Monkey Business

Michael Lewis' "The Evolution of an Investor," in the December issue, made the excellent point that most financial advisers are nothing more than product pushers looking to make a sale. However, to say that nobody knows the market is simply false. I've made my living (and delivered great returns to my clients) by knowing which way the market is going to move. The people who are able to beat the market do so because they've invested more than capital; they've invested years of study, analysis, and testing to be able to deliver superior results. Maybe if money manager Blaine Lourd took the time and effort to research the market, he would be able to deliver something more than index-fund returns to his clients.

Thanks for publishing a great magazine.

—Daniel Wiggins, Boise, Idaho

Lewis' exceptional article should cause an epiphany for many of your readers. When 75 percent of those polled view themselves as above-average investors, you know there's something wrong. Basic fundamentals prove that we cannot all beat the market in any given year, but in essence, that's what advisers are telling us. The difference is, we're all being told at the individual level, as if we're being invited into this secret organization in which the "chosen" can beat the market—with the help of a trusted adviser.

It's human nature to want to believe there's a free lunch out there and seek it out. Wall Street understands this human flaw and capitalizes on it every day, and it's damn good at it. Trading really is a loser's game (sorry, Jim Cramer), and it's time that investors realized that. Let your brother-in-law take the stage at the next cocktail party with his self­congratulatory victory speech on finding one of those 9,000 hedge funds that managed not to lose his money—for now. My hat is off to Lourd for his decision to swim against the current and in the process expose the true underbelly of Wall Street.

—Rob Nagle, chief investment officer, San Luis Obispo County Pension Trust, San Luis Obispo, California

Cuban Conundrum

As a Cuban American, I wish that gifted writers like Matthew Cooper would use their talents to denounce the real Cuban embargo—the one that Fidel Castro and his cronies have placed on the Cuban people.

If you can't beat them, join them. In "Dump the Cuban Embargo," in the December issue, Cooper proposes that the U.S. join the ranks of nations that have chosen to become business partners with the deadliest regime in the history of the Western Hemisphere. He sees no problem, apparently, with Americans working in a spirit of cooperation with the oppressors in Cuba and aiding them in their oppression as countless Spanish, Canadian, and British companies do.

The fact is that an American business presence in Cuba will not increase America's influence. Spain has invested more in Cuba than any other country has, and as a result, Spanish political leaders are impotent to stand up to their corporations and require Cuba to adhere to international norms of labor practices.

—Henry Louis Gómez, Miami, Florida

For more than 45 years, U.S. politicians have worked the South Florida Cuban community for money and votes. Yes, this has been effective for both Republicans and Democrats at the expense of Americans in general. While we are sidelined from trading with Cuba, such global allies of ours as Canada, Mexico, and the U.K. have made hundreds of millions of dollars for their respective companies. The U.S. justification for this ridiculous policy: the marginalization of the Castro government. Oh, really? If the U.S. can carry out billions of dollars of trade with Beijing, don't you think we can at least have limited trade with Havana? China has more documented cases of human rights abuses in a week than Cuba has in a year.

—Lawrence Denger, Berkeley, California

Readability

I would probably enjoy your publication if it were easy to read, which it is not. The print is much too small. Even with my reading glasses on, I can't read it without straining. I realize that many publications have reduced the size of their type in the past few years, but yours is about the smallest that I can recall. I have dropped other magazines for the same reason, as have other friends of mine. For people over 55, the print should be getting larger, not smaller. I think the majority of your readers will be over 50 and would enjoy having a magazine that could be easily read.

—Greg Geil, Chesterfield, Missouri

The Conversation

Readers want to know who can afford to "think disruptive"

Former Intel C.E.O. Andy Grove's article "Think Disruptive" (December), which argued for more XBDs, or cross-boundary disruptions, in American industry, caused a bit of a kerfuffle.

"Praise should be given to Andy Grove for his creative thinking," wrote one reader. "This is what we need in America—ideas and actions that create opportunities and solve problems."

Grove focused his analysis on large corporations and highlighted the success of Apple's incursion into the music industry. But a reader pointed out that "Apple is unique in many ways, and few companies can walk its path regardless of how much cash they have." He added that "if that's the prime XBD example, the model is hard to follow." Large companies have the cash to take big risks, the reader notes, but often lack willing leadership and the talent pool to pull them off. "One interesting failure is Microsoft," he continued. "It has been very aggressive over the past decade in seeking opportunities outside of operating systems—we're talking tens of billions of dollars—but it has failed to create market leaders with its mobile devices, MSN, or Xbox."

Grove suggested in his piece that General Electric get involved in the auto industry and that Wal-Mart tackle the health-care crisis. "I think Grove presents an interesting idea," a reader wrote. "Meet both the needs of markets like health care and transportation (in which consumers, not to mention the environment, suffer from poor products and services) and those of large corporations that have stagnated. I find the G.E. proposal compelling, particularly because of the company's investment in wind power and its Ecomagination branding efforts. Not so sure about Wal-Mart."

The reader continued, "But let's not forget the role of the federal government. Our health-care system, energy policies, and environment are such a mess partly because of poor management of our collective resources. If the government invested anywhere near as much in R&D and universal health care as it has in misbegotten wars and subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry, we wouldn't need Wal-Mart and G.E. to come to our rescue."

"I agree with Grove that placing medical clinics in Wal-Mart stores would be a boon to low- and middle-income families," another reader wrote. "But he has aimed too low. Grove mentioned that Wal-Mart hopes to have clinics in up to 2,000 stores by 2014. What we must remember is that there are 3,000 counties and parishes in the U.S. The 2,000 Wal-Mart clinics would be wonderful for people living near those stores, but more than half the population still wouldn't be served by the facilities."

This reader then offered a challenge. "Perhaps Grove would consider sending an email to the C.E.O.'s of all the major chain pharmacies with the suggestion that they also consider clinics in their stores. If half of the pharmacies in the major chains added a clinic, then a great deal would have been done to ease the health-care crisis."

Letters to the Editor

Please send emails to letters@portfolio.com. Include your name, address, and daytime phone number on all letters and emails to the editor. Correspondence may be faxed to 212-286-4435 or mailed to Condé Nast Portfolio, 4 Times Square, New York, NY 10036. The magazine reserves the right to edit submissions, which may be published or otherwise used in any medium. For subscription inquiries, write to subscriptions@portfolio.com or call 800-967-2081. Address all other editorial queries to editors@portfolio.com.

---