With the news last week that Bank of America was going to slash mortgage balances as part of the multi-state, $26 billion foreclosure settlement, I heard no shortage of opinions on the subject.
Probably the most-heard was “It’s not fair.”
People who have dutifully paid their mortgage each month, even though their homes have dropped in value – and especially those who “did the right thing” and put 20% down on a home they could afford – would seem to have reason to gripe. The perception is that a lot of borrowers over-extended themselves, bought more home than they could afford, and are now getting “bailed out” by banks who themselves were “bailed out” by tax payers not long ago.
Looking at it like that, the opinionated voices are right: It’s not fair.
But, as always, there are different ways of looking at things.
About 200,000 Bank of America borrowers are reported to receive an average of $100,000 in principal reduction as part of the settlement. Bank of America is bound by the settlement, by the way; they agreed to it. So the people at Bank of America HAVE to pay out that kind of money. Logic would dictate that they could do what they apparently have decided to do – forgive 200,000 borrowers an average of $100,000 each – or do something like forgive 400,000 an average of $50,000 each. They money spent is the same.
So the question becomes: Which is better? The guess here is that Bank of America believes that if they can chop more principal off those 200,000 loans, rather than chop less off of more, they will recoup more costs. It’s a large financial institution; if they could profit more from spreading the money to more loans, don’t you think they would?
If they believe they have a better chance at keeping those 200,000 borrowers in their homes and starting to re-pay their adjusted balances by slashing big principal amounts, then that’s what they’re going to do. “Fair” is the overall amount of the settlement, as decided by lawyers, state attorney generals and the banks. The “fair” of how it’s distributed, to put it bluntly, just doesn’t exist. Bank of America has made its choice, and “fair” may or may not be part of it.
But it’s interesting, and even somewhat encouraging, that for once, it seems as though somebody is recognizing that if you want to make a difference in the foreclosure issue, and if you want to help turn around the overall economy, it’s going to take more than a Band-Aid. Bank of America could go around handing out more Band-Aids to more people (and we’ve seen how that’s worked out so far), or it could take more drastic measures to truly stop the bleeding of those 200,000. In choosing the latter, it seems to have been the first to take a bold step in stopping the foreclosure bleeding.
And, yes, if you’re a B of A customer with an underwater mortgage and are getting nothing, it might seem unfair. But you can take solace in a few things. One, you’ve been ABLE to make your payments. Maybe you’ve had to tighten your belt, but you haven’t been near that scary financial rock bottom where losing your home is a real threat. You can bet that plenty of those 200,000 faced that situation.
Secondly, if you own a home and aren’t likely to get any sort of modification or anything, overall it’s a good thing to stop foreclosures from hitting the open market. Your home value has taken a hit because of what the big discounts of foreclosed homes do to the market. If each of the five big lenders in the settlement can keep 200,000 homes each off the short sale or foreclosure sale market, that’s a million fewer homes that can apply downward pressure to home values. This settlement, so far more so than any government program or modification approach, seems to have the most chance at keeping more foreclosures from hitting the market. With that chance in hand, the players involved have to make bold moves when they can. That’s what Bank of America has done.
It’s hard to hear the old “better for everybody in the long run” line right now, but it sure seems applicable. The paperwork issues that got banks into trouble are mostly ironed out. That means that foreclosures are going to start hitting the market more regularly again. Heck, they already are. Stemming that tide, even if in the short run it seems unfair to those who have “done the right thing” already, is important to everybody who owns a house.
Hopefully the people who were truly victims in the whole foreclosure mess are the ones getting the most help out of the settlement. If they’ve been wronged, they deserve it. That IS fair.
While there’s little question that foreclosures have slowed because of paperwork issues and even government policies aimed at slowing them, sales of distressed properties still make up a relatively large percentage of all sales.
That will probably continue to be the case, at least for a while anyway, but the way the numbers break down when it comes to distressed properties seems to be changing rapidly.
RealtyTrac, a foreclosures listings firm, reported recently that nearly 1 out of every 4 sales (24 percent) in the fourth quarter of 2011 was of a home in some stage of the foreclosure process. Even with banks’ slowing down the foreclosure pipeline somewhat, that is still a large percentage of homes when you compare it to historical averages.
The sales of distressed properties in the quarter were up by 20 percent compared to the quarter before, according to RealtyTrac, but were down slightly from the same quarter of 2010, when distressed sales were 26 percent of all transactions.
What’s interesting, though, is that the number of bank-owned homes that sold in the fourth quarter were down by about 12 percent from the same quarter the year before. It’s becoming less and less a secret that banks are more reluctant these days to repossess homes, and are letting defaulted borrowers actually stay in them longer, but if bank-owned properties are rarer, then why are distressed sales still climbing?
The answer seems to be that banks continue to be more willing to do short sales than they used to be.
Short sales – which occur when the lender agrees to let the homeowner sell the house for less than what is owed on it – were up 15 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to the same quarter a year earlier, according to RealtyTrac.
There has continued to be anecdotal evidence that short sales have become more favorable options to lenders over the past year or so, but the RealtyTrac data seem to indicate that the anecdotes seem to be based in fact. Brandon Moore, the CEO of RealtyTrac, said he believes short sales will continue to increase as lenders recognize that it might be a better option for what he called “underperforming” loans.
I tend to agree. Banks seem to be getting used to the idea that repossessing a home isn’t the best way to cut their losses. Vacant, uncared-for homes are harder to sell, and paying property taxes and other costs while waiting and hoping for an unmaintained home to sell is often a challenge. If you were a bank, for example, would you be more willing to take a $15,000 or $20,000 loss on a short sale right now, or repossess a home, pay taxes on it while it sits vacant and hope that when it eventually sells you won’t take as big a hit?
It’s good for housing markets, individual neighborhoods and buyers and sellers that short sales are becoming a more viable option. For one, short sales less frequently result in a home being vacant for an extended period of time. That means homes are in better shape and neighborhoods aren’t blighted by homes in disrepair.
For sellers, a short sale is usually better financially than a foreclosure eviction. For buyers, they’re a way to get a discount from market value while not worrying about buying a bank-owned home that’s been sitting vacant. And while it’s true that a large percentage of distressed sales in an area – whether it’s a bank-owned sale or a short sale – will have a downward effect on home values, it’s typically true that short sales are less impactful.
I think that buyers and investors should pay attention to this trend because a short sale for many people is a way to get a great price on a home without having to settle for a home that’s not in good shape. Potential sellers, too, should take heed. With more banks considering short sales as the more attractive option, distressed sellers might have more and/or better options than they’ve had in the past.
The bottom line is that, compared to the time before the housing bubble, distressed sales are going to keep making up a relatively large percentage of sales. The shift toward short sales, however, could benefit all involved – banks, buyers, sellers and neighborhoods.
The Occupy Wall Street movement last year brought to the attention of most of theUnited Statesa new term for the richest of the rich.
The 1%.
The “1-percenters,” as they are sometimes called, are the wealthiest Americans. They got their name because it’s widely accepted that 1 percent of theU.S.population controls more than 40 percent of the country’s total wealth.
I’ve studied successful and wealthy individuals, as you might know, and always kind of assumed that the 1 percent could largely be looked up to – they were the entrepreneurial types who took risks and built businesses that employed people and expanded the economy. Sure, they control a disproportionate amount of the nation’s wealth, but they earned it.
Recently, though, the 1% have gotten a bad name. The Occupy Wall Street movement and subsequent attention turned toward the 1% have focused not simply on the disparity of the wealth percentages. There is a growing sentiment that not only does the 1% control an un-equitable portion of the nation’s riches, but that it has accumulated that fortune by exploiting the other 99%.
The result of this ever-growing attitude seems to be a class war of sorts. Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, recently called it just that – class warfare. A recentPewResearchCenterpoll showed that about two-thirds of Americans see “strong” or “very strong” class conflicts in our society.
There was a story in the news recently about some investment banker who left a $1.33 tip on a lunch bill that came to $133. He wrote in the tip amount, circled it, and added a note to the waitress that said “get a real job.” An employee of the banker who took a picture of the receipt and blogged about it, said his boss left 1% tips all the time because he is proud to be among the 1%.
This, of course, is just plain sticking it to the 99%, of which, I’ll assume, you and I are both a part of. This, of course, is despicable, an arrogant act that gets you hoping there is some kind of karma at play that will eventually get this guy. At a time when so many of the 1 percent are actually talking about working to narrow the income gap, this jerk seems to be celebrating it. Where is that going to get anybody?
I’ve never been one to begrudge the super-wealthy. I know how hard it can be to build wealth, and many of the wealthiest people have contributed great ideas or projects to society. A lot of billionaires – such as Bill Gates – share their wealth with charitable causes, trying to improve the lives of the less fortunate, who, in his case, is just about everybody else!
I’ve always had the notion that bringing down other people’s wealth isn’t the way to narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and the story of the banker and the waitress doesn’t change that for me, as irritating as it is.
Should the tax system be examined to find a way for the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share, especially when the nation needs more revenue? Absolutely. Should there be a greater emphasis on economic policies and investment that expands the economy for everybody? Absolutely.
A rising tide lifts all boats, and your boat doesn’t rise any higher when you sink someone else’s just because they’re better off than you. Taking aim at the 1% — especially when you hear stories of bad tips – might make you feel better in the sense that there’s someone to blame, but it doesn’t solve anything. Instead of figuring out ways for more people to be more successful, we want to instead take down the most successful?
That seems not only unfair but counterproductive. Instead of cultivating the notion of entrepreneurship and business-building, we’d be attacking those values, discouraging the means to wealth that people sorely need.
Yeah, it might be infuriating to hear about a member of the 1% percent picking on a poor waitress. It’s indefensible. But there are bad apples among the 99%, too. One scoundrel does not make the entire 1% scoundrels. And instead of attacking the whole group, maybe we should instead be spending time and energy trying to emulate them. If more people tried to be more like the 1%, instead of making them all out to be the bad guys, more people would be better off.
Yes, things are wrong with the system. But it’s probably safe to say that plenty of the 1% are people who most obviously have done something right.
Monday Feb. 20 was President’s Day in the United States – a national holiday meant to honor those who have served the highest office in the land.
Every year, the holiday seems to spark articles about the presidency, and this year was no different. One that was particularly interesting was a 24/7 Wall St. article that compared presidential candidate Mitt Romney to past presidents in terms of the wealth amassed.
And Romney, a Republican hopeful, has done plenty of amassing. It’s estimated that he has accumulated more than $200 million of net worth. He seems uncomfortable talking about his wealth, but it’s a subject that keeps coming up in this election season.
It’s true that Romney comes from a wealthy family, but he has said that he inherited no wealth from his parents, who gave money to charity and grandchildren when they passed away. He attributes his wealth-building instead to building businesses, the most prominent one a private equity firm that held stakes in some major corporations. He’s got an MBA from Harvard, and Romney has put it to good use on Wall Street. He’s easily among the “1 percent” of Americans we keep hearing about.
In fact, according to the 24/7 Wall St. article, if elected, Romney would be the second-wealthiest president ever. The article took the estimated wealth of all the U.S. presidents throughout history and translated their wealth into today’s dollars.
It might surprise you to learn that George Washington, the first president in the country’s history, was also the wealthiest.
What may or may not surprise you is what made old George – as well as some of the other early presidents – so wealthy.
Unlike Romney, Washington wasn’t a Wall Street wheeler-and-dealer. The article estimates that his worth was about $525 million, and it pretty much came from one thing: real estate.
Washington, it’s reported, owned five separate farms on a total of about 8,000 acres. His wife, Martha, contributed to the couple’s fortune after inheriting even more property from her father when he died. No question, the first First Couple was wealthy because of their property holdings.
The second-wealthiest president, according to the article, was the nation’s third president, Thomas Jefferson. His estimated $212 million net worth could be attributed largely to his 5,000 acres.
In fact, if you go down the list of the wealthiest presidents, most of them had large real estate holdings. And not all of them were among the founding fathers. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president, was third on the list with about $125 million, and although he came from a wealthy family, he did own hundreds of acres of valuable Long Island land.
It would seem that even among those presidents who didn’t necessarily MAKE their fortune with real estate, most of them nonetheless wound up with considerable real estate portfolios.
There is a caveat to the list, too: John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963, never received his family inheritance. Had that occurred, he would have gained an estimated $1 billion in today’s dollars, which would have made him the wealthiest president of all time.
There might be a couple of lessons in all of this. First, it sure seems that being wealthy is a pre-requisite to becoming elected president. Secondly, the list of the wealthiest presidents is a reminder that real estate has long been a source of wealth for the wealthiest and most powerful people in the history of the United States.
Unless you were vacationing on a remote tropical island somewhere, you probably heard about what happened on February 11.
Singer Whitney Houston was found dead in a hotel room. She was 48 years old.
If you know anything about her – and if you didn’t but watched the news at all when she died – you know that she was a talented but troubled musical artist. It seems there are all too many of those throughout history: Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, Michael Jackson, and Kurt Cobain, to name a few.
It’s enough to make you wonder if there’s a correlation between being super-talented and troubled. Whitney’s troubles included domestic violence and substance abuse. Her disheveled appearance and reported erratic behavior in recent years made her death, even at such a young age, shocking but not surprising. People mourned her death as soon as it was announced, yet there were “Yeah, buts” everywhere.
But you know what? As soon as all the networks and websites started airing clips of her singing the Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl in 1991, you stop with the “Yeah buts.” The woman opens her mouth and the sound that comes out of it makes everybody’s jaws drop. You listen and you realize that so very few people on earth can do that. The voice comes out, and you forget about the volatile marriage and the drugs. You are in awe of the talent. The rest melts away.
Maybe it’s sad that it takes someone dying before we all appreciate what talent they possessed when they were still with us. I prefer to think that early death provides the necessary jolt we need to see what’s around us. Sometimes, you have to stop the car to see the view for what it really is.
Now, cynics will say that society has a problem with what happens when famous people die young. Their lives are extinguished early, they might say, and people react as though death absolves them of their poor behavior in life. Michael Jackson comes to mind, as his death seemed to obliterate the memory of child-abuse allegations.
But famous people die all the time. And not every one of them is remembered or paid tribute to in the same manner. Fame alone is not a legacy. Talent is the legacy.
It’s important to remember that. So many people spend their time on this earth hoping and waiting for their big break. That stroke of luck that will make their lives more meaningful. They utter phrases like “I’d rather be lucky than good.” But being good is the quality that rises to the top.
Whether it’s at your career, your family life, your business or anything else, your talent is what defines you. Developing your talent is what should be expected of you, not being in the right place at the right time, or being “good enough” to get by at something. And being lucky instead of good is just hogwash.
The nice thing is that you can work on your talent. You can get better at what you do, improve, learn, grow in whatever it is your talent happens to be. You can’t work on luck, and in that regard alone, luck pales in comparison. You control what you do with your talent; you can’t control the good-fortune/bad-fortune part of the equation.
Maybe that’s what happens to the supremely talented who are found dead in hotel rooms at relatively young ages. Maybe they are so immersed in their talents that the bad fortune they can’t control gets the better of them. It’s sad, but in the end, it’s STILL their talent that’s their legacy.
So few people, when their time ends, are remembered as the best at what they did. But as Whitney’s death reminds us, being the best is what even the most troubled talents are remembered for. So shouldn’t that be what we all strive for?
Nobody remembers lucky. Everybody remembers greatness.
If you happen to know any home builders, you might know that they’re not as busy as they were five or six years ago. Last year, in fact, was a very slow year for new homes.
Recently, however, home builder sentiment picked up. On average, builders across the United States are more optimistic about the market now than they’ve been in over four years.
I had a conversation recently with someone in the home building industry, and he said that builders have held on to land even if they’re not building homes on it. This is different than how the business typically goes, as in a normal market, the carrying costs of holding the land have traditionally make it less profitable to buy, build and sell.
Builders, the man said, are waiting now for demand to become stronger before they build new homes on land they have. They do, however, expect to be busy when demand returns. It was interesting that he added demand WILL return because, he said, “homeownership still matters to people.”
It would be hard to find a real estate professional who wouldn’t agree; just about everybody in the business believes that homeownership matters, or else they wouldn’t be in the business. Sometimes, though, it’s hard to remember that as homeownership rates dip below normal levels, as they are now.
But even as homeownership rates are lower than normal, surveys indicate that people do still want to own homes. In fact, it’s often the sentiment of an overwhelming majority of people who respond to the surveys. Homeownership does still matter.
It matters in part because for most, it still remains part of the “American dream.” The real estate bubble and financial crisis might have blurred the vision of white picket fences and pies cooling on window sills, but the vision is not obliterated.
Why? Well, aside from the kind of intangible “pride of ownership” feelings that have always been used so frequently, there are still kids who need yards to play in, and solid school systems to attend. There is still a recognizable feeling of community in neighborhoods that are full of homeowners. There are still tax deductions to be had, improvements of your own to make, and the “forced savings” that paying down a mortgage and gaining equity provides.
If anything, the real estate bubble was caused by a heightened attitude that homeownership was a get-rich-quick vehicle, fueled by rapid appreciation and the ability to cash out equity almost at will. Those things aren’t so present in most markets today, yet the attitudes of people toward homeownership haven’t seemed to waver much.
In other words, dollar signs might have contributed to a spike in ownership that was above normal levels – nationwide it peaked around 70 percent – but it’s the other things that have remained that make people continue to believe in the concept of being a homeowner.
And even after the foreclosures and price drops, the majority of people surveyed still describe buying a home as a good investment. Which means that even though the idea of quick money that drove up the homeownership rate is gone, it’s not as if people are saying that buying a home is a bad investment. The reality is that it’s still a good investment, but financial reasons aren’t the only things driving attitudes about homeownership’s benefits.
And that’s the way it should be.
Homeownership does give you certain freedoms. It does allow you to plant your roots in a community you choose. It, as corny as it sounds, does provide a sense of pride and sharing in the American dream for many people.
In the words of the man in the home-building industry, homeownership does still matter to people.
Since the peak of the housing boom in the United States in 2006, home sales have declined. Despite low interest rates and affordable home prices the volume of existing home sales has been relatively sluggish, and new home construction has been way down.
One of the most-cited reasons for the low sales volume has been lenders’ tightening of qualifying standards for home loans. Recently, data have been analyzed to show that, in general, banks require higher credit scores and more documentation for home loan applicants now than they did prior to 2006. Unfortunately, as I have I have written before, that’s kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out.
At the same time, it might be a necessary inconvenience.
Truthfully, I thought that by now, mortgage lending would have loosened a bit. By now, the market should have become more normalized, and banks would have sorted out their previous messes and would want to start lending again. That’s what they need to do to make money.
Instead, there is less money to lend. The ability of financial giants to package mortgages into instruments that investors could buy has all but dried up. The federal government now backs the overwhelming majority of home loans, and the drying up of that private secondary market has led to a limited amount of money for homebuyers to borrow. With less money to lend, is it any wonder that banks are being more careful about to whom they lend it?
At the same time, lenders are being pressured by the government to reduce principal balances on bad loans they’re already carrying. Many of the nation’s largest lenders are in talks with states’ attorneys general over billions of dollars in possible settlement money to homebuyers. The same banks are now under renewed scrutiny for their foreclosure practices. All this while they battle the public perception that they were undeservedly bailed out by taxpayers.
So is it any wonder that they’ve done away with a lot of the mortgage practices that go them – or others in their business, now out of business – in hot water in the first place? If making a bunch of loans to people with credit scores of 500 and no documentation of their income, no verification of their ability to pay, was the problem, doesn’t it make sense to not make the same mistake?
As much as more careful lending has been a part of what is a slower housing recovery than many would like to have seen, is it such a bad idea to make sure the same kind of crash doesn’t happen again? Could you imagine, for example, what would happen if sub-prime loans became all the rage again? What the damage would be a few years from now if banks just started passing out money again to make the recovery faster now?
If banks were to sacrifice their long-term security just to make some short-term gains and had to be bailed out again, there might be a taxpayer revolution!
And if you think about it, tighter standards actually protect the borrower, too. Many people bought homes they couldn’t afford during the bubble, when no standards were around to tell them they couldn’t afford it. Look where those buyers are now.
In the short term, tighter standards might be uncomfortable. But in the long-term, they are probably a good thing.
That said, it’s not as if it’s impossible to get a loan these days. It takes a good credit score – in most cases upwards of 700 – and required documentation of income. Does that sound so crazy? Actually, it’s what it used to be like, before the crazy appreciation of the bubble years caused standards to fall by the wayside.
The danger is assuming that you can’t get a home loan just because you’ve been hearing that. That’s not the case. If you have a steady income, have been in the same career for a while and have good credit, you don’t even always need 20 percent down. The word that banks aren’t making loans to anybody is a myth.
But the fact that they’re not making loans to just anybody isn’t a bad thing.
You don’t need to follow sports to know who Tim Tebow is.
For the unfamiliar, Tebow is the quarterback for the Denver Broncos in the National Football League. They made him the quarterback after they started the season poorly, and he won six games in a row to help them make the playoffs. They lost Sunday, but it was unexpected for them to make it as far as they did.
Along the way, Tebow was a polarizing person. Some people loved him, some kept saying that he isn’t good enough to be an NFL quarterback. The Broncos changed the way they play offense to suit his strengths and hide his weaknesses, and that made him stand out even more.
He became associated with “Tebowing,” a gesture made famous by his kneeling and giving thanks to God (he is very religious). He had tons of articles written about him and was the subject of sketches on “Saturday Night Live.” All the while, it seemed as though people kept looking for things to criticize about him.
That will happen when someone is outwardly expressive about his faith. Adding to Tebow’s persona is the fact that he is a self-proclaimed virgin and is outspoken about being a good guy. And you know what they say about where nice guys finish.
I recently read an article on Inc.com with the headline “Why you should hire Tim Tebo.” It went on to explain that he’s a winner, a proven leader, a team leader, etc. So I started thinking about what employers look for when they make hiring decisions and took it a step further.
Would you be a business partner with Tim Tebow, investing your money with him in a project? Would you be his friend? Would you consider working for him, instead of being the one who hires him?
I firmly believe that the people you surround yourself with have a major impact on you. Surround yourself with positive, interesting, challenging people, and you are more likely to be more positive, interesting and productive yourself. I think this is the case whether it’s friends, co-workers, business partners, or other people.
And from what I’ve read and heard about Tebow, he would be a good person to associate with. He’s loyal, he has respect for others, and he’s committed to being the best he can be. I like the fact that he seems to know that he’s considered to have flaws, and he doesn’t shy away from the criticism. I read that theUniversityofFlorida, where he played in college, has a plaque hanging at its stadium with something called “The Promise,” which Tebow made following a loss.
The plaque reads:
The Promise
To the fans and everybody in
Gator Nation, I’m sorry.
I’m extremely sorry. We were
Hoping for an undefeated season,
That was my goal, something
Florida has never done here.
I promise you one thing, a lot
Of good will come out of this.
You will never see any player in
The entire country play as hard
As I will play the rest of the
Season.
You will never see
Someone push the rest of the
Team as hard as I will push
Everybody the rest of the season.
You will never see a team
Player harder than we will
The rest of the season.
God Bless.
Say what you will about his religious devotion or his ability to throw a football, but you can’t deny his commitment both to his own contributions and to making those around him better. You can’t question how he holds himself accountable as a leader for his team’s failure. And you can’t help but feel like he’s a guy who will learn from, and be motivated by his mistakes.
Later in the year he made that promise, Tebow’s team won the national championship.
So he gets made fun of. He’s called a bad quarterback. Even his bosses on the Broncos won’t commit to Tebow as the long-term quarterback of the team.
But he’s a winner. He’s steadfast in his beliefs. He is a hard-worker, a positive person and motivated to bring success to those around him.
That’s not a bad guy to be around.
This is the time of year when most people are paying lip service to resolutions – they are going to exercise more, eat better, quit a bad habit, etc. But what if you set the bar a little higher than that for 2012.
What if your goal was to make 2012 your best year ever?
What if, instead of promising yourself you’ll stop snacking between meals, your resolution was to change your mindset? Your new mindset would be making this year your best.
It’s true that smaller, attainable goals can add up to big changes, but big goals are sometimes necessary, too. For example, with the mindset of making 2012 your best year ever, your big goal will help the little goals fall into place. With the overall goal of making 2012 the best, you could improve your life in so many areas:
You’ve no doubt heard the old phrase “Opportunityknocks only once.” I recently read a column, I forget where, that said that notion is complete nonsense. And the more you think about it, the more you will realize it IS nonsense.
Opportunityknocks all the time. But it takes the right mindset to realize that.
Every good idea you have is an opportunity. Every project you take on at work is an opportunity. Every trip to the gym, every book you read, every conversation you have with your child – they’re all opportunities. But most people need to practice seeing things that way. I think if you open yourself up to the idea that opportunity is all around, you will see opportunities that maybe you haven’t yet.
And setting the bar high on 2012 – “best year ever” – is a great way to start. That kind of mindset almost forces you to have an open mind when it comes to opportunities. That’s the kind of big goal that REQUIRES you to start noticing opportunities. If you want to spend more time with family and friends, or if you want to significantly increase your income, get in shape – whatever – you are going to have to first recognize opportunities, then capitalize on opportunities.
The Best Year Ever mindset is ambitious. It’s BIG. But if you want real change in your life, that’s what you need. There’s another old saying: “The only way to get what you’ve never had is to do the things you’ve never done.” Chances are, you’ve lost weight before, quit smoking or watched less TV. You’ve done those things, and you have what you have.
To have the best year ever, you’re going to have to do things you probably haven’t done. That’s a sometimes scary reality for a lot of people. But it being scary doesn’t make it any less a reality. It’s easier to accomplish, however, it you make yourself accountable. And by sort of putting yourself on the spot with your “Best Year Ever” goal, you are putting the kind of pressure on yourself that will be required.
In fact, it would probably be best to share your Best Year Ever goal, because when you tell other people that sort of thing, it REALLY makes you accountable. And being accountable to such a big goal will help you make better decisions. It will force you to see the opportunities so many people miss. It could push you to live life rather than sleepwalking through it day to day.
It’s true that little, attainable goals can add up to big change over time. But sometimes, it’s that one BIG goal that kind of forces you to change all the little things so that they do add up.
So think big for 2012. Think “Best Year Ever.”
It seems as though this is the time every year when we’re inundated with lists and year-end wrapup articles and news stories. In a way, it’s silly every year. But I think this year, it’s been good to look back on the last 12 months.
There have been so many things that will make 2011 memorable – big things, like the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Steve Jobs, and seemingly small things, like the debt-ceiling mess, that were more significant than we might have thought at the time.
But I think this will go down in memories as, well, one strange year.
The nation was gripped by the trial of a young woman many people thought killed her own child, and she went unconvicted. We had a presidential candidate with a tax plan based on the number 9, and whose accusers of sexual impropriety numbered at least five, leading to him abandoning the race.
The year 2011 is the one we will remember as the first time we started hearing about “the 1%.” Mostly, we have the Occupy Wall Street movement to thank for that, and though there is no clear goal the OWS people are trying to achieve – other than gripe about rich people – we’ll remember that somehow the “occupy” motive spread, to logical destinations such as Washington D.C. and head-scratchers, like Oakland, Calif.
It will be the year we remember as one when whole countries (Greece) and continents (Europe) looked as if they might go belly-up. Stock markets jerked us up and down all year as the world watched governments try to deal with debts and deficits, the Dow Jones Index alone moving along a 20-percent range of highs and lows.
It was a year marked by civil war in the Middle East, withSyria,Egyptand Liby experiencing major unrest, regimes falling and dictators dying. It was the year ofJapan’s earthquake and tsunami. Closer to home and emotionally painful were the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the almost-unbelievableJerrySandusk-PennStatescandal.
We had the final space shuttle landing, an Amish beard-cutting spree, aU.S.credit downgrade and a phone-hacking debacle at News Corp. Gas and food prices soared, hitting American famililies right in the checkbook, as IPOs made billionaires out of internet geeks.
It was a year when Kim Kardashian’s scam marriage and a Royal wedding made headlines for weeks, and Netflix announces a pricing change that outraged people. Meanwhile, a straight-facedU.S.congress passed a version of budget bill that labels pizza a vegetable in children’s school lunches, and no one seems to care that it’s a blatant insult to our common sense.
It’s been a topsy-turvy year indeed.
And we survived it.
Things appeared bleak at times. Financial markets and inflation scared us. Natural disasters and the idea of radical government shifts in faraway parts of the world made us wonder in awe. Stories of violence and corruption are what made it onto our plates as part of our every day digestion of news.
But you’re still here. I’m still here. We have made it through the topsy-turvy in one piece. Hopefully, you have your health, your family and your friends. Those are the things that are important – more so than the money, politics, scandals and gossip that get too much of our attention too much of the time.
If there’s a lesson to take from 2011, it’s that when all the topsy-turvy and distractions are over and we finally raise our heads, the things that are most important are largely unchanged. The noise around us shouldn’t change who we are, and it certainly can’t change those things and those people important to us. That’s what survives, no matter how up-and-down or round-and-round the year has been.
Now let’s welcome 2012, and let’s remember, as we make our way through it, that after 2011, we will survive any amount of topsy turvy it throws at us!
