moderation." I guess you wouldn't tell a chain smoker to only smoke a couple of packs on the weekend. Or a drug addict to only get high on Saturdays. Their model of addiction to specific food components motivates these analogies.

Bottom line: great book. Also search for Dr. Lisle's videos online; they're usually interesting and amusing.

Investing at Level3, by James Cloonan

James B. Cloonan is the founder and chairman of AAII, a nonprofit organization providing support, education and information to individuals who manage their own investments or who wish to more closely oversee their advisers.

In "Investing at Level3," Cloonan rails against virtually all the beliefs of current theory and practice, claiming that: 

• It is very possible to exceed the average market returns.
• Volatility is not an appropriate measure of risk for the long-term investor.
• Much of asset allocation and diversification is not a 'free lunch' and is overdone at great expense. His book is, at this time, available only through the AAII website.

As to his points, I agree with him on volatility. If you're a "buy and hold" investor with a time frame of 10 years or longer, then the markets ups and downs don't really matter. Risk is defined as the likelihood you'll have the capital you expect when you want it (at some future long term date), not as the perturbations of the market that won't cause you to sell anyways.

I also could imagine agreeing on diversification: the price you pay for adding bonds to an equity portfolio is that you lower the total yield. People do this for the relative lack of volatility in bonds or for the predictable income stream. But if you believe that in the long haul equities will outperform bonds, then Dr. Cloonan is correct. In the US, from 1926 through 2015, stocks gained 9.9%/year and bonds 5.2%. The volatility measure that Dr. Cloonan disdains was 19%/year for stocks and 6% for bonds. Further, the peak to trough draw down in stocks hit 80% and bonds only 16%.

Yet there have been periods of time when bonds have outperformed equities. In the 20 year period 1929 to 1949, and the 40 year period 1969 to 2009, stocks under-performed bonds. Dr. Cloonan doesn't discuss this.

The tough part for me is the first claim, of out-performance, and that is entirely because of the numbers he throws around. Dr. Cloonan claims you can expect a 12% annual return with his passive strategy, and perhaps 17% with his active approach. Further, his expectation of "safe" investments as a mix-in, including Treauries or CDs, is 4% annual return. Credibility shot, on the ground, not able to move.

As of this writing, the definition of risk free return, US 10 year Treasuries, pay 1.57%. CDs can provide a touch more, perhaps 1.6%. Far from 4%. If Dr. Cloonan had provided a bridge between real market conditions and his claim, then perhaps things would make sense. He didn't.

Okay, so in spite of Dr. Cloonan's distinguished background, he set himself up for less credibility than even the inane talking heads on cable financial news shows. Does he have anything to offer?

• Individual investors with a long term (10+ year) horizon may safely ignore the volatility of the market, and are psychologically better off doing that.
• A market cap weighted approach to ETFs is less useful in the long term than equal weighting, and Dr. Cloonan pushes the Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP), and to a lesser extent the PowerShares Russell 1000 Equal Weight Portfolio (EQAL). In fact the data do support that equal weighting (RSP) outperforms cap weighting (SPY). On the other hand, the amount of draw down is also higher in equal weighting, presumably because small cap stocks are more subject to over-reaction in bear markets. In 2008-2009's bear market, RSP was down more than 10% more than SPY. On the other hand, as Dr. Cloonan points out, so what: hold on and you'll do fine in the long term (recovery).
• Instead of looking at market drops against peak (the definition of "draw down"), Dr. Cloonan suggests one look at drops against expectation. To his example, if your expectation is his 12% return on equities, and the market has run up - giving you a 40% return, and then drops a lot, as long as you're current value is equal to or greater than your expectation line, you're doing great. This seems like a great psychological tool to help people from panic during inevitable draw downs.
• You can make more than 12% annually over the long haul - that's the "passive" approach for lazy investors. But wait a moment: is that even remotely reasonable? Most folks whom I respect (e.g., Meb Faber, but really there are very many) expect 4-5% net growth over the next five+ years. So let's say that's because they are large cap focused (yes, Faber is actually a world view value balanced with trend guy, so he's already optimizing, but let it go for now), they're missing the better performance of small caps. Is it reasonable to expect this kind of doubled performance outcome? Either the folks who expect more moderate long term growth are dead wrong, or Dr. Cloonan is out on a limb. And given the absence of any commentary in his book supporting the big numbers, and already low credibility, well... you know the answer.

So what to make of this? My takeaway is simple: replace some market cap ETF holdings with equal weighted holdings like RSP, because the long term performance might be superior, if one can withstand the impact of an out-sized draw down over time. The rest of it? Might be brilliant, but might be hogwash, and this book doesn't make it easy to discern.

http://www.aaii.com/level3

Unprocessed, by Chef AJ

I bought this book for the recipes; they are SOS free. Which is to say, no sugar, oil, or salt.

Why no sugar? It is addictive, has no nutritional value, and has many calories. That's obvious to everyone. But sugary treats taste good. I'm assured that over time I'll get past the addictive nature of sugar.

Why no salt? It is also addictive, affects blood pressure, and according to Jeff Novick, has been associated with "stomach cancer, osteoporosis, edema, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, headache, angina, left ventricular hypertrophy, arteriosclerosis, and autoimmune problems."

Why no oil? It is extremely calorie dense, and ... well, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr MD of the Cleveland Clinic says it best in this video.

Anyway, it turns out that before getting to the cookbook, Chef AJ has a brief personal story about her path towards a plant-based whole food approach to eating and cooking, and why she omits sugar, oil, and salt from her recipes. This section was interesting and engaging.

I've yet to try the recipes but having read through a few, I'm optimistic.  Also, the author shares information on her web page, chefajwebsite.com.

Skinner, by Charlie Huston

This novel was difficult to read as Mr. Huston's writing style was just unpleasant. Seemingly endless amount of deliberate absence of clarity. The plot was interesting though. Not a great book.

Foreign Agent, by Brad Thor

This is the best of Mr. Thor's books that I've read in a long while. It features recurring hero Scot Harvath, as the ex Seal special operative who is encouraged to disregard the law in pursuit of the nation's enemies.

In this novel, Harvath is uncharacteristically nuanced in his thinking about what to do about his girl friend who is relocating to Boston. Should they break up? What is the future of his career as an operative?

Less nuanced is Harvath's activities in his day job of creating mayhem. The plot mapped well to current events. ISIS does much harm, although the twist here is that they are being manipulated by the Russian Federation as a means to encourage the US to get more serious about fighting ISIS.

Overall this book has the right mix of believability, action, character development, and plot. Sure, there are lots of magical moments that allow the good guys to prevail, but that's normative in the genre.

This is a current best seller, for good reason.

Hostage Taker, by Stefanie Pintoff

Ms. Pintoff's writing style randomly intersperses different characters perspectives and experiences in alternating chapters. I found that a bit off-putting, but got used to it quickly enough. More importantly, I frequently felt as though this was a sequel to a prior book and it would have made so many things clear if only I'd read it.

Okay, to the story. Our hero is FBI agent and hostage negotiator Eve Rossi. We find her on an extended personal leave where she's been traveling to places frequented by her deceased step-father and former CIA agent. A hostage situation at New York City's Saint Patrick's Cathedral brings her back to work.

It turns out that Rossi's gig is a secret unit wherein she uses a team of ex-cons and other non- law enforcement personnel to do background work and such. So she brings her old team back together to help her solve the current problem.

There was a nice twist at the end, although it could have used a few more pages of exposition.

Overall not unpleasant although often confusing. Would make for a fun television series.

His Father's Eyes, by David Coe

This book started off so slowly that it was only my lazy reluctance to pick another choice off my shelf that kept me going. Fortunately, the story got a bit better. It is a para-normal kind of book, which is to say, the hero, Justis, is a weremyste. What's that? It is quite unclear to me. I can't help but think that had the author written this as a suspense story feature real (i.e., not weremyste) characters, it would have been just as good. Perhaps better.

It seems there was a prior book featuring our hero, but I didn't feel as though that was the cause of my occasional confusion. Justis is a private detective, former police officer, in Phoenix. He comes from a family of weremystes, and the key information to impart about this characteristic is that it inevitably leads to early onset dementia. Justis' dad, who plays a role in the story, suffers from this.

So there are bad guys who are good, bad guys who are bad, helpful cops, and confused cops. I can't really explain the plot line.

If you're into this genre you might enjoy Mr. Coe's book.

Money: Master the Game, by Tony Robbins

Having just watched "I am not your guru" on Netflix (a documentary about a Tony Robbins seminar), when I saw this book at my local public library I thought I'd give it a go. Is Robbins the financial advisor as much the salesman / rah rah / personal consultant type as Robbins the life coach appears to be?

The answer is yes, and more importantly, don't read this book.

It is painfully long, filled with lots of fluff and excitement, little useful information, and too much bad information. You can do so much better than this.

Read this instead: "The 5 mistakes every investor makes and how to avoid them," by Peter Mallouk. This is much more useful, accurate, and credible.

If you are or want to be a "serious" investor, then read "DIY financial advisor," by Wes Gray, Jack Vogel, and David Foulke.  This book is simply outstanding.


     

The Survivor, by Vince Flynn

It seems that Mr. Flynn is deceased, and Kyle Mills has taken over the late Mr. Flynn's "Mitch Rapp, superhero spy" franchise.  In this episode, the 12th in the series, our hero is arrogant, behaves quite unlawfully, and is of course effective at saving the world from evil. No need to describe the plot, one either likes this kind of stuff or doesn't. I'm not enamored of it.