Why Do Insurance Advisers Do It?


Insurance is subtle. Life insurance and living benefits like income protection and lump sums for catastrophic injury or illness are especially so. Advisers have the frequently unpleasant task of trying to explain the subtlety of the product to self-professed bulletproof prospects. It does not always end well.

The worst ending is having someone who would have had a claim, but for whatever reason I could not convince them to own the coverage. No one wins here. That is truly insurance poor.

Many years ago, I knew an agent who, in 22 years of business, had never delivered a claim check. I have sometimes wondered if he was incredibly lucky or if he had never made enough effort to help people get the coverage.

For myself, I can recall every claim. Why? Because they mattered. Young widows and widowers with a family to raise are pretty obvious. But there are more. The father whose insurance money gave the children a fighting chance at learning the business even without his guidance. The child who died after buying a big piece of the family business. You think business succession is hard. Should try running it in reverse. Money makes the difference.

Income insurance and illness insurance provide dignity and adjustment money. Things that seem little, matter. A neurosurgeon once told me that if he lost the feeling in the tip of the index finger on his dominant hand, he could be a general surgeon but not a neurosurgeon. Maybe a burn while barbecuing.

A chiropractor with an own occupation claim is running a successful business without the worry of day to day living costs. He has damaged elbows. Chiropractors need to be able to accelerate their hands.

Most of the advisers actually want the client to have the protection they need. They have seen what happens both with and without the coverage. The pros know how much the coverage is worth.

The amateurs know how much the commission will be. Advisers who do it only for the money don’t last very long. The business is too hard to do, just for money.

I recently asked David Bourke at Bourke Financial Services in Australia about how Critical Illness insurance was doing in his market. Trauma insurance there. His reply was interesting in two ways.

  1. He told me that it was a growing part of their business and he represented that by how many dollars of claims they had paid. Notice not how many policies they had sold, nor how much coverage or premium.
  2. He told me they have a claims log and he knows how much coverage has been paid out by line of business.

It occurred to me that the claim log is why we do it. For David, it is the history of the difference that he has made. I suspect that sometimes he looks at it for encouragement when things are not going as well as he might like. A professional keeps track of important metrics. An adviser who looks at what the product does for people is a worthy adviser.

We do it for the lives made whole by our efforts.

If you don’t have a claims log, it might be good to start one. It will remind you why this business matters and why you are a good guy.

Thanks for the insight David.

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com | Twitter @DonShaughnessy | Follow by email at moneyFYI

Detroit’s bankruptcy is an utter defeat


Toronto and Ontario politicians might want to notice the causes. Dithered and dissembled

Learning From Failure


Today I am a curator.  A selector of material organized along a common theme.  The theme is – success follows failure.  I often heard, “Good decisions are the result of experience and experience is the result of bad decisions.” or perhaps, “Experience is the best teacher and for the price it damned well better be.”  The message is multipart but not complex.

Failure is more common than you think.  Here are a few interesting failures that you may have overlooked.

  • Sam Walton’s first store went bust.  His second did better.
  • The 1993 Apple flop “The Newton” was the basis for the iPod 8 years later
  • At the height of the credit problems in the early 1990’s, on seeing a beggar on the street, Donald Trump said, “That man is worth $800,000,000 more than I am.  He’s still at zero.”
  • Henry Ford borrowed money from his wife’s family to sustain the Ford Motor Company in the early days.
  • And dozens more

Failure doesn’t last forever

  •  “And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.” – J.K. Rowling

Failure precedes success

  • “You’ve got to fail a lot before you can expect to succeed. You’ve got to keep failing if you expect to get better at being yourself.”  – Jann Arden
  • “Every adversity, every failure and every heartache carries with it the seed of an equivalent or a greater benefit.”  – Napoleon Hill

Failure alone teaches

  • “I have never learned a thing by being right.”  James H. Knight
  • “There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure.”  – Colin Powell
  • Disappointment, failure, and frustration are the main agents of change. Success is a poor teacher, for it usually only confirms us in what we thought we already knew.  – Kenneth Boulding

Failure is internal

  • “If you are upset about failure, then you have not failed enough yet.”  –  Meredith Whitney
  • “There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure.” – Paulo Coelho
  • Make failure your teacher, not your undertaker.  – Zig Ziglar
  • “If you are going through Hell, your best tactic is to keep moving.”  – Warren Buffet

Failure teaches nothing if you don’t pay attention

  • “Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses.” – George Washington Carver
  • “It’s fine to celebrate success but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure” – Bill Gates

Schools don’t help

  • “Schools are error-phobic.  They teach people to avoid small mistakes rather than to learn from them. This results in large errors later.” – Nassim N. Taleb
  • “The biggest mistake is to try to avoid mistakes.”  – John Maxwell

There are two methods of learning from failure.

  1. Make lots of mistakes yourself.
  2. Learn from the mistakes of others.

The second is what education is supposed to be about.  Here is the history of the world.  Here is where it went wrong.  Here is how you avoid it.  Many of us do not remember these lessons very well so we need to follow path #1.

Take chances and learn when you are wrong.  Learn to be adaptable.  Learn to observe and change.  Push hard.  Try many things.  Most will fail.  Quit doing those.  Nurture the successes.  Eventually they change.  Learn more and keep moving on.

“Those who succeed and do not push on to greater failure are the spiritual middleclass.”  – Eugene O’Neill

An interesting paradox.  You succeed by failing.

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com  |  Twitter @DonShaughnessy  |  Follow by email at moneyFYI

The Lucas Critique


Robert Lucas is an economics professor at the University of Chicago and the 1995 winner of the Nobel prize in economics. His work is foundational in behavioral economics, New Keynesian economics, and micro-economic based macro models. He is one of the most influential economists since the 1970’s.

One of his principle contributions was to challenge the way people create macro-economic models. There is an obvious flaw in the old way. Essentially that flaw is that once you notice that two conditions are correlated, if you change something to take advantage of the fact, the correlation will go away.

That makes your own plans more difficult too. After all, your personal financial plan is your macro plan.

Everyone can use “The Lucas Critique” to understand their personal situation more fully and thus be able to predict better and observe alternate behaviors that may have a greater expectation of success. It says:

“Given that the structure of an econometric model consists of optimal decision rules of economic agents, and that optimal decision rules vary systematically with changes in the structure of series relevant to the decision maker, it follows that any change in policy will systematically alter the structure of econometric models.”

Note: 1) Economic agents are individuals, businesses, public institutions, governments and central banks. 2) Series relevant to the decision maker are the rules, outcomes and their effects.

That means if you change a rule in the system, the old outcomes will not necessarily reappear. The old results were not based completely on foundational facts but rather were the outcomes of the “optimal behaviors” that occurred under the old rules. Change the environment; change the behavior; change the outcome.

You won’t know in advance and with certainty what new “optimal behavior” will occur.

The result for policymakers of any stripe is that experience may lie. Experience is contextual. You cannot base strategic decisions on observed results unless you know, with certainty, that all of the underlying conditions of the observed results will still be present. If part of your plan is to change the underlying rules or relationships, then you guarantee that the old results are in a different context than future results. The future outcomes may vary wildly from predictions.

For example

  1. Doubling the tax rate does not double the revenue.
  2. Doubling minimum wage does not double the income of those earning minimum wage
  3. There is a tight negative correlation between inflation and unemployment, but if you try to eliminate unemployment by raising inflation, the correlation will disappear.
  4. Changes in the value of stock markets used to be highly positively correlated with the volume of shares traded. With the advent of high velocity trading, that correlation has ceased to exist.
  5. Adding an asset, like a second home, adds operating costs.
  6. Two children cost more than one and not just in money.

The moral. Neither overvalue your experience, nor overvalue historic results. They may be based on a set of circumstances that no longer exists and will therefore be worse than useless. Even dangerous. Can you trust what you think?

Be objective. Notice fundamental change and act sooner. The old ways tend not to come back once the fundamentals change. Reliance on old results in a new system is the basis for the law of unintended consequences.

Always ask, “Okay, what then?”

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com  |  Twitter @DonShaughnessy  |  Follow by email at moneyFYI

Hmmm??! Appears There Is No Consensus


Yesterday I pointed out that anti-idling bylaws did nothing to cure carbon emissions and they were an empty political gesture.  I think dumb may have come up too.  I further postulated that the cost to stop and then accelerate back to normal speeds is where the emission costs live.  Worse, that is where my gas budget gets consumed.

Some do not agree.  The some generally hold feeling rather than facts, and I don’t find that very compelling.  Their principal belief is that if driving becomes more difficult people will choose more eco-friendly methods.

Like congestion will force people to use bicycles, walk or possibly to use public transit.  A poorly conceived idea.  While I do not dismiss this as impossible, I think the problem is not so simple.  The facts do not support the belief.

I have recently talked about  belief derived reality and how those structures may be flawed.  This is another of them.  If you start with the belief that cars are bad, then you reach an untenable conclusion.  Starting with the purpose to be achieved and the variables that exist independently of opinion you get something else entirely.

First, the anti-car belief assumes, without evidence, that anyone could get where they are going, conveniently enough, using the alternate methods.  That is not quite true.  The belief further supposes that all people are in the same circumstance.  Again wrong.

For example, walking or biking is fine if you have time.  But what did you steal the time from?  Your children?  Your sleep?  Other leisure? Study?  Maybe work?  Time is like money.  You can only spend a given dollar or hour once.

Perhaps it replaces exercise time and if so it is an acceptable solution.

Walking from Pickering to downtown Toronto seems excessive so we must assume that public transit would be the choice there.  Again public transit is fine under some circumstances.  Principally that, the stations are close enough to the beginning and end of the journey.  If they are not, then the time issue reappears.  Public transit, in general, is acceptable if run well and economically.  Even then it is too rigid for many people and too time consuming for others.

So walking, biking and public transit are reasonable solutions for some, but probably not all.  What of those who move about with their work?  Lawyer to the courthouse or a meeting.  Executive to another store.  Salesman.  Student.  and more.  Some can use public transit some of the time, but not all the time.  In places other than than large urban centers, for time sensitive travel public transit is inadequate.

There are the others who must use the roads and would benefit from less congestion.  Not necessarily fewer cars, but better flow.  Presumably the air quality improves if they save time on the road.  Fewer engine hours.

These other people include:

  • All those who do not have access to public transit for part of their journey.
  • Those who usually use public transit, but just for today they need to buy groceries.
  • Commercial vehicles like transports, local delivery and the buses themselves.
  • All those in construction and like trades.  You cannot carry the tools on a bus.
  • Anyone with more than about 10 kg of material to move.  Computer, catalogs, and such
  • Emergency vehicles.  Firemen do not take the bus to a fire.
  • Persons with disabilities.
  • People who do not feel comfortable walking or biking in winter weather.

People will use public transit if it works for them and people will walk or bike too.  Perhaps if public transit was an attractive choice instead of a heavily subsidized operation, running inconvenient schedules and populated with the occasional surly driver and more than a few drug addled or drunk passengers.  It is better to draw customers to you with good and well priced service as opposed to forcing them to deal with you.

Those that would use transit are however, only a share of the total and quite possibly a small share.  My guess and I emphasize guess, is that you could not move more than 30% or so of the folks away from cars and most of them will not make the step without incentives, preferably positive incentives.

Suppose instead, public transit were to be free.  Only a fraction of it is paid for with fares now,  so why not go all the way.  There could well be offsetting savings.  No new parking garages, fewer meter enforcement costs, less wear and tear on streets.

The current anti-car craze is poorly conceived.  The cost of congestion, in terms both of money and emissions, is large, increasing and at least partly unnecessary.

Time to put the Flavor-Aid away.  (Kool-Aid was not used in Jamestown.  You could look it up.)

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com  |  Twitter @DonShaughnessy  |  Follow by email at moneyFYI

Stop Signs Are Killing The Planet


Our city has passed an anti-idling bylaw presumably to cut down on vehicle emissions.  I doubt they intend to enforce it but it is a nice gesture I’m sure.  It is incontrovertible that a car that is turned off emits less than one that is running, but as with all political gestures, it makes no sense.

The argument is that in the winter you should not need more than 3 minutes to warm up the engine to drive.  Probably true, but sadly the engine is not then warm enough to operate the window defroster adequately, so driving becomes seriously unsafe.  What to do?  Hit a pedestrian or violate the law?

But that is not the dumb part of it.

If the real purpose is to reduce emissions then I submit that there are better places to start.  How about by eliminating most stop signs and making traffic lights rational?  It costs far more emissions for a vehicle to stop from 50 kmh, idle briefly, and then accelerate back to 50 kmh than cruising along at 50 kmh.

My vehicle’s trip computer tells me that while accelerating carefully from zero to 50 that average fuel consumption is about 38 liters per 100 kilometers.  Around 7.5 miles per Canadian gallon.  I also know that continuous driving on a flat highway at 50 kph use around 13 liters per 100 km.  A little over 20 mpg.  Seems to me that reaching cruising speed costs far more than just driving along.  So why stop or slow down?  Because there are others on the road, right.

The sad reality is that stop signs require everyone to stop.  Sometimes when there is a need and often when there is not.  The cost in fuel and emissions is identical whether needed or not.

Same thing with traffic lights.  Some are convenient for a few hours a day.  Sadly they run for 24 hours a day.  Why do traffic lights operate the same old way when there are few cars on the road?  Say at 3:00 am

Better still, why do traffic lights stop many cars to allow a few to pass.  Just this week, a light stopped 23 cars and slowed at least another 15, so two cars could pass through the intersection.  Both of them near the end of the cycle.

The planners need to recognize that traffic congestion causes more emissions than almost any other variable.  It is time to stop with the car is the enemy idea and begin to behave to minimize the problems.  Reduced congestion automatically produces fewer emissions.  Increased congestion adds emissions.

If you drive any significant distance in the city, using existing vehicle technology efficiently would both reduce emissions and reduce the cost to drive.  I’m okay with both.

Unfortunately the bossy folks would rather demand higher standards for the engines.   (higher cost to build and therefore buy)   Once that is done, let’s make driving efficiently much harder.  That is just more bossiness.  You must stop here and every intersection hereafter.  What is the point guys?

Working at cross purposes like this is inefficient and by mediocre use of reasoning ability, stupid.  Let’s quit with stupid.

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com  |  Twitter @DonShaughnessy  |  Follow by email at moneyFYI

Path of Least Resistance


Somewhere in many of our minds is the idea that taking the path of least resistance is somehow wrong. Well maybe not wrong but not honorable. Slipshod. Is that belief justified or is it an oversimplification that has no place in our complicated world? Perhaps the underlying fabric has changed.

Consider United Parcel Service. UPS. The familiar and efficient brown trucks that we take for granted.

UPS is master of logistics. They have a century of experience and have discovered that routing their trucks efficiently saves money, is safer, and improves customer service. You could not accomplish what they accomplish without that skill. They move 16,000,000 packages a day. You need to pick it up before you deliver so there are as many as 32,000,000 customer interfaces each day plus all of the problems with sorting and scheduling that follow.

They study the details at a much deeper level than you or I might do. When you study details at a very deep level, sometimes you see patterns that can be useful. Here’s what UPS found.

Avoid left turns. The path of least resistance.

The result. In 2011 UPS avoided 98,000,000 minutes of idling. The drove fewer miles and saved millions of gallons of gasoline. Fewer miles is fewer hours on the road so a lower cost to deliver each package. Given that they average about 16,000,000 packages delivered per day, a tiny saving per package becomes a huge aggregate.

You can apply the idea to your financial plan because there are helpful lessons here.

  1. If you accept a rule of life that is not universally and completely true, you will miss a useful idea. Challenge some of your beliefs just to see if there are alternatives.
  2. A small advantages used many times becomes a big advantage.
  3. Details studied at depth are useful. Surface details are often misleading.

Sometimes people start their financial plan with complex structures or overburdened with generalities and unchallenged ideas. Maybe some simple heuristic can add more value. Something like saving a little more or for a little longer generally beats speculate a little more.

Just saying.

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com | Twitter @DonShaughnessy | Follow by email at moneyFYI

Without A CFA, You Can Still Find Good Stocks


When seeking investment opportunities you have ways available that do not require advanced training and deep research. They are indicators not conclusions. You will still need to think about financial stability, industry position and other factors but it is better to start looking for those within a company that seems to make sense as a business.

What to do?

Yesterday I talked about volatility and how it was that people who acquired securities with incomplete or wrong information tended to become motivated venders eventually. In investment thinking volatility is a proxy for risk. Warren Buffet has said, “Risk is what happens when you don’t know what you are doing.”

I think it is safe to say that you cannot know everything about any investment so today I will try to show you some ways to overcome that defect.

First recognize that you are not immune to your feelings. You have an advantage when you know that feelings will lead you astray. You can be a Martian. Try to be objective.

Second, minimize reliance on pundits and analysts. Most are entertainers, some have an agenda. If you can find a few that make sense, maybe follow them but others are unlikely to change their mind when their ill-informed or biased call turns out wrong. They may become more shrill or ignore it.

Third, take your time. Be very cautious when you are following the market. Unless you are a high velocity trader, there is no urgency. More research tends to dampen emotions.

Fourth pay some attention to the market as whole. Warren Buffet suggests that the market is bipolar. “When Mr. Market is feeling badly you should buy from him. When he is euphoric, you should sell to him.” Sounds easy enough.

Fifth have some objective factors. Personal experience is good. Do you use the product? Do you understand the product and its competitors? Do you understand the business structure? Is the company financially stable? Is there free cash flow? Do they pay dividends? Paying dividends keeps managers from having too many homeless dollars splashing around. With dividends there is less compulsion to spend money just to get rid of it.

This last one is a bit harder. Who are the mangers working for? I have four things other than total compensation as a share of net income that I look for here.

  1. What kind of corporate jet, if any,
  2. How long have they been here and are they emotionally invested,
  3. Do they sponsor golf or tennis tournaments?
  4. Is it a family business with competent managers

You would be surprised how often the, “Do I like their product?” question will lead you to good investments. If you tried and liked Titleist golf balls, LuLu Lemon yoga wear, the first iPod, Gillette razor blades, EBay and dozens more, why would you not buy some of the stock? Or maybe market leaders with a long history. John Deere is my current favourite even though they sponsor a golf tournament.

If you want to feel secure, you might look at the Lindy Effect. Things that have lasted a long time tend to last longer still. With businesses, growing market share is interesting. When using the Lindy Effect, you will need to be on the lookout for disabling technological change. Kodak did not. Quit Quick.

When you find some that look like candidates, you can get fussy.

You don’t need to buy everything. I know one portfolio manager who starts by looking at financial statements. Hundreds of them. He uses a simplifying heuristic to minimize the deep research. He reads the management report at the front of the package first. If he finds the words challenge or challenging he discards the company. In his words, “I have only 40 securities in my portfolio, I don’t need businesses that have challenges.”

You do not need an advanced degree to find good stocks, although it might help. Use common sense. Stocks with good finances, good market position, moderate to no debt, disciplined management and growing productivity or product lines tend to do well enough for most investment purposes.

Or you could find a manager with a common sense approach.

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com | Twitter @DonShaughnessy | Follow by email at moneyFYI

Thinking About Stock Market Volatility


In building investment portfolios, one of the serious concerns is risk. That factor is commonly characterized by volatility. If we want to build a portfolio we might want to understand this factor. As a place to start, how about, “What causes it?”

You can Google “What causes stock market volatility?” and you will get some insight.

One of the results suggested four conditions: investor confidence, direct or implied government intervention, uncertainty and booming or bursting bubbles. They were all explained a little and the explanations make sense.

Another added human nature and physiology, transaction-driven brokers, and quarterly reports.

Still another added high velocity trading. I might quibble about that one. Trades that complete in milliseconds would seem to tamp down rather than increase volatility but the issue may ripple and I don’t understand what happens then. Perhaps the extremes in volatility live here.

Looking down from a high place you cannot see any of these, so you need to think a little.

Suppose you say that volatility is caused by people who make decisions with incomplete information and biases and who, once they make the call, tend to rationalize it as being right. Emotionally involved owners. Daniel Khaneman might agree.

There are two sides to each trade. Buyer and seller. If both had complete information and were steely-eyed rationalists, price would not move much. If everyone had the same information and personal conditions had no effect, there might never be a trade.

But investors don’t behave that way. So prices vary depending on their circumstances and relative enthusiasm. Prices can change sharply if a formerly poorly informed buyer changes his mind. Once an overconfident buyer changes his mind he becomes a motivated seller. It is a bit like reformed smokers. People who sell out of disgust for a mistake are not fully rational.

The emotional element is, technically, not a financial fundamental, but you ignore it at your peril.

Both buyers and sellers are conditioned by the information they receive and by the way they receive it. The problem is that in many cases the “information” is pundit and analyst opinion. So you not only have your own hopes, fears, expectations and biases, but you inherit the hopes, fears, expectations and biases of others.

It is clear if you map daily stock market results onto a bell curve. The enthusiasm is apparent. You will see that the market results bell curve is pinched in the middle and has bumpy ends. What statisticians call kurtosis. Average results are not quite as common as they should be and missing pieces tend to appear as bumps at the extreme ends.

We can guess the reason for the bumpy ends. On the left end, some days are very bad. The extreme down occurrences are much more common that probability suggests they should be. Humans make trades and this side shows the effect of fear. On the right side, highly variant returns again are more common that they should be. Reason – excitement, band wagon effects, greed and other like feelings.

Some of the extreme results are so far off the normal playing field that, from a statistical viewpoint, they could never happen. People respond emotionally to events like these. Never good.

What volatility tells us:

  1. Know thyself or else. Try not to get caught up in the drama. Avoid fashionable things you do not understand. Have a reasonable time frame in context of how the market works.
  2. Do not delude yourself about risk. You can tell yourself that you tolerate risk well and it all evens out. From the market perspective, it does not matter if you win or lose in a particular year. For people, the reality is that it does not matter if you win or lose, until you lose.
  3. The stock market is not a short term investment. Neither statistics nor human experience will allow you to predict tomorrow.

Investing in the stock market is organized common sense. Pay little attention to noise.

More tomorrow.

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com | Twitter @DonShaughnessy | Follow by email at moneyFYI

Growing Competent People


Would you like to train strong sales people?  Strong advisers of any kind I suppose.  Could even be professionals.  Assuming you have a reasonable selection process, there are only a few things you need to reinforce.

  • You cannot be a specialist in everything.  Pick an aspect of the business and be very good at that and aware of the problems, opportunities and solutions in others.
  • Know where the other specialists are.  Network.
  • Work very hard at building relationships.  Everyone you meet has a story and can direct you to someone else.  Maybe many someone elses.  Help them when you can.
  • It takes a long time to get very good, but a shorter time to get adequate.  Find a mentor who can help you notice the difference.
  • Amateurs practice until they get it right.  Professionals practice until they cannot get it wrong.  Build your system so excellent is the default condition.
  • You can make a good living working half days and it does not matter which 12 hours you pick.
  • Activity is easy to measure, but action matters.

As to the selection process, you want people with a good work ethic, with integrity, who are disciplined and who do not expect instant gratification.  Ones who can persuade others and who like to help people.

But that is not news.

Trainers need to be patient, creative and demanding of excellence.  They need to know how to delegate and how to measure performance.  They do not accept excuses.

I imagine this will work with children too; minus the selection part.

Don Shaughnessy is a retired partner in an international accounting firm and is presently with The Protectors Group, a large personal insurance, employee benefits and investment agency in Peterborough Ontario.

don@moneyfyi.com | Twitter @DonShaughnessy | Follow by email at moneyFYI

%d bloggers like this: