How to Be a Better Procrastinator
Don't be fooled: People who dawdle are often very productive. They just need to refine their delaying tactics
more in Life & Culture »
By JOHN PERRY
![[image]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/RV-AH788_PROCRA_G_20120810004810.jpg)
Getty Images Often procrastination is a way to let ourselves do a less-than-perfect job on things that don't require a perfect job anyway.
You may ask: Why should I want to know how to be a better procrastinator? Being a procrastinator isn't as bad as being, say, a serial killer. But isn't it on the same level as being a shirker, a lazy slug, a worthless idler? Procrastinators are unproductive. No one should want to know how to be more unproductive, right?
But are procrastinators truly unproductive? In most cases, the exact opposite is true. They are people who not only get a lot done but have a reputation for getting a lot done. They don't have neat desks or even neat desktops on their laptops. They spend a lot of time playing catch-up. But they are likely to be creative and on the whole amiable. After all, if you tend to keep people waiting, it makes them crabby; it doesn't pay to make things worse by being crabby yourself.
The truth is that most procrastinators are structured procrastinators. This means that although they may be putting off something deemed important, their way of not doing the important thing is to do something else. Like reading instead of completing their expense report before it's due. Nevertheless, such people feel bad about being procrastinators and often annoy others. That is where I think I have something helpful to say.
First, don't listen to most of the advice offered to procrastinators by people who don't have this particular flaw. For example: "Keep your commitments to a minimum, so you won't be distracted." This is a way to become a couch potato, not an effective human being. If a procrastinator doesn't want to work on something, it won't help to have nothing else to do. It's better to have lots of things to do, so you can work on some of them as a way of not doing the task that, for whatever reason, you seek to avoid.
Second, don't sit around feeling bad because you lack willpower. That will make you a depressed procrastinator but won't help you get anything done. Most of us lack all kinds of powers. I can't lift my car by the bumper in order to change a tire. That's what jacks are for. I can't add long columns of figures in my head. That's what calculators are for. Tools give us the ability to make up for what we lack in native powers. The procrastinator has tools that allow him to manipulate himself to achieve results he can't get with willpower alone.
Related Essay
Suppose you are like me, and once you fire up your laptop to check your email, you are in danger of spending the whole morning on the Net, doing increasingly useless things. Some correspondent mentions Tajikistan; you don't know much about Tajikistan, so you Google it. You read the Wikipedia article. Which leads you to the Basmarchi Revolt. Before long the morning is mostly gone; you have learned a lot about the history of Central Asia but haven't done your expense report, or even finished reading your email.
The key here is to unplug your laptop when you open your email. After a while, the battery will die. That will break the spell. You won't need to rely on willpower to quit your Net surfing; lack of battery power will do it for you. If you don't use a laptop, take a big drink of water before settling in to answer your email. Your natural alarm clock will break the spell before the whole day is gone.
A third bit of advice: avoid perfectionism. I don't mean avoid doing things perfectly. If you are at all like me, that's not a problem. I mean avoid fantasizing about doing things perfectly. Often procrastination is just a way of giving ourselves permission to do a less-than-perfect job on something that doesn't require a perfect job anyway. Or maybe it's a way of getting those we work with to the point where they say, "For crying out loud, just give me something!" You need to give your boss a memo that provides the basic facts; it doesn't need to read like Hemingway.
Last, but perhaps most important: Learn how to be less annoying to the non-procrastinators around you. For starters, be honest. Admit that you are a procrastinator, and admit that it is a flaw. Maybe someday you will no longer be a procrastinator. After you lose 20 pounds, get in shape, polish up your high-school French, and write that novel, you may get around to pursuing some self-help regimen that will eliminate this flaw from your personality. But for now, don't compound the flaw with denial. If you admit to being a procrastinator, others will probably try hard to find something nice to say about you.
—Dr. Perry, an emeritus professor of philosophy at Stanford University, is the author of "The Art of Procrastination," to be published by Workman later this month. A version of this article appeared August 11, 2012, on page C3 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: How to Be a Better Procrastinator.
How to Control Your Heirs From the Grave
By LAURA SAUNDERS
Can you force a grandchild to take a drug test in order to receive an inheritance? Insist your heirs use trust funds only for tuition at your alma mater? Make sure your wife's future husbands can't run through money you worked hard to earn?
In many cases, the answer is yes—you can, in effect, control your heirs from the grave.
Controlling Your Heirs
Adrian Lubbers
The issue of what you can give away and how is especially relevant now because unusually favorable estate- and gift-tax rules are set to expire. The "exemption" for both—which is the amount of assets a taxpayer can transfer to others, tax-free, either at death or through gifts while alive—is now $5.12 million per individual, and twice that for a couple. The top tax rate on amounts above that is 35%.
But not for long. In January the exemption is slated to drop to $1 million per person, and the top tax rate will jump to 55%. Although many experts don't think those changes will stick because they are so unfavorable, a new regime might well be less generous. President Barack Obama favors a $3.5 million exemption and a 45% top rate.
With the law in flux, experts are recommending that wealthier taxpayers who can afford to part with assets make gifts of them this year. The rationale: if the law becomes less favorable, this year's gifts either will be grandfathered in or, at worst, won't be "clawed back" until death.
AMC/Everett Collection
Don't let your children grow up to be crystal-meth dealers, like Jesse Pinkman (played by Aaron Paul) from 'Breaking Bad.'
Clients are listening. "For this year I'll be filing three times as many gift-tax returns as I have in the past," says Lauren Wolven, a tax expert at law firm Horwood, Marcus & Berk in Chicago.
"It's as if a cork popped out of a bottle," adds Joe McDonald, an attorney at McDonald & Kanyuk in Concord, N.H.
As with many good tax deals, there is a hitch: Taxpayers taking advantage of the exemption by making gifts have to give up control of assets today. Typically that means putting them into "irrevocable trusts" that require upfront decisions about who will get what, when and for how many years thereafter.
So what does the law permit? Surprises, at times. Leona Helmsley, the widow of billionaire real-estate magnate Harry Helmsley, left a trust to care for her beloved dog, Trouble, after her death. Ms. Helmsley also required her grandchildren to visit their father's grave once a year in order to receive payouts.
For people scrambling to set up trusts before year-end, here are some important considerations. And for those who don't have millions to give, the good news is that most of the same rules governing trusts apply to ordinary wills as well.
Give as You Wish—Sort Of
In general the law is biased toward allowing people to leave assets as they wish—even if the wish seems silly. Nearly 100 years ago, a Connecticut court upheld a requirement that heirs had to spell the family name in a certain way to receive a payout. (It was Tyrrel.)
But there are limits. One is for provisions "contrary to public policy." This category has always included requirements that promote divorce or criminal behavior; now it extends to racial discrimination. For example, courts have struck down provisions leaving money for scholarships for white girls.
Discouraging marriage also is frowned on. A court would almost certainly invalidate a provision requiring a daughter to remain unmarried in order to receive her trust payout. But people are free to put assets in trusts that bypass the future partners of a spouse.
Also problematic are ambiguous, illegal or impossible-to-satisfy provisions—such as one that required a treasured snowball collection to be preserved in a freezer. (What if the electricity went out?)
What is allowed varies according to state law. A Missouri court once struck down as too vague a provision requiring brothers to be capable of "prudent exercise, control and ownership" of a piece of real estate so that "no further danger shall exist."
But vagueness didn't prevent Northern Trust Chief Fiduciary Officer Hugh Magill, based in Chicago, from recently requiring a man in his mid-50s to prove he was "of sound mind, good moral character and temperate financial habits"—as a trust for the man required. Among other things, the heir submitted three years of tax returns, a financial statement and a letter of support from his minister; he got the money.
What about religious restrictions, such as mandating that tuition payouts be used for a parochial school? Courts often uphold them if they don't violate other rules.
It is harder to predict the outcome of demands that an heir marry within a certain faith: An Ohio court validated such a provision in 1974, but an Illinois appellate court struck down another in 2008 (on public-policy grounds) and the state's Supreme Court sidestepped the issue. "Norms may be changing on this issue," says Ms. Wolven of Horwood, Marcus & Berk.
People who want to take advantage of this year's gift-tax exemption should beware of one giant constraint: The Internal Revenue Service will deny tax benefits to a trust if the person who sets it up retains control, either himself or through an agent.
Although new laws in some states allow trust modifications for shifting circumstances, experts say taxpayers shouldn't push these limits because they could wind up with a trust but without a current tax break.
Diving Into the Details
Here are more specifics to consider before setting up a trust or tinkering with a will.
Who is included? This is one of the most important decisions to make at the outset; much leeway is allowed, but taxpayers need to be clear given changing social mores. For example, consider carefully the definition of "spouse"—and decide whether that includes same-sex partners, and whether they have to be in a registered or long-term partnership.
Likewise, if a trust is to benefit descendants, make sure to define the term. Do adoptees count, or stepchildren, or the child of a surrogate? Is a child conceived with frozen sperm a descendant?
"Even experts are struggling with how to draft language on some issues," says Mr. McDonald.
Then there are decisions to make about shares. For example, if a matriarch's daughter has four children and her son has one, she will need to consider whether payouts to the grandchildren should be "per capita" (each gets the same amount) or "per stirpes" (the son's child gets one-half and the daughter's children split one-half).
Many trusts also have "spendthrift" provisions preventing creditors from reaching trust assets, although the wall doesn't extend to claims for child support or taxes.
Incentive provisions. Want to promote your descendants' productivity by matching their income, or providing funds to help them start a business? Would making payouts to a stay-at-home parent of young children strengthen family ties? Many givers think about including incentives in trust or wills.
But experts counsel caution: "It's impossible to foresee every circumstance," Ms. Wolven says. What if you match income dollar for dollar, and the heir wants to enter a worthy but low-paid profession like teaching?
Norm Benford, an attorney at Greenberg Traurig in Miami, remembers a carefully written trust that matched private-sector pay one for one, public- and charitable-sector pay four for one and "sacrifice" public-sector pay (like the Peace Corps) six-for-one—but the heir became a jazz musician and didn't qualify for a payout at all.
That said, Ms. Wolven says she recently set up a trust for a younger person who had become wealthy and wanted to help his extended family. He empowered the trust to make loans to relatives for education, travel and mortgages. As long as the borrowers repay on schedule, the trust forgives half the payment. The trustee also can suspend collection if the borrower goes through a rough patch.
"It's a good structure for helping loved ones without encouraging lack of productivity," Ms. Wolven says.
Experts also caution about inserting a requirement to test heirs for drugs, because it can be hard to find a trustee willing to undertake this intrusive supervision.
"Heirloom asset" trusts. People set these up to hold a treasured asset, such as a vacation compound, in trust for heirs to enjoy. Mr. Magill recommends endowing the trust with sufficient funds so heirs don't wind up squabbling about maintenance of the asset. Sometimes such trusts make payouts for transportation costs so that far-flung relatives can visit.
Pet trusts. Leona Helmsley wasn't wrong. Experts say such trusts are a good idea if the owner is worried that informal arrangements might fall through after death, because otherwise the pet is at risk of being euthanized.
Typically the owner chooses a trustee, specifies the care to be provided and endows the trust with sufficient funds.
"No contest" provisions. In some states, people can bar heirs from receiving payouts from a trust or will if they challenge it in court. Sometimes the law voids these provisions, known as "in terrorem" clauses, if an heir challenges the will and wins.
It is wise to think carefully before encumbering a trust or will with this or other inflexible constraints, even if such moves are legal. Experts say one of the chief aims of planning should be to avoid leaving a "legacy of ill will." No matter how much money comes with it, that's the worst legacy of all.
Write to Laura Saunders at laura.saunders@wsj.com
A version of this article appeared August 11, 2012, on page B7 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: How to Control Your Heirs From the Grave.
For Chesapeake, a Question on How It Counts Reserves
more in Business »
By MATT WIRZ
Chesapeake Energy Corp. CHK -3.10% submits less of its oil and gas reserves to third-party verification than competitors, raising investor concerns that the company's reserve estimates may be overly aggressive.
The market had long looked past the practice by the country's second-largest natural-gas producer. Analysts have treated Chesapeake's massive reserves—the equivalent of 17 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—as underlying support for the company's stock and bonds. But persistently low natural-gas prices and Chesapeake's unorthodox financial practices are prompting some to take a harder look at where those reserve figures come from.
Seventy-seven percent of the reserve estimates Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake reported for 2011 were produced by independent engineering firms, while the rest came from a growing team of in-house reservoir engineers. A survey of nine of Chesapeake's competitors in the same year showed third-party involvement in 89% of reserve estimates, on average.
The reviews Chesapeake gets from outside engineers are more rigorous than those most competitors receive, a company spokesperson said. Rather than estimating all of its reserves internally and having consultants audit the vast majority of the figures, Chesapeake hires consultants to generate estimates for about three-quarters of its reserves from scratch and calculates the remaining reserves on its own.
Estimating the size of oil and gas formations thousands of feet underground is still equal parts art and science, and "different companies have different philosophies of what volumes to book," said Bob Fant, director of reserves for Devon Energy Corp., DVN -0.89% Chesapeake's crosstown rival. That makes getting a second opinion all the more important, he said, and Devon "tends to target 90% of reserves for third-party review."
"A science and an art: How to show the quality of underground natural-gas reserves. "
The worry for Chesapeake is that its level of oversight could cause high reserve estimates, leading to excessive write-downs in the future. Historically, Chesapeake's write-downs have been in line with industry averages, according to a review of estimate revisions from 2006 to 2011.
This week Chesapeake wrote down almost five trillion cubic feet of reserves previously counted from planned wells because of low gas prices. In 2011, Chesapeake booked 46.2% of its reserves from undeveloped wells, compared with an average of 40.5% among nine of its competitors.
Most of the revised estimates were initially prepared by an independent engineer. Nevertheless, they reflect Chesapeake's aggressive booking of undeveloped gas reserves, said Duane Grubert, an analyst at brokerage Susquehanna International Group LLP. The write-down makes Chesapeake "the number one cutter of reserves," he added.
Chesapeake isn't alone. Encana Corp., ECA -0.09% Apache Corp., APA -0.72% Anadarko Petroleum Corp., APC +0.03% BP BP +0.43% PLC, BHP Billiton BHP +0.58% and BG Group have revised their reserves in recent weeks.
The Securities and Exchange Commission doesn't require reserve audits, but they have become industry standard after a series of large write-downs shook investor confidence in industry estimates a decade ago.
"We like to see 80% or higher of a reserve base subject to a report or an audit by a petroleum-engineering firm," said John White, an analyst at energy-focused hedge fund TripleDouble Advisors. "Reserve estimates for an exploration and production company are just as important as its financial statement so we like a high degree of auditing."
The fund doesn't invest in Chesapeake, in part because of how difficult its operations are to analyze, he said.
Following write-downs last decade by Royal Dutch Shell RDSB.LN -0.70% PLC, a new industry standard emerged, with companies getting second opinions for increasingly large portions of their reserves.
The outside firms typically provide one of three services; independent estimates of reserves, audits of internally generated estimates using slightly less information and a process review assessing the method, but not the data, used in internal estimates.
Larger companies with stronger balance sheets and vast reserves like Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM +0.27% and ConocoPhillips COP +0.33% opt for the narrower—and cheaper—process reviews. Smaller companies with more risky credit quality tend to opt for audits or estimates to shore up investor confidence.
"There is an intangible benefit in the mind of investors," said Kevin White, head of business development at SandRidge Energy Inc, SD +0.59% which gets 95% of its reserve estimates from independent engineers. "They get a degree of comfort to see that our reserves are [estimated] by a third party," he said.
Chesapeake, which is about six times the size of SandRidge, went on a leasing and drilling spree from 2009 to 2011, increasing reserves by 32%, even as it sold large gas fields.
The company boosted its reservoir-engineering team by one-third to cope with the growth of reserves and the percentage of estimates conducted by independent engineers fell by six percentage points to 77%.
"I'm more comfortable with an audit of 85% or better," said William Kazmann, president of Dallas-based LaRoche Petroleum Consultants. Chesapeake's lower figure, he added, "doesn't make me unduly uncomfortable, but I'd rather see a higher number."
LaRoche both prepared and audited a portion of Chesapeake's reserves, covering natural-gas assets, between 2004 and 2008.
—Daniel Gilbert contributed to this article. Write to Matt Wirz at matthieu.wirz@wsj.com
A version of this article appeared August 11, 2012, on page B1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: For Chesapeake, a Question On How It Counts Reserves.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment