一位优秀的商人杰克，有一天告诉他的儿子

杰克：我已经决定好了一个女孩子，我要你娶她。

儿子：我自己要娶的新娘我自己会决定

杰克：但我说的这女孩可是比尔盖茨的女儿喔！

儿子：哇！那这样的话...

在一个聚会中，杰克走向比尔盖茨

杰克：我来帮你女儿介绍个好丈夫

比尔：我女儿还没想嫁人呢

杰克：但我说的这年轻人可是世界银行的副总裁喔！

比尔：哇！那这样的话...

接着，杰克去见世界银行的总裁

杰克：我想介绍一位年轻人来当贵行的副总

总裁：我们已经有很多位副总裁，够多了

杰克：但我说的这年轻人可是比尔盖茨的女婿喔！

总裁：哇！那这样的话...

最后，杰克的儿子娶了比尔·盖茨的女儿，又当上世界银行的副总。

稳定：30岁之前就在乎稳定的生活，那只有两种可能，要么就是中了彩票，要么就是未老先衰。

漂泊：漂泊不是一种不幸，而是一种资格。趁着没有家室拖累，趁着身体健康，此时不漂何时漂？当然，漂泊的不一定是身体，也许只是幻想和梦境。新世纪的时尚领袖是飘一代，渴望漂泊的唯一不飘的是那颗心。

放弃：把握的反面就是放弃，选择了一个机会，就等于放弃了其他所有的可能。当新的机会摆在面前的时候，敢于放弃已经获得的一切，这不是功亏一篑，这不是半途而废，这是为了谋求更大的发展空间；或者什么都不为，只因为喜欢这样做。因为，年轻就是最大的机会。人，只有在30岁之前才会有这个胆量，有这个资本，有这个资格。

失恋：不是不在乎，是在乎不起。30岁前最怕失去的不是已经拥有的东西，而是梦想。爱情如果只是一个过程，那么正是这个年龄应当经历的，如果要承担结果，30岁以后，可能会更有能力，更有资格。其实，30岁之前我们要做的事情很多，稍纵即逝，过久地沉溺在已经干涸的爱河中，与这个年龄的生命节奏不合。

离婚：不是不在乎，是一切还来得及。

失业：30岁以前就会尝到失业的滋味当然是一件不幸的事，但不一定是坏事。30岁之前就过早地固定在一个职业上终此一生也许才是最大的不幸。失业也许让你想起埋藏很久很久而尘封的梦想，也许会唤醒连你自己都从未知道的潜能。也许你本来就没什么梦想，这时候也会逼着你去做梦。

失意：包括感情上的、事业上的，也许仅仅是今天花了冤枉钱没买到可心的东西，朋友家高朋满座自己却插不上一句话。过分在乎失意的感受不是拿命运来捉弄自己，就是拿别人的错误来惩罚自己。

失败：我的老师曾经跟我说，一个人起码要在感情上失恋一次，在事业上失败一次，才能长大。不要说失败是成功之母那的老话，失败来得越早越好，要是30、40岁之后再经历失败，有些事，很可能就来不及了。

错误：这是年轻人的专利。

缺陷：也许你个子矮，也许你长得不好看，也许你的嗓音象唐老鸭……那么你的优势就是你不会被自己表面的浅薄的亮点所耽搁，少花一些时间，少走一些弯路，直接发现你内在的优势，直接挖掘自己深层的潜能。

评价：我们最不应该做出的牺牲就是因为别人的评价而改变自我，因为那些对你指手画脚的人自己也不知道他们遵从的规则是什么。千万不要只遵从规矩做事，规矩还在创造之中，要根据自己的判断所做每一件事，虽然这样会麻烦一点。

幼稚：不要怕人说我们幼稚，这正说明你还年轻，还充满活力。“成熟”是个吓人的词儿，也是个害人的词儿。成熟和幼稚是对一个人最大而无当、最不负责任、最没用的概括。那些庸人，绝不会有人说他们幼稚。不信，到哪天你被生活压得老气横秋、暮气沉沉的时候，人们一定会说你成熟了，你就会知道“成熟”是个什么东西。

浅薄：如果每看一次《泰坦尼克号》就流一次眼泪，每看一次《大话西游》就笑得直不起腰，就会有人笑你浅薄。其实那只能说明你的神经依旧非常敏感，对哪怕非常微弱的刺激都会迅速做出适当的反应；等你的感觉迟钝了，人们就会说你深沉了。

不适应：在一首摇滚里有这么一句：“这个城市改变了我，这个城市不需要我。”不要盲目地适应你生存的环境，因为很可能这环境自身已经不适应这个社会的发展了。

孤独：这是为自由付出的代价。

误会：如果出于恶意，那么解释也没有用；如果出于善意，就不需要解释。专门说到“误会”倒不是因为一个人在30之前被人误会的时候更多，而是这个年龄的人想不开的时候更多。

谣言：这是一种传染病，沉默是最好的疫苗。除非你能找出传染源，否则解释恰恰会成为病毒传播最理想的条件。

疯狂：这是年轻人最好的心理调适，只能说明你精力旺盛，身心健康。说你“疯狂”是某些生活压抑、心理交瘁的中老年人恶意的评价。他们就象一部年久失修的机器，最需要调试，但只能微调，一次大修就会让他们完全报废。

压力：中年人能够承受多大压力，检验的是他的韧性；年轻人能承受多大压力，焕发的是他的潜能。

代价：不是不计代价，而是要明白做任何事都要付出代价。对我们这个年龄的人来说，这绝不是一句废话。否则，要到30岁的时候才明白自己曾经付出了多少代价，却不明白为什么付出，更不明白自己得到了多少，得到什么。

时尚：不要追赶时尚。按说青年人应该是最时尚的，但是独立思考和个性生活更重要。在这个物质社会，其实对时尚的追求早已经成为对金钱的追求。今天，时尚是物欲和世俗的同义语。

格调：这是小资的东西，“小资”这个词在今天又二度流行，追求格调就是他们的专利。小资们说，有格调要满足四大要件：智慧、素养、自信和金钱。格调就是把“高尚”理解成穿着、气质、爱好的品位和室内装潢。也就是大老粗只会表现谈吐的庸俗，“小资”们已经有能力庸俗他们的心灵了。主流观念倒不是非要另类。关键是当今社会是一个创造观念的时代，而不是一个固守陈旧观念的时代。

明星：不是不必在乎，是不能在乎。明星在商品社会是一种消费品，花了钱，听了歌，看了电影，明星们的表现再好，不过是物超所值而已，也不值得崇拜呀！就象你在地摊上花50块钱买的裙子，别人都猜是800块钱买的，物超所值了吧？你就崇拜上这身裙子了？

出国：也许是个机会，也许是个陷阱。除非从考大学的那一刻你就抱着这个目标，否则，对待出国的态度应该象对爱情一样，努力争取，成败随缘。

薪水：只要是给人打工，薪水再高也高到哪儿去。所以在30岁之前，机会远比金钱重要，事业远比金钱重要，将来远比金钱重要。对大多数人来说，30岁之前干事业的首要目标绝不是挣钱，而是挣未来。

存款：这倒不一定是因为我们钱少，年轻人现在谁都知道钱是有生命的，机会这么多，条件这么好，可以拿钱去按揭，做今天的事，花明天的钱；也可以拿钱去投资，拿钱去“充电”。钱只有在它流通的过程中才是钱，否则只是一沓世界上质量最好的废纸。

房子：除非你买房子是为了升值，要么就是你结婚了。我有个同学，家在外地，大学毕业之后，单位没有宿舍，家里就给他买了一套房子。他曾经有过去北京工作的机会，但是他觉得刚买了房子就离开这座城市说不去，就放弃了。到现在他工作稳定，但一事无成。唯一的成就就是结婚了，并且有了孩子，因为他觉得不该让这房子永远空着，所以房子变成了家。房子是都市生活的寓言，这个寓言不应该过早地和我们相关。

年龄：女孩子一过25就开始隐瞒自己的年龄，其实大可不必。现在青年期都延迟到45岁了，25岁又得了什么了呢！

在乎：这是一种拿不起、放不下的心态，它的方面不是放弃，而是天马行空，自由自在，永远保持“革命乐观主义精神”。

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Citigroup said Wednesday it is cutting 17,000 jobs in its first major overhaul in 10 years but some industry analysts said the cuts could be the exact opposite of what the nation's biggest bank needs.

In addition to the cuts, the New York-based bank said it will move 9,500 jobs to "lower-cost locations" - with about two-thirds of those jobs being moved as the positions become vacant.

Citigroup CEO Charles Prince is under pressure from shareholders to restructure.

The restructuring affects 8 percent of Citi's current work force of 327,000 full-time employees.

Layoffs begin this week.

"17,000 plus 9,500 is the amount of jobs we're really impacting," Citi's Chief Operating Officer Bob Druskin, who managed the review process, told analysts on a conference call.

About 7,300 of the layoffs will be in the U.S.

The bank is facing intense pressure from shareholders to juice its bottom line, as the company's stock has risen just 15 percent since Prince took the reins as chief executive in October 2003. To put that in perspective, its stock soared 272 percent during the same length of time from 1997 to 2000.

About 43 percent of the job cuts will come in the United States with the rest overseas. But more than half of the expected savings of more than $10 billion will come from the domestic job cuts, the company said.

The company plans to close some offices, centralize purchasing, and eliminate positions that duplicate functions, especially in management.

Still, the cuts failed to impress Wall Street, and Citi's (down $0.83 to $51.57, Charts) stock fell 1.3 percent in early trading Wednesday.

"There's nothing new in anything new that was said in this meeting today," said Dick Bove, an analyst with Punk, Ziegel & Co. "Citigroup has already been delayering management and optimizing technology under [CEO Charles] Prince. It's merely a continuation of existing programs, which in my view is not good."

"What you have to hope as an investor is that they are going to grow revenues faster, rather than focus on expenses. I think today this exercise was a media event constructed to reduce investor complaints," he said. "What they tried to communicate today was, 'We're thinking about expenses; we're doing something about expenses; get off our backs'."

Prince addressed the issue of cost-cutting on the conference call.

"This is the beginning of a change in how we manage expenses in this company," he said. "You will see a more efficient, more tightly managed and more tough-minded Citigroup than you've seen in the past."

He announced last year a review of Citi's five divisions to create a "leaner, thinner" Citigroup. Revenue growth has not kept pace with spending at the company, putting a damper on earnings.

The company's net income declined 13 percent to $21.5 billion last year from $24.6 billion in 2005.

"The announcement shows that Citi is changing its tune a little, making sure they're focused on controlling costs and ensuring that expenditures make sense," said Morningstar analyst Craig Woker. "But some of the new cost control initiatives are things you'd hope a well-run business would be concerned with every year - not cause for a dramatic announcement."

Citigroup has operations in 100 countries, with over 8,000 bank branches serving 200 million customers.

Citi said it expects savings of $2.1 billion this year, $3.7 billion next year and $4.6 billion in 2009 from the job cuts. It will take a pretax charge of about $1.4 billion to pay for one-time costs associated with the cuts.

But Prince said that despite the cuts to "business-as-usual" expenses, Citi's overall expenditures could still rise due to acquisitions and new projects.

In March the company made a $14 billion offer to buy the portion of Japanese brokerage Nikko Cordial that it doesn't yet own.

The company is feeling pressure from shareholders eager for a return to the high-growth ways of the past.

"Citigroup over the years has built up an investor base with audacious expectations about the returns the company could generate in the future," said Woker before the cuts were announced. "But times have changed - this company is no longer managed by a team that can go out and get growth through cheap acquisitions."

Punk Ziegel's Bove believes the company's revenue woes began with moves made by former CEO Sandy Weill.

"Business by business, Citigroup stripped cash in order to make large acquisitions under Weill," he said. "As a result each of these businesses was failing to grow revenue and lost market share."

Analysts say impatient investors could actually be shooting the company in the foot.

"Often when a company embarks on restructuring, they're in hard times, but that's not the case with Citigroup," said Woker. "They just haven't focused enough on the top line."

"What does this ultimately do for them? Not a lot. It only juices the earnings growth number one time. I would much rather see moves toward strong revenue growth rather than trying to eke out some one-time gain from expense savings."

Bove, too, believes the restructuring isn't the solution to Citigroup's earning woes.

"Basically the company has underinvested in its core businesses for 10 years," he said. "Now they've set up a crazy cost-cutting program, which is absolutely the wrong thing to do. What they need to do is spend money to benefit from growth in core markets."

Citigroup's stock price gained 9 percent last year, lagging its competitors' shares. Bank of America (Charts) has added 12 percent, JPMorgan Chase (Charts) has gained 18 percent, and Deutsche Bank (down $0.64 to $138.95, Charts) has soared 22 percent. Wachovia's (Charts) shares have fallen nearly 4 percent.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- For smart investors, the Dow's 3.3 percent swoon Tuesday should provide a reminder of what the bulls want us to forget: That stocks historically go through extremely rough periods, and that those perilous interludes usually follow strong markets that push prices to the limit.

So the questions investors should be asking themselves are basic: What are the chances of a big, long-lasting downward move in stocks? And are the returns I'm destined to receive at current prices high enough to compensate for the chances of a wrenching revaluation?

The answers are cause for alarm - even without Tuesday's drop, investors should be plenty scared.

But before we get to those answers, it's important to remind yourself of what is, or should be, glaringly obvious: From day-to-day, week-to-week, and month-to-month, stock prices are almost totally unpredictable. They wax and wane with rumors, fads, speculative fervor, cockeyed optimism, over-wrought pessimism, and all manner of what economists call "noise" that's unrelated to what really matters, their fundamental earning power.

No one can make a credible near-term prediction. But by weighing the numbers, we can assess, then handicap, the long-term outlook.

The key figure, what distinguished Dartmouth economist Kenneth French calls "the holy grail of investing," is the "risk premium." It's the extra return that stocks offer over what investors would pocket in risk-free investments, chiefly government bonds.

When the risk premium is high, investors generally get a fat cushion against future bumps. They receive a big extra return to compensate for the risk of owning stocks instead of Treasuries. But when the risk premium is extremely low, investors are on shaky ground and may begin to question whether they're getting paid enough for the nail-biting unpredictability of owning stocks.

It's precisely when the risk premium is extremely low that the danger is greatest for a severe correction in stock prices.

So where is the risk premium right now, and what does it augur for the future?

First, let's calculate the return you can expect from a portfolio of stocks at current prices. The best guide is the earnings yield, or the inverse of the P/E multiple. The higher the earnings yield, the better the future return. The reason is simple: With the same earnings growth, you make a lot more money when prices are low, versus earnings, than when they're inflated. You're simply getting more corn flakes in the box.

Right now, the P/E on the S&P 500 stands at around 18. But that figure is misleading. Profits are now at a cyclical peak, making valuations appear artificially low, since profits generally decline after hitting such lofty levels.

So it's best to smooth out those profits by using a formula that takes a 10-year average for earnings, adjusted for inflation. That puts the current P/E at around 25. Hence, the earnings yield is 4 percent. Profits rise with inflation as companies hike prices for everything from cars to computer chips. So to get the expected future return, add today's inflation rate of around 2.5 percent to the 4 percent earnings yield. Hence, the best bet is that you'll receive around 6.5 percent on your stock portfolio.

The risk premium is the difference between that 6.5 percent and what you earn on a safe investment such as Treasury bonds. The rate on the 10-year Treasury is currently 4.6 percent. So the risk premium stands at around 2 percent.

The rub: That figure is way below the historical average. Over the past 50 years, investors have demanded a spread over Treasuries of around 5 percent in exchange for the perils of owning stocks. So today's investors are getting a puny margin compared to those who bought in, say, in the early 1980s, when risk premiums went into the double-digits - followed, by the way, by spectacular returns.

The danger is that investors will decide that they need to get paid a lot more for the rough ride involved with owning equities. So what happens if the risk premium goes back to 5 percent? To get there, stock prices would have to drop by around 40 percent.

But before you gasp, let me reassure you: It's by no means certain that will happen. Stocks aren't necessarily overpriced. A logical, rational explanation could underlie today's tiny risk premium. It's possible that investors no longer view stocks as highly risky. A combination of enlightened monetary policy that makes recessions less frequent, and low transactions costs thanks to discount brokers and 401(k)s, may mean that investors are willing to accept lower returns going forward than in the past.

If that's the case, the risk premium could remain at around 2 percent. That would leave multiples at around 25. But remember, if the risk premium is low, so is the return you'll get from stocks.

Contrary to Wall Street's rosy view, you can't have both very high prices and big future returns. So if the risk premium stays where it is now, investors can expect returns we already calculated, around 6.5 percent. That's not great, but it's still a bit better than Treasuries.

So what's the most likely outcome? Will the risk premium stay where it is now, and hand investors low, steady returns? Or will prices fall sharply, raising the cushion back to the historic 5 percent, and enabling investors who rush to buy at the new, low prices to once again pocket double-digit gains?

The answer is that no one knows for sure. Even in retirement, Alan Greenspan keeps talking about the dangers of low risk premiums - though the press barely mentions his warnings.

But we do know one thing for sure. In the past, when P/Es have soared, they always returned to their historic average of around 14 to 15. So-called mean reversion isn't a law, but it has a powerful history.

So if your main goal is protecting your nest egg, short-term Treasuries are looking mighty good right now. If you relish stocks, the low-P/E, high-dividend variety, including big banks like Bank of America (Charts) and Citigroup (Charts), are a lot more attractive than the Googles or Yahoos.

In short, you need a strong stomach right now to bet heavily in equities, especially tech. As for the argument that stocks are no longer highly risky, maybe it's true. Or maybe not. Just think about how you felt on Tuesday around this time.