FMD
More positive analysis on this
one here.
Some of us bought it cheaper a few weeks ago, but – for better or worse,
and with all the usual caveats – I also bought more at current prices.
MUSHROOMS
Don
Hurter: “When I shop at the local Safeway,
I head over to the bakery department before going to produce. Why? So I can
pick up a paper bag (normally used for hand-picked bagels) and use it for the
mushrooms instead of a clingy plastic bag. No need to transfer later. Just
leave the top open at the cashier so they can see what’s inside.”
Mark
W. Budwig: “I forgot to say refrigerate, or was that
obvious? (Or maybe it’s not even
necessary. I don’t know; I always do
it.) The key thing is that the mushrooms
can breathe so they don't rot in their own moisture.”
F If you don’t refrigerate, your
mushrooms could grow a fungus.
(Yes, I know.)
YOU HAVE
TO WASH IT?
Michael: “After you wash your lettuce
(you DO wash it right away, right?), drain and then wrap in a paper towel
before putting it back in the fridge. The
paper towel absorbs excess moisture that otherwise will turn the edges brown.”
F Lettuce comes in its own
wrapping. Just toss out the outer leaves
(coated with pesticide, dirt, and germs), then cut off a wedge, drown in
dressing and devour.
And don’t start talking to me about “romaine”
lettuce. It’s
way more expensive, it’s probably French, dirt does get stuck throughout all its leaves, and Cooking Like a Guy™
guys just don’t have time to mess around with it. Paper towels? If God had meant for you to use paper towels,
He wouldn’t have invented sleeves.
JONATHAN
POND’S ADVICE
Gray
Chang: “I am
reminded of a story I read in Herb Caen’s column in the San Francisco Chronicle. Back when he was
in high school, a teacher told his class, ‘Is it worth a lifetime of guilt and
shame for just one hour of pleasure?’ So
a kid in back raises his hand and asks, ‘How do you make it last a whole
hour?’”
GUNS –
WHAT SAY YOU?
Jonathan
Levy: “Your item on guns
reminded me of an idea I have had for a long time. There
should be a requirement that all guns carry insurance against death, injury, and
property damage they might cause. The manufacturer would be required to take out the
original policy
on any gun and the only way a policy (i.e., the insurance company) could be
relieved of responsibility for a gun would be if the gun were picked up by
another policy. Such a plan would have a
number of benefits: (1) It would assure that most
gun victims could be compensated. Only those
injured by an unknown gun would be left out and even they could be included if
there were some provision to create a pool of money from the insurance premiums
to compensate victims of unidentified guns.
(2) It would create a stronger
disincentive against letting guns fall into the black market.
The last known owner and his/her insurance company would be on the hook
for these guns until they resurfaced and were properly passed to another
insurance policy. Most likely, the owner
would not have to pay premiums forever for stolen guns but there would be a
provision (priced into the policies) for insurance companies to carry the
ongoing risk for no additional premiums on stolen guns properly reported to the
police. (3) It is a free-market solution that should appeal to
conservatives. The law-abiding hunters that the NRA likes to put forward should
be able to get very low rates through competition between insurance
companies. Some guy with a string of
arrests likely would pay much more or not even be able to find coverage and
thus would not be able to own a gun.
However, it would be the private insurance markets that made that
decision, not the government. (4) For those who might argue that only law-abiding gun
owners would buy the insurance, not criminals – fine. One more charge prosecutors can level against people most of us think should be
locked up, anyway. If it gives them a
chance to do it before the people commit violent crimes with the guns, that is even better.
(5) This plan works with any gun
policy. It could be
implemented with as much or as little other gun control as communities, states,
and Congress saw fit.”
HOW TO
MANAGE $250,000
Dan:
“My recently widowed 67-year-old mother-in-law asked me for some
financial advice. (First
big mistake.) She has a modest
net worth in the $250K range and needs income to supplement her Social Security
and small pension. As my own focus is growth, I’m not well versed in income
maximizing strategies. I suggested that
she assemble a diversified portfolio of income producing assets. My thoughts were some Treasury instruments, ginnie maes, perhaps a cautious
bond fund and some dividend oriented stocks, like utilities . . .
and a small growth component (10%?) in an index fund like Vanguard Total
Market. Dividend stocks seem reasonable
as the tax treatment is better and the yields may be better at the cost of a
bit more risk. Fair
advice? Any
other comments?”
F Consider using the $250,000 to
buy a lifetime annuity (learn about this at brkdirect.com). The annuity will never run out (though if
it’s not inflation adjusted it would dwindle), and she has the advantage of –
in effect – being able to spend the principal as well as the interest.
Her Social Security pay-out rises with inflation,
but because most annuity pay-outs do not, maybe put $150,000 in the annuity now
and $100,000 in Vanguard’s inflation-protected fund (VAIPX). Then, after a few years, if interest rates
should rise – and with VAIPX having held its value against inflation in the
meantime – you might cash that in to buy a second annuity that throws off as
much as the first.
(How can a $100,000 annuity throw off as much income
as a $150,000 annuity? Two ways. First, if
interest rates are higher when you
buy the second one, so too will be the rate at which the annuity pay-out is
set. Second, having waited a few years,
the insurance company will assume a somewhat shorter life expectancy over which
it will have to make payments.)
Of course, if you had reason to believe your
mother-in-law is unlikely to live a long life, this may not be the way to
go. Nor is it a good option is if she is
determined to leave you and your wife an inheritance. With a lifetime annuity, the insurer will pay
forever (if she lives forever). But once
she’s gone – whether at age 110 or next week – so is your money. (For a price, some insurers will provide
gimmicks to partly get around that. But
there’s no free lunch. The more bells
and whistles on your annuity, the more likely you are getting less than great
value.)
Finally, if your mother-in-law owns a home, she should consider taking out
a reverse mortgage.
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND