The New Lexus 401k Hybrid …

This is actually a post about finance, so keep reading, even when it seems to be all about cars!

I have a 2009 BMW M3 Convertible. It chews through a tank of gas at least once a week. At Aus prices of $5.30 a gallon, it’s not cheap.

But, it is a heck of a lot of fun

My wife counterbalances: she owns a 2009 Lexus 400 Hybrid. She grudgingly refills about once per month … sometimes I think that she must push the car up hills just to avoid having to refill early.

But, she also thinks playing Gas Roulette is a heck of a lot of fun.

My first car (actually second) in the US was a Mustang GT convertible. It had a monster V8 engine, sounded great with the roof down. Needed a gas station on every corner. Drove like a tank.

It was also a heck of a lot of fun.

But, it was the dumbest car I ever owned …

There was an air-scoop on the hood of the car. The idea of an air-scoop is to suck in extra air to the carburetors on the car to keep the engine happy.

An air-scoop is supposed to be a performance enhancement …

… except, it sticks up out of the hood, so it destroys some of the air-flow, increasing drag, actually decreasing performance and fuel economy.

But, the engineers are made to make the hard design choices: do the increases in performance (extra efficiencies in the carbies) offset the losses (extra drag)?

Naturally, the engineers are experts at what they do so we can trust them to make the right decision. Right?

Well, I would have thought so … until I bought my Mustang. You see, I’m a layman, but even I can tell that:

1. The Mustang has NO carburetors (neither does any modern car), nor does it have any turbo-chargers or anything else that required the injection of air that a hood air-scoop would provide.

2. Now, here’s the killer (just in case we have any engineers out there to dispute my point 1.): the scoop has no air-holes in it.

That’s right, it’s simply an imitation airscoop. A fashion accessory.

As a marketing device, simply designed to make me buy the car, it worked brilliantly!

In other words, it reduces the performance of the vehicle!

Now, don’t get me wrong, the Mustang performed well, and was fun to drive, but didn’t perform better than ‘advertised’. It’s (partially) a marketing con.

My wife’s hybrid is also (partially) a con.

She paid a lot of money to have a hybrid that clearly does save money. But, just like the Mustang, it is designed to perform less than optimally, I believe just to build a marketing story to help sell the product.

The Lexus Hybrid includes a dynamic dash that shows the power flow between the gas engine, the wheels, and the electric motors.

If you don’t understand how a hybrid works check out this video:

In essence, it’s a closed system that uses electric motors (and batteries) to augment the traditional 6 cylinder gasoline engine:

- The gas motor drives the vehicle at all times except when the car’s at rest

- It saves gas simply by ‘switching off’ the engine whenever the vehicle stops.

- The electric motors then restart the engine as the car begins to move (like ‘jump starting’ a car by pushing it downhill … you can even feel a very slight ‘jump’ as the engine kicks in)

- The gas engine then takes over again when the car is moving at a mile or two an hour

- The electric motor’s batteries never need recharging: they are simply charged by an alternator and whenever the car is coasting or braking (it’s called ‘regenerative braking’)

Now, just like the Mustang’s air-scoop, the problem is in the ‘performance enhancement’ of the recharging system. For example, let’s take a closer look at regenerative braking:

Whenever the car is coasting down a hill, it needs to be able to retain as much momentum as possible to help carry it up the next hill, otherwise you have to hit the gas pedal that tiny bit earlier.

The regenerative braking takes a bit of the car’s energy and turns it into electricity, creating additional friction which slows down the car. So you do have to hit the gas pedal that tinier bit earlier.

If you know your physics, introducing this extra step MUST reduce overall efficiency hence increase gas usage.

So, the hybrid works (because when you have to come to a complete stop, such as at a traffic light then you might as well put some energy into the batteries rather than simply heating up the brake pads), but it would work BETTER by turning OFF its regenerative braking ‘performance feature’ when coasting.

But, then that pretty display (image at top of post) wouldn’t be nearly so pretty

What does this have to do with finance?

Well, your 401k is pretty much like my wife’s hybrid!

Sure, it helps to save money. Sure, it’s employer matched. Sure, it’s tax-protected.

But, it could be a lot BETTER simply by turning OFF some of the ‘performance enhancements’ that they’ve added to make the products SEEM more attractive to both employers and employees e.g.:

1. Choices of funds: it has been shown time and time again that long-term buy/hold investors would be better off either selecting their own stocks (if they have the necessary desire and aptitude) or simply putting their money into an ultra-low-cost Index Fund (e.g. S&P500).

All those other high-fee fund choices perform more poorly over the long run. So, why not eliminate them from the fund choices offered? Simple: marketing!

2. Additional services: Fund managers, and the guys that put together benefits plans for employers, offer all sorts of freebies & incentives to the employer to encourage them to buy THEIR funds and services; the problem is, these help the employer – not you. Worst of all, they cost you money. So, why not eliminate them? Simple: marketing!

So, a 401k performs a lot worse than it should, just so the marketing guys can pitch a better story.

Forget the Lexus Hybrid – and, your 401k – they don’t deliver on their promise.

Instead, hop into a BMW M3 – or, direct stocks, real-estate, or business investments – and, supercharge your life.

Unlike my wife’s Lexus Hybrid, or your 401k, their promise – living a little on the edge, but being thrilled with the results – is delivered in spades!

Marketing and performance, for once, are totally aligned

Have you entered the $700 in 7 Days Social Giveaway, yet?

If you haven’t yet entered my $700 In 7 Days” Social Giveaway”, what are you waiting for?

It’s a great chance for me to test some new ideas that I’m working on and a great chance to win a cash prize for you!

You only need to join to be in the running to win the $350 First Prize!

Then, if you also want to multiply your chances of winning a cash prize of at least $50, simply send this link to your friends: http://7million7years.com/contest/ + your User Name

Instructions: Choose a short User Name (eg “Steve12″) for yourself and enter AJC42 as the user name for the person who referred you (unless you already have a user name from a friend who referred you) then send this link http://7million7years.com/contest/ (+ your User Name instead of mine) to all of your friends (via e-mail, Twitter, and FaceBook) and let the fun begin!

Win $700 In 7 Days! Join our second $700 in 7 Days Contest + refer friends for EVEN more chances to win! You win prizes if ANY of your friends win a prize! Your Email * Your First Name * Choose A User Name * Who Referred You? (Type Their User name) *

* Required Field

[See http://7million7years.com/contest/ for full contest details]

AJC is taking a break …

I’ve packed my rod’n'reel and I’m travelin’ for the next couple’a weeks …. be back soon, y’all y’hear?!

Click here for suitable ‘traveling’ sound effects

I’ve committed a blogging faux pas …

It seems that I’ve committed a blogging faux pas … unintentional, but a faux pas nonetheless.

You see, Planting Dollars ‘tagged me’ way back in January and I was supposed to tell you 8 Random Things about Me!

The fact that I only stumbled across the back-link now – not to mention that I have no idea what ‘tagging’ really means, but I’m guessing it’s some sort of ‘chain letter’ in blogging post form - tells you a little about how much I really know about blogging (even though I’ve been doing it for a couple of years, now).

Anyhow, it seems that Planting Dollars and I have some commonality, so here goes:

Planting Dollars has been unlucky enough to break bones on 5 separate occasions. I’ve only done this once, but it was a beauty: broke my tibula (shin bone) and fibula in a compound (multiple breaks i.e. I broke both bones) and complex (because I got to see a sharp end of bone poking through my skin), and have 4 screws in my leg (still there, to this day) and a nice long (36 stitch) scar to remind me of the unpleasant teenage episode.

He can’t get enough of scuba and sharks! In fact Planting Dollars studied abroad in Australia for the sole purpose of having the ability to dive in the Great Barrier Reef and with sharks. On the other hand, I already live in Australia, can barely swim (although, I somehow managed to get some sort of swimming certificate for swimming the length of a pool fully clothed, including shoes … I think I was just progressively drowning, and randomly ended up at the other end), and much prefer card sharks to white pointers. 

Planting Dollars is a myers-brigg ENTP personality type.  Apparently that means he’s ”most attracted to the idea of being a renaissance man or jack of all trades.  New experiences and ideas are what motivate me, I cannot stand routine.” As much as I hate ‘pop psychology’, I must also be an ENTP-type as this describes me to a tee … I detest routine, but love ”new experiences and ideas”. 

His highest bench press thus far is 350lbs. Mine? About 35 lbs … haven’t you seen my videos?! But, I used to be pretty athletic: an excellent runner, and an avid lacrosse player (I had no idea that those uniforms denoted FULL CONTACT until it was too late!).

Planting Dollars plays the piano and drums and will eventually learn the cello. I love music but have almost zero talent; I try to sing (a lot), but even my kids don’t let me! But my musical tastes are eclectic, to say the least: I have everything from (the real) AC/DC to Pavarotti, Il Divo, Eminem, and The Fugs on my iPod. Oh yes, I also have Kelly Clarkson, and I’m proud of it

As a kid, Planting Dollars drove his mom crazy wanting to have a lizard as a pet. Now, I’m not sure what this says about me psychologically (but, I can assure you that I have no homicidal tendencies), as a child my sister and I used to hunt for little lizards (calls skinks) when on vacation in the Australian countryside. We would invariably come back with a few in a box (of course, some would always escape and run around the house, which my mom just loved …. not!). I won’t tell you how I fed them … 

Most of his role models are dropouts. I have no role models. I think everyone is equally flawed (no doubt, Ghandi picked his nose; Warren Buffett gossips; and, the Queen swears in private), so we should all be our own man / woman / or both. Still, it doesn’t hurt to learn from others, but I strictly look for ’how to’ lessons: so, if I go to a Warren Buffett AGM I’m looking for a tidbit of information, not how to duplicate his style. 

Planting Dollars absolutely loves Blue Moon Ice Cream. I’m lactose – and, people (mainly family) - intolerant.

‘Nuff said

10 Paths To Wealth?

Ken Fisher is a well-known money manager – I know, because I’ve had to endure phone call after phone call when I stupidly signed up for one of his ‘free’ reports!

However, watching this video (and, maybe even buying his book) seems like a fairly non-threatening way to learn some of his wisdom.

Personally, I think you need to mix’n'match some of these methods to have a bats-chance-in-hades of making your Large Number / Soon Date.

On the other hand, I’m all for marrying into wealth, but who’d have me?

The broke actuary …

All this talk of ‘safe withdrawal rates’ begs the question: can you build a perpetual money machine from stocks and bonds?

I’m going to go out on a limb, here, and say NO.

To help us find out why, let’s try and answer Rick’s question:

I agree if you can live on what your investments produce over inflation you’ll never run out of money.

Does it still make sense to plan using the rule of 20 when you don’t think you will be able to reliably pull out 5%?

It seems to me use a more conservative rule say 25 or 30.

Also, you could still use stocks- you would need some other income sources too- bonds or cash to draw upon in down years.

Rick raises a three part question:

1. Why base the Rule of 20 on a 5% withdrawal rate, when that doesn’t appear to be safe?

Well, given that I don’t think ANY withdrawal rate is safe, for me at least, the Rule of 20 should only be used as a PLANNING figure i.e. to help you convert  your required annual income into your Number.

As a planning figure, I think the Rule of 20 underestimates your Number; the chances are that you will overachieve it rather than underachieve it.

Given that it’s extremely unlikely that you will exactly achieve your Number, you will either undershoot or overshoot it … if you wait until your Number is a virtual gimme before selling your [Insert Number Reaching System Of Choice: business, real-estate, stocks, horses, etc., etc.] you will probably find that it takes time to decide what/how/when to sell and in that time, your assets have appreciated even more.

If you don’t think that’s the case for you, use a higher multiplier … I just don’t think it’s necessary to stress over it :)

2. Why can’t you use stocks to create your ‘perpetual money machine’?

It is a rare stock that provides the kind of income that we need without compromising the underlying business, but they certainly do exist: you would need to find a business (that you can buy stock in) that generates at least a 4% dividend, yet still grows the stock price at least according to inflation … consistently, over 30 to 50 years after you stop work!

However, using “bonds or cash to draw upon in down years” is a losing proposition (it’s not income … you are spending your capital!); I think that a two year emergency fund is a great idea … but, is there a reasonable chance of a stock downswing that will deplete that fund?

If so, I would not like this stock+bonds+cash retirement strategy one little bit … which brings me to the final – and, key – question:

3. Can’t we use a more conservative rule say 25 or 30?

Here’s the crux; the Trinity Study (for example) says that we have a small chance of running out of money, even if we choose a “safe” 4% withdrawal rate …

… the longer we expect to live – hence have our money last – the larger the failure rate (which can be as low as 2%).

Here’s my question to you: if you are facing even a 2% failure rate, what are the chances that your money will last as long as you do?

98%?

Well, you would think so, but I once asked a doctor friend a similar question when – in a moment of rare weakness (thankfully now passed) – I actually thought about getting a vasectomy.

I told him that I heard that the operation was quite reversible. I asked him what the reversal success rate was. 

 ”In your case” he said ” exactly 50/50 …

… either it will work, or it won’t!” 

So, Rick, find an actuary to help you choose any multiplier that you like and the chance is still 50/50 for you: either your Number will be enough to last as long as you do, or it won’t

Xmas in Australia …

Being able to call two countries ‘home’ is a luxury that few can afford, and it opens up some interesting points – and counterpoints – of view.

For example, I came back to Australia with a new appreciation for the infrastructure that such a sparsely populated country has. To put it into perspective, my two homes of Australia and Illinois share around the same population (circa 20 million), yet Australia:

- has the land mass of the entire contiguous states of the USA (i.e. the 48 U.S. states located on the North American continent south of the U.S. border with Canada),

- has 4 or 5 major national banks (IL has no equivalently sized banks of its own),

- 2 national (and international) airlines (IL has none that I am aware of),

- A national system of roads, a number of ports, 3 layers of government, etc., etc.

Other points of difference are more subtle, yet even more interesting (at least, to me); one of my favorite being that Xmas and New Year in Australia is summertime!

This means that Australia partially shuts down from about the last week in December until the end of the first week or two in January; for example, attorneys and accountants will shut their offices entirely for 2 to 4 weeks and most factories will shut off production entirely for at least 2 weeks.

And, bloggers will put down their ‘pens’

What do Aussies do in that time?

We vacation!

For example, I am writing this post from my rented vacation apartment in a very warm part of Australia while my daughter finishes her first ever surfing lesson …

Aussies have no trouble vacationing, in fact every Aussie worker from the humblest production line worker to the highest paid corporate executive receives a minimum of 4 weeks paid vacation each year (plus 5 to 8 days paid ‘sick leave’, and 9 or so paid public holdays, all for a normal 36 to 40 hour work week).

Oh, and until recently, employers had to pay an additional 17% bonus on their employees’ normal salary while they were on vacation!

I remember laughing when I first arrived in the USA, where vacations are usually accrued at only 2 weeks per year, at seeing advertisements urging Americans to take their vacations … it seems that we have the opposite problem in Australia, we have to encourage our employees back to work!

Tomorrow, I’ll try and bring this preamble back to some sort of personal finance angle

What’s wrong with this ad?

Aside from the obvious [AJC: Believing that you can turn $1k into nearly $6k in just 2 weeks is obviously stupid, right?] …

… there’s a basic reason why you are doomed to failure with FOREX (i.e. foreign exchange) trading activities. First, though, let me explain what FOREX is for those who don’t yet know:

The foreign exchange market (currency, forex, or FX) trades currencies. It lets banks and other institutions easily buy and sell currencies. The purpose of the foreign exchange market is to help international trade and investment. A foreign exchange market helps businesses convert one currency to another. For example, it permits a U.S. business to import European goods and pay Euros, even though the business’s income is in U.S. dollars.

In a typical foreign exchange transaction a party purchases a quantity of one currency by paying a quantity of another currency. The foreign exchange market is unique because of … the extreme liquidity of the market [and] the variety of factors that affect exchange rates. As such, it has been referred to as the market closest to the ideal [i.e.] perfect competition.

My dire ‘doomed to failure’ prediction comes about because of that last sentence: FOREX “has been referred to as the market closest to the ideal [i.e.] perfect competition”.

Think about it: for every dollar, drachma, or rupee that you buy … somebody has to be on the other side selling. And, since you are ‘betting’ on the relative strength of one currency versus another, you are effectively betting opposing arguments.

You have the same points spread on the ball game, but you are betting on opposing teams … one winner, one loser.

Now, who do you suppose has better information? You, or the other guy?

Who do you suppose has better FOREX training and more experience? You or the other guy?

You are the amateur, the other guy is (probably) the professional who does this for a living …

Now, you can argue that people are trading currency because they are moving country, so the ‘relative strength’ argument doesn’t apply … or, that they are government agencies moving in and out of foreign positions for stability and political reasons … or, that they are corporates moving funds between various international subsidiaries …

Which all be true and yet another reason why you are gambling and they are expertly managing their portfolios.

The same double-sided coin argument applies to options trading … indeed, most other forms of trading: you bet one way and the person on the other end of the transaction has bet the other way. And, they probably know what they are doing …

… best case is that they are equally naive as you

One winner, one loser.

So, that means that 50% of the traders out there must be winning and the other 50% losing?

Well, the stats – somewhat surprisingly – tell a different story; cast your mind back a few weeks, where taloudellinenriippumattomuus  mentioned a Taiwanese study that found that (after costs) only 0.16% (or 1.6 per thousand) of traders [AJC: in this specific case, Day Traders, but I doubt whether FOREX or stock option traders fare much better] actually made a profit!

I’m sure that plenty of our readers have made – and lost – relative fortunes trading; if so, I’d love to read your comments …

The Be Happy poll …

 Loading ...

If you ask most people what they want out of life, it’s “to be happy” … go ahead, try and ask a few people!

But, Julia Baird, the deputy editor of Newsweek has an interesting viewpoint:

The most inspiring people are those least obsessed with their own happiness, especially those who stride confidently across the globe to create, evoke change, or wrest from life what they will. Eleanor Roosevelt believed happiness “is not a goal, it’s a byproduct.” I think she might be right.

Your Life’s Purpose then is the Goal that Julia refers to – and, money (i.e. Your Number) may be the tool to get you there – with happiness the outcome … at least, that’s how I see it.

And, it may serve to explain why Money and Happiness seem to be intrinsically linked, as Julia goes on to say:

The most recent findings, for example, are that wealth makes you happy

I have a personal viewpoint on this (from experience of both sides of the wealth equation), but I would be interested to hear what you have to say?

It’s just not cricket …

Today’s Video On Sunday has absolutely NOTHING to do with money, other than that it may help you win a few bets at the pub

And, my American readers [I hope!] will appreciate learning a little about cricket …

… which is best explained, IMHO, by comparing it to that great American institution: baseball. In fact, cricket is just like baseball, except:

- There are only two ‘bases’: imagine home base being where the batsman (a cricket term for the guy hitting the ball with the bat) stands, and that ‘first base’ is shifted to sit on top of the pitcher’s mound – except that there is no mound, so the pitcher (in cricket terms: the bowler) has no height advantage.

- There are 11 players a side, but two batsmen are on the ground at the same time; one stands at ‘home base’ to hit the ball and the other stands at ‘first base’ near the where the bowler (aka pitcher) will be.

- There are only two innings per side, but each innings is over when ALL of the batsmen from each side is ‘out’ (actually, 10 from each side, because you need 2 on the ground at the same time).

If you can imagine those differences, let me walk you through the video which covers the 3 main aspects of the game:

Bowling

- The bowler cannot whip the ball (which is VERY hard, much like a baseball … perhaps a little harder) with his elbow, as he MUST bowl with a ‘straight arm action’. A little curious I know, but he gets speed by running as far/fast as he likes, until he reaches a line just behind ‘first base’ than releases the ball; the combination of the run and the fast (albeit strange-looking) straight-arm overhead throw produces the speed.

- The ball can be thrown directly at the batsman (within reason … you aren’t allowed to deliberately try and hit him!), but is usually bounced off the ground making it much more erratic and harder to hit.

- In fact, the red (or yellow) ball has a very pronounced seam effectively dividing the ball into two hemispheres, therefore a slower ‘spin bowler’ can be equally effective as a ‘fast bowler’ by deliberately imparting spin and/or aiming the ball at a spot on the ground that is rough or has cracks from the heat to make the ball ‘jump’ or ‘spin’ one way or another.

- The IDEAL outcome for the bowler is to get the batsman out, not by ‘striking him out’ but by using the cricket equivalent of hitting those three little sticks sitting right behind the batsman. Very quaint. It gets better! If you look carefully, balanced in little grooves on top of the stumps (i.e. those three little sticks) are two even smaller pieces of wood called ‘bails’, and the batsman is OUT if the bowler can hit the stumps with the ball AND the little sticks fall off. Cute

Watch the video until 1:30 and you’ll get the idea …

Fielding

- Of course, the other team is all on the field, carefully positioned to ensure this doesn’t happen. For example, if the batsman happens to hit the ball then they can get him out – just like in baseball – by catching the ball before it hits the ground.

- Because both bases – hence most of the action – happens right in the middle of the pitch (which is usually a large oval playing field), the batsman can hit the ball in ANY DIRECTION (there is NO ‘foul ball’ rule in the game of cricket), so it is just as critical in cricket to carefully place the fielders – but, in this case, all around the entire ground -  depending on the characteristics of the specific batsman (is he a left-hander? is he likely to accidentally ‘snick’ the ball or is he going to whack it a long way?)

- Remember that really hard ball? Well, the cricket fielders prefer to catch them without wearing gloves. Just watch the video until 3:00 minutes in, and you’ll see what I mean [AJC: if you really want to see a tough sport, if I get enough interest, I'll tell you about Australian Rules Football in a future post!]

Batting

- Of course, the batsman are in there trying to make runs, just like in baseball; and, they do it by running from ‘home base’ to ‘first base’ and back again as many times as they can, before they are at risk of getting out.

- But, in cricket, a batsman can ONLY get out four ways:

1. By being ‘bowled out’ i.e. the ball hits the stumps and those little bails (remember them?) fall off,

2. Or by being bowled out on a technicality (much like a ‘technical knock out’ in boxing) where the umpire (aka referee) rules that the ball WOULD have hit the stumps EXCEPT that the batsman stuck his leg in the way (instead of his bat) to avoid that from happening. This is called ‘Leg Before Wicket’ … imaginative, huh?

3. By being caught out (just like in baseball), either by the fielders around the ground, or by the wicket-keeper, who is the cricket equivalent of baseball’s short-stop except he wears NO body of face protection. But, the wicket keeper does usually wear TWO over-sized gardening gloves (that don’t look anything like baseball mitts).

4. By being ‘run out’ which is where the batsman hits the ball and madly dashes for the ‘base’ (actually called a ‘wicket’) which is merely a line drawn on the ground a couple of feet in front of the stumps:

- If any part of his body or his bat (because, in cricket, the batsman always seem to carry their bat when they’re running) touches the ground between the line and the stumps BEFORE the opposing team can get the ball to knock those little bails [there they are again!] off the stumps, the he is IN (aka SAFE!)

- If the opposing team can throw (or touch) the ball to the stumps and get the bails off before the batsman reaches that ‘line drawn in the sand’ (literally!) then he is ‘run out’ i.e. OUT in any sport’s language! Oh, and touching the ball to the batsman or catching the ball and standing on the line means nothing in cricket, sorry

All of this means that the batsman can score in a few different ways:

- They can hit the ball (or bunt it, or miss it entirely if they like) and attempt to run between the wickets as many times as they like (i.e. until they feel that they would be at risk of the opposing team getting the ball to hit the stumps before they are ‘safe’).

- Batsmen can usually run back and forth between the wickets 1, 2, or 3 times … only very rarely will they get 4 runs in (usually because somebody has tried to throw the ball at the stumps, missed it, and the ball has started to run on towards the other side of the ground … ooops!).

- The bowler can throw the ball so badly (or make any number of ‘technical errors’) that the batsman has no real chance to hit it, so the team is automatically awarded one extra run (conveniently called an ‘extra’)

- But the best is if the batsman can hit the ball so hard that it bounces or rolls until it hits – or crosses over – a rope encircling the ground just inside the fence (hence, it’s name: ‘the boundary line’), as he is awarded 4 runs (nice!) … but, if he can hit the ball all the way over the boundary line without it touching the ground (or anybody else) first – the cricket equivalent of a ‘homer’ – he gets 6 runs (better!).

- Best of all, each batter stays in and keeps hitting the ball until he goes out (in one of the four ways mentioned above); so it is typical for even a bad batsman to score a few runs (eg 15+) – and, not uncommon for a GREAT batsman to score up to 50, 100, or (extremely rarely 200+) runs in each of the two innings!

- Remember, the team innings isn’t over until all 10 batsmen from the team go out, and the game isn’t over until both teams go out twice … two innings … no wonder a game routinely lasts 4 or 5 days with each teams scoring 150 to 450+ runs!

Oh, and because a 5 day ‘test match’ (as they are called) is way too exciting for the Average Joe (or, more likely, Bruce in Australia and Nigel in England), two new versions of the game are being played at the moment:

- The One Day Games, which have been reduced to a mere 8 hours of excitement, simply by having only one innings per side, which finishes when the 10 batsmen are out OR 50 overs (6 balls – or ‘pitches’ – constitute an ‘over’) which usually comes first, and

- The 20 Over Game (i.e. each side is limited to seeing how many runs they can score in only 20 x 6 balls/pitches), which is proving to be way too short and exciting at a mere 4 or 5 hours, so is in danger of being consigned to the ‘cricket trash can’.

Well, it’s nearly summer here in Australia, so if you don’t see a post for 4 or 5 days you know where to find me …. yawn …