We want to help

It's come to our attention that your personal finances might have taken a hit Tuesday. To enhance your understanding of the arcane world of the stock market, The Morning File has compiled a list of commonly used terms:

Correction: Word used to describe what happens after the stock market makes a big mistake, such as doing extremely well over a long period of time. A correction is viewed as good news in the financial community, possibly because it means more business. To sound like an expert after an unexpected correction occurs, you must use phrases such as, "long overdue" and "not really a surprise."

Crash: A very loud correction. It occurs after the market makes a gigantic mistake, such as being extraordinarily successful over a long period of time. But it's OK, because it can lead to a new bull market.

Futures: What many investors don't have after a market crash.

Panic selling: Widespread stock-dumping fueled by investor fears and CNBC. Often followed by panic buying, which can lead to a bull market and the need for a correction, which is "long overdue."

Portfolio: Page 2 of the Post-Gazette.

The Fed: People who have profited handsomely from the stock market. (Sometimes called The Well Fed.)

Options: A person's right to stay out of the stock market and engage in a safer form of gambling, say, the lottery. Also, a way to keep corporate execs from slipping into a mere eight-figure retirement.

Man on the Internet market reaction

From Scotsman.com: "I know zippo about the economy but I have noticed the rule of thumb: 'The economy is doing well' means the money is flowing smoothly from us relatively poor folk to the rich folk. Conversely, the 'economy is doing badly' means the money isn't flowing as well, stringent budget cuts will be required and we poorer buggers will pay by enduring less services. What's Cantonese for, 'Can I have a job in your sweat shop please?'"

From TheGlobeandMail.com:

Vic Vegas, Vancouver: "Anyone else get a kick out of the CNBC people running around frantically waving their arms and screaming "fire!"? Hilarious. Real professionals. We need them to spike the volatility now and then. It sure is profitable."

Ruth Case, Steeltown, Canada: "I've just moved everything into tulip bulbs!"

Diogenes the Cynic, Sinope, Greece: "Is it possible nobody really knows what is really going on and what will happen?"

To win, don't play

A timely article titled, "The 6 New Rules of Rich" by Oliver Broudy in Men's Health magazine, has this fetching beginning:

"At the Pittsburgh bus station, right next to the county jail, a pixieish grad student in a plum-colored blazer is explaining how the experiment works. Two seats down, a lady in a white fur coat plays Texas Hold'em on a handheld console. Behind us, I hear the clump-jingle approach of a dapper little dude in a denim saddle coat and spurred cowboy boots. These are our subjects. This is our lab.

From the AP
• Man Buys Smoker, Finds Human Leg Inside • Coach Stops Runaway Horse by Biting Ear • Man Allegedly Tries to Use 'Blurry' $100 • Police Break Up Brawl at Chuck E. Cheese • Suggestive Card Ruffles Farmer's Feathers • Nerds to Auction Themselves to Women • Toilet to Tap? San Jose Probes Plan • Seattle to Allow Pygmy Goats As Pets • Yankees Rookies Dress Up in Oz Costumes

"Emily Haisley, a grad student at the Center for Behavioral Decision Research at Carnegie Mellon University, is collecting data on why people buy lottery tickets. This is an important question, because buying lottery tickets is not rational. You know this, of course. Just as you know that starting to save for retirement in your 20s instead of your 30s is the difference between a seven-and six-figure nest egg. And that you should pay off your credit cards each month.

Yes, you know this. But then ...

"'People cannot be counted on to do what's best for themselves.' So says professor George Loewenstein, Ph.D., Haisley's adviser and a trailblazer in the budding field of behavioral economics . . ."

To learn the path to wealth, you'll have to go to menshealth.com. We just wanted to share the local angle.

But we'll tell you this much

Ms. Haisley gave two groups of people $5 in cash -- to keep, unless they chose otherwise. Over the next few minutes, she offered the first group five opportunities to buy a $1 lottery ticket. Then she asked members of group two if they wanted to buy five tickets at once. The result: Group one bought 17 percent more tickets. Why was group two smarter? Ms. Haisley says they were able to see the risk in broad terms: the loss of $5. And the potential reward: five lottery tickets. The first group, said author Broudy, got stuck in the "Sure, why not?" rut. A dollar for a ticket? Sure, why not? Another? Sure, why not? . . . until each had no money left.

A 1997 study using the same concept explained why people make bad investment decisions. Eighty students were invited to invest a set amount of money in stocks and bonds, Broudy said. Over the course of the experiment, some investors were updated frequently, others less frequentl and a third group hardly at all.

With each update, the investors could adjust their investment allocation. The investors who were updated the least often did the best. Why? They were able to keep the big picture in sight -- that, historically, stocks deliver the best returns -- and weren't freaked out by the market's day-to-day fluctuations.