August 2010

Video: Schroeders Expects BHP Will Succeed in Bid for Potash: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) — Tim Schroeders, who helps manage about $1.1 billion at Pengana Capital Ltd. in Melbourne, talks about the outlook for BHP Billiton Ltd.’s bid for Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company, reported a more than doubling in full-year profit, helping to drive its $40 billion hostile takeover offer for Potash Corp. Schroeders speaks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Global Connection.” (Excerpt. Schroeders spoke before BHP released financial results. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Andrew Kreig: Victims In $3.6 Billion Ponzi Protest Court Process

August 24, 2010

Victims of the $3.6 billion financial fraud by Minnesota businessman Tom Petters are justifiably angry about the federal victim-restitution process that began after his 2008 arrest. The feds used hardball tactics to install well-connected cronies in key positions, which should trouble anyone who fears the precedent if their own finances get trapped in such a dispute nationally. Most remarkable was that the federal judge supervising the case named the prominent local attorney Douglas Kelley to be court receiver and U.S. trustee. This was even though Petters, above as shown shortly after his arrest in 2008, had previously hired Kelley to defend his companies. Victims are so disturbed at such decision-making and what they regard as excessive legal fees by Kelley and his team that some of them financed The Second Fraud , a documentary about their case that premieres Aug. 25 at the Uptown Theater in Minneapolis for a one-night showing. On behalf of the Justice Integrity Project , I’m on a seven-person panel assembling there to discuss the case after the movie. Kelley and at least four other representatives of the government or Petters defense were invited, but none have confirmed. Here’s a look at the discussion about this fascinating case: For more than a decade, Tom Petters masterminded the first multi-billion dollar U.S. “Ponzi scheme” ever discovered. Authorities raided his companies on Sept. 24, 2008 after a tip from his former receptionist-lover, who’d received $8 million in bonuses during her ascendancy into his executive ranks. Petters, a college drop-out now aged 53, received 50-year prison term in April. This ended his huge donations to leading politicians in both major parties, his swank lifestyle, and his control of such well-known companies as Polaroid and Sun Country Airlines. But Second Fraud filmmaker Ryan Frost says: Ultimately we discovered a tangled web of local professionals: judges, politicians and lawyers, some of which may have knowingly or unknowingly allowed the Petters fraud to perpetuate in the first place. Now these groups are left in charge to clean up the mess. As hundreds of years of legal precedent are blatantly ignored, creditors and victims are crying foul from the sidelines as they are swindled a second time by the very system that is in place to protect them. On Friday, I published a column as part of my legal reform group’s research on such situations nationally. During the post-film panel, I’ll be among those arguing that Petters oversight so far fails to provide the legal checks-and-balances among various litigants we need to protect the victims of such cases. First-hand accounts will come from Chicago hedge fund manager Thane Ritchie and New Jersey liquidator William Procida, who was elected by creditors such as Richie to be receiver via a process in Illinois promptly after the fraud was discovered. Procida, who says he’s handled the liquidation of billions of dollars of assets, will describe how Kelley used his twin roles as Petters attorney and as a former prosecutor to consolidate power in unusual ways. Among them was the decision by U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery to issue an order that empowered Kelley, her former law school classmate and colleague at the Justice Department. The order also granted Kelley judge-like immunity, thereby limiting the ability of various parties to force oversight. Count me among those who don’t understand the fascination with handing off complex problems in this way, even to well-credentialed private attorneys. To be sure, a special master is a longstanding concept. But this kind of vast power potentially has life-or-death consequences for companies and people alike, with too few due process rights. Kelley essentially runs the show in Minnesota for victims nationwide. Kelley is subject largely to post-decision review by the judge, who named him ex parte in a private meeting. Creditors claim the Petters assets are being chewed up in legal fees, forfeitures to federal government and other controversial transactions. In response, Kelley argues in his occasional public remarks that his decision-making balances the best interests of all to obtain optimal returns. Neither Kelley nor the judge has responded to my invitations for comment. Others on the post-film panel with its creator Frost will be law professor Richard Painter, bankruptcy expert Garrett Vail and longtime journalist James Merriner, author of the spiked ad campaign decrying court oversight of the Petters case. The moderator is Bill Hillsman, founder of the ad agency that created Minnesota’s campaign victories for underdog Senate Democratic candidate Paul Wellstone in 1992 and third-party gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura in 1998. Nationally, some take the problem of excessive bankruptcy fees as a big problem. The American Bankruptcy Institute published a report in July entitled, “When a Pig Becomes a Hog….” Without mincing words, the report quotes a Texas judge as saying last year: “At some time [the] Court must draw the line as to what is reasonable and what is not.” The judge concluded, “When a pig becomes a hog it is slaughtered.” That’s Texas talk, and perhaps a little rough for sensibilities elsewhere. But $3 billion in missing assets with only lawyers to help can be worse than tough talk. For some, it’s grim reality.

Read the full article →

InComm Expands to 186,000 SF in Downtown Atlanta

August 24, 2010

InComm signed an expansion deal that nearly doubled its space from 95,000 square feet to 186,000 square feet at the American Cancer Society Center in Atlanta. The stored-value gift and prepaid products marketer and distributor, a 14-year tenant of the…

Read the full article →

Survey: Recession Weakens ‘NIMBY’ Resistance to New Development Projects

August 24, 2010

Even as the level of new development and construction has fallen to historic lows nationally, a recent study suggests that recession-stung Americans appear to be more willing to support new commercial projects in their communities. That would be a rare…

Read the full article →

Video: Burger King’s Chidsey Discusses Sales, Business Outlook: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) — Burger King Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Officer John Chidsey talks about the company’s financial results and business outlook. Burger King, the second-largest U.S. hamburger seller, reported a fourth-quarter profit of 36 cents a share. The average estimate of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg was for a profit of 34 cents a share. Chidsey speaks from Miami with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television. (This is an excerpt of the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Lease Down (Aug. 22-28): Abercrombie & Fitch Shuttering 110 Stores

August 24, 2010

CoStar compiles news of consolidations, closures, layoffs and lease cancellations in the weekly Lease Down news report, a concise read keeping you updated on major corporate moves affecting commercial real estate. For news on corporate expansions…

Read the full article →

Eric Schurenberg: Social Security Turns 75, Starts Cadging from the Kids

August 24, 2010

On Saturday, Social Security turned 75 years old. AARP chapters around the country held corny birthday parties, but they didn’t invite Stephen Goss, Social Security’s chief actuary. That might have spoiled the fun. Just a few days before, Goss and his team produced an annual trustees report acknowledging that, for the first time since 1983, the program has begun to run at a deficit-and, except for a few years in the near future, it would continue to run deeper and deeper in the red through its 150 th anniversary and beyond. That’s a heck of a depressing birthday present; it’s also a pretty grim milestone if you one day were hoping to get a decent return on a lifetime of Social Security taxes. I imagine you have some questions. What’s all this mean? Social Security used to draw more in taxes than it paid in benefits, which helped shrink the federal deficit. Now there’s a shortfall in Social Security’s cash flow, which means the system will make the deficit worse. To paraphrase the actuaries’ specific forecast: Unless taxes rise or benefits fall, the system will operate at a deficit this year and next, return to a surplus through 2014, then sink back below the surface in 2015 and never come up. Doesn’t the Social Security trust fund cover that? No, silly. All those years of surplus in Social Security were recorded in a book entry dubbed the “trust fund,” but the non-marketable special Treasury bonds that make up the fund don’t represent any assets that can be cashed in to pay benefits. What the trust fund does is give the system authority to tap the Treasury to pay for benefits, but it doesn’t help the Treasury come up with the money. The fact is, to cover benefits, you and I and Secretary Geithner and his successors have to pony up the old fashioned way-by borrowing, raising taxes, or cutting benefits elsewhere in the federal budget. Wait a minute. That’s no different from what we’d have had to do if there was no trust fund. Bingo. If you’d rather hear it from the horse’s mouth, Allan Sloane notes that this passage appeared in the 2009 Trustees’ report (though it was curiously missing from the 2010 edition): Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance [bond] redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public. Are current beneficiaries going to lose out? Really rich ones might pay more income taxes on their benefits, as well as they will on their income. But no politician is suicidal enough to touch current retirees’ benefits. Are workers going to lose out? Something will have to give to keep the system solvent, and it will inevitably be given by those of us still in the workforce. The Administration has been floating the idea of gradually raising the age at which you become entitled to full benefits. A plurality of today’s workers will retire at 62, as those before them did, but they would get a lot less than under current law. However, that’s not what taxpayers want: The most popular proposed fix for Social Security is to apply payroll taxes to every dollar that high earners earn. (Right now they’re taxed-and receive benefits based on-income only up to $106,800.) Tax rich people? Easy. And that will solve the problem? If you tax the rich enough and cut benefits enough, you can make the system self-supporting on paper. But remember, “self-supporting” in Social Security accounting means drawing on the trust fund. “Drawing on the trust fund” is just code for more borrowing, taxes or benefit cuts elsewhere in the economy. By 2037, Social Security will soak up 10 percent of all income tax receipts-on top of what the system collects in Social Security taxes. I thought Social Security was the easy entitlement to fix . It is, in the sense that you can easily see what needs to be done to make the numbers add up–as opposed to Medicare, about which no one has a clue what to do. But the fact is, we don’t fix Social Security by making the numbers add up. Social Security is a political construction, not a P&L statement, and its survival in anything like its current form depends on its seeming fair and logical to voters. Today, politicians trip over themselves promising to protect Social Security benefits. But as the boomers qualify for Social Security and Medicare and the oldest fifth of the nation start to suck up more and more of the wealth produced by their kids and grandchildren, that might change. Robert Ball, former chief actuary of Social Security, predicted that one day a President would be elected promising to cut Social Security. Hard to imagine now, but if it happened, economic historians would trace that President’s campaign back to 2010, the year that Social Security stopped paying for itself. More on CBS MoneyWatch: Shouldn’t we just privatize Social Security? Social Security and the Federal Debt: Why You Should Worry

Read the full article →

Gulf Drilling Moratorium Costing Less Than Predicted

August 24, 2010

WASHINGTON — When the Obama administration called a halt to virtually all deepwater drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon blowout and fire in April, oil executives, economists and local officials complained that the six-month moratorium would cost thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in lost revenue. Oil supply firms went to court to have the moratorium overturned, calling it illegal and warning that it would exacerbate the nation’s economic woes, lead to oil shortages and cause an exodus of drilling rigs from the gulf to other fields around the world. Two federal courts agreed.

Read the full article →

Video: Fat Prophets’ Whitehead Sees Value in Australian Banks: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) — Colin Whitehead, equity analyst at Fat Prophets, talks about the outlook for Australian stocks. Whitehead also discusses Australia’s deadlocked election and its implications for the country’s financial markets, the prospects for the U.S. economy, and BHP Billiton Ltd.’s takeover bid for Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. Whitehead talks from Sydney with Bloomberg’s Rishaad Salamat. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Barclays’s Sofat Says Asia Inflation Will Rise Gradually: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) — Prakriti Sofat, a regional economist at Barclays Capital in Singapore, talks about the outlook for Asia’s economies. Thailand’s economy expanded more than estimated last quarter as surging exports countered the impact of political turmoil, supporting gains in the nation’s currency and stocks. The Philippines reports second-quarter gross domestic product figures tomorrow. Sofat speaks with Bloomberg’s Rishaad Salamat. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Bisignani Says 2010 Will Be `Great Year’ for Airlines: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) — International Air Transport Association Chief Executive Officer Giovanni Bisignani talks about the outlook for the global airline industry. International passenger demand rose 9.2 percent in July from a year earlier and international scheduled freight traffic increased 22.7 percent, according to IATA, which represents 230 airlines carrying 93 percent of international traffic. Bisignani speaks from Sydney with Bloomberg’s Susan Li. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Unions To Pool Campaign Spending For Midterms

August 24, 2010

The leaders of the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union have agreed to coordinate spending millions of dollars in the midterm elections to support pro-union candidates, most of them Democrats. The two labor organizations say they have a combined $88 million or more to deploy in this year’s election cycle. It’s not clear how much of that money they will pool together.

Read the full article →

Video: Hartman Sees U.S. Stock `Buying Opportunities This Fall’: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) — Kirk Hartman, chief investment officer at Wells Capital Management, speaks about his strategy for investing in U.S. stocks. U.S. and Japanese stocks fell, the 10-year Treasury yield fell to the lowest in 17 months and the yen surged to the highest versus the dollar since 1995 as a record plunge in home sales stoked concern the economy may relapse into a recession. Hartman speaks from San Francisco with Bloomberg’s Susan Li. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: Obama Administration Fabricated Small Business Contracting Data Coming Soon

August 24, 2010

Any day now the Obama Administration will release the latest federal data on the volume of government contracts that were awarded to small businesses. Federal law requires a minimum of 23 percent of all federal contracts to be awarded to small businesses. I’m betting the “Change We Can Believe In” Obama Administration will completely falsify the actual percentage of government contracts that were awarded to legitimate small businesses. Despite all his rhetoric and pandering to small businesses, the latest government small business contracting data will prove President Obama is just another “business as usual” politician who is willing to say or do anything to get elected with no intention of honoring campaign promises. Everyone has an opinion when it comes to politics, but however you slice it; the Obama Administration has failed to honor its promises to the small business community. In June, the American Small Business League (ASBL) released an analysis of the Obama Administration’s poor small business track record . I am predicting that the actual volume of federal contracts the government will claim to have awarded to small businesses during fiscal year (FY) 2009 will be grossly misrepresented. The data will prove that President Obama’s promise to end the diversion of billions of dollars a year in federal small business contracts to corporate giants was empty. The Obama Administration’s neglect of this issue during its tenure has cheated the nation’s 27 million small businesses out of billions of dollars in federal funds that by law should be allocated to small businesses. I predict the following regarding the release, and the immediate fall-out after the release of the Obama Administration’s FY 2009 small business contracting data: 1. To avoid scrutiny from the media, the data will be released late on a Friday in the next several weeks. 2. There will be no mainstream media coverage of the release of the data. The largest federal program to direct federal infrastructure spending to the private sector will go unreported. The intentional diversion of over $100 billion in federal small business funds to large businesses around the world will go largely unreported by the mainstream media. You will not see this story on ABC, CBS or NBC. You won’t see it in the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. 3. The Obama Administration will claim to have just missed its congressionally mandated 23 percent goal. Administration officials will claim to have awarded just over 22 percent of the government’s purchases to small businesses. In reality, less than 5 percent of government contracts will have actually gone to legitimate small businesses. 4. The government’s FY 2009 small business contracting data will be falsified in several ways. First: Obama Administration officials will claim the federal acquisition budget is less than half of what it actually is. The real federal acquisition budget for foreign, domestic, classified and unclassified acquisitions is nearly $1 trillion. Second: Thousands of large businesses, Fortune 500 firms and foreign owned corporations will be included in the Obama Administration’s small business data. Billions of dollars in contracts awarded to U.S. based large businesses will be hidden under the categories “miscellaneous foreign contractors” and “classified domestic contractors.” 5. If any attention is brought to fact that thousands of large businesses are included in the data, officials at the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) will claim it is the result of “miscoding,” “computer glitches,” and “simple human error.” 6. No journalist will ask any Obama Administration official why the alleged “random errors” always report awards to large businesses as small business contracts and never the other way around. No journalist will ask why the one field that indicates if a firm is small or large has an error rate thousands of times higher than any other field in the database. No journalist will ask why there are so many errors in the data, even after the government spent nearly a year analyzing the data before its release. 7. No White House Correspondent will ever ask President Obama why his Administration is diverting federal small business contracts to large businesses, despite his campaign promise to, “end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” 8. No member of Congress will complain about the fact that the Obama Administration is diverting federal small business funds to large businesses. 9. The release of the fabricated small business data will not prompt any member of Congress to call for the immediate passage of H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act. The bill would halt the yearly diversion of over $100 billion in federal small business contracts to large businesses, and redirect those funds to the private sector firms that create a majority of net new jobs in America. 10. No group claiming to represent the interests of American small businesses (other than the ASBL) will be critical of the Obama Administration for diverting small business funds to large businesses, and falsifying compliance with the government’s 23 percent small business contracting goal. The ASBL projects that over the last decade this fraud and abuse has diverted more than a trillion dollars away from the middle class. Unless the mainstream media starts making this issue a priority, another trillion dollars in small business contracts will flow into the hands of large businesses over the next decade.

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: Obama Administration Fabricated Small Business Contracting Data Coming Soon

August 24, 2010

Any day now the Obama Administration will release the latest federal data on the volume of government contracts that were awarded to small businesses. Federal law requires a minimum of 23 percent of all federal contracts to be awarded to small businesses. I’m betting the “Change We Can Believe In” Obama Administration will completely falsify the actual percentage of government contracts that were awarded to legitimate small businesses. Despite all his rhetoric and pandering to small businesses, the latest government small business contracting data will prove President Obama is just another “business as usual” politician who is willing to say or do anything to get elected with no intention of honoring campaign promises. Everyone has an opinion when it comes to politics, but however you slice it; the Obama Administration has failed to honor its promises to the small business community. In June, the American Small Business League (ASBL) released an analysis of the Obama Administration’s poor small business track record . I am predicting that the actual volume of federal contracts the government will claim to have awarded to small businesses during fiscal year (FY) 2009 will be grossly misrepresented. The data will prove that President Obama’s promise to end the diversion of billions of dollars a year in federal small business contracts to corporate giants was empty. The Obama Administration’s neglect of this issue during its tenure has cheated the nation’s 27 million small businesses out of billions of dollars in federal funds that by law should be allocated to small businesses. I predict the following regarding the release, and the immediate fall-out after the release of the Obama Administration’s FY 2009 small business contracting data: 1. To avoid scrutiny from the media, the data will be released late on a Friday in the next several weeks. 2. There will be no mainstream media coverage of the release of the data. The largest federal program to direct federal infrastructure spending to the private sector will go unreported. The intentional diversion of over $100 billion in federal small business funds to large businesses around the world will go largely unreported by the mainstream media. You will not see this story on ABC, CBS or NBC. You won’t see it in the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. 3. The Obama Administration will claim to have just missed its congressionally mandated 23 percent goal. Administration officials will claim to have awarded just over 22 percent of the government’s purchases to small businesses. In reality, less than 5 percent of government contracts will have actually gone to legitimate small businesses. 4. The government’s FY 2009 small business contracting data will be falsified in several ways. First: Obama Administration officials will claim the federal acquisition budget is less than half of what it actually is. The real federal acquisition budget for foreign, domestic, classified and unclassified acquisitions is nearly $1 trillion. Second: Thousands of large businesses, Fortune 500 firms and foreign owned corporations will be included in the Obama Administration’s small business data. Billions of dollars in contracts awarded to U.S. based large businesses will be hidden under the categories “miscellaneous foreign contractors” and “classified domestic contractors.” 5. If any attention is brought to fact that thousands of large businesses are included in the data, officials at the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) will claim it is the result of “miscoding,” “computer glitches,” and “simple human error.” 6. No journalist will ask any Obama Administration official why the alleged “random errors” always report awards to large businesses as small business contracts and never the other way around. No journalist will ask why the one field that indicates if a firm is small or large has an error rate thousands of times higher than any other field in the database. No journalist will ask why there are so many errors in the data, even after the government spent nearly a year analyzing the data before its release. 7. No White House Correspondent will ever ask President Obama why his Administration is diverting federal small business contracts to large businesses, despite his campaign promise to, “end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” 8. No member of Congress will complain about the fact that the Obama Administration is diverting federal small business funds to large businesses. 9. The release of the fabricated small business data will not prompt any member of Congress to call for the immediate passage of H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act. The bill would halt the yearly diversion of over $100 billion in federal small business contracts to large businesses, and redirect those funds to the private sector firms that create a majority of net new jobs in America. 10. No group claiming to represent the interests of American small businesses (other than the ASBL) will be critical of the Obama Administration for diverting small business funds to large businesses, and falsifying compliance with the government’s 23 percent small business contracting goal. The ASBL projects that over the last decade this fraud and abuse has diverted more than a trillion dollars away from the middle class. Unless the mainstream media starts making this issue a priority, another trillion dollars in small business contracts will flow into the hands of large businesses over the next decade.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: The Myth of the Stock Market Guru

August 24, 2010

The securities industry has many ways to separate you from your money. My personal favorite is hedge funds. These funds push all the right buttons: Greed, the promise of outsized returns, elitism, and the thrill of playing with the big boys. I’m sure you get the picture. Back in October, 2009, Bloomberg did a fawning article on Paolo Pellegrini. It had a lot of ammunition. Pellegrini has an engineering degree and a Harvard MBA. According to his field study advisor at Harvard, he was “into data and systems” and “…was intrigued by the potential of math-based systems to trade stocks.” Sounds impressive, but not as much as his subsequent track record. He helped Paulson & Co earn profits of more than $3.5 billion betting against subprime mortgages. Flush with victory, he formed his own private fund. He bet against U.S. Treasury futures, among other trades, and earned 52% from April 15, 2008-December, 2008. It was now clear to everyone in the investment community that Pellegrini had the magic sauce insuring huge profits. It was clear to Pellegrini as well. In December, 2008, He started his own investment firm, PSQR Management LLC, and staked $100 million of his own money in it. Investment “pros” extolled his virtues, noting his “rare ability to apply rigorous analysis to specific financial markets, as he did with the subprime trade.” Bloomberg opined that his past performance was “no fluke” and noted that “Pellegrini’s meteoric rise is proof that bad news can produce a lucrative bounty for those with the foresight to predict it.” So, are you in? Fast forward to August 20, 2010. Pellegrini announced he is returning the money invested in his fund. The fund is down 11% this year. Last year it gained 62%. In July, it lost 7.9%. The losses were caused by bad bets against U.S. Treasury bonds, which have rallied since April. To put these numbers in perspective, a globally diversified portfolio of index funds broke just about even year-to-date. Pellegrini has a lot of company. According to a web site that tracks hedge funds, at least 117 funds have imploded since 2006. “Quant” funds have been hit particularly hard. These funds are run by “super brains” with Ph.Ds and quantitative skills enhanced by hyper fast computers. According to an article in the New York Times , assets in these funds are down 61% from 2007. Quant funds had a dismal performance record in 2008, which continued in 2009. Maggie Ralbovsky, an officer of a firm that gives investment advice to big funds, is quoted as stating that “not all quants are created equal.” She is right, but for the wrong reasons. Her observation implies there are superior quant managers out there, if only you could find them. The reality is that luck and not skill explains outperformance by fund managers. Many studies conclusively demonstrate this fact. Neither Ms. Ralbovsky nor anyone else can help you find the next lucky quant fund manager. When fund managers get lucky, the rewards are big. Pellegrini purchased what he called “”entry- level supercars”: a silver Ferrari F430 with a base price of $168,000 and a black $109,000 Audi R8. Investors who chase returns are driving Yugos. When will the madness stop? The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog. Here is the trailer for my new book, Timeless Investment Advice .

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: The Myth of the Stock Market Guru

August 24, 2010

The securities industry has many ways to separate you from your money. My personal favorite is hedge funds. These funds push all the right buttons: Greed, the promise of outsized returns, elitism, and the thrill of playing with the big boys. I’m sure you get the picture. Back in October, 2009, Bloomberg did a fawning article on Paolo Pellegrini. It had a lot of ammunition. Pellegrini has an engineering degree and a Harvard MBA. According to his field study advisor at Harvard, he was “into data and systems” and “…was intrigued by the potential of math-based systems to trade stocks.” Sounds impressive, but not as much as his subsequent track record. He helped Paulson & Co earn profits of more than $3.5 billion betting against subprime mortgages. Flush with victory, he formed his own private fund. He bet against U.S. Treasury futures, among other trades, and earned 52% from April 15, 2008-December, 2008. It was now clear to everyone in the investment community that Pellegrini had the magic sauce insuring huge profits. It was clear to Pellegrini as well. In December, 2008, He started his own investment firm, PSQR Management LLC, and staked $100 million of his own money in it. Investment “pros” extolled his virtues, noting his “rare ability to apply rigorous analysis to specific financial markets, as he did with the subprime trade.” Bloomberg opined that his past performance was “no fluke” and noted that “Pellegrini’s meteoric rise is proof that bad news can produce a lucrative bounty for those with the foresight to predict it.” So, are you in? Fast forward to August 20, 2010. Pellegrini announced he is returning the money invested in his fund. The fund is down 11% this year. Last year it gained 62%. In July, it lost 7.9%. The losses were caused by bad bets against U.S. Treasury bonds, which have rallied since April. To put these numbers in perspective, a globally diversified portfolio of index funds broke just about even year-to-date. Pellegrini has a lot of company. According to a web site that tracks hedge funds, at least 117 funds have imploded since 2006. “Quant” funds have been hit particularly hard. These funds are run by “super brains” with Ph.Ds and quantitative skills enhanced by hyper fast computers. According to an article in the New York Times , assets in these funds are down 61% from 2007. Quant funds had a dismal performance record in 2008, which continued in 2009. Maggie Ralbovsky, an officer of a firm that gives investment advice to big funds, is quoted as stating that “not all quants are created equal.” She is right, but for the wrong reasons. Her observation implies there are superior quant managers out there, if only you could find them. The reality is that luck and not skill explains outperformance by fund managers. Many studies conclusively demonstrate this fact. Neither Ms. Ralbovsky nor anyone else can help you find the next lucky quant fund manager. When fund managers get lucky, the rewards are big. Pellegrini purchased what he called “”entry- level supercars”: a silver Ferrari F430 with a base price of $168,000 and a black $109,000 Audi R8. Investors who chase returns are driving Yugos. When will the madness stop? The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog. Here is the trailer for my new book, Timeless Investment Advice .

Read the full article →

CBO: Stimulus Added Millions Of Jobs In Second Quarter

August 24, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The massive U.S. stimulus package put millions of people to work and boosted national output by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second quarter, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. CBO’s latest estimate indicates that the stimulus effort, which remains a political hot potato ahead of the November congressional elections, may have prevented the sluggish U.S. economy from contracting between April and June.

Read the full article →

CBO: Stimulus Added Millions Of Jobs In Second Quarter

August 24, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The massive U.S. stimulus package put millions of people to work and boosted national output by hundreds of billions of dollars in the second quarter, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. CBO’s latest estimate indicates that the stimulus effort, which remains a political hot potato ahead of the November congressional elections, may have prevented the sluggish U.S. economy from contracting between April and June.

Read the full article →

Video: Mosesmann Sees `Big’ Potential for Nvidia in Smartphones: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Hans Mosesmann, an analyst at Raymond James Associates Inc., talks about the outlook for Nvidia Corp. He speaks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (This is an excerpt. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Mosesmann Sees `Big’ Potential for Nvidia in Smartphones: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Hans Mosesmann, an analyst at Raymond James Associates Inc., talks about the outlook for Nvidia Corp. He speaks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (This is an excerpt. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: Eight Questions Every Startup Hopes You Won’t Ask

August 24, 2010

If you really want to impress a startup founder as a potential employee, or you want to be a smart investor, you need to know the right questions to ask. These are the questions that get past the hype of a founder “vision to change the world,” and into the realm of real business strengths, weaknesses, and current health. Some founders try to deflect these questions by talking incessantly, so you often need to be calm, patient, and persistent to get the answers. My advice to founders out there is to not volunteer too much, but be open and honest in the face of direct questions like the following: What is your burn rate and runway today? These are investor slang terms referring to how fast money is being spent, with an implicit question of how long the startup can survive before break-even or another cash infusion is required. You need to know this as a future employee, since it probably gates how long your new job will last. If the runway is less than six months, with no new source signed, both you and the startup are at risk. How much “skin” is already in the game? The intent of this question is to determine the level of commitment of founders, both cash and “sweat equity,” and how much others have already invested into this plan. Implicit in the analysis of the answers is how much progress has been made for the investment, and how stable the business is now. What’s the total history of this company? Gaps in the history of a startup are big red flags, just like gaps in your resume. If the company was incorporated five years ago, and is still in early stages, with the same founding team, chances are slim that it will suddenly get back on track with you as an employee, or you as an investor. How well do the founders get along with each other, and with the team? The smartest people are often the most eccentric, so some conflict in the ranks is normal. Excessive conflict, lack of communication, or lack of mutual respect is indicative of a dysfunctional team, and eventual failure of the startup. You won’t get this answer from the founder, but it’s not hard to get it by talking to other team members. What’s in this deal for me? Investing in a startup, or joining a startup, is always a very big risk, so the potential return better be large. As an employee, you salary will likely be low, your job security low, so the job title better be large, and the stock options better be large. As an investor, look for an ROI that is 10x your initial investment, based on something more than a dream from the founder. What traction can be measured today? Who do you have as outside board members? The only true outside board or advisory members are not family members, not current investors, but are experienced entrepreneurs with deep knowledge and connections in the relevant business area. They should be asking to speak to you if you are a potential investor or a superstar hire. If you talk to them, they better know the answers to the previous questions. Who is a real customer that I can talk to? Real customers are ones who have paid full price for the product, have it installed and in use, and are still satisfied. Free trials don’t count, betas don’t count, and “excited about the potential” doesn’t count. If there are no customers yet, when will the product ship, and how many times has the date been set? How solid is the intellectual property? Provisional patents, or lawsuits pending, don’t add up to a strong sustainable competitive advantage. You need to know these things before you put your money on the table, or bet your career and your family’s future on this startup. Again, I’m not suggesting that you go on the attack to get answers to these questions. But don’t let management divert you with comments on your failure to understand “the vision and the big picture.” If you are a potential employee, it probably makes sense to get the job offer first before you tackle some of these, always staying calm and assertive. In the parlance of an investor, asking these questions and getting answers is the heart of that mysterious “due diligence” process. Now you know. If you are a potential employee, you need to do the same due diligence before you sign on. Every good founder will have done the same on you, before they make you an offer.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Approaching a Recruiter – Don’t Do What He Did

August 24, 2010

The other day we received a wacky cover letter. It’s the type of bizarre letter we receive a few times every year. We cringe when we get it and have taken measures to stop them, with no success. We are certain that some company out there is charging a fee to job seekers for this “professional” cover letter, because they are all written in the same vein. Here’s what landed on our desk: “Dear Mr. Whelan, Just about everyone enjoys a Broadway play, at least occasionally. The best and most enduring musicals – those with engaging choreography, entertaining/clever plots, and foot-tapping/upbeat music – can pack in the audience for years. ” Phantom of the Opera” opened in January 1988….and, is still going strong. It’s the longest-running Broadway play of all time. Take a guess at #2. It’s Cat’s, which ran for 18 years, 1982-2000 – an incredible 7,485 performances. Cats might be revived on Broadway, but it closed. All plays close, even the best. My run at (company) was long like Cats – 12 great years. The Company shut down my division – not because of me, our metrics were excellent.” The rest of the letter had odd references, for example, “As the youngest of four boys, I learned how to fight for the last pork chop”. A few months ago we received a similar letter that started out, “The greatest invention mankind has known is fire. But it wasn’t until fire was controlled that it became useful.” This letter also continued to go down a similar path where the candidate linked the management of fire to his professional career. It didn’t ignite (pun intended) our interest. We understand how someone might want to differentiate themselves to a recruiter and stand out from the crowd. However, the best way to do that is to write a cover letter that is sincere, straightforward and highlights your accomplishments. Recruiters understand that in these difficult times, divisions close, companies get acquired, and people lose their jobs. No need to spend a paragraph explaining why you are on the market. Use that space to talk about the contribution you made and why your experience would be valuable to another company. Here’s a cover letter that was emailed to us this morning, which we think does the job: “Hi Gladys, I am looking for a sales leadership position with a late stage startup in data storage. I have both domestic and international experience and have a consistent track record of overachieving revenue objectives. ” This was followed by three excellent bullet points of her achievements. The email closed by saying: “I realize that recruiters are receiving a large volume of unsolicited email, thus I’ll make an offer to help you. If you are working on a search requiring sales professionals in the data storage market, I would be happy to provide leads to you. Attached is my resume. Thank you for your time and consideration.” This person is now on our radar screen as both a candidate and a potential source of referrals. A well written cover letter helps you receive the attention that you are seeking – positive attention. Trying to be gimmicky seldom works and can actually work against you. Instead of drawing an analogy between your career and something far fetched, make the connection between your experience and what you can do for a company. The more adept you are at communicating your strengths in a cover letter, the more likely you’ll do the same in an interview. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Grand Cherokee Gas Tank Fires Under Federal Investigation

August 24, 2010

WASHINGTON — U.S. safety officials are investigating whether gas tanks on Jeep Grand Cherokees can cause fires in rear end crashes or rollovers. The preliminary investigation, begun Monday by the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, is the first step in determining whether a recall of the popular Chrysler SUV is necessary. The investigation covers three million Grand Cherokees from model years 1993 to 2004. Advocacy group Center for Auto Safety has asked NHTSA to review whether the gas tank’s position below the rear bumper and behind the rear axle could cause fuel to spill if the SUV were struck from behind. In rollovers, a lack of proper shielding for the plastic tank could cause it to puncture, the group said. The neck of the fuel tank could also tear off. “This is a terrible design,” said Clarence Ditlow, head of the Center for Auto Safety. Ditlow said he planned to ask Chrysler to issue a voluntary recall of the Grand Cherokee. While the agency has not reached any conclusions, an initial review of crash data submitted by auto manufacturers showed that the Grand Cherokee did not have significantly more fires after crashes than other vehicles, NHTSA said. Chrysler spokesman Michael Palese said the company is cooperating with the government investigation and that the Grand Cherokee has an excellent safety record. The automaker moved the tank’s position after the 2004 model. Chrysler has sold just under 3.6 million Grand Cherokees since the midsize SUV was introduced in 1992, according to Ward’s AutoInfoBank. The company started selling a redesigned 2011 model recently. NHTSA has found 44 Grand Cherokee crashes and 55 deaths since 1992 where fire was listed as the most harmful factor. Of those figures, 10 crashes and 13 deaths were most likely associated with rear end crashes, the federal safety agency reported. __ AP Auto Writer Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Grand Cherokee Gas Tank Fires Under Federal Investigation

August 24, 2010

WASHINGTON — U.S. safety officials are investigating whether gas tanks on Jeep Grand Cherokees can cause fires in rear end crashes or rollovers. The preliminary investigation, begun Monday by the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, is the first step in determining whether a recall of the popular Chrysler SUV is necessary. The investigation covers three million Grand Cherokees from model years 1993 to 2004. Advocacy group Center for Auto Safety has asked NHTSA to review whether the gas tank’s position below the rear bumper and behind the rear axle could cause fuel to spill if the SUV were struck from behind. In rollovers, a lack of proper shielding for the plastic tank could cause it to puncture, the group said. The neck of the fuel tank could also tear off. “This is a terrible design,” said Clarence Ditlow, head of the Center for Auto Safety. Ditlow said he planned to ask Chrysler to issue a voluntary recall of the Grand Cherokee. While the agency has not reached any conclusions, an initial review of crash data submitted by auto manufacturers showed that the Grand Cherokee did not have significantly more fires after crashes than other vehicles, NHTSA said. Chrysler spokesman Michael Palese said the company is cooperating with the government investigation and that the Grand Cherokee has an excellent safety record. The automaker moved the tank’s position after the 2004 model. Chrysler has sold just under 3.6 million Grand Cherokees since the midsize SUV was introduced in 1992, according to Ward’s AutoInfoBank. The company started selling a redesigned 2011 model recently. NHTSA has found 44 Grand Cherokee crashes and 55 deaths since 1992 where fire was listed as the most harmful factor. Of those figures, 10 crashes and 13 deaths were most likely associated with rear end crashes, the federal safety agency reported. __ AP Auto Writer Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Grand Cherokee Gas Tank Fires Under Federal Investigation

August 24, 2010

WASHINGTON — U.S. safety officials are investigating whether gas tanks on Jeep Grand Cherokees can cause fires in rear end crashes or rollovers. The preliminary investigation, begun Monday by the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, is the first step in determining whether a recall of the popular Chrysler SUV is necessary. The investigation covers three million Grand Cherokees from model years 1993 to 2004. Advocacy group Center for Auto Safety has asked NHTSA to review whether the gas tank’s position below the rear bumper and behind the rear axle could cause fuel to spill if the SUV were struck from behind. In rollovers, a lack of proper shielding for the plastic tank could cause it to puncture, the group said. The neck of the fuel tank could also tear off. “This is a terrible design,” said Clarence Ditlow, head of the Center for Auto Safety. Ditlow said he planned to ask Chrysler to issue a voluntary recall of the Grand Cherokee. While the agency has not reached any conclusions, an initial review of crash data submitted by auto manufacturers showed that the Grand Cherokee did not have significantly more fires after crashes than other vehicles, NHTSA said. Chrysler spokesman Michael Palese said the company is cooperating with the government investigation and that the Grand Cherokee has an excellent safety record. The automaker moved the tank’s position after the 2004 model. Chrysler has sold just under 3.6 million Grand Cherokees since the midsize SUV was introduced in 1992, according to Ward’s AutoInfoBank. The company started selling a redesigned 2011 model recently. NHTSA has found 44 Grand Cherokee crashes and 55 deaths since 1992 where fire was listed as the most harmful factor. Of those figures, 10 crashes and 13 deaths were most likely associated with rear end crashes, the federal safety agency reported. __ AP Auto Writer Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Nelson Davis: Relationships and the N-Word

August 24, 2010

I’m feeling a bit sorry for Dr. Laura Schlessinger right now as I gaze at the wreckage left behind after an indulgent and misguided five minutes of spraying the N-Word across the airwaves. She obviously shattered some important relationships with her listeners, advertisers and radio stations. Every small business owners knows that relationships are the plasma in the lifeblood of business. No matter how smart, educated or accomplished you may be, nothing trumps the quality of your relationships with customers, vendors and employees. It is fascinating to think that one event or even just one word can completely stop the machinery. Dr. Laura has been more successful than most of us, earning a place as a national media figure and being rewarded with what I expect is several million dollars per year from her widely syndicated radio program, books, lectures and other business ventures. But, her professional life changed in just a few minutes in what I feel was a relationship altering lapse in judgment. The relationship that was battered was the one she had worked years to establish with sponsors, stations and listeners. Successful on-air personalities have climbed that mountain by building strong relationships over time with their listeners or viewers. As you probably know, in the business of broadcasting the audience is counted by a ratings service and the advertising time is sold accordingly. That is the relationship chain that leads to electronic media prosperity. I had a great lesson in media world relationships while working as the Broadcast Standards person for The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in 1981-82. One day I was called over to the Tonight Show offices because a young comedian named Eddie Murphy was making his first appearance on the program and wanted to do a piece in his routine which required the studio audience to collectively use the N-Word. I don’t even think that we had begun calling the word by that euphemism then. I walked to the studio from my office wondering what would I say to Murphy who was then a rising star on Saturday Night Live? When he answered the dressing room door, I was a bit nervous as a black person on a mission to tell the younger man why it would be a bad idea to get that derogatory term involved in his first appearance on The Tonight Show. The point I made to Eddie Murphy was one of how relationships were important even for a comedian. Johnny Carson could do many things on the show that guests couldn’t get away with because Mr. Carson had a multi-decade relationship with the viewers. Eddie Murphy didn’t have years on the air or a strong bond with Carson’s audience to allow him a broad latitude of behavior. To my surprise he listened politely and quickly decided to drop the potentially offensive part of his monologue. I’m sure there was a bit of self preservation involved; realizing that if he offended Carson there would not be an invitation to return. Though I don’t know the good doctor Laura, I have met her once in her early career and the exchange we had was an interesting moment of character revelation. Our meeting was back in 1978 when I was working my first job as a producer on a series at a Los Angeles PBS TV station. Ms. Schlessinger was on her way up as a local broadcast personality and was interested in appearing on our program which dealt with criminal behavior. I don’t remember the precise reason why, but I had to tell her that we couldn’t work with her in that particular instance. The look she gave me and the body language was pretty chilly and is memorable to me three decades later! When her use of the N-Word hit the fan a few days ago, I called a couple of radio people to inquire about her current reputation among broadcast professionals and employees. Gracious and warm were not terms that I heard. If she had to rely on the bank of warm fuzzy relationships, I have a feeling that the account balances would be pretty thin. So Eddie Murphy and Dr. Laura Schlessinger have briefly touched my world and left me with relationship lessons. Murphy got a career boost from wisely avoiding the N-Word in his maiden appearance on The Tonight Show and was gracious to me in the process. Dr. Laura took a bad turn from using it liberally in a listener call and gave me the impression of being rather brittle in our one encounter. I see irony in the fact that one of her points on the air had to do with African-American comedians freely spraying the word around on a regular basis. These two well known personalities have constructed major careers and businesses based on their own standards of talent and relationship building. Knowing the ultimate limits of our cherished relationships is what helps all of us stay in business. As we’ve just seen, one careless day can give us the “Humpty Dumpty” experience that changes everything.

Read the full article →

Nelson Davis: Relationships and the N-Word

August 24, 2010

I’m feeling a bit sorry for Dr. Laura Schlessinger right now as I gaze at the wreckage left behind after an indulgent and misguided five minutes of spraying the N-Word across the airwaves. She obviously shattered some important relationships with her listeners, advertisers and radio stations. Every small business owners knows that relationships are the plasma in the lifeblood of business. No matter how smart, educated or accomplished you may be, nothing trumps the quality of your relationships with customers, vendors and employees. It is fascinating to think that one event or even just one word can completely stop the machinery. Dr. Laura has been more successful than most of us, earning a place as a national media figure and being rewarded with what I expect is several million dollars per year from her widely syndicated radio program, books, lectures and other business ventures. But, her professional life changed in just a few minutes in what I feel was a relationship altering lapse in judgment. The relationship that was battered was the one she had worked years to establish with sponsors, stations and listeners. Successful on-air personalities have climbed that mountain by building strong relationships over time with their listeners or viewers. As you probably know, in the business of broadcasting the audience is counted by a ratings service and the advertising time is sold accordingly. That is the relationship chain that leads to electronic media prosperity. I had a great lesson in media world relationships while working as the Broadcast Standards person for The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson in 1981-82. One day I was called over to the Tonight Show offices because a young comedian named Eddie Murphy was making his first appearance on the program and wanted to do a piece in his routine which required the studio audience to collectively use the N-Word. I don’t even think that we had begun calling the word by that euphemism then. I walked to the studio from my office wondering what would I say to Murphy who was then a rising star on Saturday Night Live? When he answered the dressing room door, I was a bit nervous as a black person on a mission to tell the younger man why it would be a bad idea to get that derogatory term involved in his first appearance on The Tonight Show. The point I made to Eddie Murphy was one of how relationships were important even for a comedian. Johnny Carson could do many things on the show that guests couldn’t get away with because Mr. Carson had a multi-decade relationship with the viewers. Eddie Murphy didn’t have years on the air or a strong bond with Carson’s audience to allow him a broad latitude of behavior. To my surprise he listened politely and quickly decided to drop the potentially offensive part of his monologue. I’m sure there was a bit of self preservation involved; realizing that if he offended Carson there would not be an invitation to return. Though I don’t know the good doctor Laura, I have met her once in her early career and the exchange we had was an interesting moment of character revelation. Our meeting was back in 1978 when I was working my first job as a producer on a series at a Los Angeles PBS TV station. Ms. Schlessinger was on her way up as a local broadcast personality and was interested in appearing on our program which dealt with criminal behavior. I don’t remember the precise reason why, but I had to tell her that we couldn’t work with her in that particular instance. The look she gave me and the body language was pretty chilly and is memorable to me three decades later! When her use of the N-Word hit the fan a few days ago, I called a couple of radio people to inquire about her current reputation among broadcast professionals and employees. Gracious and warm were not terms that I heard. If she had to rely on the bank of warm fuzzy relationships, I have a feeling that the account balances would be pretty thin. So Eddie Murphy and Dr. Laura Schlessinger have briefly touched my world and left me with relationship lessons. Murphy got a career boost from wisely avoiding the N-Word in his maiden appearance on The Tonight Show and was gracious to me in the process. Dr. Laura took a bad turn from using it liberally in a listener call and gave me the impression of being rather brittle in our one encounter. I see irony in the fact that one of her points on the air had to do with African-American comedians freely spraying the word around on a regular basis. These two well known personalities have constructed major careers and businesses based on their own standards of talent and relationship building. Knowing the ultimate limits of our cherished relationships is what helps all of us stay in business. As we’ve just seen, one careless day can give us the “Humpty Dumpty” experience that changes everything.

Read the full article →

Video: Federated’s Duessel Says U.S. May See `Growth Recession’: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Linda Duessel, equity market strategist at Federated Investors Inc., talks about the outlook for the U.S. economy. Duessel speaks with Matt Miller, Julie Hyman, Adam Johnson and Dominic Chu on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” Efficient Capital Management LLC’s Lawrence Shover also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Bloomberg Lambastes Empire State Building Owner For Complaining About Skyline Changes

August 24, 2010

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ridiculed the owner of the Empire State Building for complaining a proposed skyscraper would ruin the view from the iconic landmark. The mayor said Tuesday every building alters the city’s skyline and no developer owes anyone an apology for new buildings. He welcomes the proposed Manhattan tower as a great investment. The City Council is expected this week to consider developer David Greenbaum’s plan for a 67-story tower a couple of blocks west of the 102-story Empire State Building. The proposed tower would be 34 feet shorter than the Empire State Building, the city’s tallest skyscraper. Greenbaum says his tower would provide critically needed office space. Empire State Building owner Anthony Malkin says it would be an “assault on New York City.”

Read the full article →

Bloomberg Lambastes Empire State Building Owner For Complaining About Skyline Changes

August 24, 2010

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ridiculed the owner of the Empire State Building for complaining a proposed skyscraper would ruin the view from the iconic landmark. The mayor said Tuesday every building alters the city’s skyline and no developer owes anyone an apology for new buildings. He welcomes the proposed Manhattan tower as a great investment. The City Council is expected this week to consider developer David Greenbaum’s plan for a 67-story tower a couple of blocks west of the 102-story Empire State Building. The proposed tower would be 34 feet shorter than the Empire State Building, the city’s tallest skyscraper. Greenbaum says his tower would provide critically needed office space. Empire State Building owner Anthony Malkin says it would be an “assault on New York City.”

Read the full article →

Bloomberg Lambastes Empire State Building Owner For Complaining About Skyline Changes

August 24, 2010

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ridiculed the owner of the Empire State Building for complaining a proposed skyscraper would ruin the view from the iconic landmark. The mayor said Tuesday every building alters the city’s skyline and no developer owes anyone an apology for new buildings. He welcomes the proposed Manhattan tower as a great investment. The City Council is expected this week to consider developer David Greenbaum’s plan for a 67-story tower a couple of blocks west of the 102-story Empire State Building. The proposed tower would be 34 feet shorter than the Empire State Building, the city’s tallest skyscraper. Greenbaum says his tower would provide critically needed office space. Empire State Building owner Anthony Malkin says it would be an “assault on New York City.”

Read the full article →

Video: Shiller Calls July Home Sales Plunge Data `Anomalous’: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Robert Shiller, an economics professor at Yale University and chief economist at MacroMarkets LLC, and Stan Humphries, chief economist at Zillow Inc., talk about the outlook for the U.S. housing market. Sales of existing homes plummeted 27.2 percent to a 3.83 million annual rate, the National Association of Realtors said. Shiller and Humphries speak with Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Fall on Record Drop in Existing Home Sales: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Courtney Donohoe reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks declined, sending the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index to a seven-week low, as a record plunge in home sales cast further doubt on the viability of the economic recovery. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: 451 Group’s Daly Sees HP Winning Bidding War for 3Par: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Brenon Daly, analyst at 451 Group, talks with Bloomberg’s Mark Crumpton and Julie Hyman about bidding for data-storage provider 3Par Inc. Dell Inc. is readying a sweetened offer for 3Par after its earlier bid was bested by a $1.6 billion proposal by Hewlett-Packard Co., according to a person familiar with the matter. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Stimulus Boosted U.S. GDP By Up To 4.5% In 2Q, Added Up To 3.3 Million Jobs: CBO

August 24, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The massive stimulus package boosted real GDP by up to 4.5 percent in the second quarter of 2010 and put up to 3.3 million people to work, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. CBO’s latest estimate indicates that the stimulus effort, which remains a political hot potato ahead of the November congressional elections, may have prevented the sluggish U.S. economy from contracting between April and June.

Read the full article →

Stimulus Boosted U.S. GDP By Up To 4.5% In 2Q, Added Up To 3.3 Million Jobs: CBO

August 24, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The massive stimulus package boosted real GDP by up to 4.5 percent in the second quarter of 2010 and put up to 3.3 million people to work, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. CBO’s latest estimate indicates that the stimulus effort, which remains a political hot potato ahead of the November congressional elections, may have prevented the sluggish U.S. economy from contracting between April and June.

Read the full article →

Video: Ireland Has Long-Term Sovereign Credit Rating Cut by S&P: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Matt Miller, Dominic Chu and Julie Hyman discuss today’s decision by Standard and Poor’s to cut Ireland’s long-term sovereign credit rating to AA- from AA. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told Dublin-based RTE Radio in an interview broadcast today that the European economy is at risk of sliding back into a recession as governments cut spending to reduce their budget deficits. They talk on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Chip Conley: Living Downwind from the Flower Shop

August 24, 2010

One of the great mysteries in life is why some of us prefer to be swamp-dwellers. Not literally. I’m not dissing those living in the low country of the Gulf States or, frankly, anyone stuck in less than pristine living conditions. No, what I’m talking about is why some of us choose to be prisoners of our own minds. My grandmother used to tell me, “Some days, you need an escort to take you through that dangerous neighborhood that is your mind.” Ask a thoughtful swamp-dweller why they perennially veer toward the negative and they may tell you that low expectations translate into less disappointment in their lives. In fact, philosopher William James once wrote that self-esteem could be distilled down to an equation: success in life divided by expectations. Recent studies have shown that Asian-American students coming from families with high academic expectations of them tend to have lower self-esteem even when they score very well on their exams, so maybe there’s some truth to this. But, low expectations can also translate into less success when one’s spirit and motivation is poisoned by a lack of hope, meaning, or possibility in one’s life. In the context of business, we’re all aware that some corporate cultures create a momentum of victory while others create a constant feeling of failure. Given that my company often takes over the management of hotels that are in a downward spiral, I know the signs of a troubled culture: passive aggressive communication, lots of finger pointing, and universally low expectations. Yet, there are many companies that have risen from their swamp whether it’s Continental Airlines with a newcomer CEO Gordon Bethune in the 90′s or Apple with returning CEO Steve Jobs at around that same time. In both cases, these execs first had to help all in the organization believe in themselves again and identify a few initial victories that they could point to in order to start building that momentum of victory. My son has just been released from prison after a Federal Judge found that his constitutional rights had been violated (due to mistaken jury instructions). While he was initially ecstatic about being out after being wrongly accused for four and a half years, he started to gravitate back to familiar territory: Will the County District Attorney choose to appeal the Judge’s ruling? Of course, this has enormous implications for his life, but it’s also something he has little influence over and, for the time being, there’s so much life to catch up on and to celebrate that obsessing on the D.A.’s actions can become a no-win game. One of the responsibilities of friends and family is to escort each other through the dark alleys of our minds when there are sunny, open spaces just around the corner. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend the past few days in Montana with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (and his wife Isabella), the author of Flow and many other books on how to live an optimal life. One of the basic premises of Flow is that life is at its best when we’re expertly navigating between challenge and skill. Think of a graph with two axes: with challenge on the vertical axis and skill on the horizontal axis. Flow occurs as we move diagonally away from the intersection of these two axes toward the upper right hand corner. But, most of us spend our lives toggling between boredom (low challenge, high skill) and anxiety (high challenge, low skill) living a life that feels too full of inertia or exertion. Mihaly says someone in Flow …concentrates their attention on a limited stimulus field, forgets personal problems, loses their sense of time and of themselves, feels competent and in control, and has a sense of harmony with their surroundings…they cease to worry about whether the activity will be productive or whether it will be rewarded…they have entered a state of flow. This is true of individuals inside and outside of work as well as companies that pursue an organizational predilection toward Flow. Manifesting a good life by just thinking positive thoughts is not enough. There’s no doubt that healthy psycho-hygiene creates a greater likelihood of living a life in flow with the world. But, I prefer to think of this as more like planting yourself “downwind from the flower shop.” Your willingness to build your skills and to accept challenges — emotionally, professionally, intellectually, athletically, spiritually — is your means of placing your destiny at a fortuitous intersection where good things come wafting your way. To understand how to find that flow in your life, read Mihaly’s book of the same name or Finding Flow or Good Business (to understand the context for work) or The Evolving Self (how Flow can make a difference to society).

Read the full article →

Chip Conley: Living Downwind from the Flower Shop

August 24, 2010

One of the great mysteries in life is why some of us prefer to be swamp-dwellers. Not literally. I’m not dissing those living in the low country of the Gulf States or, frankly, anyone stuck in less than pristine living conditions. No, what I’m talking about is why some of us choose to be prisoners of our own minds. My grandmother used to tell me, “Some days, you need an escort to take you through that dangerous neighborhood that is your mind.” Ask a thoughtful swamp-dweller why they perennially veer toward the negative and they may tell you that low expectations translate into less disappointment in their lives. In fact, philosopher William James once wrote that self-esteem could be distilled down to an equation: success in life divided by expectations. Recent studies have shown that Asian-American students coming from families with high academic expectations of them tend to have lower self-esteem even when they score very well on their exams, so maybe there’s some truth to this. But, low expectations can also translate into less success when one’s spirit and motivation is poisoned by a lack of hope, meaning, or possibility in one’s life. In the context of business, we’re all aware that some corporate cultures create a momentum of victory while others create a constant feeling of failure. Given that my company often takes over the management of hotels that are in a downward spiral, I know the signs of a troubled culture: passive aggressive communication, lots of finger pointing, and universally low expectations. Yet, there are many companies that have risen from their swamp whether it’s Continental Airlines with a newcomer CEO Gordon Bethune in the 90′s or Apple with returning CEO Steve Jobs at around that same time. In both cases, these execs first had to help all in the organization believe in themselves again and identify a few initial victories that they could point to in order to start building that momentum of victory. My son has just been released from prison after a Federal Judge found that his constitutional rights had been violated (due to mistaken jury instructions). While he was initially ecstatic about being out after being wrongly accused for four and a half years, he started to gravitate back to familiar territory: Will the County District Attorney choose to appeal the Judge’s ruling? Of course, this has enormous implications for his life, but it’s also something he has little influence over and, for the time being, there’s so much life to catch up on and to celebrate that obsessing on the D.A.’s actions can become a no-win game. One of the responsibilities of friends and family is to escort each other through the dark alleys of our minds when there are sunny, open spaces just around the corner. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend the past few days in Montana with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (and his wife Isabella), the author of Flow and many other books on how to live an optimal life. One of the basic premises of Flow is that life is at its best when we’re expertly navigating between challenge and skill. Think of a graph with two axes: with challenge on the vertical axis and skill on the horizontal axis. Flow occurs as we move diagonally away from the intersection of these two axes toward the upper right hand corner. But, most of us spend our lives toggling between boredom (low challenge, high skill) and anxiety (high challenge, low skill) living a life that feels too full of inertia or exertion. Mihaly says someone in Flow …concentrates their attention on a limited stimulus field, forgets personal problems, loses their sense of time and of themselves, feels competent and in control, and has a sense of harmony with their surroundings…they cease to worry about whether the activity will be productive or whether it will be rewarded…they have entered a state of flow. This is true of individuals inside and outside of work as well as companies that pursue an organizational predilection toward Flow. Manifesting a good life by just thinking positive thoughts is not enough. There’s no doubt that healthy psycho-hygiene creates a greater likelihood of living a life in flow with the world. But, I prefer to think of this as more like planting yourself “downwind from the flower shop.” Your willingness to build your skills and to accept challenges — emotionally, professionally, intellectually, athletically, spiritually — is your means of placing your destiny at a fortuitous intersection where good things come wafting your way. To understand how to find that flow in your life, read Mihaly’s book of the same name or Finding Flow or Good Business (to understand the context for work) or The Evolving Self (how Flow can make a difference to society).

Read the full article →

Chip Conley: Living Downwind from the Flower Shop

August 24, 2010

One of the great mysteries in life is why some of us prefer to be swamp-dwellers. Not literally. I’m not dissing those living in the low country of the Gulf States or, frankly, anyone stuck in less than pristine living conditions. No, what I’m talking about is why some of us choose to be prisoners of our own minds. My grandmother used to tell me, “Some days, you need an escort to take you through that dangerous neighborhood that is your mind.” Ask a thoughtful swamp-dweller why they perennially veer toward the negative and they may tell you that low expectations translate into less disappointment in their lives. In fact, philosopher William James once wrote that self-esteem could be distilled down to an equation: success in life divided by expectations. Recent studies have shown that Asian-American students coming from families with high academic expectations of them tend to have lower self-esteem even when they score very well on their exams, so maybe there’s some truth to this. But, low expectations can also translate into less success when one’s spirit and motivation is poisoned by a lack of hope, meaning, or possibility in one’s life. In the context of business, we’re all aware that some corporate cultures create a momentum of victory while others create a constant feeling of failure. Given that my company often takes over the management of hotels that are in a downward spiral, I know the signs of a troubled culture: passive aggressive communication, lots of finger pointing, and universally low expectations. Yet, there are many companies that have risen from their swamp whether it’s Continental Airlines with a newcomer CEO Gordon Bethune in the 90′s or Apple with returning CEO Steve Jobs at around that same time. In both cases, these execs first had to help all in the organization believe in themselves again and identify a few initial victories that they could point to in order to start building that momentum of victory. My son has just been released from prison after a Federal Judge found that his constitutional rights had been violated (due to mistaken jury instructions). While he was initially ecstatic about being out after being wrongly accused for four and a half years, he started to gravitate back to familiar territory: Will the County District Attorney choose to appeal the Judge’s ruling? Of course, this has enormous implications for his life, but it’s also something he has little influence over and, for the time being, there’s so much life to catch up on and to celebrate that obsessing on the D.A.’s actions can become a no-win game. One of the responsibilities of friends and family is to escort each other through the dark alleys of our minds when there are sunny, open spaces just around the corner. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend the past few days in Montana with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (and his wife Isabella), the author of Flow and many other books on how to live an optimal life. One of the basic premises of Flow is that life is at its best when we’re expertly navigating between challenge and skill. Think of a graph with two axes: with challenge on the vertical axis and skill on the horizontal axis. Flow occurs as we move diagonally away from the intersection of these two axes toward the upper right hand corner. But, most of us spend our lives toggling between boredom (low challenge, high skill) and anxiety (high challenge, low skill) living a life that feels too full of inertia or exertion. Mihaly says someone in Flow …concentrates their attention on a limited stimulus field, forgets personal problems, loses their sense of time and of themselves, feels competent and in control, and has a sense of harmony with their surroundings…they cease to worry about whether the activity will be productive or whether it will be rewarded…they have entered a state of flow. This is true of individuals inside and outside of work as well as companies that pursue an organizational predilection toward Flow. Manifesting a good life by just thinking positive thoughts is not enough. There’s no doubt that healthy psycho-hygiene creates a greater likelihood of living a life in flow with the world. But, I prefer to think of this as more like planting yourself “downwind from the flower shop.” Your willingness to build your skills and to accept challenges — emotionally, professionally, intellectually, athletically, spiritually — is your means of placing your destiny at a fortuitous intersection where good things come wafting your way. To understand how to find that flow in your life, read Mihaly’s book of the same name or Finding Flow or Good Business (to understand the context for work) or The Evolving Self (how Flow can make a difference to society).

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Tax Jujitsu: Why Democrats Should Propose a "People’s Tax Cut"

August 24, 2010

Republicans are calling the Democrat’s proposal to end the Bush tax cuts on the richest 3 percent a “tax increase,” and demagoging that it will hurt the economy and small business. This is baloney, to put it politely. Let me count the ways: Bush’s ten-year tax cut was designed to end this year, so it’s not a tax increase. Ending it for the rich simply returns them to the Clinton tax rate, which was hardly confiscatory (reminder: the Clinton years were damn good for business). Small businesses would barely be affected. Only 3 percent of small business owners earn over250,000. And because it’s a “marginal” tax, the Clinton rate would apply only to the portion of their incomes over250,000. Yet extending the Bush tax cut to the richest Americans would give them a36 billion bonus next year. (31 billion of this would go to billionaire households.) And that36 billion would be added to the budget deficit. And it wouldn’t even stimulate demand and jobs, because the very rich save (rather than spend) more of their disposable income than the rest of us. Finally, ending the Bush tax cut for the top is fair. Income inequality has become so grotesque that the top 3 percent of households rake in almost a third of total income (the highest portion since 1928). But by the time Democrats explain all this, it’s too late. The Republican furor over a “tax increase” has framed the debate. Republicans understand the art of tax demagoguery: Put the other side on the defensive by forcing them to explain why a “tax increase” is warranted and they lose regardless. So instead of playing defense, Democrats should go on the attack. Accuse Republicans of being shills for the rich. And don’t stop there. Do tax jujitsu. In addition to ending the Bush tax cut for the rich, put forward another proposal for growing the economy that cuts taxes on lower-income Americans. Democrats should propose eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income, and making up the revenue loss by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000. This would give the economy an immediate boost by adding to the paychecks of just about every working American. 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And because lower-income people would get most of the benefit, it’s likely to be spent. It would also give employers an extra incentive to hire because they’d save on their share of the payroll tax. And most of the incentive would be directed toward hiring lower-income workers — who have taken the biggest hit on jobs and pay during the recession. It wouldn’t add to the deficit. Lost revenues would be made up by applying payroll taxes to income exceeding $250,000. This is certainly fair. As it is now, the Social Security payroll tax doesn’t apply to any income over $106,000. Having the tax kick in again at $250,000 would draw on the top 3 percent of earners, who (as noted) now rake in a larger portion of total income than they have in more than 80 years. Call it the People’s Tax Cut, and let Republicans explain why they’re against it. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Tax Jujitsu: Why Democrats Should Propose a "People’s Tax Cut"

August 24, 2010

Republicans are calling the Democrat’s proposal to end the Bush tax cuts on the richest 3 percent a “tax increase,” and demagoging that it will hurt the economy and small business. This is baloney, to put it politely. Let me count the ways: Bush’s ten-year tax cut was designed to end this year, so it’s not a tax increase. Ending it for the rich simply returns them to the Clinton tax rate, which was hardly confiscatory (reminder: the Clinton years were damn good for business). Small businesses would barely be affected. Only 3 percent of small business owners earn over250,000. And because it’s a “marginal” tax, the Clinton rate would apply only to the portion of their incomes over250,000. Yet extending the Bush tax cut to the richest Americans would give them a36 billion bonus next year. (31 billion of this would go to billionaire households.) And that36 billion would be added to the budget deficit. And it wouldn’t even stimulate demand and jobs, because the very rich save (rather than spend) more of their disposable income than the rest of us. Finally, ending the Bush tax cut for the top is fair. Income inequality has become so grotesque that the top 3 percent of households rake in almost a third of total income (the highest portion since 1928). But by the time Democrats explain all this, it’s too late. The Republican furor over a “tax increase” has framed the debate. Republicans understand the art of tax demagoguery: Put the other side on the defensive by forcing them to explain why a “tax increase” is warranted and they lose regardless. So instead of playing defense, Democrats should go on the attack. Accuse Republicans of being shills for the rich. And don’t stop there. Do tax jujitsu. In addition to ending the Bush tax cut for the rich, put forward another proposal for growing the economy that cuts taxes on lower-income Americans. Democrats should propose eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income, and making up the revenue loss by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000. This would give the economy an immediate boost by adding to the paychecks of just about every working American. 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And because lower-income people would get most of the benefit, it’s likely to be spent. It would also give employers an extra incentive to hire because they’d save on their share of the payroll tax. And most of the incentive would be directed toward hiring lower-income workers — who have taken the biggest hit on jobs and pay during the recession. It wouldn’t add to the deficit. Lost revenues would be made up by applying payroll taxes to income exceeding $250,000. This is certainly fair. As it is now, the Social Security payroll tax doesn’t apply to any income over $106,000. Having the tax kick in again at $250,000 would draw on the top 3 percent of earners, who (as noted) now rake in a larger portion of total income than they have in more than 80 years. Call it the People’s Tax Cut, and let Republicans explain why they’re against it. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Tax Jujitsu: Why Democrats Should Propose a "People’s Tax Cut"

August 24, 2010

Republicans are calling the Democrat’s proposal to end the Bush tax cuts on the richest 3 percent a “tax increase,” and demagoging that it will hurt the economy and small business. This is baloney, to put it politely. Let me count the ways: Bush’s ten-year tax cut was designed to end this year, so it’s not a tax increase. Ending it for the rich simply returns them to the Clinton tax rate, which was hardly confiscatory (reminder: the Clinton years were damn good for business). Small businesses would barely be affected. Only 3 percent of small business owners earn over250,000. And because it’s a “marginal” tax, the Clinton rate would apply only to the portion of their incomes over250,000. Yet extending the Bush tax cut to the richest Americans would give them a36 billion bonus next year. (31 billion of this would go to billionaire households.) And that36 billion would be added to the budget deficit. And it wouldn’t even stimulate demand and jobs, because the very rich save (rather than spend) more of their disposable income than the rest of us. Finally, ending the Bush tax cut for the top is fair. Income inequality has become so grotesque that the top 3 percent of households rake in almost a third of total income (the highest portion since 1928). But by the time Democrats explain all this, it’s too late. The Republican furor over a “tax increase” has framed the debate. Republicans understand the art of tax demagoguery: Put the other side on the defensive by forcing them to explain why a “tax increase” is warranted and they lose regardless. So instead of playing defense, Democrats should go on the attack. Accuse Republicans of being shills for the rich. And don’t stop there. Do tax jujitsu. In addition to ending the Bush tax cut for the rich, put forward another proposal for growing the economy that cuts taxes on lower-income Americans. Democrats should propose eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income, and making up the revenue loss by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000. This would give the economy an immediate boost by adding to the paychecks of just about every working American. 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And because lower-income people would get most of the benefit, it’s likely to be spent. It would also give employers an extra incentive to hire because they’d save on their share of the payroll tax. And most of the incentive would be directed toward hiring lower-income workers — who have taken the biggest hit on jobs and pay during the recession. It wouldn’t add to the deficit. Lost revenues would be made up by applying payroll taxes to income exceeding $250,000. This is certainly fair. As it is now, the Social Security payroll tax doesn’t apply to any income over $106,000. Having the tax kick in again at $250,000 would draw on the top 3 percent of earners, who (as noted) now rake in a larger portion of total income than they have in more than 80 years. Call it the People’s Tax Cut, and let Republicans explain why they’re against it. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Video: Lovera Says Consumers Should Cook Eggs Thoroughly: Video

August 24, 2010

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) — Patty Lovera, assistant director at Food and Water Watch, talks with Bloomberg’s Melissa Long about an egg recall in the U.S. A nationwide recall of more than a half billion eggs linked to a salmonella outbreak prompted investigations by U.S. lawmakers as health officials said at least 40 new illnesses have occurred in the past four days. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Dov Seidman: Why We Can’t ‘Motivate’ Engagement

August 24, 2010

Chief executive officers are concerned about employee engagement — and rightfully so. Senior management teams are investing great time, effort and money in improving their workforce-engagement numbers. They shouldn’t be — at least not until they are prepared to harness the full energy of an engaged workforce. Despite significant effort to improve employee engagement, it remains at an all-time low among the U.S. workforce. This has sparked a surge in valuable guidance on how to transform disengaged workers into engaged employees . Unfortunately, the majority of engagement-improvement initiatives continue to treat employee engagement as an end goal. Employee engagement is a condition — manifested by the inspiration an employee unleashes in his or her work when he or she is deeply connected to a mission, purpose and the values that connect us. What Masquerades as Engagement This problem was illustrated in a recent IBM television commercial , in which a motivational speaker decked out in an “Innovation Man” costume struts in front of a line of office workers standing at attention. Innovation Man singles out one of the professionals and peppers him with repeated taunts and questions as to whether he is “fired up” to innovate. The worker dutifully responds, “Sir! Yes, sir!” Innovation Man then questions the employee’s commitment: “Why are you fired up?!” The befuddled employee pauses before replying, “I don’t have any idea.” We cannot “motivate” engagement (or innovation, growth, or succession for that matter); instead, we must inspire the kind of outcomes we want by rooting ourselves in a set of values, being in the grip of an idea worthy of dedication and commitment, connecting around a meaningful and shared purpose, and aligning around a common, deep and sustainable set of human, societal and environmental values. Why? Because sustainably engaged employees generate ideas, innovation, creativity, processes and other outcomes that deliver long-term competitive advantages, and they also collaborate with others to make progress. How well do you think other companies fare in developing cultures based on thick rule books and other carrots and sticks? Not too well, as I’ve written about before and according to new research. Pay and benefits figure as only one of the four key drivers of job dissatisfaction, according to a recent study by the Conference Board, and compensation barely rates a mention in the study’s engagement-improvement steps. And a 2008 study by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business examined the relationship between financial performance and senior leadership skills. Inspirational and ethical leaders were most strongly associated with stronger financial performance. The Duke study identifies specific behaviors that exemplify inspirational leadership: “engaging employees in the company’s vision”; “inspiring employees to raise their goal”; and “promoting an environment in which employees have a sense of responsibility for the whole organization, its mission and constituencies.” A Valuable, and Values-Based, Alternative This is the new frontier, where companies work in a systemic manner to ensure alignment of their purpose and mission to their business strategies and vision, and then cascade this inspiration through their core values into specific leadership behaviors. Only when observable leadership behaviors are identified, communicated, measured, tracked, managed and integrated into business processes and talent-management systems can an organization evolve on its cultural journey. Through our work with some of the world’s largest and most progressive organizations, helping them build sustainable cultures infused and inspired by sustainable values, we know firsthand that many business leaders are beginning to understand the need to commence this journey. In one large, global company we partner with, we found that 70 percent of employees agreed that a strong mission and purpose drive their organization. However, we also discovered that the company’s mission and purpose were disconnected from everyday decisions and behaviors: 50 percent of the same employees indicated that personal achievement and success was a more important driver of their behavior than the organization’s purpose and values; and 60 percent of employees thought that supporting a peer who acted within their company values and purpose but in conflict with a policy would result in management disapproval or possible punishment by the organization. Armed with this evidence and other related insights, this Fortune 100 company and its leaders are now working on how they can connect employees to the shared mission and purpose through values, rather than through rules, so that it manifests in more of the behaviors they want, e.g. more engagement and more innovation. This ability to harmonize a company’s values and a company’s policies is an important piece in ensuring a company’s human operating system is functioning for the benefit of the organization — something I hope to write more about in a future column. As leaders, we all should recognize that there is work to be done in encouraging behavior that shifts the focus from governing toward developing leaders who inspire principled performance. (I’ll show what such work looks like and how it operates in my next column.) We still need rules (along with carrots and sticks), but they are no longer sufficient in an era when organizational success, over the long term, depends on out-behaving the competition . Improving employee engagement does not require executives to don their motivational capes and work on improving employee engagement. Instead, the process begins with a simple question about the workforce, a query whose answer leaders should act upon: Are our employees inspired? * This story appeared in, and was written for, Bloomberg BusinessWeek .

Read the full article →

Dov Seidman: Why We Can’t ‘Motivate’ Engagement

August 24, 2010

Chief executive officers are concerned about employee engagement — and rightfully so. Senior management teams are investing great time, effort and money in improving their workforce-engagement numbers. They shouldn’t be — at least not until they are prepared to harness the full energy of an engaged workforce. Despite significant effort to improve employee engagement, it remains at an all-time low among the U.S. workforce. This has sparked a surge in valuable guidance on how to transform disengaged workers into engaged employees . Unfortunately, the majority of engagement-improvement initiatives continue to treat employee engagement as an end goal. Employee engagement is a condition — manifested by the inspiration an employee unleashes in his or her work when he or she is deeply connected to a mission, purpose and the values that connect us. What Masquerades as Engagement This problem was illustrated in a recent IBM television commercial , in which a motivational speaker decked out in an “Innovation Man” costume struts in front of a line of office workers standing at attention. Innovation Man singles out one of the professionals and peppers him with repeated taunts and questions as to whether he is “fired up” to innovate. The worker dutifully responds, “Sir! Yes, sir!” Innovation Man then questions the employee’s commitment: “Why are you fired up?!” The befuddled employee pauses before replying, “I don’t have any idea.” We cannot “motivate” engagement (or innovation, growth, or succession for that matter); instead, we must inspire the kind of outcomes we want by rooting ourselves in a set of values, being in the grip of an idea worthy of dedication and commitment, connecting around a meaningful and shared purpose, and aligning around a common, deep and sustainable set of human, societal and environmental values. Why? Because sustainably engaged employees generate ideas, innovation, creativity, processes and other outcomes that deliver long-term competitive advantages, and they also collaborate with others to make progress. How well do you think other companies fare in developing cultures based on thick rule books and other carrots and sticks? Not too well, as I’ve written about before and according to new research. Pay and benefits figure as only one of the four key drivers of job dissatisfaction, according to a recent study by the Conference Board, and compensation barely rates a mention in the study’s engagement-improvement steps. And a 2008 study by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business examined the relationship between financial performance and senior leadership skills. Inspirational and ethical leaders were most strongly associated with stronger financial performance. The Duke study identifies specific behaviors that exemplify inspirational leadership: “engaging employees in the company’s vision”; “inspiring employees to raise their goal”; and “promoting an environment in which employees have a sense of responsibility for the whole organization, its mission and constituencies.” A Valuable, and Values-Based, Alternative This is the new frontier, where companies work in a systemic manner to ensure alignment of their purpose and mission to their business strategies and vision, and then cascade this inspiration through their core values into specific leadership behaviors. Only when observable leadership behaviors are identified, communicated, measured, tracked, managed and integrated into business processes and talent-management systems can an organization evolve on its cultural journey. Through our work with some of the world’s largest and most progressive organizations, helping them build sustainable cultures infused and inspired by sustainable values, we know firsthand that many business leaders are beginning to understand the need to commence this journey. In one large, global company we partner with, we found that 70 percent of employees agreed that a strong mission and purpose drive their organization. However, we also discovered that the company’s mission and purpose were disconnected from everyday decisions and behaviors: 50 percent of the same employees indicated that personal achievement and success was a more important driver of their behavior than the organization’s purpose and values; and 60 percent of employees thought that supporting a peer who acted within their company values and purpose but in conflict with a policy would result in management disapproval or possible punishment by the organization. Armed with this evidence and other related insights, this Fortune 100 company and its leaders are now working on how they can connect employees to the shared mission and purpose through values, rather than through rules, so that it manifests in more of the behaviors they want, e.g. more engagement and more innovation. This ability to harmonize a company’s values and a company’s policies is an important piece in ensuring a company’s human operating system is functioning for the benefit of the organization — something I hope to write more about in a future column. As leaders, we all should recognize that there is work to be done in encouraging behavior that shifts the focus from governing toward developing leaders who inspire principled performance. (I’ll show what such work looks like and how it operates in my next column.) We still need rules (along with carrots and sticks), but they are no longer sufficient in an era when organizational success, over the long term, depends on out-behaving the competition . Improving employee engagement does not require executives to don their motivational capes and work on improving employee engagement. Instead, the process begins with a simple question about the workforce, a query whose answer leaders should act upon: Are our employees inspired? * This story appeared in, and was written for, Bloomberg BusinessWeek .

Read the full article →

Liz Ryan: Resume Gaps, Blemishes, & Career Shifts: Yikes!

August 24, 2010

Job-seekers have a lot on their minds, but I don’t know of anything that worries job-hunters more than resume gaps and blemishes. You know what I’m talking about, I’ll bet. A resume gap causes job-seekers a lot of sleepness nights, and I don’t blame them. HR screeners and even hiring managers can have bizarre, paranoid reactions to resume gaps. For some reason, people see a gap in employment and they can only imagine two possibilities. Either the job-seeker was in prison during those missing years, or s/he was training with Al Qaeda. It’s really strange. There are other resume blemishes, apart from gaps. An unexpected shift in career direction needs some explanation. Moves into and out of corporate jobs (and moves in or out of consulting) can throw screeners for a loop, too. We’ll be addressing these resume issues and gazillions more in a free teleseminar on Wednesday, September 1, 2010 at seven p.m. Mountain time. The teleseminar will be presented by Glassdoo r, a very cool company salary-and-culture research site. Here are the details . Hope you can join us on September first! It will be fun.

Read the full article →

Liz Ryan: Resume Gaps, Blemishes, & Career Shifts: Yikes!

August 24, 2010

Job-seekers have a lot on their minds, but I don’t know of anything that worries job-hunters more than resume gaps and blemishes. You know what I’m talking about, I’ll bet. A resume gap causes job-seekers a lot of sleepness nights, and I don’t blame them. HR screeners and even hiring managers can have bizarre, paranoid reactions to resume gaps. For some reason, people see a gap in employment and they can only imagine two possibilities. Either the job-seeker was in prison during those missing years, or s/he was training with Al Qaeda. It’s really strange. There are other resume blemishes, apart from gaps. An unexpected shift in career direction needs some explanation. Moves into and out of corporate jobs (and moves in or out of consulting) can throw screeners for a loop, too. We’ll be addressing these resume issues and gazillions more in a free teleseminar on Wednesday, September 1, 2010 at seven p.m. Mountain time. The teleseminar will be presented by Glassdoo r, a very cool company salary-and-culture research site. Here are the details . Hope you can join us on September first! It will be fun.

Read the full article →

Liz Ryan: Resume Gaps, Blemishes, & Career Shifts: Yikes!

August 24, 2010

Job-seekers have a lot on their minds, but I don’t know of anything that worries job-hunters more than resume gaps and blemishes. You know what I’m talking about, I’ll bet. A resume gap causes job-seekers a lot of sleepness nights, and I don’t blame them. HR screeners and even hiring managers can have bizarre, paranoid reactions to resume gaps. For some reason, people see a gap in employment and they can only imagine two possibilities. Either the job-seeker was in prison during those missing years, or s/he was training with Al Qaeda. It’s really strange. There are other resume blemishes, apart from gaps. An unexpected shift in career direction needs some explanation. Moves into and out of corporate jobs (and moves in or out of consulting) can throw screeners for a loop, too. We’ll be addressing these resume issues and gazillions more in a free teleseminar on Wednesday, September 1, 2010 at seven p.m. Mountain time. The teleseminar will be presented by Glassdoo r, a very cool company salary-and-culture research site. Here are the details . Hope you can join us on September first! It will be fun.

Read the full article →