I met with my financial adviser the other day, despite the fact that I don’t have many financials to advise and they are notoriously reluctant to listen when you offer them any suggestions.

Nevertheless, we had a long discussion, 53 seconds of which I actually might have understood. The focus of the discussion was on my financial future, and why I’m unlikely to have one. According to the official transcription of the conversation, this is more or less what the financial adviser said:

I need to seriously consider having more money. Since I’ve already tried having less money, this would be the natural next step in my financial plan. This could be pre-tax money, post-tax money, precisely during the tax cash or just lots of quarters found at the bottom of the couch. Dimes would be almost as good, too, at least according to economic forecasts.

We could do this by increasing my inflow so it outpaces my outflow and leaves me with a regular flow and I could go with the flow as long as I limit my exposure in the bond sector, which is particularly painful during a cold winter.
If I want to accomplish this, I would have to maximize my holdings in general obligation municipal baseball caps as long as I sell my Barry Bonds. Then again, I should consider annuitizing if my portfolio diversification undergoes any more volatility.

If that happens, I would have to decide which has more syllables — annuitizing or volatility — and make a market adjustment if I were playing Scrabble.

On the other hand, I could consider an indexed targeted traditional tax-favored large cap international equity if I could figure out what that means and use it in a sentence.

Small cap funds would be good, too, particularly if I get a haircut, my head gets smaller and I need a smaller cap.

If, instead, I decided that I would be more comfortable with lower risk but higher gluten, then I would need to accept that my returns would be depressed and my blood pressure would rise even though my pre-tax sodium intake had topped out.

Then again, my financial adviser added, you have to figure in what could be some unreliable potential returns compared to the indices from the S&P and the BMOC, not to mention the GDP and the RSVP.

In addition, he said, there’s no reason why any of us should ever use the word “annuitizing” again, although it might be necessary if I wanted my tax exempt yield to surpass the top marginal federal bracket for marginals.

Finally, my adviser advised, I should look carefully into fixed income benchmarks, as the bench industry has been outsourced to China and it’s unlikely that I would be able to make my mark there and I would have to import benches from somewhere else.

Then again, I could always annuitize