The old fortune-telling "8-balls" invented in 1946 and widely popular during the 1950s have come back to mind. These toys, when rotated, would display random and often vague answers to posed questions, answers such as "Reply hazy. Ask again." How appropriate they seem today.

The US budget deficit made headlines by hitting $1 trillion on Monday. A number that is nearly incomprehensible. One wonders how long it will be before such a figure will become commonplace. Have we just seen the economic equivalent of the Roger Bannister 4-minute mile?

In response to this news the NYSE was up 185.16 points and the S&P up 21.92. This could, of course, swing wildly in the other direction tomorrow. "Outlook good."

The unpredictability of leading economic indicators, as well as their general disconnect with more tangible daily realities, increases one's reluctance to make investments with any remains of decimated funds. With futures fraught with uncertainty, options that once seemed wise or safe remain dismal. Interest rates certainly don't inspire one to put one's savings in a bank. For many baby-boomers key financial decisions must be made soon. They do not have the luxury of time to heal their economic wounds. Yet, no entity or person seems trustworthy or reliable enough to consign with one's future. How can one trust in what one does not find sane or at least moderately predictable?

Larger economic recovery solutions must address the varying needs and anxieties of multiple constituencies so that all can survive (if not thrive). Viewpoints differ, depending on one's age, education, personal comfort and economic position. If one is younger than 50, if one has training in economics, if one has a stable and sufficiently generous salary, then the volatile market and the burgeoning deficit might not seem quite as despairing as they are to persons well beyond fifty, facing retirement, confronted with little chance of recovering nest eggs built over decades, compounded by the potential loss of the so-called safety net of social security.

It is not that one view is right and one is wrong. Solutions just are, and always will be, assessed from different angles. Each perspective has its own reality. More robust solutions will account for this fact. Finding common ground is essential to selecting solutions affecting a broad range of constituents. Understanding and honoring the differing values of each constituency is critical. "Yes."

The monetary figures we hear and read in the news are staggering, whether it is about money lost, money needed to rescue, or the size of the national debt. Numbers, when large, are accompanied by subliminal warning flags. Even the New York Times now speaks ominously of “heavy government spending” and cautions our policymakers regarding expected resentment from countries that do not have “as much to spend as the U.S.” towards a world economic recovery plan.

We are focused on “How much?” as in “How much… can we tolerate?” “How much… can the market fall?” “How much… will it take to recover?” “How much… can [whomever] spend?” Amount, however, is not the core issue. An over-focus on amounts can be hazardous to one’s health.

In the early stages of our product design, we were asked by a number of differing organizations to sit in on reviews of their business cases. The amount that an option (project, product feature, alliance, etc.) would cost was typically placed under risk assessment. “Financial risk” comparisons were done in terms of absolute dollars. The greater the cost, the more “risky” an option. Intrinsic financial matters became obscured, as amounts took center stage. Arguments ensued, containing allusions to integral risks about the money. But, these risks were never fully identified or assessed.

Examples of underlying financial “risks” for a project:

• “Will not recoup the initial investment made.”
  
• “Will be unable to generate revenue by the date targeted.”
  
• “Will be unable to generate the margins expected.”
  
• “Will cause a peak negative cash flow at an inopportune time.”
  

These above example statements are not about amount, but about cost recovery, performance, or timing. The point: although it is essential to know the estimated costs for options, elicitation of concerns about any financial figures becomes more critical.

All risks, including financial risks, should be viewed and assessed collectively. The questions to ask are: “Which would hurt us more?” (relative harm) and “How likely is it to occur?” (probability). Marrying these two answers provides the risk assessment needed for a good decision. The “business case” then guides a plan for dealing with the true risks and issues underlying any amounts of money.

Is this pie in the sky? No. The shift in financial focus resulted in such high positive impact and meaning for our customers that we expanded our product design to enhance this process.

As we seek to find a safe haven for whatever remains of our nest eggs, as Congress ponders ways to help us, and as many simply sit in shock on the verge of retirement with virtually no funds remaining in 401Ks after decades of contributions, “In God We Trust” on our money almost seems an ironic admonition of too great proportion.