Until April 24, “Bangladeshi garment worker” probably wasn’t your first answer if someone asked you what the world’s most dangerous occupations are—miner, oil rig operator, firefighter, secret agent, North Korean tour guide or Russian NGO worker probably topped the list instead. Yet for years, unknown to many in the Western hemisphere, over four million Bangladeshi have toiled in overcrowded buildings where fire and collapse are woefully regular occurrences. The factory collapse at Rana Plaza—death toll 1,127—is only the latest in a series of avoidable disasters. But unlike the dozens of fires over the years, the deadly collapse made headlines globally, raising awareness—and everyone agrees it can’t happen again.

So, what are people doing about it?

Several European retailers—many of which had contracts with the collapsed factory—have pledged to conduct regular health and safety inspections and fund building improvements at factories they’ve contracted throughout Bangladesh and the developing world. Many North American retailers are progressing on a similar pact, and others have announced solo efforts to monitor and improve working conditions up and down their supply chain. Which is all great—Western capital and know-how can do a great deal—but it’s likely insufficient. Major retailers contract with only about one-fifth of Bangladesh’s factories. Other factories produce goods for small and independent retailers who likely don’t have the resources to conduct inspections and fund improvements—they largely have to accept the factory owners’ descriptions of building safety and working conditions on faith.

It’s been a tough week for the Obama administration—and that’s likely a great thing for stocks.

First, political scandals are nothing new—been around since long before Julius Caesar “et tu, Bruted.” And scandals tend to be the stuff of second terms. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica-gate. Politicians get tired and sloppy. The press honeymoon (if there was one) is long over. Folks increasingly realize the president isn’t a paragon but a mere human full of foibles. Indiscretions glossed over a few years back start getting second looks.

And yet, the mere existence of scandal(s) isn’t a surefire sign of a politician’s downfall. If that were true, Silvio Berlusconi would be cooling his heels in jail, not participating as an active member of the Italian senate while he awaits yet another ruling on an appeal on his myriad crimes for which he has actually been convicted. Ulysses S. Grant has a relatively untarnished reputation as a war hero, yet served two scandal-ridden terms (the Whiskey Ring, Credit Mobilier). Woodrow Wilson “kept us out of war” but was openly enthusiastic of a creepy propaganda film, The Birth of a Nation. Harry Truman helped rebuild Europe but employed a heckuva lot of Soviet spies. Bill Clinton was impeached but not convicted and finished out his term and remains a power broker. More recently, disgraced former governor Mark Sanford returned to his old congressional seat on Wednesday. And, amazingly (or not, actually), reformed Tweeter Anthony Weiner is mounting a legitimate mayoral bid in NYC.

For the last few years, there’s been a lot of talk about eurozone membership—specifically, struggling peripheral economies abandoning it. But on March 5, Latvia applied to become the 18th eurozone member in 2014. Isn’t that timing a little strange? Reading the news these days, you’d think no country wants to be part of the eurozone, never mind a country with a relatively healthy economy.

But we rather think Latvia’s bid illustrates just how hyperbolic and mistaken such discussions of the eurozone and its supposedly tenuous future are. Latvia’s seen economic boom, bust and bailout, returned to growth and yet wants to join the currency which, according to common-currency critics, is bound to fail. However, looking at Latvia’s history, we see a different tale of somewhat austere economic reform (featuring less government spending) putting a country on track for growth.

For the majority of its recent history, Latvia was either occupied or governed by the Soviet Union—not exactly known for its economic (or personal) freedoms. In fact (other than its tumultuous, war-filled early years), Latvia’s own economic history largely began in 1991 after declaring independence from the Soviet Union. A few relatively stagnant years later and Latvia’s economy was growing rapidly—becoming one of the fastest-growing European economies for almost a decade. But in 2008, while the global economy recessed, Latvia crashed hard, experiencing more than a 25% economic decline.

HT: Thomas Perez

May’s upon us, and so are numerous articles debating the benefits of “sell in May.” In the earliest form we can find, the saying went, “Sell in May, and go away; come again on St. Leger’s Day.” It originated in London—then the economic center of the world—at a time when markets would virtually shut down in the summer, while brokers and other financial professionals vacationed. Supposedly, the end was tied to a mid-September horse race (the St. Leger’s Stakes). As a result, trading volumes were much thinner. Thinner volumes can mean less liquidity, and less liquidity can mean tougher price discovery—hence, more volatility. But nowadays, liquidity isn’t much a problem at any time of the year, thanks to new technologies and growing markets. Yet “sell in May” continues to garner headlines.

The old adage that may have started with May as an exit and St. Leger’s Day as a reentry point has evolved to mean … well … we don’t exactly know what. You see, adherents seem to have many different ideas of the timing. And “sell in May” itself doesn’t lay out when the actual selling should occur—May Day? May 31? Or sometime in between? Even if an investor figures out when to sell, there’s conflicting advice about when to buy back in. Some advocate September, others October, some a strict six months and still others November.

Ultimately, this debate stems from claims summer(ish) average returns are worse than winter(ish) returns. And there’s a grain of truth to that: returns from May to October have been slightly lower than returns the rest of the year … but, even with big down years dragging down the averages for some months, cumulative returns in each half of the year were positive. Taken on a monthly basis, only average returns for September are negative, and not by much. (And that fact is skewed by a few big bad Septembers dragging down the average. A function of math, not calendar causation.)