knowledge

Anne Hill: Increase Your Knowledge Base in 2012

by Anne Hill on January 3, 2012

Huffington Post…

One of my favorite sayings is, “Life is an open-book test.” It is not important that you know everything, either in life or in business. But it is important to know where to find the answers you need. If you have set up your web presence correctly, chances are that even if you don’t know the people personally who could answer your questions, you know how to get in touch with them — through work contacts, mutual friends and associations. This network is the beginning of your knowledge base. A knowledge base is the network of people you are connected to whose expertise you can draw from, and whose ideas and actions you respect. Most of us make decisions in our careers based on a combination of good and bad advice from the people we know. If we are lucky, we figure out pretty quickly which advice is which, and correct our mistakes before things get out of hand. So the first step in broadening your knowledge base is to take stock of your existing circle of friends and colleagues, and notice which have given consistently good advice. Make a point of thanking these remarkable people for their expertise, and stay in touch with them as best you can. One of the obvious ways to expand our circle of wise friends is to get to know the people our current wise friends admire and like to hang out with. This is one of the great benefits of actual face-to-face social networking, but it is not always possible. While there is no real substitute for relationships cultivated in person, there are three very good ways that you can use the social web to much the same effect. If you are not yet growing your knowledge base online, here is how to start. Many of today’s most influential industry analysts and thought leaders got where they are by blogging to share their expertise. The best of these writers continue to have an active readership that comments on posts and shares ideas. If you don’t know who the influential thinkers are in your area, find them and start reading their blogs. You may notice that several frequent commenters have over time built relationships with the writer by making useful observations and asking good questions. My rule for commenting on other people’s blogs is only to do so if I have something to add that hasn’t been expressed yet. Avoid redundancy, ask smart questions, be brief and courteous, and you may see your knowledge base grow to include several wise members of that community conversation, not to mention one grateful blogger. Reading influential blogs can be time-consuming, but that is not the only way to build your knowledge base online. There are two ways to do this using LinkedIn, one of which was shared by Dr. John Todor in a  webinar  we did last August. John’s advice is that when you meet someone knowledgeable through work, you should follow up by adding them as a connection on LinkedIn. This small act has potentially far-reaching consequences, as it insures that you have a way to contact them in the future and build your relationship. Another great way to use LinkedIn to expand your knowledge base is by joining groups. The quality of most group discussions on LinkedIn is uneven, but can be useful. And once you are a member you are in much closer contact with everyone else in that group. I have used LinkedIn group discussions to research articles, and have successfully landed interviews with industry leaders through the access that group connections afford. Finally, there is Twitter. If you think you know what Twitter is about, think again . And if you are not on Twitter and have no idea why you should be, the answer is that it is a fantastic way to broaden your knowledge base. Even if you never post a tweet, there is a wealth of information and contacts to be made by following people and conversations on Twitter. For our purposes, the most important thing is knowing who and what to follow. Twitter has recently made it much easier to browse by category, listing several great accounts to follow for any given topic or industry. Once you have an account set up you can choose to follow any number of people and organizations, and can add or delete accounts as often as you like. My suggestion is to keep following an account for a month or so, to see if what they post is really important or helpful to you. If not, let them go. Your goal is to have a streamlined Twitter feed that gives you plenty of what you want, with a minimum of noise. Once you find someone who posts truly helpful tweets, look at their Twitter profile to see who they are following. Again, you are looking for the “friends of friends” who will help you broaden your expertise. These people will share links to their own articles and blog posts, which brings you right back around to following and participating in those online conversations. Ideally, building a knowledge base is a two-way street, and over time your expertise will be as valuable to your network as theirs is to you. The more well-rounded and well-informed you are in your field, and the more connected you are to others of similar caliber, the more people will want to hear what you have to say. If we are only as good as the company we keep, let’s make sure we have the very best company. This article was originally published at Creative Content Coaching .

Read more:
Anne Hill: Increase Your Knowledge Base in 2012

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

How Banks Get You On Overdraft Fees

by on November 22, 2011

Huffington Post…

Under pressure from regulators and lawyers, nearly all banks have stopped the predatory practice of reordering debit-card purchases to gouge customers for overdraft fees. But there is no law that prevents banks from starting up again, according to one consumer advocate that’s been studying this method. Earlier this month, Bank of America was ordered to pay $410 million in compensation to consumers for engaging, for 10 years, in transaction reordering — essentially processing higher-dollar purchases first, causing a cardholder to run through account funds faster and get hit with more overdraft fees. Pew Charitable Trusts released an interactive graphic (below) this week that illustrates precisely how the reordering works. In the graphic, drawn from the case of Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo , a consumer was charged $88 in fees because the bank processed the highest dollar value transactions first. If the charges had been processed in chronological order, the overdraft fee would have amounted to only $22. The Bank of America suit is just one of several pending against banks, including related litigation against Wells Fargo and Citibank. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued guidance in November 2010 asking banks to “not process transactions in a manner designed to maximize the cost to consumers.” Banks have defended the practice by saying it’s a way of clearing the biggest payments first for consumers. And despite the cries of consumer advocates, like Pew, and the numerous lawsuits, some banks were still engaging in the practice in early November when the Bank of America settlement was announced. Further, there’s no law in place to prevent banks from starting the practice again. “They may phase it out today but bring it back tomorrow,” said Susan Weinstock, director of the Safe Checking in the Electronic Age project at Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew is calling for new regulatory measures by the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to explicitly prohibit the practice of reordering debit-card transactions, as well as other ways banks conduct activity — such as using long, complicated disclosure statements — in order to maximize their own profits. Even as banks have backed off high-to-low ordering of transactions, consumers are still on track to pay more than $16 billion in overdraft fees this year.

Read the original here:
How Banks Get You On Overdraft Fees

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Brazil Says Chevron Oil Slick Has Shrunk

November 22, 2011

SAO PAULO — Brazil says the size of an oil slick at a well operated by Chevron Corp. off the coast of Rio de Janeiro state is more than 80 percent smaller than it was four days ago. Brazil’s National Petroleum Agency says in a statement posted Tuesday on its website that the oil slick on the water’s surface now covers 0.78 square miles (two square kilometers) compared to the 4.63 square miles (12 square kilometers) registered on Nov. 18. The agency also says the oil slick continues moving away from Brazil’s coastline. Rio de Janeiro state’s Environment Secretary Carlos Minc still warns the oil could reach beaches west of the city of Rio that are popular with tourists. The petroleum agency has said that up to 3,000 barrels of oil have spilled into the Atlantic Ocean. (This version CORRECTS APNewsNow. Corrects location of beaches in paragraph 5. LPA please translate)

Read the full article →

Chuck Marr: A Vital Tax Table of the Holiday Season

November 22, 2011

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Congress has an important tax policy decision to make.  With the economy still struggling and one in eleven Americans out of work, January 1 would be an awful time to cut every paycheck in America.  But, every paycheck in America will shrink unless Congress acts to extend, and preferably expand, the payroll tax holiday by the end of the year. Up and down Wall Street, economists are warning about the severe consequences of inaction on payroll taxes and extended unemployment benefits.  Goldman Sachs estimates that expiration of the payroll tax cut would reduce growth by as much as two-thirds of a percentage point in early 2012.  Moody’s Mark Zandi adds that if Congress does not extend the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits for 2012, “there will be approximately one million fewer jobs by year’s end.” Failure to extend the payroll tax cut would hurt workers in nearly every job and income category.  For example, the nation’s 1.4 million truck drivers, whose salaries average $39,450, would pay $789 more in payroll taxes, on average. The nation’s 2.7 million nurses, whose salaries average $67,720, would lose $1,354, on average. The table below is one that every member of Congress should study: Related Posts: CBO Ranks “Repatriation Holiday” Dead Last in Job Creation Without the Safety Net, More Than a Quarter of Americans Would Have Been Poor Last Year Exploding, Once Again, the “Non-Payer” Tax Myth This post originally appeared on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ blog, www.OfftheChartsBlog.org.

Read the full article →

Pat Buchanan: Occupy Wall Street Is ‘Going To End Very, Very Badly’

October 30, 2011

Pat Buchanan issued a stern warning to Occupy Wall Street this weekend. In a round-table discussion on ‘The McLaughlin Group’, host John McLaughlin asked panelists about the future of the movement. “It’s going to end very, very badly with these folks in the winter and they’re not going to be getting publicity and they’re going to be acting up and acting badly like the worst of the demonstrators in the 60s,” Buchanan said. “They’re going to start fighting with the cops.” Occupy Wall Street took a violent turn this week as Oakland police unleashed tear gas on protesters and injured an Iraq war veteran. On Saturday, scores were arrested in Denver after protesters clashed with local law enforcement. When cops began to spray Mace on the crowd, several protestors reportedly retaliated by kicking and pushing police. Watch Buchanan on ‘The McLaughlin Group’, courtesy of the Daily Caller.

Read the full article →

Atim Oton: Offbeat Insider Knowledge on Imports: Some Basics and Why the "Loaf Question" is Important.

October 11, 2011

Early this month, I responded to a series of questions by a Crain’s Business reporter on the state of importing for small businesses like mine — see article here . And as I replayed some of the questions and the responses I gave; I realized, I really do have some lessons to share. As a company based in New York, Calabar Imports, my company has leveraged its location, contacts and city in more ways than some importers I know. How? Let me show you some ways. Talking Is Research, Right In Your Backyard A design friend of mine this summer told me I talk too much. I agree with him, I do. I am a people person and I have been known to talk to strangers on an elevator, on the street or just about anywhere. So, as an importer, this talking comes in handy. And when I am looking to enter a new market and country such as Senegal or Morocco, I take advantage of my city: I live in New York. New York is a great place to meet people from almost any country. How and where? New York cabbies are a good source; Restaurants are my other best places to visit; and the city has so many community groups that represent its immigrants. What I have learned from these three entities are some simple basic truths. New York is a city of immigrants and some of these immigrants work in this city in various ways from driving a cab to running a restaurant or a community association. And they provide firsthand information, as most of these are immigrants who know their home city or country well and can share useful information before I go there. They are my first insiders to a new country and I am more interested in their down-to-earth information than what most embassies can give me. My talks with my insiders usually focus on the cost of things, where to find products and affordable places to stay. They always end up with “a cousin” who is in the business; knows someone in the business or can show me around when I get there. This basic research helps me more than what I would have paid for and are some of my starting points to guide me before I go to the country. They also help me with the research I do using Google. The Loaf Question One of my first questions for my research is: How much is a loaf of bread your city? Why? It is actually one of the most important details as it tells me about the real economy in the city and country I am researching. Bread is a staple worldwide and if a New York City loaf is $3, and Senegal is $1, then, I know that the real economy is one-third of New York’s. That simple calculation gives me the cost of living, and when I get into the country, I actually buy a loaf to verify the price. Your Roledex is your Friend, use it wisely. I am a constant networker, offline and online. I have about 2500 plus people on Facebook and more than 500 on Linkedin that I tap into periodically. Some I know very little but I consider vital to my network. I reach out to them when I am seeking information and share with them things I am working on. I am known to use the phrase, “a friend of a friend on Facebook (or Linkedin).” Some I have sought or connected with for future projects, some for current and others just because there are some parallel projects or commonalities. My Senegal connections come through friends and some from “walk-ins” into my business. I keep people. No, let me be more frank. I hoard people. I keep business cards of people I meet. I have a stack that’s probably about 10 years old. I value them and keep them as reminders of our meetings, update information as needed and reach out when I am seeking more information. For importing, I reach out to see if they do know other people in a particular city. For example, my Senegalese chef friend in New York is a friend of my Senegalese designer of Facebook. Knowing this is vital to me as an importer, because, I will talk with both of them before my trip. Importing is about contacts and relationships; keeping them is vital and taking time to use them wisely is critical. The City Has No Secrets, It Is Open For Business New York City is a delight to be in; you can find an importer of any product you are doing research on. My other best place to look is the wholesale district in Manhattan. I do however miss it; it is disappearing fast as higher rents are killing these businesses. But I consider it my “importers’ free research laboratory” as I get to actually see the products that are being imported from country that I am researching. But one secret is to see what products are not actually being imported and to asking other importers why they are not importing them. That is a good sign and test of your market potential.

Read the full article →

Jeanne Kelly: Understanding & Improving Your Credit FICO Score

August 4, 2011

Last week I did a Webinar for MasterCard and I wanted to share what we reviewed with the participants and some questions I was asked. I am thrilled that MasterCard is providing these webinars to help their customers with healthy credit education. Many people have commented on how they have realized that they have been doing things that have been hurting their credit without even knowing it and how, with the knowledge they had acquired, they would be making wiser credit decision. That is what I want for all of you. Do you think there is a difference between your FICO score and a credit score? The answer is YES. Many people do not know the correct answer to that question. We have to begin by understanding that most lenders look at your FICO score to decline or approve you. If you are approved then they can base your interest rate on your FICO score. This is a very important number to know and track! 5 Parts of FICO to help you get the most of your score: 35% Payment History 30% Amounts Owed 15% Length of Credit History 10% New Credit 10% Types of Credit Used Payment History is the largest percentage of your FICO score. It’s basically a log of how you’ve paid on your accounts in the past. It will report payments paid on time, late payments, collection accounts and any public records. Amounts Owed accounts for the second largest part of your score, listing how much you owe on specific accounts, how many accounts have a balance, what proportion of credit lines have been used, and what proportion of installment loan amounts are still outstanding. Length of Credit History, New Credit & Types of Credit make up the remaining percentage of your score. FICO wants to see time on your side, the number of accounts in variation, what types of new inquires and new accounts have recently hit your report, and, if you’ve had problems in the past, recent signs of healthy credit. How to make the best of your credit The best scores are made from the right mix of a payment history free of collections and late payments, low balances and newly rebuilt credit. Don’t forget to add in different types of credit and keep the relationship open for a long time. Some questions I was asked: Q: If I use my debit card will that show on my credit report? A: No, this is not a line of credit. Q: If I pay my tax lien and it gets released, does that mean it comes off my report? A: No, released shows the credit bureaus that it is paid. If you want a lien removed from your report you have to get a vacate. This would mean there was an error or dispute. A vacated lien means it will be removed from your reports. Q: If my credit cards have high balances and I pay them down to 20% will this help my score & how long will it take to update them? A: Yes, this will raise your score significantly! It can take 30 to 60 days to have the balances updated. If you need this done faster, get the creditors to send you a balance letter then send the balance letter (s) to the bureaus directly and they should update them for you within 5 business days. Please share any of your thoughts or questions with me via email at Jeanne.Kelly@TheCreditOwl.com

Read the full article →

Breakup Of Mega-Banks May Now Be A Feasible Option

July 27, 2011

What was made can be unmade. JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo may have venerable names, but they and the pseudo-venerable Citigroup and Bank of America are all products of countless mergers and agglomerations. There is no rule of markets that requires a financial system dominated by four cobbled-together, lumbering behemoths.

Read the full article →

Steve Ressler: The Myth of "Rightsizing" the Federal Workforce

June 3, 2011

Guest Post by Alicia Mazzara President Ronald Reagan was no fan of big government. But would the man who famously said, “As government expands, liberty contracts,” agree with the latest efforts to contract the federal government? One week ago, the House Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce met to discuss “rightsizing” the federal government. So just what is “rightsizing”? It’s a politically correct way of saying cutting people’s jobs. In other words, rightsizing is the new downsizing. While the House debates how many federal jobs are needed to keep the country running, government agencies are taking steps of their own to save on labor. Earlier this month, the Department of Agriculture became the first cabinet-level agency to offer “buyouts” that encourage employees in certain positions to retire early . Smaller agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service, Federal Trade Commission, and Air Force Material Command, also began offering buyouts earlier this year. We are living in austere budgetary times, and government has a reputation for being bloated and inefficient. No one, not even the average federal worker , disagrees that we need to do more with less. However, it’s exceptionally difficult to figure out what the “right” size is. Moreover, shrinking the federal workforce often means increasing the number of contractors, which does not translate into cost savings. This past week, federal workers have been mulling the following Washington Post article by Joe Davidson. Davidson highlights the following statistic: There are currently 2.1 million federal workers and approximately 10.5 million government contractors and grantees. This growing imbalance is a big deal considering that contractors are usually costlier than federal employees: Carol Davison, a Human Resources Specialist at the Department of Commerce, explains : [R]eplacing Feds with contractors is not more effective or efficient because government employees do the same work for less money. Additionally, they are the subject matter experts on programs under analysis and should perform it because they will be responsible for providing the service. In fiscal year 2010, the federal government spent $537.5 billion dollars on contracts. In other words, rightsizing is starting to look like we’re just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Carol also raises a second important point: federal workers have specialized knowledge that a contractor may not have. By cutting federal jobs or encouraging federal workers to retire early, government runs the risk of losing critical institutional knowledge. Learning takes time, and the benefits of this knowledge are often difficult to quantify. Moreover, trading federal workers for contractors doesn’t really shrink government or our costs. The question should not be about size, but about creating well-functioning government. Federal employees have plenty of ideas on how to save the government money. Kathryn S., a Strategic Affairs Officer at the Mississippi Department of Employment Security, offered several alternatives : Streamlining processes, eliminating deadwood employees, crafting retirement options, combining (truly) duplication programs would all reduce costs. Applying the same models to the sacred cows of security and defense would also reduce costs. None of these options are being explored. Anita Arile, a Management Analyst for the government of Guam, brought up the role of technology: Today’s government must find balance between technological resources and human resources. Although technology can replace several human resources, it is the agency’s responsibility to ensure that the human resource available are knowledgeable and capable of continuing the processing flow manually. Through technology, many agencies are capable of minimizing paperwork by sharing common data. This has proven to benefit both the public and the employees of several California health care agencies. As Davidson points out, the question of workforce size depends on the task at hand. Ultimately, any conversation about “rightsizing” must address the intended role of federal government. You can’t figure out how many people are right for the job if you don’t know what it is. But most importantly, it is not really “rightsizing” if we are simply swapping out federal workers for more expensive contractors. To say that we can fix government simply by reducing its size is an oversimplification. As President Obama said in his commencement speech at the University of Michigan: “What we should be asking is not whether we need ‘big government’ or a ‘small government,’ but how we can create a smarter and better government.” Alicia Mazzara is a Graduate Fellow at GovLoop and is currently pursuing her master in public policy at the George Washington University. In a past life, Alicia worked in consumer protection at the Federal Trade Commission.

Read the full article →

Jodi R. R. Smith: The Top Ten Things Your Boss Will Never Tell You But Wishes You Knew

May 31, 2011

It was around this time of year, almost 20 years ago, when I first learned that managers are human too. I was fresh out of college and all of my management theory coursework stated that the boss was hardworking and fair. The boss was a mentor and a motivator. The boss assigned work based upon ability and provided training to shore up skills. The fact that bosses had human foibles and failings were simply not mentioned. So, it came as a big surprise when a boss approached me about an open job requisition I was sourcing. The hiring manager had whittled the candidates down to the top three and references were being sought. The top candidate’s boss came to my office to explain that while his subordinate was likely the most qualified for and deserving of the position, he would not provide a recommendation for her. Apparently she was the only person keeping his department together. Her organizational knowledge and positional expertise were unmatched. If she were to be promoted, he would need to hire two or three new employees to replace her. Even with training, it would take over a year before his department would run smoothly again. He simply could not afford to let her go. The gravity and reality of the situation were eye-opening. I learned that day that bosses are human… just like the rest of us. Even with the most professional of managers, there are some conversations they would prefer to avoid. Listed are the top 10. Fashion Police . Bosses have enough on their plates already. They do not want to add evaluating your attire. Review the written dress code, and observe the unwritten dress code. Remember what grandmother said, dress for the job you want, not the job you have. Total Package . Appropriate attire is just the beginning, as everything about you should communicate that you are a professional. This includes your entire visual résumé. Your visual résumé begins with your wardrobe, and includes your grooming and accessories. It continues to your workspace and your work. Your Attention, Please. Bosses do not want to monitor your electronic ADD. All cell phones and mobile devices should be turned off when in meetings or interacting with others. Social Media is a great equalizer. Your boss is on Facebook and Twitter too. Be wary of any job related posting … especially if it is negative. Constantly checking your personal email distracts from your focus at work. Stealing Time . While not everyone punches a time-clock, bosses are not as oblivious as you may think. Being late to work, arriving late back from lunch and being tardy to meetings is noticed. Whether you are “just” checking your Facebook page, chatting on your cell phone with friends or shooting the breeze with colleagues, you are stealing time. The company is paying you to get work done. Office Soap Opera Stars . There is enough happening in the office. Do not add your own personal drama. This includes everything from flirting to full-blown affairs. Bosses want you to have boundaries between your personal and professional lives. More Picturesque Speech . Bosses cringe when you open your mouth and foul language, inappropriate topics or grammatically incorrect speech comes out. Your inability to monitor your mouth reflects poorly on everyone. Facts Not Feelings . The boss is pulled in many different directions already. When you need to report something, take the time to think before you speak. Present the facts of the situation. Panicking only adds stress. And speaking of facts, understand how the company makes money and how your part plays into the bigger picture. This knowledge will help to guide and direct your behavior. Anticipatory Actions . When there are issues, do bring the boss at least one possible solution. While understanding what caused the problem is relevant, blaming others and making excuses is unhelpful. Even when there are no immediate issues, take the time to look forward and plan ahead. It is better to act than react. Next Stop, Knowledge . The boss can not possibly be fully responsible for your career. You need to be responsible for your professional development. Research and source training that you need. Make it your goal to stay current in your field. Replace Yourself . If the boss finds you irreplaceable, your chances of promotion diminish greatly. Divide your job into manageable chunks and train others in your department as back-ups. This way, you will position yourself for promotion. The candidate’s boss was looking out for his own best interests. Fortunately, the hiring manager was savvy. He was able to read between the lines of the weak recommendation. The candidate was offered the job and she took it. Hopefully your boss would not attempt to sabotage your opportunity for promotion. But chances are there is something your boss wishes you knew, but is hesitant to tell you. An honest self-evaluation, using these top 10 tips as a starting point, may prove to be enlightening. I would like to thank the following managers who took the time to tell me the things they would prefer not tell their employees and consultants who enlighten managers on such delicate communications: Tom Armour, Chantay Bridges, Marlene Caroselli, Kathi Elster, Pamela Feld, Diane Gayeski, Neil Gussman, Antoine Lane, Holly Paul, Don Phin, Jack Signorelli, Patricia Sigmon, Leslie Singer, as well as many other HARO responders who opted not to be mentioned by name. Jodi’s latest book, “The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners” is now available. Chapters 10 – 14 cover professional protocol in detail.

Read the full article →

Alan L. Kramer: Recycle or Disposable?

May 19, 2011

Mark, a long-time friend and candidate, sat across the desk from me, looked at me and said, “Alan, is this the last full-time job I will have in my life?” My heart started to thump and I clearly had difficulty making eye contact with him, and I said, “Hopefully not,” but inside, I said to myself, “He is probably correct.” The sad part is at 56, he just completed 10 years; in his mind, the best 10 years of his career, and his company was sold. Every day, I receive calls from one of my many clients or friends, who ask me to see someone who is having difficulty finding a new position. Of course I see them, but few assignments in this economy call for the wealth of experience these experienced, mature individuals brings to the table. The first things these individuals say to me is, “Alan, don’t worry about the compensation level, I’m flexible.” With the government statistics continuing to show high unemployment, I would guess if you took a mean age of these business professionals, who are still unemployed, it would be higher than you can imagine. Why are these people, who have the knowledge, industry expertise, strong work ethic and ability to transfer their skills to younger people, cast aside in favor of younger people? Is it more for the ability to offer lower compensation for less experienced people, is it because older people have more medical problems or is it a fit factor in these young, entrepreneurial companies? I recently had a client seeking a CFO for a small apparel distributor. When we came to discuss compensation and future growth, it was apparent to me that with very slow growth, this company would not be able to compensate this individual at a fast enough pace. Perfect opportunity to bring in a pro, someone who can help them grow quicker, but mature enough and understanding enough to accept a position with slow salary growth, but with benefits and challenges ahead. He is still there five years later and things are still slow, but improving. The other side is that he gave the company all that experience can give someone, and has not been out one day since he started. Go to any retailer, talk to any customer service department and see how many inept people you have to deal with to get anything accomplished. Yes, they may be young and willing to work for lower wages than some of the older people who may be permanently displaced. But to discard these people, who can clearly be recharged rather than disposed of, makes no sense. Alan L. Kramer, CPA, is the President of Kramer Executive Resources, Inc., a New York based Executive Search firm, which has been in business for 21 years.

Read the full article →

Art Brodsky: Air of Inevitability Escaping From AT&T’s Takeover of T-Mobile

May 17, 2011

There was a notable hissing sound emanating from Capitol Hill at the end of last week. It was the air being let out of AT&T’s trial balloon, “The Inevitable.” Thanks to some aggressive questioning from the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, particularly Chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken ( both D-MN), it quickly became clear that there are lots of problems to the $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile that AT&T either hadn’t counted on, didn’t want to deal with or thought would simply be overlooked. AT&T has said repeatedly it expects the deal to be approved, and hasn’t yet mentioned any conditions. Granted, it is early in the process, but telling everyone what is expected is part of creating that air of inevitability to intimidate legislators and agency staff that will have to make the call. Adding to the environment, financial and industry analysts have said since the deal was announced on March 20 that it would be approved, albeit with some conditions. That meme, based on the performance of the Antitrust Division in big, high-profile media/telecom cases, has infiltrated much of the thinking and writing about the deal. As the hearing demonstrated, and as some reporters are starting to pick up, AT&T’s deal is not a foregone conclusion, and, in fact, the company still has a lot of explaining to do in order to justify wiping out the fourth-largest national wireless carrier. It took several minutes of questioning of AT&T Chairman Randall Stephenson for Kohl to get the simple admission that yes, T-Mobile is a competitor for AT&T. “You are competitors, right?” Kohl asked. Stephenson said T-Mobile is “part of the eco-system” of the wireless industry. Kohl, disbelieving the reply, said it was “incontrovertible” that the companies were competitors. Is T-Mobile a competitor for AT&T? T-Mobile USA President Phillipp Humm did a similar dance, all but ignoring the TV commercial Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn played for the subcommittee at the start of the hearing, which depicted AT&T’s network as the weight around its customers, slowing them down relative to T-Mobile’s 4G network. It was hard not to have some sympathy for Humm, who had to argue his company was abandoning the U.S. and was so constrained it couldn’t possibly compete any more. Admitting abject failure for so vital and perky a company as T-Mobile in such a public forum had to be excruciating. But that’s what the home office demanded, so Humm did it. The hearing was notable not only for the tough questions tossed at Stephenson and Humm, but for the lack of tough questions posed by those who would normally be forthright in defense of the merger. While it’s true, as some commentators said, that no senator came right out and said the merger should be blocked, the questioning did reveal a lot. The onslaught of hostile questions on pricing, consumer rights accompanied by the observations of the creation of a wireless duopoly surely showed that the senators, primarily on the Democratic side, have enough serious doubts about the deal that approval by the Justice Dept. should not be a foregone conclusion. Even more interesting was the commentary from the Republicans, including from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), AT&T’s home-state senator on the committee. (AT&T has its headquarters in Dallas.) Cornyn issued no clarion calls for the merger to be approved forthwith. He gave no denunciations of government regulators trying to quash the free market and the fate of his great constituent company. He instead settled for some platitudes on broadband access, criticizing the broadband part of the stimulus program and feeding Stephenson some softball questions on innovation and the role of the private sector. Even then, Stephenson’s claim that there are 600 devices in the wireless market (you should pardon the expression) rang hollow, considering it kept a five-year exclusive deal on the iPhone, which is worth much more than, at least 595 of those other devices. AT&T is pumping millions of dollars into getting this acquisition through, and clearly didn’t get its money’s worth from the Senate panel. If the Senators send a letter to the Justice Department that in any way would give political cover to the Antitrust Division blocking the merger, then the deal could be in real trouble. The meme is starting to change , as reporters are starting to realize that AT&T’s conquest may be a reach too far. It may have better luck in the House, where the rhetoric can be less constrained than in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee’s Internet Subcommittee has a hearing tentatively scheduled for May 26. The full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith is from Texas, although he is from the San Antonio area that AT&T scorned, moving its HQ from there to relocate up north. There is no shortage of highly charged members on the subcommittee, who could more than make up for the tepid response AT&T got in the Senate. The only conditions which could stifle the House hearing are the obvious facts of this case, which as Sohn, Sprint CEO Dan Hesse, and Cellular South CEO Victor “Hu” Meena testified, are anticompetitive and anti-consumer on any number of levels.

Read the full article →

Rahim Kanani: Aleem Walji of the World Bank Institute’s Innovation Team on the Future of International Development

May 6, 2011

As part of an on-going series on social innovation, I recently interviewed Aleem Walji, Practice Manager for Innovation at the World Bank Institute. We discussed the intersection between innovation and development, the future of social enterprise, current initiatives and efforts underway in the Innovation Practice, challenges and opportunities moving forward within these sectors, and much more. Aleem joined the World Bank Institute as Practice Manager for Innovation in November 2009. Previously, he was Head of Global Development Initiatives at Google.org and Chief Executive Officer of the Aga Khan Foundation in Syria. Aleem was trained as a social anthropologist and urban planner at Emory University and MIT. Rahim Kanani: How would you characterize the intersection of innovation and development, and the emergence of social enterprise as a widely studied, taught, and advancing discipline? Aleem Walji: Governments alone cannot meet the service delivery needs of all their people. They need partners, expertise and access to pools of capital. The private sector helps to fill this gap as commercial actors and non-commercial actors expand access to public goods and basic services to the poor. Social enterprise is a fuzzy term that’s used to describe many things but largely refers to private actors providing goods and services to the poor and optimizing for something other than a pure financial return. The challenge has been in measuring non-financial impact. Investors may be willing to accept lower financial returns if they can measure precisely they are achieving in meeting health, education or water outcomes. The emergence of industry standards for social metrics, industry associations like GIIN (Global Impact Investing Network) are all very promising and will help unlock additional sources of capital motivated by some combination of financial and social objectives. Capital is often but not always the primary constraint. The challenge is matching the right kind of capital with the needs of entrepreneurs at a particular stage of development. Cash-flow based lending and access to working capital for example, are still rare in much of Africa and South Asia and yet that’s what many early stage entrepreneurs need. Rationalizing the deployment of capital — that is understanding when grants are the right instrument, when equity can play a role, and when debit is appropriate — is key to helping the sector grow. And from the perspective of the World Bank is critical in leveraging private resources to complement public capacity in meeting the needs of the poor. Rahim Kanani: How will social innovation and social enterprise shape the next decade of international development, and what role do you envision the World Bank playing in that regard? Aleem Walji: Our role is to be a catalyst. We should be focusing on creating infrastructure for others to build on and use. In the world of social enterprise and social innovation more broadly we’re focused on developing platforms and networks bringing global players together to solve really important problems. For example, if we can contribute to the creation of a new asset class — impact investing — by supporting intermediaries, targeted technical assistance, and incentivizing investments where gaps exist today, then others will help grow the sector and expand opportunities within it. Our role may not always be most visible but good infrastructure works in ways that people sometimes take for granted. Another example is our work around Open data. Data is fuel and good data is rocket fuel. By making information and better data available on indicators like infant mortality, GDP growth rates, and CO2 emissions, we motivate others to build applications based on our curated data sets and reach people we cannot reach ourselves. Our  Apps for Development competition is a case in point. Developers built applications we would have never thought to create. They saw a pain-point and used our data to build their own aspirin solutions. It’s not about vitamins and telling people what’s good for them. It’s about making ingredients available so people can develop their own remedies to their own problems. The right information available to the right people at the right time can be transformative. Rahim Kanani: What do you now know, that you didn’t know when you joined the World Bank Institute in November 2009? Aleem Walji: I feel even more certain after joining the World Bank Group that no single institution can be the global repository of knowledge. Knowledge lives everywhere and is inherently decentralized. The key is to make it easy to find and accessible when and where where it is needed. In agricultural extension for example, the expertise of the best farmer in a region is often more valuable than any textbook or external expert. Making that knowledge available to large numbers of farmers is hugely valuable. That’s the central goal of the World Bank Institute’s practitioner to practitioner exchange. The Bank aspires to connect learning, knowledge, talent, and innovation wherever it lives. It’s about South-South, North-South, and South-North  learning, it’s about connecting experts and expertise, and putting innovators into direct contact with each other. As Judy Rodin from the Rockefeller Foundation eloquently says, “the world is our laboratory and the combination of globalization and information technology just accelerates the spread of innovation”. If we can make innovation more inclusive , user-driven and user-centric, there will be more opportunities to tackle poverty and tap expertise wherever it lies. Rahim Kanani: What worries you the most about the way in which international development is currently understood and practiced? Aleem Walji: Top-down models that replicate what hasn’t worked for decades. Getting more efficient at doing the wrong thing is a real risk. We have to come to terms with what simply has not worked. There is plenty of data and evidence to suggest we need to re-think traditional development paradigms. For example, the expert-led model where knowledge is highly centralized and parcelled out from the North to the South is out-dated. We are moving towards a much flatter world in which countries and people can learn from one another no matter where they sit. A key opportunity for the World Bank Group is to connect the supply and demand sides of knowledge and talent. That implies a transformation in how we see ourselves: a move from the knowledge bank to being global connector and curator of learning, knowledge, and innovation. Institutions like the World Bank can be powerful enablers when we partner with people and institutions in the countries in which we work. But we need to listen better, be honest about what has and hasn’t worked, and move from centralized, expert-led, and linear models to collaborative, open, and networked approaches that connect experts with  expertise which is widely distributed. Rahim Kanani: At the same time, what are you most optimistic about? Aleem Walji: That some of the most impactful innovations that improve the lives of poor people are coming from the poor themselves and from non-traditional actors. Jeff Sachs has called the mobile phone the most important technology for ending poverty in the world today. I think that’s right. It’s not technology alone but how people adopt and adapt technology and use it as an enabler to accelerate change. Moving the phone from the ear to the hand will unleash a revolution in poor countries that we’re only beginning to understand. Eric Von Hippel at MIT’s Sloan school writes about democratizing innovation and the rise of user-led innovation. I think we’re seeing it all around us in how people are using mobile devices and developing off-grid solutions to access power in remote parts of the world. Perhaps the greatest value we can add is in removing constraints to people-led innovation and lubricating their path to growth. Legal and regulatory obstacles often prevent scale. Managing risks is preferable to eliminating them. The example of mobile money in Kenya is a case in point. It’s precisely because the regulator was willing to take risks and allow a phone company to build on a user-led trend of exchanging phone credits, that mobile-based money emerged and drastically expanded access to financial services by the poor. The role of progressive donors like DFID was no less important in testing early stage prototypes. These are important examples we can learn from and notice that user-led innovation fueled the growth of a new industry. When we look today at Egypt, Tunisia, or others countries in the Middle East, we see similar citizen-led social innovation. The use of technology certainly didn’t create social transformation but it accelerated change from one country to another and mobilized young people in unimaginable ways. What can we do to support these people and help them move from protest to democratic transition to engaged citizenship? That’s a question I hope many people are asking themselves because getting it right is so important. Technology is just an enabler but a powerful tool in the hands of a responsible and engaged citizenry. Rahim Kanani: As the former Head of Global Development Initiatives at Google.org, what does your Google experience have in common with your World Bank experience thus far? Aleem Walji: The World Bank and Google both think big but think about scale in different ways. At Google, scale is about developing and rolling out products to millions of users. At the World Bank, it’s about recognizing and developing solutions that will affect the lives of millions of people. In both roles, I’m interested in how innovation and technology can enable and accelerate progress in fighting poverty.  I don’t think incremental change is sufficient to solve the hardest problems in the world. Given the urgency of so many challenges we face today, there is a need for disruptive and transformative innovation. Rahim Kanani: What does the word “innovation” mean at the World Bank, and how would you describe your position within the context of Bank activities around the world? Aleem Walji: In my mind, Innovation within the context of the World Bank is about  what we choose to do and how we go about doing it. I spend the majority of my time focusing on the  what and encouraging the Bank to think about doing very different things. Our Global Apps for Development Competition for example, gave us the opportunity to put development experts into direct contact with software developers. We opened-up very large data sets and challenged the world to create useful applications. We were amazed by the creativity and innovation of developers who created  uses of our data that would have never occurred to us. And that was the point. People closest to problems are incredibly imaginative and if properly equipped with information and tools can offer solutions to problems that outside experts would not. And I think we’ve only scratched the surface of what’s possible by reaching out to a world of non-traditional  experts to help us move the needle on poverty. But that simply can’t and won’t happen unless we create the institutional space for people to take risks and learn from failure. That’s the critical  how of innovation. It’s less about coming up with perfect solutions and more about creating an environment where staff and partners feel free to take initiative, move quickly towards execution, rapid learning, and continuous improvement. Failing fast and learning from failure is not part of the World Bank’s parlance. But it’s essential if we’re going to evolve as an institution and iterate rapidly. This requires our leaders to ask probing questions, be open to new ideas, and give people permission to try them. The world around the Bank is changing fast; innovation is happening all around us. Our relevance depends on our ability to adapt to it. Rahim Kanani: What have been some of the milestone achievements of the Innovation Practice in recent past? Aleem Walji: We’ve been involved in several areas that I think are worth mentioning. The first is Open Data. Last April, through a cross-Bank effort, we adopted a new policy resulting in more than 7,000 development indicators becoming available in our data catalogue at no cost. Our information and data are not just public but  searchable ,  downloadable in machine-readable formats (including through APIs), and  re-usable . And users are coming to our data catalogue in huge numbers surpassing traffic to our World Bank homepage. We’ve realized our clients and our users are not the same group. For most people we’re as much the Databank as the World Bank. This has led to our Development Economics and Research Group to expand our data catalogue regularly. Open Data is pushing us to re-think our role in the development space: what information do we share, how do we share it and collaborate with partners, and what does it mean to create open-source solutions to development problems? The Bank’s  Mapping for Results initiative complements Open Data by adding a geospatial dimension. Interactive poverty maps overlaid with information about where the Bank’s projects are located and where funding flows is eye-opening at many levels. We see relationships between for example infant mortality and where we’re our loans support health and water projects at the sub-national level. The question of  who does what where is a such a black hole in development and Mapping for Results shows where gaps exist in development programs, the clustering of aid programs, and whether results correlate with aid flows. All of this became possible by capturing geo-data (now even possible on most mobile phones) and creating simple mash-ups. We’re working with the Development Gateway Foundation to create a  geo-coding manual to allow other donors and Governments to learn from our experience and develop their own geo-tools. We’ve learned that maps are a very powerful story-telling tool particularly when they help visualize the relationships between very large and disparate data sets. Rahim Kanani: Walk us through some concrete examples of innovative development practices that your office was involved in, with respect to identifying the model, evaluating the model, and ultimately taking the model to scale. Aleem Walji: Scale is everyone’s goal but eludes most development actors. At the World Bank Institute, we talk about moving from retail to wholesale. In practice, this often means working through partners, supporting intermediaries, and figuring out  how and  where we can best add value. The Development Marketplace (DM) program comes to mind. For more than 10 years, we’ve been making small grants to social enterprises globally. The program aims to complement the provision of public goods by Governments by scaling-up the provision of public goods through non-public actors. But for the World Bank to make small scale grants to social entrepreneurs is inefficient and often cumbersome for our grantees. So we want to support local intermediaries to provide pre-investment technical assistance to social enterprises and connect them to a growing pool of socially motivated investors particularly local capital. Our goal is to use the DM Platform to connect high potential pipeline to impact investors, philanthropic capital and social investment funds. We see a major gap between the needs of most social enterprises (requiring early stage angel finance) and where most impact investors sit along the conveyor belt of capital (wishing to deploy private equity/debt). To increase deal-flow, there is a role for targeted pipeline development, reducing due diligence costs, and making early-stage finance available for a broader range of small but growing enterprises. We’re working with a range of government partners, philanthropies, and social investors (including the Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs) to test this model in India and East Africa as a starting point. If we can leverage our convening power, relationship with governments, and balance sheet, we can help fill a key gap in the social investment ecosystem. Rahim Kanani: If your work and the Innovation Practice rest upon one core philosophy about the way in which the world works, what is that philosophy? Aleem Walji: Focus on the user and start with problems that matter. Too often we’re answers looking for questions. And the answer can’t be the same if the question is different. Scale is ultimately about the repeatability of a solution based on a homogeneous problem. The private sector has learned the importance of listening to clients. Non-profits and public agencies struggle because the incentives of their funders and their end users are not always aligned.  But if you can create the right incentives for groups to be client or user-focused, I think you get better results. Getting something wrong because it’s a really hard problem is understandable but getting something wrong because you don’t listen to your users is totally avoidable. We can do better and we must do better in listening to our clients and ultimately our clients’ client — the citizen. While I would not describe myself as a techno-determinist, I do believe in the disruptive power of technology to accelerate positive social and economic change. We’ve seen it now in the Middle East with social media and communications technologies and in Kenya and the Philippines with mobile banking and financial inclusion. But intent matters a great deal as technology is value neutral. When harnessed with positive intent, I believe ICTs can enable people to make enormous progress in timeframes that were previously just not possible. — Below is a short video marking the one-year anniversary of the World Bank’s Open Data initiative. For more information: Apps for Development: Website | Video Apps for Development Ceremony Photos: Part 1 | Part 2 Mapping for Results: Website Development Marketplace: Website Aleem Walji: Blog Posts | Video — Previous interviews on social innovation include Bill Drayton of Ashoka, Sally Osberg of the Skoll Foundation, Eric Nee of the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Judith Rodin of the Rockefeller Foundation, and many more. Cross-posted with World Affairs Commentary

Read the full article →

Michael Haberman: Help Needed: Workforce Development and What the Ordinary Citizen Can Do

May 6, 2011

Shyam is a 19-year-old NYC public high school graduate and college freshman at City College of New York. After waking up at 3 a.m., enduring a two-hour commute to Manhattan from Queens and attending classes all morning, he goes on to work at his part-time job at Meringoff Properties . Shyam is a young man of exceptional character and perseverance. Unfortunately, the fact that he is employed also makes him exceptional — according to the Labor Department , the unemployment rate in June 2010 for youth ages 16-19 was 25.7 percent, the highest since the government began tracking the data in 1947. The high rate is not due to economic turmoil alone; employers are reporting that young adults are not prepared for job success. In ” Are They Really Ready to Work? ,” a survey of several hundred employers by The Conference Board and three other organizations, employers across sectors reported that young adults entering the workforce lack essential job skills, rating them “deficient” in many areas including oral communication, critical thinking and professionalism/work ethic. When asked where young adults should be prepared with the knowledge and skills needed for job success, 75.6 percent of employers said that K-12 schools should be responsible. It is no secret that our public schools — especially those in large, urban districts — are under great stress already, struggling to meet testing standards for just the basic “three R’s” (reading, writing, and arithmetic). “Soft skills” like those noted above in The Conference Board survey are often not taught in our schools, yet we know we cannot continue sending our graduates into the workforce without the knowledge they need to succeed. There is a solution, though, a solution we can all be a part of: internships. It may sound simple, but internships provide a solid foundation on which a career can be built. In addition to gaining workplace skills, a 2010 study by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation found that students who participated in work-based learning programs are more likely to see the connection between school, work and their career goals, viewing the importance of graduating college in very practical terms. Unlike summer jobs, internships are designed to support and train students while providing valuable services to businesses. That is precisely why internship programs like PENCIL’s Fellows Program were created. The Fellows Program — run in partnership with Virtual Enterprises International (VEI) — provides New York City public high school seniors and recent graduates with full-time, paid summer internships, as well as training, guidance and support to prepare them for the workforce. One of the largest and most efficient high school internship programs in New York State, PENCIL’s Fellows Program is an effective and successful model that can be adapted around the country. Fellows are selected from a pool of students who have participated in VEI’s year-long business entrepreneurship program and have shown a strong interest in pursuing a professional career in a business environment. They develop resumes, receive tips and training in marketing themselves to prospective employers, and interview for their internships at some of the most competitive businesses in New York City. Once hired, Fellows perform duties and work that are meaningful both to them and their employers, from filing documents and answering phones to developing websites, editing copy, evaluating data and more. And they are paid — a crucial component of a successful internship program. For many students, working for free or for school credit is simply not an option they can afford. Equally important, the pride that comes from earning a paycheck remains with them forever. Throughout the program, Fellows participate in workshops on business etiquette and attend career panels. They are required to complete writing assignments, reflecting on their challenges, successes and the new lessons they have learned in their internships. Fellows unanimously agree that the program has helped shaped their plans for the future, reporting improvements in work skills, self-efficacy, teamwork, professionalism and solution-seeking. The value of the model is best illustrated by the fact that dozens of Fellows alumni have gone on to accept full- or part-time positions at their host companies after the program ends. As the American economy recovers, it is clear that too many of our students are not adequately prepared to enter the workforce. We cannot depend on public schools alone — all of us can play a part. Companies like JPMorgan Chase & Co., Estee Lauder and JetBlue, as well as dozens of small businesses, are recognizing the importance of investing in internships for high school students. Why? Because they are our next generation of workers, customers, clients and leaders. And because there is no better ROI than investing in the future.

Read the full article →

Chip Conley: The Chief Emotions Officer

April 27, 2011

Executives execute. We don’t execute people as in life and death matters (although, sadly, we do “terminate” people when they’re no longer needed), but we have traditionally thought of business leaders as being emotionless technicians who just keep the trains running on time. But, timely trains didn’t make Southern Pacific or Santa Fe railroads into 21st century mega-corporations. In fact, the train industry missed its chance to expand into automobiles and airplane travel by thinking of their business a little too myopically. Maybe these train executives were a little too focused on the simple execution of being on time. While execution is still a fundamental skill of the best executives, we no longer are purely executing mechanistic, industrial organizations. In this knowledge era, execution is all about people: how to harness and inspire the potential of those we work with. And, at the heart of people are our emotions, the mysterious internal weather that either propels or penalizes us. After 24 years of being a CEO, I’ve come to realize that the best amongst us are truly Chief Emotions Officers as we are the “emotional thermostats” for our organizations with studies showing that a typical leader has 50-70% influence over the work climate of their team. There are three great pieces of empirical evidence that amplify this reality about 21st century leadership. First, Daniel Goleman has shown for 15 years now that emotional intelligence (EQ) represents two-thirds of the success of business leaders as compared to only one-third coming from either IQ or the leader’s transferable experience. And, yet, in 2010, less than 10% of the training and development dollars spent by America’s corporations went toward emotional intelligence or literacy training (often called “soft skills”). We know it’s important and, yet, we seem to be reluctant in investing in the skills to help our executives become Chief Emotions Officers. Secondly, Dr Matthew Lieberman at UCLA has proven that labeling our emotions reduces the intensity of these emotions in such a way that it maximizes our cognitive abilities just at the time when we most need to use the prefrontal cortex of our brain for better reasoning and judgment. By being emotionally literate about what we’re experiencing, executives can sidestep the 10-15 point drop in IQ that often occurs for those who are barraged by having to make decisions during times of emotional distress. So, maybe being a CEO is less about being able to predict the times of trains and more about being an internal weather forecaster. Finally, Harvard’s Nicholas Christakis, as well as a few other academics, has shown that our emotions are contagious. When we have the flu, our colleagues feel comforted that we stay at home in order not to spread the misery. Yet, when so many of us have caught the “fear” at work — especially in economically turbulent times — there’s no sane corporate voice warning us of the risks of how our emotions can spread and threaten the well-being of those in our organizational petri dish. The ultimate inoculation for fear is a great corporate culture and companies with great cultures have healthy psycho-hygiene. In other words, their leaders are emotionally attuned to what’s going on around them and they cleanse the company through transparent communication or other tactical means to help employees feel recognized and engaged. Any executive worth their weight understands the principle of accrued interest. If you have a loan and don’t pay the interest currently, it accrues and can compound and over a period of time. The cost of the interest can become staggering. This is an apt metaphor for organizational emotions that are not properly addressed in the workplace. Most companies — led by CEO’s who aren’t nearly literate about their own emotions — are actively disengaged in addressing the individual and collective emotions that are invisible predators of passion and engagement. From my own experience, I have learned the hard way. When I most have bottled up my emotions for extended periods of time, they have leaked out in other subversive ways that didn’t serve my purposes as CEO. And, yet, when I was most vulnerable and authentic in my emotional communication with fellow co-workers, ironically, I was told by these colleagues that I was more admired and they felt most comfortable to be all they could be at work.

Read the full article →

Mutual Fund Teaches Grad Students Real World Investing

April 22, 2011

NEW ORLEANS — With all of the ups and downs of the stock markets over the past decade, the average investor might wonder who’s watching over his mutual funds. In the case of the Burkenroad Fund, it’s a group of students at Tulane University’s Freeman School of Business who spend hours combing through the financial reports of companies that a lot of retail investors haven’t heard of and analysts don’t follow – and eventually find many of the stocks the fund buys. The results over a decade of student involvement aren’t anything to sneeze at. According to Burkenroad’s prospectus, the no-load version of the fund, which started Dec. 31, 2001, had returned 11.9 percent since inception through March 31, 2011. The fund, managed by Biloxi, Miss.-based banker Hancock Holding Co., has current assets of about $70 million. The fund licenses its name from the university, but is managed independently from the school. The Russell 2000 index, a benchmark barometer of small- and mid-cap companies, returned an overall 7.5 percent over the same time. In the recessionary year of 2008, when many 401(k) plans lost much of their value, the Burkenroad fund suffered a loss of just under 25 percent compared to 33.8 percent for the Russell 2000 index. But both rebounded the following year. And for the three years ending March 31, the Burkenroad fund returned 10.72 percent compared to 8.6 percent for the Russell 2000 index. Peter Ricchiuti, who teaches the stock analysis course, said he picks most of the companies, and students come up with others. He said the Burkenroad fund’s reliance on student reports is unique, although other business schools put their students to the task of researching investments for university endowments. About 200 students over the current school year have been evaluating 40 companies across the South. Considering the region, it’s not surprising that 15 of the companies have some sort of involvement in the petroleum industry. The others include regional banks, as well as insurance, consumer goods, chicken- and egg- processing and retail companies. All of their final analyses – known as Burkenroad Reports – are available to the public. “At the Freeman school, we do our due diligence and take a more long-term look at investing,” said Anthony Elia, a 25-year-old graduate student in finance from Pasadena, Calif. The companies are generally in the $100 million to $1.5 billion market cap range and located in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or Florida. The group looks for profitable companies – and those that don’t have many financial analysts following them. “One of the things is that we can clearly understand what they do,” Ricchiuti said. “No wild high-tech companies. Just meat-and-potato companies.” Elia first reported on oilfield services company Key Energy Inc. and now heads a team of students studying Carbo Ceramics Inc., an oilfield services company, and consumer services specialist Rollins Inc. Alexandra Thurber, a graduate student from Bethesda, Md., first reported on oilfield service company Willbros Group Inc. and now is team leader of a group analyzing egg producer Cal-Maine Foods Inc. and Pool Corp., which provides swimming pool products. She’s not sure yet whether she’ll be doing the same task for a living. “My background is in math and this is an extension of that,” Thurber, 25, said. “The dynamic nature of the markets is interesting. I think I will wind up working in a financial career, but not necessarily investing.” In keeping with standard investment house rules, the students are forbidden from investing personally in companies they have researched. They can buy the Burkenroad Fund. These students, from their perspective in life, have grown up around a lot of cynicism concerning investing – the dot-com bust, the scandals of Enron and Tyco International and, last but not least, the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing retirement savings wipeout of the 2008 financial collapse. “There’s always been some cynicism,” said Arnaba Dasqupta, a 29-year-old graduate student with a previous job at a New York hedge firm and who is now hoping for a banking career. “It doesn’t have to come from a corporate scandal. It can be management being too optimistic. It’s not lying, but it’s misleading to investors.” What would the student stock-pickers tell a potential investor? “I suggest you find a company whose products and values you like and stick with it,” said Tray McCurdy, a 24-year-old graduate student in finance from Baltimore. Elia is against momentum investing – or “jumping on the bandwagon.” “Invest in companies you know and understand,” said Dori Brown, a 21-year-old undergraduate student from Houston. “Don’t focus on one aspect of a company,” Thurber said. “Look at the entire picture and not just one thing that excites you.” Arnab said that if an investor is not confident of his knowledge, he should seek an adviser who can be trusted. “Do your own homework,” he said. “Investing is a system with a lot of people with a lot of different opinions. The markets owe you nothing.”

Read the full article →

Steve Blank: How Entrepreneurs Can Find A Mentor

April 21, 2011

When the student is ready, the master appears. — Buddhist Proverb Lots of entrepreneurs believe they want a mentor. In fact, they’re actually asking for a teacher or a coach. A mentor relationship is a two-way street. To make it work, you have to bring something to the party. A Question from the Audience Recently, when I was at a conference taking questions from the audience, I got a question that I had never heard before. Someone asked, “How do I get you, or someone like you to become my mentor?” It made me pause (actually cringe). As I gathered my thoughts, I realized that I’ve never thought much about the mentors I had, how I got them, and the difference between mentors, coaches and teachers. Teachers What I do today is teach. At Stanford and Berkeley, I have students, with classes and office hours. For the brief time in the quarter I have students in my class, at worst I impart knowledge to them. At best, I try to help my students to discover and acquire the knowledge themselves. I try to engage them to see the startup world as part of a larger pattern; the lifecycle of how companies are born, grow and die. I attempt to offer them both theory, as well as a methodology, about building early stage ventures. And finally, I have them experience all of this first hand by teaching them theory side-by-side with immersive hands-on using Customer Development to find a business model . At times, the coffees, lunches and phone calls I have with current and past students are also a form of teaching. Most of the time students come with, “Here’s the problem I have. Can you help me?” Usually, I’ll give a direct answer, but sometimes my answer is a question. In both cases, inside or outside the classroom, I consider those activities as teaching. At least for me, mentorship is something quite different. Mentors As an entrepreneur in my 20s and 30s, I was lucky to have four extraordinary mentors, each brilliant in his own field and each a decade or two older than me. Ben Wegbreit taught me how to think, Gordon Bell taught me what to think about, Rob Van Naarden taught me how to think about customers and Allen Michels showed me how to turn thinking into direct, immediate and outrageous action. At this time in my life, I was the world’s biggest pain in the rear, lessons needed to be communicated by baseball bat , yet each one of these people not only put up with me, but also engaged me in a dialog of continual learning . Unlike coaching, there was no specific agenda or goal, but they saw I was competent and open to learning and they cared about me and my long-term development. I’m not sure it was a conscious effort on their part, (I know it wasn’t on mine), but it continued for years, and in some cases (with my partner Ben Wegbreit) for decades. What is interesting in hindsight is that although the relationship continued for a long time, neither of us explicitly acknowledged it. Now I realize that what made these relationships a mentorship is this: I was giving as good as I was getting . While I was learning from them — and their years of experience and expertise — what I was giving back to them was equally important. I was bringing fresh insights to their data. It wasn’t that I was just more up to date on the current technology, markets or trends, it was that I was able to recognize patterns and bring new perspectives to what these very smart people already knew. In hindsight, mentorship is a synergistic relationship. Like every good student/teacher and mentor/mentee relationship, over time the student became the teacher, and this phase of relationship ends. How do I Find a Mentor All this was running through my head as I tried to think of how to answer the question from the audience. Finally I replied, “At least for me, becoming someone’s mentor means a two-way relationship. A mentorship is a back and forth dialog — it’s as much about giving as it is about getting. It’s a much higher-level conversation than just teaching. Think about what can we learn together? How much are you going to bring to the relationship?” If it’s not much, what you really want/need is a teacher, not a mentor. If it’s a specific goal or skill you want to achieve, hire a coach, but if you’re prepared to give as good as you get, then look for a mentor. But never ask. Offer to give. Lessons Learned Teachers, coaches and mentors are each something different. If you want to learn a specific subject find a teacher. If you want to hone specific skills or reach an exact goal hire a coach. If you want to get smarter and better over your career find someone who cares about you enough to be a mentor. Visit Steve Blank’s blog : www.steveblank.com.

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: Sustainability’s Faustian Dilemma

April 8, 2011

We all remember the SunChips Episode of 2010 . Frito-Lay introduced bio-degradable packaging for SunChips in March, and was surprised to see sales of the chips drop by 11% over the next six months. The reason: Consumers felt that the new bags were too noisy, prompting an onslaught of YouTube videos and Facebook groups bemoaning their high decibel levels. In October, Frito-Lay switched most of the SunChips brands back to quieter plastic packaging. Only last month — a year after the initial launch — did the company start reintroducing ( very slowly ) a new, quieter version of the biodegradable bag in some grocery stores. In light of this “curious case of the cacophonous snack pack,” I find that many people see sustainability as a version of a Faustian dilemma ; they often knowingly make choices that have immediate personal benefits , but in the long run are disastrous for all of us. Their reasoning goes like this: “While I’d like to save the planet in the long-term, if it means that I have to give up my currently comfortable lifestyle in the short-term, I probably won’t do it.” Lifestyle resistance to the wind energy industry — a clean alternative to fossil fuels — is another example of this dilemma. One New York Times article documents noise complaints from a number of communities across the U.S., Canada, Britain, and France. As one neighbor of a newly installed wind farm in Maine said, “… we are prisoners of sonic effluence.” Other wind energy projects, such as the proposed turbines off the coast of Cape Cod and Hawaii , have been slowed or stopped by residents who do not want their view of the ocean disturbed. Similarly, makers of all-electric cars are facing resistance from “range anxiety,” or the fear of getting stuck somewhere when the batteries run out of juice. It stems from the hesitancy to give up that limitless freedom of gasoline-powered vehicles, despite the knowledge that electric cars will significantly reduce tailpipe emissions. To counter this anxiety in a somewhat ironic way, for a time Nissan considered giving its all-electric Leaf customers free access to gasoline-powered rentals whenever they needed them (essentially defeating the purpose of having an electric car). The correlation between these examples is that they reinforce and even amplify the notion that sustainability requires a trade-off: In order to improve the environment, we’ll have to sacrifice something (e.g., peace and quiet, view, freedom of travel, or inexpensive transportation). And while some people are willing to accept this trade-off, many others are not. As a result, the idea of sustainability — which should be a perfectly sensible notion in a world of finite resources — is often viewed with suspicion or skepticism. To counter this resistance in the coming years, more companies may need to embrace what Cisco’s Inder Sidhu calls “doing both.” The idea is that instead of thinking about tradeoffs between equally good alternatives — such as innovation vs. core business or discipline vs. flexibility — to creatively try to achieve both. In other words, more companies should be acting like Frito-Lay. By developing a package that is compostable and quiet, they are working to save the environment while still delivering a quality product that will please consumers. For the wind industry this would mean developing silent and more attractive turbines; and for automobile manufacturers it will mean developing electric cars (or supporting infrastructures) that provide range as well as zero emissions. I’ll admit that this may be blindingly obvious. But if we’re going to make progress with sustainability, we’ll have to accept the fact that many people are like Faust — they will sell their souls (or at least their planet) to the devil in order to maintain their current standard of living. Until we give them a better choice, and prove that sustainability doesn’t require sacrifice, we’ll be fighting an uphill battle — and putting our snack packs in landfills instead of compost heaps. What are your suggestions for overcoming sustainability’s Faustian dilemma? Cross-posted from Harvard Business Online

Read the full article →

AgraQuest Announces Addition of Robert Shapiro to Board of Directors

April 5, 2011

Shapiro Brings Wealth of Knowledge, Experience to Rapidly Growing Sustainable Agriculture Leader

Read the full article →

Michael Spence: Observations on the Evolution of Economic Policies

March 25, 2011

It was a privilege to participate in the IMF conference devoted to rethinking policy frameworks in the wake of the crisis. Highly encouraging was the openness of the discussion, the range of views, the willingness to question orthodoxy, and the posture of humility. One gets the impression that the crisis has triggered a response that it should trigger, and we have embarked on a path of rethinking conceptual frameworks and policy choices in a way that will contribute to the stability of the system. That said, the good news is that we recognize that in finance and parts of macroeconomics the models or frameworks are incomplete. That represents a challenge to the academic community. But it also means that, in the short run, participants and regulators will be operating with incomplete models. This will require judgments (which will be uncomfortable in contrast to the earlier sense of certainty). There will be mistakes. And, as Olivier Blanchard said in his excellent summary , we will proceed step-by-step, evaluating the impacts of policy choices and sometimes reversing course. This is relatively familiar territory in developing countries, where changes in the institutional depth of the economy mean that models (especially advanced country models) are not very precise in predicting market responses to policy choices. Nevertheless theory is still useful when used judiciously. In that context, you can think of this as analogous to navigating with charts that are incomplete. Having said that, we do in principle have the option of returning to old patterns while waiting for different or more complete models to be developed and tested, I think there is a widespread recognition that this would be a risky mistake. I offer some thoughts stimulated by the spirit of the conference; not as a summary, or even an ordered set of priorities, but as a contribution to a general discussion that we all hope might stimulate further research and policy analysis, and ultimately progress. 1. The Dynamics of Risk in the Financial System The dynamics of the risk characteristics of the financial system are not well understood by the participants or the regulators. Fixing this represents a central challenge and opportunity for economists. I think it is one of the hardest challenges in the area of economic and financial theory. With most investors paying more attention to risk factors, and the costs and benefits of liquidity, they are constantly adjusting their investments and the structure of the assets they hold. So, relationships between assets, prices and risk may only remain stable for a few months at a time. The old model with stable relationships, implemented through a largely fixed asset allocation framework is broken. That doesn’t mean that diversification is a silly idea. But the challenge is to implement it effectively. Most of the discussion concerns adjustments to the regulatory approach. This is too narrow. Although self-regulation failed in the run up to the crisis, and cannot be relied as the principal element of stability, it remains important. A financial system in which the participants and regulators accurately perceive risk will behave differently, and defensive action by participants when is accurately perceived will be a contributing factor. 2. Multiple Targets and Instruments It may not be unanimous, but it is close, that the single target – single instrument approach to policy is not sufficient for achieving financial and macroeconomic stability. Nor are policies that focus on the flow of funds or resources, and prices likely to be sufficient. And given the state of our knowledge, at this point, we are going to have to pay attention to balance sheet variables and linkages at the micro and macro levels. There will be warning signs or puzzles, and we are going to have to be willing to act on them without being able to give air tight arguments that there are problems. That is at variance with our earlier mindset in which the preferred course was inaction unless there was a clear case for intervention. This asymmetric attitude needs to be abandoned in favor of a more balanced assessment of the benefits and risks of inaction versus action. 3. Understanding Structural Changes in Advanced Economies The structure of all economies evolves in ways that affect the income distribution and employment opportunities. This evolution is driven by powerful market forces operating in the global economy. And, after these changes, economies don’t return to their previous average behavior. The vast majority (by population) of the emerging economies only become big once. Major technological innovations can also produce shifts in structure. Paying attention to structural evolution and incorporating it into longer term policy frameworks seem to me important and worth institutionalizing, with supporting research. It is of course easier to think about efficiency and market failures and even stability, than it is to address distributional issues and consider interventions that may adversely affect dynamic efficiency at the global level. But the alternative, ignoring the distributional and structural issues, doesn’t seem right and has risks. There are more and less harmful ways to nudge structural evolution. Ignoring the issue raises the risks of choices that run toward the more harmful end of the spectrum. 4. Ban High Speed Trading I would ban high speed trading–the automated, computer-driven trading of large volumes of financial assets in a short timeframe–by introducing lags in the trading process or increasing capital requirements or both. As far as I can see, it is entertaining, but it’s largely a zero-sum game, using resources, contributing potential volatility in markets. The economic benefits in terms of enhancing the pricing, capital allocation and risk spreading functions of the financial system, seem negligible. 5. Financial Regulation Financial regulation is a huge subject, rightly receiving lots of attention. These are just a few thoughts. At the macro level, it seems clear that we need to restrict excessive leverage. Ditto for banks. Regulating the shadow banking system is crucial. The crisis experience surely tells us that. I would have liked to hear much more about what is needed to properly regulate this part of the financial system in order to ensure stability. This involves ratings, capital requirements, incentives, and structures that, unlike the present ones, allow the unwinding of securitized assets in an efficient way after a shock or crisis. As far as I can tell, the procedures for dealing with underwater mortgages held in trusts supporting securitized assets are essentially broken. This makes recovery from crisis, shocks, and asset bubbles less efficient and much too lengthy. Finally, it seems to be that the current structure of the financial system–as it has evolved with a pattern of reduced regulation with respect to the separation of functions–is shot through with actual and potential conflicts of interest. These adversely affect incentives and performance and perhaps more importantly trust. This needs to be addressed by regulators, but also by the industry itself. There remains much more to be done, particularly on the industry side. Crossposted from iMFdirect .

Read the full article →

Benefits Executive Michael Rosenberg Joins Alliant Insurance Services as First Vice President

March 23, 2011

Rosenberg Brings 20 Years of Benefits Brokerage Experience and Knowledge of South Florida Market to Fort Lauderdale, FL Office

Read the full article →

InQuira Promotes Nav Chakravarti to Chief Technology Officer

March 22, 2011

Enterprise Knowledge Leader Bolsters Executive Team to Support Its Mission to Deliver a World-Class Customer Experience

Read the full article →

Rajaratnam Paid For Tips, Man Testifies

March 11, 2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A disgraced former McKinsey & Co partner told jurors he leaked secrets about the elite consulting firm’s clients in exchange for $1.75 million in hidden payments from onetime friend Raj Rajaratnam, the main defendant in the biggest U.S. insider trading trial in years. Anil Kumar said the Galleon hedge fund founder told him: “You work very, very hard. You are underpaid. People are making fortunes … so just keep track of your knowledge and share it with me.” The calmly delivered testimony for the prosecution capped a day when the Manhattan federal jury also for the first time heard the voice of Rajaratnam captured on FBI wiretaps. On the tapes, he is heard at times giggling with associates and on other occasions speaking rapidly in a high-pitched voice, rattling off numbers and acronyms for companies. Kumar’s testimony will resume on Monday. Prosecutors say the Galleon Group founder made $45 million in illicit profit from 2003 to March 2009 through insider trading. His multimillion-dollar defense team contends that he conducted legitimate stock research and did not gain an unfair advantage over other investors. Rajaratnam took notes on a legal pad while Kumar testified. Kumar, 52, dressed in business attire, avoided Rajaratnam’s gaze. The Sri Lankan-born Rajaratnam, free on bail since his October 2009 arrest, is accused of creating a network of tipsters who fed him inside information. His trial is the signature case in an insider trading probe that has shaken the secretive $1.9 trillion hedge fund industry. Kumar is among 19 people who have pleaded guilty to conspiracy or fraud charges in the broad Galleon probe. He admitted accepting $1.75 million from Rajaratnam and said he tipped the onetime billionaire on deals involving McKinsey clients including chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices. “I told him there were advanced discussions both with Dell and Hewlett Packard,” Kumar testified. He said Rajaratnam responded that “that was very useful information.” AMD ultimately announced a pilot program with Hewlett Packard in February 2004 worth $400 million to the chipmaker. U.S. prosecutor Jonathan Streeter projected onto courtroom screens a confidential McKinsey document that referred to computer maker HP with the code name “New Hampshire.” The Galleon probe has been embarrassing to McKinsey, which has not been accused of wrongdoing. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Rajat Gupta, the consultancy’s former chief, of supplying Goldman Sachs secrets to Rajaratnam when he sat on the bank’s board. The case stands out from previous insider trading scandals — such as those of the mid-1980s involving speculator Ivan Boesky and junk bond financier Michael Milken — because of the government’s widescale use of wiretaps. Rajaratnam, sitting behind the defense table in the crowded courtroom, did not react to hearing the digital recordings of his mobile phone calls being played. Along with Kumar, the recordings featured another friend-turned-government-witness, Intel Corp’s Rajiv Goel, and former Galleon employee Adam Smith, who will also testify in the two-month trial. In a May 2008 call played for the 12 jurors, Rajaratnam is heard talking with one-time employee Smith. Rajaratnam asks Smith how the market is treating him and Smith answers: “Like a baby treats a diaper.” Rajaratnam laughs and the two men go on to discuss Vishay Intertechnology Inc, a company prosecutors cited in charges against both men. The government contends that Smith and Rajaratnam conspired to obtain secret information about a potential acquisition of Vishay. As it turned out, Vishay was never acquired. Kumar’s testimony followed that of FBI Special Agent Diane Wehner, who described how she became familiar with Rajaratnam’s voice by listening in to his conversations. But defense attorney Terence Lynam, on cross examination, pointed out that she did not know whether Rajaratnam’s discussions caught on the tapes were based on Galleon stock research or not. The case is USA v Raj Rajaratnam et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 09-01184. (Editing by Steve Orlofsky, Gary Hill) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Mark J. Perry and Robert Dell: More Equity, Less Government: Rethinking Bank Regulation

February 28, 2011

History’s two most influential advocates for economic liberty, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, nevertheless turned away from “free banking” to support some financial regulation and legislative reform in the wake of financial crises. Smith’s views were influenced by the global banking crisis of 1772 and the failure of the Ayr Bank in Scotland. Friedman’s views were shaped by the U.S. banking crisis of 1930-1933, especially the Bank of United States’ failure in 1930. Yet their proposed reforms would have limited government discretionary power and systemic micromanagement. What would they have concluded from the recent crisis and the policy responses embodied in the Dodd-Frank Act, which expands these powers without addressing the policy failures that largely produced the crisis? At the core of the recent crisis was the insolvency threat to global banks from large losses in relation to tangible equity capital (total shareholder equity minus preferred stock, goodwill, and other intangibles) from high-risk mortgage backed securities (MBS) that were misrated AAA. The overreliance on credit rating agencies–a legally protected oligopoly–was driven by regulatory policy, which supplanted market discipline. The empirical and conceptual flaws in the “measurement” of risk, and the outsourcing of risk evaluation by regulators to the rating agencies have been criticized by financial scholars for more than 20 years. Yet Congress enacted legislation in 2006 that led rating agencies to further relax standards for high-risk MBS. Likewise, bank equity as low as 2 percent of total assets and leverage for MBS as high as 800 to 1 were made possible by replacing market discipline with the incentives of regulatory capital arbitrage, the political economy of bank regulation, and implicit and explicit government guarantees to bank creditors. Why else would bank equity be so much lower today than a century or more ago, when banks like the City Bank of New York, the predecessor to Citigroup, operated with equity of 30-50 percent of total assets? Why else would bank equity be lower under the 347-page Basel II accord than under the 37-page Basel I agreement? In light of the deep systemic losses incurred in the most recent crisis–and the poor performance of banks and their regulators in many countries in the last three decades–the assumption that government planning curtails, rather than increases, systemic risk in the financial sector merits skepticism. Relying more on market discipline and required minimum equity would allow for less reliance on short-sighted politicians and fallible regulators to develop, implement, and continually update complex and uncertain systems of regulation. To quote Alan Greenspan: “Adequate capital eliminates the need for an unachievable specificity in regulatory fine tuning.” Had Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers been operating with tangible equity capital of 15 percent of total assets, for example, neither would have become insolvent. The possibility of a contagion of fear arising from defaults on their debt obligations would have been greatly reduced, as their losses would have been contained within their common shareholders. And higher equity would have reduced the incentives to take excessive risk in the first place. Recent research by Stanford economist Anat Admati et al. suggests that maintaining higher minimum equity through the control of dividend payouts and new equity issuance is the most powerful, effective, and flexible policy tool for managing systemic risk. She and her colleagues argue that significantly higher equity would bring large social benefits with minimal social costs. Increased equity would not only reduce the cost of equity to banks but also reduce return on equity, mainly because debt is subsidized through the tax code and government guarantees. One sensible reform is to reduce those subsidies to put debt and equity on a more equal footing. Another is to substantially reduce regulatory costs, which, for depository institutions, may well exceed the cost of corporate income taxes. For example, the bank-affected provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act have not (to the best of our knowledge) led to the conviction of a single terrorist, but in 2003 raised the average labor costs of opening a new account from $7.75 to $22, according to an industry consultant. Reducing federal deposit insurance coverage so that conservative banks could compete better for business, institutional and high-net-worth depositors would discipline bank risk-taking. So would a clear policy rule establishing a ceiling of, say, 50 cents on the dollar in the event government elects to guarantee previously exposed bank liabilities to forestall a future systemic crisis. In keeping with President Obama’s recent recommendations, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of all bank regulation, including the Community Reinvestment Act, is also justified. Supporters of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act obviously believe expanded regulatory powers offer the best solution to reform, but they should consider that almost all previous major banking legislation has helped to create conditions that inevitably lead to the next banking crisis. A more market-based solution would be to simply regulate higher mandated equity standards in the range of 15 to 30 percent of total assets. In the tradition of Smith and Friedman, this approach would be a much more effective regulatory approach to curbing risk-taking, reducing systemic risk, and preventing a future banking crisis than 2,000 pages of Dodd-Frank. Mark Perry is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of finance and economics at the University of Michigan in Flint. Robert Dell is a commercial real estate banker in Atlanta. They are coauthors of the forthcoming book, Back from Serfdom: A Republican New Deal for Pragmatic Democrats. Originally printed in The American Magazine on February 24, 2011. Available at American.com .

Read the full article →

BP, ARCO Sued For Alleged Water Contamination From Toxic Mine

February 16, 2011

RENO, Nev. — Neighbors of a toxic mine in northern Nevada have filed a class-action lawsuit against BP America and Atlantic Richfield Co. accusing them of intentionally and negligently concealing the extent of the contamination leaking off the abandoned site for decades. The suit filed in U.S. District Court in Reno on Monday seeks a minimum of $5 million on behalf of at least 100 residents in the rural town of Yerington where the old Anaconda copper mine opened in 1941. The plaintiffs say the wells they once used for drinking water are polluted with uranium, arsenic and other metals in a plume of groundwater that slowly has migrated off of the site that covers 6-square miles – an area equal to the size of about 3,000 football fields – about 65 miles southeast of Reno. The lawsuit says that even after whistleblowers started to publicize previously secret records documenting the dangers, the corporations refused to cooperate with state and federal regulators trying to clean up the radioactive and other hazardous waste the past 10 years. “They destroyed the water supply to this community and now it’s time to clean it up. It’s time to get the contamination off these people’s land and out of their wells,” said Steven German, one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the residents. “A mother should not have to tell her child they can’t turn on the spigot because their water is dangerous. That is not acceptable in this country,” he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. The lawsuit said the companies knew or should have known that their discharge of toxic and hazardous materials would pollute neighboring properties, air, water, groundwater and the surrounding environment. It said they have `intentionally allowed toxic and hazardous substances to enter and remain on” the neighbors’ land. “Despite their knowledge of the serious health and environmental effects associated with exposure to toxic and hazardous substances and despite orders and warnings form health and environmental regulators, (BP and ARCO) intentionally masked the true extent of the contamination, thereby enabling (them) to avoid taking all appropriate steps to properly remediate the toxic and hazardous substances or to mitigate the dangers created by their release, discharge, storage, handling, processing, disposal of and dumping of toxic and hazardous substances,” the suit said. Tom Mueller, a spokesman for BP America, said Tuesday evening that company officials have not had a chance to review the lawsuit and had no immediate comment. Fueled by demand after World War II, Anaconda produced nearly 1.75 billion pounds of copper from 1952-78 at the mine that runs along U.S. Highway 95 in the Mason Valley, an irrigated agricultural oasis in the area’s otherwise largely barren high desert. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined over the years that uranium was produced as a byproduct of processing the copper and that the radioactive waste was initially dumped into dirt-bottomed ponds that – unlike modern lined ponds – leaked into the groundwater. Officials for BP and its subsidiary Atlantic Richfield, which bought Anaconda Copper Co. in 1978, have provided bottled water for free to any residents who want it over the past few years. But they have insisted that uranium naturally occurs in the region’s soil and, until recently, they argued there was no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals there was responsible for the contamination. However, a new wave of EPA testing first reported by The Associated Press in November 2009 found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink. “You now have evidence of mine-impacted groundwater,” Steve Acree, a highly regarded hydrogeologist for the EPA in Oklahoma brought in to examine the test results, told AP at the time. One monitoring well a half mile away had levels of uranium more than 10 times the legal drinking water standard. At the mine itself, wells tested as high as 100 times the standard in an area where ore was processed with sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in unlined ponds. Though the health effects of specific levels are not well understood, the EPA says long-term exposure to high levels of uranium in drinking water may cause cancer and damage kidneys.

Read the full article →

Lucy P. Marcus: Future Proofing the Boardroom: Grounding and Stargazing

February 14, 2011

The role of modern corporate boards is the juxtaposition of grounding and stargazing. Grounding is about making sure that the company fulfills all of its legal requirements, manages its risks properly, and does business in a responsible way. It is about all of the vital things we associate with board oversight tasks in corporate governance, compliance and corporate risk. But with that comes an equally and perhaps even more important role: grounding needs to be complemented by stargazing. This is where a board demonstrates its mettle in making sure that their organization is ready and able to expand its horizons, to strive to achieve more and stretch itself to become the robust and resilient business that is capable of responding effectively to the unknowns in its future. Stargazing should be a big component of the strategic work that a board does. Both grounding and stargazing require asking questions, looking beyond the obvious and the comfortable, and actively engaging with the organization. The emphasis these days seems to be on the tick-boxing of risk management. In speaking with fellow board members from around the world and across a wide variety of sectors, I’ve found that concern for risk exposure coupled with a desire not to appear too meddlesome and the time commitments required to do the job properly means that they sometimes leave too little time room for discussions of strategy. This is a real loss for organizations of all sizes, as part of the purpose of having independent directors with a broad range of skills is to draw on the knowledge and understanding around the table and the broader perspective they bring to help propel the organization to new heights. Grounding is a big part of the vital role of directors -0 ensuring that companies are managing their risk, fulfilling their requirements, “playing by the rules”, and being good corporate citizens. But even when fulfilling that role, strategy needs to play a part. In every audit committee and compensation committee, there must be room for considering what the company can do to push itself that much further to achieve more, and better, things for all its stakeholders. Most importantly, getting the balance right between the two functions of grounding and stargazing helps to ensure that the company is doing what it needs to future proof itself, and it requires board members who can think outside the box and who also know when to get back in the box. Note: This was originally published on the Marcus Ventures website and on CSRWire .

Read the full article →

The Rise & Fall Of Florida’s Foreclosure King, David J. Stern

February 7, 2011

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — During the housing crash, it was good to be a foreclosure king. David Stern was Florida’s top foreclosure lawyer, and he lived like an oil sheik. He piled up a collection of trophy properties, glided through town in a fleet of six-figure sports cars and, with his bombshell wife, partied on an ocean cruiser the size of a small hotel. When homeowners fell behind on their mortgages, the banks flocked to “foreclosure mills” like Stern’s to push foreclosures through the courts on their behalf. To his megabank clients – Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, GMAC, Citibank and Wells Fargo – Stern was the ultimate Repo Man. At industry gatherings, Stern bragged in his boyish voice of taking mortgages from the “cradle to the grave.” Of the federal government’s disastrous homeowner relief plan, which was supposed to keep people from getting evicted, he quipped: “Fortunately, it’s failing.” The worse things got for homeowners, the better they got for Stern. That is, until last fall, when the nation’s foreclosure machine blew apart and Stern’s gilded world came undone. Within a few months, Stern went from being the subject of a gushing magazine profile to being the subject of a Florida investigation, class-action lawsuits and blogger Schadenfreude that, at last long, the “foreclosure king” was dead. “What Stern represents is an industry that was completely unrestrained, unchecked, unpunished and unsupervised,” says Florida defense attorney Matt Weidner. “This was business gone wild.” The rise and fall of Stern, now 50, provides an inside look at how the foreclosure industry worked in the last decade – and how it fell apart. It also shows how banks, together with their law firms, built a quick-and-dirty foreclosure machine that was designed to take as many houses as fast as possible. Not long ago, the world of back-office bank procedures was of little interest to the public. But revelations last fall about robo-signers powering through hundreds of foreclosure affidavits a day, without verifying a single sentence, changed all that. Today the banking industry’s eviction juggernaut is under intense scrutiny as allegations of systemic foreclosure fraud mount. The 50 state attorneys general are conducting a foreclosure industry probe. So are state and federal regulators. Class-action lawsuits are gathering force, and, with increasing frequency, state judges are tossing out foreclosure suits in favor of homeowners. The developments are prolonging the housing market depression, casting doubt on mortgage ownership and calling into question whether mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, backed by nothing at all. The Florida attorney general’s economic crimes division is investigating three law firms, including Stern’s, over allegations that they created fraudulent legal documents, gouged homeowners with inflated fees, steered business to companies they owned and filed foreclosures without proving the bank actually had a legal interest in the loan. Florida authorities characterize the foreclosure process at these law firms as a “virtual morass” of “fake documents” and depicted Stern’s operations as something akin to the TV show “Lost” – only instead of people that went missing, it was paperwork. Stern’s employees churned out bogus mortgage assignments, faked signatures, falsified notarizations and foreclosed on people without verifying their identities, the amounts they owed or who owned their loans, according to employee testimony. The attorney general is also looking at whether Stern paid kickbacks to big banks. “There’s a David Stern in every state, sometimes more than one,” says Jacksonville Legal Aid attorney April Charney, who has successfully stopped foreclosure for hundreds of Florida families. Stern denied repeated requests for comment. He did not answer inquiries at his office or at his main residence in Fort Lauderdale. Stern’s lawyer, Jeffrey Tew, agreed to an interview in late December at his Miami office, then canceled it the night before without further comment. Stern’s story, starting with his law degree in 1986 from the South Texas College of Law, can be pieced together through thousands of pages of court documents, myriad depositions and scores of interviews. After working at a law firm for mortgage lenders, Stern started his own practice in Fort Lauderdale in 1994. Four years later, he got a massive break: the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, a government-backed agency that provides market stability for mortgage lenders, named Stern to its exclusive attorney network. That meant Fannie directed banks to use Stern’s firm when foreclosing in Florida. Fannie also named Stern Attorney of the Year in 1998 and 1999. Employees from that era remember an office that liked to party together. Stern enjoyed dressing up for his office bashes. One time he sauntered on stage turned out like Michael Jackson. Almost from the beginning, Stern faced trouble. In 1998, he was named in a class-action lawsuit alleging that he padded fees on foreclosed homeowners. Stern settled for $2.2 million. According to legal testimony at the time from a Fannie Mae official, Fannie was warned about troubles at the Stern firm. But Fannie continued referring cases to Stern. Fannie Mae spokeswoman Amy Bonitatibus says, “At all times, Fannie Mae has had a reasonable expectation that our servicers and the law firms adhere to proper procedures and conduct under the law. In instances where we learn that servicers or law firms are not adhering to our requirements or applicable law, we immediately engage and take appropriate action, which may include termination.” Soon after, Stern was sued again, this time for sexual harassment. A former paralegal alleged that Stern created a “sexually-laden” atmosphere in which he routinely “touched and grabbed and subjected to simulated intercourse” his employees. Stern settled that suit in 2000 for an undisclosed amount. By this time, lawyers and homeowner activists were also warning lenders, federal regulators and the Florida Bar about Stern. In 2002, the Florida Supreme Court reprimanded Stern for submitting “potentially misleading” fee affidavits. None of the accusations stalled the firm’s steroidal growth. After the economy crashed in the fall of 2008 and ravaged the housing market, Florida, along with Nevada, Arizona and California, became foreclosure central. Stern’s caseload rose from 15,000 foreclosures in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009. His staff tripled to more than 1,200. To keep up with demand, Stern set up offices in the Philippines. When the U.S. staff responsible for entering bank data in the foreclosure files logged off, the offshore workers logged on. Revenue swelled from $41 million in 2006 to $260 million in 2009, according to an SEC filing. The firm moved into a plush, marble-floored headquarters near Miami that was all glass and fountains. By now Stern was driving a Bugatti and had bought at least $60 million in property, including a 16,000-square-foot island compound that sits behind two security gates. But all the paperwork Stern’s firm was cranking out to make this fortune would soon come back to haunt him. The foreclosure business is a volume game. Banks typically pay law firms like Stern’s about $1,400 for each successful foreclosure. But the banks can pay a lot less if the firm doesn’t successfully foreclose within a certain time frame, usually around six months. With so many foreclosures flooding in, Stern’s firm couldn’t keep up. Stern took shortcuts by hiring the young and cheap. “The girls would come out on the floor not knowing what they were doing,” says Tammie Lou Kapusta, who worked in Stern’s foreclosure department in 2008 and 2009. “Mortgages would get placed in different files. They would get thrown out. There was just no real organization when it came to original documents.” Employee depositions paint a picture of a firm under constant pressure from the banks to move faster. The longer it took to foreclose, the more money the banks stood to lose. Like so many in the industry, Stern had a strategy to cope with all the volume and velocity: robo-signing. One employee testified that Stern’s chief lieutenant, a one-time file clerk named Cheryl Samons who rose to become the firm’s chief operating officer, signed as many as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a day without reading a single word. The employee said Samons’ hand got so tired that she told three other employees to forge her signature. Samons also signed numerous mortgage assignments with a notary stamp that didn’t even exist at the time of signing. Notary stamps are only valid for four years. The only way Samons could have signed mortgage assignments at the time they were supposedly notarized was if she had been capable of time travel. Stern rewarded Samons with a new BMW SUV every year, paid all her bills and took care of the mortgage payment on her home, according to testimony from two employees. Samons did not respond to request for comment. Billings surged. So did the dysfunction. Kapusta testified that she received 100 phone calls a day from people who never received their foreclosure notices or who wanted loan modifications but couldn’t get through to the banks. If she talked too long on the phone, Kapusta testified, Samons would yell at her. “Everything was about getting the judgment entered because we had to report to the banks,” Kapusta said. Stern battled to keep the chaos inside his firm a secret. In 2008 and 2009, whenever the Fannie Mae auditors were about to touch down in Miami for their routine monitoring, Stern’s employees sometimes toiled through the night, ripping the stickers and client codes off of Fannie files and replacing them with those of a different lender. Then, as an extra precaution, they hauled the disguised files to a remote back room. Stern then gave Fannie officials the white-glove treatment, with catered meals and chauffeuring. The incomplete files stayed hidden until the auditors left town. Fannie Mae’s Bonitatibus says that, “To our knowledge, no one at Fannie Mae has had their expenses paid by the Stern Law firm.” Early 2010 brought Stern’s biggest coup. He spun off a chunk of his business called DJSP that performed mortgage process services like title searches and lien monitoring and took it public. The deal reportedly made Stern $146 million, including $55 million cash. DJSP stock started trading in January at about $10 a share. Within months, battered by rumors of indiscretions at Stern’s firm, it was worth half. On July 20, two investors filed a securities-fraud class action alleging that Stern knowingly misled them by failing to disclose the problems within the business. “DJSP was a scam,” says Bill Warner, a Sarasota private eye who successfully defended himself against a foreclosure suit brought by Stern. At the end of July, Florida attorney Kenneth Trent, who had blocked Stern from foreclosing on a homeowner who was current on his mortgage, filed a federal lawsuit against Stern’s firm under a statute normally reserved for gangsters, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act–or RICO. Days later, the Florida attorney general launched an investigation against Stern’s firm and three other foreclosure mills. The AG’s arguments were similar to those brought in Trent’s class action. At first, Stern railed against the media, saying he would defend the company and its reputation against the allegations. Then, in September, he dropped out of sight. Equally elusive is Cheryl Samons, who is no longer with the firm. She left no contact information. In October, one by one, the megabanks started to withdraw their cases from Stern’s firm. Fannie fired Stern on Oct. 22. Stern’s staff of 1,200 has dwindled to 200. DJSP’s stock, worth as much as $13 in April, now trades for pennies. The firm’s fall has spawned more chaos in Florida’s circus-like foreclosure courts. A slew of homes Stern foreclosed on that sold for $240,000 each during the credit bubble sold at auction as orphaned cases for $200. Recently, even the most infamous “rocket docket,” in Lee County, where judges were reported to have signed off on a foreclosure every 30 seconds, ground to a virtual standstill as the Stern firm withdrew from case after case. Some of Stern’s remaining lawyers show up court with greasy hair, fleece jackets and food-stained clothing. As for Stern, if federal and state prosecutors file criminal charges, he could end up in prison. Meanwhile, Stern’s payment on his $12 million line of credit with Bank of America is late. So is the rent on his headquarters. He’s now in default.

Read the full article →

Elinor Steele: Talking With Iraq’s Women: Big Dreams and Enormous Challenges

January 31, 2011

In my six years managing worldwide communications for Tupperware, I’ve met with businesswomen from around the globe, from accomplished cosmopolitan women in European capitals to incredibly resourceful women in places like Indonesia and South Africa with no formal education who practically willed themselves to succeed. I’ve always been moved and motivated by these wonderful women, but the women I met — in, of all places, Baghdad — have affected me like few others. First, let me explain what brought me to Iraq. Tupperware CEO, Rick Goings, and I were invited as part of the Department of Defense Task Force for Business and Stability Operations partnering with Business Executives for National Security Delegation. The goal of the delegation was to learn about Iraqi businesswomen, the challenges they face in their country’s rapidly changing (and rapidly growing) economy, and the potential business and investment opportunities there. As studies have repeatedly shown, providing earnings opportunities for women is critical to a country’s growth. The World Economic Forum’s 2009 Global Gender Gap report suggests that closing the gender gap could boost U.S. GDP by as much as 9 percent, European GDP by as much as 13 percent and Japanese GDP by as much as 16 percent. The potential for growth is even greater in developing countries. As the Atlantic pointed out in a powerful article last summer, the greater the economic and political power of women, the greater a country’s economic success. Iraq is an interesting case, because juxtaposed with its long history of empowering women and incorporating them into the traditionally male-dominated Arab society, is a disturbing increase in violence against women since the start of the war. Female Iraqi professionals are often targeted for abduction and murder. Solving this problem will be the first critical step toward the success of women in Iraq, and likely the success of the Iraqi economy as a whole. My natural orientation is to believe that with sheer determination anything is possible. I’ve seen that first-hand working at Tupperware. But seeing the challenges women in Iraq are up against puts my belief to the ultimate test. After 30 years of war, Iraq has become a brown, dusty and fractured country. The infrastructure to rebuild is nearly nonexistent. We stayed in a compound in the international zone. There are heavy and huge metal gates with round-the-clock armed guards — one of many security checkpoints that you must pass through to go in or out of the Green Zone. As many of you know, the Green Zone is a 5.6 sq. mile area in central Baghdad that is the main base for foreign and Iraqi government officials. The official name is the International Zone, or as referred to locally, the IZ. The Red Zone obviously connotes danger, and refers to anything outside the Green Zone — which, in practical terms, is the rest of the country. Parts of the IZ were originally home to the villas of government officials and a number of palaces belonging to Saddam Hussein and his family. It was the center of Ba’athist Iraq. Our visit began with an introductory session during which we spoke with nine Iraqi businesswomen. Nearly all of them own construction or supply businesses that they built through contracts with the American military or American companies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). I was especially impressed with a strong and confident woman named Azza. Azza returned to Iraq from the United States with her husband in 2004. He is a government official who works on educational partnerships for Iraq and the U.S. She leads training and development seminars aimed at helping small and women-owned Iraqi businesses win contracts. She also coordinates with NGOs to fund Iraqi women’s initiatives. Azza has a bachelor’s degree in business administration and a master’s in information technology, and she is determined to use her knowledge to help Iraqi women develop and grow businesses. Best of all, Azza has been encouraging every woman she meets with to be a leader in her community and to work with other women. This is essentially the model we’ve used to grow the Tupperware business in emerging markets — provide one woman with an earning opportunity that gives her money and self-confidence, then encourage her to serve as a mentor to others so they can achieve the same things. However, Iraq has unique obstacles that could make this model, or any business model, difficult to implement. While the women we met are amazing, this group was much different than businesswomen in other countries, due to the nature of their work. Most of the women’s businesses are heavily dependent on one customer — the U.S. government. Our government is not only the source of much of their income, but also the root of many of their contacts. When the U.S. pulls out of Iraq at the end of the year, most, if not all, of these contacts will disappear and these Iraqi businesswomen will have to transition to either contracting with the Iraqi government or establishing their businesses in the private sector. Two major challenges with this are an inherent distrust of the Iraqi government and the fact that these women aren’t able to find banks to lend them money. There’s a vicious cycle at work here. These businesses can’t transition to the private sector without financing, yet no bank will lend them money without 30 percent collateral and a business plan that demonstrates proof that they can be profitable. We asked why the women we met can’t take the knowledge they gained working with the U.S. government and use it to generate contracts with the Iraqi government. They responded that they don’t know if the Iraqi government will pay on time — or at all. However, they all hope that things will improve with the new government in place and that corruption will decrease. Of course, the problems go deeper than just the business environment. There are social obstacles that must be overcome as well. I’ll talk about those in my next post. In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how American businesses can help improve the situation in Iraq.

Read the full article →

Marshall Goldsmith: Managing Up: Getting Your Higher-Ups To Pay Attention To You

January 30, 2011

Peter Drucker once said, “Great wisdom not applied to action and behavior is meaningless data.” How true this is! As a knowledge worker, if you haven’t got the attention of the higher ups, your greatest ideas probably won’t ever see the light of day. First, what is a knowledge worker? Knowledge workers are people who know more about what they are doing than their boss does. My guess is that you, like most of my readers, are a knowledge worker. Many knowledge workers (especially those with technical backgrounds) have years of education and experience that enable them to come up with great ideas. Yet this same group has almost no training in how to “influence up” and ensure that their great ideas actually get accepted. Great ideas that are never implemented don’t make much of an impact on the organization. Now, as a knowledge worker, how do you improve the odds of your boss taking your suggestions? The guidelines listed below are intended to help you do a better job of influencing your upper management. They won’t always ensure your success, but they will definitely improve your odds! Take responsibility. Think like a salesperson–not a technician. In many ways, influencing up is similar to selling products or services to external customers. They don’t have to buy — you have to sell! Any good salesperson takes responsibility for achieving results. No one is impressed with salespeople who blame their customers for not buying their products. When making your pitch, treat upper managers like great salespeople treat their customers. While the importance of taking responsibility may seem obvious in external sales, an amazing number of people in large corporations spend countless hours blaming management for not buying their ideas, as opposed to blaming themselves for not selling those ideas. If more time were spent on developing our ability to present ideas and less on blaming management, a lot more might get accomplished. Focus on the big picture — not just what’s in it for you. An effective salesperson would never say to a customer, “You need to buy this product, because if you don’t, I won’t achieve my objectives!” Effective salespeople relate to the needs of the buyers. They don’t expect buyers to relate to their needs. In the same way, effective “upward influencers” relate to the larger needs of the organization, not just to the needs of their unit or team. When influencing up, focus on the impact of the decision on the overall corporation. In most cases, the needs of the unit and the needs of the corporation are directly connected. In some cases, this connection isn’t so obvious. Don’t assume that executives will automatically make the connection between the benefit to your unit and significant, positive impact for the larger corporation. Strive to win the big battles. Don’t waste your energy and psychological capital on trivial points. An executive’s time is very limited. Do a thorough analysis of your ideas before challenging the system. Don’t waste time on issues that will only have negligible results. Focus on issues that will make a real difference. Be willing to lose on small points. Be especially sensitive to the need to win trivial, nonbusiness arguments on things like restaurants, sports teams or cars. People become more annoyed with us for having to be “right” on trivia than our need to be right on important business points. You are paid to do what makes a difference and to win on important issues. You are not paid to win arguments on the relative quality of athletic teams. Present a realistic cost-benefit analysis of your ideas. Don’t just sell benefits. Every organization has limited resources, time and energy. The acceptance of your idea may well mean the rejection of another idea that someone else believes is wonderful. Be prepared to have a realistic discussion of the costs of your idea. Acknowledge the fact that someone else’s cause may have to be sacrificed in order to have your plan implemented. By getting ready for a realistic discussion of costs, you can prepare for objections to your idea before they occur. You can acknowledge the sacrifice that someone else may have to make and point out how the benefits of your plan outweigh the costs. Realize that your upper managers are just as “human” as you are. Don’t say, “I am amazed that someone at this level…” It is realistic to expect upper managers to be competent; it is unrealistic to expect them to be better than normal humans. Is there anything in the history of the human species indicating that when people achieve high levels of status, power and money they become instantly wise and logical (or even sane)? How many times have we thought: “I would assume someone at this level…” followed by “should know what is happening,” “should be more logical,” “wouldn’t make that kind of mistake,” or “would never engage in such inappropriate behavior”? Even the best of leaders are human. We all make mistakes. When your managers make mistakes, focus more on helping them than on judging them. Make a positive difference. Don’t just try to “win” or “be right.” We can easily become more focused on what others are doing wrong than on how we can make things better. An important guideline in influencing up is to always remember your goal — to make a positive difference for the organization. Corporations are different from academic institutions. In a university the goal may be sharing ideas, not having an impact on the world. In faculty meetings, hours of acrimonious debate on obscure topics can be perfectly normal. In a corporation, sharing ideas without having an impact is worse than useless. It is a waste of the stockholders’ money and a distraction from serving customers. When I was interviewed in the Harvard Business Review , I was asked, “What is the most common area for improvement for the leaders that you meet?” My answer was “winning too much.” Focus on making a difference. The more other people can “be right” or “win” with your idea, the more likely your idea is to be successfully executed. In summary, think of the years that you have spent perfecting your craft. Think of all of the knowledge that you have accumulated. Think about how your knowledge can potentially benefit your organization. How much energy have you invested in acquiring all of this knowledge? How much energy have you invested in learning to present this knowledge so that you can make a real difference? My hope is that by making a small investment in learning how to influence up, you can make a large, positive difference for the future of your organization — and the future of your career. For greater detail see, “Effectively Influencing Up” in Leading Organizational Learning , Goldsmith, Morgan and Ogg eds., Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Read the full article →

Amy Rosen: Davos 2011: The Final Hours

January 29, 2011

Well it is my final hours in Davos and the WEF has left the most important session to the last day — The Entrepreneurship Imperative. Throughout the week there has been constant references to the need for entrepreneurs to be the future engine of both developed and developing economies, but this is the first time we are gathering to discuss effective strategies to make this happen. We are finally getting to the question — “How can entrepreneurship education drive inclusive growth and job creation?” The organization I lead, the Network for Teacher Entrepreneurship (NFTE), was founded by Steve Mariotti on one basic principle: teaching young people living in poverty how to create wealth for themselves is the surest path to poverty alleviation. More simply put, ownership equals prosperity. And really how do we ensure inclusive economic growth — by opening the path to ownership to as many people as possible. Entrepreneurship education does that. NFTE does that. We work in low-income communities across the globe training public school teachers to use entrepreneurship education to inspire over 30,000 young people each year, to see opportunities they never imagined. With 0.13% of the world’s population controlling over 25% of its financial assets, there is not a moment to wait in opening the doors to ownership wider than ever before. Entrepreneurship speaks to our belief that hard work and ingenuity in the face of daunting obstacles can lead to personal fulfillment and collective progress. Students may understand this intuitively, but do not have the knowledge and skills to apply this vision to their own lives. Without exposure to entrepreneurship education, it is easy for young people to believe that this story applies to someone else or that entrepreneurship depends on luck. Overcoming these myths, while preparing students to succeed in school and in the 21st century economy, has the potential to transform the futures of our young people. What I find interesting is that we are even discussing how important entrepreneurship is to job creation. Just last year, the Kauffman Foundation published a report finding that all net new jobs in the U.S. over the last 30 years can be fully attributed to startups. So clearly this is where job creation will come from. Recently I came across one other statistic that I found ironic. In the U.S., 9.6% of American adults are actively engaged in starting a business or are the owner/manager of a business that is less than three and one-half years old. This sounded great to me until I remembered that the current U.S. unemployment rate at 9.4%. The alignment of those numbers helped me see a simple solution. Entrepreneurship. We need to create a movement to double the number of Americans who start their own enterprises. Then we can solve unemployment. People will create their own jobs. As a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability leading the work on youth, I feel a particular responsibility to trumpet the impact that entrepreneurship education can have. After all we cannot expect the revolution of startups to materialize out of thin air. We must invest in programs like NFTE that inspire young people to think and act like entrepreneurs. They need to be armed with resilient tools that allow them to claim ownership and be full participants in our economy. We will not reap the harvest of new jobs and innovation without first planting the seeds of entrepreneurship in minds of young people far and wide. And on a related subject, next year perhaps we can have a session at Davos to discuss an initiative targeting young girls as our future entrepreneurs. Convincing data is growing that in fact women often outperform the men in this sector. So now I must run and catch my train. I certainly hope there are some entrepreneurial young people outside willing to help me with my bags. With all of us tired and weary middle agers leaving at once, that’s a real market opportunity.

Read the full article →

David Katz, M.D.: Walmart’s Health Changes: Fact Or Fiction?

January 22, 2011

At a press conference this week featuring none other than First Lady Michelle Obama, Walmart made pledges that should, in principle, put more nutritious food within easier reach, literally and figuratively. Literally, because the nation’s largest grocer promised to reduce sugar and sodium in its own product line, and eliminate added trans fats over the next five years. They also plan to develop a logo to signify foods that meet their internal standard for better nutrition. These promises sound good, and along with my public health colleagues, I commend Walmart for making them, and in anticipation of Walmart keeping them. But I must append some precautionary caveats. Perhaps ironically, even as Walmart was promising both to provide more nutritious foods, and tell us which ones they are, the national non-profit, Prevention Institute, issued a report indicating that entities selling us food are not reliable judges of nutritional quality. The report, based on an examination of various front-of-pack claims indicating “more nutritious” children’s foods, found that nearly 85 percent of the products with specific shout-outs about their nutritional virtues were unhealthy by the evaluators’ objective standards. I can validate this worry with a personal view from altitude. NuVal scores for overall nutritional quality have been generated for over 90,000 food products thus far. These scores require a database of ingredient lists, nutrition facts and scanned images of packaging for every product. In fact, to our knowledge, this is by far the largest and most detailed nutrient database on the planet. It provides a disquieting view of how marketing claims and nutritional reality part company . The NuVal database includes examples of sugar-reduced kids’ cereals that are less nutritious than the original, because of added sodium, reduced fiber and other changes. The average score for regular peanut butter is a respectable 20; the average score for seemingly more nutritious fat-reduced peanut butter is a far-less-respectable 7, because of copious additions of sugar and salt in place of the removed fat. In fact, the consistency with which front-of-pack nutrient claims and an objective measure of overall nutrition go in opposite directions is so compelling that we are currently pursuing a formal analysis. Will Walmart offer us truly more nutritious products, or products tweaked to allow for claims of better nutrition belied by an objective measure of overall nutritional quality? Time will tell. As for putting nutritious foods figuratively within easier reach, Walmart also pledged to reduce prices of healthful foods — produce in particular. Here, too, the commitment sounds good. But here, too, some caveats attach. First, with the possible exception of the produce aisle, more nutritious food does not necessarily cost more right now, despite the urban legend that it does. In a research paper currently in press, my colleagues and I report what happened when we sent a volunteer grocery shopping with nutrition standards ( freely available to you , by the way) and instructions to buy equal numbers of foods from a variety of categories meeting, and failing the standards. We compared price, and found no difference. Why the urban legend in the first place? Because health conscious shoppers are willing to pay a premium for more nutritious foods, so there is an incentive to make foods that call out their nutritional virtues on the package, whether or not they are in fact nutritious overall, and charge extra for them. That practice prevails. But by and large, such foods are not more nutritious — just more expensive! Often, a less expensive, more humbly packaged alternative offers better nutrition as well. Walmart may simply be engaging in good corporate citizenship (I know some of the good people in high places there, and this is by no means implausible); they may be propping up their argument for real estate in New York City ; or they may be making some promises they will have a hard time keeping. But come what may, we all know that the business of business is business, and no publicly traded company will go very far in a direction that makes share holders unhappy. What Walmart does must ultimately be good for their bottom line, whether or not it’s good for yours. Logically, there is only so much a company that sells food can benefit from lowering the price of food. If we want real action in the area of making more nutritious foods more affordable, we need it from those directly involved in paying the health care costs that relate in no small measure to the bad food choices that currently prevail. The development and course of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease are powerfully and directly associated with food choices . For cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis and a number of other conditions, the causal chains are a bit longer and more twisted, but diet is still quite clearly among the key links. Thus, policies that meaningfully shift food selection and diet pattern in a healthful direction with financial incentives could also meaningfully reduce the population burden of these conditions, which in turn could slash health care costs. The SNAP program would be a great place to prove the principle (my lab is working on that!). A little money spent to discount objectively more nutritious foods could generate vastly larger savings related to chronic disease care costs. Large employers, private insurers and the federal government could all win big. And so could we. But only when the promise of truly better food, truly within easier reach of all, is truly kept. Dr. David L. Katz www.davidkatzmd.com www.turnthetidefoundation.org

Read the full article →

Jeff Conlon: Setting the Record Straight on Kaplan University’s Courtesy Registration Policy

January 7, 2011

Readers of the Huffington Post reporter Chris Kirkham’s story, ” At Kaplan University, ‘Guerilla Registration” Leaves Students Deep in Debt ,” could not help but conclude that Kaplan University used something called “guerilla registration” to enroll students without their knowledge and then charge them for courses they never took. The allegation by a former employee, who claimed he never actually engaged in the practice but said he had heard about it, is a gross distortion of Kaplan’s actual policies. Kaplan University is proud of its “courtesy registration” policy, whereby its students — most of whom hold down full- or part-time jobs and are often heads of households — can be pre-registered by their academic advisors for the next course or courses prescribed within their academic major as a safeguard to help them avoid missing a registration cut-off date and delaying their studies. This courtesy registration cannot result in a student being charged without the student’s consent. That’s because our students are not charged tuition for a course unless and until they actually join and participate in the class once the term has begun. Students also have the opportunity to drop any class — at no charge — during the first week “add/drop” period of each term. We also recently introduced the Kaplan Commitment, which offers a further safeguard for new students, who can enroll without any financial obligation for the first five weeks of their course to ensure they are satisfied with their selected program and our faculty are satisfied with their ability to handle the work. At Kaplan Higher Education, we are dedicated to helping our students succeed. We take pride in the more than 275,000 Kaplan graduates who have been able to improve their lives by advancing their education with us.

Read the full article →

Anthony Tjan: In Negotiations, Play Stupid to Win Smart

December 7, 2010

In my last blog, I shared with you one of my partner’s sayings that he learned from his uncle, “play stupid, and win smart.” His uncle was a skilled poker player with an uncanny ability to hide his emotions. Other players bought into his “play stupid” routine, and he’d later disarm them with his winning hands. This is a real skill, since in general, the brain lags the mouth. Our impulse is to speak our minds, talk first, think and act later. As a natural extrovert, I never fully appreciated the importance of this play stupid, win smart philosophy until I reflected and noted common patterns in business negotiations and other high stakes tasks where pausing before reacting would have made a significant difference in the outcome. This has made me more cognizant to try (and this is difficult because emotions often override logic) to follow this DVR-inspired approach in important and sensitive business situations: Pause. Consider business situations as a mini movie in production in which you are the director. When you have any new and sudden disruption to filming (i.e. new information, a new competitive entrant, a new shift in available resources, etc.), the first call to action should be to take a pause. Play. Let the movie play out in your head and think about the various scenarios and how you can use the new information or situation to your advantage. Mute. Remind yourself to hit your internal mute button so that you keep your thinking to yourself unless there is a compelling reason to share. Think like a poker player and ask if there is any upside to sharing what you know with the counter-party. There usually isn’t. Rewind and Record Again. Appropriately reset your actions and hit “record” again to move toward your desired “win smart” ending. The act of pausing to contemplate the various scenarios that are likely to play out is critical. As in physics, every action has a equal and opposite reaction. The key is to avoid any unwanted consequences. In a recent negotiation with a company, it came to our attention that another party had put an offer on the table. It turned out that the other party was a group with whom we were actually planning to partner on the deal. We had proposed the opportunity to them shortly before the negotiation. My knee-jerk response was to call up the person with whom I had been dealing and offer some harsh criticism on what they had done and to effectively tell them that we were done working with them. Period. But I paused to ask myself how that course of action would benefit me. In truth, the only benefit would have been to make me feel better right at that moment. Unfortunately this seems to be a common mistake that people make in their “talk first” decision-making process in order to feel better in the moment — but it doesn’t move them toward their goal. Playing the movie forward and carefully considering the likely outcomes, I realized that remaining silent and using the knowledge to our advantage was a far better approach than flying off the handle. Why? Scenario A: Get mad, other party has no chance to explain themselves and our reaction will hinder the probability of working with them; Scenario B: Get mad before thinking about what alternative partners might do the deal with us, which may lead to no deal at all; Scenario C: Get mad, tell the other party we can do the deal on our own, which would have made them bid up the price on the deal to try to win it for themselves. We’d be putting the dog in the corner, so to speak, and they’d be left to bark or bite. By remaining silent, we could effectively play stupid and win smart. Having that knowledge gave us two pieces of valuable insight: first the other party showed how much they really wanted to do the deal, and second, their behavior to try and get the deal on their own illustrated a lack of professional protocol and gave us an early and helpful signal that this might not be the type of partner with whom we wanted to work. We quickly mobilized another partner on the deal and we proposed a joint deal at the original agreed-to price, which was accepted. It is too easy to forget the desired goal in moments of emotion. Here the goal was to win the deal at a reasonable price and silence and restraint were our best friends toward winning smart. This article first appeared on Harvard Business Publishing on November 30, 2010.

Read the full article →

Mike Green: Saving Ebony-Jet: One Million Facebook "Likes"

November 26, 2010

You’re invited to participate in a bold experiment to help preserve an important piece of Black American history. It’s simple, yet, in the 21st century, simplicity has become the most powerful tool of innovation. You can help preserve an iconic symbol of Black American achievement by clicking the Facebook “like” button at the top of this blog post. Then tell your friends and family to do the same. Alternatively, you can leave a supportive comment below. It’s for a good cause. An important cause. There’s no Million Man (or Woman) March. There’s no need to brave frigid temperatures and inclement weather. You don’t even have to contribute money. Step 1: Click the Facebook “like” button or leave a supportive comment (or both). Step 2: Send this blog post to your friends and family, asking them to do likewise. Step 3: Revel in the knowledge that you have helped preserve an iconic symbol of African American media history. Saving Ebony-Jet Headquarters The Johnson Publishing Company — owners of the iconic African American media brands, Ebony and Jet magazines — has sold its building headquarters, located at 820 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago. Columbia College recently purchased the 110,000 square foot historic headquarters of Ebony-Jet for an undisclosed amount. The Johnson Publishing Company is planning to move its media operations to a new location within the next 18 months. Headquarters of the Johnson Publishing Company as featured in Ebony Magazine , September 1972. Click here for full photo gallery . Preserving the iconic headquarters of Ebony-Jet has become a common focus of numerous debates across the landscape of Black America. Reactions to the sale have ignited emotion-filled discussions. Some believe a part of Black American history is being sold. Others, like Eric Easter , the former vice president of digital and entertainment for Ebony-Jet , believe the history lives on within the brand, not just within the building. Easter argues: “For anyone decrying some great loss of history, I would argue that the history is secure. More important than Johnson Publishing owning the building or residing in it, is that the building even existed for its time. It stands as a major achievement. Historians and preservationists should be more concerned that the landmark does not get torn down and that its story be told prominently and correctly.” Columbia College is planning to honor the Johnson family with some tangible recognition in the building that pays homage to past achievements. That’s a respectful transition and end to a bygone era. But we (as in you and I) can do more. Mr. John H. Johnson (left) meets with the building’s architect, John Moutoussamy. Click here for full photo gallery . City and Media: Chicago’s Black Founders For those who are unfamiliar with Ebony and Jet magazines, and have little knowledge of the Johnson family’s media empire, the words “iconic” and “historic” may seem a bit far-fetched. To the uninitiated, the widespread emotional reverberations may seem like over-inflated reactions to sensible decisions made by Linda Johnson Rice , Chairman of Johnson Publishing Company and daughter of John H. Johnson , the company’s founder. Linda Johnson Rice, chairman and CEO of Johnson publications including Ebony and Jet magazines. Outside of the spotlights of White media and the common knowledge of many White Americans, the building at 820 S. Michigan Avenue was instantly adopted in 1972, into the minds and hearts of millions of Black Americans, as a proud symbol of Black achievement in the face of institutionalized racial oppression and degradation. The building stands as a monument of one Black family’s success in a White-dominated media industry. It stands tall on prime real estate in Chicago, where White financiers had such a strong foothold, that the last Black man to build a business structure on such coveted land was Jean Baptiste Point du Sable , the city’s first permanent resident in 1779 . When Black media were reporting the facts regarding lynchings, Jim Crow, redlining, disparities in public education and numerous insights into the infrastructure of White power, throughout every sector of society, most White media ignored such stories. Black media have historically reported the stories most White media would not report. Still, when the issue of race relations is raised today, the dismissive reflex in pointed palms of raised White hands reveals the relative small amount of knowledge about Black America that permeates White America. Today, millions of minds remain closed to any information that threatens to destroy pristine paradigms constructed by White media over the past century. Johnson’s 11-story media office tower in Chicago was completed in 1972, eight years following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and just four years in the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The lobby of Ebony-Jet headquarters at 820 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago. Click here for full photo gallery . The Ebony-Jet headquarters in Chicago became a symbol of achievement in spite of the stumbling blocks and closed doors that threatened every step of the process. In like manner to the monumental reaction to the election of President Barack Obama, the establishment of a Black-owned building in the business sector of Chicago’s famed loop in the early 70s became a source of pride for Black Americans who seldom saw much in media of which to be proud. Symbol of Black Pride and Black Beauty Model Charmayne Caldwell poses for photographer Isaac Sutton in the photography studios at the Ebony-Jet headquarters in 1972. Click here for full photo gallery . In the 20th century evolution of media, the Ebony-Jet empire was a media brand that reached all of Black America. It chronicled our achievements. It heralded our heroes. It turned a spotlight upon our issues, our families, our relationships … our daily lives. In Ebony-Jet , we saw beautiful Black people. White media showcased beautiful White people. It lauded White heroes. It proclaimed White America as trustworthy, wealthy and strong. White media held White America up as a symbol of freedom, justice and moral leadership for the world to admire and emulate. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Movement did White media see our daily struggles or achievements. But Ebony-Jet did. Muhammad Ali with his wife and family were featured in the September 1972 issue of Ebony. Click here for full photo gallery . In the pages of Ebony-Jet , Black families saw scholars, university and corporate leaders, politicians, college and pro athletes, Hollywood celebrities and extraordinarily talented musicians … all of whom had Black faces. Many of those important faces and stories didn’t exist outside of the lens of Ebony-Jet . The magazines held up mirrors of positive images of Black life in America and we stared into our own reflections and smiled. In the face of rampant racial discrimination on every level — political, legal, health, financial, employment, entrepreneurship, education, military — Black America looked for something to make us smile. Ebony-Jet did more: It made us proud. Mrs. Eunice W. Johnson stands in her office, which showcases some of the many pieces of African art that exist throughout the building. Click here for full photo gallery . Giving Thanks Today, this iconic media brand is transitioning from 20th century to 21st century operations. A part of that requires it to shed some of the heavy costs associated with the 20th century. The sale of the Ebony-Jet headquarters building, of which the JPC only uses 40 percent of available space, is a done deal. But this is the 21st century. The JPC is considering preserving the historic building as it is today, inside and out, in digital 3D. The final product will provide a navigable, interactive 3D replica of the historical décor and artifacts within the building that can be accessed online. The JPC employees enjoyed complete meals in the building’s cafeteria for only $1 a day. Click here for full photo gallery . There are costs associated with such technology, of course. But, there is no cost for you to support the digital preservation plan. Just click the Facebook “like” button at the beginning of this post or leave a supportive comment below. Few opportunities come along in our lives in which we can make such a profound difference with the click of a mouse. This moment is your opportunity to make a difference and say thanks to Ebony-Jet for the support it has given us for generations. If you support the idea to preserve the JPC headquarters as a digital 3D replica, click the Facebook “like” button or leave a supportive comment. Then spread the word. It’s never been easier to participate in preserving Black American history. And we cannot expect anyone but us to care enough to preserve what is important to us. Let’s push the Facebook “like” number to one million or more. Let’s show our appreciation to Ebony-Jet for its work in preserving our history by supporting the preservation of its history.

Read the full article →

Ellen Galinsky: Rethinking How We Learn and Work

November 23, 2010

Why, asked psychiatrist and author Edward Hallowell, do we get our best ideas in the shower? He was addressing an audience of educators and families sponsored by the 92nd Street Y in New York City, asking them to rethink how we are raising and teaching children. Hallowell answered himself. It is the one last refuge, he said, the one place where we aren’t being bombarded by media and where we can be alone with our thoughts and feelings. Have you noticed, asked the technology thought leader Linda Stone, what happens when we sit hunched over our computers, responding to a steady stream of emails? Stone was speaking to a group of business leaders I had organized, asking them to rethink how we work and live today. Stone, too, answered herself. She said that we get “email apnea,” which she has defined as a “temporary absence or suspension of breathing, or shallow breathing while doing email.” She has written about the dangers of email apnea –how it can disturb our bodies’ balance of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide–and even how it can trigger a physical flight or fight stress reaction, without giving our bodies the opportunity for rest and recovery so necessary for our mental and physical health. I don’t think it’s an accident that there are so many calls to rethink how we learn and work today. Our images come from an industrial mentality. Interestingly, these images aren’t just reflected in our ideas. Schools today often still look like classrooms of the past, desks all lined up, facing the teacher, who is supposed to dispense knowledge. And although offices have migrated away from an assembly line vision, the shift into cubicles is not that different from a factory floor mentality. Technology is disrupting these visions. Barely a day goes by when I don’t hear concern about what technology is doing to us and to our children. As Linda Stone has written , we can’t continue to function on what she calls “continuous partial attention,” which she differentiates from multi-tasking. We aren’t just shifting from one task to another, she has written, but we are hyper-alert, paying attention to input coming from every direction at the same time, including listening to conversations, responding to computers and smart phones. A page one article in article in the November 21st New York Times by Matt Richtel explores what is happening to children who are “growing up digital,” asking how they can learn to focus in a world of distraction. This was the same conclusion I came to in my 10 years of research for Mind in the Making. The first essential skill I write about for children is “focus and self control.” I point out, however, that we don’t learn to focus by sitting still and listening passively but by active engagement. There are some reoccurring commonalities in these calls for rethinking how we learn and work: We need to focus on managing our attention and energy, not just our time. We tend to divide our days into time chunks. And that is definitely true for children. Think of the school day, separated into classes that change every 50 minutes or so. Now some schools are experimenting with providing longer time periods for learning and finding that it can be very effective. Linda Stone has noticed that adults who measure their accomplishments by what they can cross off their to-do lists are more burned out than those who manage their attention . And Tony Schwartz continues to show companies that they will be more effective if they focus on promoting employees’ energy, not controlling their time. We need to give ourselves time for rest and recovery. Ask anyone who is really proficient at anything–from intellectual to artistic to physical pursuits. They need time for full engagement and time for rest and recovery, as well as time for plugging in and unplugging from technology. Yet, our images of working hard at school or at work revolve around running non-stop, squeezing more and more in. And recess at schools is increasingly being abandoned, presumably to provide more time for studies–but often to the detriment of those studies. We need experiences that are first hand, engaging, meaningful, and give us some autonomy. Reviews of the research on learning for Mind in the Making make it clear that these ingredients go into the best learning environments. So the teacher who tries to pour knowledge into children as empty vessels or the boss who has a command and control approach are less successful than those who provide us with experiences where we feel can make a difference, that are meaningful to us, where we have some say in what we do, and where there is a response to what we do. This is one reason that digital media can be so engaging. We aren’t passive recipients–we do something and there is a response. The best schools and workplaces are figuring out how to use these principles in designing learning and work experiences. And let’s not forget happiness and fun. At the business conference I organized, Ross Smith of Microsoft reported that when his team created games as a part of their work, their work results were much more impressive. Playful learning continues to emerge as significant in effective education. And it is no accident that the CEO of Zappos, Tony Hsieh’s new book on Delivering Happiness is a best seller. It is time to rethink learning and working!

Read the full article →

Meridian Names Vinay Nilakantan Director of Product Development and Research

November 23, 2010

CHANTILLY, VA–(Marketwire – November 23, 2010) – Meridian Knowledge Solutions, LLC has named Vinay Nilakantan, director of product development and research. Nilakantan and his team will manage the development of Meridian’s flagship product, the Meridian Global LMS , as well as the company’s learning-management mobile and analytics tools. Nilakantan will also define the product path and oversee quality assurance for the LMS software maker. Nilakantan’s prior role was as the company’s director of commercial and government accounts, a team that implements Meridian’s learning management system. 

Read the full article →

Don Tapscott: Macrowikinomics: Opening the Kimono on Climate Change

November 15, 2010

This article is the third installment in series to be written by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, authors of the newly released book Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. Mark Parker, the CEO of Nike calls it “A masterpiece. An iconic and defining book for our times.” The Economist says it’s a Schumpeterian story of creative Destruction.” The book argues that many of the institutions of the industrial age have finally come to the end of their lifecycle, and now being reinvented around a new set of principles and a networked model. Today’s blog is about climate change. **** In an economic and political environment where progress on global warming seems to have ground to a halt, climate change advocates in America are wondering how to move forward. A Republican-controlled House surely spells doom for climate change legislation and other measures that could stimulate the green economy. But those who support taking action on climate change should not be discouraged. Around the world there are already hundreds, and probably thousands, of collaborations occurring; everyone from scientists to school children are mobilizing to do something about carbon emissions. And the most forward-looking political leaders recognize that amplifying these grassroots energies could be our best short-term hope for meaningful action. Already a leader in addressing climate change, the British Columbia government recently lit a fire under Canadian software developers by open sourcing hundreds of its best climate datasets and asking for innovative Web-based and mobile apps that could raise awareness of climate change and inspire action. As an incentive, the government put up $40,000 in prize money. One of the winning apps allows helps students mange their carbon footprints. Users can track their bathing, eating, transportation and entertainment habits, and the app spits out an impact statement with annualized kg of CO2 equivalents generated. Another app aimed at small and medium size businesses, enables business owners to measure their company’s emissions and then benchmark their score against peers in industry. Executives with the B.C. Ministry of Citizen Services tell us that collaborations like these provide a low-cost way to tap new ideas and skills in pursuit of the government’s climate goals. In fact, the initiative cost BC taxpayers very little. The government contributed its data. Private sector partners contributed the funds for the prize money. Software coders and local businesses provided their labor and ingenuity. And none of the initiatives spurred on by the contest require new rules or new legislation to move forward. Should other governments be following BC’s lead? To be sure, most climate change experts generally agree that the surest way to accelerate action on climate change boils down to simple economics: if you want discourage carbon intensive activities, make pursuing them more expensive. Putting a price on carbon (through a cap and trade system or a straightforward carbon tax), for example, would help usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference. Make people and businesses pay the full environmental costs of what they produce and consume and suddenly every investment and purchasing decision made in retail stores, financial markets and small and large companies around the world would be made in pursuit of the least-cost low-carbon option. Weaving carbon emissions into every business decisions would drive innovation and deployment of clean technologies to a whole new level, and make investments in energy efficiency much more attractive. Industries would need to invent and adopt new technologies that boost efficiency to limit their emissions. And consumers would curtail their own carbon footprints as the prices they pay for things like air travel and exotic fruits begin to reflect their true costs to the planet. However, while it is true that centrally managed taxes, credits and incentives provide important levers for steering society toward low-carbon solutions, these are not the only levers. And while Congress is unlikely to take action, there is no shortage of valuable initiatives that can both help us better understand the causes and consequences of climate change and marshal the knowledge and talent required to advance sensible solutions. In fact, everyone – including climate skeptics – stands to benefit from initiatives that, like the BC apps contest, make information that was once inaccessible and hard to understand available to policymakers and the broader public. Today, insufficient information about which economic activities–and, by extension, which communities, companies and nations–are contributing most to climate change undermines society’s ability to target remedial actions and assign responsibility for correcting damaging behaviors. The right amount of transparency in such cases can change perceptions, reveal new factors that alter the stakes, or compel other participants to accept the need for and legitimacy of new regulations. Getting our hands on comparable CO2 emission data for all industrial facilities and other human activities such as logging, fishing or mining, would be a goldmine for scientists, policy-makers, environmentalists, investors and ordinary citizens. Even better would be the ability to measure the impact of those activities on our climate in the same way companies apply financial metrics to their investment decisions to understand the bottom line impact. We’re not there yet. But over the past few years, a cornucopia of initiatives has emerged to make climate change information more accessible to the public and key institutions, including the investment community, regulators, and government purchasing organizations. Whether mapping the world’s oil spills, simulating the effects of sea-level rises, tracking mammals on the verge of extinction or showing national per capita CO₂ emissions, the initiatives tend to emphasize the use of bold visual formats help communicate complex phenomena in a way that both scientists and laymen can easily grasp. Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA), for example, maps the CO2 emissions of over 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies across the world. The data for current and planned installations is easily accessible through a Google Map on the project’s website as well as through an API. “Our role is to translate” says CARMA’s lead researcher, David Wheeler. “We take reams of data which are available out there and translate them into an easily accessible format. There are few other institutions that have the incentive to do this – most scientists don’t as it doesn’t affect their publication records, and policy people are either too busy or not sufficiently technical to do the work.” CARMA’s work is particularly important as the energy sector is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, at around 65% of the world total. The power of the platform became apparent one day when Wheeler received a call from a friend at the World Bank inquiring about a plant being built in Mmamabula, Botswana. It turned out that the installation would be a major polluter, which piqued Wheeler’s interest – what else is the World Bank funding? Scrolling over to India he found plans for another coal plant, the Tata Ultra Mega, which ultimately would become one of the biggest emitters of CO2 in the world. Wheeler’s finding led to a large campaign by the not-for-profit Environmental Defense Fund to institute stricter standards at the World Bank. The following year new legislation was put in place to limit the types of projects that would be eligible for funding. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) targets people with lots of money and enormous influence on the companies in which they invest. Institutional investors–the big mutual and pension funds–are a critical audience in the effort to accelerate business action on climate change. After all, they pretty much own the economy. Paul Dickinson, the organization’s founder, has calculated that access to capital will become a powerful lever for encouraging companies to reduce carbon once a critical mass of investors and lenders starts attaching risk premiums to companies with climate liabilities and those without sound carbon management plans. The CDP aims to speed the transition by helping the investment community better understand how companies are positioned in relation to the risks and commercial opportunities associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy. CDP’s analysis is based on information it receives from some 2500 private and public organizations, including many of the largest corporations in the world. Less altruistic operators might have chosen to keep the data proprietary and make money by selling access to institutional subscribers. But Dickson thinks the public value of exposing the data to a broader audience exceeds the commercial potential. “Our goal is to apply the intelligence of the world to the climate change problem. Anyone that wants to look at the data can go to the website and download it.” Scientists are getting on board too. Greg Asner and Carlos Souza, two scientists at the forefront of forest science, are now working with Google to gather petabytes of historical and present satellite imagery. This information will help uncover the location and rates of deforestation around the world and allow colleagues to pitch in on research that will determine the links with climate change. The evidence accumulated to date is already having an impact. We now know, for example, that emissions from tropical deforestation are comparable to the emissions of all of the European Union, and greater than those of all the cars, trucks, planes, ships and trains on the planet. And thanks to the work of economists such as Nicholas Stern, we also know that protecting the world’s standing forests is one of the most cost-effective ways to cut carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Of course climate deniers, and those who see the world’s attempt to control climate change as a threat to their business interests, aren’t necessarily interested in the truth. They will continue to unleash their armies of lobbyists to water down policy, spread bogus science, and block innovations that might threaten their business models. But the best way to counter back-room lobbying and misinformation is not to hunker down as some climate scientists have in the wake of the climategate scandal, but to foster greater transparency and open debate around the risks of not acting now. Tim Palmer, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford whose current work focuses on quantifying and managing the uncertainties surrounding climate change, suggests that everyone concerned by the climate change issue, particularly those who are skeptical, ask themselves exactly how large the probability of serious climate change should be before we should start cutting emissions? 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 50%? “Considered this way,” says Palmer “it’s clear that the black and white dichotomy between the ‘climate believers’ versus ‘climate skeptics’ is indeed a false one.”4 And if you happen to be one of those people who believe that action is merited today, there is no point waiting for the political gridlock gripping the country to recede. Thanks to Web, we have the most powerful platform ever for people to learn about climate change, inform others and self-organize. Follow Anthony Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/adw_tweets

Read the full article →

Dr. Jim Taylor: Prime Business Credo: Roadmap to Success

November 10, 2010

A credo is a “system of principles and beliefs” that provides direction and impetus to your career and life. It acts to guide your attitudes, decisions, and actions in everything you think, feel, and do. You can think of a credo as a manifesto for your career and life; it espouses what you most profoundly believe. To have a credo means to go through your career and life with a defined purpose, clear focus, or identifiable direction. Because of the powerful influence that a credo has, you should develop a credo that accurately reflects the principles and beliefs that guide your professional life. To assist you in this process, I have provided below the Prime Business Credo that I have developed through my work with business leaders that can form the “superstructure” of your professional life and from which you can build the business career that you want. Values There is nothing more important in your life and career than your values. They establish priorities, guide the choices you make, and affect everything and everyone in your life. Your values act as the road map for the direction in which you take your life. I have given deliberate thought to and chosen the values that guide my life . Gaining clarity on my values ensures that I know what my values are, why I hold them, and how they direct my life. I live in accordance with my values . The ultimate governor of my behavior are my values (i.e., integrity, trust) and my ability to choose and act on positive values when faced with conflicting values (i.e., ambition, the bottom line) in my professional life. Living a value-driven life gives my life meaning, satisfaction, and joy . A professional life that is based on my deepest values will be one filled with a deep sense of purpose, fulfillment, and contentment. Perspective You can think of perspective as a lens through which you see yourself and the world in which you live and work . Your perspective impacts what you think, how you feel, and how you act toward whatever life presents to you. I take a long-term view of my career . Business success is a marathon, not a sprint. Short-term results are less important than doing what I need to do in the present to get where I want to go in the future. My career is important to me, but it’s not life or death . Seeing my work as a part of life, not life itself means I feel less stress, am more productive, gain more satisfaction, and make better decisions that will lead me toward my professional goals. I maintain balance in my life . Though I am committed to my professional success, I also understand the value of having other sources of gratification in my life, including family and friends, physical health, and spiritual and cultural activities. Self-understanding To perform at your highest level and achieve your goals, you must have a complete appreciation for everything that impacts your efforts. A careful analysis of your own capabilities and the demands of your current and future career paths will help you gain this knowledge. I know myself, strengths and weaknesses alike . My willingness to gain a deep understanding of myself will provide me with the self-knowledge necessary to grow and achieve my professional goals. I know what it takes to reach my long-term goals . I have a clear understanding of everything I need to do to attain my career objectives, including my education, knowledge, experience, skill sets, and resources. I am open to learning new things that will help me achieve my goals . The only way to become successful is explore all avenues of my work life and continue to grow and develop new skills. Priorities The priorities you establish in your life act as the foundation for the direction your career takes, the quality of your work, and the level that you attain. When you give thought to your priorities, you help to ensure that your career path is one of your own choosing. Performing my best in my work is a high priority in my life . I have chosen to make my career a central part of my life and one that takes precedence over most other avenues I might take. My lifestyle supports my goals . Because my career is important to me, my personal life buttresses my professional efforts by living a healthy lifestyle. I make decisions in my life that will help me achieve my goals . Though I value many aspects of my life, I make deliberate decisions about how I devote my time and energy that further my career goals. Responsibility Responsibility is two sides of the same coin; you can’t take responsibility for your achievements and successes unless you are also willing to take responsibility for your mistakes and failures. I have ownership of my career and my life . I have chosen the career path I am on and, as a result, am highly invested in my professional success. I take responsibility for all of my actions in my work . Only by holding myself accountable for both my successes and failures can I be assured of achieving my career goals. I take control of anything that impacts my business performance . I know what affects my professional efforts and make sure that I have the power to influence those efforts. Commitment Perhaps the single most important predictor of success in the business world is the commitment made and motivation directed toward your goals. I have an unwavering commitment to be my best . I know how difficult it is to become successful in business and I am willing to give everything I have to reach my goals. I give my best effort in all aspects of my work . Only my full and consistent effort will enable me to realize my professional goals. Every day I focus on areas in which I can improve . By directing efforts into my weaknesses, I know I can overcome them and raise my level of performance. Challenges The road to business success is a bumpy one and those who traverse that road successfully are able to, when faced with challenges, stay clear of mind and calm of body, and find solutions that enable them to continue down that roa I expect obstacles, setbacks, and down periods in the pursuit of my goals . I anticipate that I will have difficulties as I pursue business success, so these roadblocks will not surprise me and I will be better able to continue down my chosen road. Every experience I have, positive or negative, is an opportunity and a lesson . Though setbacks and failures are never enjoyable, if I view them as experiences to make me better, then I will be better equipped to overcome them. Whenever I am faced with adversity, I respond positively to it . Only by staying motivated, confident, and focused, will I be able master the many challenges I will inevitably face in pursuit of my goals. Support The road to the top of the corporate ladder is also not one that you can take alone. There are many people in both your personal and professional lives that contribute significantly to your success. I show respect and gratitude for the people who help me achieve my goals . I realize that any success that I achieve, in addition to my own efforts, is borne on the backs of others who helped me get there. I listen to and learn from my mentors, peers, and support team . I am thankful for the opportunity to gain experience and knowledge from the people who came before and those who joined me along my journey toward success. I never lose sight of the importance of my family and friends in my career and life . Whatever success I attain, I always remember those people who care about me most and were willing to make sacrifices so I could get where I wanted to go. Objectives Those who have a clear vision and specific objectives of what they want to accomplish are more likely to fulfill their goals. I endeavor to have a career and a life that is of my own design . Though luck and happenstance do play a role in career development, I strive to be captain of my life’s ship and direct it where I choose. I strive to achieve professional success and personal well-being . I believe that success without well-being is not success at all. Instead, I strive to weave success and well-being into the fabric of my life. I aim to succeed while making a meaningful contribution to the world . Personal success, no matter what level I achieve, isn’t truly meaningful unless I also make a significant contribution that leaves the world a better place. Design Your Own Credo A business credo is a personal statement that will come from your most deeply held beliefs about your career and life. I would suggest that you give yourself time to develop your credo, allowing the ideas to take root and grow until you have created a business credo that truly reflects your professional vision and objectives. Use the following to help shape your credo: What areas do you want to include in your credo (you can use those I identified above and create others that also have meaning for you)? What values, attitudes, beliefs, and actions do you want to include in your credo? Once you have developed your business credo, read it, think about it, internalize it, and live by it until it becomes the guiding force in your professional life.

Read the full article →

Blythe McGarvie: Where the Action Is: Consumer Spending

November 8, 2010

I research and write about economic realities in the interconnected world and their implications for you and your business. I first discovered, in 1983, when I joined the Kellogg Alumni Council, that business school professors provide inspiration, analysis and thoughtful insight into the nature of business. You may be surprised that academia is relevant in these fast-paced and uncertain times. I have learned from them how to rely on quantitative and behavioral research to provide a deeper understanding of what I read in many media outlets. The headlines focus on conflict and controversy, not what happens during the rebuilding process. While professors research and consult, business men and women create and grow businesses. We all succeed by going where the action is. Let’s look at where the action is for consumer spending. Current Consumer Spending The largest component driving the U.S. GDP is consumption. In the last ten years, GDP has been comprised of roughly 70% consumer spending, 15% of exports to other countries, 10% of direct investments, and 5% of government purchases. Today, as some signs indicate an easing of the recession, U.S. consumers continue to hold back from spending. The most recent GDP information for the first half of 2010 shows that Exports increased 10% over last year. Direct Investments have increased 28%, Government Purchases increased by 1%; but, Consumption increased only 2%. Consumers will not be spending at their previous levels for a host of reasons. In fact, according to the President’s economic report in February: The growth that preceded the recession saw high consumption spending, low private saving, excessive housing construction, unsustainable run-ups in asset prices (especially for assets related directly or indirectly to housing), and high budget and trade deficits. That path was unstable — as we have learned at enormous cost — and undermined long-run prosperity. Thus, as the economy recovers, a rebalancing will be necessary. The model used in the report indicates that three factors drive the tradeoff between savings and spending. The higher the sense of wealth, the lower unemployment expectations, and the greater the ability to borrow (and pay back), the more people will spend. The recent stock market rallies and the lowest interest rates in decades suggest some optimism for spending. And, importantly, the GDP is growing at 2.7% and not contracting. Jobs will return in those areas that support exports and direct investments. But, the largest engine for the US GDP is stalled due to consumers’ sentiment about unemployment and their pressing need to pay down their current debt levels. According to a government report released November 1st, U.S. consumer spending rose by less than expected in September as income fell for the first time in 14 months. Inflation remained minimal. Other Countries’ Consumer Spending The news for major developing countries is quite different. Consumer confidence and purchasing behavior indicators in Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are growing strongly (between 1 to 4%) and those of India and China are growing even faster (more than 5%). Each quarter, The Nielsen Company publishes the state of the global consumer and purchasing behavior. Included in this scorecard is the level of advertising spending, a leading factor in consumer spending. The key learning from this data is that the consumer is cautious; but, longer term, with 30 of 31 countries showing positive ad spending in the 2nd quarter of 2010, global consumer spending may receive a boost. Consumers respond to innovations and promotional activities. Tapping into Consumers Global companies continue to innovate. For example, DuPont launched more than 1400 new products in 2009, a 60% increase from 2008. The company filed more than 2,000 patents — its highest number in its history. Sales from emerging markets of $8 billion exceeded 2007 levels and are projected to grow at a 14% annual compounded growth rate to 2012. New companies also are discovering that consumers will spend money on items that they find innovative. The founder Robert Croak of the company selling Silly Bandz states: “I came across a product that a Japanese designer had created for an industrial design contest. I thought it would be really neat if we remolded it, made it thicker, larger and into a fashion accessory — and that’s how Silly Bandz was born.” Knowing “where the action is” helps management to focus on new business opportunities. One of my colleagues, Roger Schmid, recently gave a lecture and wrote about Brazil, where he works with consumer companies which you can find on our website LIFgroup.com . The only way to capitalize on this knowledge of which markets are growing is to be agile and nimble. This means knowing how to adjust your plans of action to find new consumers for your products. Of course, while you are in the markets, keep your eyes open for new competitors and innovative ideas.

Read the full article →

Les Leopold: How to Earn $900,000 an Hour While Unemployment Soars

October 15, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – New claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week (Oct 14, 2010). Let’s be honest. Wouldn’t you like to rake in a cool $900,000 for one hour’s work? No? Still have hippie ideals, perhaps? You could work for just 10 minutes and walk off with $150,000. Push yourself to work one entire day and we’re talking $7.2 million. Hang in there for a month, and you’ll pull in more than the richest athletes make in 10 years — $256.5 million. And in one year? Well, you’ll be earning what the top ten hedge fund honchos each averaged in 2009 — $1.87 billion. Wouldn’t you like to know their secrets? Here are a few: Step 1: Check your conscience at the door. You must be able to live with the knowledge that while you were making $900,000 an hour, more than 29 million other Americans had no job at all or were forced into part-time work. Also you’d have to live with the uncomfortable fact that your sector — high finance — crashed the economy, leaving eight million Americans jobless in a matter of months. You’re obviously good at math so you’ll be able to calculate that it will now take 22.5 million new jobs to bring the economy back to full-employment (an unemployment rate of 5 percent or less). That’s the equivalent of creating 630 new corporations the size of Apple Corp. (35,000 employees each). Sadly, you’re also a realist, so you know that unemployment is likely to remain at record post-WWII highs for years to come. Feeling guilty? Don’t. Remind everyone again and again that hedge funds like yours didn’t get bailed out. You’re not too big to fail. You just figured out how to be better at investing than anyone else. You’re what capitalism is supposed to reward. You earned your $900,000 an hour fair and square! Suppress all your doubts and just keep telling yourself — and everyone else — that you have nothing to do with rising poverty or the fact that nearly 50 million people can’t afford health care. You’re the solution, not the problem. Conscience be damned! Step 2: Remember: None of this is your fault! Yes, a few tiresome critics will keep pointing the finger at you, saying that the financial sector crashed the economy. Ignore them and put the blame where it belongs – somewhere else. When in doubt, seek guidance from the pros on Wall Street. They know exactly who to blame: The few bad apples who gave out mortgages like candy The greedy Americans who bought homes they couldn’t afford (they should have ignored the bankers who told them they could!) The politicians who pushed for risky loans for “low-income” buyers (subtext: favoritism for minorities.) The Fed, which kept interest rates too low for too long, inflating the bubble And, most importantly, American consumers who “lived beyond their means,” running up too much debt. (Those people, not you, really need to tighten their belts!) Assert with the utmost confidence that it’s Wall Street billionaires who make our system the envy of the world, so help me god. Step 3: Proclaim that you are the solution: It’s not enough to dodge the blame. You’ve got to convince academics and journalists to anoint you as the savior. You see, it’s you and your fellow high finance moguls who will save us from ever having to endure a crisis like this again. Fortunately for you, they’ve already bought the story. For example, in More Money than God , Sebastian Mallaby writes: How can governments promote small-enough-to fail institutions that manage risk well? This is the key question about the future of finance; and one part of the answer is hiding in plain sight. Governments must encourage hedge funds….The chief policy prescription can be boiled down to two words: Don’t regulate.” (p 380-81) Imagine that! Top hedge fund managers who earn $900,000 an hour are the answer to too-big-to-fail bailouts, and you don’t even need government regulations to keep them honest! People who suggest that Wall Street billionaires are essentially card counters in a Las Vegas casino? They’re just envious. People who question whether the entire casino has any redeeming social or economic value at all? They’re just stupid. (For my envious and stupid account, see The Looting of America .) Step 4: Tell people, “Sure, go ahead and raise taxes on the super-rich!” (wink, wink): Because of Wall Street billionaires our income distribution is the most extreme since 1929. By some estimates it’s even worse, with the top 1 percent hoarding nearly 50 percent of our nation’s wealth. And yet, a recent academic survey suggests that most Americans have no idea things are so skewed. The vast majority actually said they would prefer a wealth distribution more like Sweden’s. Heaven forbid! So — why on earth would someone like Warren Buffett be offering to pay more taxes? Well, for one thing, there are worse things than higher income tax rates. What you want to avoid at all cost is any reform that might reduce financial industry profits — like controls on derivatives and financial transaction fees. As for raising taxes: Just because you say you’re willing to pay them doesn’t mean you’ll actually ever have to. Everyone knows that the moment anyone actually tries to tax the super-rich, a Greek chorus of greed will chant: “Investor confidence will crash! Small businesses will suffer! Jobs will crumble! The recovery will stall!” So, once you get to be a billionaire, join the cavalcade of gurus who insist they should at least pay the same tax rates as their secretaries. And if those weak-kneed politicians simply refuse to raise your taxes, well, what’s a billionaire to do? Step 5: Count on America’s admiration: Americans may say they want wealth to be distributed much more evenly. But they also have a perpetual love affair with the super-rich. Any effort to rein in billionaires grates against one of our most fundamental values: the right to make as much money as we can, however we can, whenever we can. The very existence of Wall Street billionaires opens up the possibility that we ourselves will become super rich someday. Fortunately for Wall Street billionaires, Americans tend to view even modest proposals to redistribute wealth as cataclysmic. (Remember Joe the Plumber?) When I propose that maybe we would be better off without Wall Street billionaires, even non-plumbers tell me: “Oh, no. We don’t want to live in a socialist society where incomes are flat. Everyone would lose their motivation. And we’d be stuck with only one flavor of ice cream at our dilapidated collectivist food co-op!” In our political culture, there seem to be no mental resting points between North Korean communism and an economy that lets Wall Street billionaires run wild. However, every once in a while we get pissed off. In 1913 we passed a constitutional amendment to legalize income taxes on plutocrats. From the 1930s to the 1970s we enacted tax rates on the super-rich that hovered between 70 and 90 percent. And long before that Andrew Jackson vetoed the National Bank because, as he said, “the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.” The rigged Bank laws, he argued, “make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers, who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. () We’re still complaining. We get upset at government because it seems to favor the super-rich. Yet in the end we protect our Wall Street billionaires by attacking regulations and taxes on the wealthy. Step 6: Thank the lord for sex, drugs and rock’n roll: Reagan and company may have hated the 1960s youth rebellion, but they sure glommed on to a key feature of it: People wanted to be liberated from society’s constraints and from a government that was betraying our nation’s ideals. Through either insight or dumb luck, the Reagan revolution successfully melded the idea of accumulating wealth with the idea of gaining freedom from everyone and everything — the ultimate form of “doing your own thing.” (My surfer friend called it “takeoff velocity.”) Few of us who came out of the 1960s trusted government. After all, it had waged an unjust and un-winnable war in Vietnam. Public figures seemed to lie to us on a regular basis — from Mai Lai to Watergate. You want that kind of government running the economy too? “Do your own thing” economics also caught on. Free love and free markets may have had a lot in common. Milton Friedman (who also opposed criminalization of drugs) led the way among American economists, arguing that government interference always distorts free markets. Only when markets are left entirely alone can they operate efficiently and create prosperity for all. Friedman’s free market philosophy won over the academic and policy establishment. They saw the rise of Wall Street billionaires as a sign of our nation’s economic health and prosperity. It wasn’t just that their vast wealth might trickle down to the rest of us. It was that the accumulation of such wealth in the first place signaled a strong underlying economy. According to the free market economists, under our system you can’t possibly earn $900,000 an hour unless you produce $900,000 worth of something. So financial industry billionaires must, by definition, have the knowledge, skills, and experience to create that enormous value. Because nobody would cough up that sum of money unless they got equivalent value in return. Therein may lie the biggest secret of all: Wall Street moguls are confident that Americans will always believe that that the big boys are really worth their money. But for how long? Will our millions of unemployed workers eventually get fed up? Will the middle class finally get angry at the plutocrats who stole their dreams? Or will our anger continue to focus on government regulations, social spending and taxes instead of on our financial plutocrats? Eventually we’ll have to choose or the choice will be made for us: Do we want a $900,000 an hour Valhalla for the few? Or a prosperous America for the rest of us? Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street’s Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009. He is currently working on a new book, How to Earn $900,000 an Hour: The Rise of Wall Street Billionaires and the New Class War, (hopefully to be published in 2011).

Read the full article →

Foreclosure Freeze Started With One Small Case In Maine

October 15, 2010

All of this is largely because Mr. Cox realized almost immediately that Mrs. Bradbury’s foreclosure file did not look right. The documents from the lender, GMAC Mortgage, were approved by an employee whose title was “limited signing officer,” an indication to the lawyer that his knowledge of the case was effectively nonexistent.

Read the full article →

Inder Sidhu: Profiles in Doing Both: Clorox Has a New Formula for Cleaning Up in Emerging Markets

October 11, 2010

For nearly 100 years, the name “Clorox” has been synonymous with the words “clean” and “sanitary” in the United Sates. But not in many parts of the emerging world, where its products can help in a myriad of ways. Though the company does business in more than 100 countries, nearly 80 percent of sales come from North America. Company leaders are eager to change this. Brimming with confidence over success achieved recently in Latin America, they believe they can double the amount of business Clorox does outside North America. What makes them so sure? This time, they believe they have the right business formula for growing in established countries and in emerging markets. Here’s some background. Founded in 1913 by a group of California entrepreneurs, Clorox is a Fortune 500 consumer products giant. In addition to its namesake bleach, Clorox makes Hidden Valley Ranch salad dressing, Fresh Step cat litter, Glad trash bags and a host of other products. In fiscal 2010, sales totaled $5.5 billion. Sensing the company was missing some opportunities, company leaders went on a buying spree in the 1990s to jump start international sales. In all, Clorox spent more than $1 billion acquiring overseas companies. They spent the bulk of their money in Latin American. The acquisitions provided Clorox a toehold in key markets, but did not lead to the creation of a true, global strategy. For many years, there was limited coordination between field managers and executives at headquarters, and scant knowledge sharing between different geographies. Then in 2006, incoming CEO Donald Knauss vowed to change the company’s revenue profile. In particular, he wanted to increase the amount of business Clorox did outside the U.S. and Canada. The former president of Coca-Cola North America, he believed Clorox was missing a huge opportunity to sell health and wellness products in geographies where economic growth was creating significant consumer demand. Knauss tasked his lieutenants to create a comprehensive plan for expanding overseas. Unlike previous strategies that relied on acquisitions and partnerships, he wanted Clorox to grow its business in a more holistic manner. That meant judicious acquisitions in specific places, and organic growth in others. In addition, he thought the company could gain from leveraging best practices developed in the U.S. and replicating successes achieved in emerging countries where Clorox had established a leadership position. Doing both would help Clorox reach its full potential, company officials believed. You can see evidence of the strategy at work in many places around the world today. Take the work the company is doing in Peru around disease prevention. Clorox makes a number of surface disinfectants that are ideal for the market. But sales weren’t as high as local companies officials hoped. After some analysis, Clorox managers realized that consumers weren’t fully aware of all the ways germs could spread in a household. So they launched a major consumer education campaign that led to a 60 percent increase in bleach sales between 2007 and 2009. Now the company hopes to replicate this success elsewhere. The same is true of best practices that Clorox first developed in the U.S. that are now being exported to Latin America and Asia. This includes the work done by the company’s Category Advisory Services (CAS) team, which helps retailers leverage consumer data to drive higher-margin sales. CAS has been a big hit with U.S. retailers and is now winning new fans in emerging markets. In one Latin American country where a major retailer teamed with CAS, sales growth significantly outpaced the rest of the market thanks the strategies for shelving and assortment Clorox provided. In a recent interview with McKinsey Quarterly , Clorox Executive Vice President Beth Springer said the company will continue to “apply our functional practices more globally.” This has led to a deeper analysis of local markets and product profitability in individual categories. Armed with this knowledge, Clorox believes it can grow market share, expand into adjacent segments and enter new geographies. To Springer, the company’s game plan is “clearer than it has been in years.” Instead of developing one strategy for domestic markets and another for international ones, Clorox is moving closer to developing a holistic, global strategy that encourages ideas and innovations to flow freely from the established world to the emerging one, and then back again. Each time this occurs, Clorox cross-leverages success achieved in one part of the world with milestones attained in another. Take its three-step Desire, Decide and Delight program. Launched in North America, the initiative aims to increase customer satisfaction during the pre-sales, point-of-sales and post sales experience. After expanding the program to Latin America, the company’s market share grew by 1.8 percent in 2009. That translated into millions of dollars of new business. In another example, Clorox was able to transfer market insights on packaging gleaned in Latin America during the H1N1 flu epidemic back the U.S. where its been put to use to help design more convenient consumables. By increasing its involvement in the emerging world, Clorox is better positioning itself in the established one. Doing both is making the already potent company stronger than before. Inder Sidhu is the Senior Vice President of Strategy & Planning for Worldwide Operations at Cisco , and the author of Doing Both: How Cisco Captures Today’s Profits and Drives Tomorrow’s Growth . Follow Inder on Twitter at @indersidhu .

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: Currency Wars and Accounting Identities

October 7, 2010

There are few areas of economics more boring than accounting identities. This is really unfortunate, since it is virtually impossible to have a clear understanding of economic policy without a solid knowledge of the underlying identities. Most of the people in Washington policy debates were apparently overcome by boredom before they could get this knowledge. As a result we see some really silly policy debates. The debate over the value of the dollar against the Chinese yuan is the latest episode in this silliness. The Washington tribal elite has been on the warpath against budget deficits in recent months. They have worked themselves into such a frenzy that nothing will stand in their way: not concerns about unemployment, not concerns about the well-being of our elderly, and not even concerns about basic economic logic. The basic logical problem stems from the simple accounting identity that national savings is equal to the broadly measured trade surplus. A country with a large trade surplus will also have large national savings. Conversely, a country with a large trade deficit will have negative national savings. These relationships are accounting identities – there is no way around them. This brings us to the next part of the story: where trade deficits come from. At a given level of GDP, the main determinant of the trade deficit is the value of the dollar in international currency markets. This is very basic supply and demand. If the dollar is higher in value relative to other currencies then our exports will cost more to people living in Germany, Japan and China. If a car sells for $20,000 in the United States then the price of this car to people living in other countries will depend on how much of their own currency (euros, yen, or yuan) they must pay to get a dollar. The higher the dollar relative to these other currencies, the more expensive the car is to foreigners. And, the more expensive it is to foreigners, the fewer U.S.-made cars they will buy. This means our exports will fall. The story works in reverse on the import side. If the dollar is high and therefore buys lots of foreign currency, then imports are cheap. This means that we will buy lots of imports. If we have low exports and high imports, then we will have a large trade deficit: end of story. We can train our workers to be more productive, urge our firms to invest more, and try to improve our public infrastructure, but realistically none of these factors can come close to offsetting the impact of a currency that is 20-40 percent over-valued. A severely over-valued currency virtually guarantees a trade deficit. This brings us back to the budget deficit part of the story. If the United States has a large trade deficit, then it means that net national savings are negative. That is definitional. For net national savings to be negative then we must have either negative private savings or negative public savings (i.e. a budget deficit). During the peak years of the housing bubble, private savings were strongly negative. This was because the wealth created by the bubble led homeowners to spend rather than save. With the collapse of the housing bubble, people are now saving much more. Furthermore, investment has fallen due to overbuilding, which means that private sector savings are no longer negative. This leaves us with our large budget deficit. The budget deficit follows from the fact that we have a trade deficit, which is in turn the result of the over-valued dollar. This brings us to the strangely paradoxical behavior of the Washington policy elite. Many of the same people who routinely express horror over the size of the budget deficit, were either on the sidelines or in actual opposition to the effort by Congress to get China to raise the value of its currency against the dollar. While one can argue as to whether the bill approved by the House was the best route to go, anyone who hopes to get the trade deficit down must recognize the need to lower the value of the dollar. And, if one wants to get the budget deficit down, then it is necessary to reduce the trade deficit. This raises the possibility that perhaps the deficit hawks don’t really give a damn about the deficit. Perhaps the deficit hawks just want to cut Social Security and Medicare and other programs that benefit the middle class and moderate-income people. Of course, it is also possible that the deficit hawks are just confused when it comes to economic policy. It’s hard to know for sure, but these days ignorance and/or dishonesty appears to be the price of admission to Washington policy debates. (from the Guardian)

Read the full article →

William Tierney and Guilbert Hentschke: Nobody Wins When We Regulate Out of Ignorance

September 30, 2010

For-profit higher education has become a political piñata. Three Senate hearings have produced evidence of deceitful recruitment practices, unsustainable student-debt burdens, fraudulent promises of future jobs and high dropout rates at for-profit colleges. In response, Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, plans to propose legislation after the mid-term elections to curb industry abuses. Some for-profit critics would even like the schools to go away. Like it or not, we’re stuck with for-profit colleges. The roughly 3,000 for-profit colleges and universities now account for 12% of all post-secondary students, and they are closing in on serving 2 million students. Financially strapped public colleges and universities are in no position to absorb a rush of new students should for-profits start closing because of tougher regulation. The problem, lost amid the heated charges of widespread fraud in the industry, is that we too little about for-profit colleges to devise a proper regulatory framework for them. Leaders of traditional and for-profit colleges, locked in a cold war atmosphere for years, have stymied comparative research because they feared that objective data would either illuminate the strengths or demonstrate the weaknesses of for-profit colleges. That has produced some yawning gaps in our knowledge of the fastest-growing sector in higher education. Consider: We have no reliable industry-wide data on how many of the nearly 2 million students who begin classes actually complete a degree or certificate program. What exists, at best, are scattered reports issued by various colleges or sweeping analyses of the entire sector, none of which yield reliable information. More important, there is virtually no research that tells us how for-profits compare in terms of graduation rates with their public- and private-school peers. A 2010 study by the Parthenon Group, an independent research organization, is one of the few that examines this question. Using U.S. Department of Education data from 1996-2001 to look at students seeking two-year degrees or certificates, it found that 65% of the students attending for-profit colleges earned the associate degrees or certificates, compared to 44% at community colleges. Even that data, while encouraging, is hardly sufficient to serve as the foundation of a new regulatory schema. There is no systematic data on how effective for-profit colleges are in helping their graduates land meaningful jobs and on how well they are prepared for them. This question goes to the heart of the proposed “gainful-employment” standard, currently under review by the Department of Education, that would cut federal aid to for-profit schools – a major source of their profits — if student-loan repayment rates fell below a certain level. Draconian rules would no doubt put many for-profit colleges out of business. But the best information we have on the jobs/debt questions is no better than back-of-the-envelope projections. We just don’t know how successful for-profit colleges are in overcoming the educational obstacles posed by students who need remedial classes in, say, math and English. If students are unable to correct their academic deficiencies, they will be unlikely to complete their studies. This is not only a problem in for-profit schools. More than two-thirds of all students in higher education require some remedial classes, but they are disproportionately represented in for-profit colleges, as well as community colleges. It is these students – older and poorer than their four-year public and private school counterparts – who overwhelmingly make up the new populations that must be tapped if we are to turn out more college graduates. They are also the same students most at risk of dropping out and defaulting on their loans. There are some promising signs that the for-profit industry is opening its doors to research that will help fill in our knowledge gaps. Corinthian Colleges and the University of Phoenix have recently agreed to participate in research projects comparing their effectiveness against that of selected public institutions. The Career College Association, which represents 1,500 mostly for-profit colleges and universities, will host a major panel on comparative research at its annual convention next summer. And Kaplan University will share data on student performance with the chancellor’s office of the California Community Colleges. Still, a plea for more research at a time when some critics have likened for-profits to subprime mortgage lenders and called for their extinction might seem quixotic. Yes, protect students from the industry’s worst abuses. But before we construct an ambitious regulatory framework, let’s see if the budding cooperative spirit between traditional colleges and for-profits produces research that could help us devise one based in reality. It is not simply to the benefit of for-profit colleges that they succeed. By some estimates, we need to produce 22 million new degree-holders over the next eight years to meet the demands of our information-based economy. We cannot meet that goal if we over-regulate an industry out of ignorance. William Tierney and Guilbert Hentschke, professors of education at the University of Southern California, are the co-authors of “New Players, Different Games: Understanding the Rise of For-Profit Colleges and Universities.”

Read the full article →

Jodi R. R. Smith: Back to School, Moving Up

September 30, 2010

September means back to school for many families, but for those of you in the working world I have a quick quiz. Think fast, True or False: _____ Working hard and doing your job are the best ways to get ahead. In our Mannersmith Professional Protocol seminars we always catch participants who believe this statement to be true. But it is not… This statement is completely false. Working hard and doing your job are why you receive your paycheck. To be eligible for promotion, you need to position yourself properly. Not sure what this means? Here are our top ten tips: 1. Create Perception ~ Make sure you look the part. Dress for the job you want. Keep your work area neat and clean. Arrive early, stay late. Respond in a timely manner. Deliver on promises. 2. Behave Better ~ Everything you say and do reflects on your professional persona. Be sure your actions communicate “polished professional.” Imagine your every interaction being captured on video. Act accordingly. 3. Read Cultural Landscapes ~ Understand what is valued in your office. Who are the stars, who is being promoted, who has the VP’s ear? Know the organizational chart as well as those who have personal power in your office. 4. Be the Answer ~ Look for issues at work that need resolution. From the kitchen fridge than needs emptying to the giant software conversion, helping to make things better identifies you as a problem solver. 5. Move Beyond the Safety of Your Desk ~ While you need not be friends with everyone in the office, you should understand the importance of being friendly. Ask about weekends, hobbies, interests. This way, when you do need to work together, the relationship will be there and the interaction will be comfortable. 6. Cross Boundaries ~ Take the time to know people from other departments. Understand how your job impacts them. 7. Follow in Footsteps ~ Look for mentors and ask about their career paths. Know what options you have for promotion based upon your current position. Know your next steps. 8. Replace Yourself ~ Be sure to train a potential replacement. There are times when managers do not promote great employees due to the time, hassle and stress of having to train a replacement. Being “irreplaceable” can hold you back. 9. Next Stop, Knowledge ~ There is always something new to learn in your field. Take the time to take classes and attend conferences so that your skills remain up to date. 10. Build Professional Networks ~ Know others in your field. Look for mentors, make connections, take on leadership roles. Your next stop may be in another organization before returning to your original company. Still not sure what it takes to be promoted? Then you had better ask. From your manager, to human resources, to those in the position you target, to mentors, there is always someone with knowledge and information to share. Lesson One: You are responsible for your own career path, start by playing an active role!

Read the full article →

Chip Conley: Apple & The Oakland A’s: They’re Both Playing Moneyball

September 28, 2010

As we round the bases for the last two weeks of Major League Baseball, it’s worth noting that big league managers may know more about 21st century leadership than Fortune 500 CEO’s, with the possible exception of Steve Jobs. Remember Michael Lewis’ bestseller Moneyball about how Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane remade the game of baseball by looking at new metrics as a means of determining which players had the greatest impact on his team’s success? Like Steve Jobs’ Apple in the battle against Microsoft, The A’s had high odds against them with a team payroll that was just one-third of what a bigger market team like the New York Yankees could pay their players. So, Billy Beane reevaluated the conventional wisdom that stolen bases, runs batted in, and batting average were the most important statistics to consider when selecting players for a team. Doing rigorous statistical analysis — and using a certain amount of gut wisdom — Beane was able to show that little-considered stats like on-base percentage or slugging percentage were bigger indicators of offensive success than some of the historical numbers that most teams used. The Oakland A’s soon leveraged their intellectual competitive advantage by selecting bargain players who helped them in a series of improbable playoff runs. Sadly for the A’s, the rest of the league caught up and teams like the Boston Red Sox parlayed these “Sabermetrics” — what Beane called these unique numbers — into the World Series. The A’s were back where they started, a perennial also-ran. Most business leaders are using 20th century metrics to create 21st century success. We were taught to “manage what we can measure” and, generally, what’s most easily measurable are the more tangible aspects of life. In business, this translates to metrics like profitability and cash flow — clearly important, but outputs in actuality, not the inputs that create success in the modern company. Today’s most valuable business assets often don’t appear on a balance sheet, an accounting relic that is 500 years old. In our knowledge economy, it’s not the tangible factories or equipment that creates sustainable success, it’s the intangibles like innovation, employee engagement, brand reputation, and customer evangelism that drive market performance. Stock analysts suggest that 80% of Apple’s value doesn’t appear on its balance sheet. The balance sheet is the output, just like the baseball standings are the results of how you’ve invested in your inputs. We’re living in a new era. And yet, we’re using the old metrics. Nearly two-thirds of the world’s GDP now comes from the intangible service industry — as opposed to tangible industries like manufacturing or agriculture — where competitive advantage isn’t about who’s the biggest, but who’s the smartest. Savvy business leaders are learning how to measure those intangible assets like loyalty and reputation — there are even social media benchmarks for your company now — so that they can modernize what they’re managing. What are the inputs or “Sabermetrics” in your business that you’ve been ignoring? Fortunately, Hollywood is a step ahead of most business leaders, as they realize that Moneyball defines our 21st century world of underdogs looking for a leg up. You’ll see Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane next year when Sony Pictures brings this epic story of “what counts” to theaters around the world. Let’s hope a few business execs sneak off on their lunch hour to learn this leadership lesson on the big screen.

Read the full article →

Bob Barr: Extending Ethanol Tax Credit Makes Sense

September 23, 2010

The ethanol tax credit, known commonly by its congressionally-bestowed acronym, “VEETC” (the “Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit” for those who delight in impressing cocktail-party acquaintances with their knowledge of trivia), is the tax credit many conservatives and liberals alike love to hate. Both sides, however, would be well-advised to push aside ideologically-based peeves for the time being, and support extension of the credit beyond its scheduled December 31st expiration. Outside those states boasting heavy corn production, which is the most common product source for the biofuel ethanol, few Americans — including the millions of motorists who daily benefit from inclusion of ethanol in the gasoline that fuels their vehicles — VEETC is essentially unknown. This understandable lack of public awareness accounts for much of the trouble proponents of the tax credit are encountering in their efforts to convince Congress to include an extension in some piece of legislation that will make its way to President Obama’s desk in the final weeks of this 111

Read the full article →

Peter Diamandis: Congratulations to the Winners of the $10 Million Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE

September 16, 2010

For those who have followed the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE , today has been a long time coming.  Our vision from the start was to reinvent the paradigm for cars the public can drive. We wanted to ensure that these cars were fast, affordable, safe and achieved more than 100 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) — a new way to directly compare the efficiency of gasoline to electric and other alternative fueled vehicles.  This adventure began in early 2006, when we first developed the concept for this Incentive Prize.  It was officially announced in March 2008, with Progressive Insurance as the competition’s title sponsor.  More than 130 vehicles from around the world registered to participate.  This past summer, we tested the finalist at Michigan International Speedway, all competing for a $10 million purse and one shared goal: to develop viable and super, fuel-efficient vehicles that meet or exceed 100 MPGe. We spent this morning in the nation’s capital at The Historical Society of Washington, D.C. to announce the three winning vehicles among others that will impact our future driving experience.  Joining us on stage were Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi; the President’s Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren; Senator Mark R. Warner; Representative Edward Markey; Deputy Secretary of Energy , Daniel Poneman; and of course, Progressive Insurance CEO Glenn Renwick.  While our event backdrop was all about history, we came together to celebrate the future and the innovations of companies that have advanced their own automotive technologies because of their role in this competition. We awarded $5 million to the competition’s Mainstream Class (seats four) category winner and $2.5 million each to the two Alternative Class (seats two) winners, one with tandem seating and one with traditional side-by-side seating. Edison2 LLC , based in Charlottesville, Va., won the $5 million mainstream class with its Very Light Car.  This forward-looking, truly aerodynamic vehicle weighs less than 750 pounds and boasts a drag coefficient that is half of what is considered the best today.  In the competition, the Very Light Car achieved just more than 100 MPGe and passed all safety and emissions criteria- made even more remarkable with the knowledge that the car runs on E85 ethanol. Li-ion Motors , based in Mooresville, N.C., won the $2.5 million alternative side-by-side class with its Wave II vehicle.  This battery electric urban car was built on a lightweight aluminum chassis and includes a highly efficient battery package and aerodynamic features that enabled it to achieve 187 MPGe in on-track testing. X-Tracer , based in Uster, Switzerland, won the $2.5 million alternative tandem class with its E-Tracer 7009 vehicle.  The E-Tracer features two stabilizer wheels that automatically drop at low speeds or during sharp turns.  It includes room for two in-line passengers and weekend baggage, and held the record high for efficiency in the competition, coming in at 197 MPGe. While some may consider the competition over, for the winning teams the journey has just begun. Indeed, they will immediately begin leveraging their winning status, prize money and connections made over the course of the competition to catapult their vehicle into the consumer market.  It will not be easy, but I know these teams can, and will, make it happen.  Just like Burt Rutan and Paul Allen were able to take their winning vehicle, SpaceShipOne, from the Ansari X PRIZE and move it forward into commercialization through a $250 million commitment from Sir Richard Branson to create Virgin Galactic, so too, do we wish these winning teams great success in their next steps towards commercialization. We’ve seen a shift in the market since we first launched this competition, and a greater awareness by the American people to think more seriously about the actions we take, and how they affect our environment.  We have also seen a rise in acceptance of the MPGe model used in our competition, a new benchmark in measuring fuel economy. MPGe has the advantage of public familiarity. That is why our partner, Consumer Reports, has joined us in championing MPGe as a robust, transparent and fuel neutral standard that consumers can use to make apples-to-apples comparisons of such next-generation vehicles to the cars they drive today. Edison2, X-Tracer and Li-ion Motors will have the greatest impact.  Their vehicles are set to revolutionize fuel efficiency, as well as the auto industry, because the beauty of this X PRIZE is not just the cars – it is also the technology. Working together, the X PRIZE Foundation and Progressive Insurance have strived to change the paradigm of “mainstream” vehicles by providing a global platform focused on engine efficiency, increased vehicle power, acceleration, safety and increased fuel economy. The innovative technologies brought forth in this competition were astounding and further proved the purpose behind prize competitions — to make the impossible possible. We were not looking for incremental changes or long-term strategies.  The competition’s structure demanded breakthrough thinking that would literally disrupt the industry and produce an accelerated wave to push it ahead in leaps and bounds.  To quote Bob Marley, “it takes a revolution to make a solution.” Congratulations to the winners of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE and to all the participating teams.  Even those teams who achieved 80 or 90 MPGe will also make a huge impact in the marketplace.  Personally, I’m looking forward to driving these vehicles in the near future and hope you will as well!

Read the full article →

Peter Diamandis: Congratulations to the Winners of the $10 Million Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE

September 16, 2010

For those who have followed the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE , today has been a long time coming.  Our vision from the start was to reinvent the paradigm for cars the public can drive. We wanted to ensure that these cars were fast, affordable, safe and achieved more than 100 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) — a new way to directly compare the efficiency of gasoline to electric and other alternative fueled vehicles.  This adventure began in early 2006, when we first developed the concept for this Incentive Prize.  It was officially announced in March 2008, with Progressive Insurance as the competition’s title sponsor.  More than 130 vehicles from around the world registered to participate.  This past summer, we tested the finalist at Michigan International Speedway, all competing for a $10 million purse and one shared goal: to develop viable and super, fuel-efficient vehicles that meet or exceed 100 MPGe. We spent this morning in the nation’s capital at The Historical Society of Washington, D.C. to announce the three winning vehicles among others that will impact our future driving experience.  Joining us on stage were Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi; the President’s Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren; Senator Mark R. Warner; Representative Edward Markey; Deputy Secretary of Energy , Daniel Poneman; and of course, Progressive Insurance CEO Glenn Renwick.  While our event backdrop was all about history, we came together to celebrate the future and the innovations of companies that have advanced their own automotive technologies because of their role in this competition. We awarded $5 million to the competition’s Mainstream Class (seats four) category winner and $2.5 million each to the two Alternative Class (seats two) winners, one with tandem seating and one with traditional side-by-side seating. Edison2 LLC , based in Charlottesville, Va., won the $5 million mainstream class with its Very Light Car.  This forward-looking, truly aerodynamic vehicle weighs less than 750 pounds and boasts a drag coefficient that is half of what is considered the best today.  In the competition, the Very Light Car achieved just more than 100 MPGe and passed all safety and emissions criteria- made even more remarkable with the knowledge that the car runs on E85 ethanol. Li-ion Motors , based in Mooresville, N.C., won the $2.5 million alternative side-by-side class with its Wave II vehicle.  This battery electric urban car was built on a lightweight aluminum chassis and includes a highly efficient battery package and aerodynamic features that enabled it to achieve 187 MPGe in on-track testing. X-Tracer , based in Uster, Switzerland, won the $2.5 million alternative tandem class with its E-Tracer 7009 vehicle.  The E-Tracer features two stabilizer wheels that automatically drop at low speeds or during sharp turns.  It includes room for two in-line passengers and weekend baggage, and held the record high for efficiency in the competition, coming in at 197 MPGe. While some may consider the competition over, for the winning teams the journey has just begun. Indeed, they will immediately begin leveraging their winning status, prize money and connections made over the course of the competition to catapult their vehicle into the consumer market.  It will not be easy, but I know these teams can, and will, make it happen.  Just like Burt Rutan and Paul Allen were able to take their winning vehicle, SpaceShipOne, from the Ansari X PRIZE and move it forward into commercialization through a $250 million commitment from Sir Richard Branson to create Virgin Galactic, so too, do we wish these winning teams great success in their next steps towards commercialization. We’ve seen a shift in the market since we first launched this competition, and a greater awareness by the American people to think more seriously about the actions we take, and how they affect our environment.  We have also seen a rise in acceptance of the MPGe model used in our competition, a new benchmark in measuring fuel economy. MPGe has the advantage of public familiarity. That is why our partner, Consumer Reports, has joined us in championing MPGe as a robust, transparent and fuel neutral standard that consumers can use to make apples-to-apples comparisons of such next-generation vehicles to the cars they drive today. Edison2, X-Tracer and Li-ion Motors will have the greatest impact.  Their vehicles are set to revolutionize fuel efficiency, as well as the auto industry, because the beauty of this X PRIZE is not just the cars – it is also the technology. Working together, the X PRIZE Foundation and Progressive Insurance have strived to change the paradigm of “mainstream” vehicles by providing a global platform focused on engine efficiency, increased vehicle power, acceleration, safety and increased fuel economy. The innovative technologies brought forth in this competition were astounding and further proved the purpose behind prize competitions — to make the impossible possible. We were not looking for incremental changes or long-term strategies.  The competition’s structure demanded breakthrough thinking that would literally disrupt the industry and produce an accelerated wave to push it ahead in leaps and bounds.  To quote Bob Marley, “it takes a revolution to make a solution.” Congratulations to the winners of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE and to all the participating teams.  Even those teams who achieved 80 or 90 MPGe will also make a huge impact in the marketplace.  Personally, I’m looking forward to driving these vehicles in the near future and hope you will as well!

Read the full article →