Yesterday, I wrote that banks starting to lend again is a plus for the economy. Today, I want to take a closer look at a key assumption underlying that statement.

Much of modern society revolves around consumption, and there's nothing wrong with that—if it’s affordable. If not, we find ourselves in 2009 again.

The real question here is what affordable means. In fact, this is the question at the core of saving, investing, retiring, and pretty much everything else I write about here. 

The headlines today are all about the deal between Bank of America and the government. After months of negotiation, the bank will pay about $17 billion to resolve allegations that it didn’t follow the rules for residential mortgages before the financial crisis. 

No company likes to pay out billions of dollars, and BofA had a good case that it didn’t do nearly as much wrong as the government claimed. (Many of the allegations involved actions committed by companies that the bank acquired at the government’s urging during the crisis.) Nonetheless, the BofA deal should be a good thing for the bank—and the rest of America.

Learn why I told CNBC Worldwide Exchange that I think the Fed's tapering of its bond-buying program is a good thing for the financial sector in an interview today, August 7. 

When I go on vacation, I do so with the expectation that something will happen that makes me (almost) want to be back in the office.

Sure enough, while I was out last week, the market proceeded to sell off in a way that has become pretty uncommon recently, generating fear and worry.

In my latest Market Thoughts video, I talk about the U.S. economy, international turmoil, and the U.S. market's performance at the end of July.

It’s time for our monthly update on factors that have proven to be reliable indicators of economic trouble ahead.

As expected, the data hasn’t changed that much from last month—it’s encouraging in almost all areas—but it remains important to keep an eye on things.  

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 September 2013.) Look for a new post tomorrow!

When I last wrote about inflation, in January 2013, it wasn’t a pressing concern. I did note that we’d have to start paying closer attention when three things happened:

• A decrease in the unemployment rate
• A resumption of bank lending/consumer borrowing
• Faster growth in GDP

We’re seeing all three of these now, so it’s time for another look.

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 July 2012.)

One of the great perks of my position at Commonwealth is the chance to talk with experts in a wide range of fields. A couple of years ago, at our Chairman’s Retreat, we heard from a speaker who specialized in the psychology of happiness.

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

Last night, I took my wife out to No. 9 Park—a very nice restaurant in Boston—to celebrate our 10th anniversary. Among other things, we talked about where we were 10 years ago, and how much has changed.

As we spoke, it occurred to me that we rarely have this type of conversation—one that covers longer periods of time rather than just what's happening right now. When you look back over a decade, events that once seemed so important may become less so, while things that seemed insignificant may turn out to be major.

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.