I am grateful to be back at work. Grateful, because it means we got through the storm with no damage or even inconvenience. My biggest problems yesterday were shoving the cat off the keyboard and entertaining a four-year-old boy. I am much more fortunate than many others, especially in New York and the Mid-Atlantic states. Here’s hoping that everyone recovers as quickly and with as little aggravation as possible.

The storm yesterday got me thinking about weather, particularly here in Massachusetts. We don’t normally have hurricanes, but we’re not known for our sunshine either, as my California colleagues typically remind me in February. Which brings me to a very interesting conversation I had with some clients a couple of weeks ago.

I have been getting some feedback that, although people like the blog, there is a sense that it is pessimistic. To which I can only say, pessimistic? Me?

The reason the posts are late today is that I was sitting on a panel at a conference, discussing the role of gatekeepers in the industry. For those who don’t know, a research department at a broker/dealer typically reviews myriad products and provides opinions on them for the broker/dealer’s advisors. Investment products that are considered “very good,” based on the research department’s analysis, may end up being recommended. As such, we analysts are considered the gatekeepers that product sponsors would like to have on their side. At the very least, they’d like to avoid getting a negative review.

Much of the discussion at the conference centered on the opportunities that exist for product sponsors to create new products to better serve advisors and clients, which is all to the good. We love to see new and innovative products. Other discussion was less edifying, though; it had to do with how companies can essentially get in with products that are, at best, about the same as every other product out there.

So the U.S. markets are at their highest point since 2007. In 2007, the markets were at their highest since 2000. In 2000, the markets were at all-time highs. In 2000, values were driven by the bubble, as we now know. In 2007, spending and growth were driven by unsustainable growth in housing values and consumer borrowing, as we now know. In hindsight, those valuations were not supportable. We are smarter than that now.

Once again, nothing particularly new or noteworthy on economics, politics, or finance in the papers. One article I did find interesting was on a tidal power project here in Maine that’s nearing completion: “The Search for Energy Takes a Turn Underwater” on page A8 of the New York Times (NYT). Apparently, this will be the first commercial tidal power station. If it’s successful, it could lead to further development.

As I have outlined before, energy is the one big area where the U.S. is vulnerable, but the fact that we keep exploring different ways to generate energy should help solve the problem—and probably sooner rather than later. There is an unavoidable gestation period for new technologies, but when they do hit, they can have huge effects in a short period of time. Fracking is the best example I can think of—it has already changed the natural gas world—but there are others as well. Tidal power may or may not be one of them, but this potential energy source has been under development for a while, and it’s getting close to viability.

Sorry to miss yesterday’s post, but I spent the day in Story Land. For those of you not from New England, this is a small amusement park built around fairy tales—Cinderella’s castle, Heidi’s grandfather’s hut, the Three Billy Goats Gruff, and similar exhibits. It is perfect for small children, and my four-year-old son had what was possibly the best day of his life. We opened and closed the park and had a two-hour drive each way—thus, the day was not conducive to posting a blog.

It was an interesting day, though. From my son’s perspective, the whole thing was free, as it was paid for by a higher power (me). The visitors covered an amazingly wide range of people—Hasidim, Muslims, WASPs (me again), multiple races and socio-economic classes—all united in letting our kids have fun. The park itself was very well designed, well run, and incredibly effective at extracting money from dad’s wallet.

One of my newly adopted habits, as I discussed in my “Good Habits” post a few days ago, is to read a chapter a day from a book that covers something I want to know more about. Given the major role China plays in how the world is evolving, I had become fairly current on the Chinese economy, but I had no in-depth knowledge of the country itself.

I still don’t, really. What I do have is a much better sense of the political and historical context in which China makes decisions. I would describe Henry Kissinger’s On China as applied history—history applied to an understanding of how a country is likely to act in the future . . . and why. In that sense, it succeeds well.

We talked yesterday about housing. We discussed how it is bottoming, how it is poised—at some point—to start a recovery, and how that is a very good thing for the economy. It’s good for several reasons—largely because of the employment the sector generates and the multiplier effects it has on other areas of the economy.

Housing can be considered a durable good. Because it is a long-term asset that is purchased with financing, it reflects, to some extent, the buyer’s vision of the future. The stabilization and incipient improvement of this sector is also a sign that the U.S. population has started to recover psychologically from the crisis, which is an underappreciated element of what has to happen before recovery really kicks in.

A couple of days ago, I wrote about how financial factors and decision models are receding in importance compared with other, noneconomic factors. While there are examples around the world that illustrate the process, it still is not necessarily apparent, given the constant financial headlines, whether and why this should be the case. I think it is helpful to take a look at the same phenomenon from another angle to show why this change has to happen and why, in the end, it will be a good thing.