American Lawyers

Attorney Raoul Felder recently talked about job prospects for lawyers in the WSJ, only partly tongue-in-cheek:

Meanwhile, Congress might consider a bailout plan for lawyers. There are now some 1,162,124 lawyers in the U.S., and the law schools are spewing out graduates at a rate of 43,518 a year, all set adrift upon a public that increasingly wants doesn't have money to pay for their services. There is no other profession more dependent on discretionary spending, except perhaps the oldest one.

Oh, the reality.

O' Canada

A lot of lovely, lovely numbers showing debt levels of various countries:

http://dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00536

I recently bought some Canadian currency (FXC). Because of the decline in commodity prices, the Canadian dollar has gone from parity with the U.S. dollar to only 71 U.S. cents. Looking at the Canadian debt load, especially in comparison to other countries, the drop seems overdone.

Earlier, I wrote about currencies in the following post, singling out the Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc as possible diversification tools:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/11/currencies.html

The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.

Stocks Update: Keeping Score

A year ago--December 7, 2007, to be exact--a good friend and I started arguing about how to invest. My friend and I don't usually agree on stocks--he's more of a technical analyst, and I'm more into macro-economics. For example, he hates Coca-Cola (KO), saying he'd never invest in sugar water, while I like its consistent dividend and international business. He looks for major growth stories, while I look primarily at balance sheets and avoid companies with too much debt. When he and I have agreed on stocks, however, we've never been wrong, at least not in the short-term. Still, we decided to resolve our differences by opening up virtual trading accounts to compete against each other and also decided to keep track of our actual investment performance. This way, if we continued to argue, we would have both actual and virtual evidence to support our investing styles.

I am winning in both the virtual stock games (http://vse.marketwatch.com/Game/Homepage.aspx), but that's because I kept most of my investments in cash, while my friend bought commodity-based companies.

In real life, I have been tracking my retirement accounts. My friend won't tell me exactly how badly he's doing, but apparently, I'm doing better (I'm down "way more" than that, he told me, after receiving news of my percentage drop). I am not gloating at all--I had positive performance through the first week of September 2008. I should have sold everything then, but didn't.

As a result, from December 7, 2007 to December 5, 2008, my retirement portfolio has declined around 23.5%. I can't provide an exact percentage, because I added monies and invested them at different times throughout 2008. In fact, I made so many trades in my 401(k), T. Rowe Price barred me from trading again until late January 2009.

Meanwhile, the S&P 500 declined 41.77% during the same time period (December 7, 2007 (1,504.66) to December 5, 2008 (876.07).

So, I beat the S&P 500 by around 18 percentage points. Ordinarily, I'd be elated, but this year, for obvious reasons, I am not happy at all.

I am looking forward to continuing the competition for the next twenty years. My prize in winning against my friend this year? A Peet's (PEET) coffee of my choice. I do love their eggnog lattes, but I was so close to having positive performance, it will be painful to sip that latte. I am in my early 30's, so I have plenty of time to ride out this recession. But oh, what a difference a few months makes.

Update: my non-retirement accounts should be in positive territory for 2008, because I am typically risk-averse with my liquid assets. I am now 100% in money market funds in my non-retirement accounts. Excepting day-trading and short-term trades, I have probably kept 80%+ of my liquid assets in money market funds this year. Off the top of my head, my two worst performers, in terms of actual monetary losses, have been JMBA and YHOO.

Lawyers and the Economy

To all those aspiring lawyers--beware:

ABA Article

The legal biz ain't recession-proof.

CHP Blunders Yet Again

If you loved the 60's, you will love this story from Sacramento County:

Two women arrested for displaying breasts at a protest get $150,000

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) arrested two women for baring their breasts at a rally. The women recovered $150,000. On November 7, 2005, Sheba Love and Sherry Glaser were protesting the government's definition of "decent" in front of the state capitol building in Sacramento. Ms. Love and Ms. Glaser, members of the political group Breasts Not Bombs, asserted that displaying their breasts was an act of free speech, and therefore was protected under the Constitution. The defense contended that the protest permit had a clause stating that participants who expose their private parts would be subject to arrest.

Love v. Brown, No. 06AS04799

The specific causes of action were ASSAULT AND BATTERY; FALSE ARREST & IMPRISONMENT; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

Here is the organization's blog (some posts NSFW):

http://breastsnotbombs.blogspot.com/

The specific blog post on the CHP lawsuit is titled, "To all our Bosom Buddies."

Oh, the loveliness.

_______________________

I mentioned the CHP's incompetence on this blog in the case of Grassilli v. Barr (2006):

Post on Buffett (referring to the Grassilli-CHP case)

Specific allegations from the 150K Complaint are here:

PARTIES

3. Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP) is an arm of the State of California.
5. Defendant OFFICER TROY is and was, at the time of the incident, a CHP officer, acting under the color of law and in the course and scope of his employment for the Defendant CHP.
7. At all times mentioned here, DOES 1-30 were employees and agents for the Defendant CHP. These unidentified employees and agents are sued individually and in their capacities as police officers for the CHP. By engaging in the conduct described herein, the Defendant DOES acted under color of law and in the course and scope of their employment for Defendant CHP. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant unidentified employees and agents exceeded the authority vested in them as employees of the CHP.
9.10.At all times mentioned, each named and DOE Defendant was the agent or employee of co-defendant CHP and BROWN and in doing the things alleged were acting within the course and scope of such agency or employment and with the actual and implied permission, consent, authorization, and approval of CHP and/or BROWN.

STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

11. Defendant, CHP Officer TROY issued the group a permit which stated, “protest of this special election (ANY PERSON WHO EXPOSES PRIVATE PARTS IS SUBJECT TO ARREST FOR CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTIONS 314 AND 647(a). This permit is immediately cancelled and also future requests for permits on state property.”
13. On November 7, 2005 BNB members, men and women, including plaintiffs, participated in political protest at the permitted time and location. During the protest, Plaintiffs SHERRY GLASER and SHEBA LOVE took off their clothing tops exposing their bare breasts.
15. Following the wrongful arrest, SHERRY GLASER and SHEBA LOVE were falsely imprisoned by DOE Officers and detained for twelve hours before being released.
17. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional and mental distress.
19. Plaintiffs were wrongfully arrested, depriving them of their liberty in violation of the law. The charges against them were eventually dropped. However, they paid thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to fight the charges.
21. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate their rights under law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of all attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to this action for violation of his state civil right to be free from harassment due to the violation of the civil rights and due to the violations of their civil rights based on their gender.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(False Arrest and Imprisonment)
(AGAINST CHP, BROWN, TROY, STALLMAN AND DOES 1-100)

23. The Defendant officers named herein, without probable cause, detained Plaintiffs for violations which they did not commit. Defendants could not have reasonably believed that Plaintiffs committed such violations, particularly in light of the fact that the Sacramento County District County clearly deemed that the Plaintiffs actions were not in violation of California Penal Code Section 314 or 647(a).
26.As a proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages as set forth.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth herein.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
(AGAINST CHP, BROWN, TROY, STALLMAN AND DOES 1-100)

The conduct of the defendant officers, as set forth herein, was extreme and outrageous and beyond the scope of conduct which should be tolerated by citizens in a democratic and civilized society. The Defendants, acting under color of law, falsely arrested and imprisoned Plaintiffs for 12 hours. The Defendants’ actions humiliated Plaintiffs and created enormous frustration for them. Defendants’ decision to arrest peaceful political protesters despite their permit resulted from an unfounded animosity. Defendants deliberately arrested the Plaintiffs and did the aforementioned unnecessary detainment with the intent to inflict severe mental and emotional distress upon the Plaintiffs.

The lawyers involved are here:

LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW KUMIN
MATTHEW KUMIN, CSB # 177561
870 Market Street, Suite 1262
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: (415) 434-8454
Fax: (415) 434-8453

ROTHSCHILD WISHEK & SANDS
MICHAEL CHASTAINE, CSB 121209

In Defense of Singapore

Investing requires some knowledge of international culture, because a truly diversified portfolio contains shares of international companies. Understanding Asian culture is especially important for Americans and Westerners because the spending behavior of Asian citizens, especially the Japanese and Chinese, may determine how long and deep an American recession will be.

One way to understand Asian culture is through the story of Gopalan Nair, who has returned to the Bay Area from Singapore. I wrote about him and the differences between Singaporean and American culture here: Post on Singapore (June 2008)

Here is what happened to Mr. Nair: http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_11098813 [Link no longer works, but the following one does: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2008/11/28/fremont-attorney-released-from-singapore-jail/] 

After Singapore found the Wall Street Journal to be in contempt of law, a Singaporean government official lambasted the WSJ in its own letters section (Dec. 4, 2008, Chan Heng Chee letter). To its credit, the WSJ printed the letter. A report on the dispute is here:

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/programguide/stories/200811/s2431123.htm

Professor Tan explains the Singaporean government's position accurately:

PROF KEVIN TAN: The position of the Singapore law is that the media should censor itself to make sure you don't have things which are untruthful, defamatory or contemptuous going out there. I think that is indeed the case. Let us put it another way - if somebody writes a letter which is clearly defamatory of somebody else, the editorial ward of the publication should ensure that letter doesn't get published because if indeed the writer of the letter gets sued for defamation then you become an accessory to this whole defamatory process as well, you see, because defamation requires publication.

As I've said several times, Singapore has created an incredibly successful and diverse state and deserves the benefit of the doubt. There are two issues that ought to be discussed whenever mentioning Singapore's speech restrictions:

1. Singapore experienced racial riots in 1964 shortly before its separation from Malaysia. [Note: the previous sentence has been updated since the original posting.]  Singaporean leaders wisely remember their history and the violence that occurred fewer than 50 years ago. American newspapers almost never mention Singapore's history, which has caused it to place a premium on racial harmony over unfettered free speech. Behind Singapore's speech restrictions is a government that feels it would be negligent if it allowed a repeat of its devastating racial riots. Although Singapore's position is not entirely different from Germany--Germany bans swastikas and other racial symbols and speech because of its own recent violent history--Singapore is singled out for its attempts to maximize racial harmony. France has also ruled that its own citizens, such as Brigitte Bardot, may have their speech limited (see BBC on Bardot). Here's another writer's take:

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00301/project%20thinkquest/pages/p8.html

At the end of the day, Mr. Nair is naive if he believes he can refer to any judge in any country as a "prostitute" and not suffer some consequence. American judges have jailed American citizens and sanctioned lawyers for insults much more benign.

2. The East-West cultural divide is neatly expressed in the WSJ-Singapore dispute. One possible reason for the dispute is that Westerners may not understand how much Asian culture values non-confrontation. In many Asian cultures, for example, it is a sign of immaturity to lose one's temper. In contrast, in Western culture, where individualism is highly valued, confrontation is not seen as immature or even terrible per se. This difference in cultural values has led to many misunderstandings between East and West.

At the end of the day, all Singapore is saying is that it does not want someone to criticize its judiciary with unfounded accusations. In other words, if someone is going to criticize its hardworking judges, that person needs to have evidence to support his or her allegations. That is not an unreasonable request in a country that has ranked consistently in the top five worldwide in transparent government practices and which lacks systemic corruption (See Transparency.org 2007 Report). The United States, in contrast, barely made the top twenty in the international government transparency rankings. Furthermore, the United States, unlike Singapore, has suffered several instances of judicial corruption--see, for example, the Dickie Scruggs matter: Dickie Scruggs, Judicial Corruption.

In addition to its world-renowned transparency, Singapore has other unique factors that make it highly protective of its judicial system. The relatively small size of the Singapore population and its even smaller legal population provide self-enforcing mechanisms for good conduct on all sides. The small legal community means that judges and lawyers interact more with each other, which creates a less adversarial system where lawyers are taught to be facilitators rather than zealous litigators. In a cooperative-style system, if Singaporean judges are going out of their way to work hard, read the papers, and to be fair, and there has been no evidence of corruption, why should they be subject to unfounded, baseless accusations?

From an Eastern perspective, the West's insistence on allowing unfounded accusations to harm peaceful, hardworking people is barbarism. The Western system forces hardworking people to spend time defending themselves against baseless public attacks rather than engage in productive activity. In contrast, Singapore's broad defamation laws create an incentive to work together and to avoid confrontation if possible. It is difficult to find fault with such a system in a country that is transparent, affluent, and diverse. Moreover, when accusations of human rights violations are leveled at Singapore from Americans--whose history includes judicially-sanctioned segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson), judicially-approved slavery (Dred Scott v. Sandford), nuclear weapon use against Asian civilians, far more abject poverty, and a sitting President who approved Guantanamo Bay--it must be especially galling.

From an investment standpoint, if you believe Singapore has a bright future, you can invest through the iShares MSCI Singapore Index. Its symbol is EWS and according to Yahoo Finance, it offers a yield of approximately 9.00%.

Disclosure: I own shares of EWS but my positions may change at any time. I am NOT providing investment advice, nor am I licensed to do so. You are responsible for your own due diligence.

Update on December 5, 2008: interested readers should check out the "comments" section of this post. One reader posted this link on Francis Seow:

http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htm [Link no longer works, but the following one does: https://remembering1987.wordpress.com/whos-who/francis-t-seow-2/] 

I am not sure what to make of this and need more information, but it's quite troubling. 

Obama, India, and Terrorism

I'm back. Cabo San Lucas was relaxing, and I will write more on that later. For now, I just wanted to share an interesting article on Obama and make some comments about the senseless massacre in India. 

1. The LA Times (Nov 30, 2008) thinks Obama should be sworn in as President using his full name, including his middle name: 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-oath30-2008nov30%2C0%2C7859834.story 

I like their gusto, but I don't think it's going to happen. 

[Update on December 10, 2008: I was wrong--see Barack Hussein Obama] 

2. The tragic killings in India have resulted in many commentators blaming Pakistan. One specific, recurring comment has been that "ordinary Pakistanis" need to be marching in the street, condemning the violence. Meanwhile, the Indian government is on record saying that they will get information from one of the captured killers and make him "sing like a canary." One Indian official, according to the WSJ, talked about having certain methods that would make the captured killer talk. 

First, India does itself no favors by implying it uses or condones torture as an interrogation tactic. Even hinting that torture is acceptable raises the stakes tremendously, because it implies that India does not comply with U.N. rules or does not take them seriously. This failure to adhere to generally accepted international standards of conduct should concern the world when both countries involved have nuclear weapons. In addition, if India does use torture or provokes an unnecessary war against Pakistanis, even the ghosts of Gandhi and British imperialism will not prevent the damaging hit to India's image as a respectable emerging superpower. 

Second, many commentators--both Indian and American--have lambasted Pakistanis for not protesting the violence publicly and in large numbers. This complaint is similar to the one lodged against Muslims post-9/11--that by not openly condemning 9/11, they were somehow implicitly supporting it or not doing enough to show their true colors. 

This argument has some emotional appeal, but fails due to its unsound assumption that silence automatically means support. This theory of "speak-or-forever-be-suspected" applies primarily to face-to-face encounters on a specific topic--such as when a person refuses to answer a question of, "Did you take that document that had trade secrets to your home?" or "Does this make me look fat?" Such questions fail to elicit any relevance when they are applied to actions or thoughts made by strangers who happen to share a similar characteristic as some other group. For example, Timothy McVeigh had white skin. When he committed his act of terrorism, did the failure of massive numbers of white persons marching in the streets of Canada imply white Canadian support for his acts? Of course not. When an unarmed black man (Amadou Diallo) in New York is shot 19 times by Christian police officers, does the failure of Christians across the United States condemning the NYPD mean they condone senseless killings? Of course not. Such examples can be made ad infinitum, and it should be fairly obvious that an absence of mass protests or vocal opposition has no relevance as an indicator of general support or non-support. 

The reasons for silence among most "ordinary Pakistanis" are simple. Muslims in Pakistan don't know the killers in India and don't feel any connection to them. To the 99.9% Pakistanis who live their lives peacefully, there is no connection to the killers in India and therefore no reason to say anything publicly about their heinous acts. I hate to be dogmatic, but anyone who says differently is a demagogue seeking to incite ethnic and religious violence. Such ignorance is dangerous and may lead to retaliatory killings of innocent Muslims in India. In addition, 40 of the 170+ victims were Muslim, showing that terrorism knows no ethnicity or religion. 

Personally, I feel tremendous sadness for all the victims of the attacks. The story of Moshe Holtzberg is particularly heart-breaking.