person

Huffington Post…

WASHINGTON — Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) urged President Obama Wednesday to grant Elizabeth Warren a recess appointment to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In September, the President tapped Warren as the chief architect of the agency charged with protecting consumers from abusive lenders. Since that time, the former Harvard professor has been serving as Special Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury while helping create the new consumer agency. “Since the president appointed Elizabeth Warren to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she has proven she can stand up to Wall Street,” Franken wrote in a letter that will be circulated by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee on Wednesday. “Now, it’s time for a permanent leader to be appointed and, because Republican senators have vowed to block anyone, it’s up to President Obama to use his power constitutional power to bypass Republicans and make a recess appointment.” Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) first suggested the possibility of a recess appointment after Senate Republicans promised earlier this month to block anyone the President nominates. “It’s the worst abuse of the confirmation process I’ve ever seen,” said Frank, as The Hill reported. “What it clearly says is that the president will have to make a recess appointment .” PCCC has organized an open letter to Obama to appoint Warren. Signers so far include a mix of lawmakers, academics, economists, progressive activists and Wall Street figures. “Republicans boxed themselves in with their ridiculous letter saying they wouldn’t confirm anybody who is nominated,” said PCCC co-founder Adam Green. “We’re showing the president that the public will have his back if he makes the logical decision — to give Elizabeth Warren a recess appointment.” Warren may be the person Republicans least want to see in charge of the CFPB. The outspoken and respected academic and advocate is credited as the intellectual founder of the agency , which she advocated for four years ago. Earlier this month, Republicans blocked a bid to name Warren the head of the agency. A measure offered by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to give the top job to the person “credited with coming up with the idea” for the CFPB, failed on a party-line vote . On Tuesday, Warren went through a contentious hearing before the House Oversight subcommittee. She frequently had to correct Republican lawmakers who were trying to grill her, and at one point was called a liar by subcommittee chair Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.). Support for a recess appointment for Warren has even come from a group that once called her ” akin to the Antichrist .” In a May 19 letter, the president and CEO of the Oklahoma Banker’s Association wrote to Obama and encouraged him to name her to the top job.

See the original post here:
Al Franken To Obama: Give Elizabeth Warren A Recess Appointment

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

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

It’s no secret that a mentor can be a terrific resource as you navigate your career path. The “it takes a village” philosophy is a great way to tap multiple mentors at once and develop your personal resource team. Why get stressed about growing, managing, or navigating your career path alone when you can utilize the wisdom of others who want to help you move forward? From entry-level job seekers to seasoned professionals, everyone can benefit from a personal Board of Directors. Think about the people you can ask to be on your resource team who can assist with career strategies, special training, or network building. Your personal career posse can help when you need it most and be a valuable resource outside of your workplace for you to confide in. Here are some ways people can serve on your Board since a variety of people will perform different functions. Accountability Master — this person will hold you to task and give you the gentle (or not so gentle nudge) to get you moving towards your goal. They will help you navigate your blind spots and provide honest constructive criticism when you need it most. This person can also help you step out of your comfort zone to take a risk and embrace change. Motivator — this person will be your cheerleader and provide support and inspiration even when the going gets tough. Your enthusiasm may wane with stress and lack of focus but your motivational Board member will give you a renewed sense of energy and help you play to your strengths. Trainer — perhaps you have been promoted to a new leadership role at work but have never supervised a team, for example. This Board member has significant experience as a leader and can advise and counsel you with best practices. If you don’t have that skill set available from one of your volunteer Board members, then consider hiring an Executive Coach who specializes in leadership training to get you into shape to take on your new professional responsibilities. No matter what the unique competency, a variety of trainers can be an asset as you grow your career and take on new roles. Connector — if you are in transition, interested in growing your career, or just wanting to learn about a career different from your own, chances are your connector will know someone you should meet. This person has a vast network and can make introductions on your behalf for informational interviewing, job shadowing, and other professional referrals. You should have multiple connectors on your Board because these people are in-the-know and current with industry trends and organizational practices. They know the scoop! Strategist — you need a visionary who will help you map out your big picture career path and assist you with implementing a plan to achieve those goals. This person can also be a great resource when problem solving or handling difficult scenarios at work. Proofer — whether you are sending out a resume, cover letter, or portfolio for new job lead, have someone proof you work before you push send. We get so close to our materials that it’s easy to miss things and your detail oriented proofer can catch mistakes that could be a deal breaker if left unnoticed. This person with laser focus can also help you with the small and important details you must work on in your career action plan. Specialist — in many cases this is an area where you are going to hire a professional like a web designer, public relations expert, accountant, or lawyer because you need someone with specialized experience to help you accomplish your goals. It’s worth it to invest in these services from accomplished professionals who have proven their worth through recommendations and examples of their work. It’s not unheard of to have Board members who will provide these services pro bono but it is rare. You may also consider your health care providers and other mind/body/spirit professionals to help you navigate your journey with a team. Having a Board makes you conscious that personal and professional development is a lifelong process and that your needs change over time. Your Board should be filled with people who can advise you as certain needs arise. While there may be a unique time to convene them as a group, most often you will seek them out individually for their particular advice. It’s all about knowing who’s got your back when you need it most. Be sure to steward your Board by showing your appreciation for their expertise regularly. Whenever possible, pay-it-forward and ask how you can be of service to them. Keep the circle of wisdom continuous by serving on someone else’s Board – you will be glad you did! Check out my new video segment about Assembling Your Board of Directors. Caroline Dowd-Higgins authored the book “This Is Not the Career I Ordered” and maintains the career reinvention blog of the same name ( www.carolinedowdhiggins.com ) She is also the Director of Career & Professional Development at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Read the original:
Caroline Dowd-Higgins: Convene Your Personal Board of Directors

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

{ 0 comments }

Big Retail Companies Require Job Applicants To Disclose Their Age

March 1, 2011

Ruth Lyons, 59, was born on April 28, 1951. But after two and a half years of not even being able to get an interview for a job, she decided that her new “job application birthday” was going to be March 19, 1969 — just as an experiment. “They’re asking for your Social Security number and date of birth on applications now, which I don’t think they have a right to do unless they’re hiring you, and you don’t have the option of not filling them in,” she told HuffPost. “You either fill them in right, or you lie, and I’m all for lying.” Several of the nation’s biggest employers, including Target, Kroger and Home Depot, require job applicants to disclose their date of birth in the online application, a practice that employment discrimination lawyers say seems a little fishy. “It’s not per se discrimination to ask for your date of birth or age or some other age-identifying information on a job application, but when there’s a claim that EEOC’s investigating, we’re going to closely scrutinize what we see on the form,” said Ray Peeler, a senior attorney at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “It definitely makes the EEOC look a little harder at what’s going on.” Kroger’s online application says that a candidate’s birthday is used “to ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing the employment of minors or establishing age requirements for certain tasks,” and that the age of anyone 21 years old or older “will not be seen by the hiring manager.” Human resources representatives at Target and Home Depot told HuffPost an applicant’s age is only used for the purpose of background checks after the person has been hired. But Susan Heathfield, a human resources expert who regularly writes and consults on hiring issues, said a company should never ask for a person’s specific age or Social Security number until after that person is hired. “I am stunned to hear that they’re asking for people’s ages in applications,” she told HuffPost. “They should know better. As an employer, you do not want to put yourself in a position where anything you do could be conceivably discriminatory.” Older workers, especially those that have been out of work for any significant period of time, are having an increasingly difficult time landing jobs in the recession because employers have their pick of younger candidates. A recent Pew report found that those who are older than 55 are most likely to remain jobless for a year or more, and the number and percentage of age discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have grown noticeably since 2006, rising from 16,548 charges, or 21.8 percent of all such EEOC filings, to 22,778, or 24.4 percent, in fiscal year 2009. “Some older employees just look old,” Heathfield said. “And it’s so darn subtle — an older person can come in for an interview and not get the job, and they’ll be informed that a more qualified candidate was hired. They’ll never know or be able to prove that two or three people on that committee kept thinking, ‘This person’s really old.’ I’d hate to be looking for a job right now, truthfully.” Heathfield said that while she wouldn’t recommend lying about one’s age on a job application, she believes there are other ways to avoid filling in a date of birth or Social Security number. “I usually tell people, ‘Write in all zeros, and say in the written section that you’ll be happy to supply those numbers if your application reaches the point of a background check,’” she said. Lyons believes lying about her age helped her land a job. She says she applied to work at a local retail store a handful of times since being laid off from her job as a florist in September 2008, but never heard back from them until she filled out an application with her fake birthday. “I lied to get past ‘Go’ and got past ‘Go,’ and then it was my experience and winning personality that took me the rest of the way,” said Lyons, who landed the job on the spot. “It may be a fluke, but it worked for me!”

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: Your Communications May Not Be Communicating

February 17, 2011

Cross-posted from Harvard Business Review Have you ever been in an organization where communication was not an issue? If so, you’re the exception rather than the rule. Large organizations in particular have always struggled with the challenges of communications . In fact, the concept of span of control — a decades-old organizational design principle — was derived originally from communications research analyzing supervisors’ interactions with various numerical sets of subordinates. For example, one study noted that going from four to five subordinates increased potential interactions from 44 to 100; and that going from seven to eight brought the total from 490 to 1080. Hence the ideal number for traditional spans was usually pegged at seven, so that supervisors would be able to get more face time with their workers. Today, we’re not restricted to face-to-face communication for conveying information, and most companies have invested in full-time communications professionals. Consequently organizations are constantly communicating with their people through a wide range of modes and media: Newsletters and magazines, email blasts, town meetings, streaming videos — as well as traditional meetings . But yet somehow, communications are still a problem. As one of my clients is fond of saying (along with George Bernard Shaw ), “The greatest problem with communication is the assumption that it has taken place.” Now, I’ve never found a senior manager who says that communications are not important; so why do organizational communications continue to break down despite all of the investment and generally good intentions? Let me present three common traps: 1. Lack of context: How many times have you received a message but didn’t know what was behind it or why it was important? Not long ago, the senior leaders of a large corporation decided to launch a number of very critical initiatives, and consequently assigned project leaders from their areas. When the overall effort started to fall behind, the CEO called a meeting of all the project leaders and discovered that they lacked a common understanding of the initiatives: their urgency, their impact on the overall business, and their interconnectedness. Without that context, the project leaders were treating this as just one more assignment among many. 2. Lack of questions and dialogue: Recently I sat in on an “all-hands” meeting for a department of a major bank. At the session, departmental and corporate leaders made well-prepared, informative presentations — complete with slides, graphs, and videos. After 90 minutes of presentations, the departmental manager asked if there were any questions and — when none of the 150 people raised their hands — adjourned the meeting. A week later, when people were asked to give feedback about the meeting, most recalled that it was “useful” but very few could remember any specific takeaways. Without questions, your audience has no opportunity to digest the content through discussion, and communications are hard to absorb . 3. Lack of connection: Finally, communication is always local. The first lens that everyone uses to understand a message is: “What does it mean for me?” Because of that, communications can often be interpreted differently depending on the person. For example, a number of years ago an executive visited a manufacturing site to give employees the “bad news” that the plant was going to be gradually shut down over the next few years. After his announcement, he was surprised to hear a wide variety of reactions: Some were happy that they would get a payoff and be able to retire early; others were indifferent because they didn’t think it would really happen; and most thought it was too far into the future to worry about at present. All of the employees received the same message — but the individual interpretations were different, and none of them were what the executive expected. But because this executive didn’t have personal relationships with the plant workers, he was not prepared for their reactions. Communication in organizations is equivalent to the neural network in the human body. If there is a misfire, the organism becomes inefficient or even dysfunctional. If you’re a manager, part of your job is to strengthen the communication pathways to, from, and between your people. To do this effectively, take the time to provide context, encourage questions, and stay sufficiently connected to the different ways that people respond and react to messages. Of course there is more to effective communication than just these factors ; but for most managers, it’s a good place to start. How have you avoided the communications traps described here — and what others have you seen? For more, visit the Communication Insight Center

Read the full article →

Jeffrey Korchek: Are Studios Dead?

February 17, 2011

While it may be true that in the movie business nobody knows anything, although I imagine James Cameron begs to differ, what about other businesses? Steve Jobs seems to know exactly what we want in elegantly styled electronics products, even before we do and even if they aren’t quite perfect. Jeff Bezos knows how to sell us almost everything we want online — and we thought he’d never make it past books. And how about that guy at Groupon who just turned down $6 billion for a company that didn’t exist 3 years ago and has zero barriers to entry in its business plan — he must know something. Of course, you can forget about Jesse Eisenberg/Mark Zuckerberg — he knows, what, about 600 million somethings. So, what does this have to do with movie studios? Well, it’s possible that the General Motors model of a studio — to paraphrase Alfred P. Sloan, “a movie for every person and purpose” — where one studio and its executives try to make a steady stream of comedies, dramas, genre pictures and those $200 million-plus things that hold up tents, is over. With studios’ high overhead and proven inability to control costs on one hand, and the daily onslaught of new technology that takes their product from them in ways they can’t understand and pays them less per viewing on the other, the very model of a modern major studio may just be dead. It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world if you’re a major studio; everything that should go up is just going down — movie admissions, cable TV subscribers, and most dramatically DVD sales — while the wrong things — motion picture production and distribution costs, Redbox rentals, internet streaming and Netflix’s share price — all keep going up. Only the steady rise in the average price of movie tickets — up 5% in 2010 over the prior year, keeping box office results flat while attendance fell 5.3%, makes the business seem in okay shape. But, it’s not. Especially if you plot rising ticket prices and falling attendance on the same x:y graph and think about where that ends up. In the past, when studios green-lit their movies, theatrical performance was always the variable with video revenue and cable output deals a given, escalating based on box office gross. But now, with DVD sales down 33% over the past four years and cable networks like Showtime less interested in studio output deals, how can a studio even begin to green-light a movie based on historical revenue assumptions that are unlikely to be accurate 12-18 months later when the picture comes out? The existing major studios are all part of very large corporations, so their continued existence is not in jeopardy. Their corporate parents may get tired of owning them, like General Electric, but a bad movie or a few years of them isn’t likely to put them out of business. And while now nearly everybody can make a movie (but not necessarily get it released) the major studios still do something that other movie companies can’t: produce, distribute and market motion pictures on a worldwide basis, in all possible media and, of equal importance, collect the money. What the major studios don’t seem to be able to do, however, is adapt their current business model to the new world. They’re still making a yearly portfolio of unrelated movies with decision-making done on an incremental basis, paying big participations on expensive star-driven pictures in success (maybe less first dollar gross but then it’s just a participation pool with a minimal or no distribution fee and 100% of video income thrown in), while owning all the failure. While studios can say that financing partnerships lessen their risk, they also lessen the upside, which is what you’re in the movie business for in the first place. It’s possible, then, that the better model is the one practiced by Apple, Amazon and yes, Jim Cameron: do what you do, do it better than anybody else in a way or volume that allows you to exact a premium, build brand loyalty and keep your competitors out. Apple, Amazon, Groupon and the Facebook, despite their different businesses — one sells stuff they make, one predominantly sells other peoples’ stuff, one allows other people to sell their stuff to people who otherwise wouldn’t buy it, and one allows everyone to sell themselves — have something very important in common: a direct relationship with their customers and customers’ affinity for their brand. Studios long ago ceded that relationship. Back when, when people actually went to the movies every week, that relationship existed and studios had individual identities. And they controlled all aspects of the motion picture process — the talent, the production, distribution and exhibition of the pictures and the publicity surrounding them. Those days, of course, are long gone for a variety of reasons: crushing overhead, the Justice Department, technology the studios didn’t control and lack of foresight. The world is a different place, and movies may just have a different place in it. For the large corporations that control the 6 remaining major studios, what is the maximum point of leverage, and therefore revenue potential: producing content or controlling its distribution? With the high cost of producing content, a studio wants to maximize distribution of its product to consumers, but some of the alternatives, Redbox rentals for $1 or unlimited streaming on Netflix for $9.99 a month and whatever Amazon may do generate relatively minimal revenue and commoditize the product that the studios spend so much to make. And here the movie business is unique as the cost of making movies is totally separate from the price at which they’re sold, and increased costs cannot be passed on to consumers. So as a studio you’re torn between getting your content out there in the form that consumers demand while trying to retain some control so you’re not, say, merely providing a loss leader to companies who’s main business is something else, like electronic devices. In the future, fortune will favor the content producers with direct access to consumers, especially in the home and through the electronic devices that serve as extensions of the home — News Corp. which controls Fox and Direct-TV, Comcast with its purchase of NBC-Universal and Disney with its network and cable channels and its brand that guarantees access and Apple in its back pocket (actually it’s the other way around). Warner, which recently spun off Time-Warner cable, has the sheer power of its size. Paramount and Sony are riskier; the former with less connection to the home and the later with a foreign parent preventing ownership of a network (Is it odd that we allow foreign governments to own a good part of our country through Treasury bonds and other investments but we won’t let them tell us what to watch?). Now, don’t let me go all Peter Bart on you but here’s a memo: what the movie business needs is a unified plan and someone to lead it. Where is the movie business’ Steve Jobs, the person who knows what people want to see before they do, knows that giving content away for free on the internet isn’t such a good idea and who creates excitement, brand loyalty and an enduring corporate culture? Or is the development and production process for movies just too attenuated so that what once seemed like a good/clever idea isn’t when it finally gets made and released? And, is it unrealistic to expect that the same group of executives can effectively manage a diverse slate of 20 pictures, year in and year out, especially given the cost of all that? Before, even without enlightened leadership we could count on the intersection of self-interest and money to secure a future for the movie business. But now, with so much uncertainty in the economy, turbulence in the distribution of motion pictures, reduced shelf space for DVD’s at Walmart and maybe no shelf space at Blockbuster, and with the stakes so high because of the costs, there is no safe harbor. While change may be a natural cycle of any market economy, the motion picture business has to be careful to not bring it upon itself. Schumpeter would call this “creative self-destruction.” To avoid this, there must be a consensus among studios, talent and their representatives and unions. The unanimity with which the studios generally approach union negotiations should be brought to bear on distribution windows, technical standards and other forms of distribution, as well as talent relationships, just so long as cooperation stops short of collusion. If a secure future for studios is no longer merely controlling a vast library, it must be controlling the destiny, and exploitation, of their product. And in that, what is the defining relationship? It is the one with the consumer. It’s what Apple has mastered with their products, their stores; their community. It’s what Netflix has done by making its streaming service available on over 100 platforms — truly Movies Everywhere. That’s what studios or their corporate parents need to create and if it’s not through their content, it’s through how that content is delivered to the consumer. Consumer products companies create that relationship through brands, reaching through the retail outlets for their product to consumers. But movies aren’t really brands (and neither are stars; they, like Soylent Green, are just people) — brands offer security, status by association and trust, not to mention premium pricing. Movies are individual products that have one weekend to make a first, and lasting, impression on their audiences. Studios risk their future by ceding the relationship with the consumer to all those who sell their product.

Read the full article →

Donna Flagg: Five Things They Don’t Teach You in Business School

February 9, 2011

People pay an awful lot of money for an education that is supposed to prepare them for the workforce, which in turn is presumably intended to help them create some degree of career success for themselves. But if that plan is to work, then a course needs to be added called “What NOT To Do, if You Want To Get Ahead.” The following would be my top 5 picks for the syllabus: 5. Don’t yell at people. Flying off the handle does little to affect the other person(s) in anything other than a negative way, but instead, it makes you look crazy and unable to handle pressure. 4. Don’t lie in the presence of others. They will figure out that you either do not tell the truth, or selectively tell the truth when it suits you and they will doubt your authenticity as a result. You will end up with people who don’t take you seriously and keep you at arm’s length because you make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. 3. Don’t tell someone something “in confidence” that you swore to someone else you would keep under wraps. All it does is show firsthand that you can’t be trusted with confidential information, which is definitely not a promotable quality. 2. Don’t be negative and lower yourself to childish, irrelevant, gossipy games. Rise above it and stay focused on the business, not the bulls**t. 1. Don’t ignore people who need a response. It’s like playing a game of catch; if you don’t throw the ball back to the person who threw it, everyone just stands around waiting. Not a good business model. Not a good reputation builder. Not a good choice. Image: iStockphoto Find Donna on Facebook and Krysalis.com

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: Never Be Ripped off by Credit Cards Again

February 2, 2011

Use the credit card companies and don’t let them use you! It is unnecessary for anyone to ever find themselves the victim of their credit cards. Because the current credit card industry is under tremendous attack by things like the CARD Act Implementation, competition, and the threat of a shift from plastic to mobile credit, the smart consumer is in a great position today if they know how to play the game. While credit cards have gotten a bad reputation for victimizing people with late fees, penalties, and high interest rates, the informed customer is in a position to turn the tables. Here are some secrets to help you take advantage of the credit card companies rather than having them take advantage of you. 1) Be in Control: Most people get a credit card as victims and agree to being taking advantage of. Reverse this by making your decision to only use them for their convenience factor without paying to do so. I never pay interest, sign up fees or late fees on a card — I use them. They don’t use me. 2) Pay Off the Balance in Full: I never carry a balance with the credit card company no matter how attractive the rate. If you can’t pay it off at the end of the month, don’t use it. This doesn’t take just commitment, but it takes an agreement from everyone in the family that credit cards are only used as an accounting device, its convenience, and only when you can pay it off. 3) Negotiate your rate: If you are going to have a recurring balance, which I don’t recommend, call and negotiate directly with the company. You have every right, and should, call and ask to have the advertised rate lowered. Also, the better your credit and payment history, the better your chances of selling this to them. 4) Customize Your Due Date: Let’s say your paycheck comes on the 15th and 30th, but your credit card bill is due on the 5th. To improve your cash flow and not put yourself under unnecessary pressure, coordinate the due date that best fits your cash flows. You don’t need stellar credit to make this call and ask for the change. 5) Ask to Have a Late Fee or Interest Fee Removed: If you have a good history of on-time payments and then find a late fee or interest fee on the statement because you didn’t get your payment in by the due date this time, ask that it be removed. I have done this successfully on over a dozen occasions. Ask for mercy that they remove the fee to reward you for your past good behavior. If the person you speak with can’t do it, ask for a supervisor and make it clear that you are willing to close the card out if they don’t remove it. 6) Negotiate the Annual Fee: There is tremendous competition for your business today. There’s no reason for you to pay for the use of a credit card. Even a $35 fee a year over a period of 5 years is $175. I’d personally much rather spend that on my wife. Tell the issuer that you want to use their card but don’t want to pay the fee. Chances are they won’t want to lose your business. While credit cards can be seen to victimize people they can also be an asset when used correctly. They provide convenience, act as the perfect accounting for expenses, accumulate travel points and cost you nothing. As long as you can be aware and responsible of how you make use of your credit cards, you’ll find that they can be great assets to your life. With estimates of over 1 billion Visa, Mastercards and Amex cards in circulation just in the US, it would be important that you make a decision to use your credit cards to benefit your household rather than participating in the credit card company victimizing you. Grant Cardone is a NY Times Best Selling Author and Sales Training Expert.

Read the full article →

At Brooklyn Law, A Tech-Focused Clinic Helps Startups Off The Ground

February 2, 2011

NEW YORK — Jonathan Askin is sporting a long faux-leather trench coat and a shaved head as he enters his first tech meet-up of the night. On the second floor of SoHo’s Scholastic building, the congregation is already underway. A table at the back of the room is strewn with delivery pizza, surrounded by networking techies shaking hands and chatting idly about venture funds, Silicon Alley, and location-based services. Passing through this dense crowd, Askin is simultaneously greeting and being greeted by friends, allies, acquaintances, and occasionally, former clients. His role is both ambassadorial and communal; as the founder and director of the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic , his is a well-known and welcome face. The clinic, or as it’s known, BLIP, is the culmination of Askin’s nearly two decade-long legal career. BLIP functions as a full service tech-oriented law firm leading its students through the full sweep of transactional law, policy and politics, technology and entrepreneurship necessary in a web-enabled world to provide pro-bono legal help to tech startups that really need it. The goal: training the lawyer 2.0 for the digital era. BLIP is a legal outpost on the boundary of old and new. As the world catches up to the web, companies, governments and ordinary web users are grappling with unfamiliar issues regarding privacy, transparency, communication and more. The current crop of attorneys have to deal with the overwhelming amount of information freely available on the web as well as the complicated — and unforeseen — legal quandaries that develop as a result. The startups BLIP assists will be the pioneers of future corporate structures, even as the innovations they introduce to the digital infrastructure continue to morph the human experience. “Lawyers are still the only people who use fax machines — a demonstration of our Luddite tendencies,” said Askin. “Change comes a lot slower to legal professions than the tech/entrepreneurship world. We’ve got to learn how to keep up. We’ve got to use the tools that other entrepreneurs have used.” Askin’s own career reflects the pattern for BLIP’s multifaceted approach. Born to two civil rights attorneys, Askin started his career in the same field, before he wearied of waging “trench warfare” to hold the line on issues, which, as he put it, “had been fought 30 years ago.” Then, the Internet came along. “This is a moment that a young lawyer hasn’t seem since the Civil Rights Act,” he remembers thinking. “We’re going to create new law that is going to change the course of history for the next few decades if not longer. We are writing the laws that will shape our digital future.” After leaving civil rights law, Askin began to move towards tech-related law, putting in time at the Federal Communications Commission, out in California working directly for startups, and playing a role in President Obama’s tech task force during the election. “I was in D.C. and I was a policy advocate and I thought I was a tech attorney. We weren’t tech attorneys. We were lobbyists who knew a little bit of the jargon,” he said. “I started working with tech startups — everything they know is operations and transactions — they don’t know the first thing about policy or politics. It’s very difficult for any attorney to represent the needs of a tech startup.” BLIP is Askin’s attempt to fill the void of lawyers fully equipped with the range of experience necessary to work in the tech startup world. In many ways, BLIP offers Askin the opportunity to share what he’s learned with law students about to start careers in a web-saturated world. “Every single disparate thread in my life had a very circuitous legal path that has inevitably led me to exactly where I am right now,” he said. “I was a dilettante — a smattering of policy, a smattering of transactional, a smattering of civil rights work, but without having had that circuitous path, I’d be a little too myopic myself. Now I feel like I’m the blended mashed-up attorney that I’d like to see a lot of my students become.” Or, as current clinician Jameson Dempsey described it: “BLIP is Askin, Askin is BLIP.” Dempsey is one of the two students who have followed him out this night, though seminar ended just an hour before, and law school offers no extra credit. But this kind of immersion in startup culture is important for any tech-minded lawyer. “He’s actually the first professor I’ve ever had to assign a blog roll,” said Dempsey. “Which I thought was really cool.” At the second meet-up, the techies amble around with beers in hand, or sit quietly with their iPads. The moderator asks everyone to introduce themselves by name, interest, and Twitter handle. Askin and his students comply on all three counts; attorneys you can tweet at. “It’s his vision that leaves fingerprints all over it. What he’s opened the students up to is incredible,” said Tom Chernaik, who worked with BLIP on a startup called CMP.LY , “He’s such a fixture in the New York scene. A true lifeline into the New York tech scene is something these students are going to get out of him.” Through these meet-ups, BLIP has fostered relationships with a number of startups and tech professionals, finding a number of prospective clients in the process. One of the clients BLIP reached through the scene is MainStreetSocial . Helping local governments monetize their websites with online advertisements, as well as to leverage social media to improve contact with constituents, MainStreetSocial has had to deal with both the ordinary business of starting a company as well as with broader issues involving the legality of selling ads on government sites. Ryan O’Donnell, one of the founders of MainStreetSocial, first heard Askin speak at a tech event. “Jonathan was at the entrepreneurs roundtable and I heard him say, ‘At BLIP we do X, Y and Z for startup companies — if you’re interested find a way to get in touch with us’” he said. O’Donnell immediately found a way to connect with Askin, who took the initial meeting. “Thirty seconds into the conversation, I went through my quick elevator pitch of what we did, what our challenges were, and he got very excited,” O’Donnell recounted. “He goes, ‘I have what I think would be the perfect team for you.’ I’m going to tell them about you and I want you to come back in and meet with them.” The students helped O’Donnell with research, and drafted a legal memorandum. “We were then able to take it out to current clients, as well as prospective clients and say, ‘Here’s a memorandum that says, yes you can put advertisements on your websites if you follow these criteria,’” he said. “It’s the first time I’ve encountered anything like that.” For the students in the BLIP clinic, working with real clients is a major part of the appeal. With Askin as a pedagogical guide, students are deployed into real legal work for clients facing tricky issues ranging from drafting privacy policy, to incorporation, to wider policy related questions. And as the startups they work with grow into full-fledged companies, other benefits present themselves as well. “Once we do get to scale and are a larger company, that’s the first place I’m going to look when making internal hires for legal counsel within the company,” said O’Donnell. BLIP’s students are just as dedicated as their professor. BLIP has no room for the half-hearted. As the most popular clinic at Brooklyn Law, no first-year students are admitted, and almost no one is admitted on their first application. Even so, the size of the clinic is twice that of the next largest clinic in the country. There’s no doubt that part of the clinic’s draw is the chance to work under Askin. “He has a million ideas and he has a million projects he wants to work on and one person can only work on so many projects,” said Dempsey. “And so having twenty students who are really gung-ho about making a difference in the community, about learning more about tech law, about experiencing the breadth of the projects that we have in the clinic allows him to realize a lot of his visions … and the man has vision.” But apart from his position as professor, Askin also seems to infect his students with his overarching notion that the work BLIP does is truly the work of the future. “I see his role as very much inspirational, the guru, the person you go to, the person who just drives you on a day-to-day basis, who says, ‘Remember what we’re doing here, we’re trying to develop these skills,’” said Julie Adler, another clinician. “It’s more about the greater mission, and he’s always trying to keep our sights on that mission.”

Read the full article →

Nancy F. Koehn: Davos Diary: Day Three

January 28, 2011

The day dawned clear and cold in Davos, but most participants in the World Economic Forum here had little bandwidth for the weather. Typically, Thursday and Friday are the days when some of the most powerful leaders come to town. This means larger entourages (and bigger traffic jams to accommodate convoys), higher energy levels in the Congress Center, the Forum’s main hall, and greater attention to who’s who in formal sessions and those behind closed doors (I, for one, could not help staring when former U.S. president Bill Clinton walked by as I was standing at one of the two coffee bars). During the lunch break, the substantive buzz was about French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s morning address and his unflagging support for the European single currency in the wake of Greece and Ireland’s pressing fiscal problems and broader mass protests. Over a cheese sandwich, I eavesdropped on an animated conversation about how important it was (or was not) for Sarkozy to send such a signal at this moment. I left this debate midstream to scurry on to an interactive session on Shakespeare’s lessons for leadership. For more than an hour, about 50 men and women analyzed several passages in the Bard’s plays, looking for insights and assorted “takeaways” to apply in our respective lives. The arts, our discussion leader explained, appeal to the heart as well as the head, so the lessons we glean from understanding literature and other similar pursuits stick (“Here, here,” I said under my breath, relieved to find myself in a professional setting without PowerPoint slides). I have long been drawn to Shakespeare’s stories, particularly the characters that shape and drive these stories. In my leadership work with MBA students and executives, I often use examples from Shakespeare, finding that these instances resonate with most people. As our discussion leader said, we “learn best from stories.” The conversation in the afternoon about three Shakespeare excerpts had a number of takeaways. The passage from Hamlet , for example, in which Polonius, a courtier in Hamlet’s uncle’s court, sends his son, Laertes, off to school in France, is full of important lessons for business and life, including: listen more than you speak; make friends carefully and keep those you have close; be careful with your personal finances; dress well, but do not be flashy; and perhaps most significant, “to thine own self be true.” A second excerpt, from Julius Caesar , between two angry Roman leaders, Brutus and Cassius, dealt with conflict management. Avoid getting personal in stressful encounters, don’t assume another person’s motivations, and be mindful of outside influences were several of the insights from this dramatic exchange. The final, and most famous excerpt, was the St. Crispin’s Day speech that Henry V delivers near the end of the play named after him. The short speech, intended to rally the English king’s troops before the Battle of Agincourt, is elegant and moving. Behind the power and unforgettable language are a number of lessons for those trying to motivate others in difficult situations: appealing to a worthy mission that is bigger than any one individual, instilling pride in colleagues and comrades, bringing the future into the present to help others understand the broader impact of what they are doing, offering one’s team a choice about whether to invest in a particular undertaking, and fostering a sense of collective enterprise. I left the session engaged and heartened, not only by what I had learned from the session but by how I had learned it. Late in the afternoon, I filed into the largest auditorium in the Congress Hall to hear a conversation between Bill Clinton and Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. For 45 minutes, Clinton answered a range of questions about Haiti, the global economy, job creation, U.S. politics, and the shifting geopolitical order. He looked thinner–by some measure–than he has and as a result perhaps a bit less robust. But his answers were thoughtful, confident without being arrogant, and consistently supported by relevant facts. At several moments during his remarks, I marveled at his speed and breadth of thinking, all powered by great engagement. Unconstrained by the limits imposed on officeholders, Clinton talked about the mistakes the Democratic Party made in the midterm elections by not offering up another narrative to that told (relentlessly) by the political right. When asked for his advice to leaders, he said individuals should not just talk about particular challenges; they should go out and do something, no matter how small, about these challenges. The world, he continued, is “so hungry for examples of things that work.” I was most struck by Clinton’s implicit call for a revised version of capitalism, one that accounted for the interconnectedness of our global village, that no longer regarded aspects of economic activity such as environmental concerns as externalities but rather as critical parts of a viable business model, and that recognized a broader breadth of stakeholders than do older, narrower conceptions of free markets. Late in the evening, a friend in Boston sent me a text message about a small explosion here in a Davos hotel. It was the first I had heard of this although the blast, which happened in an underground storage area of the Morosani Posthotel, occurred about 9 a.m. Blessedly, no one was injured, and authorities are saying little about causes or circumstances. Security will no doubt be very tight for the remainder of this gathering. Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner is speaking in the morning. And in the afternoon–in what was the Forum highlight for me–so did Bono. Coming up: Stay tuned for my World Economic Forum recap on Monday and keep following my tweets live from the event.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: PMSC and Trafficking: Room for Improvement

January 27, 2011

One of the unpleasant aspects of the private military and contracting world concerns the way employees, especially Third World country nationals, are sometimes treated. Note that I wrote “sometimes.” What I am about to write about does not reflect the actions of the majority of contractors but it happens enough to warrant continuing concern. What I am specifically talking about is “trafficking in persons”; something done both by contractors and regular military forces. Over the past decade, Congress passed legislation to address its concern regarding allegations of contractor and U.S. Forces’ involvement in sexual slavery, human trafficking, and debt bondage. Prior to 2000, allegations of sexual slavery, sex with minors, and human trafficking involving U.S. contractors ( as in Dyncorp ) in Bosnia and Herzegovina led to administrative and criminal investigations by U.S. Government agencies. In 2002, a local television news program aired a report alleging that women trafficked from the Philippines, Russia, and Eastern Europe were forced into prostitution in bars in South Korea frequented by U.S. military personnel, which resulted in an investigation and changes to DoD policy. In 2004, official reports chronicled allegations of forced labor and debt bondage against U.S. contractors in Iraq. Needless to say these incidents were contrary to U.S. Government policy regarding official conduct. In 2000, the president signed into law two statutes responding in part to identified contractor and U.S. Forces’ misconduct in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Public Law 106-386 on October 28, and Public Law 106-523, “Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000,” on November 22. The stated purposes of the first statute are “…to combat trafficking in persons [CTIP], a contemporary manifestation of slavery whose victims are predominantly women and children, to ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.” The second statute established “Federal jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the United States by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces, or by members of the Armed Forces who are released or separated from active duty prior to being identified and prosecuted for the commission of such offenses.” Congress specifically extended this extraterritorial jurisdiction over trafficking in persons (TIP) offenses committed by persons employed by or accompanying the Federal Government outside the United States in Public Law 109-164, “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act Of 2005,” January 10, 2006. Additional reauthorizations expanded the scope and applicability of the first statute. Public Law 108-193, the “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003,” December 19, 2003, gave the Government the added authority to terminate grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for TIP-related violations. That law says: The President shall ensure that any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement provided or entered into by a Federal department or agency under which funds are to be provided to a private entity, in whole or in part, shall include a condition that authorizes the department or agency to terminate the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, without penalty, if the grantee or any subgrantee, or the contractor or any subcontractor (i) engages in severe forms of trafficking in persons or has procured a commercial sex act during the period of time that the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement is in effect, or (ii) uses forced labor in the performance of the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. In 2006, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Council agreed on an interim rule implementing the above stated requirement, adding Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 22.17, “Combating Trafficking in Persons.” There are other regulations and laws on the subject but the above should suffice to demonstrate the U.S. government recognizes this is a serious issue. To their credit many, even perhaps most PMSC, do as well. For example, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers , signed last November, has, a section that says: Signatory Companies will not, and will require their Personnel not to, engage in trafficking in persons. Signatory Companies will, and will require their Personnel to, remain vigilant for all instances of trafficking in persons and, where discovered, report such instances to Competent Authorities. For the purposes of this Code, human trafficking is the recruitment, harbouring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for (1) a commercial sex act induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age; or (2) labour or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, or slavery. While the sex aspect gets people attention it is the second part, “labour or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, or slavery” which is the more common offense. Try searching online for “TCN (stands for Third Country National] trafficking AND Iraq” and you’ll see what I mean. So with that as background how well are both governmental personnel and contractors doing in policing themselves in this area? They could be doing better, according to a new report from the Department of Defense Inspector General. It found: • While three quarters of the contracts sampled contained a Combating Trafficking in Persons clause, only little more than half had the required Federal Acquisition Regulation clause. • DoD contracting offices lack an effective process for obtaining information pertaining to trafficking in persons violations within the DoD. On the plus side: • DoD and other Federal law enforcement organizations were developing procedures to identify trafficking in persons incidents in criminal investigative databases. • Several organizations demonstrated Combating Trafficking in Persons awareness and quality assurance best practices. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that all Federal solicitations and contracts contain clause 52.222-50, “Combating Trafficking in Persons,” (CTIP) or the clause with Alternate I modification for contracts with performance outside the U.S. The team reviewed 368 DoD service or construction contracts for work in the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the State of Kuwait, the State of Qatar, and the Kingdom of Bahrain awarded in FYs 2009 and 2010. The report found 53 percent of the contracts (195 of 368) contained a proper version of the mandatory FAR CTIP clause, and 26 percent of the contracts (95 of 368) contained an incorrect citation. 21 percent of the contracts (78 of 368) did not contain any form of the FAR clause. Noncompliance with the requirement to include the CTIP clause in contracts has two negative effects. First, contractors remain unaware of the U.S. Government’s “zero tolerance” policy and self-reporting requirements regarding CTIP. Second, contracting offices were potentially unable to apply applicable remedies to correct contractor violations when the CTIP clause was not properly present. The number of contracts without any form of a CTIP clause indicates that additional effort is still necessary to ensure compliance.

Read the full article →

Ernan Roman: Lessons From My Chimney Cleaner About Service and Marketing Best Practices

January 24, 2011

A few weeks ago I called a local chimney-cleaning company and set up an appointment for a cleaning. When the workmen arrived, I asked them to remove their sooty shoes when walking around the house. Despite this request, the workers left an ugly trail of black soot stains on our basement carpeting. So began a fascinating opportunity to experience how some companies are mastering the integration of marketing and customer service. My problem was turned into a marketing opportunity by the company — but only because the person I spoke with to file my complaint understood that customer service is actually a marketing opportunity. That person happened to be the owner of the company. Viewing customer service and marketing as two sides of the same coin is the first step in turning service disasters into marketing opportunities. This can only occur if marketing and customer service teams work together based on the recognition that customer retention is essential. Marketing can no longer afford to view customer service as a labor intensive “operations” function. In this era of empowered consumers with social media megaphones, the ability of dissatisfied customers to voice their opinions worldwide is astonishing and frightening. Back to my chimney-cleaning saga: The owner listened carefully to my complaint and acknowledged his company’s responsibility for the problem. He said, “On behalf of our company, I would like to apologize for what happened. I would also like to thank you for taking the time to call . We will do what it takes to clean up the mess we created.” The owner and I reviewed the details of the damage and the follow-up action, which was to have a professional carpet cleaning company come to my home within a week, at no charge. I then asked why he had thanked me for making the call. His reply was the essence of both great marketing and great customer service. He said, “I want to be able to go to your home next year and the following year and the year after that, to clean your chimney. By calling our company, you provided me with the opportunity to prove to you that, while we made a mistake, we have the professionalism and integrity to take care of our customers. I want to prove to you, that even though we have already been paid for this job, we are not just looking for the bucks. I want you as a long-term customer.” I was intrigued. What he had just said was in line with one of the most important, though often overlooked tenets of innovative marketing: One of the most important metrics for identifying the success of a marketing initiative is its capacity to generate repeat purchases. I asked about the company’s customer service team. Was I getting a good outcome simply because I had been lucky enough to speak with the owner of the company? Or was this approach really part of the organization’s service culture? My call, as it turned out, had been no accident. Customer service reps at this firm were empowered to resolve customer problems ; they worked closely with the marketing department to ensure that customer acquisition and retention were tightly integrated. This was a fairly small company, a fact that intrigues me on two fronts. First, smaller organizations (which are likely to have fewer problems with “turf and fiefdoms”), may well have the inside track when it comes to seamlessly coordinating marketing and customer service efforts. Second, those companies that do manage to integrate these departments successfully find themselves in a position to significantly improve the customer experience and increase customer lifetime value. Here are seven tips to help you improve your customer experience: 1. Do not view customer service call centers as cost centers. These are revenue centers. 2. Customers’ post-sales experiences have significant impact on repeat purchase likelihood and willingness to recommend the company . Companies must consider the financial ramifications of losing customers due to poor post-sale experiences. 3. Do not cut back on training, quality control procedures, and related investments in customer service call centers. 4. Remember that it’s seven to 10 times more expensive to acquire a new customer than to sell an existing customer. 5. Mistakes happen. Make sure that, when they do, your frontline people are empowered to take responsibility for those mistakes, and propose a solution that is fair to the customer. 6. Customers expect high-quality post-sale support. If it is lacking, they will not only be inclined to go elsewhere, but they will also be inclined to use the power of social media to let others know about their dissatisfaction. 7. The big question is not whether we can get a customer to buy from us once, but whether, after a customer service problem, we can get him or her to buy from us a second time. What kind of experience will make a customer decide not only that he or she isn’t going to demand a refund, but that a repeat purchase is in order? The owner of that chimney-cleaning company knew that I, as his customer, considered the marketing and customer service experience to be inseparable — so he made sure that he and his entire team operated under the same assumption. As a result, I am now a satisfied customer, a committed candidate for repeat business — and an evangelist for his firm. Ernan Roman is President of the marketing consultancy, Ernan Roman Direct Marketing. Recognized as the industry pioneer who created three transformational methodologies: Integrated Direct Marketing, Opt-In Marketing, and Voice of Customer Relationship Research. Cross posted at 1to1® Media .

Read the full article →

Scott Gerber: What’s The Best Way To Increase The Size Of Your Network?

January 24, 2011

Q: What is the best way to increase the size of my network? How can I get myself and my brand in front of people? –Christina Montgomery, FL The following answers are provided by the Young Entrepreneur Council , an advocacy group founded by serial entrepreneur Scott Gerber that works to take action against youth unemployment by teaching young people how to build successful companies. The council’s members include Generation Y entrepreneurs and experts in a variety of fields. A: Attend Events First, figure out what kind of network you want to build: do you want to meet other entrepreneurs? Marketing thought leaders? Fellow kayak enthusiasts? Then, go to your college alumni e-mail list or even Craigslist, and see whether there are any meet ups in your area. If there are none, think about starting your own group and posting to your college list/Craigslist. Get out there and mingle! –Eric Bahn ( @beatthegmat ), founder of beat the gmat A: Go Out There Make sure that you have business cards with your logo on them with you at all times. Wear a t-shirt with the logo on it. It’s easy and when someone glances at the shirt it opens the door for you to tell them about it. Being out and about you may find customers, future contacts, employees and who knows maybe even someone who might want to work with you. People get to see the brand face to face. –Ashley Bodi ( @businessbeware ), co-founder of Business Beware A: Tap Social Media For Personal Branding The best way to meet new cool people is through a personal introduction from someone already in your network. Ask someone you know if they know someone who you should meet. Most likely they do and would be happy to do an e-mail intro. –Elizabeth Saunders ( @RealLifeE ), founder of Real Life E A: Be A Connector Networking is hard work, not because the interactions are actually difficult, but because it must happen on top of all the other daily tasks your business requires. This makes it easy to stay holed up in your office. I am constantly amazed at how quickly and easily those extra meetings pay off, so be sure to time take for the early breakfast meeting or meet someone for coffee in the afternoon. — Anderson Schoenrock ( @ScanDigital ), co-founder of ScanDigital A: Become An Industry Expert The best way to increase the size of your network is to be active both online and offline in the same places your target audience is active. If your audience is on Twitter, you should be on Twitter. If you audience also attends local Meetups, you should attend local Meetups. The first step is to be there and listen. The second step is to engage. –Heather Huhman ( @heatherhuhman ), founder of Come Recommended A: Leave Your Comfort Zone Sometimes meeting new people is as easy as shooting them an email and inviting them to lunch. When you email a prospective lunchtime consultant, be sure to clearly identify who you are, offer concrete reasons why you are worth the person’s time, list the specific topics you would like to discuss, and throw out at least three potential dates, times and locations. –Scott Gerber ( @askgerber ), founder of Sizzle It!

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Didn’t Get the Promotion? Get Over It Or Keep Losing

January 21, 2011

Getting passed over for a promotion can be painful. It certainly was in Cindy’s case. She had been working on a project for several years and every indication was that she was doing a great job. As the project scaled the company decided they needed another layer of management. Cindy believed she would be the logical choice for this promotion. She was stunned when the job went to someone from the outside. Cindy met with her boss to find out why she wasn’t given a shot at the position. Her boss simply said it wasn’t up to him and the decision had already been made. She was extremely disappointed and this was heightened by the fact that she never got a clear answer as to what she was lacking. As months went by, she continued to seethe and her resentment played out in many ways. One example was when her original boss approached her with questions on the project, she replied, “Why don’t you ask the person you hired instead of me?” This probably confirmed in her boss’s mind that he had made the right decision. Months later, after a restructuring, Cindy was part of a company-wide layoff. This company, and many others like it, frequently offers laid-off employees the opportunity to interview for another position within the organization. Cindy was actively pursuing a job and things were going well. She made it all the way to the final round and was getting feedback along the way that she was a good fit. However, things changed in the final round when the hiring manager went to Cindy’s old boss for a reference. Her old boss said she didn’t handle frustration well. This was a concern to the hiring manager, who brought it up to Cindy. Cindy explained her plight and the hiring manager nodded in what appeared to be understanding. In addition, the hiring manager acknowledged that Cindy’s former boss was a difficult person to work for. Whew. Cindy thought she had dodged a bullet. Unfortunately, she didn’t get the job and was surprised to learn that they were continuing to interview new candidates. Since she was well qualified for this job and hadn’t lost it to someone else already in the mix, it was obvious to her that the negative feedback from her old boss ruined her chances. Frustration in the workplace is a natural part of business. How you handle it separates leaders from the rest of the pack. We can all sympathize with Cindy’s situation. Anyone would have felt slighted. What she could have done at the time to make the situation better was acknowledge to her boss that she hadn’t handled things well and that she was now ready to accept the decision and support the new person. This would have shown the level of maturity companies seek in people they are considering for promotion. In addition, she had another opportunity to diffuse the situation with the hiring manager during the interview. Instead of complaining about what had happened, she could have explained what she learned and how going forward she would better handle similar situations. Even if your boss has a reputation of being difficult to work for, their opinion of you carries weight. Stewing in frustration won’t improve your situation and can make it worse. Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Gary Shapiro: Government and Business: Driving U.S. Innovation and Jobs

January 12, 2011

It’s easy to be cynical about industry, government and innovation, but it was impossible to be pessimistic in Las Vegas last week at International CES. Innovation took center stage and wowed the world last week with more than 140,000 innovators participating in the world’s largest tech gathering. As the person heading the association producing CES, I had a front row seat to judge the state of innovation. I am exhilarated! The apps, services, content and products will boost the economy, create jobs, and make us safer, connected, entertained, educated and informed. With some 20,000 products introduced by 2,700 companies, CES innovations captured the world’s attention. Exciting announcements filled each day of the week. For me, though, Friday was the highlight. Consider my day: 8:30 a.m.: I am interviewed live on Fox to describe the world’s most exciting tech event. 9 a.m.: I moderate a panel on innovation of the CEOs from Cisco, GE and Xerox. The brilliance, energy and vision of these leaders captivated the audience. They agreed that our nation has great universities – but needs quick and sharp improvement on K-12 schooling. To keep the United States an innovation leader and jobs creator, they urged changes in tax policy, a focus on free trade, and changes that would welcome the best and brightest from around the world. 11 a.m.: I am driven out on stage in a Ford Focus Electric to introduce CEO Alan Mulally. He kisses the hood of the car and introduces Ford’s first electric vehicle – not at an auto show, but at International CES, underscoring the role of consumer electronics in automobiles today. It charges in just three hours and has some amazing features! The audience is awed! 1:30 p.m.: To a standing-room-only crowd, I introduce Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski. He describes his 2011 priority as freeing up large swathes of spectrum needed to allow wireless broadband to grow and how he recognizes that wireless video is overwhelming our airwaves. I am thrilled that he cares enough to focus on the long term and plan for our innovation future. Chairman Genachowski called 2011 International CES “the largest book launch party in history,” referring to my new book. 3:00 p.m.: I sign copies of my new book, “The Comeback: How Innovation will Restore the American Dream,” at the Barnes & Noble booth. They are selling Nooks pre-loaded with my book, and the Nook Color later receives the People’s Choice Award in the “Last Gadget Standing” competition at the show. 8 p.m.: I award all five FCC commissioners our highest award for their bipartisan work creating a national broadband plan – it is possible for appointees from both parties to work together to agree on the need and process for ensuring Americans have a choice in broadband providers! 9 p.m.: I introduce Huffington Post’s own Arianna Huffington who interviews Netflix CEO Reed Hasting on stage. She masterfully brings out his soft side and desire to make money to improve our nation’s schools. He also urges that the government keep a light but vigilant touch to keep the Internet open to everyone. What a day! We have long known that more business deals get done at International CES than at any other place on earth. And I’m pleased to report, from the front lines of the show, that innovation is alive – and the United States has business and government leaders who care about our future and can focus on results before politics! Gary Shapiro is the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents more than 2,000 technology companies and hosts the International CES. Shapiro is the author of The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream .

Read the full article →

Goldman Gives Rich Clients Just 1 Week To Decide About Investing In Facebook

January 4, 2011

: Goldman Sachs is not giving its multimillionaire clients a lot of time or information to think about investing in a $1.5 billion Facebook private offering. According to a customer who received a letter from Goldman, clients were given just until the end of this week to decide whether they want a piece of the social networking giant. The world’s largest investment bank this week agreed to invest $475 million into Facebook and initiated plans to raise as much as $1.5 billion through a special purpose investment vehicle marketed to its private wealth management customers. The private sales would value Facebook at $50 billion, Holding the keys to one of the hottest investment opportunities around, Goldman gave ultra-wealthy clients little time to decide. Customers who received the Goldman email on Sunday were required to sign a nondisclosure agreement. The private placement memorandum, which would contain detailed financial information about the company and terms of the investment, had not yet been circulated as of Tuesday afternoon, two clients told Reuters. The minimum investment is expected to be $2 million. Both the minimum investment and the investment deadline may be subject to change, the investors said. Goldman declined to comment. A follow-up letter from Goldman ,that most clients got on Monday, contained very little information about Facebook, other than metrics about visitors that compare favorably to Google, another Internet giant, that went public in 2004. Goldman’s offering of Facebook shares, through an as-yet unnamed special vehicle, is being closely watched on Wall Street because it could set the stage for other private companies that want to raise money but do not want the hassle and expense of publicly traded shares. A second Goldman customer said he was surprised that the firm still has not sent out a private placement memorandum, concluding Goldman seems to expect customers to invest on “blind faith.” The aggressive valuation attached to Facebook could give some savvy investors pause, making it difficult for them to double their money in five years. That may not matter for a household name that recently eclipsed Google as the most visited site on the Internet and is the subject of a popular 2010 movie that may contend for best-picture honors. A third Goldman client pitched on the deal said he believes Facebook has $2 billion in revenues, though the person does not know if the fast-growing company is cash flow positive or profitable. The Goldman fund values Facebook at about 25 times revenue, an extremely rich valuation. The third investor also said that Goldman is taking a 4.5 percent fee from the money invested into the fund. The placement memorandum may be distributed on Wednesday, though that does not give investors a lot of time to weigh a $2 million investment. Even then, the memorandum is not expected to have a lot of financial detail. (Reporting by Matthew Goldstein and Joe Giannone; Editing by Tim Dobbyn) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Barry Moltz: Can I Pick Your Brain?

December 23, 2010

What is the most popular question asked in the New Year? As small business owners go into planning mode, it’s “Can I pick your brain?” I love helping people and paying it forward, but this expression really isn’t very visually appealing to me. While we realize that not every business meeting needs to have a form of financial return, there are certain guidelines we need to set in order to effectively give back to the business community, but at the same time accomplish the goals we set for our own companies. Here are six rules to follow if you want to help. but not lose track of your own work: 1. Begin by asking: “Do you need help as a possible paying customer or just some friendly advice?” This sets expectations on both sides. Determine if this a future prospect or a one time free advice call? Schedule it appropriately. 2. Then ask “How specifically can I help you?”. This focuses the call so it does not ramble on for a very long time without you being able to provide the help the person needs. 3. Do it on the phone . Everyone wants to meet for a breakfast or lunch. This takes at least two hours between getting to the appointment and having the meal. We can’t afford this type of time commitment (or weight gain) on an ongoing basis. 4. Set a time that is convenient for you . I typically do these calls while I am driving or waiting at the airport. These are times where I am not looking to accomplish heavy work, but can still focus on helping the person. 5. Set a time limit and keep to it . I tell people that I have 15 minutes and announce it at the beginning of the call. If you haven’t been able to help the person in 15 minutes, then they need to seek a free resource that is available or pay you. 6. Set a limit on follow up by email . Tell them they can follow up by email, but if more than a few emails come, see advice in #5 . While there may be some people you want to invest in on an ongoing basis as their mentor, these are the rules you need to follow for everyone else. Remember, time truly is money, but you can still help others without sacrificing your goals. What rules do you have for people “picking your brain?”

Read the full article →

Bing Upgrades Search With A Hand From Facebook

December 16, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Microsoft Corp. is hoping its Bing search engine can gain more ground on Google with a little more help from Facebook and its other Internet friends. As part of an extensive upgrade announced Wednesday, Bing will feature more recommendations and other information from people’s social circles on Facebook to help distinguish its results from Google’s. Bing also is teaming up with several other Internet companies to make it easier to complete a variety of tasks, such as buying tickets to a sporting event or making reservations at a restaurant, on its site. The changes, which will start appearing during the next few weeks, are unlikely to shift the balance of power in the lucrative search market any time soon. Google Inc. ended November with a 66 percent share of the U.S. search market while Bing remained a distant third at just under 12 percent, according to the research firm comScore Inc. Bing recently started to power Yahoo’s U.S. search engine, whose 16 percent share ranks second to Google. Despite the huge gap, Microsoft has been encouraged by the progress it has made since it retooled its search engine and rebranded it as Bing in June 2009. Bing has about 90 million regular users now, up from 27 million when it made its debut, according to Satya Nadella, a senior vice president in Microsoft’s online services division. Some of the new features unveiled Wednesday provided a glimpse at how Microsoft hopes to capitalize on a competitive advantage that it gained in October when Facebook agreed to give Bing greater access to the 500 million people who have set up accounts on its social network Google Inc. still isn’t able to compile the same volume of Facebook information in its search index. Microsoft has been chummy with Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, since it paid $240 million for a 1.6 percent stake in the privately held company three years ago. Microsoft believes its Facebook relationship will become an increasingly important factor in the search market as people realize how helpful it is to see the recommendations of their friends when they’re looking for information on the Web. The breadth of those recommendations is rapidly growing as people spend more time on Facebook and become more comfortable sharing their preferences. In one upcoming change, if you are searching on Bing while signed into your Facebook account, some of the links listed in the results might include notation showing that one of your Facebook friends liked the website or a product. Bing also will draw from Facebook when processing requests about people. In some instances, the results will show whether the Bing user making the search request shares any common Facebook friends with the person being researched. Microsoft also is betting it can lure Web surfers away from Google by making Bing a one-stop shop for a range of common online activities. Toward that end, Bing has formed an alliance with a specialty search engine FanSnap to enable people to buy tickets from within the results page. It also is working with OpenTable Inc. to provide more convenient access to restaurant reservations. A variety of other revisions are being made to Bing’s image and mobile search. Google also is constantly tweaking its search engine to make it faster and smarter. In the most dramatic change this year, Google in September started to display search results that change with each keystroke in the request box. It’s also trying to get better data about airline flights , a popular search topic, with a proposed $700 million acquisition of travel technology vendor of ITA Software Inc. Microsoft is among several companies pressing the U.S. Justice Department to block the ITA deal on the grounds that it would give Google too much control over online travel bookings. Google dismisses those complaints as misguided. The Justice Department isn’t expected to complete its review of the deal until next year.

Read the full article →

Les McKeown: Is Your Business Falling Into ‘The Big Rut’?

December 7, 2010

Over-dependence on systems and processes is natural to a particular stage in any organization’s development — one which I call ‘ Treadmill .’ While we’ve all experienced the frustrating tendrils of this kind of bureaucracy, it actually becomes highly dangerous if complexity and redundancy begin to distort reality. Treadmill usually occurs after a fast-growing company has begun to introduce systems and processes to tame the creative chaos it has unleashed. Too often, leaders see the benefits those systems and processes bring, and then overdo it. Google is a good example (in its core search activity), as is Disney, whose very existence depends on staying innovative and not succumbing to creativity-sapping bureaucracy (currently, it’s losing the battle). Left unchecked, an organization in Treadmill will slide inexorably into the next stage in decline, an almost-always fatal stage I’ve labeled ‘ The Big Rut ‘. When it’s in The Big Rut, the organization is so far in the grip of systems, processes and procedures that creativity, risk-taking and real entrepreneurial zeal and passion are almost completely extinguished. The creative burst that spurred the company to success is gone: the mavericks, boundary-oversteppers and entrepreneurial types are slowly expunged (or expunge themselves) and there is no-one left in senior positions who will wave a red flag and stop the company’s inevitable decline into irrelevancy. So, how does senior management of an organization in Treadmill prevent a decline into The Big Rut? There are three keys to ensuring that a reasonable dependence on systems and processes doesn’t swell into arthritic bureaucracy: 1. Re-tool your hiring process The number one amplifier of bureaucracy for any organization in Treadmill is the hiring process. Once the organization discovers the real benefits of adhering to good systems, the tendency is to emphasize compliance and detail-orientation when hiring new people, at the expense of initiative and risk-taking. These new hires then in turn hire in their own image, and the organization is populated with systems-focused types who value form over function, efficiency over effectiveness, compliance over results. The key to staying out of The Big Rut lies in introducing the word ‘and’ into your hiring profiles: by redefining the must-haves for new hires to identify people who value compliance AND initiative, a systems mindset AND creativity, compliance AND effectiveness. Netflix is a great example of a rapidly growing organization that gets this — as can be clearly seen in the ‘must-haves’ they look for in new hires (and note — they have this slideshow embedded right into the job page on their own web site so all potential new employees are well aware of what the company is looking for). 2. Refresh your performance assessment process When an organization reaches Treadmill, the performance assessment process typically begins to focus on non-compliance and infractions — what this person didn’t do in the period under review — rather than on the successes they achieved, and how the organization can ‘bottle’ and repeat that success. To avoid sliding into The Big Rut, the performance assessment process must be re-focused to emphasize and encourage those entrepreneurial activities that keep the organization flexible and vibrant: what did this person do that was exceptional, showed initiative and was creative (even if they failed)? How can the organization learn from both their successes and their failures? How can we repeat this person’s successes in a wider context (and not just punish failure)? One impressive example of this is in Cisco ‘s leadership competency model: CLEAD (Collaborate, Learn, Execute, Accelerate, Disrupt). Out of all the leadership competencies Cisco could have included, during all the kill-me-now, do-we-have-to-discuss-this-again meetings that I’m sure they had, somebody worked hard to get ‘disrupt’ in there — and assessing key people against their ability to disrupt is exactly what’s needed to stay out of The Big Rut. 3. Provide a safe mentoring environment The third major amplifier of bureaucracy in Treadmill is the pressure to adhere to systems and processes in real time: it sucks the entrepreneurial air out of the organization, negating the opportunity for people to experiment, take risks and show initiative. A great way to counter this is to provide a mentoring program which doesn’t mirror the reporting lines in the organization, thus providing people with a safe environment in which they can try out ideas and experiment, without worrying that they might invoke a career-limiting reaction from their manager and supervisor — GE has been renowned for this for years, providing even entry-level leaders with structured cross-functional mentoring to encourage creative thinking. An additional secondary ‘win’ can be achieved by asking those mavericks, boundary-oversteppers and entrepreneurial types — who otherwise may well be looking for greener, less hidebound pastures to work in — to act as the mentors. Take a close look at your systems and processes — are they providing a safe haven for entrepreneurial risk-taking, creativity and initiative or are they choking the life out of your business? Want to know how close you are to Treadmill, or (gulp) The Big Rut? Take the Predictable Success Lifecycle Quiz .

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Miles to Go Before the PMC Industry Rests

December 7, 2010

When reading about private military contractors there are two pieces of supposed conventional wisdom to keep in mind. The first, which is especially touted by PMC advocates, is that media coverage of their sector is frequently shallow, inaccurate, incomplete, out of context or wildly sensationalistic. The second is that while there may be problems things are a lot better than they used to be and are getting better yet. Those assertions are, at least partly, true. For example, the tired old canard that private security contractors are just mercenaries in drag is scurrilous and should have been laid to rest many years ago. And yes, thanks to the efforts of legislators, non-governmental organizations, reporters, academicians, lawyers, groups like the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and the Commission on Wartime Contracting and even some executive branch officials the overall environment, from an oversight and accountability perspective, is somewhat better. But that is not the entire truth. To paraphrase Robert Frost’s famous poem, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” the PMC industry has promises to keep and miles to go before it rests. As a case in point, consider the remarks made last week by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), He is Chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC). He is retiring after 30 years in Congress. On December 2 he addressed the Senate and reviewed the 21 hearings the DPC has conducted on contracting waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. You can see a listing of past DPC hearings here . Sadly, none of the media seems to have covered Dorgan’s remarks. Here is a case where PMC advocates are right; media coverage is lacking. As far as I know I am the first to write on this. But his remarks merit careful reading as they illustrate how far the government has to go before it reaches a level of reasonably effective oversight of PMC. Note that I wrote reasonably effective, not perfect. You can find Dorgan’s remarks in the Congressional Record for December 2, 2010 (Senate)] [Page S8377-S8380]. I recommend you read the whole thing as it is not very long. Here are a few excerpts. I believe I have held 21 hearings as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee over recent years–21 separate hearings on the subject of waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of it still goes on in terms of the work with the Pentagon on this contracting issue. I have just received a letter from the inspector general at the Pentagon, who is looking into one of the issues of the last hearings– the issue of soldiers and contractors who were exposed to sodium dichromate, a chemical that was the subject of the movie “Erin Brockovich,” soldiers who were exposed and not told they were exposed to that deadly carcinogen and some of whom have already died. They were both National Guard and Regular Army soldiers. In the context of doing a lot of these hearings, I have discovered and I believe that throughout the last decade, we have seen the greatest waste and fraud and abuse in the history of this country. It has contributed immeasurably to this overspending and deficits and debt. I wanted to talk about that work we did, myself and my colleagues, over 21 separate hearings. At one of the hearings we held, we had testimony from a man who, in Iraq, was responsible for rooting out corruption in the Iraqi Government. His name was Judge al-Radhi. I have a photograph of Judge al-Radhi. He testified in this country. He testified that in his work as head of the anticorruption unit in Iraq, he found that $18 billion was missing, most of it American money, most of it coming from the American taxpayer. Just missing. Now, why was he here in the country testifying at a hearing I held? Because he got booted out of Iraq, and he got no support from the U.S. Government as he was booted out of Iraq, and he ended up in this country. But he is the person who was supposed to be rooting out and investigating and prosecuting waste and fraud and abuse. His investigations and the investigations of his staff–some of whom were assassinated, some of whose families were killed–show there was $18 billion–$18 billion–missing, and most of it was American money. Well, that is the story about Judge al-Radhi. We had a hearing early on in this process and talked about the issue of contractors and contracting. As you know, in the early part of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, money was just shoved out the back door of the Pentagon, hiring contractors, very large contracts, in most cases no-bid, sole-source contracts. A very courageous woman came to testify before our committee. Her name was Bunnatine Greenhouse . She was the highest civilian official at the Army Corps of Engineers, the highest civilian official in the Pentagon in charge of contracting. Here is what she said. She objected to the way the Pentagon was doing these contracts, massive contracts, sole-source, a massive amount of money, and she watched as the normal processes were avoided and ignored. She testified in public: I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career. This is an extraordinary woman, the highest civilian person in the Army Corps of Engineers. She was in charge of contracting. Two master’s degrees, came from a family in Louisiana. All three kids have advanced degrees. Her brother, by the way, was one of the 50 top professional basketball players in the last century, Elvin Hayes. Bunnatine Greenhouse. Remember that name. A very courageous woman, she saw abuses, spoke about it publicly, and for that she lost her career. She gave up her career. She was told: Resign or be fired. Let me talk about what she meant when she said the most unbelievable abuses she had seen in contracting. I want to do it starting small because then I am going to talk about billions of dollars. But at one of our hearings, we had a man who kind of looked like a bookkeeper at a John Deere dealership in a small town. He was kind of a good old guy with glasses, and he had been in charge of purchasing for Kellogg, Brown & Root or Halliburton over in Kuwait, purchasing the things our troops needed in Iraq. He came and testified, and he said: You know, as I was purchasing things, I was told by my employer, Halliburton: Don’t worry what the cost is, the taxpayer pays for this. This is cost-plus. So he told us a number of examples, big examples, but he brought a small one that I thought reflected the entire attitude. This is a towel. I ask unanimous consent to show the towel on the floor of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. This is a towel. Halliburton was to purchase towels for the troops, hand towels. You know, they were purchasing hand towels to be awarded to the troops. So he ordered some white hand towels for the troops, and his boss said: Well, you can’t order those white hand towels. You have to order the hand towels that have the logo of our company, “Kellogg, Brown & Root,” on the hand towel. Mr. Bunting said: Yes, but that would quadruple the cost. His boss said: That doesn’t matter. This is a cost-plus contract. Order the towels. Put our company name on them. I mean, this is such a small but important symbol of the behavior that went on for most of the decade that fleeced the American taxpayers. … We heard from witnesses about the Parsons Corporation, which got a $243 million contract to build or repair 150 health clinics in Iraq. Two years later, the money was all gone, and there weren’t 150 health clinics, there were 20. I had a doctor, a very brave, courageous physician, come to this country to testify to what he saw of the ones that were completed. Unbelievable. So what happened to the money? The American taxpayers lost the money. Did this improve the health of the Iraqis? The physician who came to testify said he went to the Minister of Health in Iraq and said to the Minister of Health: Where are those clinics, because I am told the Americans have spent $243 million to build health clinics. Where are the clinics? The Iraqi Health Minister said: Well, most of them are imaginary clinics. Yes, but the money was not imaginary. The American taxpayers’ money is gone. We had several hearings on the issue of Kellogg, Brown & Root. And I mention them because they got the biggest contract, sole-source contract. That is why they are the ones that are mentioned the most. They were providing water treatment to the military facilities in Iraq. So our solders are in military camps in Iraq, and KBR gets the water treatment contract. It turns out that the nonpotable water they were providing to soldiers in the camps that we had a hearing on was more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River. We actually had, from a whistleblower, the internal memorandum from Kellogg, Brown & Root, by the guy who was in charge of the water contract in Iraq, and in his memorandum, he said this was a near miss. It could have caused mass sickness or death. But publicly, they said it didn’t happen. The Defense Department said it did not happen. But it did happen, and I asked the inspector general to investigate it. He did. He did a report and said that both the Defense Department and Kellogg, Brown & Root were wrong. It did happen, in fact. That kind of contaminated water was being served to the troops because the contract was a contract that was not provided for appropriately by the company. The company was taking the money and not doing what it was supposed to do with the water. By the way, in the middle of these hearings, while the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, as well as Kellogg, Brown & Root were denying it all, I got an e-mail here in the Senate from an Army doctor, a captain, and she wrote to me and said: I am a physician in the camp. I had my lieutenant follow the water line to find out what was happening because I had patients here who showed that they were suffering diseases and suffering problems as a result of contaminated water. So that came from the physician who was in Iraq on the ground. So despite all of the denials, the inspector general finally issued a report saying: No, no, the Defense Department was wrong, as was Kellogg, Brown & Root. A contract to provide water to these soldiers across Iraq at the Army camps was not being appropriately handled, and very contaminated water was going to those camps. The list is almost endless. I know there is a photograph I have shown on the floor previously because it is another contract to provide electrical capabilities to the Army camps. When you put up an Army camp, you have the need to provide electricity. And I held two hearings on this subject. This is a photograph of SGT Ryan Maseth–quite a remarkable young man, a Green Beret from Pennsylvania. He is shown there with his mother, who is a very courageous woman as well. He was killed in Iraq, but Sergeant Maseth wasn’t killed by a bullet from an enemy gun; Sergeant Maseth was killed taking a shower. He was electrocuted in a shower. And it wasn’t just Sergeant Maseth; others lost their lives as well–electrocuted in a shower, power-washing a Jeep. The fact is, what we discovered when we held the hearings was that the work that was done to provide electricity and to wire these camps was done in some cases by people who didn’t have the foggiest idea what they were doing. Third-country nationals who couldn’t speak English and didn’t know the first thing about electricity were working on these issues. The Army originally told Mrs. Maseth that her son died, they thought, because he took an electrical appliance into the shower. No, he didn’t. He was killed because shoddy electrical work was done that ended up killing this soldier. Now, Kellogg, Brown & Root denied that, as did the Defense Department. The inspector general did the report and said: Oh, yeah. Yeah, that sure did happen. In fact, let me show you what the inspector general has said. This is from Jim Childs, master electrician hired by the Army Corps of Engineers, to inspect this electrical work for which the American taxpayer paid a bundle. Jim Childs, master electrician, went in after I held the hearings. He said: [T]he electrical work performed by KBR in Iraq was some of the most hazardous, worst quality work I have ever inspected. Let me show what Kellogg, Brown & Root said: The assertion that KBR has a track record of shoddy electrical work is simply unfounded. The inspector general did the inspection. We had to redo much of the work in Iraq and Afghanistan, inspect it all and redo much of it. In the meantime, people died. We have demonstrated that there is evidence of shoddy work in a range of areas. Yet the contractors continue to be given additional contracts. For the shoddy electrical work for which some soldiers gave their lives, this contractor was not only given the money from the contract but bonus awards for excellent work. I have tried very hard to get the Pentagon to take back those bonuses, unsuccessfully. But the reason I am going through this is to point out that we have for a decade now been shoveling money out the door at a time when we are deep in debt, spending a great deal of money on the defense of this country, on the Defense Department, on the war effort, and so on. A substantial portion of that which goes out the back of the Pentagon in the form of contracts has represented the most egregious waste in the history of the country. … I started by talking about the issue of sodium dichromate. We think about 1,000 soldiers were at risk at a place in Iraq that is called Qarmat Ali. Some have died. Those soldiers who were at Qarmat Ali told of seeing something like sand blowing all over the place. It was red, however. That was the sodium diechromate, a deadly carcinogen. It is the subject over which a movie was made called “Erin Brockovich.” We have tried for a long time to get the Pentagon to be as active and involved as they should be with respect to the health and safety of those 1,000 soldiers who were potentially exposed. Like most of these issues, they have been very slow to respond. My point is twofold. One is about supporting America’s fighting men and women, doing what is right for them. There have been a number of people in the Pentagon–one of whom testified before the Armed Services Committee in the Senate and who I strongly believe knew he was not telling the truth. He was a general, as a matter of fact. There have been a number who have denied virtually all of these circumstances. Yet inspectors general have investigated and said they are wrong. Obviously, the contractor denies these things. The contractors have gotten wealthy doing this. We have had whistleblowers come in. A woman came in and told us she was working at a recreational facility in the war theater, and that is at the base. There is a facility where you can play pool and ping-pong and do various things. It was a facility with many different rooms. She worked for Kellogg, Brown & Root and she was to keep track of how many people came in because they got paid based on how many people came in. She said: What they told me to do was to keep track of how many people came in to each room, and that is what we billed the government for. If somebody came in and went through three rooms, the government was billed for three visits. I went to the people in charge and said: This is fraud. We can’t do this. We are defrauding the government. They immediately put me in detention in a room under guard and sent me out of the country the next day. It is the story of virtually all the hearings we have held. … This has been an abysmal record. In this decade, the amount of money spent on contractors–in many cases with no-bid, sole-source contracts that were negotiated under the most abusive conditions and in violation, in many cases, of rules, according to the highest civilian official in charge of contracting–has been a disgrace. This country needs to do much better. The work I and a number of my colleagues did holding these hearings has in many ways held up a spotlight and tried to shine it on the same spot. We have cajoled, embarrassed, and pushed, and I think we have made some progress. But so much more needs to be done and can be done.

Read the full article →

4 Million Set To Lose Unemployment Benefits — Even If Congress Passes Extension

December 3, 2010

Even as Congress debates whether to extend emergency unemployment checks for more than 6 million Americans who are approaching the 99-week-limit, some four million others are facing the certain end of their benefits over the next year, unless an entirely new program is crafted. This is the sobering conclusion of a report released by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers on Thursday. The study forecast that the exhaustion of unemployment benefits for so many will curb spending power enough to significantly impede an already weak economic recovery. The typical household now receiving emergency unemployment benefits would see their income fall by a third should they lose their checks, according to the report. Among the roughly 40 percent of households in which the person receiving a check is the sole breadwinner, income would fall by 90 percent. The existing emergency unemployment program, which extends benefits for nearly two years, expired on Wednesday. Without an agreement to extend the program, the economy will lose about 600,000 jobs, as the spending enabled by continued unemployment checks ceases. National economic output–which expanded at an annual pace of 2.5 percent during the summer months–would fall off by 0.6 percent. That disturbing prospect does not even account for the roughly four million people who would exceed even the extended limits in the emergency program. Were that many jobless people left to fend themselves without unemployment checks, that would pose significant risks for the broader economy, say economists. They cite the fact that consumer spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of all economic activity. “If you’re looking for economic recovery supported by consumers, it’s discouraging,” said Henry J. Aaron, an economist at the Brookings Institution, a research institution in Washington. “It’s drag on the economy.” Many economists argue that paying unemployment benefits is among the most effective ways the government can spur the economy: Jobless people tend to spend nearly all of their unemployment checks, distributing those dollars throughout the economy. “There’s very few things we can spend money on that probably have such an immediate impact on household consumption as unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed,” said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and now a fellow at Broookings. But even as the White House pushes Congress to reauthorize the existing emergency program, little discussion centers on what to do to prevent another four million jobless people from losing public assistance. If any active proposal exists to support this group, it remains well hidden. “That’s not where the war is being fought right now,” said Aaron. “Given the current configuration of political forces, nobody is proposing to do anything about it.” A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the White House is now focused on trying to persuade Congress to reauthorize the existing emergency unemployment program, which would protect 6.7 million unemployed workers from losing their checks over the next year. (See the below chart from the CEA’s report.) Given that even this goal is now uncertain, seeking yet another program for the four million jobless people at risk of exhausting emergency assistance seems futile, the official said. “The President will continue to work to ensure that Americans fighting to find a job can keep food on the table and make ends meet,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in an e-mailed statement. The diminishing support for the growing ranks of the long-term unemployed seems certain to add to demands on an already strained social safety net. Research shows that the longer a worker has been without a job the harder it is to find a new one, raising the likelihood that many of those losing their checks at the end of their 99-week term will have great difficulty securing a paycheck. Yet even those who lose their unemployment checks will not necessarily qualify for other forms of aid, like food stamps, said Burtless. “Only a pretty small fraction of the people who exhaust benefits are going to qualify,” Burtless said. Many of these workers have long been employed and have accumulated savings and assets such as houses, which makes them ineligible for support, he said. More than 6.3 million workers were out of a job for at least 27 weeks in November, comprising nearly 42 percent of all unemployed Americans, according to Labor Department data released Friday. The Federal Reserve forecasts that the unemployment rate will still be as high as 9 percent this time next year, and about 8 percent at the end of 2012, according to minutes from the central bank’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting last month. “What we’re seeing right now is the Christmas present from Scrooge,” said Aaron, the Brookings economist. “Merry Christmas, we’re cutting off your benefits.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

PHOTOS: Banker Lands Interviews With Overzealous PowerPoint Presentation

December 2, 2010

Writing cover letters in PowerPoint apparently works wonders. An applicant for an analyst job at Citigroup scored an interview after submitting an 11-page Powerpoint presentation entitled “I’m Always Awake With Citi: 9 Reasons Why You SHOULD Hire Me As Your Investment Banking Analyst,” Dealbreaker reports. Bank of America and “several” other firms have reportedly also offered interviews. As Business Insider points out, the application demonstrates this person’s facility with the skills needed on the job — making PowerPoint presentations. That, combined with slide headings such as “SMART” and “MULTI TASK,” appears to be a winning strategy. The presentation isn’t without its flaws. “I’m good at finding mistakes in articles, spreadsheets, and programming codes,” it reads, amid sentences such as, “I am very excited about the fast-paced, people-oriented environment in Investment Banking where new things come up every day really obsesses me.” But these inconsistencies appear not to have mattered. Read the full presentation below:

Read the full article →

Anthony Tjan: Dear Entrepreneur, Avoid First-Impression Mistakes

November 29, 2010

Poor first impressions are avoidable. I’m amazed by some of the really unfortunate mistakes that people make during important first meetings, whether it’s a job interview, an important pitch, or other high stakes first-time business encounters. The secret to avoiding these mistakes is to spend time preparing before the meeting. In today’s hyper-connected world, there’s no excuse for not learning as much as possible about whom you are meeting and their company. It’s the basic mental training you need to do before “game day.” And yet people don’t do it enough. If people prepped as much for an important business meeting as they did for a first date, there would be a lot more business success stories. Last week, I was conducting interviews for a position in our firm. I asked a candidate which of our portfolio companies he liked the best, and he could not remember the name of a single company. Another candidate came in and thought we were an advertising company (we are a venture capital firm). And it’s not just job seekers. Many entrepreneurs come to pitch ideas without studying in greater detail the backgrounds of the partners with whom they were meeting. It was easy to tell that, at most, they took a quick scan of our website prior, but didn’t spend enough time there, or didn’t focus on the right parts. Here are some common sense things to do before any meeting: Start with the company website and Google the person you are meeting. On the company website, I look up the person’s bio but I also Google the person to get other bios or profiles on the person. With the person’s bio in hand, you should lock in your mind the following facts: where they grew up, where they last worked, and where they went to school. As stupid as it sounds, make sure it is the bio of the person you are meeting; there are a lot of Chris Smith’s out there and sometimes they even work within the same company! Find an online image of the person. It is always more comfortable (not to mention easier to spot the person) when you know what he or she looks like before the meeting. I cannot tell you the psychology behind this, but I believe that the more unknowns you eliminate before a meeting, the less anxiety you’ll have in the actual meeting. When I have seen the person’s face, I go into a meeting feeling like I have met the person before and am more at ease. This is also helpful to do for phone calls. I remember once preparing for a call with a well known CEO of a Fortune 100 company, seeing his friendly face online ahead of time relaxed me. Get the latest news or analysis on the company. For a public company, I’ll get the latest analyst report and look up the recent stock trading price and trends. It’s funny how people seem to be happier when their stock is on the rise. For private companies, I look to see if bloggers or sites such as TechCrunch have mentioned them. Finally, I do a quick scan of their profile on compete.com (or alexa.com) to get a snapshot of their traffic trend. If you are short on time, just make sure you can fill in the following blanks: “The company I am seeing does/makes _________ and it is different because _________.” Find out who is connected to the person or firm you are meeting and talk to them . Someone once said to me that, in the VC world, the best way to get a good first meeting is to be introduced to the firm. With Facebook, LinkedIn, and online school and work alumni databases, you have a pretty good shot at speaking to someone to get color on just about anyone or any company. Find someone familiar with that person or company, and ask him or her to share as much background as possible. Go in knowing your top objectives for the meeting and the top one to two questions you would like answered. I loved it when a serial entrepreneur with whom I had a meeting said right off the bat, “What do you hope to accomplish with this meeting?” I welcomed the directness. With your top objectives and top questions in mind, also understand the expected time frame of the meeting. Know this information but don’t show off. One of the dangers of doing even a little background research is that you can come across as obsequious, i.e. a suck up. One of my partners has a great line — act stupid, win smart. Be armed with the data so that you can answer or direct the conversation appropriately; your goal is not to demonstrate what you know of the person or company but what you had in mind when you first set up the meeting. This article first appeared on Harvard Business Publishing on November 23, 2010.

Read the full article →

Edward Muzio: Your Reorganization: Better Left Undone?

November 19, 2010

Reorganization is the drug of choice in many workplaces, and it isn’t hard to see why. Take an organization of people, put someone in a leadership position, and introduce a confusing, far-reaching, ill-defined problem. The leader, feeling the need to live up to his or her title, quickly realizes that the problem is bigger than any one person. If the problem arose in the current state of things, a new future state is needed to solve it. After all, it was Albert Einstein who said that “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” How can you argue with Einstein? And so, the pressure to involve the group, to improve the system, and just to do something leader-like combine, naturally drawing the well-meaning leader to take action on the system. Let’s look to the organizational chart! We will see how things look, and where we can make improvements. To make the lure of the drug even stronger, a line of impressively-credentialed internal and external consultants is standing by to help. Any of them is happy to offer expert insight into possible changes. Whether or not their help is used, their existence lends credibility to the strategy. Credible it is! It’s logical, it feels natural, and it’s much more comfortable than sitting around doing nothing. But there is a terrible, fatal flaw with “the reorg” hiding in plain sight: The org chart has nothing to do with reality. Making changes to a human system based upon an org chart is like planning a drive through Los Angeles by consulting a map of Paris, drawn on a cocktail napkin, by a fifth grader. Consider its history. The org chart is a leftover from long before today’s information age. The first one is believed to have been drawn in the mid 1850s by a railroad superintendent named Daniel McCallum to optimize track construction over long distances. Back then, the organization was top-down and hierarchical. Each worker was a point in the process, and higher-level individuals had broader views of the systems than their subordinates within them. Today’s information age workplace is completely different; Therein lies the problem. Consider the following picture: an org chart on the left, today’s reality on the right. Both images display an overall manager with three supervisors, managing three subordinates each. But the “org chart” completely misses all of the other communication links within the organization and outside of it, which together comprise the majority of information movement. There’s a parallel here. Those of sufficient age may recall the popularity of the “telephone tree,” a prior generation’s tool for information transfer to parents of schoolchildren. Each parent was assigned a position in the tree. When a piece of information — such as a snow-day cancellation — needed to be quickly disseminated to everyone, you would receive a call from your “superior” in the tree, and then you would call your “subordinates” with the update. Each person would make only a few calls, and the information would cascade quickly down the hierarchy. If this doesn’t sound familiar to you, it’s because some years ago e-mail killed the telephone tree. With e-mail, any group member can disseminate information instantly, to some or all of the others, with the click of a button. One parent schedules a pizza party for everyone; another asks half the group for help with fundraising; Four individuals living in the same neighborhood collaborate to arrange a carpool. This new method of communication was adopted rapidly, because it was easier. It rendered the phone-tree obsolete. Perhaps a few schools keep the phone-tree around today. But if you were to attempt to understand a group of parents by studying the phone tree, you would be missing most of the story. That is precisely what an org-chart-based reorganization does. Reorganizers study an obsolete, inaccurate, non-representative, infrequently-used map of a system, and then implement a set of changes to that system based upon the conclusions drawn from the faulty map. In other words, they review the left half of the figure above, and use it to make changes to the right half. Then, in what is perhaps the most insidious step of all, they redraw the inaccurate map — the new org chart — based upon the expected results of the changes, rather than upon the reality of the new situation. To really understand this, consider a situation in which two individuals are removed from the organization. As you can see below, the org chart fails completely in its purpose of adequately representing the real impact to the crystalline network of this change. And yet, the “new org chart” in this scenario will be drawn exactly as it is shown on the left, with the removal of two “boxes.” It will be used going forward as the basis for understanding the system, regardless of what happens in real life. What happens in real life is decidedly different! Person two and person four, for example, are both members of Person one’s staff. Previously, they had little direct contact, and no direct link. But somehow, Person 10 had become a de facto interface between the heads of two departments. When Person 10 departs, this link will be one of more than fifteen broken links in the figure. The looming chaos is completely hidden by the false sense of order implied by the org chart. Most of us have who have been a part of an organizational change have experienced this phenomenon. A seemingly insignificant person retires, for example, and the resultant confusion takes months to sort itself out. Conversely, a manager with an important title changes jobs, and nobody seems to notice. The lesson is clear: No matter how long and hard the org chart is studied, changes to it produce shock waves and impacts that differ wildly from predictions. This is not at all surprising when you realize that the predictions were based upon a faulty map. And yet, for some reason, we keep repeating the same behavior. Sure, an org chart may be useful for defining reporting relationships, assigning responsibility for the completion of annual performance reviews, and for articulating the path of flow for top-down informational bulletins that require live delivery from management. But the next time you’re planning on making wholesale, system wide changes based upon your org chart, I strongly suggest that you stop, think again, and find a different solution to your problem. LA is a big city, and that fifth grader’s map of Paris isn’t going to keep you from getting lost.

Read the full article →

Donald Trump: ‘I Like’ Sarah Palin, ‘But I’d Take Her On’ In 2012

November 18, 2010

Real estate mogul Donald Trump says he’s thinking about running for president, saying “everybody’s ripping off the United States.” Trump tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulus in an interview he doesn’t actually want to run, but that he’s worried about the country’s future and thinks he could be the person to stand up to America’s rivals. He singled out China for criticism in the interview, accusing Beijing of manipulating its currency to gain unfair advantage of the United States in global trade competition. He has shown interest in the past in running for president, in both 1988 and 2000. But in the interview, Trump said, “I am thinking about things.” He said he expects to decide by June and said he’d likely run as a Republican if he enters the race. Last month, Trump communicated a similar message on the possibility he’d jump into the 2012 presidential mix. “I’m totally being serious because I can’t stand what’s happening to the country,” he explained during an appearance on Fox News. “I am being serious about it. I’ve been asked for years to do it. And I had no interest. This is the first time I am — at least I’m considering it.” On Thursday’s edition of GMA, Trump said “it could be fun” to mount a run for the White House because he’d “like to see some positive things happen for the country.” He also spoke out on the possibility of facing off against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin , who signaled this week she’s seriously considering running for president in the next election cycle. “She’s very interesting,” explained Trump. “And don’t underestimate her. I mean, I see what she does. Do not underestimate Sarah Palin.” He added, “I would take her on. I like her, but I’d take her on.” WATCH:

Read the full article →

GM’s IPO Just Got More Expensive

November 16, 2010

DETROIT — A confident General Motors has added 20 million shares of preferred stock to its initial public offering, and it raised the estimated price range for common shares by about 14 percent to $32 to $33. The Detroit automaker, just 16 months out of bankruptcy protection, will now sell 80 million shares of preferred stock for $50 each when its offering takes place on Thursday. Common shares will be sold by the U.S. government and two other owners, who inherited the stock for helping GM get through a painful restructuring last year. GM announced the changes in a statement issued Tuesday morning. The automaker gave no reason for the increases, but people briefed on the sale say it’s because of high investor demand. One person said bankers handling the sale had seven times more orders for the common stock than shares. Earlier this month, GM said its owners will sell 365 million common shares for $26 to $29 each. GM also planned to sell 60 million preferred shares for $50 each. The increase in preferred shares lifts the amount GM will raise in the sale from $3 billion to $4 billion, according to the statement. Final pricing is to be set Wednesday, and bankers may stop taking orders for the shares as early as Tuesday afternoon, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the sale. GM and its owners could sell even more preferred and common shares in the offering. Bankers have yet to exercise an option to sell 15 percent more of the shares due to high demand. The preferred stock price will stay at $50, but GM’s total cost for those shares will remain about the same because it’s reducing the expected dividend rate from a range of 5.5 to 6 percent to between 4.75 and 5.25 percent, the person said. The preferred shares will be converted to common stock in 2013. Bankers have the option to sell roughly 55 million more common shares, although they have not yet decided to do that, the person said. The common stock price increase is a boon for the U.S. government, which is GM’s largest stockholder. The government is trying to get back the $50 billion it gave the company last year to get through bankruptcy protection. Other owners selling stock are the Canadian and Ontario governments and a union health care trust fund. Demand for the automaker’s shares is rising as its financial outlook improves. Last week, GM announced a third-quarter profit of $2 billion, bringing its earnings to a healthy $4.2 billion for the year. In presentations to investors, GM said its debt and labor costs have been cut so much that it can break even at the low point in an auto sales slump. When sales fully recover, the company said it could make $17 billion to $19 billion per year before taxes. The price hike comes during a week that could be the biggest for IPOs since 2007, according to investment adviser Renaissance Capital LLC. The IPO market has improved steadily since August 2009. The sector had been almost frozen for nearly a year after massive losses on mortgage bonds upended global credit markets.

Read the full article →

Michele Colucci: Confessions of a Female Entrepreneur

November 4, 2010

Fund-raising is an awkward and often uncomfortable effort for those raising funds. But when the person asking is a women entrepreneur, the dance takes on many more nuances. First, a woman — asking for money from the usual funding decision maker — a man — can bring out the age old male/female dynamic and take the focus off track. Another hurdle can come from a woman’s own feeling of vulnerability when asking for assistance (something we prefer to give, instead of take). Still, a third challenge is trying to convince the funder that you (a woman) are every bit as capable of leading and scaling a business as your male counterpart. I don’t care what people say about this — the perception that a man as a leader will take the business more seriously is always there. (Perception can take a long time to catch up to reality!) So, the “ask” is now a “dance” with layers of complexity and nuance. Navigating this minefield can be tricky, but if you follow a few tips I’m paying forward from very credible sources, it will go a long way to making you far more effective in fund-raising. Skill #1: Practice The Ask This advice came from a doctor friend in New York who runs a very successful medical publishing company ( Castle Connolly Medical Publishing ) His advice: Look in the mirror. Practice your pitch. Then practice asking for money. “Would you like to invest?” (pregnant pause) Then don’t say another word until you get an answer. I would wager that 9 times out of 10, people talk their investors out of investing by what they say after they ask. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, don’t say another word until the person responds to your ask. It’s painful! And the interesting part of this is that people to whom you are pitching really want to tell you their thoughts. They want to tell you if they can or will invest. Cut to the chase! You’ve done your part — now let them do theirs.

Read the full article →

Video: Carlyle’s BankUnited Said to Target New York Banks: Video

October 25, 2010

Oct. 25 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Cristina Alesci talks with Lisa Murphy about plans by BankUnited, the Florida lender owned by investors including Blackstone Group LP, Carlyle Group and WL Ross & Co., to use proceeds from an initial public offering to take over New York-based banks. According to a person with direct knowledge of the bank’s plans, BankUnited is aiming to raise more than $500 million in its planned IPO. In addition to raising funds for acquisitions, the bank’s private-equity backers will sell some of their stakes, the person said. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Mastin Kipp: ‘The Social Network’: 13 Lessons Entrepreneurs Can Take Away

October 15, 2010

I’ve seen “The Social Network” twice and plan on seeing it again at least two more times. I am taken by this movie. It took me about a week to understand consciously why. There is so much jammed into this film that it’s hard to take it all in in one sitting. Ever since I walked out of the movie on opening night, I have been more inspired than ever to continue my entrepreneurial path in technology, media and textiles. As an entrepreneur watching this film, here are the lessons I see from watching “The Social Network”: 1. Sometimes there are more important things in life than school. As a college dropout myself (I dropped out during my junior year at USC), there has always been a little voice telling me I did the wrong thing. I’m not bashing education; I’m just saying that the system as is isn’t for everyone. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg both left college to pursue their dreams and went on to establish Microsoft and Facebook, respectively. Here are some other surprising billionaire college dropouts: Steve Jobs (Apple), Paul Allen (Microsoft), Ralph Lauren (designer), Michael Dell (Dell Computers), Kirk Kerkorian (Vegas entrepreneur), Barry Diller (IAC) and many more. People like Richard Branson (Virgin), Walt Disney, Milton Hershey (Hershey Chocolate), Coco Chanel and Henry Ford didn’t even go to college. The lesson here is that being pulled by the inspiration of a big idea within you is more important than doing what the “system” tells you to do. My advice is to follow your dreams, and as you go along, surround yourself with the smartest and most talented people you can find. I personally chose my education to be the act of having a business instead of learning about it in school and then having no real-life experience at graduation. I wanted a head start at the experience of having a business instead of just knowledge about business. Obviously this isn’t true for all professions. If you want to be a doctor, for example, school is a must, but for budding entrepreneurs with big ideas, school can be a dead-end choice. Dropping out of school is a big risk. You have to to have a major belief in yourself and the determination and persistence of a warrior. It’s not an easy path, but for people like me, it’s the only path. You can always go back to college later in life after having gained so much from your life experience in the real world. 2. It’s not about who has an idea but who can execute it. There’s a phrase that says, “There are no original ideas.” Also, a lot of mystics, saints and sages believe that all human beings are tapped into the “Universal Mind” and that we all have access to the same ideas and inspiration. It’s all about who is listening and who has the chops to pull it off. Aaron Sorkin, the writer of “The Social Network,” has said that no one knows the exact truth of what happened between Zuckerberg, the Winklevai and Saverin. But the truth is in the outcome. Facebook happened because Mark Zuckerberg had the chops, the confidence, the vision and the discipline to make it happen. So if you have a big idea, you should know that you probably aren’t the only one. Your job is to get busy making it happen. Look how fast Zuckerberg created and put Facebook online. It wasn’t years of slaving away; it was weeks of hard work to create the first version — the most important weeks of his life. 3. Change can happen fast. The phase “from idea to execution” doesn’t have to be forever. Zuckerberg is living proof that with enough vision, talent and hard work, you can change your life in the blink of an eye. If you have an idea, don’t wait on it. Throw yourself into it. Ideas, once executed, have a way of pulling you up out of your current circumstances and elevating you to a whole new level of living that you were never aware of before. Enough lollygagging; start now. Half of me understands why Eduardo Saverin’s stake in the company was reduced when others’ weren’t. The other half feels that Mark betrayed him as depicted in the film. That being said, the guy did move to New York and stay in school as Facebook was blowing up. Mark took action. He moved to Silicon Valley, dropped out and dove into his passion. If I were Mark, I’d feel like my partner had abandoned me and that although he had contributed to the beginnings, he wasn’t showing up when I needed him most. The lesson here is that in any relationship, business or personal, if you want it to blossom, show up. Your time, presence and attention are valuable commodities. 5. Figure out how to be of service. Facebook’s popularity and quick rise has nothing to do with Mark Zuckerberg’s programming chops. He could have easily programmed a million different sites. But the site he chose to program provided so much value to the users that the product sold itself through the strongest way possible: word of mouth. Facebook unites us. Facebook allows us to express ourselves. It helps us keep in touch with the world and our loved ones. Sometimes, Facebook even helps us get laid. That’s being of service. If you want to rise in your business endeavor, figure out how your product can solve problems and be of service. This is the key to your success. Everything else is just details. 6. Content and community first, revenue second. I am totally inspired by Zuckerberg’s decision to not go for ads in the beginning. One of the best lessons in the movie is that if you have something cool, don’t sell out too quickly. Yes, we are all entrepreneurs and we want to make a buck, but Sean Parker’s analogy of having all the little fish versus the big fish is correct. Keep the bigger vision and shoot for the big fish. Keep your product cool. Put out the best content, build a large community of trusted consumers and users. If you focus on that, the numbers will organically grow. And then, as my partner Malcolm CasSelle says, “where traffic grows, revenues will follow.” Put content and community first. Revenue will come. 7. Visualize success as your final result. One of the great things about “The Social Network” is that from the beginning, you know that success is on the other end of Zuckerberg’s efforts. That gives a wonderful perspective for the viewer, because we know that no matter what struggles he went through, the end result was success. This is a great view to take on your life. No matter what struggles you have in your life, see it all working out and that success will be your end result. It might work on idea one or idea 10,000, but the important thing is to keep success in mind and know that is how your story will end if you choose it to be. 8. When you have a great product, money finds you. When you’ve created a great product that gives great value and is of service to your consumers, they will tell their friends. If you keep delivering the same high level of value and also constantly improve the value you are giving, money will find you. Money will find you from your consumers as well as your investors. Investors want to invest in companies with momentum and a story. Because of the Internet and relatively low costs and barriers to enter into many businesses these days, investors want more than an idea. Consumers can’t buy an idea; they can only buy hard goods and services. Focus on making the product as amazing as possible and it will begin to sell itself. Let money chase you; don’t chase the money. 9. Sex is fun but can hold you back. In ” Think and Grow Rich ,” one of Napoleon Hill’s main reasons why men are successful later in life is because they spend their early years chasing tail. Your creative energy can be used up with too much sex and dating. Entrepreneurs should cherish their creative energy the same way they would cherish an angel investment. Focus on your business and love will follow. 10. Not getting what you want can be a blessing. Along the same lines as number nine above, sometimes we are meant for greater things. Imagine what would have happened that fateful night if Mark Zuckerberg had gotten the girl. It’s quite possible that Facebook wouldn’t exist. Many times, creativity is born in the anger of rejection. See the events of your life as playing out perfectly, and if you aren’t getting what you want, try to detach and see the bigger picture. From now on, see not getting what you want as a gift from the universe that leaves room for something much greater to enter. And don’t sit around and mope; get creative! Make something happen. Use that “poor me” energy and dive into your creative mind. Who knows, that one person rejecting you could be the start to your own multi-billion-dollar, world-revolutionizing venture. 11. Focus, young Jedi. I love how after getting an inspiration for Facebook, Zuckerberg totally dove into the creation of it. He was so focused and dedicated that he changed his life forever in less than a month. How many of us can say that? If you have a great idea that lights you up, don’t fear what will happen if you focus all your energy on that. What we think about expands; what we focus upon expands — focus on your idea! Give yourself over to it and let the journey of following your idea take you into a wonderful and brand new land. You can be sure that on the other side you will be a stronger and wiser person. Don’t take your ideas lightly. Cultivate a burning desire to make it happen, yesterday. Time waits for no one. Get busy getting busy. The universe respects focused and bold action. You’ll be surprised how much progress you can make when you focus on one thing at a time. 12. Not everyone is going to be happy with you. You are going to ruffle some feathers if you want to fly. Since no one knows what really went down, it’s hard to draw a real conclusion about the morals of everyone involved. But the fact remains that to be successful, you need to develop an energy shield that reflects the negativity that you will certainly encounter as you rise. When you stand up and begin to shine, you become a target. Shine on anyways. Who gives a damn about the negative opinion of others. Get used to critics and haters. Sometimes they have really good things to say and can help you grow. Remember that your haters are still watching you and are most likely your number-one fan. I heard a statistic that over 50 percent of Howard Stern’s audience back in the day hated him but tuned in to hear what he would say next. They might hate him, but who’s laughing all the way to the bank? 13. Don’t screw over your friends. Money changes people. Don’t be that person. Make your friendships way more important than money. Money comes and goes but friendships are priceless. You don’t want to be the person who is sitting on top of the money pile all alone. Put the top value on building strong relationships and less value on money. Amazing people and love are priceless. Don’t take these very precious resources for granted. They make life worth living.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: A Hundred Billion Dollars Up in Smoke

October 7, 2010

It is a pity that last week’s Senate Armed Services committee hearing on ” Department of Defense Efficiencies Initiatives ” did not get more coverage, as there were some startling assertions made. Consider what Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said. McCaskill, by the way, is more qualified than most members of Congress to talk on the subject of contracting. During her years as a prosecutor she conducted performance audits on state programs. She was named as one of the select senators to sit on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, formerly known as the Truman Committee. In fact, she was a co-sponsor of a major bill that established a modern day Truman Committee called the Wartime Contracting Commission, charged with investigating wasteful, fraudulent and abusive contracts in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to working to establish a committee to examine wartime contracting, in 2009 she was named chairman of a new subcommittee that investigates contracting abuses throughout the federal government. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight strives to root out government waste by focusing on contracts and the means by which the federal government provides accountability to those contracts. So when she says the following we should pay attention: Let me move on to another subject: contracting. You know, wartime contracting has been stovepiped, mostly because it can be. And I–and the lack of competition is, frankly, a huge part of the problem. And we’re not talking about, now–I certainly agreed with Senator McCain, that some of the problem is a lack of competition among Defense contractors for the big stuff. But, there really isn’t an excuse for a lot of the services’ contracts. We’re not talking about a lot of capitalization costs, for a lot of these service contracts. But, once again, what you see is a lack of competition, without a good excuse as to why there’s a lack of competition. And that, Secretary Carter, is where I think there is real, real money. And, I just urge you to bring to us, in this effort, how, not only you’re looking at contracting in a macro sense, but how you are drilling down on contracting in wartime as it relates, especially, to logistics and troop support. I–I’m a conservative person when it comes to estimating numbers, because of my auditing background. I think it’s very conservative to say that we’ve had $100 billion go up in smoke in Iraq, from bad contracting, that it’s not as if there weren’t competing people who could have been brought in; it just was easier not to. And so, I urge you to keep us posted on how you’re integrating that kind of contracting into the contracting reforms. Now, even by the slothful standards of the U.S. Department of Defense that is unquestionably real money. If Sen. McCaskill was exaggerating one would think that a DOD witness would not miss a chance to dispute it. So let’s consider what the witness, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Ashton Carter, said in response: You are right, we have–in contingency contracting in Iraq, in the early years, did not have the tradecraft and the controls that were appropriate. We’ve recognized that. And one of the first things Secretary Gates said to me, when he hired me in this job, was that he wanted to make sure we learned the lessons of Iraq and applied them in Afghanistan. And we’re really trying to do that. So, you–I would like to get our contracting system, in Afghanistan, to a point where we don’t need to–we’ll still need to be audited, but where we’ll pass an audit easily. That means having contracting officers in adequate numbers to do the work right. It means having contracting officer representatives there to make sure the work is done on each contract. And so, for–that means reducing the use of cash, and all of these things. Now–and we have been assiduously working down that list–which is, I think, exactly the same list that you are working down–in Afghanistan, and made considerable progress in each of those areas. We’re not where I think we should be, yet. And speaking of not being where we should be consider what Sen. McCaskill said about the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction . I have written, now, three letters to the President about the special inspector general over Afghanistan. And we now have had an independent review of his work, by a team of auditors, a peer review. And they have said that it is woefully lacking. And probably the whipped cream and the cherry on this particular situation is that–here’s somebody who’s supposed to be the eyes and ears looking at contracting in a major way in Afghanistan, and he hires someone on a no-bid contract for $95,000 for 2 months’ work. Now, first of all, how do you decide that somebody’s worth 45 grand a month of public money? How do you decide that’s the one? And there’s no process there. Now, this is the special inspector general over Afghanistan reconstruction, hiring somebody for $95,000, for 2 months’ work. And you wonder why the public thinks we’ve lost our minds. That is not being accountable. And, you know, the person he hired formerly was the DOD IG with a lot of blemishes. I mean, we’re not even talking about somebody that is–doesn’t come with his own baggage. And the special inspector general over Afghanistan should be fired, today. When you have an independent council of auditors saying that the special inspector general in Afghanistan– that their law enforcement authority should be removed from them because they don’t have the right control processes in place, this is a problem.

Read the full article →

Jennifer Brunner: Notarize This: The Brewing Foreclosure Storm

October 1, 2010

There is a gargantuan storm brewing. The conditions were set for it with Congress’ repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1998, loosening restrictions on banks to sell securities and still lend money for consumers to buy homes. In just 12 years these pressure fronts are about to erupt because of something as simple as how documents are notarized. I am reminded of the fact Timothy McVey was apprehended, not because he robbed a bank, but because the tags on his car were expired. One thing leads to another, and what unfolds is the discovery of something so fundamentally wrong that it can’t be ignored. Ever wonder why President Obama brought into the White House financial advisors who seemed to have come from the thick of financial practices we were trying to shed? That’s because our home mortgage financial transactions and what happens to the paperwork after we sign it have become so complicated, it took people who knew the system to clip the right wires so the bomb didn’t detonate. I’m from Ohio, where home mortgage foreclosure rates remain among the highest in the nation. My parents grew up in a rural Ohio town so small that the town residents today still go to the post office for their mail. What I learned from my parents was to be honest and work hard. We were taught, like many others, to respect authority, play by the rules, only take what is yours, be kind, treat others with respect and stand up for what is right. That’s not what American consumers have gotten from today’s lending industry. Since the repeal of Glass Steagall, the creation and trading of mortgage-backed securities have become a norm, enjoying less regulatory oversight than for traditional securities trading. Mortgages now became parts of “tranches,” a French word for “pieces,” that back securities sold. Mortgage notes, which must to be recorded to become a lien on real estate are now, through a sleight of hand, secondary to the interests of the mortgage backed securities traders with the advent of Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. (MERS) which facilitates trading without recording the changing ownership interests in mortgages. Local governments lose revenue from recording those changing interests, and the original note often becomes lost in the brisk shuffle of trading and reassigning them to various tranches that back purchases of them from all over the world. Most mortgages are sold by the original lender within weeks of a home closing. The lender gets funds for selling the mortgage (often selling to taxpayer backed Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) and is flush to lend again. If you play it out in your mind, you can see why the housing “bubble” that developed finally burst and is slow to come back–more and more people were told they could afford homes they couldn’t, and more and more people made money at each step of the way from the appraisal to the sale of a home to the sale of the mortgage to open trading of the mortgage as backing for a myriad of securities configurations. What happens when the homeowner can’t pay the mortgage anymore–because of job loss, medical expenses or excessive credit card and other debt? Foreclosure. But in Ohio a court has to grant it. In a lawsuit for foreclosure, documents are presented to a court to decide if the homeowner is in default and by how much. The lawsuit is supposed to be brought by the person or institution who holds the note for the mortgage being foreclosed. If ownership of the note has passed through many hands, a “chain of title” must be established to prove that the person who claims rights to foreclose on the home is the person actually owed money on the mortgage. Once the court grants foreclosure, the court can then order sale of the home and eviction of its owners. Under today’s financial schemes, foreclosure documents are routinely created to demonstrate the transfer of the interest in the note so the right person brings the foreclosure lawsuit. In the case of Chase Home Finance, LLC, its Columbus, Ohio employee, Beth Cottrell, testified in her deposition that she helps create foreclosure documents by signing on behalf of the banks and financial institutions (including MERS) that have been involved. Then, a small group of notaries at Chase notarize her and others’ signatures on various foreclosure documents (about 18,000 documents a month at Chase Home Finance, LLC). While serving as a Chase Home Finance, LLC employee, Beth Cottrell’s name has appeared in foreclosure affidavits from 2008 through 2010 in the Florida court system on documents showing mortgage amounts owed on behalf of Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Federal National Mortgage Association, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, People’s Choice Home Loan, Wachovia and Citi, even though she was an employee of Chase Home Finance, LLC in Columbus. In Ohio, I read two depositions of Beth Cottrell taken in Columbus, Ohio in May of this year, about a Florida foreclosure. I was frankly chagrined to read her description of the notary activity to process the 18,000 documents a month by the company she works for alone–using just eight notaries. In her deposition, Ms. Cottrell’s stated that: no oath is administered for the signing of each document; notaries (not signers) are filling in numbers in the affidavits used in court ordered foreclosures; notarized documents are not verified by the person signing them, but rather, signers are relying on verification by others, and notaries know this at the time they notarize documents; and large numbers of documents are signed in bulk and notarized in bulk separately. As Secretary of State of Ohio, I license Ohio’s notaries. My state’s notary laws, like those of many states, don’t give me the tools to address the notary problems found in the changing circumstances in mortgage financing. In Ohio, even though I grant notary commissions, I don’t have the power to investigate or prosecute when there is suspected wrongdoing. That’s why I asked the Department of Justice to review and investigate. The seal, date and signature of a notary public are there to bolster the reliability and integrity of a document, especially one that allows a court to order the taking of someone’s home. In the situations I have brought to the DOJ’s attention, something is clearly amiss. Corporations, like consumers, must follow the same rules for transferring property as we would if we sold our house to our child or neighbor. The notary process is necessary in preparing the documents required to foreclose. The notary process must not be abused or bypassed when convincing a court to foreclose on a mortgage, evict its inhabitants and sell their home so that someone can recover money at the end of a long transaction of securities trading. This is beginning to look like a storm that blew right into Oz. Just as it took a dog named, “Toto” to pull back the curtain to see what was being perpetrated on Oz, maybe what some consider a minor detail, like notarizing documents as the law requires, will help the Dorothy’s of this day and age have a home to go to. More information on the referral to the Department of Justice can be found here .

Read the full article →

JPMorgan Suspends Certain Foreclosures As Doubts Grow Over Legality

September 29, 2010

Even as August saw more Americans lose their homes to foreclosure than in any other month on record, there are growing concerns over the legality of many of those proceedings. JPMorgan Chase has suspended legal proceedings on “certain” foreclosures, due to concerns about the validity of the foreclosure documents, a spokesman for the bank told CNBC Wednesday (hat tip to Zero Hedge ). JPMorgan spokesman Tom Kelly confirmed to the AP Wednesday that “employees signed some affidavits about loan documents without personally verifying the files.” The decision is the latest signal of a potentially massive stall in the nation’s foreclosure process. Last week, after GMAC Mortgage halted its foreclosures in 23 states , the Washington Post reported that one of GMAC’s employees hadn’t read the roughly 10,000 foreclosure documents he approved each month (and now Colorado wants to be added to that list of states). It then turned out that the “robo signer” might not have been alone. This week, the controversy extended to JPMorgan Chase, as lawyers for a Florida homeowner challenged the person’s JPMorgan foreclosure , citing a May statement from an executive for the bank who said she didn’t properly review foreclosure documents before approving them. Zero Hedge, for what it’s worth, sees this as the beginning of a larger unraveling in the country’s foreclosure process. Indeed, regardless of what JPMorgan determines during its review, the freeze will throw countless foreclosures into doubt. As Bloomberg noted this week, delays in foreclosure proceedings would cripple the already wounded housing market.

Read the full article →

Marshall Goldsmith: What Is the Truth About Leadership? (Part 2 of 2)

September 24, 2010

In my last blog, I posted excerpts of my interview with Jim Kouzes, co-author with Barry Posner of the award-winning, well-known, and classic book, The Leadership Challenge . Jim and Barry have written a new book called The Truth about Leadership , and recently I had the opportunity to ask Jim a few questions about his and Barry’s new book. Following are excerpts from our discussion. MG: Who are some modern-day leaders who inspire you personally? JK: The everyday leaders who step up to the leadership challenge inspire me daily. These aren’t the folks who are well known or who make the headlines or the covers of magazines. They’re the line managers, principals, coaches, community leaders, local officials, youth leaders, and others, who are taking the initiative to turn around a losing operation, or renew a decaying neighborhood, or create a winning team, or start a new business, or organize young people to plant trees. These are the leaders we mostly write about in our books, and they are the ones who give us hope and uplift our spirits. It’s these leaders who will restore our confidence and our economy. The truth is that you can make a difference. Over the last couple of years, we’ve analyzed data from over a million people around the globe to assess the practices of leaders. The numbers reveal that the behavior of leaders explains more about why they feel engaged and positive about their workplaces than any particular individual or organizational characteristic. Factors like age, gender, ethnicity, function, position, nationality, organizational size, and the like, together account for less than one percent of the reason that people feel productive, motivated, energized, and the like in their workplaces. The leaders’ behaviors, on the other hand, explain nearly twenty-five percent of the reason. Leadership is not about who you are or where you come from. It’s about what you do. Here’s something else to consider. For a long time now we’ve been asking people about the leader role models in their own lives. Regardless of age, when thinking back over their lives and selecting their most important leader role models, people are more likely to choose a family member than anyone else. Mom and Dad, it turns out, are the most influential leaders after all. In second place, for respondents thirty years of age and under, is a teacher or coach, and the third spot goes to the community or religious leader. For the over-thirty crowd, business leader is number two. But when we probe further, people tell us that business leader really means the person who was an immediate supervisor at work, not someone in the C-suite. In third position is teacher or coach. And in the fourth spot are community and religious leaders. What do you notice about the top groups on the list? You should notice that they’re the people you know well and who know you well. They’re the leaders you are closest to and who are closest to you. They’re the ones with whom you have the most intimate contact. And they’re the people you meet early in your lives. MG: Are you concerned about the decline of leadership as baby boomers prepare to retire in large numbers? JK: I am not the least concerned about the younger generation waiting in the wings. They are much better prepared to lead than their parents were when they joined organizations as new recruits. They’re more likely to have participated in leadership development programs and been active in leadership roles. In fact, most college campuses now have very active youth leadership development and service leadership programs. Because of this, young people today are better prepared than their parents were to assume leadership roles in organizations. They are also more skilled in the use of the new social media technologies that are changing the nature of organizations. These tools have the potential to make organizations more open, more collaborative, more innovative, and more adaptable than ever before. What does concern me is that the current economic crisis has postponed the inevitable transition from older to younger leaders. By necessity, older managers are staying in their jobs longer, and not necessarily investing in their own learning. It’s discouraging for the emerging leaders, who tend to be more impatient anyway, to see their progress slowed. I’m also concerned about those organizations that have significantly decreased investment in leadership development during this recession. The research indicates that not only are skills greater in organizations where people feel someone cares about their development, but their confidence in the economy is greater. That’s a very significant and profound discovery. Paying attention to the development of people inside the organization can actually influence their attitudes about the larger economy. Now that’s the kind of stimulus program we could all use. MG: A significant number of young people are starting and running successful businesses, Mark Zuckerman of Facebook for example, what advice do you have for young, influential, but inexperienced executives like Mark Zuckerman? JK: Mark Zuckerman and his entrepreneurial colleagues are extremely bright and capable people. They are changing organizations, and they are changing the world. I use Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other of these new technologies every day, and I am grateful that young people take the initiative to start these businesses. The world would be a whole lot smaller, and the economy would be a lot less global if they hadn’t. So, the first thing I’d say to them is “Thank you.” And, I also recall something Florida State University professor Anders Ericsson, the leading expert on expertise, said. He once commented that “Living in a cave does not make you a geologist.” It’s a wonderfully instructive observation. You can spend years inside a business, and not necessarily become an expert at running it. I’d advise them that there are seasoned leaders out there who can help them. Every world-class athlete, for example, has a coach. Every world-class business leader should also have a coach who can give them honest feedback, the unvarnished truth about their strengths and weaknesses, and wise advice and counsel on what it’ll take to become a truly exceptional leader. I would also tell them that the truth is you can’t do it alone . No leader ever got anything extraordinary done without the talent and support of others. You need others and they need you. You have to be sensitive to the needs of others. You have to listen, ask questions, develop others, provide support, and ask for help. Truly inspirational leadership is not about selling a vision; it’s about showing people how the vision can directly benefit them and how their specific needs can be satisfied. What people really want to hear is not the leader’s vision. They want to hear how their dreams will come true and their hopes will be realized. They want to see themselves in the picture of the future that the leader is painting. The vast majority of people want to walk with their leaders. They want to dream with them. They want to invent with them. They want to be involved in creating their own futures. This means that you have to stop taking the view that visions come from the top down. You have to stop seeing it as a monologue, and you have to start engaging others in a collective dialogue about the future.

Read the full article →

Bill Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

September 24, 2010

New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It’s so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being “rich”, or what tax rate is “too much.” But I’ve done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole. And let’s be clear: that’s 3.6% only on income above 250 grand — your first 250, that’s still on the house. Now, this week we got some horrible news: that one in seven Americans are now living below the poverty line. But I want to point you to an American who is truly suffering: Ben Stein. You know Ben Stein, the guy who got rich because when he talks it sounds so boring it’s actually funny. He had a game show on Comedy Central, does eye drop commercials, doesn’t believe in evolution? Yeah, that asshole. I kid Ben — so, the other day Ben wrote an article about his struggle. His struggle as a wealthy person facing the prospect of a slightly higher marginal tax rate. Specifically, Ben said that when he was finished paying taxes and his agents, he was left with only 35 cents for every dollar he earned. Which is shocking, Ben Stein has an agent? I didn’t know Broadway Danny Rose was still working. Ben whines in his article about how he’s worked for every dollar he has — if by work you mean saying the word “Bueller” in a movie 25 years ago. Which doesn’t bother me in the slightest, it’s just that at a time when people in America are desperate and you’re raking in the bucks promoting some sleazy Free Credit Score dot-com… maybe you shouldn’t be asking us for sympathy. Instead, you should be down on your knees thanking God and/or Ronald Reagan that you were lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket. And you’re welcome to come on the show anytime. Now I can hear you out there saying, “Come on Bill, don’t be so hard on Ben Stein, he does a lot of voiceover work, and that’s hard work.” Ok, it’s true, Ben is hardly the only rich person these days crying like a baby who’s fallen off his bouncy seat. Last week Mayor Bloomberg of New York complained that all his wealthy friends are very upset with mean ol’ President Poopy-Pants: He said they all say the same thing: “I knew I was going to have to pay more taxes. But I didn’t expect to be vilified.” Poor billionaires — they just can’t catch a break. First off, far from being vilified, we bailed you out — you mean we were supposed to give you all that money and kiss your ass, too? That’s Hollywood you’re thinking of. FDR, he knew how to vilify; this guy, not so much. And second, you should have been vilified — because you’re the vill-ains! I’m sure a lot of you are very nice people. And I’m sure a lot of you are jerks. In other words, you’re people. But you are the villains. Who do you think outsourced all the jobs, destroyed the unions, and replaced workers with desperate immigrants and teenagers in China. Joe the Plumber? And right now, while we run trillion dollar deficits, Republicans are holding America hostage to the cause of preserving the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1% of people, many of them dead. They say that we need to keep taxes on the rich low because they’re the job creators. They’re not. They’re much more likely to save money through mergers and outsourcing and cheap immigrant labor, and pass the unemployment along to you. Americans think rich people must be brilliant; no — just ruthless. Meg Whitman is running for Governor out here, and her claim to fame is, she started e-Bay. Yes, Meg tapped into the Zeitgeist, the zeitgeist being the desperate need of millions of Americans to scrape a few dollars together by selling the useless crap in their garage. What is e-Bay but a big cyber lawn sale that you can visit without putting your clothes on? Another of my favorites, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said, “I don’t know where they’re going to get all this money, because we’re running out of rich people in this country.” Actually, we have more billionaires here in the U.S. than all the other countries in the top ten combined, and their wealth grew 27% in the last year. Did yours? Truth is, there are only two things that the United States is not running out of: Rich people and bullshit. Here’s the truth: When you raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, it obviously doesn’t destroy the economy — we know this, because we just did it — remember the ’90′s? It wasn’t that long ago. You were probably listening to grunge music, or dabbling in witchcraft. Clinton moved the top marginal rate from 36 to 39% — and far from tanking, the economy did so well he had time to get his dick washed. Even 39% isn’t high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 — just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote “believes from his inner core that people… above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways.” Which they have. Steve Forbes, of course, came by his fortune honestly: he inherited it from his gay egg-collecting, Elizabeth Taylor fag-hagging father, who inherited it from his father. Of course then they moan about the inheritance tax, how the government took 55% percent when Daddy died — which means you still got 45% for doing nothing more than starting out life as your father’s pecker-snot. We don’t hate rich people, but have a little humility about how you got it and stop complaining. Maybe the worst whiner of all: Stephen Schwarzman, #69 on Forbes’ list of richest Americans, compared Obama’s tax hike to “when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” Wow. If Obama were Hitler, Mr. Schwarzman, I think your tax rate would be the least of your worries. Bill Maher is host of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”, Friday’s at 10:00PM

Read the full article →

Wendy N. Powell: An Unscientific, but Remarkable Explanation of the Wage Gender Gap

September 23, 2010

Women in the workplace from Baby Boomers to Generation Y, a think tank of respected opinions, a five-state search for truth When we hear the wage gap — 77 cents to the dollar — we all gasp, suck in the air, and respond with some quick opinions. We all have a unique take on the salary issue from “Men just want to keep women down,” to the common response, “It’s just the way it is.” Many of us don’t know how this figure was derived. This 77.9 cent/dollar figure was calculated by the U.S. Census using the American Community Survey Report from 2008. This data considers all employees working 36 hours per week or more year-round. It is raw data. It’s not adjusted for working parents who take time off for school breaks, family obligations, etc. It doesn’t include statistics about how many hours a week in overtime the person works or what type of profession, hard or soft sciences. It leaves a lot to individual interpretation. Twenty years ago, I thought being in the human resources field meant I could explain the gap. In 1990, it was 71.6 cents/dollar , not much different from where we are today. Of course, I evaluated salaries based upon a sum of education and experience related to the job. Because many women did not possess the breadth of experience of their male counterparts at that time, the wage disparity made sense. Yes, I thought, it will take many years to remedy the gap but it will correct itself. But now I know there is much more to this issue than the raw data at hand. Being on the quest for the answer, I looked to my smart, experienced family, colleagues, and friends to get answers. My informal “think tank” included women of all generations and a couple of wise men. My question to them was simply, “Why does this salary gap exist?” One incredibly talented young professional, Kelly, had an intuitive response that spans the generations. Our current economic strife creates an additional hurdle for those of us trying to secure well-paying jobs. “It seems that women in the workforce are in a catch 22. We are not happy with the salaries we receive, however we are not in a position to turn them down.” This may fuel the ”settling” and ”accepting” epidemic plaguing women’s careers; we can’t shop for the highest bidder. Are women hired at lesser salaries because employers can get away with it in this economy? “I will accept whatever they offer me to get my foot in the door.” Some in my think tank thought that if a woman stops her career to raise children, attend to an aging parent, and other such events, her return to the active workforce has a negative effect on her salary. It’s always been that way, right? Men are the providers, and women are the nurturers. When a need arises, you can count on the women of the family to “do the right thing” and take care of the problem. In fact, women experience absences covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act at the rate of 16 percent higher than men . And of course, since the women make less money in many cases, they will be the ones to take the time off so the family doesn’t take as much of a “hit” in wages. “You don’t need a raise; you have a husband.” Do women want to work the demanding and long working hours to get ahead? Many women tend to gravitate to the “softer” professions, social work, nursing, teaching, human resources where earning potential is not as substantial as litigators or surgeons. I recall one talented administrative assistant who would be next in line for a promotion. When I suggested that she take a couple of accounting classes to get ready for the next level, she said, “I don’t want to. I am where I want to be and don’t pressure me about that promotion.” She did not possess the drive to get ahead in the workplace; her priorities were different. “I can’t give you the promotion because you’re too good at what you do.” What about appearance? Oh yes, beauty matters for women at work. A polished and attractive woman who is not overweight yields a job offer with a better salary. One study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in 2007 revealed that attractive people earn five percent more and obese women earn 17 percent less than their slimmer colleagues. Women of the workplace, I conclude that we become resolved to our own opinions and choices. Of course, there is a dose of traditional values, some discriminatory practices, some personal preferences, our natural preponderance to care giving and nurturing. They all exist in the business world. They just don’t apply to all of us, at the same time, and in the same way. I see young girls wearing glittery shirts that say, “Girl Power” and, “I’m a princess, just get used to it,” and I’m hopeful that the next generation of young women will speak their piece. What do you do if you have a discrimination claim concerning your salary? Visit: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm . You will find a process to file a claim and possible remedies including mediation. Keep your eye on the Bureau of Labor Statistics for salary trends. The Department of Labor publishes the median usual weekly earnings by occupation and sex. Special thanks: Dr. Gail Ali, Florida; Kelly Jansen, Illinois; Rachel Kapur, New York; Bridget O’Connor, Florida; Marsha Grimm, Florida; Judie Steele, Michigan; Suzanne Mueller, Michigan; Lynne LeFebvre, Michigan; Suzanne Kaplan, Michigan; Sherry Pedigo, Florida; Lora Bruder, Michigan; Tammy Grimm, Florida; Diane Savko, Pennsylvania; Terry Powell, Florida; Ryan Powell, Florida; Barry Grimm, Florida; George Savko, Pennsylvania

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: ABC J’accuse MEP: There is no there there

September 14, 2010

Last week ABC News Investigative Team, including its chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross, ran a story that seemingly confirmed much of the negative coverage one sees in the media about private military contractor issues. On Sep, 8 it reported that Paul Funk, a former employee of Mission Essential Personnel (MEP), a major provider of translation service, interpreters and cultural advisors to the U.S. government, charged that more than one quarter, 28 percent to be precise, of the translators hired by the firm between November 2007 and June 2008 to work alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan failed language proficiency exams but were sent onto the battlefield anyway. [Click here for video interview excerpts.] Funk, who worked as Director of MEP’s Pre-Deployment Processing Center in Linthicum, Maryland, outlined his claims in a whistleblower lawsuit unsealed earlier this year against MEP, and co-defendants Language Learning Enterprises, Inc. and Ceiba Enterprises, Inc. dba Gracor Language Services Inc. , saying the company turned a blind eye to cheating on language exams taken over the phone and hired applicants even though they failed to meet the language standards set by the Army and spelled out in the company’s contract. Basically Funk is modifying the famous line from the classic move Cool Hand Luke; what we have here is a deliberate failure to communicate. Essentially Funk is claiming MEP committed Fraud. The relevant part of his complaint, filed April 1, states: MEP, LLE, and Gracor fraudulently presented and/or caused to present claims to the United States and received therefrom payment for services that were not rendered under an MEP contract with the United States military. MEP fraudulently presented claims to the United States and received reimbursement of per diem amounts that were not allotable under an MEP contract with the United States military. If these charges are true it would be enormously serious. Anyone familiar with U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan understand that without qualified translators and interpreters U.S. military success, however you define it, is virtually impossible. After all, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that you can’t win the hearts and minds of the local populace if you can’t understand what they are saying. There is only one problem with the ABC story. The more you look into it the shakier it looks. It seems similar to what Gertrude Stein famously said about Oakland, California, “There is no there there.” I will detail the reasons for doubting the ABC story in a moment but first some necessary background about the False Claims Act. The Act, also called the “Lincoln Law” due to its earliest incarnation first being passed back during the American Civil War) is an American federal law that allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions against federal contractors they accuse of committing claims fraud against the government. The False Claims Act, passed by Congress on March 2, 1863, was an effort by the USA to respond to entrenched fraud where the official Justice Department was reluctant to prosecute fraud cases. A reward was offered in what is called the “qui tam” provision, which permits citizens to sue on behalf of the government and be paid a percentage of the recovery. Qui tam is short for the Latin phrase “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur”, which means, “he who brings a case on behalf of our lord the King, as well as for himself.” In a qui tam action, the citizen filing suit is called a “relator”. As an exception to the general legal rule for standing (law) of a party, courts have held that qui tam relators are “partially assigned” a portion of the government’s legal injury, thereby allowing relators to proceed with their suits. Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15-25 percent) of any recovered damages. The Act provides a legal tool to counteract fraudulent billings turned in to the Federal Government. The Act establishes liability when any person or entity improperly receives from or avoids payment to the Federal government–tax fraud excepted. Let’s acknowledge that this is a big contract (number W911W4-07-D-0010) for MEP). MEP’s contract, as initially awarded in September 2007 by the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), included a 5-year ordering period (through September 2012) with a total ordering ceiling of $703 million. At the time of award, the agency estimated that it would need approximately 3,000 linguists to support the military’s operations in Afghanistan. Because MEP’s contract was imminently reaching its $703 million contract dollar ceiling, on March 18, INSCOM modified the contract to increase the ceiling amount by $78.5 million. INSCOM awarded MEP another $679 million dollars, on May 7. This second modification increased the dollar ceiling under MEP’s contract to $1.460 billion. Note that earlier in the year another firm, WorldWide Language Resources, Inc., protested the decision by INSCOM to modify its contract with MEP. WLR contended that the modification violates the competition requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. But last month the Government Accountability Office, denied WRL’s protest, noting “the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the incumbent contractor was the only firm capable of meeting the agency’s interim need for the services.” In the years subsequent to MEP’s award, the military’s need for linguists has exceeded the numbers estimated by INSCOM. Presently, MEP’s contract supports approximately 6,826 linguists at up to 200 locations in Afghanistan. The increase was driven by the August 2009 review of the U.S. Afghanistan strategy directed by President Obama. Based on this review, the estimated requirement increased to 5,000 linguists per year in anticipation of greater U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. The second event was the “surge” decision of December 2009, which provided for sending an additional 30,000 U.S. forces to Afghanistan by the end of the summer in 2010. This surge has driven the need for linguists to their current levels since they are an integral component of the expanding U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan. Thus, MEP has an obvious self-interest in denying Funk’s claims. Let’s also note that the Defense Department Inspector General is investigating the case , per below; although that is standard procedure when a False Claims act is filed: Implementation of Security Provisions of a U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command Contract for Linguist Support (D2010-D000JA-0165.001) The DoD OIG is determining whether the security provisions of a U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command contract for linguist support in Afghanistan (W911W4-07-D-0010) were implemented effectively. This project is one in a series of reviews regarding linguist support in Afghanistan. Report D-2010-079 addresses whether a contract for linguist support in Afghanistan (W911W4-07-D-0010) included appropriate security provisions. The DoD OIG began this project during the 3rd Quarter of FY 2010. Although what the IG is investigating is whether the MEP translators were properly screened and vetted. This, by the way, is a U.S. government responsibility, not one of MEP. Let’s also acknowledge that one reason people may be inclined to believe Funk’s charges is that there have been real problems in the past with companies providing translators to the U.S. government. As RFE/RL reported two years ago: One problem has been for the U.S. military to get qualified Dari and Pashto translators who also meet the Pentagon’s security criteria. For years, the Pentagon required that its translators be American citizens and also have top secret military security clearance. That was the case through 2005 when translations for U.S. forces in Afghanistan were provided by the private U.S. firm Titan as part of a $4.65 billion contract with the U.S. Defense Department. Former Titan employees tell RFE/RL the company had great difficulties meeting the demand for Afghan translators with the necessary security clearance. As a result, former employees say Titan appeared to overlook the language deficiencies of many of the translators it provided. A firm called L-3 Communications Holdings inherited Titan’s translation contract when it bought Titan in 2005. [By year's end, with numerous complaints on file about Titan translators, L-3 lost the contract for interpreters in Iraq. A new five-year deal for U.S. military translations in Iraq was awarded in February to Global Linguistics Solutions, a joint venture of DynCorp International and McNeil Technologies.] One can find detailed background on U.S. military use of contractor linguists in this Defense Industry Daily roundup . All that said, there are several reasons to be skeptical of Funk’s claims Why should people doubt the ABC story? First, consider the source. ABC News, in recent years has not had a good record when it comes to breaking investigative stories. Brian Ross, in particular, has been wrong on multiple stories, as this Salon article recently detailed. In 2007, Ross ran an exclusive interview with former CIA officer Jon Kiriakou about, among other things, the efficacy of waterboarding. That story, hyped uncritically by ABC, was picked up in other media and informed the public debate about waterboarding for years — until, of course, it turned out to be bogus. Last November, Ross reported that the Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, had attempted to make contact with “people” associated with al-Qaida. That turned out to be not true. In December, he reported that a released Guantánamo detainee was a mastermind of the attempted Christmas Day bombing. As it turned out, the detainee in question had actually been in the hands of Saudi authorities for months and had no role in the plot. That didn’t stop myriad media outlets from picking up the inaccurate story. Given his recent record if Ross were Treasury Secretary the country would be in a full-blown depression. Second, the way ABC dealt with MEP when getting its side of the story smacks of a setup. Keep in mind the timeline. ABC’s story ran Sep. 8. But it did not contact MEP until Sep. 1 and then only to say they were doing a story on translators without providing any specifics. It was not until the next day they asked about the allegations made by Funk. MEP officials asked for a meeting so they could rebut the allegations but they did not meet with ABC News until Sep. 7, the day before the piece ran. That smacks more of gotcha accusations, rather than serious journalism. Having done some writing for television myself in the past I know that if one is sure of one’s facts one does not do an interview with a company one suspects of wrongdoing less than a week before your story airs. Even so, according to a statement MEP released, “Prior to airing this erroneous story, MEP provided ABC extensive information on the record – both in-person and in writing. With willful disregard, ABC chose to ignore the facts, doing a grave disservice to the public, and to many good people in the field.” Third, and fairly important, Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, who I reached by phone last Friday, said, that the Justice Department “has not joined the suit by the relator [Funk]. Now that is not to say it couldn’t do so later on. Still, if Justice thought Funk had a slam dunk case it likely would have already joined in the suit. Fourth, a hearing is expected to take place on September 23 where a judge will consider the motion by MEP attorneys to dismiss the case. Speaking on background, sources close to Funk’s legal team acknowledge that they may have to replead their suit and add more specificity to the charges, tacitly acknowledging that they understand the motion to dismiss will likely succeed. Thus, this would mean that Funk’s lawyers are asking for a third chance to amend their complaint, after failing two times in the past. Fifth, the ABC piece uses weak, secondary sources. ABC used a video clip depicting an interpreter doing a bad job, from the British Guardian, but that interpreter was not an MEP employee. ABC cited several other sources to bolster the claim that MEP linguists are flawed. One source is a former military Pashto linguist who says she witnessed bad translation. But her online bio says she was wounded and sent home in 2006, the year before MEP won its Afghanistan contract. Hence, she never worked with MEP linguists. The next source is an Afghan politician who says he has seen examples of poor Army translators. His comments are general and vague and there’s no indication he has ever worked with MEP linguists. In its online version , ABC quotes a British journalist saying he believes unskilled translators take the jobs because they are lucrative, referring to a linguist who became “the rock star of his village.” This reference makes clear the journalist is referencing linguists who are Afghan locals, not the US-hires discussed in the lawsuit. Sixth, ABC seems not to understand basic contract types. ABC suggested MEP is motivated to fill positions with weak linguists because “The more they recruit, the more they make.” But MEP’s contract is cost plus award fee, meaning MEP is reimbursed for its costs. MEP’s profit comes from its award fee which is tied to its performance rating from the Army. Award fee is based on the number of qualified linguists, as well as the quality of the linguists deployed. If MEP provided poor linguists, its rating, and therefore its profitability, would decline. Finally, in his complaint Funk says the defendants conducted Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) testing of linguist candidates over the telephone, rather than in person, which is the industry standard and the only way to prevent fraud by the person being tested. But he fails to note that this was just the first of a three prong system MEP employs, the other two being a written test and an integrity test that occurs by video conference or in person, which MEP put in, above and beyond the terms of the contract. The phone tests and written tests are catalogued and saved for review by the military. It is worth noting that MEP’s contract with INSCOM does not actually call for doing in person interviews. Thus, at the time Funk worked for MEP translator candidates would undergo an OPI and written test. Later, after MEP instituted its integrity test, the candidate, if he passed the other two tests, would have to do an interview with a MEP employee who is a native speaker of the required language, such as Dari or Pashto. The standards for these language tests are set by the U.S. Government and are based on the Department of Defense’s Inter-Agency Language Roundtable (ILR) standards. MEP’s language testing programs were audited in 2008 and 2010. Back when Funk worked at MEP the OPI and the written test were the assessment tools used. Since then, MEP added the integrity test, a final assessment, which includes an in person or video teleconference interview with a native speaker who is an MEP employee. As noted earlier there has never been anything in MEP’s contract with INSCOM specifying the means by which it is supposed to test its interpreters. To the extent that this is a real concern government can easily solve it by specifying in its contracts the means for doing so, just as it specifies the means by which private security firms must confirm the qualifications of those they hire. Finally, the people in the best position to judge, MEP’s client, seem satisfied with its performance. At a July 26 hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, MEP CEO Chris Taylor noted MEP has received ratings of “outstanding” from the US Government for the last eight quarters.”

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: Republican Nightmare: Putting Elizabeth Warren to Work Now

September 9, 2010

President Obama is finally looking for bold, creative and clever ways to change the way the US economy operates — preferably with measures that will take effect by the November midterms and change the tone of the broader political debate. His tax proposals this week have some symbolic value, but in the broader sense all of these fiscal suggestions are tinkering at the margins. What could he possibly do that would grab people’s attention, mobilize his political base and put his opponents on the defensive? There is an easy answer: Appoint Elizabeth Warren to start running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) immediately. And the brilliant part of this idea — as explained by Shahien Nasiripour at the Huffington Post (see also David Dayen’s Thursday coverage ) — is that the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation allows the person charged with setting up this new agency to be an outright appointment, rather than a nomination subject to Senate confirmation. Warren’s credentials are impeccable — she came up with the original idea for the CFPB, she pushed effectively for it to become legislation and she has proved most effective in her oversight role as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. And her manifesto for the CFPB is sensible and actually pro-business — although she naturally opposes the specific ways in which big banks mistreat people . No doubt Republicans in the Senate would try to derail her nomination to head the CFPB as they have done with numerous other nominations over the past year and a half. Their motivation would not be her views or expertise — she has earned serious Republican respect as a result of her COP role — but just part of their electoral strategy to block the president’s agenda and to undermine an agency they have consistently opposed. The Treasury Secretary is explicitly authorized by an Act of Congress to pick an interim head for the new agency — with a view to getting it up and running immediately (in fact, what has he been waiting for?). Presumably the Senate (and the House) passed this specific measure expressly to expedite the CFPB’s work. Professor Warren has strong political support and would get the new agency off to a great start. She would represent the Obama administration’s serious attempt to rein in financial misbehavior, at the same time as keeping the economic recovery on track. Anyone who thinks she would be bad for American families has not been paying close attention. And best of all, she is very good at explaining what she is doing and why that makes sense. The president needs clearer messages and stronger substance — and he needs them fast. He should move at once to appoint Elizabeth Warren.

Read the full article →

Tom Pappalardo: Gold & Silver Trading Biggest Scam in History Financial Armageddon Could Result

September 6, 2010

For those with a good memory this is the promised follow up to my piece on the manipulation of the silver market and its very scary ramifications. Before we get into the possible end of civilization as we know it details, a recap is in order. Andrew Maguire of London blew the whistle on JP Morgan Chase’s very likely profound manipulation of the silver market to the CFTC. As financial government watchdog agencies are wont to do these days, they did their best to sweep it all under the carpet. How the SEC handled Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme is a prime example of this. This matter is not a ponzi scheme but it is a the largest scam ever going into the trillions of dollars territory. But back to Maguire who was quite determined to clean up the business of commodities trading. He goes public with powerful compelling evidence of JP Morgan Chase’s manipulation of the silver market. This happens on a Kingsworld radio show. The next day someone tries to kill him by ramming a car into Maguire’s car. Maguire and his wife who was also in the car are hurt pretty bad but survive. After this in their infinite wisdom the commodities watchdog the CFTC decides to have a meeting with most of the key players in commodities trading but exclude Maguire from attending. At this meeting a secret is revealed that could easily tear apart the fabric of our barely functional financial system. The secret is that for every 100 ounces of gold and for every 100 ounces of silver traded on paper there is only one actual ounce of gold and one actual once of silver to back up these trades. Given that yearly there is trillions of gold and silver traded on paper this is the literally biggest scam in the history of scams. Now the guy who let this cat out of the bag didn’t think it was a big deal using the logic that as long as the buyer was paid the value of his purchase at the time he wants to sell it doesn’t matter if his purchase was backed up by an actual commodity. This cavalier attitude does seem to reflect the mind set of people working in our financial system that everything is smoke and mirrors except the money being exchanged. It is quite possible and even probable that someone with enough financial resources and the will to do it could turn our financial system upside down and make an enormous profit from it. This person would have to have no loyalty to western currency and the financial well being of western countries. So let’s assume a very wealthy Asian wants to take a shot at getting into Bill Gates’s wealth status. From what I gather the game plan would be a simple one. That is buy enormous amounts of what I like to call the paper version of silver and gold and buy even more actual silver and gold. Then start a run on Comex by demanding to replace your paper with actual gold and silver. The next part is for me admittedly a bit fuzzy so my play by play of this could be off a bit but I believe the general idea fits the situation. Given that commodities’ trading is a relatively small community, if the player of this scenario has purchased enough of these metals and starts demanding their paper be replaced with the real thing, their demands should cut fairly deep into Comex reserves and then the rumor mill will kick in big time. It shouldn’t take long for the word to get out that there is more paper of gold and silver out than actual gold and silver exists to back it up. Once this gets on the street it should not take long for the Comex reserves to get wiped out. Then financial chaos is right around the corner. However as chaos swirls around them those that possess actual silver and gold will see their investment shoot up perhaps skyrocket in value. I believe a conservative estimate would be to rise anywhere from 2 to 4 times in value. However given the volatility of anything financial these days I fully expect it to zoom to 5 to 10 times in value. That’s the good news if you are sitting on actual gold and silver but the bad news is really really really bad because the basis for all valuation including the stock market, the dollar the euro etc. etc. is gold and silver. Remove silver and gold from the valuation process and as one financial analyst recently told me the stock market probably drops to 25 percent of its value the dollar probably loses 30 percent of its value and so on. These figures are guesswork and possibly conservative but what is not a guess is that the value of stocks, the dollar, the euro and more will lose big chunks of their value enough to throw our fragile financial system into chaos. The value of silver and gold are bedrocks for building the valuation of currencies the stock market and other financial entities. Remove a bedrock and the house comes tumbling down or at least a good part of it probably most of it. Financial Armageddon anyone, sure we have already looked that bullet in the eye and dodged it. However, many financial wizards have predicted it could still occur and none as far as I know took into account the wipeout of the silver and gold reserves. However back to the gutsy whistleblower Maguire, he was scheduled to be interviewed back when all this broke out by all the big news outlets. However, quite suddenly all of these major media sources cancelled these interviews. So unless someone you know who is into the silver market brought this to your attention, it likely went completely under your radar. Presumably, the government the wolves of Wall Street and every other financial player who has a lot to lose are working hard to keep this on the way down low for as long as possible. I can’t really blame them for this given the impending catastrophe revealing this secret will release. However the trigger for all this going public is likely the DOJ and SEC’s investigation of JP Morgan Chase’s manipulation of the silver market. Once this investigation comes to a close there has to be some consequences which the media can’t completely ignore and then the stink storm hits the fan for most of us and for those that own silver or gold their personal value jumps up quite a bit. Between silver and gold, silver gives the much stronger appearance of giving an investor a more viable short term reward. Since the DOJ and SEC started investigating JP Morgan Chase’s very likely manipulation of silver, you no longer see silver pushed down hard after it has rallied up. In fact an interesting phenomenon has taken place recently regarding silver. Silver and gold used to be joined at the hip in that both would go up and down together as a matter of course. However, silver has continued to go up regardless of when gold goes down. Even more remarkably, silver has recently continued to go up even if the stock market goes down. This shocking behavior of silver only strengthens the case that JP Morgan was manipulating the silver market. That the silver market has such staying power is not really surprising given the big picture of high deficits, a weak dollar, a weak euro. Silver stands out as a relatively safe investment perhaps the safest investment anyone with a some extra money can make. Right now its just under $20 an ounce which is a whole lot more affordable for the average person than gold at around $1250 per ounce. Obviously, if any of you readers have some money and you can afford to sit on for 6 to 18 maybe 24 months, it is my opinion that buying actual silver or gold especially silver is one hot investment. I suggest this time frame because I suspect within ½ to 2 years the investigation of JP Morgan Chase’s obvious manipulation of the silver market will be concluded and made public. The government will no doubt drag this out as long as they can which is why I foresee this possibly lasting a good 2 years. It’s also possible that within that time frame, some enterprising filthy rich person is willing to blow up the silver and gold market to make to make themselves super rich. I wouldn’t just take my word on any of this. If this subject grabs your interest I strongly recommend you listen to an interview between Andrew Maguire and Adrian Douglass of GATA. GATA is the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee and was organized in January 1999 to advocate and undertake litigation against illegal collusion to control the price and supply of gold and related financial securities. When you hear these two speak about the inevitability of the biggest fraud in the history of man being exposed you cant help but feel that its just a matter of time before what I like to call the big bang hits our financial system. One of the questions Douglass asks Maguire is why it was allowed to happen that we now only have 1 ounce of gold and 1 ounce of silver to back a 100 ounces of each that is being sold on paper. As I recall Maguire thinks it happened because at a low point it was a quicker way to juice the financial markets and eventually it all just got way out of control. I see a parallel in the steroids era of baseball and sports in general. After the baseball strike put the sport in a dark period, the lords of baseball looked the other way while some players juiced themselves up so they could hit more home runs in one season than had ever been hit before. This created a major buzz for baseball and quickly took them out of this dark period. However when the stink hit the fan baseball would be forever tarnished and would never be the same. Apparently the fools that run our government and our financial world also looked the other way and took the short term upside gambling against the long term loss. The question begs to be asked if and when this big bang hits given all the other bullshit that the protectors of all financial have allowed to be fostered upon the general populace, will said general populace ever again trust the members of the Fed Reserve, big banks the Secretary of Treasury etc etc ad nauseam ever again. There sure isn’t much left to trust so this new catastrophe ought to really wipe out any vestige of trust the peons of Main street still have for any and all of the big financial players. I doubt if this will lead to people stuffing cash into their mattresses but it will probably lead to the creation of more state run banks like the one that now exists in Montana. To any of you who read my first piece on the silver market please accept my apology for not keeping my promise of following up right away with a second piece. If you care for an explanation, at first I delayed because the BP oil spill seemed like more than enough of a major downer for everyone to handle and I didn’t want to pile on. Then I got distracted and lazy. Now after a two week vacation I feel renewed enough to finally keep my promise. Hope it was worth the wait. Lastly a note of caution given that I am recommending you readers to spend your hard earned cash on an investment, for those thinking of jumping into buying silver or gold or any investment, when contemplating making any purchase especially big ones, there are two lines not to cross. Crossing these lines is a leap from risk taking to gambling and I strongly recommend you don’t gamble with your money. In my considered opinion an action becomes a gamble when you risk something you can’t afford to lose like betting your rent money. The other line not to cross is taking unnecessary risks. I am not suggesting you should live like you are in a straight jacket but with money it’s usually best to be cautious. Taking lots of unnecessary risks can become as addictive as betting on the ponies or sports. The reason for this is both give you an adrenaline rush. The more someone takes unnecessary risks the more likely they will get burned. With that in mind please be conscious, be cautious be smart and pick your battles or risks wisely.

Read the full article →

Mark Hurd, Ex-HP CEO, In Talks With Oracle For Job, Source Says

September 6, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Former Hewlett-Packard Co. CEO Mark Hurd is in talks to take a top executive job at Oracle Corp., the database software maker run by his friend Larry Ellison, a person with direct knowledge of the discussions said Sunday. It wasn’t immediately clear what job Hurd would take. But the person told The Associated Press that Ellison, the only person to serve as Oracle’s CEO since he founded the company 33 years ago, wouldn’t be leaving that post. This person emphasized that the talks were not yet finalized. The person was not authorized to discuss the confidential negotiations and spoke on condition of anonymity. The possibility of Hurd landing at Oracle isn’t a surprise. Ellison was vocal in coming to Hurd’s defense after Hurd’s sudden resignation Aug. 6 in the wake of a sexual harassment investigation. Hurd’s resignation was stunning because he was widely praised on Wall Street. Investors praised his cost-cutting; HP announced about 50,000 job cuts over the five years Hurd was CEO. Wall Street also liked that he engineered more than $20 billion in acquisitions, which helped HP reduce its dependence on printer ink for the bulk of its profits. HP is now a major player in technology services and computer networking. Those traits could help Hurd at Oracle, which is also known for aggressive dealmaking and cost cuts. Hurd would also join Oracle at an interesting juncture for both companies. Oracle, the No. 1 database software maker, and HP, the No. 1 personal computer and printer maker, are longtime partners that are increasingly squaring off against each other. Oracle’s $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun Microsystems last year made it a competitor to HP in the market for computer servers. The Wall Street Journal reported on Hurd’s job talks with Oracle earlier. In coming to Hurd’s defense following his resignation, Ellison called HP’s decision to oust Hurd the worst personnel decision since Apple Inc. forced out Steve Jobs – another of Ellison’s friends – 25 years ago. Jobs later returned and lifted Apple out of a funk, turning it onto a top maker of consumer-electronics products. Ellison has said the HP board’s decision to publicly disclose the harassment claim against Hurd amounted to “cowardly corporate political correctness,” as the board had found that Hurd didn’t violate the company’s sexual harassment policies. The investigation unearthed inaccurate expense reports connected with Hurd’s outings with his eventual accuser, an actress and HP contractor named Jodie Fisher. The substance of her claim was that her work helping organize HP events dried up after she rebuffed Hurd’s advances. Hurd, 53, who is married with two children, denies making any advances on Fisher. Hurd also insists he didn’t prepare his own expenses and didn’t try to conceal his outings with Fisher, which often included dinner after the events Fisher helped organize and that Hurd attended. HP has emphasized that its board voted unanimously for Hurd’s resignation.

Read the full article →

Don McNay: The Hangover from America’s Bailout Party -Video

September 5, 2010

“Flounder: You _______ up — you trusted us.” -Otter in the movie Animal House. Let’s face it, we screwed up. In the decade before 2008, the financial world was like a presidential inauguration ball. On Inauguration day, there is a ball where only the closest insiders and Washington power players get invited. There are also a lot of parties around town, so just about everybody in Washington feels like they were part of the event. For a decade, Wall Street was playing funny money games. They were allowed to grant themselves multi-million dollar bonuses, and many Americans also felt like they were invited to the celebration. Real estate prices were soaring. People were flipping houses and condos. People with lousy credit and no income were living in nice houses. Almost anyone could get a loan for anything. Stock prices were going up and pension plans were getting fatter. State and local governments had lot of money to throw around and could cut taxes without anyone really noticing. We had easy money and reaped many benefits without hard work or sacrifice. We were living in fantasy land. The fantasy is over. We woke up to a nightmare. A nightmare that our nation has not yet dealt with. People with addictions go through a process called “bottoming out.” They reach a point where they realize their actions are hurting themselves or others. They get help and dramatically change their lives. Because of the Wall Street bailouts, America never got the chance to “bottom out.” Like a drunk who keeps “having a drink or two,” America has not really dealt with the problems that got us in the mess. Like an addict who keeps using, we are setting ourselves up for repeat failure. I’ve been reading Maria Bartiromo’s new book, The Weekend That Changed Wall Street . A better title might have been “The Weekend that Changed the World.” It was America’s chance to bottom out. We didn’t. To paraphrase Otter in Animal House , we screwed up. We mortgaged the future to make Wall Street happy today. I liked Bartiromo’s book. One of her insights jumped out at me. In talking about the fall from grace that some Wall Street insiders felt, she noted “When the wealthy falter, there is a deep shame that the average person cannot grasp. In that world, you are either in or you’re out.” That line explains everything. Wall Street was in. They had the right lobbyists and had an alumni association from Goldman Sachs, including Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, doing their bidding in Washington. Those who came from Wall Street looked out for their own. They made sure their Wall Street cronies were paid back, 100 cents on the dollar. The rest of us were out. And we have stayed there. Unemployment remains around 10% and underemployment is even more chronic. Sales of existing homes are at a 15-year low, despite some of the lowest mortgage rates in history. It’s almost impossible for a Main Street business to get financing and state and local government entities are looking at severe cuts in revenues and services. We’ve spent trillions in bailout money and all we got was “One day older and deeper in debt.” Although it sounds gloomy, I’m not a gloomy person by nature. With focus, hard work and resiliency, people can overcome any obstacle. Including what Wall Street and Washington did to us. People can solve problems by taking a hard look at themselves and making changes. Washington is afraid to take that hard look or make real changes. Our political “leaders” won’t do anything that cuts off the campaign contributions and lobbying money that Wall Street provides. My next column will give a concrete plan for creating wealth without Wall Street. You can see signs of it. Concepts like Move Your Money, http://moveyourmoney.info/ are catching on. People are starting to pay down debt and look at creating their own businesses. We weren’t really invited to the big Wall Street party. But we sure wound up paying for it. Now it is time to recover from the hangover. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC of Richmond Kentucky is an award-winning financial columnist and Huffington Post Contributor. You can read more about Don at www.donmcnay.com McNay founded McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement and consulting firm, in 1983, and Kentucky Guardianship Administrators LLC in 2000. You can read more about both at www.mcnay.com McNay has Master’s Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Hall of Distinguished Alumni of Eastern Kentucky University. McNay has written two books. Most recent is S on of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win The Lottery McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field.

Read the full article →

Caroline Dowd-Higgins: The Power of In-Person Communication in Your Job Search

September 3, 2010

In this technology driven age people rarely communicate face-to-face anymore. Emailing, texting, and Tweeting have kept us hidden behind computer screens and handheld devices. It’s time to dust off your professional communication skills and speak to people, especially if you are searching for employment. In-person communication is always the best option so you can utilize eye contact and positive body language. Remember, first impressions are lasting so be prepared to put your polished, professional self out there. Since you don’t have a built in auto correct mechanism for verbal communication like spell check on computers, you must become self aware and take charge of your communication skills. Ask those in your circle of trust to give you constructive feedback and listen and observe others in your professional circles to emulate great communicators you know. Here are some strategies to keep in mind as you begin to put your communication skills into practice. 1. Think before you speak and consider what you want to say before you open your mouth. In a professional situation you must be succinct and able to get your point across effectively. Rambling and tangential comments decrease your effectiveness and cause your audience to lose focus. Always consider whom you are addressing and customize your comments for each audience. 2. Diction is paramount – speak clearly and embrace your inner confidence. Be aware of your tempo and volume making sure not to speak too quickly or too softly. Channel your inner news anchor and aim for that kind of articulate delivery. Listen to yourself on your voice mail message to gage your clarity and vocal articulation. Clear diction is essential in the communication process – if you are unintelligible, your message will never land. 3. The use of appropriate humor is welcomed and can add levity to a situation but use it wisely and sparingly. Inappropriate language and off color jokes are never acceptable in a professional situation. This is not the time to test drive your stand-up comedy act, but a little humor can break the ice and set the tone for a conversation. 4. Body language is as important as what you actually say out loud. Make eye contact with those to whom you are speaking, assume a confident posture while standing or sitting, and be sure to smile naturally when it feels right. Avoid fidgeting and extraneous facial expressions. Keep an open body position and avoid crossing your arms so as to welcome your listener and draw them into your conversation. 5. Be an attentive listener – it’s an important part of how you communicate with others. Don’t interrupt or finish another person’s sentences. Be engaged and show them you are genuinely interested. The ability to fully comprehend information presented by others through active listening is a vital part of communicating. 6. Avoid filler words such as: “like” and “um” and avoid colloquial phrases in the professional arena such as: “you guys”. Actively listen to yourself to catch these filler words and remove them from your day-to-day vocabulary in professional conversations. Since the hidden job market represents 80% of positions that are never posted, it’s wise for job seekers to get out from behind the computer to be seen and heard. Building and stewarding professional relationships is how you will get noticed, recommended, and eventually hired. Strong communication skills still sit at the top of the list for career competencies that employers value most. Honing your communication skills will distinguish you and set you apart from the competition. It takes practice to polish these skills and build your communication confidence. So get out there and start talking with people. Attend networking events, community functions, or other activities and give yourself the opportunity to flex your communication muscles. Step away from your computer and start talking with people! Caroline Dowd-Higgins pens a career transition blog called “This Is Not the Career I Ordered” ( www.notthecareeriordered.com ). She is also the Director of Career & Professional Development at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Read the full article →

Fred Whelan and Gladys Stone: Rejected Outright for the Job Because of Their Online Image

August 31, 2010

Business strategist and Webby Award winner David Allen Ibsen (runs business consultancy 5 Meetings Before Lunch ) was helping one of his start-up clients with their organizational needs. Specifically, they were looking to make a couple of key hires. Ibsen tapped into his business/social network on LinkedIn to search and identify potential candidates. “LinkedIn is great because you have the person’s resume right in front of you.” He then gave the short list of candidates to his client who “Googled” each person’s name to do a background check. The client put the names into two buckets: “People with a positive web presence” and “Not”. The positives were called in for interviews, the rest were rejected outright. While these people had professional LinkedIn profiles, they were dinged because of what they had on other social networking sites. A professional profile is great but it doesn’t mean you’ll get a pass on them checking Facebook, Twitter or blogs you may have written. According to Ibsen, these people should consider taking a look at their personal brand. “Just like my corporate clients who covet their brand reputation, individuals need to look at what type of story is being told about them online and make sure it matches who they are and how they want to be perceived.” So, where should you start if you have a less than favorable web presence? Facebook – Look at your profile photo. Is this how you would want to be judged by a potential employer? We know it’s supposed to be just for friends, but the reality is that your photo along with your profile’s “likes” and “dislikes” are open to public review. Give your likes and dislikes the same scrutiny. If you happened to be “tagged” in a photo, that picture could also make its way to a hiring manager or recruiter. Let your friends know that you would rather not be tagged. Twitter – Whatever you tweet can get retweeted, on and on. It’s like the old Faberge shampoo commercials , “I told two friends, who told two friends” and before you know it, it’s out there in a big way. Tweets do fall off Google searches rather quickly, which is the good news. If you need to do some damage control on something you’ve tweeted, then tweet a number of positive things. LinkedIn – A way to rebrand yourself here would be to raise your profile by answering questions in your area of expertise. Also, review your profile for keywords and positioning. That can make a difference in how people find you and perceive you. We coached a woman who was a professor, author and speaker. Her profile emphasized her academic background, when she really wanted to focus on her writing and speaking engagements. This was an easy fix and got her more attention in the areas she wanted. David Allen Ibsen: “The Internet and the rise of social media have changed the rules in terms of how prospective employers do background checks. Even though the rules have changed, one thing still holds true – building a good reputation is invaluable.” People make the mistake of viewing LinkedIn as their professional image and consider Facebook and Twitter as their personal ones. While you might make this distinction, hiring managers don’t. Ibsen: “Never post anything on the Internet you wouldn’t want your mother – or boss – to see.” Fred & Gladys Whelan Stone Executive Search and Coaching Authors of GOAL! Your 30 Day Career Plan for Business & Career Success

Read the full article →

Don McNay: America’s Hangover from the Bailout Party

August 25, 2010

” Another day older and deeper in debt” -Merle Travis “Flounder: You _______ up – you trusted us.” -Otter in the movie Animal House. Let’s face it, we screwed up. In the decade before 2008, the financial world was like a presidential inauguration ball. On Inauguration day, there is a ball where only the closest insiders and Washington power players get invited. There are also a lot of parties around town, so just about everybody in Washington feels like they were part of the event. For a decade, Wall Street was playing funny money games. They were allowed to grant themselves multi-million dollar bonuses, and many Americans also felt like they were invited to the celebration. Real estate prices were soaring. People were flipping houses and condos. People with lousy credit and no income were living in nice houses. Almost anyone could get a loan for anything. Stock prices were going up and pension plans were getting fatter. State and local governments had lot of money to throw around and could cut taxes without anyone really noticing. We had easy money and reaped many benefits without hard work or sacrifice. We were living in fantasy land. The fantasy is over. We woke up to a nightmare. A nightmare that our nation has not yet dealt with. People with addictions go through a process called “bottoming out.” They reach a point where they realize their actions are hurting themselves or others. They get help and dramatically change their lives. Because of the Wall Street bailouts, America never got the chance to “bottom out.” Like a drunk who keeps “having a drink or two,” America has not really dealt with the problems that got us in the mess. Like an addict who keeps using, we are setting ourselves up for repeat failure. I’ve been reading Maria Bartiromo’s new book, The Weekend That Changed Wall Street. A better title might have been “The Weekend that Changed the World.” It was America’s chance to bottom out. We didn’t. To paraphrase Otter in Animal House, we screwed up. We mortgaged the future to make Wall Street happy today. I liked Bartiromo’s book. One of her insights jumped out at me. In talking about the fall from grace that some Wall Street insiders felt, she noted “When the wealthy falter, there is a deep shame that the average person cannot grasp. In that world, you are either in or you’re out.” That line explains everything. Wall Street was in. They had the right lobbyists and had an alumni association from Goldman Sachs, including Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, doing their bidding in Washington. Those who came from Wall Street looked out for their own. They made sure their Wall Street cronies were paid back, 100 cents on the dollar. The rest of us were out. And we have stayed there. Unemployment remains around 10% and underemployment is even more chronic. Sales of existing homes are at a 15-year low, despite some of the lowest mortgage rates in history. It’s almost impossible for a Main Street business to get financing and state and local government entities are looking at severe cuts in revenues and services. We’ve spent trillions in bailout money and all we got was “One day older and deeper in debt.” Although it sounds gloomy, I’m not a gloomy person by nature. With focus, hard work and resiliency, people can overcome any obstacle. Including what Wall Street and Washington did to us. People can solve problems by taking a hard look at themselves and making changes. Washington is afraid to take that hard look or make real changes. Our political “leaders” won’t do anything that cuts off the campaign contributions and lobbying money that Wall Street provides. My next column will give a concrete plan for creating wealth without Wall Street. You can see signs of it. Concepts like Move Your Money, http://moveyourmoney.info/ are catching on. People are starting to pay down debt and look at creating their own businesses. We weren’t really invited to the big Wall Street party. But we sure wound up paying for it. Now it is time to recover from the hangover. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC of Richmond Kentucky is an award-winning financial columnist and Huffington Post Contributor. You can read more about Don at www.donmcnay.com McNay founded McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement and consulting firm, in 1983, and Kentucky Guardianship Administrators LLC in 2000. You can read more about both at www.mcnay.com McNay has Master’s Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Hall of Distinguished Alumni of Eastern Kentucky University. McNay has written two books. Most recent is Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win The Lottery McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field.

Read the full article →

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

August 24, 2010

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

Read the full article →

Arin Crumley: YouTube, Not TheirTube

August 24, 2010

In 2006, Time Magazine named “you” Person of the Year. “You” are the individual users who create content for the internet, and post it on websites that host photos, videos, music and text–sites like YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Vimeo, and Flickr. But your ability to create and post original content online is being threatened. Viacom sued YouTube in 2007 for $1 billion, claiming that YouTube should be responsible for policing its users’ content for copyright violations. The court found that YouTube expeditiously responds to copyright holders’ requests to remove infringing content and complies with the law. But the media giant has now appealed, seeking to subject YouTube (and other websites that host content) to billions of dollars of liability. If successful, the vibrant era of user-generated content as we know it could come to an abrupt end. If it is not enough for YouTube, MySpace and Flickr to respond within minutes to copyright holders’ requests, then what standard must these websites meet? According to Viacom, these sites must review, research and investigate the origins of each of the hundreds of thousands of videos uploaded to their sites each day and approve each individually in advance. Today we can post media online in mere minutes. Under Viacom’s proposed rules, however, it could take days or weeks, and if YouTube can’t figure out if the poster actually has all the rights (via license or otherwise), it should not be posted at all. We call ourselves the Sideshow Coalition because Viacom has called us a “sideshow.” In fact, we are today’s creators, distributing to the world an unprecedented quantity and variety of art and building our careers through free online distribution channels such as YouTube. Viacom apparently considers us marginal and irrelevant. Or perhaps it views our success as a threat to its business. We believe the public wants and values creative expression unfiltered and unmediated by major media corporations. Our work is not simply some distraction to be viewed on the way to the big show. Our videos have collectively been viewed about three billion times – and we are only a few dozen out of millions of users who have posted original content on YouTube. This enthusiasm for our work has enabled us to pursue careers in entertainment, and through YouTube channels we earn revenue from the videos we create. We emphatically support the protection of intellectual property; creating intellectual property is how most of us make a living. But our goal is to ensure that everyone has the ability to share and profit from their intellectual property, not just big corporations. We love the Web because it levels the playing field. Anyone with talent, internet access and a video camera can present his or her ideas. Before the internet, you either did business with major media companies on their terms or you did not earn a living from entertainment because you could not reach a mass audience. The internet has liberated us and millions of others from gatekeepers who control the traditional distribution channels for our work. We can now be our own television stations, our own record labels and our own publishers. We can also be our own newsmakers and non-profits, using sites like YouTube to achieve social change. People have used YouTube to increase voter turnout and registration in the United States, to spread awareness about the Iranian government’s human rights abuses and to raise money to feed the hungry. The “protections” Viacom seeks would benefit itself at the expense of “us”–millions of independent media producers and billions of consumers. To foster creativity, innovation, free expression and economic opportunity, we will continue to urge the court to preserve the freedom of the internet. The authors are part of the Sideshow Coalition, a group of creative individuals unaffiliated with a major corporation who post original content on YouTube.

Read the full article →

Richard ‘Skip’ Bronson: Homeless and Empty Homes — an American Travesty

August 24, 2010

About 3.5 million US residents (about 1% of the population), including 1.35 million children, have been homeless for a significant period of time. Over 37,000 homeless individuals (including 16,000 children) stay in shelters in New York every night. This information was gathered by the Urban Institute , but actual numbers might be higher. Fox Business estimates, there are 18.9 million vacant homes across the country. 3.5 million people without homes; 18.9 million homes without residents. While an array of legal and logistical obstacles present themselves, the math is staggering. It’s time to sort out the regulations and rates that would facilitate the solution: turning empty houses into homes for those in need. While subprime loans have justly captured much of the ink as the culprit, overdevelopment is a major factor in the dramatic number of vacancies there are today. These are not just the homes of people who took on a mortgage they couldn’t afford; these are newly constructed houses without a buyer on the horizon. It’s not about taking a residence from someone who can’t pay his or her bills and giving it to another person who can’t make payments either, it’s about using resources we have in excess. I’ve been in real estate development for quite some time, enough to know that regardless of which political party is in charge, the market will follow the same cycle: demand, saturation and then glut. A suburb will start to attract homeowners, developers will react by building new homes in that area, and inevitably the supply will far outpace the demand. I’ve seen it happen time and time again. Usually the cycle ends through absorption, after a lull the homes are eventually sold and the train starts rolling again. However, with the current economic climate, we appear poised to remain in the glut portion of the cycle for an inordinate amount of time. Houses are unlike most products; they generally don’t depreciate with time and use. A house will not suffer from wear and tear the way a car will. Actually, the opposite is true. An empty residence will quickly go to seed. If you lived in a neighborhood with an abandoned house you’ll know what I mean. Without someone to take care of it, a property will decline steeply. But with someone living in the house…actually taking care of them…well, that’s a far better situation. No one benefits from an empty house. I’m not advocating giving houses away — such a move would create a host of political and fiscal problems — but government should be working toward a solution to match up the empty homes with those who need a roof to live under. A homeless population equivalent to the size of Los Angeles is unacceptable, and with over five times as many empty houses, we have not only a moral obligation but also an economic imperative to come up with a creative way to fix this travesty.

Read the full article →

AIG’s Fed Credit Line To Be Cut By $3.6 Billion

August 23, 2010

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve plans to cut American International Group Inc.’s credit line by about $3.6 billion in a sign of confidence the insurer can reduce reliance on taxpayer funds, said a person with knowledge of the proposal. Under terms of AIG’s 2008 rescue, paying down the line was supposed to lower the amount of credit available. The Fed gave an exemption in 2009 on $3.6 billion in proceeds from asset sales and has decided this year that the relief may no longer be necessary, said the person, who declined to be identified because the plan isn’t public. AIG had $13.3 billion in credit remaining on the line as of June 30.

Read the full article →

Mark Miller: Doing the Math on Early Social Security Benefits

August 20, 2010

A recent column on how to maximize your Social Security benefits inspired some readers to fire up their spreadsheet programs. The column was excerpted from my book, The Hard Times Guide to Retirement Security . It delivered this message: most — but not all — Americans will do better over the long haul by waiting until full retirement age to file for Social Security benefits. This message is tough for some to accept. Why wait until age 66 to get something that you can take at age 62? Here’s the core of my argument: For most people, filing early at 62 is a costly mistake that will mean forgoing thousands of dollars in lifetime benefits — in some cases, hundreds of thousands. Although you can file for benefits at 62, most of us will receive larger lifetime payouts by waiting, if at all possible, until we reach age 66, or even 70. However, there are several caveats to this, and it’s a bit of a gamble, because the math all depends on how long you live. Under the Social Security rules, your lifetime benefits will be reduced based on an actuarial projection of your longevity, if you file before the current full retirement age of 66. Starting at 62 means you retired four years early, the net effect: Your annual benefits will be reduced permanently by a total of 25 percent. OK, readers — fire up your spreadsheets! “I don’t believe that your recent advice to delay receiving Social Security payments in order to get a higher monthly amount adds up,” wrote Barry, a reader in the New York area. “The Social Security system is based on actuarial principles, therefore it is designed to pay out the same amount (for persons having the same wage history) no matter when they decide to collect. Thus there is no automatic windfall to be gained by waiting.” Barry goes on to construct a scenario (too lengthy and elaborate to reprint here), in which a 62-year-old person files for Social Security, invests it until full retirement age and comes out ahead at age 66 — assuming a 3 percent annual return, and leaving out income taxes for simplification purposes. “A rough calculation shows that by the time this person has reached the age of 66, he will have $50,600 in the bank as a result of the payments plus interest. The person who is waiting has nothing. This means that the first person has a substantial nest egg which he can use for emergencies or for things like vacations, cars, house improvements, gifts to grandkids, etc.” “My main point is that it is better to start collecting when you are first eligible (assuming you are not still working) because you accumulate a substantial nest egg plus you have money available when you are still young enough to really appreciate it.” Barry assumes that people actually will save this money rather than spend it. I’m not so sure, given human nature and our collective rocky record as savers. I also question the rate-of-return assumption, since we don’t want to invest Social Security money in the stock market or anything else that is risky. We’d need to park the Social Security payments at regular intervals in risk-free certificates of deposit, and current six-month CDs yield less than 1 percent. All that aside, I don’t mean to suggest that waiting to file is right for everyone. It can make sense to file at 62 if you’re in poor health and don’t expect to live long. Likewise, take benefits early if, due to the recession, you’re in desperate financial shape and must have the money now. And Barry is correct to point out that Social Security benefits are designed to be actuarially fair, assuming average life expectancy. But the system is based on averages that many people will beat. Research by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR) suggests that the “break-even” age is 81 — if you live past that age, you’ll receive greater lifetime benefits by waiting until your full retirement age. “Many people live longer than average and it is especially likely that one member of a couple will live longer than average,” says CRR’s Andrew Eschtruth. “For example, if the husband is the primary earner, he may die at the average age but his wife may live at least several years longer. If so, she would get her husband’s larger benefit rather than her smaller spousal benefit.” On the other hand, higher survivor benefits can be one reason for a married woman to file early. CRR’s research suggests that if a woman’s own earnings will yield a benefit ranging between 40 percent and 100 percent of the husband’s, she should claim benefits as early as possible. If the husband waits until age 69 to file, the woman will receive the maximum lifetime benefits by filing early and then receiving the higher survivor benefit upon the husband’s death. Further reading For those who would like to dig further into the weeds on this subject — or keep plugging data into their spreadsheets, here are two key studies from the Center for Retirement Research well worth reading. Why Do Women Claim Social Security So Early ? If individuals continue to withdraw completely from the labor force in their early 60s, a large and growing number will be hard pressed to maintain an adequate standard of living throughout retirement. Economic and demographic pressures are gradually eroding key sources of retirement income at the same time that increases in life expectancy mean that people can expect to live for 20 years, on average, after they stop working. And averages do not tell the whole story. When Should Married Men Claim Social Security? Most married men claim Social Security benefits at age 62 or 63, well short of the age that maximizes the expected present value of the average household’s benefits. That many married men “leave money on the table” is surprising. It is also problematic.

Read the full article →

Jodie Fisher, Accuser In HP Case, Says Her Work Was Cut After Turning Down CEO’s Advances

August 18, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — The woman whose sexual harassment allegations led to the ouster of former Hewlett-Packard Co. CEO Mark Hurd claimed her work with the company dried up because she rebuffed Hurd’s advances, a person close to the investigation told The Associated Press. The substance of the complaint that led to Hurd’s resignation from the world’s largest technology company had not been publicly known until late Tuesday. Hurd denies making any advances on Jodie Fisher, who worked as a contractor for HP’s marketing department from 2007 to 2009, according to this person, who requested anonymity because of not being authorized to discuss the case. Fisher, 50, is an actress and businesswoman who helped HP organize networking events for customers and introduced executives to each other. She and Hurd would often dine together after the events. HP determined that Hurd didn’t violate the company’s sexual harassment policies in his interactions with Fisher. But the company said it did find falsified expense reports connected to those meetings, and said those led to the board’s unanimous decision to seek Hurd’s resignation. Hurd says he didn’t prepare his own expenses and that Fisher’s name was not intentionally left off any reports. He resigned August 6 and was given a severance package that could top $40 million. Fisher’s lawyer, celebrity attorney Gloria Allred, declined to comment, as did an HP spokesman. Fisher worked more than a dozen events in her two years with HP, the bulk of which occurred in her first year, according to the person with knowledge of the investigation. She was paid up to $5,000 per event. Her work dwindled in the second year because HP’s marketing budget was cut and had nothing to do with her relationship with Hurd, the person said. Hurd settled with Fisher for an undisclosed amount before his resignation. HP had urged Hurd for weeks to settle the case, and Hurd eventually agreed because his lawyers convinced him it would be cheaper than taking the case to trial, according to the person close to the investigation. Hurd had decided to step down a week before the resignation was announced because the board wanted to publicly disclose the harassment allegation based on advice from a public relations firm and lawyers, even though the company’s investigation found the claims to be without merit, the person said. Hurd claims he still doesn’t have an accounting for all the expenses he is alleged to have falsified.

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: Seven Ways to Make People Feel Important

August 17, 2010

Investors invest in people, not ideas. Customers buy from people, not companies. Employees rally for a great leader. As an entrepreneur, you need relationships to succeed. That means relationships with team members, investors, customers, and vendors. One of the best ways to build a good relationship with anyone is to make them feel important. One of my favorite authors, Brian Tracy, in his book ” No Excuses!: The Power of Self-Discipline ,” outlined seven ways to make other people feel important, which I believe are extremely relevant to entrepreneurs and business: Accept people the way they are. Because most people are judgmental and critical, to be unconditionally accepted by another person raises that person’s self-esteem, reinforces his or her self-image, and makes that person much more likely to accept you and follow your lead. Show your appreciation for others. When you appreciate another person for anything that he or she has done or said, they will like themselves and you more as well. The simplest way to express appreciation is to simply say, “Thank you” for an idea, some good feedback, time spent together, or an order. Be agreeable. The most welcomed people in every situation are those who are generally agreeable and positive with others. Entrepreneurs who like to be argumentative, complaining, or disagreeable, will have a hard time closing a contract, investment, or a customer contract. Show your admiration. People invest a lot of personal emotion in their possessions, traits, and accomplishments. When you admire something belonging to another person, it makes him feel happy about himself. Everyone has positives, and it’s up to you to find them. In turn, these positives will be reflected back on you. Pay attention to others. The most powerful way to pay attention to someone is to listen attentively first, even ask questions, before you launch into a monologue answering every question they might never ask. Believe it or not, before you even say a word, you will become a more interesting and intelligent person in their eyes. Never criticize, condemn, or complain. In business as well as personal relationships, the most harmful force of all is destructive criticism. It lowers a person’s self-esteem, makes him feel angry and defensive, and causes him to dislike you. If your target is someone not present, it still causes a loss of trust in you, since your listener could be the next target. Be courteous, concerned, and considerate of everyone you meet. When you treat a person with courtesy and respect, they will value and respect you more. By being concerned, you connect with their emotions. Consideration is the discipline to do and say things to people that are important to them. Think back on your own recent experiences as a customer or contractor. You don’t always buy the cheapest product or service, if you have a good relationship with the people involved. On the other hand, I almost never buy from someone that treats me like I’m not important. If you want to be a leader, you need to inspire followership. Great leaders develop a good relationship with good people, who are then inspired to follow. A successful leader inspires people to do more than they might have done without the relationship, and more than they may have even dreamed possible. So, if you follow all these seven ways to make other people feel important, you will receive a seven-fold payback on your own objectives of being a leader and building a successful business. That’s a lot cheaper and lot longer lasting than the best advertising and public relations you can buy.

Read the full article →