Friday, November 18, 2016

How the Very Best Strategists Decide - HBR Special

This Article really hit me, I had to share it. Sorry, could not connect you with the source.

When it comes to setting strategy, which is more effective: one great thinker or a wise crowd?

To find out, I turned to my ongoing Top Pricer Tournament, in which 884 people — managers, consultants, professors, students — make pricing strategy decisions for a generic business competing against other generic businesses. The decision options available to each person work out to 14,739 possible strategies in each of three generic industries.

About half of the 884 strategies entered in each industry were chosen by two or more people; some were picked by two dozen. We’ll call these the popular strategies. The other half were chosen by only one per­son. They are the loner strategies.
If the wisdom of crowds applies to strategic thinking, popular strategies should out­perform the loners. If it doesn’t, the loners should outperform the crowd.

I ran a billion simulations and saw that the crowds’ strategies worked pretty well. In general, the more people who chose a strategy, the better the strategy performed. (The largest crowds, though, rated about average.) The simulations also showed that loner strategies usually performed below the crowds’ popular strategies.

But the strategies that performed the very best were also loners.

If you want to outperform the crowd, you’ve got to do something the crowd isn’t doing. That means learning two key skills:

To do something the crowd isn’t doing, you must think something the crowd isn’t thinking. You can generate ideas by broadening your decision frame.
No one proposes a strategy thinking it will fail, so you must be able to tell the difference between good and bad loner strategies. You can evaluate those ideas by embracing critical thinking.

Broadening the Frame
I conducted a business war game for a company in the food industry. We had teams for their business, competitors, customers, and government regulators. I asked each team to list key changes they might make over the next few years, and then I calculated the number of possible scenarios. In 15 minutes they’d identified 3.9 million scenarios. That quashed the idea that they could plan for a definitive fu­ture.

We narrow our decision-making frame when we believe we know what the future will look like. We implicitly assert that everything is locked in except for what we will do, and so we ask this simple, efficient question: “What should we do?”

Should asks people to spot and advocate the one right decision. It treats decision making as a debate. It drives toward closure. We need should, but not when we first address a decision.
We broaden our decision-making frame when we consider multiple futures, with shifts and disruptions in our environment interacting with shifts and disruptions we can introduce. We ask this illuminating question: “What could we do?”

  • Could lets one idea stimulate another. It asks what if, what else, and why not. It’s energizing and educational. For example:
  • Imagine it’s the future and you’re saying “I wish we’d thought about X.” What is X?
  • Ask what would be the equivalent in your industry of something that’s working well in another
  • Ask what you’d do if you were entrepreneurs preparing to enter your market de novo
  • Ask what you’re afraid your competitors might do
  • Notice your favorite metaphor for business: chess, war, making deals, doing good, enriching share­holders, satisfying customers. Switch to another.
  • Apply humor — it opens up the brain. In my workshops I ask people to create as many ideas as they can to prevent a bathtub from overflowing. My favorite: Call the water company and tell them you won’t pay your bill.

Embracing Critical Thinking

A petrochemicals company planned to disrupt a century-old distribution channel. Their plan passed every internal review. My colleagues and I ran some simulations as their final check.
They quickly discovered competitors would have no choice but to emulate the disruption. 

Their loner strategy would attract a crowd. That, we calculated, meant the disruption would cause cash to gush out, not in, relative to the status quo. They abandoned the plan.
How did the plan get so far? The company didn’t have a death wish, and its strategists weren’t deficient. The problem was that their strategy development and internal reviews, like those in many companies, didn’t account for competitive dynamics.
Strategy development and internal reviews often focus on precedents, trends, and due diligence. They implicitly address “what will happen.” Unfortunately, what will happen is susceptible to cognitive and analytic biases.

Just as we broadened should with could, we can challenge “what willhappen” with “what may happen.” How?

  • Role-play other parties. “If I were a key competitor or typical customer or government regulator…”
  • Have people take turns as designated contrarians
  • Listen for assumptions in the way a strategy is supposed to work, and ques­tion them as Murphy’s Law incarnate. What could go wrong? How badly will it hurt?
  • Learn about and watch out for confirmation biasoverconfidencesurvivor bias, and groupthink

Forecast your competitors’ results as well as your own. What will they do if those forecasts come true?
Beware of missing pieces in the tools you use. Financial analysis isn’t designed for nonfinancial factors such as competitive dynamics and customer loyalty. Extrapolating trend lines into the future assumes the future will look like the past.

It’s not bad, wrong, or lazy to pick a popular, crowd-approved strategy. Those strategies are good, safe bets, and there’s a reason most loner strategies are so lonely. On the other hand, you can build your skill at developing good loner strategies if you can improve your ability to think strategically. With skills, processes, and tools to generate and evaluate ideas, you can spot risks worth taking.

Mark Chussil is the Founder and CEO of Advanced Competitive Strategies, Inc. He has conducted business war games, taught strategic thinking, and written strategy simulators for Fortune 500 companies around the world.

 compilation:  Saverio Manzo

Monday, November 7, 2016

Inflation Around the Corner? Know Your Implications.

As much as I try to, I can't seem to get away from the economist (wannabee) in me.

I picked up on the most recent release of US wage rate increases, current to Sept, 2016. See chart below.
You will notice a nice uptick thru 2016. Yes, great news for us all - this means raises on on their way.

However, the other side of the equation presents higher inflation (price increases), because when wages rise - the number #1 cost/expense to most Canadian businesses - comanies offest higher wages with increases prices on all goods and servioces.

The next stage in this process is usually higher interest rates.

So if this wage increase trend continues into Canada for the next little while, well in to 2017, expect to see higher mortgage rates coming at your local bank.

(Sorry for the eco over simplification!)

Saverio Manzo

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Your Company's Business Ethics: are you doing what’s right?

Having recently been challenged by a business situation where I believe the competing party was playing “outside of the rules”, I thought to reassess my own prospective on ethics and morality, as it applies to my business.

What we learned from Business School:  Ethics Refresher

Capitalism is believed to reward ethical behavior. Unethical corporate behavior often drives away customers.

Ethics are generally defined as “Rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.”

Ethics are rooted in a standard of what is right and wrong, based on what society thinks people ought to do. They consider our obligation to society, what benefits society rather than the individual, and being fair to others.

Business Ethics are further defined, subjectively as:

Employer-employee relations—how you relate to your employer or employees, with fair and honest communication being the goal.

Investor relations—the relationship with those who give financial support to your business.

Customer relations—how you take care of and relate to your customers.

Vendor relations—pertaining to suppliers.

Regulatory Authorities exist to protect the public. In our case, we are a member of OCP (Ontario College of Pharmacists) and as such, much of our ethics pertains to how we treat our patients.

What’s your ethical climate?

A positive climate leads to happier, more productive employees; harassment, aggression, and discrimination generally result in a hostile work environment. There are five types of ethical climates in workplaces:

Instrumental—actions by management are taken out of self-interest, with decisions made entirely to benefit the company or managers, with little or no consideration given to employees, customers or other stakeholders. This includes outright lying for personal or corporate gain, and actions to sabotage competition. It’s considered the highest level of immoral and unethical behavior.

Caring—the company is very concerned about employee well-being and fairness, with extensive support for employees and excellent leadership. The downside of the caring environment is that there can be a tendency to overlook rules to help friends.

Law and order—there are precise codes of conduct for employees and management, and laws are adhered to strictly. Employees follow rules out of fear of repercussion. This inflexible environment tends to ignore employee issues.

Rules—the organization has internal professional codes of ethics or policies. This system can stifle creativity, with employees afraid to bend rules even slightly.
Promoting Independence—employees have a great deal of latitude, allowing them to think “outside the box” to solve problems. Employees may drift toward unethical behavior if they feel there are no ramifications.

Most organizations are a blend of two or more environments. Punishment is threatened for any excursion from written policies, sometimes regardless of the reason.

Open communication between regulatory bodies, management and employees is essential to prevent ethical problems. Employers must ensure that self-interest is not the main thrust of corporate decisions. Ideally, employers have created a self-audit system to quickly detect and fix any issues, preventing the poisoning of the work environment with damaging unethical behavior.

To prevent ethical problems in the workplace, it’s important to have clear guidelines and education regarding the ethical rules that must be followed. Managers should consider themselves important role models on ethical issues, as leadership sets the stage for what is acceptable for employee behavior.

“Herd mentality”  refers to individuals taking behavioral cues from others in the workplace. An entire organization can easily take on the culture of the people within it, particularly that of the leadership.

Different ethical points of view, referred to as “ethical theories” can influence what an individual considers ethical versus unethical in the business world:

Deontology—following the rules, no matter what.
Consequentialism—believing that the end justifies the means.
Ethical relativism—right and wrong depend on norms in one’s culture.
Moral absolutism—believing that the same standards should be applied in all situations, regardless of culture or other factors.
Virtue ethics—the individual’s character, not actions, determines morality and should be considered when making judgments.
Care ethics—people are relational beings and require care in relationships. Consider not only rules, but people’s feelings.

One can readily see that it is difficult and perhaps unfair to rely on one moral code for all. Basic morality, formed through life experiences, is not the same for everyone. Laws and regulations give better standards that can be more consistently followed, with ethics being, not a replacement for laws, but guiding principles for our lives and professional practice.

Ethical behavior in business means acting in ways that are consistent with how the business world views moral principles and values.

It’s believed that ethical problems are caused by four main factors:

Lack of integrity—not showing fairness; using intimidation, harassment or lies. Customers, co-workers and employers must be treated with the highest level of respect and honesty.
Organizational relationship problems—a clear mission, goals and objectives are needed, and individuals must keep these above personal goals.

Misleading advertising—misrepresenting a product or service in order to secure benefit personally or for the company.

Conflicts of interest—when anyone takes advantage of a business situation for personal benefit. This includes accepting bribes and gifts in exchange for influence or favours, or taking any action whose purpose or end result is personal benefit at the expense of the company or another person.

To avoid ethical problems in business, experts recommend employers create a code of behavior, establish expectations and reasonable goals, and set up a system of rewards and punishments for ethical and unethical behavior. Setting clear and attainable goals for employees will prevent them from feeling pressured to conduct unethical activities to achieve quotas.

Employees, owners and managers all benefit from having a clear understanding of the types of actions that might be considered unethical in the business world.

Reviewing ethical expectations as part of employee performance reviews will help to educate individuals in the behavior that is acceptable in the workplace before it creates a problem, and would give employees the opportunity to discuss any ethical concerns they have with management and co-workers as well. It’s a conversation that all sides would benefit from.

This post has been adopted from Jeannie Collins Beaudin
Citation:,   Jeannie Collins Beaudin

Monday, January 13, 2014

Guru Stock Market Predictions for 2014

Its that time of year again!

It’s that time of year again where we put together our fifth annual guru investment manager’s collective predictions and provide you with the consensus outlook for 2014. The New Year brings upon us the heavily skewed brush of optimism nearly across the board.
Our consensus view is the aggregate predictions and Outlook as documented by many world renowned market strategists and investment managers. For 2014, there were a total of 32 different predictions used to compile this consensus view. It is the broadest range of views that we have used yet.

Read/Download here




Friday, May 25, 2012

What is The Ultimate Financial Guide?

This piece has some serious merit. The references are very accurate. Something seriously worth considering for a holistic, balanced life. SM.

Grandich is co-founder, with former New York Giants player Lee Rouson, of Trinity Financial Sports & Entertainment Management Co., a firm that specializes in offering guidance from a Christian perspective to professional athletes and celebrities.

He says the answers to all sorts of money issues can be found in the good book.
“I get my financial guidance from the Bible,” said Grandich, author of Confessions of a Wall Street Whiz Kid, in a prepared statement.  “Money and possessions are the second most referenced topic in the Bible – money is mentioned more than 800 times – and the message is clear: Nowhere in Scripture is debt viewed in a positive way.”

Grandich, who says his years as a highly successful Wall Street stockbroker left him spiritually depleted and clinically depressed, says the Bible is an excellent financial adviser, whether or not you’re religious.

“The writers of the Bible anticipated the problems we would have with money and possessions; there are more than 2,000 references,” he says. “Our whole culture now is built on the premise that we have to have more money and more stuff to feel happy and secure. Public storage is the poster child for what’s wrong with America. We have too much stuff because we’ve bought into the myth fabricated by Wall Street and Madison Avenue that more stuff equals more happiness.”  He adds, “That’s the total opposite of the truth, and the opposite of what it says in The Bible.”

What’s Grandich’s No. 1 most important biblical rule of finance? “God owns everything. You may have bought that house, but He gave you the money to buy it, so it’s His.”
He shares other pearls of wisdom found in Scripture.

Do put money aside for investing: One of the most revealing parables is Jesus’ story about a wealthy master who left three servants in charge of his financial affairs when he went away on a long journey,” Grandich says. When he returned, two of the servants had multiplied the coins for which they were responsible. The third buried his to keep it safe.  That last servant ended up out on his ear. The story is a lesson: We must invest our money –  and invest wisely.

Debt’s not prohibited, but it  should be avoided: The Bible clearly warns that the borrower will be a servant to the lender, but it      also instructs us to lend money. That suggests that there are times when it’s OK to borrow, but it should not become a way of life. The Bible also instructs us to repay what we’ve borrowed.

The more you make, the more you should give. This is a hard one for people caught up in buying bigger and better things, but there are numerous references to charitable giving. The Bible says that it’s quite all right to buy the bigger house – but the more you make and spend on yourself, the more you need to give to others. That doesn’t include tithing, another very clear demand: God expects you to give 10 percent of your wealth to your place of worship.

Don’t focus on acquiring possessions. There are many,  many warnings that accumulating stuff is dangerous. Material things are fleeting and they’ll do you no good in the long run. What you put your  effort into, that’s where your heart will be, Grandich says.
Maybe it’s time to go back to Sunday school.

Posted By: Saverio Manzo


Ontario Car & Auto Insurance

At MIB, get the best rate on Car insurance in Ontario. Get multiple car insurance quotes from multiple carriers - all looking to win your business. Get an instant online quote now and see how much you can save!

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Happiness Is The Ultimate Economic Indicator

One factor that is increasingly being cited as an important economic indicator is happiness. After all, what good is increased production and consumption if the result isn’t increased human satisfaction? Until fairly recently, the subject of happiness was mostly avoided by economists for lack of good ways to measure it; however, in recent years, “happiness economists” have found ways to combine subjective surveys with objective data (on lifespan, income, and education) to yield data with consistent patterns, making a national happiness index a practical reality.

In The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being, former Harvard University president Derek Bok traces the history of the relationship between economic growth and happiness in America. During the past 35 years, per capita income has grown almost 60 percent, the average new home has become 50 percent larger, the number of cars has ballooned by 120 million, and the proportion of families owning personal computers has gone from zero to 80 percent. But the percentage of Americans describing themselves as either “very happy” or “pretty happy” has remained virtually constant, having peaked in the 1950s. The economic treadmill is continually speeding up due to growth and we have to push ourselves ever harder to keep up, yet we’re no happier as a result.

The percentage of Americans describing themselves as either 'very happy’ or 'pretty happy’ has remained virtually constant, having peaked in the 1950s.

Ironically, perhaps, this realization dawned first not in America, but in the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan. In 1972, shortly after ascending to the throne at the age of 16, Bhutan’s King Jigme Singye Wangchuck used the phrase “Gross National Happiness” to signal his commitment to building an economy that would serve his country’s Buddhist-influenced culture. Though this was a somewhat offhand remark, it was taken seriously and continues to reverberate. Soon the Centre for Bhutan Studies, under the leadership of Karma Ura, set out to develop a survey instrument to measure the Bhutanese people’s general sense of well-being.

Ura collaborated with Canadian health epidemiologist Michael Pennock to develop Gross National Happiness (GNH) measures across nine domains: time use, living standards, good governance, psychological well-being, community vitality, culture, health, education, ecology.

Bhutan’s efforts to boost GNH have led to the banning of plastic bags and re-introduction of meditation into schools, as well as a “go-slow” approach toward the standard development path of big loans and costly infrastructure projects.

The country’s path-breaking effort to make growth humanly meaningful has drawn considerable attention elsewhere: Harvard Medical School has released a series of happiness studies, while British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced the UK’s intention to begin tracking well-being along with GDP. Sustainable Seattle is launching a Happiness Initiative and intends to conduct a city-wide well-being survey. And Thailand, following the military coup of 2006, instituted a happiness index and now releases monthly GNH data.
Michael Pennock now uses what he calls a “de-Bhutanized” version of GNH in his work in Victoria, British Columbia. Meanwhile, Ura and Pennock have collaborated further to develop policy assessment tools to forecast the potential implications of projects or programs for national happiness.

As GDP growth becomes an unachievable goal, it is especially important that societies re-examine their aims and measures.

Britain’s New Economics Foundation publishes a “Happy Planet Index,” which “shows that it is possible for a nation to have high well-being with a low ecological footprint.” And a new documentary film called “The Economics of Happiness” argues that GNH is best served by localizing economics, politics, and culture.
No doubt, whatever index is generally settled upon to replace GDP, it will be more complicated. But simplicity isn’t always an advantage, and the additional effort required to track factors like collective psychological well-being, quality of governance, and environmental integrity would be well spent even if it succeeded only in shining a spotlight of public awareness and concern in these areas. But at this moment in history, as GDP growth becomes an unachievable goal, it is especially important that societies re-examine their aims and measures. If we aim for what is no longer possible, we will achieve only delusion and frustration. But if we aim for genuinely worthwhile goals that can be attained, then even if we have less energy at our command and fewer material goods available, we might nevertheless still increase our satisfaction in life.

Policy makers take note: Governments that choose to measure happiness and that aim to increase it in ways that don’t involve increased consumption can still show success, while those that stick to GDP growth as their primary measure of national well-being will be forced to find increasingly inventive ways to explain their failure to very unhappy voters.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral.

Such a great piece from Barry I had to share....

I have a fairly simple approach to investing: Start with data and objective evidence to determine the dominant elements driving the market action right now. Figure out what objective reality is beneath all of the noise. Use that information to try to make intelligent investing decisions.
But then, I’m an investor focused on preserving capital and managing risk. I’m not out to win the next election or drive the debate. For those who are, facts and data matter much less than a narrative that supports their interests.
One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.
Rather than admit the error of their ways — Repent! — these people are engaged in an active campaign to rewrite history. They are not, of course, exonerated in doing so. And beyond that, they damage the process of repairing what was broken. They muddy the waters when it comes to holding guilty parties responsible. They prevent measures from being put into place to prevent another crisis.
Here is the surprising takeaway: They are winning. Thanks to the endless repetition of the Big Lie.
A Big Lie is so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. There are many examples: Claims that Earth is not warming, or that evolution is not the best thesis we have for how humans developed. Those opposed to stimulus spending have gone so far as to claim that the infrastructure of the United States is just fine, Grade A (not D, as the we discussed last month), and needs little repair.
Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.
Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.
The Big Lie made a surprise appearance Tuesday when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, responding to a question about Occupy Wall Street, stunned observers by exonerating Wall Street: “It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”
What made his comments so stunning is that he built Bloomberg Data Services on the notion that data are what matter most to investors. The terminals are found on nearly 400,000 trading desks around the world, at a cost of $1,500 a month. (Do the math — that’s over half a billion dollars a month.) Perhaps the fact that Wall Street was the source of his vast wealth biased him. But the key principle of the business that made the mayor a billionaire is that fund managers, economists, researchers and traders should ignore the squishy narrative and, instead, focus on facts. Yet he ignored his own principles to repeat statements he should have known were false.
Why are people trying to rewrite the history of the crisis? Some are simply trying to save face. Interest groups who advocate for deregulation of the finance sector would prefer that deregulation not receive any blame for the crisis.
Some stand to profit from the status quo: Banks present a systemic risk to the economy, and reducing that risk by lowering their leverage and increasing capital requirements also lowers profitability. Others are hired guns, doing the bidding of bosses on Wall Street.
They all suffer cognitive dissonance — the intellectual crisis that occurs when a failed belief system or philosophy is confronted with proof of its implausibility.
And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:
●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).
●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.
●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.
4 Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.
5 The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.
6Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks.
7 The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations. The Fed could have supervised them, but Greenspan did not.
8 These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to get creative with underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.
9 “Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.
●To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks developed automated underwriting systems. The software was gamed by employees paid on loan volume, not quality.
●Glass-Steagall legislation, which kept Wall Street and Main Street banks walled off from each other, was repealed in 1998. This allowed FDIC-insured banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the government, to engage in highly risky business. It also allowed the banks to bulk up, becoming bigger, more complex and unwieldy.
●Many states had anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.
Bloomberg was partially correct: Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.
The previous Big Lie — the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision — is the reason people have created a new false narrative.
Now it’s time for the Big Truth.

Related content:
More from Post Business
Pearlstein: You bet it’s another bubble
Sloan: The bailout was awful, but it worked
Ritholtz is chief executive of FusionIQ, a quantitative research firm. He is the author of “Bailout Nation” and runs a finance blog, the Big Picture.

saverio manzo


Ontario car insurance
SAVE  on cheap car insurance ontario
Financial Planning advice is important.
SMall Business help here
car insurance
car insurance Ontario  

Feel Green Good 

Ontario Car insurance for High Risk Drivers — 09/16/11
Whether you are currently shopping around for Ontario car insurance, your policy is about to expire, something in your record has changed, you’re looking to save money on your current policy or you have been refused car insurance coverage, a policy is out there for you. Here’s how to get your coverage with the best car insurance quote in Ontario