I'll be out of the office for a few days, so I'm revisiting some of my past posts. (Today's originally appeared in May 2013.) 

Recently, an advisor called into the Commonwealth office seeking help with a client who has a nine-figure net worth and fully expects the world to end. As I thought about how to address his concerns, I realized we needed to define the problem: what would the end of the world actually look like from an economic/financial perspective?

Here’s my take on how a doomsday scenario might evolve —and what to do if you're worried about it.

In Thursday’s post, I recommended slowly prepaying your mortgage as one way to put your money to work effectively. I also mentioned that people tend to underestimate the value of cash. Today, I want to delve into that a bit more, by comparing how sitting on cash stacks up with investing in bonds or stocks in the current environment.

Summer is usually a quiet time on the economic front. This year, we’ve had more news than expected—Russia and Ukraine, Iraq and ISIS, Israel and Gaza—but the general mood has been one of torpor, at least here in the U.S. Economic news has been mixed but generally positive, politics has stayed off the front pages, and the headlines have focused more on the summer than the fall.

As we enter August, though, it’s time to start thinking about issues that will come back into focus when everyone returns from the beach. 

I was lucky enough to have lunch yesterday with the chief market strategist for a major Wall Street bank. In addition to being an experienced and intelligent observer of the financial markets and economy, he is also a great guy.

Our conversation was a great opportunity to compare two views of the world: Wall Street vs. Main Street.

The dilemma many investors face, when looking at today’s markets, is simple: Where can I put my money? Markets are overvalued, and bonds sure look like a bubble, but I have to do something with the cash. I can’t just let it sit there, right?

I get it, but I don’t necessarily agree that you need to do something. Many great investors see sitting on their hands when market conditions are unfavorable as a key to their success. In poker, you make your money by not betting on bad hands. The value of the optionality associated with cash is, in my opinion, underrated.

To follow up on my recent posts, there’s another question I’d like to ask the person (or committee) that decided to outsource Tufts University’s early education program: Are you proud of this decision? Did you go home and announce to your own family what you had done? If the answer is no, what does that say about the quality of the decision?

This is also an important question to ask yourself in an investment context.

I’ve been thinking about Tufts University's decision to outsource its early education program, and why I feel so strongly about it. It’s not that I’m directly affected—Jackson will be finishing up there this summer before the transition. And it’s not that I’d necessarily disagree with the decision if I knew all the facts.

Besides the impact on people I like and respect, the thing that bothers me is that the decision makers seem to have focused on the wrong issues. Whenever you focus on the wrong things, any decision you make—however justified in terms of those wrong things—will turn out wrong.

My wife and I have been incredibly fortunate over the past three years to have our son, Jackson, enrolled in a Tufts University-sponsored day care/kindergarten program. The faculty, the curriculum, and the entire experience have been outstanding, and Jackson has benefited noticeably. Tufts students also benefit from the opportunity to volunteer and mentor the children.

Yesterday, we saw a passenger airliner shot down over what is arguably Europe. We saw an invasion launched as missiles rained down on civilian towns. And, in far less devastating news, we saw equity markets decline.

The Ukraine conflict has been simmering for months; the Middle East has been in conflict for decades. Still, yesterday's news came as a surprise, knocking markets down.

Today, I want to discuss two timely topics that are more interrelated than they seem. One is the growing trend of tax inversions, whereby U.S. companies change their legal structure to avoid or reduce their tax exposure. The other is the launch of a new development bank capitalized by the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)—a rival to the traditional international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the IMF. 

What’s the common denominator here? Both developments suggest we need to rethink some long-held assumptions about how the world works.