id stringlengths 32 32 | url stringlengths 31 1.58k | title stringlengths 0 1.02k | contents stringlengths 92 1.17M |
|---|---|---|---|
07e17164c51b6f27f81f14f2ef165717 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/02/19/review-mahler-10-with-yannick-nezet-seguin/ | Review: Mahler 10 With Yannick Nézet-Séguin | Review: Mahler 10 With Yannick Nézet-Séguin
Such strong Berg & Mahler yesterday with @veronika_eberle and @nezetseguin . Join in live for tonight's 2nd concert: https://t.co/vUmvvcRbhF pic.twitter.com/H57hMsNhGw — BRSO (@BRSO) February 17, 2017
The Luxury of Excellence
The advantages of running a truly excellent symphony orchestra include the relative ease with which one can get great and in-demand conductors. One of the advantages of great and popular conductors (and technically also the popular not-so-great ones, but let’s ignore that possibility for the moment) is that the orchestra’s artistic administration can get away with a little more daring programming because audiences will still (within limits) flock to a concert to see and hear what the popular baton-waver has to say.
The Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra is such an orchestra. Quite young, excellent, and demanding of themselves – the unscientific but surprisingly accurate orchestra face-check reveals not a bored of self-satisfied mug among them.[1] It is in fact one of the few totally reliably excellent symphony orchestras out there.
Yannick Nézet-Séguin is such a conductor. And the leadership of the BRSO are the lucky bastards who get to play with these ingredients and, to boot, a quality audience. (See also: National Symphony Orchestra's New Conductor Ideal – But Audience Quality Has To Match Him) They often make the most of it, too, such as in the concerts on February 16/17, which were examples of inspired programming.[2] Namely a combination of the bitter sweet and the sweet bitter. Mahler’s ‘unfinished’ Tenth Symphony (in Deryck Cooke “performing version”) as the big-bill romantic anchor (but actually a fierce and ferocious, aggressively modern work) and Alban Berg’s Violin Concerto, nominally 12-tone music and box-office poison (but actually a wonderful, romantic piece of music, given enough time).
Yannick Nézet-Séguin conducting the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra. Photo courtesy Bavarian... [+] Radio, © Peter Meisel
The Sound of Broken Hearts
Two compositions, therefore, that are working away at that hazy demarcation line between romanticism and modernism – from both sides and both reaching well into the other world, crossing paths along the way. For an added bonus, the two works have a strong extra-musical link. Alban Berg’s concerto was written “To the Memory of an Angel” – and this angel was the beautiful Manon Gropius who died of Polio at age 18. Manon was the daughter of Alma Mahler-Werfel and Walter Gropius. Manon was the result of the dalliance with the architect Gropius which began while Mahler was still very much alive and Alma’s husband.
Mahler was composing the 10th Symphony at the time, and received a love-letter from Gropius to Alma but, curiously, addressed to Gustav. Mahler, who had thought that his gravest marriage troubles had been overcome, was crushed and you can hear it in that symphony, as plainly as if it were a diary. The source of the mourning in one work is thus the product of the source of anguish in the other.
Meat and Potatoes and Beethovenian Seething
First up was the Berg concerto which Veronika Eberle, a young violinist at the cusp of a grand career, hailing from the Swabian town of Donauwörth[3], opened with calm, almost mechanical rigor but expressive passion. Every note was given pressure and intensity, an aspect that didn’t change for the entire duration of the concerto – to the point of ennui. What this did was give a sense of meat-and-potatoes to the Berg concerto which must have its place among interpretative alternatives, but I can’t say that I prefer it over the carnal grief of Isabelle Faust (Abbado; Harmonia Mundi) or the more grievous, heartfelt lyricism of Arabella Steinbacher (Nelsons; Orfeo), to mention two sublime accounts of violinists of whom Mlle. Eberle is quickly becoming a peer. On the upside Mlle. Eberle soloist wasn’t afraid of un-pretty tones, but a greater daring and variety with hushed, nuanced, and lighter touches would have set well with my ears. If it weren’t for the precision in the execution on the part of soloist and orchestra, one would never have landed at minor interpretative quibbles – but that’s the curse of perfection: It can force a critique to find other cracks onto which it can latch.
At its best, the vast orchestra under Yannick Nézet-Séguin performed a piece of chamber music for orchestra and violin, at other times the sound-world came surprisingly close to that of Carl Maria von Weber. Berg’s Violin Concerto looks back to romanticism, for sure, but that far? In the second movement the searing intensity of Veronika Eberle’s playing – with some super-vigorous left-right pizzicatos thrown into the mix – helped to some highlights. The mourning of the concerto became a mourning at the cusp of anger, with Beethovenian seething.
What a dream to finally play with divine @nezetseguin & unique @BRSO Berg's Concerto this Thursday & Friday at Herkukes Saal, I love it! pic.twitter.com/AMcAmxbhNQ — Veronika Eberle (@veronika_eberle) February 14, 2017
Desperate Dissonance, Slowly Twisted
Seething it the appropriate transition to Mahler’s Tenth: (See also: Mahler Survey, Symphony No.10) The symphony starts innocuous enough, in this case with a gorgeous sound from the superb viola section of the BRSO. Perhaps a bit on the slow side for continuous flow, the tempo felt exactly right as soon as the heaving violins joined. During the part where the Tenth Symphony still appreciably resembles other Mahler symphonies (most notably the Seventh, with which it shares several characteristics), there was surprisingly little lilt in what Nézet-Séguin negotiated with the orchestra. Not much seediness, either, and in the swells and the grand gestures it sounded more like a Richard Strauss tone poem, at times. The orchestra played superbly again but for two early first-movement mini-climaxes. With few and minor exceptions, the orchestra continued on its path of perfection. And when the first desks were called upon for their considerable solo-duty – violin, cello, viola, and eventually flute – they outdid themselves.
Before long the opening Andante-Adagio hurtles itself downward towards darkness and anguish, of course, cumulating in two violent screams – those famous nine-chord notes of desperate dissonance. These chords were not so much punched out but carefully stacked and pulled on top of each other, chord by chord; assembled not with particular ferocity but then squeezed mercilessly! These chords gate are posts on the way to hell, and I imagine them built in black basalt with the ugliest gargoyles leering at the lone traveler, and extending severed, dripping heads as hints for what’s to come.
The rustic “Forward!” of the second movement seemed more naturally up Nézet-Séguin’s alley, in any case the orchestra hurled itself towards the Purgatorio middle movement with great élan while said middle movement was a flitter of silver shivers and light and evoked the Nachtmusik from the Seventh Symphony. In the fourth movement, which felt like a chaos not quite unleashed in Nézet-Séguin’s controlling hands, there are plenty Viennese tones – folk and sardonic folk-like alike, not unlike the Scherzo of the Seventh – to which that night’s concert master Anton Barachovsky gave life.
To Hell and Back
Speaking of the Seventh Symphony again, with its imaginary birds of the night and crepuscular – but also strangely sunny – atmosphere, the most notable parallel between the two works is the structure. If the Seventh is built like a pyramid, with a small central movement on the top and solid blocks of opening movement and finale at the base, the Tenth feels like its inversion.
Rather than climbing up a mountain, what takes place is a descent to Hell (or Purgatorio) and back. The gate posts that greet the listener on the way down are also there to reluctantly let the traveler pass on his way back. The gorgeous flute solo in that final fifth movement (“Slow, heavy”), so reminiscent of Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice, offers another tempting analogy to this view. And, like the light-bursting finale of the Seventh, the night-thirsty finale of the Tenth is of a strangely episodic nature that Nézet-Séguin made no attempts at disguising. He does well with these contrasts and clashes of hope and death, delirium and lucidity, seriousness and flippancy. Perhaps this is because Nézet-Séguin seems to take Mahler at his word and doesn’t seem to question his intent until it fits what we think Mahler should be saying. (Here as in the Seventh; see also: Mahler Festival Leipzig: Nezét-Séguin/BRSO.)This musical earnestness is refreshing and it works best in the most difficult passages of Mahler to which the finale of the Tenth, despite its mesmerizing moments of sweeping glory and sunshine-after-the-ache, surely belongs. After the last note subsided and Nézet-Séguin had lowered his arms, there were a few seconds of genuine, exhausted, silence, still under the spell of this too rarely performed, not at all unfinished Mahler symphony.¶
[1] Well, maybe one, all the way in the back of the first violins, but one is still a shockingly low a number and can in any case be handled.
[2] Desperation, incidentally, also tends to inspire such – and even more – daring and original programming. That’s why good but desperate orchestras often are the best bet for the musically curious concert goer who wants more than just to experience a museum of sound.
[3] Also the home town of composer Werner Egk, in case you appreciate random factoids.
|
6a0f78b9d62f86e8e6895f67011f9340 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/08/23/classical-cd-of-the-week-ligetis-modernism-with-a-heart/ | Classical CD Of The Week: Ligeti's Modernism With A Heart | Classical CD Of The Week: Ligeti's Modernism With A Heart
György Ligeti, Requiem, Lux Aeterna, Clytus Gottwald transcriptions, Frieder Bernius, Stuttgart... [+] Chamber ChoirDanubia Orchestra Oduba, Garbiele Hierdeis (soprano), Renée Morloc (Alto), Carus jfl
Amazon mp3: NA | Amazon CD: $20 | ArkivMusic: $40 | Qobuz download: Not yet available | iTunes mp3: NYA
Frieder Bernius, leader of the Stuttgart Chamber Choir, was taught by a member of the Schola Cantorum Stuttgart whose founder and director in turn was the great Clytus Gottwald. Gottwald not only created some of the most challenging, brilliant, and touching arrangements for acapella groups, he was also close to György Ligeti and commissioned the latter’s Lux æterna (1966) for the 16 voices of his – the former’s – ensemble. That text specifically offered itself, because Ligeti had not set it in his Requiem (1965) and in that sense Lux æterna is a natural companion piece to the Requiem. This release on the chorally-inclined Carus label (mainly a publisher of scores with a side in superb recordings to popularize those scores – a setup not unlike Wergo/Schott) follows and links all these tracks and combines Frider Bernius’ 2006 performance of the Requiem with that of Lux æterna (put down in 1996) and then adds four of those sublime Gottwald arrangements of Ravel, Debussy, and Mahler (recorded between 1996 and 2007)[1].
The combination of works presents the pinnacle of gorgeously edged European modernism and the pinnacles of the choral literature as far as the demands on the vocalists are concerned. That said, the Requiem in particular is not particularly easily appreciable music if one hasn’t already been exposed to Ligeti or music of that time and stylistic strand. Its beauty must be unearthed with the principle of charity in mind, with some benefit of the doubt and plenty tenacity. Additionally, if such support be necessary, it should help to listen to the disc in exact reverse order[2], starting with the arrangement of “Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen”, which superadds otherworldliness to Mahler’s already ethereal beauty. Clytus Gottwald, who took Ligeti’s treatment of voices as the inspiration and starting point for his transcriptions, thus serves as a bridge between the familiar and the unfamiliar, and leads us gently towards the world of Lux æterna (slowly developing individual threads of voices that intertwine with tender-tart necessity) which in turn opens our ears for the yet more complex, even more slowly building Requiem. Don’t get thrown off by the use of “micropolyphonic writing”. Take it as mood; perhaps close your eyes. The Introitus[3] very quietly sets the stage and leads to the Kyrie, which rises out of the vocal and orchestral mists. The orchestra Ligeti employs is huge, but you would never guess, for all the quadruple-pianissimo passages and the generally light and spacious way the composer employs his forces. Chaos seems to erupt in the ‘De die judicii sequentia’ (Dies irae) before the simplicity of the Lacrimosa takes on a consoling nature. If this was hard listening the first time, follow it with the Mahler/Gottwald arrangement again and start over at your leisure.
Ligeti, on the other hand, was concerned that he might have gone soft, at the time, and in a letter about his composition wrote: “I think – but of course I may be wrong – that the Requiem and especially the Dies irae is my best composition to date. That might not seem at the first hearing. Rather, it may be that many people are disappointed and may say, I was not ‘avant-garde’ anymore, because Dies irae may appear more conservative than my other pieces, because of the type of dramatics and expression and because of use of very strict polyphonic compositional technique. I would say: I don’t care… I only care to compose the music that I have in mind ... Like Stravinsky, I'm unconcerned about the category of ‘modernity’. I don’t care about fashion.” Even if one disliked the music, it would be impossible to dislike the attitude. It is this attitude from which can grow a love for Ligeti’s music. And if not the Requiem this time, perhaps one of his string quartets first…
Find all Classical CD of the Week recommendations (to the extent available) on the Spotify CD of the Week 2017 Playlist.
Edit: P.S. It has rightly been pointed out that Stanley Kubrick's use of Ligeti's music (Atmosphèresand and the Kyrie from the Requiem in particular) is notable and mention thereof oddly neglected by me. I'm trying to make amends here by sending you over to Alex Ross: Kubrick & Ligeti.
[1] Lux æterna and the Mahler arrangement have previously been released on Carus 83.208, coupled with Domenico Scarlatti’s Stabat Mater and a work by Anne Boyd.
[2] This is the order in which I included these works on the #SoundAdvice Classical CD of the Week 2017 Spotify Playlist – albeit in different interpretations, since the Carus album isn’t [yet?] on Spotify. Each of the recordings of the Requiem have their merits; that by Péter Eötvös (used in the Playlist) is particularly fine. Jonathan Nott / Berlin Philharmonic (Teldec/Warner); Michael Gielen / Frankfurt RSO (Wergo), the first recording, are also much worth hearing.
[3] If you cannot discern Bach’s motet ‘Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied’ as the underlying structural model, don’t worry. I don’t suspect many listeners beside the composer would ever have heard that. But it shows who Ligeti’s idols are.
|
e98b8ccd1bfa7c29dcadedd639ccea14 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2013/05/23/bob-mcdonald-out-at-procter-a-g-lafley-returning-as-ceo/ | Congrats, Bill Ackman: Bob McDonald Out At P&G, A.G. Lafley Returning As CEO | Congrats, Bill Ackman: Bob McDonald Out At P&G, A.G. Lafley Returning As CEO
NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 22: Bob McDonald, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Procter &... [+] Gamble, speaks during the seventh annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) at the Sheraton New York Hotel on September 22, 2011 in New York City. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)
Activist investor Bill Ackman has had a rough year with the failure of his handpicked CEO at J.C. Penney, Ron Johnson, and a so-far wrong way short bet on Herbalife. He's probably smiling tonight, though, after Procter & Gamble announced the departure of CEO Bob McDonald.
The world's largest consumer products company said Thursday evening that McDonald is stepping down immediately, and that revered former CEO A.G. Lafley will come out of retirement to serve as president, chief executive and chairman of the board.
McDonald was thought to be in jeopardy of losing his job last summer after a string of reductions to profit forecasts frustrated analysts and investors, and Ackman barreled onto the scene, unveiling a $1.8 billion stake in the company.
Ackman and other investors called on the maker of Tide detergent and Pampers diapers to trim overhead and raise manufacturing productivity. Earlier in the year, McDonald had launched a $10 billion cost-cutting campaign that has so far eliminated 6,250 office jobs. The company also laid out a plan to tighten up its operations in emerging markets, where McDonald had been accused of an over-aggressive approach, and focus on the 40 product-country combinations that account for the majority of its earnings.
Stronger earnings to close out the year and the turnaround efforts quieted criticism, but disappointing sales for the first three months of 2013 revived questions about whether the company was on the right track.
Ackman had privately urged the company's board last year to replace McDonald, according to the Wall Street Journal, and at the Ira Sohn investing conference early this month, the hedge fund manager had said that McDonald only had a couple of quarters to show that he could improve performance. Ackman also took pot shots at McDonald for serving on too many corporate boards, which, he claimed to have calculated, ate up 25% of his time.
McDonald was tapped to lead P&G by Lafley, who earned widespread plaudits for his performance as president and CEO from 2000 to 2009, in which he brought the company out of a tailspin. Lafley built up its beauty business, acquired Gillette for $53 billion in 2005, launched hit products such as Swiffer and Febreze, and expanded the company's presence in emerging markets.
The company said it would maintain its fiscal year and fourth quarter guidance.
Here's Procter & Gamble's announcement:
Procter & Gamble (NYSE:PG) announced today that Alan George "A.G." Lafley has rejoined the Company as President and Chief Executive Officer, effective immediately. He has also been elected to the Board of Directors and will serve as its Chairman. Mr. Lafley joined Procter & Gamble in 1977 and served as President and Chief Executive Officer from 2000 to 2009. He succeeds Robert A. "Bob" McDonald, who is retiring from the Company on June 30, 2013, after 33 years of service. Jim McNerney, presiding director of P&G's Board, said, "A.G.'s track record and his depth of experience at P&G make him uniquely qualified to lead the Company forward at this important time. The Board expects A.G. to further improve results, implement the current productivity plan, and facilitate an ongoing succession process. The Board is confident that he will continue improving P&G's performance." Mr. McNerney added, "We thank Bob for his service and note the Company's improving business performance. Under his leadership, the Company expanded its business in developing markets, built a strong innovation pipeline, and has made substantial progress implementing a $10 billion cost savings and productivity program." Mr. Lafley said, "I wish Bob well, and thank him for his service to P&G. I am looking forward to working with P&G's outstanding leadership team to continue to improve the Company's performance. I am confident that we will deliver strong innovation, productivity and growth to win with consumers, customers and shareholders." Mr. McDonald joined the Company in 1980 and served as President and Chief Executive Officer from 2009 to 2013. Mr. McDonald said, "It has been a privilege to work with the people of Procter & Gamble to serve consumers around the world.I'm proud of what we have accomplished together, and I am confident in the Company's future." The Company confirmed its fiscal year and fourth quarter guidance, as stated in the recent third quarter earnings release.
|
11b1746f70862bc3bf0e12a47c929cf5 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2014/04/23/is-bouygues-crying-uncle-on-alstom-ge-said-in-talks-for-13b-acquisition/ | Is Bouygues Crying Uncle On Alstom? GE Said In Talks For $13B Acquisition. | Is Bouygues Crying Uncle On Alstom? GE Said In Talks For $13B Acquisition.
In February, French billionaire Martin Bouygues said his eponymous conglomerate was still "comfortable" with its 29% stake in Alstom SA, despite having just booked a $1.9 billion write-down on the train and power equipment maker due to a 37% drop in its shares over the past year.
That may just have been tough talk. Bloomberg is reporting that General Electric is in talks to buy Alstom for more than $13 billion, with an agreement possible as early as next week.
Alstom's transport division has been winning record orders -- it's the maker of France's famed high-speed TGV trains -- but the economic slowdown in Europe and emerging markets has sapped the company's larger power equipment business, leading it to lower its profit forecast in January, its second reduction in nine months. Moody's slashed its rating on Alstom's debt last year to one level above junk. In November, CEO Patrick Kron said the company intended to sell a stake in its train unit to raise cash.
Bouygues bought the French government's 21% stake in Alstom in 2006, making it the company's largest shareholder, in a bet that rising prosperity in emerging markets would boost Alstom's order books. However, the company's power unit has struggled to compete with GE and Siemens in Asia and Latin America, while the weak economy in Europe has hurt electricity demand, leading utilities to reduce equipment purchases.
Meanwhile, GE is the picture of health, with profit in its industrial segment rising 12% in the first quarter. Acquiring Alstom would fit with CEO Jeffrey Immelt's strategy to focus more tightly on heavy industry; the company has set a goal of deriving 70% of its earnings from industrial businesses.
|
0be600fadf3dd346a438921c824d0e0e | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2014/04/30/ge-gains-inside-track-on-alstom-acquisition-street-approves/ | GE Gains Inside Track On Alstom Acquisition; Street Approves | GE Gains Inside Track On Alstom Acquisition; Street Approves
The board of the struggling French industrial company Alstom formally endorsed a $17 billion all-cash offer from General Electric for its energy division Wednesday, giving the U.S. conglomerate a leg up over a bid from rival Siemens that the French government favors.
Seeking to assuage French politicians' fears of job losses at a time when record numbers are out of work, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt promised to increase headcount in the country and make it GE’s global base for its steam turbine, electric grid, offshore wind and hydropower businesses.
It’s the biggest acquisition that GE has attempted, but financially it wouldn’t be a strain – the company intends to tap the $57 billion in cash that it has piled up overseas to avoid U.S. corporate taxes. After taking in $3.4 billion in cash held by Alstom's energy units, GE would be out about $13.5 billion.
Despite the employment guarantees GE is making, it should have flexibility to cut costs. Only 18,000 of Alstom’s 93,000 employees are in France. “We do NOT like the additional European exposure but we think the cost synergies could be huge,” analyst Steven Winoker of Bernstein Research said in a recent research note.
In Alstom, whose balance sheet has been bled by cutbacks in capital spending by European utilities, GE would be picking up businesses that generated 14.8 billion euros ($20.5 billion) in revenue in fiscal 2013. Alstom has the largest installed base of coal-fired boilers and steam turbines of any power equipment manufacturer; it’s also No. 3 in gas and No. 1 in hydropower, according to Barclays Research. As well, GE would gain the electric grid products unit formerly owned by Areva that GE had bid for in 2009; under pressure from the government to keep the business in French hands, Areva opted to sell it to Alstom and Schneider Electric.
Combined with the planned spinoff of GE's credit card unit, the acquisition would push the company past the goal Immelt set in the wake of the financial crisis: to reduce the share of its earnings from its finance business to 30%. GE's industrial operations would account for 75% of earnings by 2016, the company said.
“Alstom is levered to those themes in which GE believes. GE would essentially be doubling down on power generation, transmission [and] distribution,” said Winoker.
Bowing to the French government’s demand for more time to consider the fate of what it considers a strategic industrial asset, Alstom said it would form a committee of independent board members to review GE’s bid; the committee would make a decision by June 2 on whether Alstom should advance to exclusive talks to conclude a deal.
Siemens yesterday submitted a letter to Alstom adding more details to the competing offer it outlined Sunday. The German industrial powerhouse is proposing an asset swap in which it would acquire Alstom’s power businesses; in return it is offering Alstom its high-speed and suburban train units to combine with the French company’s healthier train business, which makes France’s famed high-speed TGV trains. Siemens would retain a 19% stake in the resulting train company; it also said it would pay up to 11 million euros in cash to Alstom shareholders.
French Economy Minister Arnaud Mounteborg has encouraged Siemens’ overture, saying Sunday it would create “two European and world champions in the fields of energy and transport.”
Siemens reportedly has complained of a lack of cooperation from Alstom.
The GE offer is supported by Alstom’s largest investor, the French conglomerate Bouygues, which is controlled by billionaire Martin Bouygues.
GE investors don’t seem opposed: since reports of the deal first surfaced last Wednesday, its stock has perked up slightly, rising 1.6% to $26.86 in early afternoon trading today.
Analysts by and large have applauded the deal. Deane Dray of Citi Research thinks the valuation is reasonable and that there could be upside to the $1.2 billion in cost savings GE is targeting to achieve by the fifth year.
Brian Langenberg, principal of Chicago-based Langenberg & Co., called it a "huge opportunity to whack Siemens upside the head on their home turf."
|
1b29b3dddfc6b0738dce487701ea660d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2018/07/17/united-technologies-shoots-for-technology-breakout-with-experimental-hybrid-electric-aircraft/ | United Technologies Shoots For Technology Breakout With Experimental Hybrid-Electric Aircraft | United Technologies Shoots For Technology Breakout With Experimental Hybrid-Electric Aircraft
Paul Eremenko speaks at the Viva Technology conference on June 15, 2017, in Paris. (Photo by... [+] Christophe Morin/IP3/Getty Images)
Aircraft parts suppliers are under heavy pressure from Airbus and Boeing. The plane makers are looking to wrest away a larger share of lucrative after-market income from maintenance and services – Airbus said Tuesday it aims to triple its services revenue to $10 billion in the next decade, while Boeing is also looking for threefold services growth to $50 billion by 2022. Boeing is on an ambitious drive to bring more parts production in-house.
That context adds more intrigue to Tuesday's news that United Technologies is developing experimental aircraft with hybrid propulsion systems.
Paul Eremenko, chief technology officer at United Technologies, said at the Farnborough air show that the company is developing a number of hybrid-electric demonstrators, per FlightGlobal. The company may share more details on the program in a “couple more months.”
United Technologies is in the process of acquiring Rockwell Collins, which will give it an aerospace business spanning engines, avionics, components and interiors with $40 billion a year in revenue, well above No. 2 General Electric at $26 billion. That will help the Connecticut-based conglomerate resist intensifying pricing pressures, but given Airbus and Boeing’s tightening control over the supply chain, greater scale may not be enough.
“The only hope of getting past that and gaining pricing power is through technology,” says aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. United Technologies' hybrid-electric program looks like an attempt at developing that, based on subsidiary Pratt & Whitney’s expertise in conventional gas turbines and UTC Aerospace Systems' chops in power management and electrical systems.
“The problem is Boeing has other ideas – that’s why they bought Aurora Flight Sciences,” says Aboulafia.
Is United Technologies just looking to develop new propulsion systems, or could this be a first step on a road that could lead to it making its own aircraft? “Either is conceivable,” says Aboulafia, though there may not be a base case for the latter.
“Either would get them past the margins that are inflicted upon you in a very well contained duopoly,” he says.
The United Technologies program joins a number of other efforts to develop hybrid-electric flight. Airbus, Rolls-Royce and Siemens are working on a demonstrator dubbed the E-Fan X, while Boeing and JetBlue are backing Zunum Aero, which is developing a 12-seat hybrid jet that it aims to bring to market in 2022.
General Electric published a white paper last year detailing its experiments with a 1MW hybrid powerplant, and at Farnborough on Monday, jet engine maker Roll-Royce unveiled a concept for a hybrid-electric VTOL flying taxi that it aims to demonstrate in the next two years.
|
677044e30b56646f404cee267efe5267 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/05/16/lilium-flies-full-scale-version-of-its-elegant-electric-air-taxi/?sh=1c68e19762f3 | Lilium Flies Full-Scale Prototype Of Powerful Electric Air Taxi | Lilium Flies Full-Scale Prototype Of Powerful Electric Air Taxi
Lilium says its piloted electric aircraft will be able to carry four passengers and their luggage ... [+] 186 miles at 186 mph. Courtesy of Lilium Aviation
Lilium has gotten off the ground. The German air taxi startup has completed a hover test of a full-scale prototype of its ambitious electric aircraft, which is powered by tilting ducted fans designed to allow it to take off and land vertically while cruising with the efficiency and speed of a winged aircraft.
Lilium says its aircraft will be capable of carrying four passengers and their luggage plus a pilot 300 kilometers (186 miles), roughly the distance from New York to Boston, at a speed of 300 kilometers per hour, farther and faster than most of the scores of other electric air taxi startups.
The Munich-based company envisions knitting regions together more tightly with a transportation service it plans to run itself, enabling quick, affordable on-demand travel between major cities and ones that currently aren’t connected by airlines.
“How far can you get in an hour? We want to fundamentally change that for everybody,” Remo Gerber, Lilium’s chief commercial officer, told Forbes.
Lilium has raised $101 million in venture capital, making it one of the best-funded air taxi startups. However, it’s going to need a whole lot more money to execute its vision say analysts who rate the aircraft’s design as ambitious, but its business model even more so.
One thing Lilium seems to have in spades: raw power. The company, co-founded by four German engineering students in 2015, has developed a proprietary electric engine with just a single moving part that drives a small ducted fan. The aircraft has 36 of the engines mounted over the main wing and a forward canard that the companys says generate 2,000 horsepower—a “massive” amount, says Philip Ansell, an aerospace engineering professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who’s working on distributed electric propulsion systems. By comparison, a four-seat Robinson R44 helicopter has 245 horsepower.
MORE FOR YOUPrivate Jet Charter Isn’t As Strong As Some Say, And The Claims Come Come Back To Haunt The Industry
Lilium may need all those horses to get off the ground with its envisioned passenger payload and a heavy rack of batteries, says Ansell—batteries have an energy density about 40 times lower than jet fuel, giving electric aircraft a poor power to weight ratio. Once the aircraft transitions to forward flight, the lift generated by its wings will allow it to use less than 10% of its horsepower, the company says. The aircraft will control its position in the air by varying power engine by engine, allowing the designers to dispense with a tail and steering flaps.
Lilium isn’t disclosing the aircraft’s weight or battery specs, making it hard to evaluate the company’s payload and range claims, which Ansell says are on the high end of what he considers possible.
Whether the aircraft is really a jet, as Lilium brands it, is debatable, but it lends a sexier image than the propulsion systems of its VTOL competitors, most of which are using propellers. Propellers can achieve faster speeds at the tip due to their greater length, generating more lift on takeoff, but one upside to Lilium’s smaller enclosed fans is lower noise. Gerber says the aircraft will be four to five times quieter than a helicopter, and won’t be audible to people on the ground when it’s flying at 1,000 feet. That will help the company’s chances of getting approval to operate in urban areas, where helicopters’ operations have been severely restricted due to their loudness.
The company plans to launch service in 2025, and it envisions taking advantage of existing heliports and helicopter flight corridors to start. Gerber says the company aims to offer intercity service for a price on par with airline airfares plus the cost of airport taxi service, which its passengers won’t have to pay since Lilium will fly from city center to city center.
Its pricing claims raise eyebrows among aviation analysts. An electric aircraft with fewer moving parts may have lower operating costs than a similarly sized conventional plane, but Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group says it’s a head-scratcher how a piloted aircraft with four passengers could match the economies of scale of a 150-seat airliner with two pilots. All urban air mobility startups have the same problem, he says: “It’s not clear how they’re significantly less expensive than helicopters,” which are beyond the budget of the average traveler.
That Lilium aims to operate its own transport service rather than sell its aircraft to others significantly increases the amount of capital it will need and delays the day when it might turn a profit, says Ernie Arvai of the consultancy AirInsight. Arvai estimates Lilium will need in the range of a half-billion dollars to get through certification to production of its fleet, and without an open market for its vehicles, it will have a harder time getting financing for them. Developing a network of landing pads and terminals for its transport service will cost even more.
“If you’re going to build and operate the planes yourself, that’s a high-risk strategy in my view,” Arvai says.
Lilium's founders (from left): Sebastian Born, head of mechanical systems; Patrick Nathen, VP of ... [+] product strategy; CEO Daniel Wiegand; and Matthias Meiner, head of autonomous systems. Courtesy of Lilium
To this point Lilium has raised funds from an array of tech investors, including China’s Tencent and Atomico, the venture capital fund of the billionaire Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstrom.
Lilium flight-tested a two-seater version of the design in 2017, which validated its ability to shift from vertical to forward flight. Next up, Gerber says Lilium will build a final version of the aircraft that it will take through further flight testing to safety certification and production.
The company is working on autonomous control systems for the aircraft, but Gerber says its business model doesn’t depend on going pilotless.
|
65e9f34d525d751f7531f3d8420070ee | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/01/inside-larry-pages-kitty-hawk-returned-deposits-battery-fires-boeing-cora/ | Inside Larry Page’s Turbulent Kitty Hawk: Returned Deposits, Battery Fires And A Boeing Shakeup | Inside Larry Page’s Turbulent Kitty Hawk: Returned Deposits, Battery Fires And A Boeing Shakeup
With flight time maxing out at 20 minutes due to battery limitations, Kitty Hawk initially intended ... [+] Flyer for quick thrills, but the company has pivoted to an idea to trial using it in a transportation service. Courtesy of Kitty Hawk
[Updated: December 2, 12:45 p.m.]
In 2017, success seemed to be just around the corner for Kitty Hawk, the secretive flying-car company that’s bankrolled by Google cofounder Larry Page and run by Sebastian Thrun, the Stanford AI and robotics whiz who had launched Google’s self-driving car unit. Kitty Hawk had just shown off a prototype of the Flyer, a single-seat, battery-powered aircraft intended to be a low-altitude fun machine for use over water, like a jet ski on rotors, with handling that would make flying as easy as driving. “I’m excited that one day very soon I’ll be able to climb onto my Kitty Hawk Flyer for a quick and easy personal flight,” Page said at the time. The startup promised to put the Flyer in eager buyers’ hands by the end of the year.
Late that year the Mountain View, California-based company also began flight-testing a more ambitious project in New Zealand: a two-seat electric self-flying taxi called Cora that Kitty Hawk says will enable city dwellers to soar over gridlocked streets. “Just imagine traveling at 80 miles an hour in a straight line at any time of day without ever having to stop,” Thrun told the Guardian a few months after Cora was unveiled. “It would be transformational to almost every person I know.”
Two years later, however, Kitty Hawk’s promise to bring personal flying to the masses has failed to take wing yet amid technical problems and safety issues with Flyer and unresolved questions about its practical use, according to four former Kitty Hawk employees who were among six who spoke to Forbes on the condition of anonymity due to nondisclosure agreements. At the same time, the company may have given up control of Cora, sources suggest. (Update: On Monday, after publication of this story, Kitty Hawk and Boeing announced that Cora has been folded into a joint venture company named Wisk Aero. Two Boeing executives and Wisk’s CEO, who previously worked for Boeing, hold three seats on the five-member board.)
Kitty Hawk confirmed to Forbes that, after unveiling a more polished version of Flyer last year, it has decided not to sell the one-seater to individuals and has returned deposits to would-be buyers. Behind closed doors, Flyer encountered problems, including frequent breakdowns and fires involving batteries, electric motors and wiring, two former engineers said. Last year, the Mountain View Fire Department was called to put out an early morning blaze at the Flyer building, city records show; former employees said the fire at the Google-owned building involved damaged batteries that had been pulled out of a Flyer that had crashed the previous day in flight testing under remote operation.
“No person has ever been harmed or exposed due to undue risk in over 26,000 test flights with over 100 prototype vehicles,” wrote Shernaz Daver, an advisor to Kitty Hawk, in an email response to a list of questions sent by Forbes. She did not comment directly on the fires or reports of breakdowns or problems with batteries.
MORE FOR YOUChina Blinks As American, Philippine Fleets Challenge Possible Reef SeizureRussia Is Trying To Restore a Giant Nuclear Battlecruiser—It’s Not Working OutBiden’s Assault Weapon Ban Faces Long Odds As States Battle Over Gun Control
Intent on bringing Flyer to market quickly, management in several instances brushed off workers who expressed worries that problems with the aircraft could endanger passengers, two former employees said. At least two members of the flight test team were let go after questioning the safety of the aircraft, they said, and some other members of the Flyer team who spoke up quit or jumped to another program at Kitty Hawk. Those individuals declined to comment when reached by Forbes.
“It was a pattern—if you talked about safety, you were done, so you just didn’t,” said one former employee. “That’s just how it had to be if you wanted to keep getting a paycheck.”
Daver did not respond directly to questions about employee departures, but said workers at Kitty Hawk are required to report safety-related issues to their managers, or through a confidential digital channel directly to the general counsel and human resources, and can anonymously discuss safety concerns with an external safety director.
Kitty Hawk got off to an earlier start than many of the scores of startups now attempting to build electric urban air taxis, and the deep pockets of Page, who has a nearly $60 billion fortune, have been a huge advantage, enabling the company to hire hundreds of engineers, machinists and designers to create cutting-edge aircraft. However, the company faces the same problems as any aspirant in the field: the poor energy density of the current generation of batteries severely limits the flight times and carrying capacity of electric aircraft, and building a functioning prototype is faster and easier than turning it into a reliable product that satisfies aviation regulators’ safety requirements. In the case of urban air mobility, many of the requirements don’t yet exist.
These challenges may explain why a strategic partnership with Boeing announced in June could go much deeper than publicly announced. Public filings and organizational shifts at Kitty Hawk described by former employees indicate that there’s been a change of control of the Cora program, and Boeing seems the likely acquirer. The jetmaker and Kitty Hawk declined to comment.
That would leave Kitty Hawk with two other aircraft: Flyer and Heaviside, an autonomous winged one-seater unveiled in October that, in an attempt to solve the noise problem that has made heliports unwelcome neighbors, was designed to be 100 times quieter than helicopters, as well as faster. The company has shelved the idea of marketing Flyer as a recreational device and is exploring commercial options, perhaps running it as a kind of aerial ferry.
“We have moved to seeing it as a transportation service and not as a vehicle for individual purchase,” said Daver. “It is going to be a ride-sharing model for transportation services.”
Larry Page began dabbling in aviation in 2010, quietly funding a company called Zee.Aero that was led by a Stanford aerospace professor, Ilan Kroo, near the Google campus. The original vision was to produce a literal flying car, with folding wings so it could fit inside a home garage, but that was quickly abandoned as impractical, and Zee went on to try other designs, including one registered with FAA under the name “Mutt” because of its marriage of new elements with an older configuration. Zee tested a piloted electric aircraft that the company considered selling as a kit to be assembled by buyers. Eventually Zee decided the plane should be developed into a pilotless air taxi, now dubbed Cora.
In 2015 Page set up another stealth startup next door to Zee.Aero and called it Kitty Hawk, after the tiny coastal village in North Carolina’s Outer Banks where the Wright brothers carried out their own flying experiments. The modern-day Kitty Hawk was run by Thrun, who previously directed Google’s moonshot R&D program and founded online education company Udacity. It tinkered with a series of concepts, including a complicated scheme to suspend a pod from aircraft by tethers that could pick up a person or cargo on the ground while the aircraft circled overhead.
Eventually Kitty Hawk, which went on to absorb Zee.Aero, embarked on a mission to be the first to get an electric passenger aircraft to market that could take off and land vertically. Thrun wanted a small team to work fast and creatively, using as many off-the-shelf components as possible, according to former employees. “The term thrown around was we were the cowboys of Kitty Hawk; we were doing crazy stuff,” said one.
Sebastian Thrun speaks at TechCrunch Disrupt with a canine guest in 2017 in San Francisco. Steve Jennings/Getty
Kitty Hawk’s Flyer, as the project came to be called, was intended to be small enough to avoid safety certification altogether, weighing in under 254 pounds so it could qualify under Federal Aviation Administration rules as an ultralight, a category of aircraft that’s long been the province of hobbyists and tinkerers. Operation of ultralights is restricted—they can’t be flown over populated areas or at night—but ensuring the aircraft is safe is left up to the maker.
With an engineering team smaller than 20, Flyer made rapid progress. Kitty Hawk offered a rare peek behind the curtain to the New York Times in 2017, showing off what appeared to be a motorcycle on a spiderweb with eight downward-facing rotors.
Then in 2018 it started giving a small number of media test rides at Lake Las Vegas of a more finished vehicle with a composite frame with a constellation of ten upward-facing rotors around it.
Though Flyer was capped to 10 feet in altitude and 20 mph in speed, and Kitty Hawk said it was intended to be flown over water, for safety, the company was presenting it as a thrill ride, putting up Web pages to take applications for the first production models from individuals and potential fleet operators like amusement parks or resorts. The YouTube personality Casey Neistat gave it a try, publishing a video that was watched 2.2 million times in which he shouts happily while banking and spinning Flyer around the lake.
But Flyer wasn’t ready to thrill: The latest prototype was breaking down frequently and needed regular troubleshooting and repair by engineers, three former employees say. “This thing would break every few hours and need service,” said one. Kitty Hawk did not respond to questions about Flyer’s reliability.
Among the failures were a series of fires during its development. To save on weight, two former employees said that engineers dispensed with the protective shielding commonly used between lithium-ion battery cells in cars, bundling cells together with tape, increasing the risk that if one ignited, others would catch on fire, too. Only recently did the Flyer program get its own battery expert on staff, one former employee said.
Over the last six months, the Flyer program has gone through a reset, former employees said. The focus has been on improving reliability rather than iterating on the design, and on finding a use for the vehicles.
“Kitty Hawk doesn’t start from the principle of what’s the economically viable thing we’re going to build. It engineers something to solve a problem and then it’s ‘Okay, here’s a cool thing we built—what can we do with it?’ ” said an ex-employee who was among a wave of departures from the Flyer program this year.
The latest idea: that Kitty Hawk would operate Flyer as a service. The company has scouted out cities where it could offer point-to-point rides across bodies of water, which would make for a more forgiving surface to come down on in the event of a crash, two former employees said. And riders will no longer have the freedom to take Flyer for a joyride, they say: The flight path will be automated. Kitty Hawk has applied for a permit in Jersey City, New Jersey, to develop a floating dock and hangar for a potential route across the Hudson River to Manhattan, and is exploring a route across San Francisco Bay, according to local media.
It’s unclear how Flyer would be regulated in such a use, with one gray area being whether it would be treated as a boat traveling above the water or a low-flying aircraft.
Kitty Hawk has reached out to the U.S. Coast Guard to ask how it would classify Flyer, a Coast Guard spokesman said. “We are taking a deliberate look at determining what these vehicles are, as that determination will set precedence for years or decades to come regarding their place in the marine transportation system.”
The company’s other major program, Cora, also faces daunting regulatory hurdles. Boeing might be the one to see it through.
In June, Boeing and Kitty Hawk announced a strategic partnership that they said would “bring together the innovation of Kitty Hawk’s Cora division with Boeing’s scale and aerospace expertise.” Public records and changes at the company suggest it goes deeper than that.
Cora is an electric VTOL aircraft designed to carry two passengers about 60 miles at a speed of 110 ... [+] mph. Courtesy of Kitty Hawk
In May, Kitty Hawk general counsel Molly Abraham made a filing in Delaware to incorporate a company under the name of Cora Aero at the same address as Kitty Hawk; a November filing lists Cora Aero’s CEO as Gary Gysin, who until February was head of Liquid Robotics, a developer of wave-powered autonomous watercraft that was acquired by Boeing in 2016. His LinkedIn profile states he’s head of a stealth mode startup. (Update: In Monday’s announcement, Boeing and Kitty Hawk confirmed Gysin is the CEO of the new joint venture company.)
Former Kitty Hawk employees said that around the time the Boeing partnership was announced, access to the Cora building, which had contained a cafeteria and reception area shared by all, was abruptly restricted to workers only on that program, and IT, HR and other back-office workers were divided between Cora and Kitty Hawk. Several said they believe Boeing is now in control of Cora.
Hard yards lie ahead for Cora in New Zealand, where Kitty Hawk chose to try to win safety certification due to enticing features of the country’s air safety code, which promises to allow the company to collaboratively define airworthiness standards with that country’s Civil Aviation Authority. Additionally, a unique provision of the regulations permits “adventure flights” by aircraft that don’t have standard safety certifications, such as vintage warbirds, which could allow Kitty Hawk to launch a revenue-generating passenger service before Cora is fully certified, said James Lawson, an aerospace safety consultant who previously consulted with Kitty Hawk on Cora when the company was considering pursuing certification in the U.S.
Cora is hand-built, largely of custom components made in-house, and still at the stage of proving out its technology, former employees on that program said. Another version needs to be constructed with safety systems, weatherproofing and passenger comforts, and designed to be easily manufacturable. Those final, long and painstaking steps promise to be a tall hurdle for many of the urban air mobility startups as they try to transition from Skunk Works-type inventors to real businesses, said Lawson—and it could account for the bulk of the spending.
“The technology is one thing, but 80% of the effort is in productizing and building an aircraft that can be certified,” said Lawson.
With reporting by Biz Carson.
|
5c152f444a987b0f2d9c85ade020932c | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/23/boeing-loses-patience-with-muilenburg-replacing-him-as-ceo-with-board-chairman-calhoun/ | Boeing Loses Patience With Muilenburg, But Calhoun May Be No More Than A Short-Term Fix As CEO | Boeing Loses Patience With Muilenburg, But Calhoun May Be No More Than A Short-Term Fix As CEO
David Calhoun, center, then CEO of Nielsen, watches progress as he waits for his company's IPO to ... [+] begin trading, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Jan. 26, 2011. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) ASSOCIATED PRESS
[Updated 4:10 p.m. EST]
Amid mounting criticism over CEO Dennis Muilenburg’s handling of the 737 MAX crisis, Boeing on Monday said that he would be replaced by chairman and longtime board member David Calhoun.
While Calhoun may do a better public relations job than Muilenburg, some observers questioned whether he represents a real change in direction for the embattled company.
CFO Greg Smith will serve as interim CEO until Jan. 13 while Calhoun exits non-Boeing commitments.
“The Board of Directors decided that a change in leadership was necessary to restore confidence in the Company moving forward as it works to repair relationships with regulators, customers, and all other stakeholders,” the company said in a statement.
The move comes nine months after global aviation safety regulators grounded the 737 MAX, Boeing’s best-selling plane, after the second of two deadly crashes. Muilenburg has been faulted for a leaden public response to the crisis, angering the families of the deceased, lawmakers and members of the public with his reluctance to acknowledge that faults with the plane’s flight control system were responsible for the crashes, which killed 346.
Under Muilenburg’s leadership, Boeing repeatedly promised airlines and investors that it was near winning approval for fixes for the flight control system and other changes that would allow the plane to return to service.
MORE FOR YOUElectric Aviation Trailblazer Bye Aims To Dethrone The King AirChina Blinks As American, Philippine Fleets Challenge Possible Reef SeizureTaiwan Wants Stealth Cruise Missiles
Two weeks ago, Muilenburg was upbraided by FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson, who summoned Boeing’s CEO to a meeting in Washington to address concerns that the company was attempting to publicly pressure the agency to move more quickly.
Last week, Boeing announced it would halt 737 production in January, with roughly 400 planes in storage that it had produced since March that it has been unable to deliver to customers.
Calhoun is well-respected, having spent 26 years as an executive at Jack Welch-era General Electric, including a stint running the aircraft engines unit, and he helped guide Caterpillar through a delicate time recently as chairman of the board when the heavy machinery maker was under investigation by the IRS over its accounting and facing troubles in China.
A much more comfortable speaker, Calhoun should be a more effective face for the company than Muilenburg with Congress and the public, and help improve its strained relationship with airlines and the FAA.
While that might be a solution for Boeing’s short-term problems, Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with Teal Group, cautions that Calhoun’s recent experience doesn’t lend confidence that he has the skills Boeing needs long-term. Calhoun has spent the past five years in private equity as a managing director at Blackstone Group, and before that eight years as head of the market research firm Nielsen. “[It] is perhaps the wrong toolkit for an engineering company that needs to restore its capabilities and reputation,” he says.
Given that Calhoun has been on Boeing’s board since 2009, it’s questionable whether he can offer a fresh approach, analyst Ronald Epstein of Bank of America/Merrill Lynch wrote in a client note. “We wonder if appointing from within, especially an insider that has been with the company for 10 years, signals more of the same from Boeing vs. an outside appointee who may have offered more of a change of pace and culture.”
Calhoun, who was appointed chairman in October when the title was stripped from Muilenburg, will be replaced as chairman by Lawrence Kellner, a board member since 2011 who was CEO of Continental Airlines from 2004 through 2009.
Boeing has a mandatory retirement age of 65 and Calhoun is 62. While the board could be amenable to giving Calhoun an extension, CFO Smith may be in position to take the job eventually, says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. “This gives him runway to be an appropriate successor.”
Boeing shares rose 2.9% to close at $337.55 on Monday on the New York Stock Exchange.
It’s an abrupt end for Muilenburg, who spent his entire 34-year career at Boeing, starting as an intern and rising to run the defense division before he was tapped to become CEO in 2015.
Until this spring, Boeing seemed to be going from strength to strength on Muilenburg’s watch, riding a boom in aircraft orders amid a historic expansion in air travel. Like his predecessors Jim McNerney and Harry Stonecipher, Muilenburg rewarded shareholders handsomely, devoting roughly 95% of operating cash flow to the company’s steadily rising dividend and share buybacks. Boeing shares climbed fourfold from February 2016 to a peak of $446 at the beginning of March, compared with a 63% rise for the Dow industrials over the same period.
However, critics have charged that the focus on financials has served to erode the primacy that engineering concerns used to have at the company.
The seeds of the 737 MAX crisis were sown well before Muilenburg was involved with the commercial airplanes division, with the decision in 2011 by Boeing to develop an updated version of the aging 737 with larger, more efficient engines rather than build an all-new single-aisle plane. Those larger engines changed how the 737 handled, prompting Boeing to develop software called the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) to automatically push the plane’s nose down in certain situations. MCAS’ design flaws are believed to be primary causes of the two deadly crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
However, Boeing’s response to the crisis has been seen as squarely Muilenburg’s responsibility. He came under fire for public statements that were seen as scripted, lawyerly and lacking in empathy for the families of the deceased. Airlines and regulators have accused Boeing of being slow to share information, including the fact that the company knew in 2017 that an alert wasn’t working on most MAX aircraft that was intended to warn of a disagreement between the plane’s angle of attack sensors, which played a key role in the crashes.
It’s indicative of a corporate identity that under Muilenburg’s leadership “has been less than humble,” analyst Robert Stallard of Vertical Research wrote in a client note Monday, pointing also to the decision to raise production of the 787 Dreamliner to 14 planes a month, which has been walked back, and a strategy that seemed to assume that the historic boom-bust pattern of the aerospace sector is a thing of the past.
Muilenburg was widely seen as on his way out, with the ideal scenario being that he would depart sometime after the 737 MAX had returned to service. But with commentators increasingly calling for Muilenburg’s head last week following the announcement that the company would idle 737 production, the company suffered a stinging embarrassment Friday when a test launch of its Starliner space capsule went awry. Because a timer was set incorrectly, it was unable to reach an orbit to rendezvous as planned with the International Space Station.
The union representing Boeing engineers welcomed the leadership transition, saying in a statement that under Muilenburg, the company’s reputation for quality had “been unquestionably tarnished.”
Michael Stumo, who has become a prominent critic of Boeing since his daughter Samya Stumo’s death in the Ethiopia crash, said, “Mr. Muilenburg’s resignation is a good first step toward restoring Boeing to a company that focuses on safety and innovation.” He called for “underperforming or underqualified” board members to resign as well.
|
78772808f7bd17227d0f4f0ad2bb5fb9 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2021/02/24/joby-spac-linkedin-reid-hoffman/ | Air Taxi Startup Joby To Go Public In Merger With SPAC From LinkedIn, Zynga Founders That Will Raise $1.6 Billion | Air Taxi Startup Joby To Go Public In Merger With SPAC From LinkedIn, Zynga Founders That Will Raise $1.6 Billion
Joby Aviation founder JoeBen Bevirt (right) stands with Executive Chairman Paul Sciarra in front of ... [+] a prototype of their electric tiltrotor air taxi. ETHAN PINES / FORBES
Ordinary investors will soon have multiple ways to get a lift from the companies trying to build a future in which radical new aircraft replace cars for getting around town.
The California startup Joby Aviation, one of the leaders in the race to field an electric air taxi, will go public through a reverse merger with Reinvent Technology Partners, a $690 million, publicly listed blank check company controlled by LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman and Zynga founder Mark Pincus, the companies announced Wednesday. The deal was designed with unusually long restrictions on sales of the stock by key players, which could shelter Joby from some of the instability and short-term focus of Wall Street, with Hoffman and Pincus committing to play the type of multi-year mentoring role more often seen with venture-capital investors.
The merged company will trade on the New York Stock Exchange with an expected market capitalization of $6.6 billion. Including an accompanying private stock placement, the deal will give Joby $1.6 billion in fresh funding — enough money to bring its prototype five-seat aircraft through the grueling and expensive process of safety certification, they say, as well as to build a 450,000-square-foot factory that the startup has been developing in Monterey County with key backer Toyota Motor where CEO JoeBen Bevirt plans to produce thousands of aircraft a year to populate an air taxi network that he believes will change the way we get around cities and their suburbs.
Bevirt, who founded Joby in 2009, has worked secretively over much of the past decade to develop his as-yet unnamed aircraft, which is designed to take off and land vertically like a helicopter while cruising on wings like an airplane, carrying a pilot and four passengers 150 miles at a top speed of 200 miles per hour. Toyota, in addition to engineering help, has provided heavy funding, pumping roughly $400 million into Joby in 2020, joining investors including billionaire Jeff Skoll’s Capricorn Investment Group, Laurene Powell Jobs’ Emerson Collective and Uber.
Hoffman and Pincus make for interesting new partners. When they launched Reinvent Technology Partners last year, they said they would take a different approach than the quick score tactics of many other special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, aiming for a long-term relationship with a merger partner that they described as “venture capital at scale.” At a point where VCs usually hand off a startup to the public markets, they would deploy a larger amount of money to guide a company through the “next decade” of growth, drawing on Pincus’ experience building Zynga and Hoffman’s with PayPal, LinkedIn and the myriad companies he’s invested in since through Greylock Partners, including Airbnb and Facebook.
Hoffman and Pincus notably lack experience in hardware, let alone aerospace, with its byzantine regulations and high capital requirements, but Bevirt and Joby Executive Chairman Paul Sciarra say they’re the right partners.
MORE FOR YOUIt Took Four Aerial Tankers To Drag Four U.S. Air Force F-16s To The South China Sea—And That’s A ProblemChina Blinks As American, Philippine Fleets Challenge Possible Reef Seizure‘U-Boat Or Whale?’ Secret WWII Report Explains The Difference
Bevirt and Sciarra are confident that they’ve nailed the design of their aircraft after over 1,000 test flights and that they have a clear path to winning safety certification from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in 2023, which would likely make theirs the first electric air taxi to do so, and they say they have a solid plan to mass manufacture it.
They believe Reinvent and Hoffman, who will join Joby’s board, will be of critical help with the next stage: developing vertiports and the software and other tools they need to build out their transportation network. It’s of a piece with the online social networks Hoffman has been so adept at building, they say.
“My whole career is about redefining human networks that amplify the value of the individual and the value of society,” Hoffman told Forbes.
(Also of critical help in this phase: Joby struck a deal in December to acquire Uber’s Elevate unit, which has spent the past five years developing plans and software to build an aerial ride-sharing network. The deal came with a $75 million investment from Uber as well as a commitment to integrate Joby into its ground ride-sharing app.)
All parties in the reverse merger are making a long-term commitment. Joby’s existing investors, who will hold about 75% of the combined company, as well as the executive team and Reinvent, will have lockups on their shares extending over a five-year period in which stock will be freed up in tranches on a yearly basis, with full vesting for Reinvent’s founders coming only when the share price reaches $50, implying over a $30 billion market capitalization.
“No one is looking for the exit after the transaction,” says Sciarra. “Instead everyone, old investors, new investors, the management team — they’re all coming together committed to building long-term, and that was the reason for doing it.”
That long-term commitment could be invaluable for Joby if things don’t go as quickly or smoothly as planned, protecting them from Wall Street and shareholder pressure.
With the many ways in which urban air mobility startups are pushing the envelope, there are just as many avenues for their hopes to be dashed. The FAA is likely to proceed cautiously with evaluating their aircraft – the agency has yet to certify electric aircraft of any kind, let alone vertical takeoff and landing ones. It’s possible that the FAA could only sign off on an air taxi design after requiring safety modifications that add weight and hamper performance in ways that undermine its economic viability. The startups also face a tall task in winning public acceptance to fly their aircraft in city skies and build vertiports where people live.
And a major question mark is whether batteries can pack enough energy to allow any of the startups to field aircraft in the near term with enough range and carrying capacity to make business sense. Joby says it’s cracked the problem with batteries that are currently on the road in electric cars.
Should certification come later than expected, Joby will still be gaining valuable real-world flight experience over the next few years — and revenue — from a U.S. Air Force program to test use of EVTOL aircraft for cargo delivery, medical evacuation and search and rescue that’s so far given the company $40 million in contracts.
Here’s the first footage Joby has released of its aircraft in flight:
Over the last few years, dozens of startups and aerospace giants like Boeing BA , Airbus and Bell have produced concepts or prototypes for electric air taxis. Skeptics have questioned where the startups would find the billions needed to move beyond the prototype stage to bring an aircraft to market, particularly those like Joby that are aiming to take on the additional capital-intensive task of building out and operating their own air taxi networks rather than selling the aircraft to others.
The SPAC boom is looking like the answer for more than a few. Joby’s deal, which maintains its longtime status as the best-funded air taxi startup, comes a week after Marc Lore-backed Archer Aviation announced a merger with a special purpose acquisition vehicle that will give it $1.1 billion. Germany’s Lilium could announce a SPAC deal shortly, Forbes has learned, while Volocopter is reportedly also hunting for a reverse merger partner.
One of the factors driving the overall surge in SPAC deals is that as mergers, the companies involved can make detailed (some say wild) predictions about their future financial performance under safe harbor protections, unfettered by the litigation risks that typically restrain companies to only discussing their past financial results in traditional IPOs. Given that air taxi developers have only the future to sell, the predictions for the SPAC deals so far have been little but rosy.
Joby expects to begin rolling out service in an initial four cities in 2024 and to turn profitable by 2026 on revenue of $2 billion, Bevirt said on a conference call announcing the deal, “with the constraint not being on the demand side but rather on how many aircraft we can produce.”
By 2026 he expects each aircraft to produce $2 million in annual net revenue and cost $1.3 million apiece to produce, with the aim of cutting production costs by half as Joby scales up. A regulatory filing shows Joby is projecting its adjusted pre-tax earnings before interest, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) will be a fat 40% of revenue in 2026. By comparison, Boeing’s quarterly EBITDA margins were in the the 13% to 14% range when it was firing on all cylinders before the 737 MAX crisis, while those of the world’s most profitable airline, Delta, varied between 12% and 14% before the coronavirus pandemic.
|
2bce5de74ebcd81a5b0a13b5a217048e | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2012/08/27/are-consumers-sensitive-to-e-book-prices/ | Are Consumers Sensitive to E-Book Prices? | Are Consumers Sensitive to E-Book Prices?
Consumers believe that e-books cost very little to produce and therefore should cost very little to purchase -- and, certainly, e-books shouldn't cost $12.99 or (gasp!) $14.99. It's just a file, right?
In April, I spoke with many consumers about e-book pricing and their expectations. They almost uniformly told me that they thought e-books were too expensive and that they should cost almost nothing to buy because they cost almost nothing to produce*. At the time, consumer ire was raised by the Justice Department's e-book price-fixing lawsuit, which had just been filed. A choice quotation from my piece:
“Why the frick-frack do these major publishers think it’s okay to put out a paperback at half the price of an e-book they can upload and forget?” said Diane Castle, 36, a writer from Dallas. “To me, this defied logic – until I stumbled upon a news article about the Justice Department’s price-fixing lawsuit yesterday. Now it all makes sense.”
Well, if the Digital Book World E-Book Best-Seller List is any indication, consumers say one thing and do another. Looking at the list in its second week now, it's clear that books priced $10 and above sell just fine. All ten books on the DBW $10 and above best-seller list made the top 25 overall best-sellers -- something that no other price category can claim.
(For reference, we break up the e-book best-sellers into four price categories, $0- $2.99, $3-$7.99, $8-$9.99 and $10 and above. Here is our full methodology.)
When it comes to buying e-books at the high end of the price scale, consumers have no trouble doing so. They might say it's outrageous to charge more than $10 for an e-book, but the best-seller lists indicate they're willing to pay it.
However, after just two weeks watching the lists, I'm convinced that e-book sales are also extremely price sensitive. The Hunger Games had a $1.99 promotion last week and skyrocketed up to No. 3 on the list (from No. 8), loosening the Fifty Shades stranglehold on the top of the list somewhat. It was only $1.99 for a few days -- and not on all retailers -- yet it racked up the sales. Before you bargain hunters who haven't read the popular young-adult book click away, it's back up to $5.00 (the cheapest I can find it). Hey -- that's still a deal for one of the best-selling books of all time.
* The truth is, e-books cost much more than "nothing" to produce, but perhaps that should be the topic of another post.
|
5aeb1314b83f2f40083b5fad67824e09 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2012/12/21/three-predictions-for-book-publishing-in-2013/ | Three Predictions for Book Publishing in 2013 | Three Predictions for Book Publishing in 2013
Kindle as Magic 8 Ball. Illustration by Todd Goldstein
This year, for the second time in a row, I spoke with about a dozen ebook and book-publishing experts to get their predictions on what would happen in book publishing in 2013. I compiled the information and published this: Ten Bold Predictions for Ebooks and Digital Publishing in 2013.
The thing is, while I think these are solid predictions and will probably be more accurate than our predictions from last year (which have turned out to be really accurate -- but more on that in the new year), it doesn't really scratch my personal itch for making predictions. These, of course, are the predictions of experts that I merely filtered and compiled. When do I get to make predictions?
Right...about...now:
1. Goodreads becomes a bookseller.
This one is a bit more than a prediction. I have spoke with three sources familiar with the matter (though none of them are at the company) that have given me credible background on the matter: Goodreads, the massive social network dedicated to books and readers, will turn into a bookseller in 2013. When I asked founder and CEO Otis Chandler about it earlier this year, he said "not yet." When I approached the company with my information and asked for comment, a spokesperson told me, "We don't comment on rumors or speculation."
Fair enough and time will tell but let's think about this for a second. Why not?
The company has more than 12 million registered users who are all there for books and reading -- they share book recommendations, find out about new titles and build massive lists of books they intend to buy and read. It already drives a lot of book sales at partner retailers through affiliate links. And it has great relationships with publishers (aka, suppliers) that it can leverage to build stock. So, why wouldn't the company try to sell books?
Well, for one, it's risky. Goodreads would likely be giving up its affiliate revenue to go after this and what if people don't buy? Second, it doesn't currently sell an e-reading device, so for ebooks, at least, it needs to sell through an app (and give a cut to Apple or Google) or sell files that users will upload to another device. Not a great user experience, though some booksellers are doing it (unless it sold or gave away an e-reading device -- not so far-fetched as the costs of those devices approach $0). And on the print side, there are a lot of logistics issues the company would have to solve.
That said, it's happening, folks. So get ready for a bookseller born of the social media era in 2013.
2. Ebook marketplace gets dynamic and goes beyond discounting.
Book-industry insiders have been privately talking amongst themselves about how the end of agency pricing for the major publishers (the end of their ability to limit discounting by retailers, basically -- and slightly inaccurately, but fine) means the end of Barnes & Noble and every other Amazon competitor in the ebook space. The thinking is that Amazon will discount everything as much as it can, driving smaller players that can't afford to discount as much out of business.
First, I don't think this will happen. The most important factor for each of the major ebook retailers at this point is getting their devices into the hands of consumers. An owner of a Nook e-reader is likely buying her books on that device. So, as long as each of the retailers can continue to sell devices, they will continue to sell ebooks to the readers who use those devices. The bad news on that front is that e-readers are becoming less popular among consumers.
Second, I think the removal of discounting restrictions could be good for some of the smaller players in the marketplace. They can get creative with what they do with retail. It's already happening. Barnes & Noble has a program going in the days leading up to Christmas where in-store shoppers who buy an ebook from a pre-selected list can gift an ebook from that list to someone else. Translation: Barnes & Noble is giving away ebooks. That's a creative retail strategy. From short-term giveaways, to bundles to all sorts of creative deals, we're going to see this market get very interesting in 2013.
3. Major publishers will form back-list marketing divisions.
I have no direct knowledge of this happening, but how can it not?
Let's engage in a thought experiment. You are a $1 billion book publisher. You derive 40% of your revenue from back-list sales. That's $400 million. While at this point probably most of that comes from print books you see in stores and online -- perennially popular paperbacks -- some of it is ebooks and, in fact, more of it should be ebooks because delivering the electronic file of an old book doesn't involve hunting down a copy somewhere or printing it on demand. As more people read ebooks, more people will read back-list ebooks. You spend probably less than 1% of your, say, $100 million marketing budget on marketing your back-list.
Do you think it's reasonable to ask your chief marketing officer to come up with a plan to grow that revenue by 1% ($4 million) next year? Say, by investing about $1 to $1.5 million on a small team of five people with a small advertising spend? Large publishing companies have back-lists of thousands or even tens of thousands of books that they can sell as print-on-demand books or electronically. Some of the books are tied to holiday seasons. Some are about people who are in and out of the news. Some are about things like World War II that are always popular topics for books, especially in December, for instance.
I think in 2013 publishers are going to figure out how to profitably market their back-list titles.
---
I'll check back with you in a year to see how I did with these. In the meantime, check out the predictions the experts made here.
---
Want more insight into the future of ebooks and digital publishing? Learn more here.
|
204f9a12117e42aeb256ebec4676485e | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/01/03/new-years-resolutions-for-the-book-publishing-industry/ | New Year's Resolutions for the Book Publishing Industry | New Year's Resolutions for the Book Publishing Industry
I didn't make a New Year's resolution this year. I'm not taking a principled stand or making a point. I just forgot.
But that means I have room to make resolutions for others. For this post, resolutions are meant to be like what going on a diet would be for you and me -- healthful, beneficial but not always easy:
Publishers: In 2013, publishers should resolve to find new ways to develop more of the intellectual property they own. Whether that's turning a gardening book into an app, partnering with a new-media production company to turn a short story collection into a YouTube series, or simply finding a better way to monetize the digital back-list, there's a lot of unexploited opportunities out there for publishers in the ebook era -- and they should take advantage.
Authors: In 2013, authors should resolve to think deeply about what they want out of their writing lives and make an informed decision about the best way to get what they want. There are authors who say they'll never self-publish and those who say that's all they'll do (learn much more on this at DBW 2013 -- exclusive presentation on our wide-ranging survey of what authors want on Jan. 17 at 8:40 A.M.). Depending on an author's goal -- money, self-fulfillment, advancing their career -- different options are best. No one size fits all. And with full-service publishers, digital publishers and a whole range of self-publishing services, they have a lot of options.
Agents: In 2013, agents should resolve to buckle down and fight for higher ebook royalty rates and more flexibly contracts for their clients. Authors who sell their ebooks direct (very hard to do on one's own), they get 100% of the proceeds. If they go right to Amazon, they get 70%. They get a little less if they use various self-publishing services. With many traditional publishers, it's thought that they get 25%. You can do better than that, agents! Related: my Q&A with super-agent Jane Dystel.
Librarians: In 2013, librarians should resolve to stop screaming about ebooks. I know this is a huge issue in the library community. I've covered it closely in the past year (this, by far, being my favorite article on it). I don't fully understand librarians yet or the world in which they work, but I have learned this: For any good librarian, the most important thing is getting access to information for her patrons. In the hyper-connected era in which we live, there are is far lower-hanging and juicier fruit for librarians than to get a handful of the biggest publishers to make their best-sellers available cheaply as ebooks. If working with libraries on ebooks is as beneficial to publishers as librarians say it is, publishers will come around. Let them while you focus on more important things.
Retailers: In 2013, ebook retailers should resolve to find a way to give away e-readers -- and not just so my prediction (No. 3) turns out correct. Right now, the battle between ebook retailers is all about market-share. Device prices have been cut deeply and retailers like Amazon are thought not to make much of a profit on the ebooks they sell. What better way to grab market-share than to give away free e-readers locked into your digital content ecosystem? Sure, you'd take a hit on what it cost to give away each one ($30 for a simple model? Less?), but you'd be gaining a customer. How much are you paying to acquire each customer at this point anyway?
Readers: In 2013, readers should resolve to stop complaining so much about the price of ebooks. I get it: It's just a file, so why should it cost so much? Thing is, aside from the cost structure being substantial, it's not just a file. Depending on the book, it's 10-to-30 hours of entertainment. It's a piece of art. It's someone's soul. The very first ebook I bought was $14.99. Aside from as an ebook, it was only available at the time as a $35 hardcover. First off, I loved reading it. And, second, I got a huge deal off what I ordinarily would have paid. Maybe it's just me, but $14.99 seemed within the realm of fairness for what I got out of it.
As for me? No official resolutions. I've just decided that I'm going to get into shape, start eating right and begin working on my novel that I've been putting off.
|
500ace4fbf00fef6f65d67ea8c3c055e | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/02/21/how-much-more-would-you-pay-for-a-drm-free-version-of-an-ebook/ | How Much More Would You Pay for a DRM-Free Version of an Ebook? | How Much More Would You Pay for a DRM-Free Version of an Ebook?
If given the choice, would you rather pay $5.99 for a DRM-free version of an ebook or $4.61 for a version that has digital rights management software?
DRM, a hot-button issue for publishing's digirati, is in the news again as several independent bookstores have filed a lawsuit against Amazon and the six largest U.S. publishers alleging anti-competitive behavior stemming from DRM agreements. The lawsuit claims that "secret" agreements between publishers like Random House and HarperCollins and Amazon have prevented independent bookstores from getting into the ebook business. The lawsuit does not seek damages but just wants to make it so that any kind of ebook can be read on any Amazon device and app and any Kindle ebook can be read on other devices and apps. Currently, that is not the case.
After writing about this story, I remembered that my own ebook (WARNING: Shameless plug ahead, take caution!), Finding the Future of Digital Book Publishing, is available for sale at the DBW store DRM free for $5.99 but is also available for sale at Amazon with DRM for $4.61.
So I asked my Twitter community the question above: Which would they prefer, given the choice?
Of course, most readers aren't quite given the choice. Amazon has a much bigger reach than the DBW store and it's very likely that a lot of people would discover the book there and not anywhere else. Further, it has a powerful pull in the form of convenience. For example, I was talking to a digital publishing executive at a mid-size publisher yesterday and told her about my book. She told me to email her a link where she could buy it. I emailed her the link to the DRM-free version on DBW and the Amazon version. She wrote back that she bought the book from Amazon because it was more convenient. (I buy nearly all my ebooks through Amazon for the same reason.)
The responses on Twitter were split three-to-one in favor of DRM-free (literally -- I got responses from four people). Of course, my Twitter following is a bit weighted toward digital publishing folks, and so I would guess it would be fairly anti-DRM as a group.
To those people who said they would pay more for a DRM-free ebook, I asked, basically, how much more. What if the DRM-free version were $10 and the protected version $3? I got several tweets like this one:
Hardcore. If I had to guess, however, I would guess that most readers don't even know what DRM is let alone care about it. It might be a different case if it's explained to them.
Authors, on the other hand -- major stakeholders in this debate that never get their due -- are fairly pro-DRM as a group. For them, I'm guessing the reason is that they don't like the idea of people pirating their material and are generally in favor of any efforts against piracy. I know that in the times I've come across something I've written on the Web being ripped off by another website that I did not license to use the content, I'm livid.
What do you think? Would you pay more for an ebook if it came without DRM? If so, how much?
(A note on DRM, ebooks and publishers: As I understand it, Amazon does offer its Kindle Direct Publishing clients [mostly self-published authors] the opportunity to sell their books DRM-free. It's not clear to me whether this is the case with established publishers that have wide-ranging relationships with Amazon. F+W Media, my employer, sells all its ebooks directly through its own stores, DRM-free. But if you buy my ebook on Amazon, it has DRM. A casual survey of titles from O'Reilly, a famous DRM-free publisher, and Carina Press, a division of romance publisher Harlequin that sells DRM-free, show that their titles on Amazon do have DRM. Ellora's Cave, an independent erotic romance publisher that sells DRM-free ebooks also has DRM on its Kindle ebooks.)
|
6b347dc2bf4a39aeb1f2104b7823d29c | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/03/06/is-8-00-too-much-for-an-ebook/ | Is $8.00 Too Much for an Ebook? | Is $8.00 Too Much for an Ebook?
Since August, we've been measuring the average price of a best-selling ebook. It's been quite a roller-coaster ride.
In the summer and fall, ebook prices rose, eventually peaking just under $12.00*. From the early fall until just after the holiday season, they took a nosedive, hitting a low of about $7.50 in Feb.
Since, the average price of a best-selling ebook seems to have stabilized around $8.00. Check it out:
See much more analysis of these trends here.
What I wonder is, will consumers be happy paying these relatively lower prices for ebooks? In reporting on what consumers think about ebook pricing, here are some things I've gleaned:
1. Consumers generally think ebooks cost too much because they believe (erroneously) that ebooks cost nothing to produce.
2. Consumers definitely do not want to pay as much or more for the ebook as they do for the print book -- and they will even compare a used paperback version sold by a third party to the ebook when formulating this judgement.
3. $10 seems to be some kind of magical threshold. Consumers hate paying more than $9.99 for an ebook.
4. Consumers are willing to pay whatever it takes to buy an ebook they want. For instance, if a reader wants the new James Patterson book, they're not going to go for a lower-priced alternative from an author they don't know if the Patterson book is $14.99. They'll just pay the $14.99. Observe this in action here.
If we look at ebook sales from this past week, the most popular title was Safe Haven by Nicholas Sparks (Hachette), for which the lowest price you could find last week was $5.62. So, if you were the median ebook buyer last week, you bought that book, likely at that price. Here's the rest of the top five:
2. Alex Cross, Run, James Patterson, Hachette, $11.99
3. Wait For Me, Elisabeth Naughton, Self-published, $2.99
4. Calculated in Death, J. D. Robb, Penguin, $14.99
5. The Silver Linings Playbook: A Novel, Matthew Quick, Macmillan, $9.99
So, despite the $8.00 average, these specific prices are what many (if not most) people were paying last week for ebooks.
What do you think? Is $8.00 too much? Is $11.99 when you really want the new Patterson?
[Shameless plug: You can buy my ebook for much less than $8.00. Finding the Future of Digital Book Publishing is available at Amazon for $4.61 or from Digital Book World DRM-free for $5.99.]
*This is the average of the prices of the top-25 best-selling ebooks according to the Digital Book World Ebook Best-Seller list. You can check out the list methodology here. Also, there is a note on the limitations of this kind of calculation here.
|
b68a59a7e6302cf5a746dd65c7251dbd | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/04/05/how-canadian-upstart-kobo-kicked-googles-butt-when-it-comes-to-ebooks/ | How Canadian Upstart Kobo Kicked Google's Butt When It Comes to Ebooks | How Canadian Upstart Kobo Kicked Google's Butt When It Comes to Ebooks
Kobo, a small Canadian ebook and e-reading company now owned by Japanese e-commerce giant Rakuten, kicked Google's butt...when it comes to selling ebooks through independent bookstores, that is.
For two years until this past Jan., if you wanted to buy an ebook through your local independent bookstore (the main reason being to support the locally owned business instead of a multinational conglomerate like Amazon or Apple or a big box store like Barnes & Noble) you had to do it through Google Books. Google had a program with indie bookstores that allowed them to sell Google ebooks -- until the tech company cancelled it due to lack of success.
The reason the program existed in the first place was to give independent bookstores a way to get involved in the growing market of ebooks and digital reading, to give them a chance to survive the ebook revolution.
After Google announced that it was cancelling its program this past spring, Kobo swooped in and signed a deal with the American Booksellers Association to provide e-readers, tablets and ebooks for them to sell.
In the first month of the Kobo partnership (Oct. last year), independent bookstores sold more ebooks than in the entire two years working with Google.
The key, say bookstore owners, is being able to sell the devices along with the ebooks. It just makes more sense to customers.
Here's the rub: Bookstores only get 5% of the purchase price of the devices ($80 to $130 for the e-readers and $200 to $250 for the tablets) and between 8% and 20% of the ebooks. It's not a lot of money. Some of the most successful stores have sold a couple hundred e-readers and a couple hundred ebooks and when you break down the profit, it doesn't add up to enough to really pay the bills.
Still, the bookstore owners are happy to be able to participate in the program. I talked to about a dozen of them over the past two weeks for this article. This partnership with Kobo gives them something to use to fight back against the Amazons and Apples of the world. And, who knows, maybe sales of the ebooks (which the booksellers don't have to stock, which is a huge plus) and devices will take off.
So, this weekend, head to your local bookstore and ask them whether they sell ebooks and, if you want to support them, sign up to buy ebooks from them versus buying them elsewhere.
Read much more here.
|
b3252633fa354a0f9753dfd159ce3d2a | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/04/08/how-the-authors-guild-is-kind-of-like-the-nra-and-why-scott-turow-is-wrong-about-authors/ | How the Authors Guild Is Kind of Like the NRA and Why Scott Turow Is Wrong About Authors | How the Authors Guild Is Kind of Like the NRA and Why Scott Turow Is Wrong About Authors
Author Scott Turow (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I never thought I'd be saying something like this, but the Authors Guild, the trade association that defends the interests and rights of published book authors, today reminds me of the National Rifle Association, the organization that ferociously and nonsensically defends the whims of a small group of gun owners under the guise of serving the larger gun-owning community.
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Authors Guild president Scott Turow (who is also a lawyer and the best-selling author of legal thrillers like The Burden of Proof and Presumed Innocent), lamented that authors are under siege in the ebook era. We'll get to why he's wrong about the overall situation for authors in a minute. First, why the Authors Guild now reminds me of the NRA. Two reasons:
1. At the end of the op-ed, Turrow writes,
Last October, I visited Moscow and met with a group of authors who described the sad fate of writing as a livelihood in Russia. There is only a handful of publishers left, while e-publishing is savaged by instantaneous piracy that goes almost completely unpoliced. As a result, in the country of Tolstoy and Chekhov, few Russians, let alone Westerners, can name a contemporary Russian author whose work regularly affects the national conversation. The Constitution’s framers had it right. Soviet-style repression is not necessary to diminish authors’ output and influence. Just devalue their copyrights.
This echoes some of the arguments made against stricter gun control laws, "if you have more extensive background checks, you're on a slippery slope to the government taking away your guns." Of course, if Turow is right, that innovations in publishing (like library ebook lending, which signals to readers that they never need to buy a book again, Turow says) will lead to a gutting of American literary life, then let's all get behind the AG in stopping this from happening. (Disclosure: I don't think Turow is right or that this type of thinking should be seriously entertained.)
2. The NRA does a lot of stuff for all its constituents that doesn't make daily headlines. It teaches gun safety classes and runs a gun-history museum, for instance. But the thing that the NRA has been in the news for lately is fighting a new wave of gun control laws precipitated by the tragic shootings of school children in Newtown, Conn. late last year. While most Americans and most NRA members now support stricter gun control legislation, the NRA still strenuously rails against it. This reminds me of the AG.
The vast majority of authors in the U.S. are not best-selling authors like Turow. Many of them have greatly benefited from the massive changes that have swept across the literary landscape in the U.S. Before the rise of ebooks, only a small fraction of them would have been able to live out their lifelong dream of becoming a published author. Now tens of thousands of them do it every month.
(According to a recent survey of nearly 5,000 authors by Digital Book World -- that I authored -- the top three reasons authors want to publish books are: to build their careers as writers; to satisfy a lifelong ambition; and to write something that people are willing to buy. To make money is fourth. The full study is available here.)
Some small percentage of those dreamers (an incredibly small percentage) go on to become Hugh Howey and Amanda Hocking. So, to the many of you out there who enjoyed Wool or My Blood Approves, thank some of the changes in book publishing that Turow would see reversed.
(To be fair, this wide world of authors is not the constituency of the AG, but the AG does speak for them in lamenting the state of play for authors as a whole. "We're not about best-selling authors -- they can do fine by themselves," Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild, told me. "We’re trying to make sure there’s a meaningful number of authors who can get paid for their work and contribute to literary culture.")
So, who is Turow defending with his New York Times editorial? The small percentage of authors who benefited the most from the old publishing paradigm and who have not found a way to benefit from the new and the equally small group of authors who would have been their successors if publishing had stayed the same.
In talking with Aiken, the AG executive director, it became clear that there's another constituency of authors whose livelihoods could be threatened by the new publishing industry. Authors of narrative non-fiction who might need years of supplemented income from advances and authors of illustrated books, including children's books, are struggling today.
"So far, online works better for certain categories of fiction and for well-established writers with brand names," he said. "Narrative non-fiction and illustrated books, including children’s picture books, are not doing well in this environment and it’s a genuine loss and we’d prefer to see an environment where those books have a chance as well."
Make no mistake: These people are worth defending and they deserve to have their interests looked after. (Our society would be poorer were it not for authors like Turow and I think we should all oppose a situation where vibrant literary life cannot thrive in this country.) Should the AG have sued Google for its controversial book-scanning program? Yes, if it thinks doing so would benefit its members. But Turow and the rest of the AG leadership should think carefully about who its members are, who its members will be in the future and what their interests really are.
The NRA seems to be bloviating itself into a much smaller constituency -- those folks who want no restrictions on their rights to own and bear firearms. The AG may be going down the same path (albeit in a very different ecosystem -- books rather than guns).
(I should say here that I understand that in most every way the AG and the NRA are nothing alike. I would also hazard a guess that the members of the AG would mostly blanch at being associated with the NRA in any way. However, in this instance, I think the comparison is fair.)
Why It's the Best Time Ever to Be an Author
One of the premises of Turow's editorial is the authors are under siege. (If anything, publishers are under siege and authors and book retailers are manning the war machines. But that's another story -- about how authors are squeezing better terms out of publishers and how publishers are scrambling to attract, retain and appease authors more than ever before; and how retailers are also putting the squeeze on publishers, forcing contracts that pay more money for "co-op" [in-store marketing for which publishers pay].)
Despite the dangers that Turow elucidates in his editorial (erosion of copyright, ebook royalties, ebooks in libraries, the specter of a used ebook marketplace, a dystopian literary future and more), I believe that it is the best time ever to be an author.
The system that vaulted a talented (and lucky) few to the top is still thriving. Publishers are making just as much if not more money than ever before and the mega best-seller is alive and well. Check out the ebook best-seller list every week and you'll see that big publishers dominate. Time and again, they are able to market and sell titles that spend months on the list. Want to sell millions of copies of a book? The same path that has always existed is probably your best bet.
But what if you're not that talented (or lucky)? What if you don't know the right people or nobody sees in your work what you see in it? Well, self publishing is now a viable option and a legitimate path to big sales numbers.
For some authors, the new publishing paradigm now offers them a choice between established publishers and publishing their own work themselves.
There are authors, as mentioned above, who are having trouble finding footing in the new era -- and some of them write the most vital literature we have. Take Robert Caro, the author of several valuable and critically acclaimed tomes on Lyndon B. Johnson. Each of his books takes years to complete and probably can't be done any other way. That kind of work takes investment and an appetite for risk; in the future, we may see fewer investments on Caro-like work. That would be a tragedy for American letters.
At this year's Writer's Digest conference in New York, there were nearly 500 attendees, enthusiastic writers who are interested in working on their craft and learning the business of publishing (disclosure: Writer's Digest is a sister company to Digital Book World, my employer.) From what I heard, writers at the conference echoed the sentiment that now is the best time ever to be a writer.
"The vibe at the conference was incredibly upbeat," Writer's Digest community leader Phil Sexton told me. "Regardless of what challenges exist, most writers that we spoke to seemed to agree that we have far more publishing options and opportunities than we did even a few years ago."
While there are things that the Authors Guild should oppose in defense of its constituents' interests, it should not be done on a platform of "authors under attack" because that's clearly not the case for the vast majority of authors. For most, this is the best time in history to be an author.
Related: What Authors Want in the Era of Self-Publishing
|
6a70042ae2fb1e9e2505ba35238dc55d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/04/11/ebook-growth-slows-in-2012-to-only-41-what-does-it-mean-for-the-publishing-industry/ | Ebook Growth Slows in 2012 to 'Only' 41%; What Does It Mean for the Publishing Industry? | Ebook Growth Slows in 2012 to 'Only' 41%; What Does It Mean for the Publishing Industry?
According to the latest numbers from the Association of American Publishers, revenue for ebooks for some of the biggest categories grew by 41% in 2012. Ebooks now account for 23% of trade publishing revenues.
In any other industry for any other business, this would be eye-popping growth. For the world of ebooks, it represents a significant slowdown from years past.
The AAP has been tracking ebooks since 2002. That year, ebooks represented 0.05% of all trade publishing revenues. To get to the current 23% number, the biggest gains were made in 2009, 2010 and 2011, the years immediately following the 2007 launch of the Kindle. In 2008, ebooks were 1% of publisher revenue. In 2011, they were 17%. Those were the years of triple-digit growth numbers, a trend publishers thought would continue until ebooks were at 50% of revenue or more.
But in 2012, according to these new numbers, growth in ebooks has hit an inflection point in the U.S. Of course, that's on a larger base. Adult fiction and nonfiction, children's and young adult and religious ebooks raked in more than $1.5 billion in revenue last year. That number is sure to increase in 2013, but by how much?
The growth rate of ebooks between 2011 and 2010 was a bit over 100%. If the growth rate in 2013 is similarly cut down to size as it was in 2012, my guess is that it will be in the 18% to 20% range*. If that happens, we'll be looking at a $1.8 billion industry next year.
Regardless of how much ebooks grow this year, the fact is they probably will grow, but slower than last year. So, what does that mean for the publishing industry?
1. Don't lose focus on print. The trade publishing industry overall grew by 6% last year, obviously driven by growth in ebooks. The print side was down or flat across the board but still represents the lion's share of revenues and isn't going away as fast as was once thought.
2. Double down on bookstores. The industry is slowly coming to realize that book discovery online is much tougher than it seems. Book discovery in bookstores isn't what it once was, with fewer shops and less bookshelf space than before, but it's still a much more reliable path for publishers than a Twitter account and a prayer.
Related: Kobo Helping Indie Bookstores Sell More Ebooks Than Google Ever Did | How People Discover New Books
3. Become an ebook ninja. If ebooks are growing by triple digits or high double digits, it's relatively easy to grow your own ebook business. When growth slows, and the marketplace gets crowded (and, boy, is it ever getting crowded), growing that ebook business becomes tougher. If you're a publisher, you need to learn as much as you can about the market, best practices, what's happening on the bleeding edge and how to apply it all to your business.
Related: Complete Recordings of DBW 2013 Conference
More on ebook stats from 2012.
* Two things: First, these kinds of estimates are almost always wrong for a variety of reasons. Second, this way of making a guess (basing it on trajectory of growth rates) is probably among the most irresponsible ways of doing so. That said, they're all poor, so why not this way? I'm just using it to demonstrate what that kind of growth means in dollars for the industry.
|
7ac2f641de5f99aef4034a488a380b22 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/04/30/when-the-self-published-authors-take-over-what-will-publishers-do/ | When the Self-Published Authors Take Over, What Will Publishers Do? | When the Self-Published Authors Take Over, What Will Publishers Do?
In 2011, of the $14 billion trade publishing industry, roughly $100 million of it was self-published books, according to data presented at Digital Book World 2012. Less than 1%. A drop in the bucket.
In 2013, the numbers should look quite different.
In the first four months of the year, we've had four weeks where a self-published title was a No. 1 ebook best-seller. Last week, both the Nos. 1 and 2 spots were self-published ebooks. This week's best-seller list brings fresh challenges to the dominance of traditional publishers.
While David Baldacci's The Hit (Hachette) retook the No. 1 spot from self-published author H.M. Ward, five of the top ten best-selling ebooks this week were self-published. For those of you who weren't math majors, that's half. Six of the top-25 best-selling ebooks were self-published: 24%.
When the top-two ebooks were self-published last week, publishing consultant Mike Shatzkin said, “This is another benchmark moment. The number of small- and self-published books achieving real commercial success will continue to rise; the gatekeeping role of established publishers will continue — gradually and then, sooner or later, suddenly — to fade to relative irrelevance."
Perhaps the question is, are we in the "gradual" phase or the "sudden" phase in this transition? And what does this mean for publishers?
Some of the larger publishers are making moves to get involved in the self-publishing revenue streams:
-- Offering their own self-publishing services (Simon & Schuster, Penguin, F+W Media [my employer], to name three).
-- Buying books by self-published authors that have already shown strong sales in an attempt to boost them to even higher sales (See Hugh Howey's Wool, Jennifer L. Armentrout's Wait for You).
-- Offering new business models for authors (Random House's new suite of imprints, including the controversial Hydra, show that publishers are still figuring this out).
But when it comes to capturing these new revenue streams, it might be like trying to use a mop bucket to catch a breaking wave.
The top-five ebook best-sellers from this week might tell the story better than I can:
1. The Hit by David Baldacci (Hachette)
2. Damaged by H.M. Ward (Self-published)
3. The Bet by Rachel Van Dyken (Self-published)
4. Whiskey Beach by Nora Roberts (Penguin)
5. Twisted Perfection by Abbi Glines (Self-published)
See the rest of the top-25 ebook best-sellers this week.
Pricing
One other wrinkle in this precipitous rise of self-publishing is pricing. The average price of an ebook best-seller is lower now than it has ever been: $6.58. Part of the reason is that the six self-published titles on the list are each being sold for $0.99 or $3.99. If those six titles were taken off the list, the average would be about $8. Read more.
|
32c6570074c5e5123362dd7fb078c3e0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/08/28/taking-another-look-at-ebook-upstart-kobo/ | Taking Another Look At Ebook Upstart Kobo | Taking Another Look At Ebook Upstart Kobo
When it comes to ebooks in the U.S., there are three companies you have to consider: Amazon, Apple and Barnes & Noble . I think it might be time to add a fourth to that list: Kobo.
Yesterday, Kobo announced its next generation of e-reading devices -- both dedicated e-readers and tablets. While I'm not sure this new fleet of devices is a game-changer, spending time yesterday talking to senior executives as well as other Kobo employees, I get the sense that Kobo is picking up momentum in the U.S., where it is thought to have about 3% market share, and, especially, around the world, where it is either the No. 1 or No. 2 ebook retailer in many countries, including Canada and Japan. Kobo now has 16 million readers, up 4 million from the end of last year, a year in which it saw its sales double.
The Devices
Kobo released a new high-end, high-definition e-reader (the next generation of its Kobo Aura HD), a high-definition 10-inch tablet (Arc 10 HD), a high-definition seven-inch tablet (Arc 7 HD), and a low-priced seven-inch tablet (Arc 7 for $149).
I didn't notice anything about the devices that might make a consumer already invested in the ecosystem of one of the other ebook retailers switch. For those few serious readers who have not yet tried ebooks, the reader-focused features of the Kobo devices might push some of them in Kobo's direction (specifically "Reading Mode" on the tablets, which turns off outside notifications, adjusts the back-lighting and turns off non-reading-essential processor functions to save power).
That said, I don't think these devices are going to help Kobo grow its market share in the U.S. significantly. And we have yet to see what new devices Amazon, Apple and Barnes & Noble are going to come out with this fall. All are expected to release new devices.
The Bet on E-Readers
While other companies seem to have put their focus into building a tablet business, Kobo has remained keyed on e-readers. Amazon needs the Kindle to put its store into people's hands. Apple is a world-leading hardware business. And Barnes & Noble hasn't fared well in the tablet business.
"We have the advantage of being a company that focuses only on one thing," Kobo chief content officer Michael Tamblyn told me, referring to the company's competition, "which is how to sell ebooks and sell them well — on devices, through apps and on the Web. It’s a clarity of purpose that none of our competitors really have. We don’t have to worry about a legacy retail business, or selling ebooks in the context in many things, or as one small adjunct of a great, big hardware business. We succeed if we make readers happy and that’s where we compete
According to its CEO, Mike Serbinis, Kobo is focused on readers and reading experiences and has built its product development pipeline around that ethos. The first product discussed at an event promoting the new devices was the new e-reader. In the first quarter of this year, Kobo saw e-reader sales growth of nearly 150%.
While e-reader adoption in the largest, most-mature e-reading markets like the U.S. is slowing down, in places like Brazil and India, where Kobo has made significant investments in distribution infrastructure, e-readers are starting to come up, company executives said. And, Kobo might be in a better position than many of its competitors to capture that last slice of serious readers in the U.S.: A deal with the American Booksellers Association has Kobo as the man partner to sell ebooks and e-readers through local bookstores in the U.S. Through April, the company had nearly 500 stores signed up. (Read more about this intriguing program.)
The Confidence
As a business reporter, you meet a lot of executives and they all have some level of swagger. Rare, if not non-existent, is the executive who is candid, especially if her company isn't faring incredibly well. So, when you meet them in a non-formal setting, you're left with intuition on how valid their confidence is.
Last night's event was full of authentic what I took to be confidence. I asked the CEO Serbinis about it.
He described to me the company's first event announcing devices, three years ago at a very small venue in Toronto. Only a few dozen people showed up, half friends and family. Now, the company is backed by a Rakuten, Japan's version of Amazon, and is pulling off 300-person events with all the fanfare of a large tech company product launch.
A less-senior executive I spoke with gave me her view on why the company is seeing success now: the people. She went on to describe the high level of talent she works with, in her estimation. With most of the staff in Toronto, Kobo doesn't have as much competition for tech and design talent like start-ups in New York or Silicon Valley do. It may be the biggest fish in town and, let's face it, at over 500 employees worldwide, it's not at start-up level anymore.
---
While Kobo isn't Amazon or Apple, its focus on e-reading and e-readers, its wise international investments and its overall position in the marketplace could help it start to compete and win against these much larger companies on a global level. That's a very big "could," but it's impressive considering how the ebook business has left other companies.
|
fa564f62f5d3c6186f080b716cc1e79a | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/10/03/whats-new-with-libraries-and-ebooks-in-conversation-with-the-american-library-association/ | What's New With Libraries And Ebooks? In Conversation With The American Library Association | What's New With Libraries And Ebooks? In Conversation With The American Library Association
A little over a year ago, when I started blogging for Forbes about digital publishing, librarians were up in arms over the issue of ebooks*. Several of the largest U.S. publishers weren't selling ebooks to libraries at the time; some of the others were doing so but with terms librarians hated.
So much can change in a year. Today, your local library can give you free access to tens of thousands more ebooks than every before.
As of last week, all five of the largest publishers in the world (the "big five": Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster) are selling ebooks to libraries in one way or another.
The latest to come fully online is Penguin Random House. The company's Penguin division (which was, until recently, a rival company) had been experimenting in pilot programs with selling ebooks to libraries. As of last week, its entire catalog of 17,000 titles are available to libraries using OverDrive, 3M's Cloud Library and Baker & Taylor's Axis 360 to buy ebooks.
With all of the major publishers playing with libraries in some way, I thought it would be a good time to sit down with the leadership of the American Library Association (ALA) to discuss the current state of libraries and ebooks and what's next now that they've won the battle with big publishers (more or less).
We met this week in the office of the New York Metropolitan Library Council (METRO), a non-profit that helps libraries in New York and Westchester County share ideas and resources. In attendance were Barbara Stripling, ALA president, Robert Wolven, co-chair of ALA’s Digital Content Working Group and associate university librarian at Columbia University, Maureen Sullivan, ALA immediate past-president, Jason Kucsma , METRO’s executive director and a member of the Digital Content Working Group, and Alan S. Inouye, director of the Office for Information Technology Policy at ALA.
Jeremy Greenfield: A lot has happened in the past year, and most of the movement is toward giving libraries more access to ebooks. How is the ALA's relationship with publishers going now?
Barbara Stripling: It's on an upward slope -- a good slope. We have strengthened our relationships and the ALA has played an important brokering role, but not everything has been addressed yet.
Maureen Sullivan: We have yet to get to equitable access at a reasonable price.
Greenfield: That sentence has been a sticking point for librarians. Some publishers sell ebooks to libraries with limited use terms. Others sell them at much higher prices than what consumers have to pay.
Robert Wolven: Publishers are now experimenting with different models [to sell ebooks to libraries] and generating data and they will make adjustments to how they work with us. Nobody knows what the best answer is yet.
Alan Inouye: We're only at the beginning of what could be possible. There are bigger issues here that we're only going to be able to solve and address with publishers.
Sullivan: Like access for those with disabilities and digital preservation.
Greenfield: Last year, the ALA and the Association of American Publishers held a private meeting open to the press between publishers and librarians to start talking about some of the issues that face the long-standing partnership between the two groups in the ebook era. There were some strongly worded letters sent back and forth between the ALA and AAP just days prior to the meeting, which really heated things up (letter from the ALA to AAP; letter in response from AAP to ALA). The meeting was really interesting and ended up with ALA and the publishers saying some things that you rarely hear in forums like that.
Sullivan: That meeting was a turning point. I was being pressed on the business model discussion and we presented our ideas on possible models that could work for everyone. After that meeting, there were several informal conversations with publishers and the AAP and I would describe them as cordial. It was important to get people in the same room.
Stripling: We got some complex issues on the table. And it opened my eyes to the perspective of the publishers and that helped in our ongoing dialogue.
Sullivan: As for the letters, the ALA had to take a strong stance at that point. I would add that the AAP is a great broker but there are a lot of issues that publishers can't work together on because of antitrust concerns.
Greenfield: So, what other issues is the ALA working on now in terms of ebooks.
Wolven: There are many, many publishers now that libraries can't even buy ebooks from, like design firms and ad agencies that may only put out a handful of books a year.
Inouye: And let's not let the "big five" off the hook -- Simon & Schuster is still only doing a lending pilot in New York City. We need it everywhere.
Stripling: With the common core curriculum coming online, there is increasing pressure for school libraries to develop their ebook collections.
Sullivan: Public libraries want their readers to be able to get a new, best-seller and for the library to pay a reasonable price for it.
Greenfield: Let's talk about that last point for a second. Why is it important that libraries can buy dozens of ebook copies of Fifty Shades of Grey or Gone Girl at a fair price. Does making those books freely available to patrons really help the library fulfill its mission?
Sullivan: People have always been able to get information and what is being currently published from libraries.
Greenfield: That doesn't resonate with me and I suspect it doesn't resonate with the publishers you want as business partners. Things change.
Stripling: When some people can read these best-sellers and others can't, it marginalizes those people. These books are a literary touchstone and everyone deserves to have a chance to be a part of that.
Greenfield: That makes a lot more sense to me. How does it relate to the overall mission of the library?
Stripling: So, when you restrict access to any information, the library has been thwarted in fulfilling its mission to give people in the community the information they need.
Greenfield: But Gone Girl? Good book, but is it important for everyone to be able to read?
Sullivan: It's not for us to decide that the public needs Gone Girl as much, more, or less than any other book.
* This was actually my first post for Forbes!
|
1dd56db11c4de9a3381e3fce0f66391d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/11/06/amazon-courts-local-bookstores-with-new-source-program/ | Amazon Courts Local Bookstores With New 'Source' Program | Amazon Courts Local Bookstores With New 'Source' Program
For the most part, local , independent bookstore owners don't like Amazon.
Speaking with over a dozen of them (for this story), they complained that Amazon undercuts their prices, doesn't play fair by not paying sales tax, and generally just plays hardball. In 1995, a year after Amazon.com was launched, there were 5,500 members of the American Booksellers Association operating about 7,000 stores. Today, the ABA membership has been reduced to about 2,000 stores. While Amazon alone didn't close all those stores, it certainly has been a factor. It went from nothing to the largest bookseller in the U.S. today.
Related: Why Amazon Is So Hard to Compete With
Today, however, Amazon has offered an olive branch in the form of a business opportunity to indie booksellers: Amazon Source. The new program enables independent bookstores to sell Amazon devices and ebooks and profit off them. Amazon is offering two options:
1. Sell any Kindle device at a 6% margin (or less, should a store decide to discount), any Kindle accessory at a 35% margin and get 10% of all subsequent ebook sales on sold devices.
2. Sell any Kindle device at a 9% margin (or less with discounting), any Kindle accessory at a 35% margin and get no part of ebook sales.
The program has just launched and Amazon has signed up at least two stores to start -- the University of Puget Sound Campus Bookstore and JJ Books, a local bookstore in Bothell, Wash. A company spokesperson told me that that Amazon is in talks with "dozens of retailers" and expects the program to "grow quickly."
"The feedback we have received -- both during the pilot phase and today since we announced earlier in the morning -- has been quite positive," the spokesperson added.
Amazon is using technology and know-how from a similar initiative it has with UK bookstore chain Waterstones. The deal is also similar to one Kobo forged with indie bookstores about a year ago. In that scheme, indie bookstores get 5% margin from the sale of Kobo devices and 8% to 18% on the subsequent sale of ebooks on those devices. By the early part of this year, Kobo had signed up nearly 500 stores and had planned on getting 1,000 signed up by year-end. (Read more on Kobo's partnership with indie bookstores.)
When I spoke with indie bookstores about the Kobo program, they revealed to me that even though they were selling devices and ebooks, it wasn't enough to make a dent in their bottom lines -- yet. But they wanted to press ahead because they felt like they were doing something to fight the rising tide of Amazon and ebooks in general.
Now with Amazon on board the indie bookstore partnership train, will those stores that sell the devices and don't see significant revenue gains keep on with it?
To make it more worth their while, Amazon is offering a no-risk first shipment: Amazon will not make stores pay upfront for their first shipment of devices and take them back with no charge after six months if they think it's not working out.
|
bb3068722f3407f1b917f35b518431de | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/11/19/hardcover-sales-growth-outpacing-ebooks-in-2013/ | Hardcover Sales Growth Outpacing Ebooks In 2013 | Hardcover Sales Growth Outpacing Ebooks In 2013
There's a book category that's showing big growth in 2013 but it's not ebooks.
Hardcover book sales in the U.S. are up over 10% through the first eight months of 2013, according to the latest numbers from the Association of American Publishers. At the same time, adult ebook sales are only up 4.8%; all U.S. ebook sales, including children's and religious ebooks, are down about 5%.
I'm not sure what's more astounding: The huge growth in hardcover sales or the dip in ebook sales. (Overall, U.S. trade publishing is down 4.8% versus the same period last year.)
When it comes to hardcover growth, August was the month showing the biggest gains. In August, U.S. book publishers sold nearly $110 million worth of hardcover books, up nearly 50% from August a year ago. Meanwhile, over the same month, ebook sales declined by nearly 3%. In fact, over the past half year, ebook sales have been in year-over-year decline.
Why?
I'm not sure -- and many of my book publishing sources are similarly confused. Nonetheless, here are some possible explanations:
1. A lot of ebook sales growth that happened in 2011 and 2012, in particular, happened through mega best-selling trilogies Fifty Shades of Grey and The Hunger Games. These books did particularly well as ebooks. Now that those titles are largely off best-seller lists, perhaps readers have settled somewhat into old reading habits and have snapped some of the big best-sellers directly off the shelves rather than as ebooks.
2. Children's ebooks in particular have dipped in 2013. Sales are down about 40% versus the year prior. Kids buying the ebook of The Hunger Games drove a lot of the explosive growth in 2012. With so many other options of what they can consume on tablets, perhaps kids have moved on to Candy Crush and other distractions. Amount of time available for leisure and content consumption is a zero-sum game. Ebooks did well in that game last year with huge hits -- better than this year so far.
3. As for August's big rise in hardcover sales, a good explanation comes from industry trade publication Publishers Lunch: "...'fall' books started shipping in earlier this year compared to 2012, when many releases were held until after the election. And essentially all of August's gains came from adult hardcovers...." Later in the year, we will see if publishers suffer an unfavorable comparison because of publishing cycles.
More publishing industry sales stats.
|
ad2e7e5570cd61a5e1f85a65949b45f8 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/12/09/how-much-money-do-self-published-authors-make/?utm_source=Publishers+Weekly&utm_campaign=2ab2b64e1f-UA-15906914-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0bb2959cbb-2ab2b64e1f-304449145 | How Much Money Do Self-Published Authors Make? | How Much Money Do Self-Published Authors Make?
In short, not much.
According to data from a new survey from Digital Book World and Writer's Digest, the median income range for self-published authors is under $5,000 and nearly 20% of self-published authors report deriving no income from their writing.
By comparison, authors published by traditional publishers had a median income range of $5,000 to $9,999 and "hybrid authors" (those who both self-publish and publish with established publishers) had a median income range of $15,000 to $19,999.
At the high end of the spectrum, 1.8% of self-published authors made over $100,000 from their writing last year, compared with 8.8% of traditionally published authors and 13.2% of hybrid authors.
"Few authors are getting rich off of their writing or even earning enough from their writing to quit their day jobs," writes Dana Beth Weinberg, Ph.D., professor of sociology at Queens College in New York City, and lead researcher for the study.
Read much more of her analysis here: The Self-Publishing Debate: A Social Scientist Separates Fact from Fiction.
The study was conducted online in October and November 2013 and gathered a sample of about 9,000 authors of different kinds. This is a non-scientific sample and so results may not necessarily be extrapolated to a nationally representative sample.
Weinberg will be discussing the state of authors, publishing and self-publishing at the Digital Book World 2014 conference. Last year, Digital Book World conducted a similar survey among nearly 5,000 authors. The full results of that survey can be found here.
|
bb4eb20dd49809179ac113d628038c95 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2014/05/14/inside-amazons-battle-with-hachette/ | Inside Amazon's Battle With Hachette | Inside Amazon's Battle With Hachette
Want Malcolm Gladwell's best-seller Outliers and want it now? If you think Amazon.com is your best bet to get the paperback edition at a low price and quickly, think again.
Over the past few months, Amazon has been fighting a quiet battle with Hachette, Gladwell's publisher and one of the largest in the world. The publisher's (read: supplier's) contract is rumored to be up for negotiation and Amazon is reportedly making it harder for readers to acquire the company's titles -- and more expensive.
If you want Outliers from Amazon, you may have to wait two-to-three weeks for it and you'll pay $15.29 as of today. If you want the same title from BarnesandNoble.com, for instance, it will ship within 24 hours and cost you $12.74. Outliers is one of many Hachette titles facing this issue on Amazon. Hachette has said that it is up-to-date in terms of supplying all of its retailers and contends that Amazon is deliberately keeping a low stock to pressure the publisher in its contract negotiations. Amazon has not returned request for comment on the issue.
In addition to being slower to deliver Hachette products to customers, Amazon has also stopped discounting Hachette titles as much as before, according to Hachette author Michael Sullivan, commenting on the Digital Book World article about the story:
Amazon removed virtually all the discounts from Hachette titles starting on Feb 7, 2014. Books in pre-orders or VERY recently released books, still have discounts, but all the other books (both print and ebook) are being sold at full price.
This is in addition to delaying shipments, according to Sullivan:
For my own books, I noticed the “usually ships in 2 – 3 weeks” starting around early March. At first I thought it was some glitch with just my books, then looking at other titles from the imprint I saw that it went much deeper than that.
The discounting is where ebook sales might be affected. Hachette relinquished its No. 1 spot on the Digital Book World Ebook Best-Seller list this week. Shipments of ebooks aren't being delayed, of course, but it could be that the ebooks aren't being discounted as heavily as they would be if there wasn't a conflict between Amazon and Hachette. Two of the three ebooks on the list this week from Hachette are selling for $12.74, well above the average price for a best-selling ebook this week ($6.88) and the highest priced books on the list right now.
According to Bill Gleason in another DBW comment, a consultant in the book publishing industry, Amazon may be doing other things to make it harder for customers to buy Hachette's books:
Hachette published a hard cover title (Robert Ludlum/James Garrison) called The Janson Option on 3/18/2014. It was immediately available as a hard cover in stores, on the B/N site, and as an ebook ($ 14.99) Amazon only listed it as a hard cover, NO Kindle version except for a free excerpt 5-chapter offer. I found this a bit odd and queried Amazon. They told me it was Hachette’s fault, and I should write to them. So I did. They got back to me with this message on 4/29: ================= This book is available in a Kindle edition: http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Ludlums-Janson-Option-Paul-ebook/dp/B007ZFY9QY/ref=tmm_kin_title_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398738108&sr=8-1 Thanks, Doug Customer Service Hachette Book Group USA ======================= It is available at this url, also for $ 14.99 Here’s where it gets strange. When you search Amazon and get to the book’s landing page, there is no kindle version available. http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Ludlums-Janson-Option-Paul/dp/0446564486 So – while it might be a mistake – I don’t think so. Something is afoot…
Why is Amazon doing these things? While the company won't comment, it's probably about its deal with Hachette. Amazon likely wants Hachette to pay more for "co-op" (that is, marketing dollars publishers spend with retailers to ensure certain in-store or, in Amazon's case, on-website marketing). Amazon probably also wants the right to discount Hachette's books as it pleases whereas Hachette may not want to give Amazon that ability. Amazon can absorb losses on book sales to gain market share and burnish its brand image, making up the dollars through its other businesses; bookstores and other ebook retailers can't do the same, since virtually all they sell is books. Hachette may be moving to protect its other retailers.
Really, though, it's about profit margin. Amazon wants a bigger piece of its suppliers' profit margins to purportedly pass on to its customers in the form of lower prices. This is the company line and by all accounts Amazon makes good on this promise whenever it can. (I've heard rumblings from publishers that as a way to combat this they are considering upping the royalties they pay authors for ebooks. The typical accepted royalty at a big publisher is 25% for ebooks. I've heard talk of 50% becoming the new norm.)
To those who follow the book publishing industry or just Amazon in general, this conflict should come as no surprise. Amazon has made similar plays in its relationships with other suppliers. In 2010, for instance, Amazon removed "buy buttons" from Macmillan books when the publisher wanted to change the pricing scheme it used with Amazon. After a tense weekend standoff, Amazon eventually resumed selling Macmillan titles and the publisher reportedly got its way. And according to reporter Brad Stone's book on the company The Everything Store, Amazon views its publisher suppliers as sickly gazelles and itself as a cheetah, taking them down.
Related: Amazon's "Everything" Strategy
Beyond Amazon, these sorts of conflicts aren't new or rare in book publishing. Just last year, Barnes & Noble battled with Simon & Schuster, another of the world's largest publishers, refusing to stock some of its most popular titles as they companies went through contract negotiations. Readers who showed up to the chain's stores looking for Hugh Howey's Wool found it out of stock, even though the publisher had just made a deal to distribute it in print. The conflict was resolved in August 2013.
In the short run, authors and readers are the innocent bystanders in this war. Hachette authors aren't reaping the rewards of their work as much as they could during this period and readers who want books like Gladwell's Outliers right now aren't getting them in a timely fashion -- if they continue to buy through Amazon, that is.
Amazon may also be a loser in this deal when it comes to its brand among readers. At least in the case of some Hachette books, it's not the best, easiest or cheapest place to get them -- for now. What's most surprising in all of this is that Amazon rarely does anything that affects its customers negatively; it's a self-styled "customer-focused" company. This move calls that image into doubt.
And Hachette may see its reputation among authors suffer. What's the point of working with a big publisher if it can't even effectively distribute your titles?
Related:
-- The Future of Amazon and the Publishing Business
-- Amazon Q&A
|
c479643cc34eb950d73b71e4f9383637 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2014/06/16/why-amazon-is-going-after-publisher-profit-margin/ | Why Amazon Is Going After Publisher Profit Margin | Why Amazon Is Going After Publisher Profit Margin
When compared with other kinds of companies, book publishers do just okay in terms of profit margin. According to a recent analysis by industry publication Publishers Lunch, the largest worldwide book publishers have roughly a 10% profit margin.
Compared to other industries, that's just about middle of the pack. A 2012 report from Business Insider analyzed profit margins across industries in the S&P 500 equities index. A general "media" category was pegged at about 10% net profit. Software, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, oil and gas led the way with margins between 15% and 20%. The lowest-margin industries were retail, with margins closer to 3% or 4%.
That takes us to Amazon, which had about $74 billion in sales and a profit margin last year of 0.37%. Not only is that much less than book publishers, for which it generates a large percentage of business, but also less than Amazon's peer companies -- or those it would consider peers: Apple, Facebook and Google.
Last year, Apple had a 22% margin on about $171 billion in revenue. Facebook had a 19% margin on nearly $8 billion in revenue. And Google had a 21% margin on about $62 billion in revenue. Along with Amazon, each of these companies have been stock market darlings. (Wal-Mart, which is perhaps a more direct competitor to Amazon, has a profit margin more in line with Amazon's and the retail industry in general: 3.3% on $476 billion last year.)
What confounded some analysts was investors' faith in Amazon despite it relatively small profits -- both compared with its partners and its competitors. This year, investors may be signalling to Amazon that it's time to increase profits -- and one way for a retailer to do that is to get better terms from its suppliers.
While Hachette's low double-digit margins and roughly $300 million in income won't solve Amazon's profit margin problems, it could help. And if Amazon's thousands of other suppliers started to cede some margin to the largest e-commerce company in the world, it could add up.
As Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos has famously said, "your margin is my opportunity." There are a lot of companies out there that Amazon partners or competes with that have "opportunity" to spare.
More on publisher profit margins.
|
d9ab470b28aba15c016bbcfb0db73ce8 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2014/08/05/trying-to-chillax-about-my-bromance-with-scrabble-and-5000-other-new-words/ | Trying To Chillax About My Bromance With Scrabble And 5,000 Other New Words | Trying To Chillax About My Bromance With Scrabble And 5,000 Other New Words
If I told you that I was going to "chillax with a mojito poolside while I played a few rounds of Sudoku and listened to the latest mixtape from my frenemy Lime," you'd probably know what I was about to do...more or less. But every key word in that sentence wouldn't be a permissible play in one of my all-time favorite games, Scrabble -- until now.
Merriam-Webster, publishing house to the eponymous dictionary, has released a new version of The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary with 5,000 new words, added to reflect new trends, styles and facts of the 21st century. In addition to those italicized above, words like "vlog," "yuzu," "soju," "selfie," "hashtag" and "beatbox" are now a part of the game, meaning you can use them legally in play and your opponents cannot "challenge" them off the board.
"Language is constantly evolving and new words are added to Merriam-Webster dictionaries on an ongoing basis," said Merriam-Webster editor-at-large Peter Sokolowski in a statement.
A representative from Hasbro, the Pawtucket, RI-based company that owns Scrabble, added that the new words include "favorites from the past decade." And, for the first time, a word was voted in by Scrabble fans: geocache, whatever that means. (And, no, you do not need to know the definition of a word to play it in Scrabble, to the consternation of some less serious players -- a.k.a., sore losers.)
As an avid Scrabble player myself, this development excites me (for those of you who care, I'm somewhere between a 1,400 and 1,600, depending on how I'm feeling). I always like having new words to play -- especially words my opponent doesn't know are legal "Scrabble words." With words like "yuzu" and "ponzu," there are also new, exciting opportunities to get big scores with powerful, tricky letters like the "z" (worth 10 points). Not that I'll ever remember this word or be lucky enough to have the letters and situation to play it, but the official release suggests I impress my friends by "scoring 401 points for quinzhee!"
A favorite word of mine that wasn't previously in the Scrabble dictionary, zen, also isn't being included in this new iteration.
"Even though there is a generic sense of the word 'zen', all of the desk dictionaries that we consult when creating the Scrabble dictionary still recognize 'Zen' as a capitalized, proper noun, and therefore it was not added," a Merriam-Webster spokesperson said. Capitalized pronouns aren't allowed.
But, in the end, I don't really care.
You see, when I play Scrabble, I don't use The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary as my dictionary of choice -- and hardly do any other serious Scrabble players. In the U.S. and Canada, players use what's known as The Official Tournament and Club Word List. In the rest of the world, they use SOWPODS.
It wasn't always this way.
The primary reason for the schism between Scrabble dictionaries is offensive words. Word Freak by Stefan Fatsis, the excellent book on Scrabble and its serious players, tells the story of casual players offended by the inclusion of the word "jew" (a verb meaning "bargained in a miserly way") and others, like "fart" and "fatso." They engaged in a letter-writing campaign to have those and several dozen other words removed from the "official" Scrabble dictionary. This was done by Merriam-Webster without consulting the National Scrabble Association (now the North American Scrabble Players Association), an organization that puts on tournaments and more or less controls how serious Scrabble players relate to each other. In response, the association created and now maintains its own word list.
According to a Merriam-Webster spokesperson, there are just over 100,000 words in its version of the dictionary, including the 5,000 new words. The Official Tournament and Club Word List has 178,691 and SOWPODS has 267,751. You can look up words in the Merriam-Webster Scrabble dictionary here, or if you're ready to really get serious about Scrabble, you can try the Word List dictionary here or SOWPODS dictionary here. It's fun to compare which words are in each -- at least for a Scrabble nerd like me.
While Merriam-Webster is getting all the press, this week The Official Tournament and Club Word List is also getting an update, according to John Chew, co-president of the Narth American Scrabble Players Association.
"The word list will see 9,000 words added to it," he said, clarifying that the difference in number is because of "long-standing differences between the lists" and the addition of the "long list" of words longer than eight letters, which are not in the Merriam-Webster version.
"Zen" didn't make the cut in the serious players' version either.
Feeling jazzed up about Scrabble? Enter the National Scrabble Championships.
|
f1374ad15171f3c2360ae34a5e34afea | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2014/11/13/amazon-and-hachette-compromise-on-ebook-prices-to-reach-new-deal/ | Amazon and Hachette Compromise on Ebook Prices to Reach New Deal | Amazon and Hachette Compromise on Ebook Prices to Reach New Deal
Amazon and Hachette did what many in the publishing world thought impossible: They compromised.
The companies ended a months-long dispute that cost both the bookseller and publisher millions today when they signed a new contract. They had been doing business without one since the spring. The new agreement gives Hachette control over ebook pricing, something Amazon said it demanded as the bitter negotiations become public. Hachette, which wanted control to maintain profitable pricing for its goods, is incentivized in the new deal to keep prices low.
Here's the text of the compromise from a joint statement released by the companies: "Hachette will have responsibility for setting consumer prices of its ebooks, and will also benefit from better terms when it delivers lower prices for readers."
Amazon declined to comment on the details of the arrangement. Hachette has not yet replied to request for comment.
Count me among the publishing observers who thought that compromise on the issue of control over ebook pricing was impossible. After all, only one company can truly control the final price the consumer pays, right? Depends on what you mean by control.
The deal seems clever from the outside: It gives Hachette what it wants in the ability to control ebook prices, but it also gives Amazon a lever in terms of making it more attractive for Hachette to keep those prices lower. Just how strong an incentive that is will be born out in ebook prices consumers see. As of today, the temptation to discount must be low.
The Silkworm, a 2014 release that was particularly hard hit by the dispute, is currently priced at $14.99 on Amazon, far above the sell price the retailer prefers for ebooks ($9.99 or less). The first title from the series, The Cuckoo's Calling, penned under the name Robert Galbraith by mega-author J.K. Rowling, is on sale for $12.99 now. The Burning Room, a current Hachette ebook best-seller from Michael Connolly, is on sale for $9.99. The average price of a best-selling ebook this week is $7.63.
Readers who may be frustrated with these prices for a product they can't hold in their hands should know that Hachette isn't merely considering how much money it can make via ebook sales with Amazon when pricing its titles. It's also considering Amazon's place in the ebook sales ecosystem and how what it does there may affect the fortunes of Barnes & Noble, Apple and other ebook retailers. Should they fall in competition with Amazon, Hachette may find that next time around, the world's largest bookseller may not be so eager to compromise.
|
3f66b128822b73e4b7a73bfd384f6d6d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyhill/2014/07/03/smart-equities-for-creeping-us-inflation/ | Smart Equities For Creeping US Inflation | Smart Equities For Creeping US Inflation
Inflation in the US may be the investment topic of the moment. Whether inflation is merely a case of paranoia or actually raising its ugly head is yet to be seen. One thing looks certain – that the risk of disinflation is receding quickly while the Fed Reserve is readying itself to eventually meet factual or perceived inflation on the battle field of monetary policy. Consequently, investors should recognize the merits of adding US equity exposures to specifically deal with the type of inflation most likely to affect US risk assets in the near term, "creeping inflation."
Recent readings of US inflation paint a rather listless picture with actual inflation continuing to trend at low levels. This is especially true when considering that the world’s central banks espouse a desire for sustained inflation nearer to 2.0% and have adjusted monetary policy accordingly. The US Consumer Price Index for all goods registered a 2.1% year-over-year change at the last monthly reading in June. The CPI trend is up, but just barely.
The Federal Reserve’s favored measurement of inflation, the Core PCE Index, also shows very little current inflation. Note: the Core PCE Index, also referred to as the PCE deflator, is an index measuring all core domestic personal consumption with a dynamic price index and a chained index to compare quarterly prices instead of a fixed base amount.
The key for regarding inflation as a driver of monetary policy or investment decisions is for core inflation readings to sustain a growing level of inflation. US readings, no matter how measured, are not quite there yet, even if the most recent data shows a slight uptick.
Beyond actual inflation readings, market participants are more attuned to expectations of inflation. Even if historical, measured inflation is growing at a negligible pace, if expectations of inflation increase materially, assets prices will be affected. Currently, the market expects the US inflation rate to be around 2.5% in five years.
Based upon this forecast of gently sloping inflation, it is safe to say that the market doesn’t anticipate the type of high inflation or hyperinflation that many have warned about for years. Combined with continued readings of subdued actual inflation and historically low US Treasury rates, the overall picture of inflation in the US can at best be described as, “not high.”
Inflation as an investment theme has gathered steam recently. First, it is the fact that inflation readings have ticked up ever so slightly in recent readings in combination with much better US employment numbers and the anticipation of better US growth numbers for the second half of the year that have rotated the issue of inflation from the backburner to the front of investment analysis. Second, the cacophony of the loud voices of the gold-loving, doom and gloom crowd is growing louder again. These are the same folks which have wrongly been calling for inflation for the last six years and remain apoplectic (and angry) that Quantitative Easing (experiments) has not created hyperinflation. The third reason inflation has reemerged as an investment theme is because the Fed has told investors to expect rates to rise. The Fed knows that the asymmetry between the quickening pace of jobs growth and low inflation is not likely to persist forever and is preparing the market for the Fed Funds Rate to move slowly upwards sometime in the next year. That action alone can portend higher inflation.
Perhaps the more important question should be what type of inflation will the US experience over the next several years? The type of inflation most likely to be experienced by the US over the next several years is creeping inflation rather than spikes in inflation readings or expectations. The Fed keeps reminding the market that rates will eventually “normalize” for a reason. The Fed wants ameliorate the risk of a mismatch between market expectations and Fed policy while pursuing the goal of full employment for as long as the market (inflation) will provide cover. In this type of inflation, the most important component is, and will continue to be, wage growth or the lack thereof. There is a quantifiable relationship between wages and the unemployment rate. Currently, average hourly earnings are on a pace to increase 2.0% this year while CPI is trending at 2.1%. Many analysts predict higher wage pressures as the slack in the labor market recedes but there are many factors to counter wage pressures such as lower productivity and the labor participation rate. All of these factors point to a creep higher in inflation rather than a spike.
If inflation is muted yet back as an investment consideration, is it worth the effort to construct trades to take advantage of creeping inflation and if so what should be purchased by astute global macro investors? The answer is yes – a small allocation to assets benefiting from creeping inflation and doing so at present is likely to be a reasonable strategy. It should be noted however, that assets that perform well in a creeping inflation environment may be very different from traditional inflation trades: gold, real estate, real assets, collectibles and other currencies. These types of assets are best correlated to either hyperinflation or exploding inflation expectations. Neither of those scenarios are forecast to be a substantial part of creeping inflation.
The superior choice of asset class will presumptively be US stocks with a high beta to inflation and demonstrating robust earnings in steady growth economic cycles. The conventional thinking about equities and inflation is to purchase commodity stocks, REITS and infrastructure plays. In times of creeping inflation those plays could underperform because: (a) growth might be very moderate(GDP of 2.0% to 3.5%) but high enough to push out of mere dividend yielding stocks; (b) the US rates curve is still organically coming off historical lows (separate from inflation pressures); (c) global trade continues to excel and is higher than past inflation analogues so that the likes of China and Europe may continue to export (to the US) deflationary pressures and moderate homegrown inflation expectations; and, (d) monetary policy is shifting from accommodation at the Fed and Bank of England to aggressive policies by the ECB and Bank of Japan. All of the above argue for the fact that stocks selected for creeping inflation should be more than mere inflation hedges.
Basic materials is the primary sector for long positions to take advantage of creeping inflation. These are companies that produce “things” that are needed to drive the economy, transport those things, and package and wholesale those things. They are chemical companies such as LyondellBasell Industries (ticker: LYB), Monsanto Company (ticker: MON), E.I. du Pont (ticker: DD). They are also companies such as International Paper (ticker: IP), Alcoa (ticker: AA) and Nucor Corporation (ticker: NUE). In addition, exposure to copper via Freeport-McMoRan (ticker: FCX) and Southern Copper (ticker: SCCO) can be added for good measure. The secondary sector for long positions is large cap US healthcare stocks such as Pfizer (ticker: PFE), Johnson & Johnson (ticker: JNJ), Becton, Dickinson and Co. (ticker: BDX) and UnitedHealth Group (ticker: UNH). Obviously, these particular companies are listed only to illustrate the types of companies more likely to benefit from creeping inflation. However, if further analysis seems like too much work, you can always just buy gold and hope for the worst. In that case, you better stock up on guns and water and don't forget the bullets too!
--
Disclaimer: Nothing herein shall be construed as investment advice, a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any security. This is for entertainment purposes only.
|
4d55af0a0787b2e434d945616469d5a4 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremymaxie/2016/05/21/managing-expectations-ahead-of-obamas-vietnam-trip/ | Managing Expectations Ahead Of Obama's Vietnam Trip | Managing Expectations Ahead Of Obama's Vietnam Trip
US President Barack Obama looks at his watch alongside Vietnamese General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong... [+] (2nd L) and translators following a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, July 7, 2015. AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
President Obama heads to Asia next week for his tenth trip as President. Before attending the G-7 Summit hosted in Japan, Obama will first travel to Vietnam on May 23-25 where he is widely expected to announce a full lifting of the ban on lethal weapons sales to Vietnam that has been in place since the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government fell in 1975.
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 28 that he supports lifting the restrictions. However, U.S.Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is divided between those who prioritize expanding bilateral defense and security ties with Vietnam against those that are more cautious due to human rights concerns. The embargo is seen by the opposition as leverage to compel Hanoi to further improve human rights. Supporters, such as Senator John McCain, argue that Vietnam has made some progress on human rights and that lifting the embargo would be a confidence-building measure and an incentive for Hanoi to make further improvements.
Adding to the uncertainty and speculation, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes recently stated that the White House has not made a final decision on whether to lift the embargo. According to Rhodes, Obama plans to discuss with the Vietnamese leadership “how we intend to approach [the embargo] going forward” and that any changes to the embargo will be "discussed in the context of where this relationship is going." Rhodes indicated that the White House wants the visit to demonstrate a "significant upgrade" in bilateral relations.
The embargo was first relaxed in 2007 to allow for the sale of "non-lethal" defense goods and services to Vietnam under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In 2014, Obama partially lifted restrictions to allow for the sale of “lethal” weapons and defense services on a case-by-case basis to Vietnam for the limited purposes of maritime security and domain awareness. On the 20th anniversary of the normalization of bilateral relations in 2015, Washington and Hanoi signed the non-binding Joint Vision Statement on Defense Relations to expand bilateral defense ties, "potentially including cooperation in the production of new technologies and equipment, where possible under current law and policy restrictions." Vietnamese Minister of National Defense General Phung Quang Thanh stated at the time "[t]he full removal of the restrictions would [show] the trust and respect between the two countries."
This has raised expectations in Hanoi as well as the stakes in Washington. Since the partial lifting of the embargo in 2014, Vietnam has not procured any lethal weapons from the U.S. due to their high cost and operational complexity. Vietnam currently purchases about 90% of military arms from Russia, including submarines and frigates. As Murray Hiebert and Phuong Nguyen at CSIS have written, Vietnam is seeking to gradually reduce its overdependence on Russian arms supplies and create interoperability with its regional partners such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the United States. However, Zachary Abuza, a Professor at National War College, has pointed out that Vietnam's real interest lies not just in procurement but in co-production with which it has already had some success.
All things considered, Obama is unlikely to announce a "full and unconditional" lifting of the arms embargo while on his visit to Vietnam. Instead, a more likely outcome is a further easing restrictions to broaden the types of U.S. weapon platforms that can be sold to Vietnam, but which are still subject to approval on a case-by-case basis and linked to progress on human rights. Even a "full lifting" of the embargo may not be entirely "unconditional" since Vietnam must comply with a lengthy and complex review process while restrictions would be subject to a snap-back if human rights worsen or bilateral relationship deteriorates. Moving from procurement to the co-production of U.S. weapons platforms in Vietnam (which is the overarching goal) would be an even longer and more scrutinized process.
Domestic political constraints and human rights concerns are not the only factors that have led Washington to take a cautious and gradual approach to lifting of the arms embargo. Uncertainty about China's response is a major consideration, since fully lifting the arms embargo could further escalate tensions and encourage China to become even more assertive in the South China Sea (SCS). Timing is another important factor with a pending decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on China's "nine dash line" expected this summer. Obama may decide to postpone a decision until later in the fall, allowing Washington time to assess Beijing's response to the arbitration ruling. A restrained and passive response by Beijing could encourage Washington to further delay lifting the arms embargo, while a defiant and aggressive response from Beijing accompanied by an escalation in behavior could push Obama to lift the arms ban before he leaves office in January.
Bilateral Relations In Context
Rhodes statements suggest that, regardless of whether Obama decides to fully lift or only relax the lethal arms embargo, that the White House expects the bilateral relationship to remain strong and continue to expand. Indeed, Vietnam has emerged as important security partner in the Obama administration's so-called "Asia-Pacific Rebalance" alongside traditional allies and partners such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines. Although bilateral relations are unlikely to reach the level of a formal strategic partnership, Alexander L. Vuving, an Associate Professor at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, has suggested that an "informal strategic alliance" is politically possible.
According to Carl Thayer, Emeritus Professor, Australian Defence Force Academy, bilateral defense and security ties between the U.S. and Vietnam started to gain momentum in 2010 with the convening of the 1st Defense Policy Dialogue, which was followed the next year by the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Advancing Bilateral Defense Cooperation that set out five priority areas that still frames bilateral defense cooperation. In 2013, Washington and Hanoi upgraded bilateral ties to a "Comprehensive Partnership" that included the provision of five fast patrol boats to the Vietnamese Coast Guard as part of an $18 million dollar assistance package. This was part of a larger initiative to provide $32.5 million in regional and bilateral assistance to expand maritime capacity building in Southeast Asia. The U.S. greatly expanded the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative in 2015 with additional funding (up to $450 million for 2016-2020) with the aim of bolster Vietnam's maritime Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.
Indeed, the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral relationship is essential to ensuring maritime security in the South China Sea including protecting the freedom of navigation and overflights that secure the global commons and underwrite the rules-based liberal international order. The SCS sits at the intersection the Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) and commercial shipping lanes that connect Northeast Asia with the Middle East and Africa that are vital to the global economy and energy security. Through this maritime corridor, approximately 50% of the world’s oil tanker traffic flows. By 2035, it is expected that 90% of the Middle East fossil fuel exports will be shipped to East Asia with much of it transiting the SCS en route to China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
The U.S.-Vietnam bilateral relationship may become even more important in the future, depending the status and trajectory of U.S. relations with two its oldest regional partners—Thailand and the Philippines. Since the military coup in 2014, Washington’s relations with Bangkok have deteriorated and the bilateral defense ties have been downgraded—including reduced commitment to Cobra Gold. The resumption of normal diplomatic ties and full scale defense cooperation is likely stalled until the junta successfully returns to country to democratic rule.
Similarly, the election of Rodrigo Duterte as President of the Philippines raises uncertainties over Manila’s new approach to the SCS territorial dispute and continuity of U.S.-Philippine defense and security cooperation. Duterte election is untimely as the PCA’s arbitration ruling is expected within the next few months. In January, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the U.S. and the Philippines was constitutional. The EDCA base-sharing agreement give the U.S. military temporary and rotational presence at five military bases in the Philippines for a 10-year period.
Naval Diplomacy Steams Ahead
Another possible linkage to fully lifting or further relaxing of the lethal weapons ban is a quid pro quo for increased U.S. military access to Cam Ranh Bay. Hanoi has been as reluctant and cautious toward granting access to the U.S. Navy combat vessels as Washington has been in fully lifting the arms embargo. Hanoi's caution is driven by concerns of unduly provoking China and the reluctant to abandon its "three nos" policy—no military alliances, no foreign military bases in Vietnam, and no reliance on external powers. This policy was first articulated in 1998 in an effort to reassure China's concerns over Vietnam's emerging defense and security ties with regional and global powers—particularly the U.S., Japan and India.
However, the "three no's" policy has not restrained Chinese assertiveness in the SCS and in reality. Vietnam has resorted to pursuing a more complex strategy to expand defense and security ties with multiple regional and global powers. As Koh Swee Lean Collin, an associate research fellow at the Institute of Strategic and Defence Studies in Singapore has noted, Moscow and Hanoi signed an agreement in 2013 that gave prioritized (but not exclusive) access for Russian ships to Cam Ranh Bay in exchange for Russian assistance in maintaining and upgrading facilities and building a submarine base. The Soviet Union leased the naval base from 1978-2002.
The U.S. Navy has been making port calls to Da Nang since 2004, but is limited to one port call for up to three ships per year with access to Cam Ranh Bay restricted. Since 2010, the U.S. Navy has been conducting an annual Naval Engagement Activity (NEA) with Vietnam via Da Nang. This "naval diplomacy" has been mostly "non-combat" oriented with a focus on maritime security, search and rescue (SAR), humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR), and peacekeeping operations (PKO)-- but it is growing more complex. In 2011, the USNS Richard E. Byrd, a dry cargo/ammunition supply ship, was the first U.S. Navy ship to visit Cam Ranh Bay in 38 years. Since then, non-combat ships operated under the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command have visited Cam Ranh Bay for routine maintenance and repairs.
After a 43-year hiatus, it is just a matter of time before U.S. Navy combat ships cruise back into Cam Ranh Bay. On March 8, Vietnam opened the newly completed Cam Ranh International Port (CRIP) that will host foreign naval and commercial ships with the capacity to berth 18 ships up to 110,000 DWT at a time. The CRIP allows Hanoi to accommodate U.S. and other regional naval powers’ demands for increased port access without outwardly violating its “three nos” policy and further provoking China.
Since its opening, several foreign warships have already visited CRIP. The first foreign naval ship to make a port call was the RSS Endurance, an amphibious landing platform dock ship (LPD) from Singapore on March 17. This was followed by two Japanese MSDF destroyers on April 12 that previously anchored in Subic Bay, Philippines. A French Mistral-class amphibious assault ship, the Tonnerre, arrived at CRIP on May 2 where it participated in drills with the Vietnamese Navy for unplanned encounters at sea. The CRIP also hosted a Russian Pacific Fleet research vessel and a South Korean Coast Guard training ship around the same time. A flotilla of warships from the Indian Navy's Eastern Command, including two guided missile stealth frigates and a guided missile frigate, will anchor at CRIP while on a two and half month deployment to the South China Sea and North West Pacific. The Indian flotilla will participate in the MALABAR-16 naval exercise with the U.S. Navy and Japanese MSDF on June 10-17 off the south coast of Okinawa.
|
03e7e59d87b06f60c004bcc12531e6f7 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2018/12/19/what-does-vuca-really-mean/?sh=6649b6cd17d6 | What Does VUCA Really Mean? | What Does VUCA Really Mean?
Kiev, Ukraine - October 24, 2018: Kiev view showing Arsenalna Metro Station Getty
Throughout the past decades we find numerous terms in the popular business press and academic literature that refer to an increasing inability to grasp the world and deal with the things happening around us. Examples include uncertainty, turbulence, rapid change, dynamism, disruption, complexity, hyper-competition, high-velocity markets and flux.
For a couple of years, the notion of "VUCA" is gaining popularity as a term to cover the various dimensions of this ‘uncontrollable’ environment. In various posts and articles, we read, for example, about a "VUCA World" and in particular about "Leadership in a VUCA World." But what does being and leading in a VUCA world really mean?
Sure, VUCA is an acronym. It stands for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous. And sure, there are plenty of explanations including a Harvard Business Review article by Nathan Bennett and G. James Lemoine and a page on Wikipedia. But despite these explanations, some further clarification can be helpful.
Therefore, in this article and the next ones, I want to dive a bit deeper and clarify what VUCA means, whether the world is indeed increasingly VUCA and what the implications for business are. Let me start with briefly defining the four elements:
Volatility - Volatility refers to the speed of change in an industry, market or the world in general. It is associated with fluctuations in demand, turbulence and short time to markets and it is well-documented in the literature on industry dynamism. The more volatile the world is, the more and faster things change.
Uncertainty - Uncertainty refers to the extent to which we can confidently predict the future. Part of uncertainty is perceived and associated with people’s inability to understand what is going on. Uncertainty, though, is also a more objective characteristic of an environment. Truly uncertain environments are those that don’t allow any prediction, also not on a statistical basis. The more uncertain the world is, the harder it is to predict.
Complexity - Complexity refers to the number of factors that we need to take into account, their variety and the relationships between them. The more factors, the greater their variety and the more they are interconnected, the more complex an environment is. Under high complexity, it is impossible to fully analyze the environment and come to rational conclusions. The more complex the world is, the harder it is to analyze.
Ambiguity - Ambiguity refers to a lack of clarity about how to interpret something. A situation is ambiguous, for example, when information is incomplete, contradicting or too inaccurate to draw clear conclusions. More generally it refers to fuzziness and vagueness in ideas and terminology. The more ambiguous the world is, the harder it is to interpret.
In practice, the four terms are related. The more complex and volatile an industry is, for example, the harder to predict and therefore more uncertain it will be. Yet, all four represent distinct elements that make our environment - the world, a market, an industry - harder to grasp and control. The distinct nature of these four elements can be further clarified by visualizing them:
The Four Dimensions of VUCA Copyright Jeroen Kraaijenbrink
As illustrated in the picture above, in a purely volatile (but not uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world, there is a lot of fast, but predictable change. On the other hand, in a purely uncertain (but not volatile, complex and ambiguous) world, it is just hard to tell how things develop. And in a purely complex (but not volatile, uncertain and ambiguous) world, things are hard to untangle and understand. Finally, in a purely ambiguous (but not volatile, uncertain and complex) world, things are just hard to discern.
|
6a5d14f1e675c728d82ca2eb578a3fa2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/02/12/strategy-in-the-age-of-too-much-why-google-maps-is-better-than-swot/ | Strategy In The Age Of Too Much: Why Google Maps Is Better Than SWOT | Strategy In The Age Of Too Much: Why Google Maps Is Better Than SWOT
We live in a time of abundance. Abundance of choices, abundance of stuff, abundance of opportunities, abundance of aspirations, abundance of technologies, and above all, abundance of data and information. There is just so much coming on our path that we have no idea anymore what to pay attention to and which choices to make.
We experience this in our private lives and as customers. We have a virtually unlimited range of products and services to choose from and are bombarded with information, news, 'news' and advertisements about every second of our day through the regular and social media.
And we experience it in business too. As business leaders there is just so much information coming to us from within and outside our organizations and there are so many possible threats and opportunities to respond to, that there is no way of knowing whether or not we have made the right choices and decisions.
As a result, the main challenge in business is no longer to obtain and deploy scarce resources and capabilities or to create attractive products and services that customers like. Of course, those are still crucial. They form the cornerstone of value creation and without them no business can exist. But the main challenge today is knowing what to pay attention to and keeping your focus on that.
Nobel laureate Herbert Simon was aware of this problem a long time ago. Already in 1971, he said, "A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention." That is exactly what we experience today, in the age of too much. Due to all the information we receive, we have great difficulties focusing our attention.
In a sense, the field of strategy has always tried to deal with this issue. Missions and visions or formulating a 'why', for example, are meant to help you create focus in your organization and direct where the attention should be going. The same applies to Porter's generic strategies (differentiation, cost leadership and focus) and Treacy and Wiersema's value disciplines (product leadership, operational excellence and customer intimacy). Their message is: pick one or maybe two and focus all your attention on that. Along the same line, many strategy tools such as the SWOT, the balanced scorecard, the BCG matrix and the five forces framework are all doing the same: they all tell leaders what are the few most important things they should pay attention to.
The common denominator of these tools is simplification. They radically simplify the business world by dividing it in three, four or five categories that leaders should pay attention to—often in the form of two-by-two matrices. With the SWOT, for example, you divide the world into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and let this guide your strategy. And with the BCG matrix, you divide the world into question marks, stars, cash cows and dogs and let that division guide you in making key decisions. And so on.
Managing attention through simplification is nice. Reducing the complexity to a handful of factors to pay attention to feels good. It makes you feel more in control and that is useful. And simplification is necessary too. We cannot possibly pay attention to everything and therefore need ways to simplify our world. But there is a limit. If they oversimplify too much, our tools don't work anymore.
Outside the field of strategy we know this. A good metaphor is driving to a town where you have never been before. To drive there you probably use your navigation app, Google maps, or a traditional map. All of these tools are simplifications. Along the idea that "the map is not the territory" they omit a lot of the details of the real world to give you a clear picture of where to go. But they are still pretty complex and contain a lot of information about the kind of roads you will drive on, whether you drive through a rural or an urban environment, which exits to take, how far it is, whether you can expect any delays, and so on.
Imagine you would use a simple two-by-two matrix to get from A to B. We actually have one: a compass. It divides the world into latitude and longitude and could tell you, for example, that your destination is 34.4 degrees North and 22.7 degrees West. As such, it simplifies the complex task of getting from A to B to simple coordinates. The only thing you then have to pay attention to is the direction you are driving.
But if you have ever tried driving on a compass, you know this doesn't work. The problem is that, unless you are extremely well-skilled, a compass is too simple a tool to get the job done. Driving from A to B is not just a matter of knowing the latitude and longitude. Defining it as such abstracts too much from the reality of driving in the real world. As a result, a compass doesn't really help us solve the problem.
The same applies to business and strategy. It is an illusion what we can simplify our world of abundance with simple models and expect those to help us guide our attention and make decisions. If a compass is already too simple for a relatively straightforward task as driving from A to B, there is no way that simple models like the ones above are enough to get the much more complex job of getting our organizations from A to B done. We need more advanced tools than that. Especially, we need more accurate maps and semi-automatic tools that help us tell where to go and how to get there.
|
3259e47fe600d063bd670846a75e0820 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/03/22/strategy-myth-1-strategy-is-about-war/ | Strategy Myth #1: Strategy Is About War | Strategy Myth #1: Strategy Is About War
Strategy is clouded by a number of persistent myths. As argued in a recent previous article, there are no less than ten of them. These myths are a barrier towards progress. Therefore, in this article and the next nine in this series, my aim is to articulate and break them one by one. Let me start with Myth #1: Strategy Is About War.
The Myth
Many books on strategy start with informing you about the origins of the term strategy. As they will tell you, the word strategy is a derivation and combination of the greek words strategos (general), strategia (office of a general), stratos (army), and agein (to lead). Accordingly, strategy is often defined as ‘the art of a general’.
Then these books often continue discussing the history of the field referring to the works of influential generals, most often Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ (around 500 B.C.) and Von Clausewitz’s ‘On war’ (1832). Accordingly, the parallel between strategy and warfare is drawn, arguing that strategy is primarily about outsmarting and beating the enemy—the competition.
Why It Is Wrong
While strategy certainly has its role in warfare, and while there is a lot of wisdom in military works about strategy which is applicable in today’s organizations, the warfare connotation of the word strategy is misleading for five reasons.
Words have more than one meaning. The very fact that the word strategy is used in business as well as in the military, doesn't mean they mean the same. Words change in meaning. Take the word "awful". Long ago it used to mean "full of awe", which is about the opposite of what it means today. Furthermore, the meaning of words differs between contexts. The word "mouse", for example (hopefully) means something different in the office as on the country-side. The same for strategy. For reasons explained below, even though business strategy and warfare strategy both use the word strategy, they may have not so much to do with each other. There is no historical connection. There is no continuous historical line from strategy in warfare to business strategy. Business strategy has a very specific, about 140-year history that is primarily shaped by business schools like Wharton and Harvard, consultancy firms like McKinsey and BCG, CEOs of large firms such as Dupont and General Motors and foundations like the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller foundations. And the interesting thing is that the term strategy wasn't even used in business before the 1960s and not common before the 1970s. Like the first course at Harvard, the field was called "business policy" and the first academic journal was (and still is) called "Long Range Planning". The term strategy was imported much later and the field was not relabelled "strategy" until 1979. Business is rarely about warfare. Even though it is often suggested that business is all about being in war with the competition, this is only so in a small fraction of cases. Yes, battles between Coca Cola and Pepsi, between Ryanair and easyJet and between Apple and Samsung may resemble war and are interesting to remember and analyze. But for the large majority of organizations on this planet, business is not about war or killing the competition. It is about making organizations survive and prosper through creating distinct added value for customers while operating in a challenging environment. Organizations depend on competitors. In warfare, the ultimate purpose of strategy is to destroy the fighting power of the enemy. Von Clausewitz allows no doubt about that when he argues that "War is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds." Unlike in warfare, however, having a successful organization generally does not require others to fail. Oftentimes you even need strong competitors since your organization depends on them, for example to position yourself against them in the market, to attract customers, to share resources, or to create and maintain a market in the first place. This is why we have shopping centers, regions such as Silicon Valley where competitors cluster together and industry associations which represent and are funded by competing organizations. Military strategy is not primarily about warfare. Of course, military strategy is about warfare. But not first and foremost. The primary point of military strategy is to avoid war, to create, keep and protect peace. Again we can draw from Von Clausewitz when he calls war "politics by other means". It starts with politics and only in exceptional cases this leads to war. So, even when we would take military strategy as starting point for business strategy, it doesn't follow that warfare is the right or even a useful metaphor.
What Then?
If not warfare, what is the core of strategy then? Of course, there are numerous possible answers to this question. And we only have to look at the hundreds of definitions of strategy to see there is nothing close to agreement about this. But if we stay as close as possible to the theme of warfare and the history of strategy, Lawrence Freedman provides a good definition in his comprehensive and masterful book "Strategy: A History". He defines strategy as "the art of creating power". Power here doesn't refer so much to having power over others. It is power as potential, as in the ability to do stuff and to make that we control our own lives rather than that others are doing it. I'd like to think that is what strategy is about.
|
61280b526d09ba20f2950039416b4730 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/03/29/strategy-myth-2-strategy-equals-planning/ | Strategy Myth #2: Strategy Equals Planning | Strategy Myth #2: Strategy Equals Planning
Strategy has a hard time. In this volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world, it is increasingly questioned what strategy should look like and whether it is still useful in the first place. Looking at the core functions of strategy, the latter is most certainly the case. We need strategy more than ever. However, not the kind of strategy that we find perpetuated in our textbooks and everyday thinking about strategy.
In this series of articles I therefore challenge the ten most important myths about strategy. After breaking the first myth—that strategy is about war—this article zooms in on the next one: Myth #2: Strategy Equals Planning.
The Myth
The idea is that strategy should be generated in this way: You conduct a thorough analysis of your organization and its environment, thereby paying particular attention to the trends that are going on. Based on this analysis you make projections about what you expect is going to happen or generate a couple of scenarios. And then you choose your course of action, plan it accordingly and write it down in a strategic plan.
While traditionally a five-year horizon was considered appropriate, this is now usually reduced to three years because that seems to be the period for which plans can still be made. Accordingly, organizations are supposed to fundamentally rethink their strategy about every three years. In the years in-between, they are supposed to make only incremental adjustments, should circumstances dictate so.
Why It Is Wrong
In a sense, strategy is of course about planning. As explained in my previous article, it even used to be called "business planning" or "long range planning" in the past. And in whatever you do, there is always some planning involved: you always think ahead—consciously or unconsciously—about what your next step is going to be. But beyond this very basic level of planning, the idea that strategy is all about planning is a myth for a variety of reasons.
Definitions change. One of the most widespread definitions of strategy is the classical definition by Alfred Chandler: "The determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals." This definition is from 1962. This is more than half a century ago. Ever since, the world has evolved, and so have definitions. More recent definitions, even traditional ones like the one by Michael Porter from the early 1980s ("Deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value,") don't have this built-in planning idea of strategy anymore. Strategy is an explicit response to planning. When we look at the history of the concept of strategy in the field of business, it is immediately obvious that strategy was introduced as an alternative for planning. The term strategy was introduced in business in the early 1970s because already at that time, people found out that the concept of planning didn't really work. Just have a look at the titles of some early articles in Long Range Planning: "Strategic Management: A New Managerial Concept For An Era Of Rapid Change" (1971) and "Why Has Planning Failed?" (1972) and so on. So, it is exactly because planning had failed to deliver its promise, that strategy has been introduced as response. Planning is just half the story (1). Parallel to planning, an alternative view on strategy has emerged as well: strategy as adaptation or emergence. Headed by Henry Mintzberg, a whole school of strategy has developed that sees strategy not so much as a planning process, but as an evolutionary process of trial-and-error, learning and adaptation. As Mintzberg points out in various of his works since the 1970s, the heart of strategy is neither planning, nor adaptation, but finding the right balance between them. Accordingly, strategy is not about planning but about balancing between sticking to your plan and adapting to the changing circumstances and opportunities. Planning is just half the story (2). There is a second way in which planning is just half the story. The planning vs. adaptation discussion focuses on just one dimension of strategy: the extent to which we base strategy on predictions and expectations about the future. As Robert Wiltbank and colleagues have argued in a 2006 article in Strategic Management Journal, though, there is a second dimension: the extent to which we can control or influence the future. Along the idea that "to the extent we can control the future, we don't need to predict it," strategy is also about making things happen using your own resources, competencies and power. Planning only works when strategy is least needed. Planning works only in predictable situations. As long as the direction in which an industry develops is predictable and as long as we stick to what we have been doing in the past, planning can work. After all, in those cases we can extrapolate the trends of the past towards the future. However, next to being increasingly rare, such situations reflect exactly those cases where strategy is least needed. Strategy is most needed when things change or when you want to initiate something new. In such cases, though, planning doesn't really help because there is no reliable basis for anticipating the future.
What Then?
There is this famous quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower that "Plans are nothing; planning is everything." It suggests that plans are useless because they will be outdated as soon as they are written down—or before. The very act of planning, though, is assumed to be useful because it creates a common frame of reference so that, once things change, everyone knows what to deviate from.
As argued before, creating this common frame of reference is one of the key functions of strategy. So it is important. But this doesn't imply that it is planning that should provide this frame of reference. A shared understanding of an organization's current, factual strategy can serve this same purpose—and in a more effective way because it doesn't require speculation. Once we understand what an organization does today, we can point out quite specifically where and how things should change towards the future.
This doesn't require meticulous, long-term planning. Wherever we look around us we see more agile, adaptive approaches emerge: in software development, in project management, in innovation, in entrepreneurship, and so on. These approaches distance themselves from the waterfall approach to planning that is still present in strategy. Adopting elements from such more agile approaches, strategy can effectively liberate itself from its planning-based history. The result is an approach to strategy which limits the role of planning to the short term and for the rest relies on a mix of adaptating to changing circumstances and effectuating the things you can influence.
|
e50d7e5841592b05fdb81d906d8c3219 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/04/26/strategy-myth-6-strategy-resides-at-the-top/ | Strategy Myth #6: Strategy Resides At The Top | Strategy Myth #6: Strategy Resides At The Top
Learning is the motor of progress. Over time, new insights emerge that replace older ones. This is how we mature from kids to adults, how companies develop and grow and how science works. But it hardly applies to the field of strategy. Of course new insights have appeared over the years. But the level of actual learning is surprisingly low. Hindered by strong beliefs in how things must be, we stay attached to a set of no less than ten myths that have been remarkably insistent over the last decades. In this article I address Myth #6: Strategy Resides At The Top.
The Myth
As referred to in Myth #1: Strategy Is About War, strategy means something like "the art of the general". This suggests that strategy is the stuff that concerns the people highest in rank. Accordingly, many definitions of strategy refer to "that which top management does" (Steiner in Strategic Planning). A study by Nag, Hambrick and Chen in Strategic Management Journal (2007) reveals that every third definition of strategy contains such reference to top level executives like CEOs, executives, leaders, senior management and top management teams.
The idea is that the people at the top of the organization are responsible for setting out the strategy, which is then supposed to trickle down and be translated to lower levels in the organization where it is executed. This works because those at the top have overview and oversight and can therefore set out the general directions for the organization. And the rest of the organization is responsible for the details and execution of the strategy.
Why It Is Wrong
Like with many myths, there is some truth in this idea. It makes sense that there are people overseeing the organization and that some people have a greater say in where the organization is heading than others. And it makes sense that this is top management. But the idea that strategy is something exclusive or even primarily for the top is wrong for a variety of reasons.
Strategy generation and execution can't be separated. This myth is based on the idea that strategy formation and implementation can be separated over time and in the organization. Formation happens first and at the top and implementation thereafter and by the rest of the organization. But this doesn't work. It didn't in the past and it certainly doesn't work today, in this volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. I would even argue that this very separation is the single most important cause of the high failure rates in strategy. The two need to be in constant interaction so that a virtuous cycle emerges in which ideas and actions continuously feed each other. The master strategist hardly exists. We are fond of heroes—people to look up to with remarkable skills far beyond our own. But the fact is that these are extremely rare in strategy. Freedman calls this the "Myth Of The Master Strategist." Most executives aren't the know-it-all visionary leaders we expect them to be. As I experience in my advisory work, often they don't know it either. And the fact that we do expect it from them is bad for us as well as for them. We are disappointed because they don't live up our expectations, and they feel pressured because we expect so much from them. Intelligence and ideas don't correlate with rank. To be a master strategist, one needs great intelligence and great ideas, so the myth goes. So, the idea is that the people at the top are better endorsed with intelligence and ideas than others in the organization. But there is no evidence for this whatsoever. There is no research that shows that intelligence and ideas correlate with rank. Of course, not everyone has the same level of intelligence and ideas, but in any organization there may be numerous people who are smarter and have better strategy ideas than those at the top. Networks and groups beat individuals. When engaged in the right way, groups of people make better analyses and better decisions than individuals. This applies to teams and organizations as well as large crowds. Not acknowledging this can lead to what Alvesson and Spicer have called "The Stupidity Paradox"—the fact that organizations can act in a much more stupid way than individuals. When properly engaged though, groups are much smarter than individuals. Not using this insight in strategy seems like an extreme missed potential to me. Things are too complex to leave to top management. Both our organizations and the world we operate in are increasingly complex. The level of complexity is far beyond what the top of the organization can grasp and deal with. Things are simply too complex to be understood by those few at the top. Assuming that they can is a myth. To survive and prosper in the highly competitive markets most organizations are in, they need to have everyone on board. Not just for creating and delivering products and services, but also for generating and executing strategy. In a world that is so complex, organizations can no longer afford to leave something so important as strategy to just the top.
What Then?
Of course, many organizations already realize that strategy is not just a top management activity. They involve middle management, consult others in the organization and follow more participative approach than the traditional trickle-down approach. Yet, the primary assumption is still that it is top management that is primarily responsible for strategy generation.
But what if we completely abandon this idea and assume that strategy is everyone's job? This may sound a bit bizarre. But I think the current alternative is even more bizarre. The current idea that top management is responsible for strategy suggests that the more important a topic is (I'd consider strategy very important), the fewer people should decide about it (just the board). In that light, I'd say that making strategy part of everyone's job is far less bizar.
Explaining how to do this is beyond this simple article. But to see how this could work, it is useful to have a look at quality management and its various varieties: Total Quality Management, Continuous Improvement, Lean, Six Sigma, etc. One of the core elements of all these approaches is that everyone in the organization is responsible for quality. Not just a staff department. Everyone and from their own perspective. I am sure the same can work for strategy as well. Think about it.
|
efe90a1a470dbe61f70b9035495ffcb4 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/05/10/strategy-myth-8-strategy-derives-from-data/ | Strategy Myth #8: Strategy Derives From Data | Strategy Myth #8: Strategy Derives From Data
To make progress with the way we generate and execute strategy in our organizations, it is crucial to have a realistic picture of what strategy is and what it can and cannot do. Trivial as this may sound, it is unfortunately worthwhile saying because the way we think about strategy is hindered for decades already by ten strong myths. In this series of articles, I summarize and evaluate these myths one by one with the intention of breaking them. This opens the door for more realistic and productive approaches to strategy. In this article we have arrived at Myth #8: Strategy Derives From Data.
The Myth
The widely spread traditional strategy approach as we know it relies strongly on gathering and analyzing data. With the help of frameworks like Porter's Five Forces Framework and the DESTEP analysis, we are supposed to gather extensive data about the opportunities and threats in our market. Along those same lines we are supposed to gather information about the internal strengths and weaknesses of our organization. And based on these analyses we then create a SWOT matrix, leading to the generation of strategic options between which we can choose.
With the growing popularity of big data, data analytics and artificial intelligence, we see a revival of data-driven approaches to strategy today. Many of the big consulting firms, for example, talk about things like big data strategy and data-driven strategy. With the technological advancements of today, so the idea goes, we can gather and analyze more data and thereby make better and more accurate strategies than ever before.
Why It Is Wrong
Of course, data is important. Without data, any strategy would be pure fantasy. Fun perhaps, but not necessarily useful for real organizations. However, there are at least five reasons why I think data is less important to strategy than often assumed.
Strategy is about the future, data about the past. By definition, data is about the past. Based on trend analysis and extrapolation we might be able to project developments into the future. But the data itself is about the past. This means that data can be useful in stable and predictable industries and when your strategy is doing more of the same. But as soon as you want to make any significant change or create a new industry, the relevance of data quickly evaporates. After all, what data to use if you are entering unexplored territory? Strategy requires judgment and interpretation. Two people facing the same piece of data can draw diametrically opposed conclusions. Facing the fact that everyone wears sandals in the desert, I might conclude there is no market for shoes because no one wears shoes. You, on the other hand, might conclude there is a huge market for shoes, because no one wears shoes. This simple example shows that, next to the data, it is at least as important what you and I see in this data, how we interpret and judge it. Opportunity—as well as threat—lies in the eye of the beholder, not in the data. Strategy is created, not found. The idea that strategy can be derived from data and analysis suggests that strategy is already present, laying there and waiting to be found by discovering the right patterns. But that is not where strategy comes from. Sure, it might be informed by data, but an actual strategy is created, designed by people. In the process of generating strategy, people add their imagination and creativity. The more innovative a strategy is, the more it will be based on imagination and creativity and the less it can rely on data. Strategy is about what should be. Strategy isn't just a summation of trends or a deductive analytical exercise. There is no way of objectively preferring one strategy above the other. There are always our own normative frameworks at play that make us prefer one strategy over the other. This means that, at its heart, formulating strategy is a very normative thing to do because it involves describing a desired future state based on our own ideas about what is preferred and what not. Data cannot provide us that. Strategy is social, data not. Strategy making is an inherently social process. Organizations need strategy that people are willing to execute. This means that people need to feel it is their strategy, a strategy to which they want to commit. Even when data analysis would lead to a perfect strategy in theory, a less perfect strategy that reflects how your people think is preferred because the chances of successful execution will be significantly higher. After all, a great strategy is one that people can and will execute, not one that is just great on paper.
What Then?
Ignoring relevant data is foolish. But over-depending on data is foolish too—even if the data is relevant. As the five points above show, strategy is not just a cold, deductive, rational process. It involves people, their imagination and creativity, their norms and values, and their ability and willingness to execute. This makes data far less important than oftentimes assumed.
The approach to strategy that follows from these points is a participative one in which there is a substantial role for people's subjective, intuitive and creative contributions as well as their thoughts about what is right and wrong. Collaborative sensemaking plays a crucial role in such approach. It means that people together create an understanding of what the current strategy is, what it could be, and what it should be. Can you picture an approach like that?
|
9bfeaadd480345718e6953846d155483 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/05/24/strategy-myth-10-strategy-should-be-formulated/ | Strategy Myth #10: Strategy Should Be Formulated | Strategy Myth #10: Strategy Should Be Formulated
This is the last article in a series on the ten myths of strategy. As argued in previous articles, the field of strategy suffers from ten strong myths that have been hindering progress for a couple of decades. In those articles, I have summarized and evaluated each myth one by one. In this article, I close this series by breaking the tenth and last myth: Myth #10: Strategy Should Be Formulated.
The Myth
The idea is that to function properly, every organization needs a strategy that is written down and communicated to its employees and the outside world. This strategy should be based on thorough analysis and formulated in a comprehensive and careful way so that it is clear what the organization's strategy is going to be for the next couple of years.
More often than not, this means writing the strategy down in a thick, impressive report with lots of figures and numbers. This report contains all the evidence behind the strategy and should convince readers that this is the right strategy.
Next to that, it is recommended to formulate a concise mission and vision statement as well so that there is an easy-to-remember phrase that everyone in the organization can refer to.
Why It Is Wrong
Of course writing down a strategy has its purpose. It can help sharpen a strategy, give direction to what the organization does and create coherence and common understanding. But the idea that strategy should always be formulated—or should be formulated at all—is wrong for a variety of reasons:
Formulating a strategy freezes it. Once a strategy is formulated, it remains relatively fixed for the period it was formulated for—unless it is reformulated. While this may have been useful in the past, in this volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world, it often means that a strategy is outdated once, or even before it is formulated. It also means that interesting opportunities and promising new directions might be ignored because they fall outside the formulated strategy. It draws attention away from what really matters. A formulated strategy itself doesn't get your organization anywhere. It is insights, decisions, and actions that drive organizations and that bring them to the next level. This means that every minute and euro spent on formulating and further perfecting a strategy is one not spent on the things that make organizations really tick. So, the opportunity costs and inactivity that comes with an overemphasis on strategy formulation are substantial. The ideal might not be the best starting point. Formulating a strategy makes an organization focus on some kind of ideal desired future state that it wants to achieve. That may be useful for motivational reasons. However, it also draws attention away from something else that matters greatly as well: the present. Rather than being concerned about an ideal future state, the strategy could better be oriented towards solving problems, frictions and misalignment in an organization's factual strategy as it is lived and realized today. The advantage of that is that it doesn't require speculation and believing but instead takes the current reality as it is experienced as a starting point. Process matters more than content. Putting a lot of emphasis on formulating a strategy, means putting a lot of emphasis on content, on the strategy itself and what it should be. This matters of course, but what matters even more is the strategy process. To be successful, particularly in this VUCA world, organizations need a strong and adaptive strategy process that makes sure an organization is doing the right things continuously. And this process involves far more than just formulating a strategy. Its primary focus needs to be on execution; on getting things done and making sure the organization's strategy is up to date on an ongoing basis. Other processes can do without formulation. While it is an accepted belief that strategy needs to be formulated, other key business processes can do without it. Most notably, total quality management, lean, six sigma and other processes focused on continuous improvement don't require a formulated future state. While strategy has a different orientation—value creation rather than efficiency or quality—there is no evident reason why strategy cannot do without formulation as well. This may seem hard to accept at first sight, but think about it. Do you really need a formulated strategy?
What Then?
The approach to strategy that follows from breaking this tenth myth can be summarized by paraphrasing Dwight D. Eisenhower once more. As already referred to in my earlier article on Myth #2: Strategy Equals Planning, Eisenhower was in favor of planning but less so of plans. Accordingly, the conclusion that follows from the above can be summarized as follows: "Strategies are nothing; strategizing is everything."
When we take this statement seriously, this means abandoning the whole noun "strategy" altogether. Rather than focusing on the formulation and execution of "a" strategy, organizations then should engage in a continuous strategizing process focused on looking forward by solving misalignments and frictions in today's factual strategy—the strategy the organization actually executes rather than an idealized formulated one.
This implies a strategy process that aims at generating strategic insights, decisions and actions, that facilitates prioritizing them so that the three to five most important once are selected and that is putting most weight on executing them and then move on to generating the next set of key insights, decisions and actions.
|
07ffa8e50e7263fb46178d8b9f5da89d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/06/27/world-well-being-week-five-practical-remedies-to-calm-down-and-feel-less-stressed/ | It Is World Well-Being Week: Five Practical Remedies To Calm Down And Feel Less Stressed | It Is World Well-Being Week: Five Practical Remedies To Calm Down And Feel Less Stressed
This week is "World Well-Being Week," the one week a year when we are stimulated to explicitly pay attention to our own well-being and that of others. Of course, that is something to pay attention to every day, but a special week like this can help to draw attention to this crucial aspect of life. Because crucial it is. In today's overheated society, many of us are stressed out by all the things we can do and should do—at work, at school or in our private lives. And doing something about that is not only good for ourselves. It is also good for others. Therefore, this week is an excellent moment to get started.
"But how?" You may wonder. "How can I feel less stressed and still do the things I should do and want to do?" About two years ago I found myself asking those questions too. I felt restless, stressed out and uncertain about the way I was living my life. It wasn't really a specific moment, but around that time I decided to do something about it. I went on the search for remedies and found so many that I started to write them down. This became my book No More Bananas: How to Keep Your Cool in the Collective Madness which came out last week.
The total journey towards a calmer and more confident life outline there consists of nine steps (see this recent article to see all steps). But as all journeys, also the journey towards a stressless life starts with the first step. Therefore, I'd like to share with you the very first step: Calm down.
As both my research and my personal experience showed, before you can do anything else you need to calm down and probably cool down too. When you are in an overheated stress mode, you can’t think clearly. Therefore, before being able to do anything else, you need to create sufficient silence and room in your head. As explained in detail in the book, I found five different ways of doing this. The first two are noise-cancellation remedies that help you block the external noise. The other three are more targeted at reducing the internal noise that is going on. They are:
Remedy 1: Switch Off Notifications. On your phone, tablet, computer, snail mail, or any other channel, switch off as many notifications as you can. And then switch off a few more to find out that you can do with even less. Remedy 2: Consume Less Information. Ignore the inner voice saying that you should keep abreast. Drastically reduce your information intake. Limit your exposure to media-pushing information (TV, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc.) and search less. Remedy 3: Stop Babbling. Reduce the number of words you utter and focus on the things that are worth saying. Suppress your impulse to respond. Lean back and ask questions instead of saying things you don’t want to say. Remedy 4: Seek Silence. Find moments and places where you can be alone in silence. Don’t do anything except letting your mind go and process all the things that you have seen, heard, felt or done. Remedy 5: Channel Your Thoughts. Control the vicious thinking cycles that make you stress out. Stop them by knowing your pitfalls, planning how long and when they can take place, or make them extreme to get yourself back to reality.
Once you have gone through this first step and mastered it to a reasonable extent, this paves the way for the other eight steps. It is important to take this step first. Before you can do anything else in an effective way, you first need enough calmness. When you are no longer overloaded with all kinds of external or inner noise, this frees your mind enough to go on with the next step.
Of course, this doesn’t mean you need to be completely Zen after this step or perfectly master all five remedies. That will never happen. Getting rid of your stress is a never-ending process, in which you will always have to persevere, learn, and adjust. That applies to this first step as well. You are never done.
But there is a point when you feel you can go on. Only you can tell this. But you will know it. It is when there is enough room in your head to think clearly every now and then. This is the point when you know you can go on to Step 2: Let go.
|
04fdae7a9148b834cfda1983899df2c1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2019/11/01/how-to-turn-sustainability-into-a-winning-strategya-trojan-horse-approach/ | How To Turn Sustainability Into A Winning Strategy—A Trojan Horse Approach | How To Turn Sustainability Into A Winning Strategy—A Trojan Horse Approach
24th session of United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2019 in New York, United States. VCG via Getty Images
Business contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are far from being on track, a recent global CEO study by the United Nations Global Compact and Accenture Strategy shows. At the time of formulating the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, 90% of CEOs said they were personally committed to ensuring that their companies lead on the sustainable development agenda. Today, in 2019, only 21% of CEOs believes their business currently plays a critical role in achieving the SDGs. Why is this and what can be done about it?
Problems
The problem is not that businesses don’t know what the problems are. As the global CEO study shows, CEOs are very much aware of the fact that the 2030 SDGs are far from being realized. And they were equally so in the years before. Furthermore, the solutions are known and available too. For climate-related SDGs, for example, in 2017, Project Drawdown presented a list of no less than 100 solutions based on existing technology that, so they argue, can together stop and reverse global warming.
The problem is also not that businesses don’t want to be sustainable or don’t see the value of sustainability to their business. On the contrary, as the report shows, 99% of CEOs from the world’s largest organizations say sustainability is critical to the future success of their company. Furthermore, CEOs agree business has an opportunity to step up action on the SDGs: 71% say business could play a critical role with increased commitment.
One might be skeptical and argue that the CEOs just pay lip service here and of course have to say that sustainability is key. Sure, there will be a bit of social desirability in their answers, or perhaps more than a bit. But it is not just that. As the CEOs also indicate in the study, they see consumers and employees as the two groups of stakeholders that will have the biggest impact on the way they manage sustainability. As those two groups increasingly demand businesses becoming more sustainable, and since businesses depend on them, one can assume that at least a large share of CEOs really believe sustainability is key to their business.
The main problem is that achieving the SDGs requires system-wide solutions. And this is highly complex. It requires a large number of different stakeholders—suppliers, buyers, governments, boards, and so on—to make changes in their behavior. And this needs to happen in a global competitive landscape where no single party can enforce changes upon the other. Coordinating such efforts is close to being impossible. Interests, power and different views on who should be doing what, make that no individual, organization, or institution can make it happen alone.
MORE FOR YOUVeriff Secures $69 Million Funding To Grow Identity Verification BusinessLawsuit Challenges Biden Administration Covid-19 Visa PoliciesThree Things You Probably Miss About Work: Will They Come Back?
Solutions
The solution, I believe, is not merely in more calls to action. Of course, the more urgency is experienced, the more effort CEOs will make. But as long as the urgency is not really felt because it directly impacts the business, I don’t expect much change. In this light, despite its strong title “The Decade to Deliver: A Call to Business Action,” I am afraid the report won’t have a lot of impact.
The solution is also not in expecting others to act first. Businesses might point at governments and consumers, governments might point at businesses and consumers, and consumers might point at businesses and governments. But the fact is that all of them—us—need to change if we want to achieve the 2030 SDGs.
For all these stakeholders, the solution lies in asking what they can do, not what the others should do. For business this means making sustainability an integral part of business strategy. As Alan Jope, CEO at Unilever, expresses it: “There is no difference between our business strategy and our sustainability strategy...they are totally integrated.”
The Trojan Horse Approach
Integrating business strategy and sustainability may sound easier said than done. But maybe it isn’t. It is only difficult as long as the two are juxtaposed as being different or opposites. But sustainability is and in some way has always been at the heart of business strategy. Ever since Michael Porter’s work, the holy grail of strategy has been building a sustainable competitive advantage—an advantage that will sustain over time even if competitors try to beat you.
Although the meaning of the word sustainable here differs a bit from the same word in the SDGs, the differences are not that big, as Porter also emphasizes in his more recent work on creating shared value. Both ways of using the word refer to being able to sustain something for a longer period of time. This means, also in traditional strategy, that resources should not be depleted and that the interests of various necessary stakeholders are taken into account.
Along these lines, the approach to sustainability I use in my writing, teaching and consulting is to make it part of the very definition of strategy. As discussed in earlier posts (here, here and here) and in The Strategy Handbook, I define strategy as “an organization’s unique way of sustainable value creation.” What this definition entails in detail I have explained here. But at its heart, it means making creating value in a unique and sustainable way the very core of strategy.
Of course, a definition by itself doesn’t have any impact. But if this definition is taken as a starting to build an entire business strategy on, if this strategy is entirely focused on creating unique sustainable value and if this strategy is executed successfully, then business will become more sustainable as well.
I call it a Trojan Horse approach because it is a more hidden and implicit approach to sustainability than the explicit calls to action that we find in the report. Bringing in sustainability “secretly” in the definition and approach to business strategy, takes away some of the controversy around sustainability. It enables a natural, integral adoption of sustainability and can thereby be an effective complementary approach to turn sustainability into a winning strategy.
|
d2d0d0328878a5b892e20e7b541beb0c | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2020/02/13/strategy-consulting-needs-to-change-and-this-is-how/?sh=477823a48675 | Strategy Consulting Needs To Change And This Is How | Strategy Consulting Needs To Change And This Is How
McKinsey & Company logo displayed on a smartphone. SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
As a November 2019 article in The Economist suggests, strategy consulting is under significant pressure. Whereas it used to be one of the main pillars of the large consulting firms—McKinsey & Company, the Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company and so on—it has become a marginal activity now, accounting for about just a tenth of their revenues. As the article explains, clients no longer want legions of consultants to provide them with advice. Instead they want them to put products and technologies in place that keep them ahead of the competition.
Lack of Relevance or Wrong Approach
The observations in The Economist article may suggest two things: that strategy consulting is no longer relevant or that it isn’t done the right way. While some may argue for the first, it is clearly the second which is going on. For full disclosure: part of my job is being be a strategy consultant, meaning that a significant part of the work I do, is strategy consulting. While this used to be something to be proud and giving a bit of status, it seems to have gradually turned into something to almost feel embarrassed about. I know of colleagues who avoid the word strategy altogether because they feel it makes them look old-fashioned or incapable of doing anything concrete that really helps organizations.
In its critical attitude towards strategy consulting and management consulting more generally, the recent article in The Economist doesn’t stand in isolation. In fact, there is a continuous stream of critiques on which it stands. Illustrative are books about consulting, baring titles such as The Witch Doctors (Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 1996), Dangerous Company (O'Shea & Madigan, 1998) and Consulting Demons (Pinault, 2009). As you may infer from these titles, these books are not exactly positive about consulting.
At the same time, the global strategy consulting industry has been consistently growing over the past decades and is expected to grow substantially further from $44 billion in 2017 to $91 billion by 2025. This adds up to an annual compound growth rate of about 10% and a doubling in volume.
This means that, on the one hand, strategy consulting is heavily criticized while on the other hand, it is a market that is still growing substantially each year. In combination, these facts suggest that strategy consulting is still very relevant and also perceived as relevant by clients—to the extent that they keep on paying significant amounts of money for it. But the facts also show that something is wrong about the way strategy consulting is done. The sheer volume of critiques, as well as the tone and broad-fronted attack on consulting that the article and the aforementioned books represent, suggest a deep dissatisfaction with strategy consulting.
MORE FOR YOUFor Happiness In Tough Times, Be More GratefulVerizon Business’ New CRO: The Secrets To Growing A $30B BusinessChina’s Digital Currency Is About To Disrupt Money
Whole-Brain, Whole-Person Consulting
This means change is needed. And for finding directions for what kind of change, we don’t have to look far. We can just look at what the consulting firms are saying themselves. As I summarized in two earlier articles, reports by Accenture and McKinsey plea for a whole-brain, whole-person approach to leadership. Following their own suggestions, this means we also need whole-brain, whole-person strategy consulting.
Rooted in engineering, current strategy consulting is the pinnacle of left-brain thinking. It is rational-analytic, focused on decomposing problems into their finest details and then think up solutions of which the client can be convinced to adopt them. This is most evident from McKinsey’s approach because it is the best documented. But other consultancies apply it too.
Practiced as such, strategy consulting reflects the way we traditionally think about strategy in general. As we find in our textbooks, strategy is also largely a rational-analytic activity in which problems are analyzed with frameworks and solutions are thought up, which are then supposed to be adopted and executed by the organization. But, as argued earlier in an article on The Ten Myths of Strategy, strategy is not like that.
If strategy consulting follows up on the consultancies’ own advice, then a whole-brain, whole-person approach is needed. This means first an approach in which also the right side of the brain plays a significant role. This implies there is significant attention to intuition, holistic judgment, creativity, empathy and self-awareness. It also means that not just the brain, but everything else that makes us a person is involved. This includes our emotions and conscience as well as our ability to actually do things and create things rather than merely think and talk.
Of course, practically speaking, strategy consulting has always been a whole-brain, whole-person activity. No person can switch off the right side of their brain or completely ignore their emotions or conscience. After all, we are all human beings, even strategy consultants. But the methods and techniques of strategy consulting have always had a strong bias towards merely left-brain thinking. Once these open up to whole-brain, whole-person approaches, strategy consulting can address the critiques it receives, regain its relevance and make a truly positive impact on organizations. So, time for consultancies to practice what they preach.
|
92f8c217aae93e6fd268be4ace3f06a0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2020/03/23/the-bright-side-of-corona-seven-opportunities-of-the-current-pandemic/?sh=1ab65810785c | The Bright Side Of Covid-19: Seven Opportunities Of The Current Pandemic | The Bright Side Of Covid-19: Seven Opportunities Of The Current Pandemic
Girl on a swing on the beach Getty
The coronavirus pandemic has a lot of dark sides. Around the world, people get ill and die, schools close, the healthcare system is overloaded, employees lose their jobs, companies face bankruptcy, stock markets collapse and countries have to spend billions on bailouts and medical aid. And for everyone, whether directly hurt or not, Covid-19 is a huge stressor shaking up our psyche, triggering our fears and uncertainties.
No matter how serious and sad all of this is, there are upsides as well. Therefore, along the Monty Python song “Always look on the bright side of life” let’s not forget those and make the best of what the crisis gives us. As the good old SWOT analysis tells us, there are not only threats, but also opportunities. With opportunities I don’t mean that the crisis provides extra business for companies like Zoom and Go to Webinar that enable virtual meetings, or for Amazon, which is planning to hire another 100,000 employees. The latter is probably more a threat than an opportunity for most, especially for the mom & pop stores that go through difficult times already.
With opportunities I mean general opportunities that are available for most people affected by the crisis. The current crisis offers at least seven of them:
Opportunity 1: More time
In today’s overheated economy time is often seen as the most valuable and sparse thing we have. Covid-19 shows why: because we have stacked our week with social gatherings and entertainment such as going to the theater, birthdays, cinema, restaurant, bar, sportclub, gym, music, festivals, concerts and what is more. Suddenly, all of that is cancelled or forbidden, giving us significant amounts of extra time. And still, live goes on. This shows us how easy it is to clear our calendars. Obviously this doesn’t apply to the health-care sector and other crucial sectors, but beyond those it applies to a large majority of sectors.
The opportunity is that we can spend this time on other things—or even better, on nothing and enjoy the free time. Looking at the crowded parks, waste collection points, garden centres and DIY stores in the last week, many people seem to have a hard time with the latter. Instead of enjoying the extra free time, they fill it immediately with other activities. To seize this first opportunity though, re-arranging how you spend your time and reserving time for nothingness is key. Not just during the crisis, but also after it. The advices in my previous article on the Covid-19 crisis could help in realizing this.
Opportunity 2: Reflect and reconsider
The fact that the coronavirus disrupts our day-t0-day lives provides an opportunity to reflect on things and to reconsider what we do, how we do it and why we do it. Things we took for granted—like going to the gym—are suddenly not possible anymore. Furthermore, many people have had to change their mode of working and work from home instead of at the office. This means that a lot of our routines are interrupted.
MORE FOR YOUVerizon Business’ New CRO: The Secrets To Growing A $30B BusinessVeriff Secures $69 Million Funding To Grow Identity Verification BusinessLawsuit Challenges Biden Administration Covid-19 Visa Policies
This offers a great opportunity to rethink our habits and routines and make changes. Now that you haven’t been able to go to the restaurant twice a week, commute 2 hours per day, hang out with your friends or go to a party every weekend, you can reflect on whether you really want to continue doing so after the crisis. The virus forces you to make changes to your daily life that you might actually want to keep also after the crisis.
Opportunity 3: Speed and innovation
Many organizations suffer from slow procedures, complex bureaucracies and rigid hierarchies making organizational life less than pleasant. The coronavirus has forced many of them to break through these rigid systems and act instantly. Suddenly procedures can be skipped or accelerated, rules can be side-tracked and decisions can be made more autonomously without formal approval. And suddenly employees are allowed to work from home without direct supervision.
Covid-19 shows that, as soon as there is a strong enough stimulus, things can change. This leads to remarkable innovations. Not being allowed to open their doors, restaurants, for example, are shifting to delivery mode. And schools suddenly do much of the teaching and even some of the testing online. This brings the opportunity to create innovations now that can be maintained after the crisis. And it also can help to keep the current speed and innovation mode afterwards.
Opportunity 4: Better meetings
As referred to in an earlier article, people spend up to 23 hours per week in meetings, half of which are considered a failure or waste of time. The current crisis has forced us to rethink how we deal with meetings. Because in many countries it is not allowed anymore to meet with a group of persons, many meetings are cancelled. And when they still take place they are mostly virtual and shorter.
As such, it provides an excellent opportunity for resolving one of the most disliked parts of organizational life. The technology for this is already present and mature for a couple of years, but the coronavirus triggers a sudden need for it. The real opportunity here is to make systematic changes so that meetings will be more effective, also after the crisis.
Opportunity 5: Reconnect and help
Challenging times offer a great opportunity for social bonding and other ways of connecting to and helping people. Of course, not being able to visit friends or family has increased isolation and feelings of loneliness in some cases. But the feeling of “we’re in this together” has also triggered interesting ways of connecting. Some of those have gone viral—such as Italians singing together from their windows and balconies—but there are many small, local initiatives too to connect and help people who need it.
In the individualized societies many of us live in, this provides opportunities to reconnect and create more social coherence. Not only during the crisis, but also afterwards. This opportunity comes with a big caveat though. Parallel to these nice initiatives we also witness how far people go to protect themselves and their families. People hoard food, medicine, toilet paper and guns without thinking a second of others. However, while it triggers self-serving egocentric behavior too, the Covid-19 crisis does provide us the opportunity to reconnect and show our social side.
Opportunity 6: Cleaner environment
The virus caused a shutdown or dramatical decrease of industrial activities. Factories are closed or operate far below their capacity, road traffic has reduced radically and air traffic collapsed, and the lack of tourism has emptied the streets in overcrowded cities like Venice, Amsterdam and New York. While this may be bad news for most people and especially those working in the affected industries, this is also good news for our planet. Covid-19 causes a significant reduction in green house gasses and other air, water and land polluting outputs. In Venice this has allegedly led to dolphins return after just a couple of weeks (although some argued this to be a hoax).
Whether the particular example is a hoax or not is not so relevant. The fact is that the shutdown and lockdown of large parts of our economy is good for nature—at least on the short term. The opportunity this provides, is to keep parts of this in place also after the crisis to make long-term improvements. Along the line of the previous opportunities, the current crisis provides us an opportunity to reconsider our lives and reorganize it in a way that has less impact on our planet.
Opportunity 7: Modesty and acceptance
The final opportunity that the Covid-19 crisis offers, is a chance to create awareness for the moderate role we play on this planet and accept that things cannot always go as we want them to go. The Covid-19 pandemic is a global crisis chat is unprecedented in modern peace time. We had other pandemics like SARS, but their impact was less substantial. And we had the 1973 oil crisis, but that was a man-made crisis. The coronavirus is not man-made and yet disrupts lives across the planet.
As such, the virus shows us that, no matter how well-planned and organized we are and no matter how much we live in the Anthropocene—the era characterized by significant human impact—we are not in control. One simple virus is disrupting everything. This offers a great opportunity. In almost every aspect of life we want to be in control. Whether it is health, airline safety or our calendars, we live in the illusion that full control is possible. The virus can help us create awareness that this is not the case. It provides an opportunity to take a more modest role and accept that many things are simply beyond our control.
Once again, the Covid-19 crisis has a large dark side. But as these seven opportunities show, it has positive sides as well. Since all seven opportunities require a quite fundamental change in how we approach the world, seizing them can take substantial time. In that sense, and if we keep on looking at the brighter sides of life, the longer the crisis lasts, the larger the opportunities are and the bigger the chances are of actually making changes to our deeply rooted habits and convictions.
|
eb96f01c1c8f8a561dc44502adad5a3a | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeromeyoung/2014/10/21/smart-hiring-tips-for-tech-startup-success/ | Smart Hiring Tips for Tech Startup Success | Smart Hiring Tips for Tech Startup Success
Getting a tech startup off the ground is an exhilarating time. In fact, many of the “firsts” in business tend to be exciting. Getting your first big idea, landing an investor and leasing a startup office space are all significant events. But hiring your first employees comes in at the top of the list in terms of excitement and importance. When that happens, you’re no longer just an entrepreneur—you’ve become an employer. The people you bring in at the ground level for your technology startup form the foundation that can make or break your business endeavor. After you identify the deliverables that need to be accomplished and the positions that need to be filled, here are three steps you’ll need to take to get this right.
Step 1 - Identify the Right Prospects
It may seem like a candidate with a work history at one of the largest technology firms in the world would be ideal for your startup. After all, they’ve got to be good if they worked at Apple or Google . The fact is that these engineers may be very qualified to work at an established software company but that doesn’t mean they have what it takes to survive and thrive in a startup environment. There’s a huge difference between iterative improvement for an existing software platform or application and initial development at a startup. You need employees with drive and creativity who are willing to go the extra mile to make your startup successful. At the same time, you can’t afford to risk your company in the hands of employees who are fresh out of college and have little real-world practice. You'll typically find the most effective technical professionals at other startups in your industry or firms that have recently reached the mid-sized category.
Step 2 - Make a Good First Impression
Unlike other careers that feature few openings and a large pool of qualified and hungry candidates, software engineers are spoiled for choice. Finding an unemployed, highly desirable candidate is an oxymoron. The best technical professionals are currently working and they are being head-hunted constantly by their current employers’ competitors. They aren’t going to pay attention to a job opportunity from just anyone. Many simply ignore advances from companies or agencies they don’t recognize.
If you want a shot at landing excellent talent, you need to be able to clearly communicate why a good job candidate should interview with your company. As a startup, you may find this difficult to do. After all, you don’t have a lot of history to help you make a strong case. Establishing a relationship with a reputable and experienced recruiting agency, substantially increases your chances of being taken seriously by top technical talent. A well-respected agency that takes the time to understand and communicate the benefits of taking a position with your startup can be your ticket to success.
Step 3 - Seal the Deal
One of the most common sticking points in getting a job candidate to sign on the dotted line is the matter of total compensation. If you want to make a competitive and attractive offer, you need to understand what a well-qualified engineer will expect—and how that meshes with what you can realistically offer. Having a trusted advisor who knows the startup recruiting game inside and out will give you a real edge in attracting and retaining excellent talent that you can actually afford.
With the help of an experienced recruiting team like www.AttractJobsNOW.com, you can make the startup hires you need quickly and effectively. Feel free to contact me to discuss your startup recruiting needs.
|
fb1ad996d88afa978ee61829e6deb3e4 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybarca/2015/03/05/talent-evaluation-and-stability-a-leadership-conversation-with-pittsburgh-steelers-gm-kevin-colbert/ | Talent Evaluation And Stability, A Leadership Conversation With Pittsburgh Steelers GM Kevin Colbert | Talent Evaluation And Stability, A Leadership Conversation With Pittsburgh Steelers GM Kevin Colbert
Across all sports Kevin Colbert of the Pittsburgh Steelers is one of the best at what he does, running a team. Since 2000, when Colbert started working for the franchise, originally as the director of football operations and eventually becoming the team’s first general manager, the Steelers have won two Super Bowls and played in another. During that same span the Steelers have had just one losing season; only one other team in the NFL can match that mark, the New England Patriots.
The Steelers’ draft history under Colbert includes superstar picks in the first round — long-haired safety Troy Polamalu, a four-time first-team All-Pro, and Ben Roethlisberger, the franchise quarterback picked after that lone losing season — as well late round finds such as wide receiver Antonio Brown, a three-time Pro Bowl selection, who was taken 195th overall.
I spoke to Colbert about talent evaluation, organizational stability and what he views as critical elements of leadership and success.
General Manager Kevin Colbert of the Pittsburgh Steelers. (Credit: George Gojkovich/Getty Images)
Jerry Barca: You were just recently at the NFL Scouting Combine. When you’re evaluating players what are certain intangibles you are looking for?
Kevin Colbert: When you’re talking about intangibles you’re probably talking about the hardest part of our job. The tangible football evidence, I don’t want to say it’s easy, but it’s easier than the intangibles because you can watch a film. You can time a 40 (yard dash). You can measure a vertical jump. But to really measure someone’s intelligence, character, loyalty, ability to get along, is a very difficult aspect of what we try to do. I don’t know if there is any one way or one answer. It varies by the individual player that we’re trying to figure out.
Barca: What do you look at in determining if there are any red flags on players you might potentially add to the team?
Colbert: If the kid has an issue or a character concern you try to sort out and determine what are the actual facts, be it a police record or a school violation, something where you can say, “this happened.” Or is it an opinion of one person talking about a player or several people talking about a player. If it’s an opinion, you look for consistency in the opinion and you try to judge who the opinion is coming from: Do I have a relationship with this person? Can I trust what he’s telling me? Does he have an ax to grind? We then have to measure the risks of whether or not we feel this player can overcome those challenges. And, it goes the opposite way, too. We can get lulled to sleep by people we think have impeccable character, but sometimes that’s not always the case.
Barca: In the draft, what percentage of picks are you looking to pan out? Or maybe I’m off, maybe you need every pick to pan out?
Colbert: Correct. You can’t go in saying I can be 1 for 3 and be successful. I’m talking a bit in baseball terms. But you want to go 3 for 3 that day, even though 1 for 3, over 30 years will get you in the Hall of Fame. There’s no way you go into it saying, “We’ll take a chance here and hope.” No. We’re trying to do as much work as we can to make sure the picks we make have the best chance to succeed. But the only way you can measure it is in wins and losses. Did this player help us win? And did this class help us win? What our record is at the end of this year, or at the end of three years, that’s the only way we measure success or failure of a draft class.
Barca: Is it a concern if a guy performs well at the Combine but didn’t show it in games?
Colbert: You really have to rely on football players first. The work that the scouts did from August through December is the most critical. You get them (the players) at the combine and that’s a part of it. The combine was really always for medical information first. Then it grew into the workout information, and now it has grown into a character interview and evaluation as well. That’s all factored into what you believe of him as a player. So, you’re looking for verification. If you think a guy’s fast, if you think a guy’s big, if you think a guy’s athletic, the workout at the combine will verify that one way or another. If the guy’s a good player and he works out well, you’re good. If the guy’s not a good player and he works out good, you’re probably going to trick yourself into thinking he can be a good player. A good player that doesn’t workout well, you have to be careful not to devalue him too much. For example, he’s a 4.55 (40-yard dash running) cornerback, instead of a 4.45 corner. He’s probably going to have certain limitations, but he’s still a good player.
Barca: Shifting gears, the Steelers have had only three coaches since 1969. How important is it to stick with a coach and stick by him?
Colbert: That’s an organizational stability issue that stems from having a stable family running the team for years. It went from the Chief (Art Rooney, Sr.) to Mr. Dan Rooney to Mr. Art Rooney. The first name at the top may have changed, but the second name hasn’t. They maintain the same standards throughout. People like myself, who join at whatever point we do, or Coach (Bill) Cowher or Coach (Mike) Tomlin, we join into the organization. You may lend your own individual ideas and philosophies, but as a whole the organizational philosophy has been there and you’re just fortunate enough to join in for however long you do.
Barca: Is there a philosophical approach that is talked about, maybe even reinforced, in the building, or is it something that is understood and doesn’t need to be addressed?
Colbert: It’s more understood. The standard is you want to win a Super Bowl championship every year. The reality is that won’t occur every year. The standard is you want to be able to compete for a championship every year and by that the expectation is to make the playoffs every season. The ownership understands that the chances of you sustaining that from year to year for 15 years is difficult, but that’s the standard and they understand there’s going to be a blip here and there. The one losing season that we had, that actually put us in a draft position that we were able to draft a franchise quarterback that helped us sustain success. We had two back-to-back 8-8s (regular season records in 2012 and 2013 and missed the playoffs) and we were able to rebound this year, which was good because not being in the playoffs is not acceptable, especially more years than one.
Barca: What approach do you take to ensure that trend of missing the playoffs stops and you get back to the trend of making the playoffs?
Colbert: You have to stay true to what’s helped you in the past. You have to realize, we’re all part of the 8-8. What did we do wrong? What did we do right? You have to make it right, and you always reflect back on what got you there in the past and you try to reinforce that as you go forward. Fortunately, we were able to do that this year.
Barca: What is one of the elements you’ve found to be critical in leading an organization?
Colbert: In a general manager and head coach relationship, it’s so critical that you have to work together. If you don’t, you have no chance. You have to speak one language, which the ownership teaches you. You can’t be afraid to make suggestions or present ideas that may not challenge what you’ve done in the past, but maybe enhance what you’ve done in the past, and hope that it works.
Barca: How do you get on the same page? How do you make sure you’re able to build that relationship?
Colbert: You have to respect what the other person is going through. Coach Tomlin has to deal with different issues on a day-to-day basis than I do. It’s easy for me to say, “Here, this guy is hard to coach, but that’s not my job. It’s yours.” That’s not fair to him. You have to understand that he’s asked to do certain things that you’re not asked to do, but you have to support him in that role. On his end, he may say, “I need this player to be successful, but I understand he doesn’t fit the criteria we have.” I’m sensitive to that. You understand each other’s duty and you try to support it as best you can because you’re all fighting for one goal and that is to win the Super Bowl and nothing else.
Barca: One key ingredient for success is:
Colbert: Understanding that it’s not you. There are a lot of reasons that people are successful and it’s not you. Of course that’s part of it. You have to be able and willing, and fortunate enough as an individual. As a successful organization it’s never one person and if you understand that, you’ll always appreciate others’ efforts going toward that common goal. It will always be bigger than an individual.
|
6ab4b7ace2224a30dc22db8ca8a29331 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybarca/2015/05/08/nba-mvp-stephen-curry-seizes-the-moment-and-delivers-his-message/ | NBA MVP Stephen Curry Seizes The Moment And Delivers His Message | NBA MVP Stephen Curry Seizes The Moment And Delivers His Message
Stephen Curry didn't quite understand what was going on in his house. He had just come back home after he and his Golden State Warriors posted a Game 1 win against the Memphis Grizzlies in the second round of the playoffs. He had a bunch of family there.
"They were being really weird," Curry said about his relatives asking him questions and pulling him into different rooms in the house.
Then he entered one room and was greeted by raised up cellphone cameras and "the cheesiest smiles you could ever imagine." Curry noticed the Under Armour shirts they had donned, but his sister had to point out the custom phrasing. Each shirt noted the wearer's relationship with the guard - my husband, my son, my brother - "is SC 30 MVP."
That's how he found out he had been named NBA MVP. He cried. He hugged his family. Then he sat in a chair in a corner and thought about his journey to this point. Curry said it was an emotional 10 minutes thinking about all the people who had helped him along the way.
Stephen Curry acknowledges the crowd during a ceremony for winning the NBA's Most Valuable Player... [+] award before Game 2 in a second-round NBA playoff basketball series between the Warriors and the Memphis Grizzlies. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
"There are obviously good times and bad times, times I wanted to shut it down and times where you realize that all the hard work that you put into it was worth it," he said.
The 27-year-old who was an unheralded high school recruit, who entered the NBA via Davidson College, got up from the meditative moment in the chair feeling grateful. Grateful for the platform he had as a star player in a global game. Grateful he could use it to make a difference. Then he had a conversation with his wife Ayesha, the girl he met in his early teens. Together they crafted the ideals he would speak about the next day when giving his MVP speech.
The speech was a 39-minute-45-second example of why the people in the Golden State Warriors' front office and why people around the NBA say that as good a player as Curry is, he's a better person.
Curry spent more than half the speech thanking and acknowledging everybody. Everybody. His family, his friends, his former coaches, his agents, his grandmas, the equipment manager and the head of team security, too.
After that conversation with his wife, he had set out to emphasize four areas: faith, passion, drive and will.
"People should know who I represent and why I am who I am and that's because of my Lord and Savior," said Curry, who is a devout Christian.
His message on passion guided people to take time to find their dream and then be tireless in the pursuit of it:
No matter what it is, whether it's sports, whether it's in other fields, you have to realize that there's always work to do and you want to be the hardest working person in whatever you do and you'll put yourself in position to be successful.
The crowd cheers after Curry scored during the first half of Game 2 in a second-round NBA playoff... [+] basketball series against the Grizzlies. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)
In talking about drive he looked to his teammates, who flanked him on the dais that was set up in Oakland's Oracle Arena. He addressed each one personally, some with stories only those in the Warriors locker room would fully understand.
Throughout the speech he dropped references to the bigger picture, and the larger goal - winning an NBA championship with this team. With that the leader of the top-seeded team in the Western Conference moved things forward, well beyond an individual award.
He wrapped it up delivering on the topic of will in about two minutes.
What I tell people is be the best version of yourself in anything that you do. You don't have to live anybody else's story. It doesn't matter where you come from - what you have, or don't have, what you lack, what you have too much of - but all you need to have is faith in God, an undying passion for what you do, or what you choose to do in this life, and a relentless drive and the will to do whatever it takes to be successful in whatever you put your mind to. Make sure you live in the moment and work your butt off every single day.
All this prepared and delivered in less than 24 hours from the time he knew he'd be giving a speech.
What You Can Take Away From Stephen Curry's MVP Speech
Be Thoughtful: Like Curry took time to sit in the chair and be present to the occasion and how he arrived there, take that time. Don't spend forever there either. Notice he took 10 minutes.
Create Something With An Intention Behind It: Curry didn't rely on thoughts and memories. He had a conversation with his wife and created what he was going to say the following day.
Have A Clear Purpose: Anytime you are given an opportunity to speak there is typically a basic built-in purpose. Think morning announcements in school, simple information doled out simplistically. If you want to have an impact, go beyond that basic purpose. Curry did. He used this opportunity of receiving the MVP award to further something by talking about his faith, passion, drive and will.
Move It Forward: Yes, Curry used his words to accept the award, acknowledge everyone around him, and talk about his journey. But, at multiple times throughout the speech, he referenced the rest of the playoffs and the team goal of winning a championship.
Also on Forbes:
Gallery: 2015 30 Under 30: Sports 31 images View gallery
|
8be3c3ba853eb9a4ad8cf74fe77133e8 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybarca/2015/09/17/rutgers-football-turns-a-bad-situation-worse/ | Rutgers Football Turns A Bad Situation Worse | Rutgers Football Turns A Bad Situation Worse
How Kyle Flood still has a job as the Rutgers football coach is completely befuddling.
Maybe it's just the Rutgers Way, blazing a path of sheer ineptitude in big-time intercollegiate athletics.
Flood's defense? He didn't know that as the head coach of the football team he is prohibited from contacting a professor regarding a student's performance.
He's sorry. Well, kind of.
"I want to apologize for the mistake I made in process, in contacting that teacher. I understand now that was against the rule, that I was unaware of at the time," Flood said while being interviewed by those investigating the incident.
He just didn't know the rule.
Rutgers head coach Kyle Flood (AP Photo/Mel Evans)
After finding out that the player - Nadir Barnwell, according to NJ Advanced Media - was academically ineligible, Flood reached out to the professor. Eventually, the coach met with the professor last month outside the Princeton Public Library and purposefully wore non-Rutgers gear so as not to be recognized. Totally normal.
He set up the meeting and corresponded with the professor using his personal email account in an effort to dodge potential requests for open public records. Nothing going on there.
Two days before he met with the professor, an academic advisor told Flood, "Coach, you can't have contact with the professor. You certainly can't have contact with faculty regarding grades or eligibility. This is going to be a problem."
The cellphone went silent. The academic advisor thought the call dropped. "Coach are you there?"
"Yes, I'm just listening. This conversation stays between you and me."
Nothing covert. Typical conversation between an administrator and coach. Carry on.
There are facts though, such as Flood's contract calling for him to know the policy prohibiting a coach's contact with faculty. Even more dumbfounding is that while being interviewed by investigators Flood produced a document he received in 2013 from the Big Ten. It states that operational standards are designed to prevent coaches from trying to influence faculty to obtain or maintain academic eligibility for a student-athlete. Listen, we're all not big readers.
All of this information comes from the university'y 21-page report on the improper contact between Flood and a Rutgers professor.
How did Rutgers respond? Three-game suspension and a $50,000 fine. A dumb move that delays the inevitable.
This comes from the university that initially suspended basketball coach Mike Rice for three games after seeing video of Rice rocketing basketballs at players and using gay slurs to berate them during practice.
A grinning Tim Pernetti, Rutgers' athletic director at the time, appeared on ESPN's Outside the Lines defending the suspension in the wake of the video being shown on the airwaves. Public pressure got turned up. Pernetti and school president Robert Barchi played a public game who saw, or didn't see, the video before the suspension came down. Rice was then fired and Pernetti took the fall as well.
Enter Julie Hermann the surprise pick to replace Pernetti. Her list of controversy and ill-fitting remarks includes lawsuits for discriminatory practices and saying it would be great if New Jersey's largest newspaper died.
Nine years ago, Rutgers was finally a darling in college football. On a Thursday night, before a nationally televised ESPN audience, the Scarlet Knights took down No. 3 Louisville. Rutgers was undefeated. A credible case could be made for this longtime laughing stock playing in the BCS title game. They couldn't be denied if they won the rest of their games - they had just beaten the No. 3 team in the country.
Nine days later, Rutgers lost to a five-loss Cincinnati team. They would lose to West Virginia, too. The Cinderella run ended in the Texas Bowl. They were a low-level bowl team with one big, national win. That was all the evidence needed to make the push to become a big-time program. The taxpayer-subsidized stadium expansion followed. Then the move to play in a power conference, joining the Big Ten.
Rutgers is a middle-of-the-pack program trying to compete with the Ohio States and the Michigans and the school is getting lost along the way. Flood's team finished 8-5 last season. They won a bowl game. They beat a sub-.500 Michigan team. They also lost by an average of 34 points to Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan State and Wisconsin.
Beyond Flood's venture to the academic side, the year's team has criminal problems. In the last two weeks, seven players have been arrested. Four, including Barnwell, are charged with aggravated assault and two face armed robbery charges in connection with home invasions during April and May. The seventh player, wide receiver Leonte Carroo, is accused of slamming a woman's head into concrete outside the Rutgers football facility.
With all this known, Rutgers still chose to keep Flood in place, missing the opportunity to change the program's direction.
|
812db4d4151e8ea854a2b81cba27a66c | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybarca/2016/09/23/the-reward-of-not-quitting-on-a-dream/?sh=14877b8b2322 | The Reward Of Not Quitting On A Dream | The Reward Of Not Quitting On A Dream
Dennis Cleary in high school
Like a bunch of kids, Dennis Cleary grew up engrossed in sports. He was that un-hittable pitcher in Little League. By the time high school arrived, his focus shifted to basketball.
He attended Seton Hall Prep, which had a basketball program breaking into the elite category. The school had just sent a player to the University of Pennsylvania, and the team's point guard, Brevin Knight, would eventually make the NBA all-rookie squad after playing at Stanford.
When the cuts to the varsity squad were made after tryouts in Cleary's junior year, he didn't make the team. Within days, he decided to transfer to the local public school, West Orange High School.
I was Cleary's classmate. We grew up playing sports together. We were on the same peewee football team. I didn't want to see him go.
I remember standing in the hallway by our lockers. I was going to give him the reality check a teenage friend should give. "You know, you're never going to be in the NBA." Without missing a beat, he said, "Well, I'll never know if I can play in college, if I stay here."
His response halted me. There was belief in the way he said it. He wasn't transferring out of feeling slighted. He left to pursue his dream. He wasn't pouty. He was committed to something. It was admirable.
I saw Dennis this week at a book signing. I never forgot that conversation in the hallway. He hasn't forgotten it either. It was the same thing he heard from everybody. His mother even thought him transferring to West Orange was something akin to the apocalypse.
After his time at West Orange, Cleary found out if he could play in college. When he left Seton Hall Prep, his goal was to play on the Division II or III level. Instead, without a basketball future, he went to Providence College, the Big East school his father attended, and a place he had been visiting since he was five years old.
Cleary and about 100 other men tried out for a walk-on spot. They took three players. He was one of them. It wasn't just any Providence team. Cleary played in the NCAA tournament in 1997. This was a Friars team that made the Elite 8, coming four points away from beating eventual national champion Arizona in overtime.
"You can't let anyone stand in the way of your dream. Not friends, not classmates, not coaches and not even family, although they want the best (for you)," said Cleary, who is a criminal defense attorney in New Jersey.
Nearly 20 years later, Cleary knows he saw something for himself that others, even those closest to him, couldn't picture. He stayed true to his dream and belief in himself and it worked out for him well beyond basketball.
"It was the best move I ever made," he said. "It has opened so many doors in my career."
Cleary grabbing a long rebound in the 1997 NCAA Tournament
|
7e94dcd92ad89ff3fb132045347dd63d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybeach/2021/02/26/no-trevor-bauer-no-problem-for-the-newly-legitimate-and-newly-fortunate-new-york-mets/ | No Trevor Bauer? No Problem For The Newly Legitimate—And Newly Fortunate—New York Mets | No Trevor Bauer? No Problem For The Newly Legitimate—And Newly Fortunate—New York Mets
PITTSBURGH, PA - SEPTEMBER 04: Trevor Bauer #27 of the Cincinnati Reds delivers a pitch in the first ... [+] inning during game two of a doubleheader against the Pittsburgh Pirates at PNC Park on September 4, 2020 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Justin Berl/Getty Images) Getty Images
The irony of declaring the failed pursuit of Trevor Bauer appears to be evidence of the Mets’ vastly improved luck/karma under new owner Steve Cohen is that a failed “pursuit” of Bauer would have been undeniable evidence of the same ol’ same ol’ Mets under the Wilpons.
We use the quotes around pursuit because whether due to a lack of money or a lack of desire to spend it, the Wilpons’ pursuit of Bauer never would have started. (This might have also shaved weeks off the whole milking the free agency thing for Bauer and his agent, which would have benefited everyone) The perpetual game of three card monte would have continued with the Mets making a big deal out of signing two lesser pitchers before Christmas and trying to convince everyone they were as good or better than one Bauer.
But the Mets ending a productive and legitimizing off-season without landing Bauer during his fortuitously timed free agency — and Bauer immediately reminding the Mets he’s not their problem by acting like a fool on social media and getting into silly Twitter spats with a pair of almost rotation-mates — evokes memories of the Wilpon-era Mets, who had to try and prove they were legitimate by overpaying for fortuitously timed free agents who eventually underperformed in Queens.
After deciding not to re-sign the greatest power hitter ever drafted and developed by the franchise, the Mets tried replacing Darryl Strawberry, first by signing Vince Coleman (really) following the 1990 season and then by signing Bobby Bonilla following the 1991 season.
Coleman got $12 million over four years after stealing 549 bases and winning six NL stolen base crowns in as many seasons in St; Louis, where he got to play half his games on the fast Busch Stadium turf and all his games while surrounded by the likes of Ozzie Smith, Jack Clark and Willie McGee. Bonilla received $29 million over five years after posting a trio of 100-RBI seasons and recording a pair of top-3 MVP finishes with the Pirates, when he was usually surrounded in the lineup by Andy Van Slyke and Barry Bonds.
MORE FOR YOUThe World’s Most Valuable Soccer Teams: Barcelona Edges Real Madrid To Land At No. 1 For First TimeAEW Dynamite Results: Winners, News And Notes On April 14, 2021Barred From Canada By Pandemic, Toronto Blue Jays Start In Florida But Plan Return To Buffalo
Coleman immediately began battling with the press in New York and stole 99 bases — fewer than he stole in any of his first three big league seasons — in two-plus seasons before his Mets tenure ended after he threw a firecracker into a crowd outside Dodger Stadium. Bonilla actually fared pretty well in his first go-around with the Mets — he hit .267 with 73 homers and 224 RBIs over his first three seasons, during which he posted an OPS+ of 128, before hitting .325 with 18 homers and 53 RBIs prior to a midseason trade to the Orioles in 1995 — but the stint is remembered more for the Mets’ misery (they were 94 games under .500) and Bonilla’s inability to handle the New York spotlight. Which, to be fair, are better things to be remembered about than the most memorable elements of his second stint.
The Mets never had to worry about Tom Glavine — the franchise’s first major free agent signing after the Wilpons bought out Nelson Doubleday — embarrassing the franchise with off-field antics. But Glavine, who ended up making $54 million over five years in a pair of deals with the Mets, also embodied what would become a Wilpon staple: Signing someone who thrived elsewhere in hopes whatever he’d done and learned at his previous stop would magically infuse the Mets with that elusive winning identity.
Glavine won his 300th game with the Mets, who came within a base hit of making the World Series in 2006. But he was just 61-56 with a 3.97 ERA for the team…or 61-55 with a 3.90 ERA before the worst final act in team history Sept. 30, 2007, when he gave up seven runs while getting just one out in the season finale as the Mets lost to the Marlins, 8-1, to complete a collapse in which they blew a seven-game division lead with 17 to play and missed the playoffs entirely. And while Glavine meant well by trying to keep the loss in perspective in his postgame comments, there’s a giant swath of Mets fans who haven’t forgiven him for declaring he was disappointed but “…not devastated” by the defeat.
The Jason Bay signing following the 2009 season represented the last major external free agent acquisition by the newly frugal Mets as well as a symbol of the late-era Wilpon trend of spending whatever money they could find it on whomever would take it, even if he didn’t really want to take it.
Bay, who sat on the Mets’ four-year, $66 million deal for more than three weeks before agreeing to the deal, spent most of his introductory press conference trying to convince everyone he was really happy to be with the Mets. Alas, signing a 31-year-old power-hitting corner outfielder to play half his home games in the most cavernous park east of Yellowstone was never going to work out, even before concussion issues derailed Bay's career. He hit just 26 homers in 288 games before the Mets bought him out following the 2012 season.
The first winter of the post-Wilpon era — in which Cohen was one of the few owners willing to spend money — could have been filled with similarly risky statement-making signings by the Mets.
George Springer is a 31-year-old centerfielder and All-Star catcher J.T. Realmuto turns 30 next month. Bauer just turned 30 but was surrounded by past and future Cy Young Award winners with the Indians and won the NL Cy Young in a 12-start season in which he made just three starts against teams with winning records. Then of course there’s the whole social media thing.
But Sandy Alderson used Cohen’s big bucks to acquire star shortstop Francisco Lindor entering his walk year and to shore up the infrastructure that withered under the Wilpons. The re-signing of Marcus Stroman (who accepted the $18.9 million qualifying offer) and the acquisition of Carlos Carrasco (who is due to make $10.25 million this season) in the Lindor trade were the type of pricey deals necessary to upgrade the middle of the rotation. Stroman and Carrasco will be paid about $7 million less than the Mets were projected to pay their non-Jacob deGrom starters — Stroman, Noah Syndergaard, Steven Matz and Rick Porcello — entering spring training in 2020.
The Mets also committed a little more than $95 million to nine external free agents, including $40.6 million on catcher James McCann and $15.5 million on set-up man Trevor May. Neither was the top option at his position, but they offer reliability and the type of relative affordability — McCann cost $75 million less than Realmuto while the Mets spent half as much on May as they did on Jeurys Familia following the 2018 season — that shouldn’t haunt the franchise in the short- or long-term, even if they underperform.
The Mets spent the other $40 million or so on the type of depth — outfielders Albert Almora Jr., Jose Martinez, Kevin Pillar, utilityman Jonathan Villar, starter Taijuan Walker and relievers Sam McWilliams and Aaron Loup — they used to acquire via trade. Between the end of the 2019 season and the 2020 trade deadline, ex-general manager Brodie Van Wagenen traded seven minor leaguers for Jake Marisnick, Billy Hamilton, Ariel Jurado, Robinson Chirinos, Miguel Castro and Todd Frazier, who combined to post a Blutarsky WAR of 0.0 for the Mets.
Of course, the Mets were also willing to spend north of $100 million on Bauer, and if he’d said yes — which he might or might not have done for at least a few minutes — it would have changed the perception and the tenor of the off-season. That the Mets were able to establish a legitimately new direction regardless of his decision — and subsequently not have to worry about Bauer’s lapse into familiar immaturity during his first days with the Dodgers — is clear evidence that sometimes, a team upgrades its fortune and karma just by upgrading its ownership.
|
19bcc771d49e379fbbdffa5f2bb9955a | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2011/02/02/the-inflation-intifada-hunger-and-revolution-in-the-third-world/ | The Inflation Intifada: Hunger And Revolution In The Third World | The Inflation Intifada: Hunger And Revolution In The Third World
Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife
From 1977 to 1979, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (better known to most of us as the Shah of Iran) engaged in a series of crackdowns on merchants that were designed to curtail food and fuel inflation. Pahlavi set up a secret system through which informants could accuse merchants of "profiteering." The Shah imposed price controls and draconian penalties for violating them. None of this worked. Food prices soared on the black market, while store windows were left empty. The people became hungry and restive.
What the Shah's policies did accomplish was to take the Iranian middle class, a traditional bulwark against revolution, and turn them against him and against order. Not long after that, the revolution came. The world's first Jihadist nation state was formed.
Jihadists love a riot. Student groups in the third world are riot prone, too, but the middle class is usually riot averse, because it has something to lose. The merchant class works in the store by day and goes home at night to enjoy the family meal. But what happens when the store is empty and the table is bare? The middle class revolts.
That's what happened in the late 1970s, and that's what is happening now.
In both cases it starts with inflation. During the 1970s the Bretton Woods international monetary system broke down when Richard Nixon severed the dollar from the price of gold. Up until then, the dollar had been linked to gold and virtually all major currencies around the world had been linked to the dollar. During Bretton Woods, the world monetary order was generally stable and increasingly integrated. When gold was replaced by whim, international monetary chaos reigned: Oil prices gyrated uncontrollably, gold prices soared, interest rates spiked, and food prices spun out of control.
When food prices rise, so does fear--and the likelihood of revolution. Egypt, the nation that invented bread 40 centuries ago, began to starve. Bread riots rocked the nation. Food anxiety from the middle class and disapproval of the Egypt/Israel peace accords merged into an anti-Sadat fervor which led to regime change in 1981.
Monetary instability leads to political instability. It doesn't matter whether it occurs in Weimar Germany, Pre-Peronist Argentina, Post-Bretton Woods global markets or Post-Credit Crisis 2011. Inflation destroys the middle class, the social equivalent of a levee system, and then the floods come.
There's something that will likely it worse now than it was in the 1970s. Food price inflation is running well ahead of general inflation levels, especially grains. The U.S. and the European Union have embarked on an aggressive system of mandates and subsidies designed to transition the world away from geological fuel sources towards agricultural ones. In other words, the energy and agricultural policies of the developed world are to burn food.
We take corn, wheat, soy and sugar and instead of processing it into tortilla, bread, tofu or candy, we ferment it into ethanol and burn it in our gas tanks. The problem is that our gas tanks burn it in much larger quantities than our bodies do. If you fill up an SUV or minivan with 25 gallons of ethanol and use that to drive around for a week, your vehicle has consumed as many food calories in one week as the average human being consumes in a year. No wonder the food commodities that make up the ethanol complex have surged in price vastly higher than other food commodities. The U.S. now turns over 40% of corn production into biofuels. How could any sentient person be surprised about tortilla riots in Central and South America?
The point is that with economic power comes economic responsibility. With the status of economic super-power comes the burden of economic super-responsibility. The U.S. dollar, at least for now, is the reserve currency of the world. When we explicitly tinker with its value we implicitly tinker with the currency values of the world. When we force food into gas tanks, large swaths of the world starve. When western elites fiddle, the cities of the world burn with revolution.
So, how do we get the world back on track? Not with more fiddling. Obama's bootprint on Mubarak's backside will do no more good for the world than Carter's slipper print did on the Shah's. The way that America can get the world back on track is to get itself back on track. A stable dollar, free farming and energy policies, and a resumption of our historic growth path will do more to restore world order than all of the diplomats, retired diplomats turned pundits, and foreign aid checks combined.
If you want a free world, America, be free yourself.
|
58ae367cf813bab57ea599ae54022a50 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2011/02/16/shaking-the-nations/ | Shaking The Nations | Shaking The Nations
Image via Wikipedia
The good news is that 117 countries have increased their economic freedom in the past year. The bad news is that none of those countries is called United States of America. These are two of the many messages of the annual Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom.
A high freedom score correlates with higher levels of per-capita income, higher levels of growth and lower levels of poverty and privation. We know that the U.S. has been trending away from freedom for the past few years, that Canada is now the freest nation in the North American region, and that we have been surpassed in freedom by Belgium and are just a hair ahead of Bahrain.
Poland is one of the most improved nations over the past couple of years and, not coincidentally, was the only European nation not to slip into recession during the global economic crisis. What many probably do not know yet is that economic freedom is not only a useful metric from which to offer policy prescriptions for the purpose of social betterment, but that it is an important tool with which to evaluate investment climates.
For example, if one had shifted assets out of the U.S. into a broad array of investible high yield countries with favorable freedom dynamics four years ago (slightly before the global credit crisis), he would have strongly outperformed the Dow Jones Industrial Average. This is not only true during the past four years, but also during last year's series of European credit seizures, and it's true despite the fact that a number of these countries are European. If one tightened his criteria slightly and excluded countries with negative credit outlooks, the freedom performance premium would have been even greater.
For example, look to the North, to the aforementioned Canada, which is now the sixth-freest country in the index, and the freest country in North America. Canada gained on the U.S., surpassed her and this past year widened her advantage.
Its score has improved considerably from 1995, starting out with a freedom score of about 70 and then 80 in 2011. If you had invested in an index of Canadian stocks in the beginning of 2007, just before the credit crunch, you would have handily beaten the Dow.
While much of the commentariate has been overcome by a kind of Sino-swoon, it may be worth turning to the freedom index for a brace of objective reality. China is not free. China is 135th from the top on the freedom score. Its overall score is 52, which is 7.7 points less than the world average. It is also 32 points less than the free economies of the world.
On the other hand, Singapore is the second-freest country in the index, with a score of 87.2. Better yet, its Business Freedom score is 98.2, and Trade Freedom is 90.0.
The Index of Economic Freedom and the similar Economic Freedom of the World Index from the Frazer Institute were both created under the inspiration of the late Milton Friedman. They have helped to foment a revolution in development theory. I believe that, in the future, they will help to foment a revolution in financial theory.
Modern portfolio theory has for some time now gravitated towards valuation models based on random variation in markets (beta) and variations from those variations (alpha). Risk, for modern portfolio theory, is defined simply in terms of 'variance'. 'Emerging Markets' have been categorized as higher risk because they have more variance. Big companies have been deemed low risk because they have lower variance, while small companies have been relegated to the status of higher risk because they have more variance.
But politics trumps mere statistical variance: Big companies should be considered more risky in a political environment which places crosshairs (figurative ones, of course) on any industry to which the adjective 'big' can be plausibly attached. Is big cap really a safe place in an age of bank bashing and oil demonization?
Is an array of investments in Singapore of remotely comparable risk to an array of investments in Venezuela? And, if not, should they both be labeled "emerging"? It seems to me that a free market is an emerging market, and a socialist market is a submerging market.
The smart investor will favor the former over the latter.
|
4e1a014c3816779b6ff252a7ab588c48 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2011/06/22/the-end-of-europe-a-civilization-built-on-sand/ | The End Of Europe: A Civilization Built On Sand | The End Of Europe: A Civilization Built On Sand
Image via Wikipedia
The question is not why Europe would end, but why it would continue. Empire is not the natural default state of nations; it occurs when something very large and very powerful forces different peoples to cleave together in groups of nations, subordinating their national interests and identities to supra-national ones.
There are few things powerful enough to accomplish that, but one of them is a powerful army. This is the most common form of imperial adhesion. Some twisted soul comes to believe that the only way he can be happy is to be not just a king, but a king of kings. Most of those souls die young, but a few have the gift of military brilliance, and they conquer.
Most conquerors eventually meet other, greater conquerors on the battlefield and they perish, and their little empires are absorbed into the greater conqueror's greater empire. A small number of conquerors go to their graves undefeated, but their kingdoms perish with them. An infinitesimally small number of men possess both the skills that allow them to conquer every foe they fight, and also the skills of state building.
These men create genuine lasting empires. How many? Very few. The Nimrods, Nebuchadnezzars, Cyruses, Alexanders, Ceasars, Khans and Charlemagnes of global history are, thank God, quite rare.
Why is this so rare? Because we're wired for small groups. We're wired for families and for villages which are families of families. When villages form a nation, certain advantages are present such as mutual defense, a unified system of trade-enabling laws, and perhaps a greater sense of identity. But suspicion also arises: schism between local and national, between ordinary and elite.
Any form of political consolidation larger than a nation is strongly prone to break up. The greater the differences in ethnicity, language, religion and culture, the stronger the centrifugal force that drives groups apart.
So, the question is not what would cause Europe to break up, but rather what would cause it to hold together. Europe was originally created by three forces: Catholicism, the military threat of Islam and the military ambition of Charles the Great.
Over time the West won the crusades; lesser men than Charles ascended to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire, the reformation broke the Catholic religious monopoly, and the empire broke down into warring nation states. Each tried to achieve permanent hegemony, but through all of the 100 years wars--the French Revolutions, the Napoleonic Wars, the Second and Third Reichs, the various People’s Republics --none succeeded. One ambition countered another, neutralizing both.
So what would make it work now? There are no armies to speak of. Europe has largely disarmed. There is no Catholic consensus, not even a Christian one: after a long debate the framers of the Eurozone decided not to mention the Christian roots of Europe, not even to acknowledge its historical influence. There is no shared language and no shared ethnicity.
Though the external threat from the Middle East is a great as ever, Europe is blind to it. It has rejected both the defensive strategy and the assimilationist strategy for dealing with the Muslim world, opting for multiculturalism, a non-adhesive glue with which to hold together a press-board empire.
The one unifying force the Eurozone might have had was mutual financial and economic interest. That was the original point of economic Nobelist Robert Mundell's original dream: free trade and sound currency. But that's not how things worked out.
The member states of the Eurozone cheated: most of them lied about their level of indebtedness, and as a consequence the Eurozone has already broken its constitutional pledge not to engage in bailouts. Much of the bailout money is coming through the European Central Bank, which has weakened the euro relative to gold, Dr. Mundell's favorite measure of currency value.
So, the Mundellian model of a new Europe, the only model that had a chance in the current environment, was abandoned in favor of a bloated uber-welfare state. The savers of Northern Europe do not have a mutual economic interest in bailouts with the insolvent peoples of the south. Their elites might, but the people don't.
Elite interest will probably hold this duct-tape empire together through the current crisis. The euro will likely survive its pre-test. But in the end, demographic suicide, moral hazard, stagnation, inflation and most of all the sheer lack of unifying forces, will likely end this utopian experiment in human perfectibility. Europe is a civilization built on sand, and just because they'll probably survive the current storms on the periphery does not mean that they'll survive the hurricane headed towards the heart of the kingdom.
|
02601cc9fd6b8ab0cb3dfcd6c1af8c3d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2011/11/30/euro-neuro-and-nero-plausible-outcomes-for-a-continental-crack-up/ | Euro, Neuro And Nero: Plausible Outcomes For A Continental Crack-Up | Euro, Neuro And Nero: Plausible Outcomes For A Continental Crack-Up
Image via Wikipedia
The problem is not that Europe has a common currency; the problem is not that Southern Europe has a serious spending problem; the problem is that Europe has a common currency AND that Southern Europe has a serious spending problem.
A common currency involves a common central bank. Central banks are created for different reasons than the reason the public is given. Leaders tell the public that central banks are there to impede financial crises, but history shows that they do not impede crises; what banks actually do is to impede fiscal crises.
When a government spends too much money, private investors refuse to finance the excess. Central banks step into the gap and either lend money directly to the government in the form of debt monetization, or they lend money to banks on the condition that the banks will lend it to the government in the form of open market operations. Either way, central banks, at their origin promise something they don't do - stop crises. And they end up doing something they promised no to do: monetize debt. Ergo central banks exist for a different purpose then the one which is given to the public.
The European Central Bank is no exception to this rule. As Phillip Bagus has made clear in his outstanding book The Tragedy of the Euro, the ECB functions like other central banks, only it's not like other central banks; it's worse. It is a central bank whose job is to monetize the debts of multiple nation states at the same time. And since multiple nation states can off-load the cost of their own individual spending onto the rest of the continent, there are enormous incentives to spend as fast as one can get away with.
Imagine a city in which there were no individual credit scores, only one average credit score based on the personal spending habits of every member of the town combined. If you buy a boat, the whole town's score goes down a little. Isn't that great? Except that your neighbor can buy a motorcycle and drive the average credit score down a tiny bit more.
What would happen in a town like that? Everyone would spend as much as they can as quickly as they can until the credit capacity of the town's richest resident was exhausted, at which point, the credit card companies would cancel everyone's cards en masse. Now take that image and expand it into an entire continent and you see why a continent which survived for a thousand years is now on the verge of economic collapse less than twenty years after the creation of a common currency zone. The experiment was ludicrous to begin with: It can't work, it won't work, and that's why it's not working.
So what will happen? Beats me. But what could happen is that the northern European countries might wise up and begin to understand that the benefits of being able to export to the South are much smaller than the detriments of sharing their money and credit system with the dissipated socialists of the South. Hence the Neuro, the Northern Euro, which is basically the Euro with the southern spendthrifts thrown out. Greece keeps threatening to pull out of the monetary union, go back to the drachma and for the third time in the past century debase and default their way out of their obligations. What if Germany et. al. wise up enough to say 'Good riddance'? What happens is the Neuro?
That would leave Italy, Greece and (perhaps) Spain and Portugal wondering what to do. They could go back to pre-Euro status, individual countries packed into a relatively small parcel of land, roughly equivalent to the Roman Empire before the European conquests, armed and dangerous. Or they could keep their own neo-Roman trade and currency zone, hence the Nero.
If they did it, I doubt they'd call it the Nero, not such good PR. But it would be fairly accurate history. Nero was the ultimate Keynesian, devaluing currency and (according to some traditions) burning down the city precisely in order to rebuild it. He was a debaser and a destroyer and isn't that exactly what Greece and Italy want to be? Isn't that exactly the agenda of the rioting masses of Greece, to burn the city and debase the currency? Spain under Zapatero might have wanted to go that way, but I hope for better under the newly elected government.
The basic point I'm making is this: forget the idea of Euro or not. It's not a binary choice, much as euro-elites want to scare people into believing. It is just not true that a failure to bail out one or two bad actors destines the entire currency and trade zone to shatter back into war-prone shards. There are ranges of options and once they realize that, they no longer need to be frightened into giving up more freedom and losing more property rights and watching their currency lose more of its value.
The centralists keep talking as though Europe faces a 'contagion' and that some sort of massively large rescue fund can be used to 'ring-fence' the problem. But the metaphors are completely out of whack with the reality. When you have a contagion the answer is clear: a quarantine. How precisely can collectivizing credit risk be described as 'ring-fencing'? It is the opposite of a fence, it is the tragedy of the commons. When half a town faces a plague, you put up a fence and you let the plague run its course, you don't deal with the problem by setting up a city-wide community blood bank. You fight a plague with a quarantine, not with blood transfusions.
|
86ac404817272a02267be3a1b5c2928e | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2011/12/14/interest-rates-are-what-united-economics-and-finance/ | Interest Rates Are What Unite Economics And Finance | Interest Rates Are What Unite Economics And Finance
Image by 401K via Flickr
Interest rates are the key idea which unites economics and finance. Economic conditions are what drive interest rates. Real interest rates are basically a function of economic growth and the difference between real rates and nominal rates rooted in inflation calculations. The higher the rate of growth, the higher the rate of interest should be. There are two reasons for this:
First, businesses can afford to pay higher interest rates when they are in faster growing economies. When a corporation sells a bond and agrees to pay, for example, a 6% interest rate, they are betting that they can invest that money in their operation in such a way as to grow profits by greater than 6%. After all, if they thought that whatever expansion they were considering would only yield an internal rate of return of 5%, they would conclude that they should not engage in the expansion since it would cause them to lock in a guaranteed loss of 1% per year.
This effect reflects the demand side for capital. Entrepreneurs and internal managers are constantly evaluating their environments and assessing the growth prospects and their bottom-up evaluations merge up into the financial markets in either higher demand for growth capital (causing higher real interest rates) or lower demand (causing lower ones) for capital. Growth drives capital demand.
Second, the demand for capital would all be in vain if there no one was willing to supply capital. Somebody has to say "no" to themselves (they have to say "no" to their present consumption desires) in order for there to be any financial market at all. The only way I would be willing to give up present consumption to invest in somebody else is because I believe I can increase my wealth by doing it. They have to pay me to defer my gratification.
This idea, called 'time preference,' is a universal principle of human nature. I prefer to have my money now, and will only be willing to wait if I get more money as a reward for waiting. But I can only be paid interest, dividends, capital gains, etc. if the entity in which I've invested has some kind of internal rate of return themselves. They have to grow; otherwise our money can't, at least not for long. So the supply of capital, like the demand for capital, both depend on the creative process of entrepreneurship.
But the business in which I invest does not just need to give me a return; it needs to give me a better return than I can get elsewhere. The investment will have to yield at least as much money as I could get by investing in another business with the same risk level. This idea is called ‘opportunity cost’, which means that I must be compensated for the lost earning opportunity of the investment which I forego.
If I can open a frozen yogurt stand for 10,000 dollars and get a 10% rate of return, then I will prefer the yogurt stand investment to a bond of similar risk which is offering 6%. In this case the corporate borrower is competing for my money with the yogurt stand.
In aggregate all the corporations are in a constant state of competition with one another and with governments as well as with the yogurt stands, and rental properties and innumerable other small businesses in America. If corporate bonds, for example, consistently paid interest rates that were lower than the overall GDP growth rates of the economy, we would all invest in yogurt stands and other small businesses that track with general growth levels. In that case corporations would have to bid up their offers. Higher GDP growth rates force borrowers toward higher interest rates over time.
In short, growth rates set real interest rates. The productive entrepreneur is the source of yields who must compete with other entrepreneurs for my investment money and who can only pay for the use of my money in the long run out of his or her ability to grow faster than the economy as a whole.
The things I said above are obviously theoretically true; I’ve explicated the steps in the reasoning process step by step. Other economists far greater than I have been unfolding the mystery of interest rates at least since the days of Knut Wicksell and Carl Menger in the mid-19th century. Furthermore the data bear them out.
I’ve spent the last several months testing various interest rates as economic forecasters and (without giving away the secret sauce), they work quite well. The economic role of interest rates is, in short, theoretically well established and empirically verified, so why don’t we hear anything about it? Because it is forgotten and it is forgotten because it was suppressed by the major ideologies of the 20th Century.
The various isms, Keynesiansism, Marxism, Islamism, Medieval Catholicism, refuse to see interest rates for what they are: a reflection of who we are as a people. Whether we are savers or spenders, promise keepers or promise breakers, innovators or stagnators, gratification grabbers or deferrers: the interest rates reflect our national character.
But Keynes doesn’t see a mirror when he looks at the market rate of interest, he sees a lever; the master manipulator sees a way to manipulate people by the millions. Marx doesn’t see the truth of all of us, but only an instrument of oppression, money for nothing for the capitalist class. He looks at the interest rate, and does not see a mirror which reflects a nation’s character, not a lever which he can control, but rather a monster which he must kill. And of course, since for him that monster is simply a reflection of the Saving Class, it is that class which must be liquidated.
The various medieval religious responses see not the specific rate of interest as a reflection of our character, but the very existence of interest as a reflection of our sin. Interest for them is a disruption of the Divine order of things, an attempt to make something out of nothing, an abomination to be suppressed, and while the Catholic church has (largely) abandoned that form of thinking, it is still rife in Islamist circles and in Western circles, too, among large financial institutions who want to cash in on the bonanza in ‘Sharia compliant’ finance.
What the various clashing isms share in common, however, is their desire to suppress the gift of data. People’s actions will tell you who they are. Capital markets take all those individual spending, saving, borrowing, producing, procreating decisions and incorporate them into themselves. But people can only tell us who they are and what they know, when they’re permitted to act freely and we’re willing to hear what they say.
|
b6c353f9c50e2dc3ce5b2dfbd0f82652 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/05/22/a-college-bubble-so-big-even-the-new-york-times-and-60-minutes-can-see-it-sort-of/ | A College Bubble So Big Even The New York Times And 60 Minutes Can See It...Sort Of | A College Bubble So Big Even The New York Times And 60 Minutes Can See It...Sort Of
Vivek Wadhwa (Image via CrunchBase)
In 2009 I was invited to speak to the annual meeting of a mid-sized accounting firm in Florida. Of course, the big topic of conversation was the housing bubble and the financial crisis which resulted. The audience, with the exception of one liberal academic, was generally sympathetic to the message that government, not the market, was the principle malefactor. And since the audience was made up of working accountants who had to live under the whims of federal regulators, they were more than sympathetic to the view, which had not yet been widely accepted, that the mark-to-market accounting regulations were a major factor in the disaster.
My wife, Susan, signaled from the back of the room that it was time to go lest we miss our flight. As I thanked my host and worked my way towards the back of the room to exit, questions kept coming from the audience, and I answered on the fly as well as I could. Just before I walked through the door there was one more question: "Okay, I get what happened with the housing bubble, but what's the next bubble?" Silence, people leaning in with ears perked to hear the answer, and me not sure...autos, commercial real estate, commodities had been the leading candidates for next bubble in the financial press. None of that seemed quite right, though. They really wanted to know, and I wasn't sure of the answer, so I said a quick prayer for an answer and out of my mouth popped "Higher Ed. There's a College Bubble." Shocked looks, murmurs, concerned looks. I didn't know it at the time but the firm had an unusual number of higher education clients.
Since then, the College Bubble hypothesis has slowly gained acceptance. I wrote a number of pieces on the topic here starting in 2010 and most recently focusing particularly on seminaries. The Center for College Affordability is a think tank which has been largely dedicated to this topic long before I took it up. Mark Perry of the Carpe Diem blog and the American Enterprise Institute often writes on this theme. My friend Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame, who is also a law school professor, writes on it regularly and is about to publish a book on the subject.
And the College Bubble is not just for conservatives anymore. CNBC did one of their mini-documentaries on the subject, though like most liberal media it couldn't decide whether the target was the higher-ed bubble or just for-profit schools. The New York Times did a piece recently along similar lines, and then there was the 60 Minutes piece, hosted by Morley Safer which focused on PayPal founder Peter Thiel's attack on the college bubble. The piece was, of course, strongly biased. It was a venerable old dinosaur hosting a venerable old dinosaur in order to defend a venerable old dinosaur. But the mere existence of a 60 Minutes segment examining the hypothesis that higher education has become a bubble was a devastating blow (or better yet, a sharp prick) to the overinflated wind bag full of nostrums about the essential value of a college education at any cost.
60 Minutes' arguments were predictably weak. An ad hominem attack on Thiel's philanthropic activities fell flat. So what if his foundation supports projects which Morley Safer finds odd? Thiel supports the Seasteading Institute in its dream to create floating libertarian city states. Yeah, it's an odd idea. So were skyscrapers. So was PayPal. Some odd ideas work out and some don't. At least seasteaders are using their own money.
Since Safer was just not up to the task of debating Thiel himself, he turned to an academic to make the case for college, Vivek Wadhwa. Wadhwa is one of those academics able to amass educational credentials and still mix in business circles. 60 Minutes neglected to inform their audience, however, that he is a fellow at Singularity University. For those unfamiliar with Singularity, it is the idea that man and machine will shortly merge together creating super-intelligent cyborgs who (or is it ‘which’?) will solve the problem of death, probably in the lifetime of many living today. It's kind of like in Terminator, only with Skynet as a good guy. So much for Thiel's crazy ideas about people living on floating platforms.
Wadhwa argued that Thiel's plan to invest directly in promising young people who start businesses directly out of high school is a bad idea for several reasons. First, many of the kids will fail. But so what? Many students fail. About a third never graduate. About half take 5 or 6 years. And of those who make it through and get their degree, many fail in their careers anyway. Which kind of failure do you learn more from: Failing at school, or failing at business? Probably the latter since in that case you are forced to think about the things which really matter in the real world. And the students who fail to finish schools or to make careers out of their degrees still have all that debt, whereas the entrepreneurs who fail take only Thiel's money down with them. And what's so bad about failing anyway? Most of my lessons are imbedded in scar tissue, literal and figurative. Failure teaches.
Wadhwa argues that U.S. colleges and universities are the best in the world. Maybe that's true, but so what? U.S. homes were probably the best in the world too, but that doesn't mean that we had no bubble. U.S. tech firms in the late 90s were the best in the world, but that didn't mean they were reasonably valued. Bubble-ness is a factor of quality AND PRICE. The point is that there is no asset of such great quality that it is a good buy no matter how high the price goes. A college diploma is no exception to that rule.
Furthermore, there has been a severe contraction in the quality of higher education in America. Did we really think we could open the floodgates and not affect the quality of graduates? Can you turn college into the new high school, and not get high school-like results? Grade inflation will only keep the problem concealed for so long before the general public becomes aware that outside of a few highly challenging programs and majors, the quality of American higher education is plummeting. Graduates are mastering fewer facts, can't think critically about the facts they have mastered, and can't express whatever ideas they have mastered in clear, cogent, grammatically correct sentences. Employers already know this.
The final straw Wadhwa grasps at is the idea of socialization. He argues (I am not joking) that partying is a valuable part of the college experience because it teaches students interpersonal skills. Whah? Look, it's fun to party, I'll give you that. But it is a consumption good, not an investment, and anybody who says otherwise has perhaps partied just a little too much.
|
db50d59c611bc4f36aeea95f9b79d271 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/06/06/how-the-bowyer-family-played-the-college-tuition-bubble/ | How The Bowyer Family Played The College Tuition Bubble | How The Bowyer Family Played The College Tuition Bubble
Investments get to be bubbles partly because investors widely believe there is no alternative on which to spend their money. Dotcoms were seen as the only real growth play, so shareholders hung in there even after it had become clear that the pricing was uncomfortably high. Housing possessed a supposed unique level of riskless-ness as did the loans used to finance it. Many investors have figured out that U.S. treasuries are deep into bubble territory, but, they ask 'What other haven asset is there?'
It's the same with the college tuition bubble. Look at the comment section of any of the articles I've written about this topic during the past three years and you'll see something like this: "Yes, most diplomas are from second rate schools in second rate disciplines and they are nearly worthless. And tuitions are sky high. But what alternative do we have? How do you get an education without it? More importantly, how do you get a job?"
It's a legitimate question, one that I've been wrestling with for quite some time. You see, I've been writing about the college bubble hypothesis for three years, but I've been living it for ten.
My oldest son, Christopher, was not college material. You probably have the wrong idea: it's not that Chris isn't smart. Chris is brilliant. But brilliance is not enough to make you college material. Something else is needed: at least an average level of compliance. Pliable personalities find it much easier to sit through the lectures, take the exams, write the papers, amass the pre-formulated proportions of certain credit hours in certain prescribed order, and fill out an enormous volume of paperwork for the privilege of entry into all of the above.
Some people find all of that to be easy; in fact, many like being told what to do. It gives them a sense of security. Other people find it all difficult, but do it anyway. The latter often seek release from the sense of institutional claustrophobia by embracing a life style of sexual and chemical anarchy in those enclaves of rebellion known as fraternities.
Chris just couldn't do it. He couldn't contort his mind into the arbitrary exercise known as SAT Prep. It was not that he didn't want to learn. On the contrary, he was a voracious reader. It's not that he didn't want to work. On the contrary, he had not only worked for various family businesses from radio production to economic analysis and publishing since he was about 9 years old, but had also started a few micro-businesses of his own; web sites which he was able to sell at a nice little profit.
I understand Chris; I'm the same way. I barely graduated from high school. I would routinely skip class so I could go to the library and read my way through Mortimer Adler's Great Books collection. College was similar. After an initial two semesters of compliant Dean's list performance. I started blowing off classes which I didn't like, dropping out of them, often after the drop out date. But while all that was going on, I was working my rear end off busing tables in the cafeteria, mopping floors, and scrubbing pots...and sitting in the library reading voraciously. A few professors took the trouble to let me learn my way. Mostly, they didn't get me, and I didn't get them.
Eventually, I gritted my teeth, switched to a business school, Robert Morris, focused like mad, got good grades and graduated two years later with a degree in accounting. I hated every moment of it. My hair went grey. I got a good corporate job with a solid salary. I hated that too.
After some dues paying I got funding to start an economic think tank. It worked: the foundation rapidly grew in influence and 9 years after graduation, I was invited back to Robert Morris not as a student, but as its commencement speaker. My career since then has been anything but normal and my work and learning style has been anything but compliant.
There are a lot of guys like that out there, and young women too. Christopher was one of them, and he was permitted to go his own way. Only two things were required of him: character and productivity. College, not being essential for either of those, was optional. And he agonized over the options. Lots of people told him that he absolutely must go to college. His mother, my ex-wife, was mortified by the idea that he would not go. But then again, Chris noticed that she had dropped out of a prestigious school half way through and nevertheless had a successful career as a professional proofreader/editor who was so much in demand that she was turning clients away.
Chris talked to lots of people about this, but the clincher for him was the advice he got from Ron Morris. Ron is a highly successful serial entrepreneur whose latest venture is an entrepreneurial talk radio network. Having sold his business for a tidy pile of cash, Ron was constantly receiving pitches from entrepreneurs looking for start-up investments. Many of those came from kids who had just graduated from prestigious universities. He told Chris that if he had a choice between betting on a 23-year old who had just graduated from a top school, or betting on a 23-year old who had worked for a small business, all other things being equal, he would choose the latter. Better still if the 23-year old had founded a small business—even if the business failed. Chris had his answer.
Now, this isn’t fairy tale stuff. He didn’t throw away his SAT prep materials, found Facebook and become a billionaire. He simply did his work for the family business which is largely producing this television program. He also owns and maintains a few websites which generate modest revenue streams (like this), and builds on a sub-contracting basis some sites owned by other people like this. He’s a frequent guest on Ron’s radio show and an occasional guest on Cornerstone Television Network.
He got a lot of flak from friends and acquaintances for his non-college decision, chiefly because he and his brother, Jeremy, during their college-aged years moved in a social circle of college students from Chatham University. They just couldn’t fathom it.
A couple of years ago, Chris married a Chatham girl, and a lot of their friends are her school friends. This provides a lot of helpful data about the school vs. school of hard knocks decision.
At age 27, Chris has no consumer debt, no school debt (obviously), no car debt and only a small mortgage. He has a small retirement account which he started with the proceeds from a web site he built in his teen years. He and his wife are homeowners. While some of their college friends are apartment dwellers, many are boomerang kids who have returned home to live with their parents. Almost none of the ones who are employed are employed in their chosen field of study. Income-wise, Chris is at about the same level as the subset of his college-grad friends who are employed. Asset/liability wise he is well ahead of the pack.
He has enormous personal freedom, which he loves. He is a man of good character, and he is productive. That’s all that is required. Everything else is optional – including college.
|
c637320320fb63248bddbcd5f1105cbb | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/08/01/happy-birthday-milton-friedman-the-european-crisis-is-your-latest-vindication/ | Happy Birthday, Milton Friedman, The European Crisis Is Your Latest Vindication | Happy Birthday, Milton Friedman, The European Crisis Is Your Latest Vindication
Milton Friedman (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
July 31st was Milton Friedman's 100th birthday, and his birthday present is to watch the 'European Project' come crashing to the ground, just as he predicted that it would. I doubt that it gives him any pleasure. In fact, Friedman told Robert Mundell (the 'Father of the Euro') that since the experiment had already been entered into, he hoped that he would turn out to be wrong. But he hasn't been.
The discussion between these two brilliant men was sponsored by The Institute for Research on Public Policy in May of 2001. If you have the time, read it over. You'll end up knowing more about currency economics than anybody has a right to, and you’ll learn more than anybody in any position of power in international finance knows about things like currency unions and fixed and flexible and pegged and unpegged (and gradations between) exchange rates . But the real clash was between the genius who thought up the Euro and the genius who was skeptical of it.
Friedman nailed it right at the beginning:
"There is no historical precedent for such an arrangement. It involves each country’s giving up power over its internal monetary policy to an entity not under its political control. Such a system has economic advantages and disadvantages, but I believe that its real Achilles heel will prove to be political; that a system under which the political and currency boundaries do not match is bound to prove unstable."
In other words, when the accountability for creating money is separated from the accountability for spending money, chaos results.
Mundell argued that the Euro and similar schemes which he hoped would be imitated around the world were worth it because they would lead to a higher standard of living:
"Countries with a unified currency system trade a great deal more with one another and are able to exploit the gains from trade and therefore have a higher standard of living."
But Friedman argued that, in fact, the Euro would not be economically successful because Europe lacked sufficient economic freedom:
“A flexible exchange rate would enable each of them to have the appropriate monetary policy. With a unified currency, they cannot. The alternative adjustment mechanisms are changes in internal prices and wages, movement of people and of capital. These are severely limited by differences in culture and by extensive government regulations, differing from country to country. If the residual flexibility is enough, or if the existence of the euro induces a major increase in flexibility, the euro will prosper. If not, as I fear is likely to be the case, over time, as the members of the euro experience a flow of asynchronous shocks, economic difficulties will emerge. Different governments will be subject to very different political pressures and these are bound to create political conflict, from which the European Central Bank cannot escape.”
As we've seen a thousand times since this debate in 2001, as the economic case for the Euro weakens, advocates fall back on national security arguments. Mundell argues that the Euro is a bringer of peace:
"My own view about the politics of the euro is that it will provide a catalyst for increased political integration in Europe, which, after two centuries of a Franco-German rivalry that has periodically engulfed the entire world, is highly desirable. Increased political integration would also enhance Europe’s voice on the world political stage and allow Europe to share some of the leadership role and burden of the United States. In my view there are few, if any, risks associated with an increased power position of Europe in world affairs."
Friedman argues that instead, a unified currency in an environment of low economic freedom and competing political agendas will be a bringer of strife:
"My difference with Bob which reflects what I earlier labelled (d) is exemplified by my pessimism and his optimism about the euro. We agree that the euro has no historical precedent. I believe we also agree that its attainment was driven by political, not economic, considerations, by the belief that it would contribute to greater political integration —the much heralded United States of Europe—that would in turn render impossible the kind of wars which Europe has suffered so much. If achieved, political integration would render the monetary and political areas coterminous, the historical norm. Will the euro contribute to political unity? Only, I believe, if it is economically successful; otherwise, it is more likely to engender political strife than political unity."
Now, I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Mundell. He's been kind enough to allow me to interview him, and I've learned a lot from him. He is required reading around here. And he's right about a lot of things, even in cases where Friedman was wrong. But in this case Friedman was able to foresee with far greater accuracy the future course of the European monetary union than its intellectual father. I suspect that Dr. Mundell's political idealism got the better of him in this case.
|
7a7b2e6ff00d81e5f264e3ddf8da8a90 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/11/15/the-republican-party-needs-a-reset-on-immigration/ | The Republican Party Needs A Reset On Immigration | The Republican Party Needs A Reset On Immigration
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Since the Romney/Ryan ticket's loss last Tuesday, the Republican Party has been going through a period of soul searching. Much of that is useless propaganda about how the party needs to move to the ‘center’ (whatever that is) on its tax-cutting growth agenda.
But some of it is a genuinely helpful re-examination of the GOP’s relationship with immigrants and immigrant voter groups. This is a helpful but small step in the right direction. Liberalization of immigration laws was a theme of this column before the election (and a theme of this columnist for many years before). In order to foster more discussion of this issue, we reproduce below an article which appeared in the print edition of Forbes in September of this year.
For those who believe that we are a Johnny-come-lately on this issue, only interested in promoting immigration in light of last week’s electoral defeat, you can find links to columns which I’ve written on this subject going back to 2006 after participating in a radio debate with Pat Buchanan on the issue and a follow up here.
Finally, I add this exhortation to my GOP brethren: If you see your problem with immigrants as merely one of marketing, then you will not succeed. The nativist wing of the party is not just politically inconvenient, it is morally and economically wrong. The point is not to capitulate to political necessity; the point is to have the right policy. The right policy is a growing economy, non-burdensome immigration laws, a welfare system which promotes work, not dependency, and a culture of assimilation, not isolation.
Latinos are religious, morally conservative and tend disproportionately to join the military and start businesses. They are natural members of the conservative coalition.
Nevertheless, some of the loudest voices in the conservative movement are advocating that Latinos here illegally be forced from the country. Big-government skeptics are oddly clamoring for something that only big government could accomplish.
Expelling 15 million people against their will would constitute the largest forced migration in American history. No one has ever forcibly moved that many people without concentration camps and mass death through plague.
If there's another way to do it, please show me a historical example. What I hear is slogans like "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" Slogans move callers to dial in to talk radio, but they don't move millions voluntarily back into poverty and squalor. That is done by unhappy soldiers manning "hell ships" like the Mercurio , which was used to deport masses of Mexicans during "Operation Wetback," our last and much smaller deportation attempt, which ended with the soldiers committing mutiny. In the end, you either let the bulk of them stay or herd them out. If you want to call the former amnesty, go ahead.
After all, amnesty has a well-worn legal tradition. It means forgiveness. After the Civil War Abraham Lincoln offered amnesty to Rebel soldiers. Runaway slaves received it after emancipation. Vietnam draft dodgers, too. Conservatives often argue for tax amnesties.
Immigration laws are no different. If we liberalize them, should we still punish the people who violated the laws that we later deemed too harsh?
Conservatives have rightly argued that widespread tax cheating shows that taxes are too high, and widespread violation of the national 55mph speed limit was a sign that the law was too restrictive. Americans concluded that widespread violation of prohibition laws demonstrated that too much restrictiveness can also undermine the rule of law.
Ronald Reagan signed amnesty into law in 1986, inviting 3 million "illegals" to become "legals." Would the man who didn't want to deport 3 million now deport 15 million? Reagan had a completely different idea about immigration and the border than the wall/moat/electrocution/drone model. His diaries show an emotional discomfort with militarized borders with Mexico. He met with the president of Mexico to try to discuss ways to do something better with the border than to turn it into a fence.
Milton Friedman believed that even illegal immigration was good for freedom. Ludwig von Mises believed that human capital should be free to cross borders just like financial capital. Forcible interventions into immigration were really just forcible interventions into the labor market designed to restrict wage competition, just like compulsory unionism. Von Mises saw that "there cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor." Both Friedman and Von Mises had concerns about immigration driven by the welfare system, but the solution for both was to shrink the welfare state, not to freeze wage migration.
Immigration was one of the causes for the American Revolution. Jefferson complained King George wasn't letting us get enough of it: "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither."
Healthy and growing nations talk this way, and Malthusianism be damned. It was taken as a given by the founders that population growth is good. Anything else has just too much of the death rattle of empire to it.
The Constitution puts immigration law in the hands of Congress, which can loosen and tighten the standards at will, with one exception: Children born here are citizens. So what are the family-values conservatives going to do, send the parents packing, while the kids stay here?
We need a reset on this issue. If the Republican Party gets tagged as the nostalgic, static, anti-Latino party, it's dead. And we will have brought it on ourselves.
See the historic Forbes 400 print issue. Subscribe here.
|
9bb6321b440c4181a9e2968f659928d4 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2013/05/29/is-religion-an-essential-driver-of-economic-growth/ | Is Religion An Essential Driver Of Economic Growth? | Is Religion An Essential Driver Of Economic Growth?
Max and Marianne Weber 1894 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Peter Berger is perhaps the world's most prominent living sociologist. He has written two dozen books including seminal texts in the development of the sociology of religion, the sociology of knowledge, and the sociology of modern development. He may be the most qualified person to speak with authority on matters pertaining to the relationship between religious beliefs and economic development, so I decided to ask him to explain this to me. This interview is the result, and it's worth listening to in full. At age 84 Berger is still sharp as a tack and has a long lifetime of study and analysis behind him (and I expect quite a number ahead of him).
When I asked him what he has learned in a lifetime of studying these questions, he told me that there are certain social preconditions to economic development, and that the way a society operates is important in regards to how prosperous that society can become. This is largely a matter of culture, and for most of the world culture basically means religion. Religion drives culture; culture drives social forms; social forms drive development.
Regarding different religions and their level of conduciveness to growth, he said that they are not equally conducive. He pointed out the work of Max Weber, whose seminal work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, argued that the lifestyle which arose from Protestantism played a decisive role in the creation of modern prosperity. For Weber, and Berger agrees, the Calvinistic lifestyle of worldly asceticism became a source of growth and capital accumulation. Worldly asceticism (Weber's phrase) upheld the virtue of productive labor in this world, as opposed to an otherworldly orientation often associated with medieval Catholicism. The focus on this life as opposed to the afterlife tends to create large income streams. But worldly asceticism looks askance at lives of excessive spending and conspicuous consumption, which are often associated with wealth. The result is a well-educated, highly skilled diligent work force and large pools of capital. Without this, or something like it, modern capitalism would not have arisen as it did.
Not all religions, at least in the current form, have these same characteristics, therefore not all religions are equally conducive to development. Not surprisingly, Berger says he has been accused of racism or bias because of these views. But he points out that it's not a matter of bias; it's simply a matter of facing the facts.
According to him, this Protestant effect expressed itself in different ways in different times and places: historically in America in her Puritan heritage. Currently in the developing world, it reveals itself in the explosive growth of Evangelicalism which is helping to create modern developed economies. Perhaps Pentecostalism plays a role in the Third World similar to that played by Calvinism in Europe and North America, or at least is an important factor in the emergence of a middle class.
There is an important caveat in all this: Religions change over time and so it's not helpful to do this sort of analysis in terms of the characteristics of a religion in general, but instead in a certain historical context. For example, Christianity in the Middle Ages may well have retarded economic progress through its embrace of usury laws (which I would argue it got from Aristotle rather than from Christ.)
Another caveat urges us to avoid confusing the effects of a religion on institutions with its effects on individuals. According to Berger, Confucianism preaches many of the virtues, such as education, hard work and delayed gratification, which are conducive to prosperity among individuals, but that Confucian disdain for commerce has tended to create societies which are more conducive to entrepreneurial stagnation. Therefore a Confucian China can stagnate for millennia. But when Chinese people migrate to more open societies in Southeast Asia, they become the wealthy 'overseas Chinese,' Jews of the East, prospering and helping to prosper the societies they live in, part of the vanguard of economic development. Groups like the overseas Chinese become easy scapegoats for demagogues.
Regarding Islam, Berger does not discount the possibility that it might be able to coexist with liberty and prosperity, but points out that historically the subservient role of women in Muslim nations is a source of economic drag. To isolate half of the talent of a population from productive activity is bad enough. But to add to that a pattern of leaving women uneducated makes things even worse because of the role that mothers play in the intellectual development of children. He points to Turkey as a beacon of hope. I am less optimistic than Berger about the much vaunted 'Turkish model,' but time will tell.
Islamic economics is a subject unto itself and deserves at least one future column of its own. But in case you're not quite ready for that topic yet, I'd suggest that you listen to my interview with Peter Berger. Because when it comes to talking about religious differences, there is a policeman in your head who twirls his night stick every time you question the current dictates of our pervasive political correctness speech code, and Peter Berger might help you put that policeman into a helpful retirement.
|
5426be721bf1dce10d94a8bb043fc037 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2013/06/25/as-the-arab-spring-fades-and-the-turkish-model-collapses-can-islam-foster-prosperity/ | As The Arab Spring Fades And The Turkish Model Collapses, Can Islam Foster Prosperity? | As The Arab Spring Fades And The Turkish Model Collapses, Can Islam Foster Prosperity?
Anti-government protesters wearing masks and hoodies pose as they demonstrate in the center of... [+] Ankara, Turkey on June 6, 2013. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
There's nothing wrong with hope, but it should always be balanced with a little truth. But the optimism which has been hanging over so much of the discussion about the middle east and central Asia, has been a bit long on hope and short on truth.
The Arab Spring has more than lived down to the predictions of critics (like me: link here), but no one had any long-term reputation invested in that. However, the much vaunted 'Turkish Model, is another thing altogether. It is has long been the great multicultural hope for mankind, an Islamic modern democracy. Investors were told to get on board before losing a great chance. The rest of the equatorial world was told to behold the new world of Islamic modernity. The recent ordeal of oppression and uprising more impression, must come as a crushing disappointment. That could have been avoided by simply consulting history.
Islam is not necessarily incompatible with economic prosperity, but the way things have worked out historically, it is the principle factor which explains why the Middle East has fallen so far behind. According to Duke Professor Timur Kuran, who has been kind enough to be my guide to understanding Islamic economics, during the Middle Ages, the Islamic world was ahead of the Christian world in economic development, but something began to happen in the late Middle Ages which caused what he describes in his excellent book, The Great Divergence, as a vast and growing gap between the Islamic world and the world of the West.
The divergence has been a puzzle for historians for quite a long time: Professor Kuran believes the puzzle remained unsolved for so long because historians tend to look at political history and ignore religious history. Political history documents are easier to get to; emperors and caliphs keep official chronicles. But the religious life of the people is often not as readily documented. I would add a factor: religion just might not seem to be such a large factor in the life of mankind to academics, who might have not given it as much role in their own lives as it plays in the lives of the people they study.
Whatever the reasons that the link between Islamic law and economic stagnation have been missed, Professor Kuran has identified them clearly for us now, and we would be fools to ignore them. In The Wealth of Nations, written by Adam Smith and published in the fortuitous year 1776, Smith casts his eyes toward the Islamic world and sees there a system of prohibitions against riba (interest). Smith concludes that the Islamic world will tend to have higher interest rates than the West, because a nation which outlaws interest will by definition place certain risks on those who lend at interest, and they will need higher yields to compensate themselves for those higher risks. Whether Smith's reasoning was correct or not, the Islamic world is in general plagued by higher interest rates. Professor Kuran sees that as only one of several problems driving higher interest rates in Muslim nations, and a relatively small one at that.
Far greater than usury laws, Islamic inheritance and corporate formation laws have impeded capital market development. Islam requires the equal division of inheritable assets among all male heirs, and equal division of inheritable assets between female heirs as well, but at half the level of male inheritance. In and of itself this makes it difficult for large scale multi-generational asset accumulation to some degree. But given traditional Islamic attitudes towards polygamy, the effect is intensified. A wealthy man may accumulate dozens of wives and scores of children. Osama Bin Laden was the son of his father's tenth wife and he lived with four other siblings. Polygamy plus a strict religiously imposed inheritance code prevented something which we've seen in the West: the multigenerational family business, which lies behind many of the great business successes of the world.
In addition, Islamic law requires that business partnerships dissolve at the time of the death of ANY of the members of the partnership. This means that businesses under Sharia face enormously higher truncation risks than those under, say, the Common Law tradition which developed in Western Christendom. It means that one would be foolish to initiate any business plan which is materially likely to require more time than the likely life expectancy of its most aged and/or sickly investors.
And it's not just a problem of duration which is driving risk; it's also a question of the reach of the partnership. The more investors, the higher the possibility than one of them will die within the time frame of the project. Imagine if GM had to shut down, dissolve its corporate charter, and start over again every time one of its shareholders died. Of course that would never happen in the way I described. What would instead occur is that in a nation under Islamic law, such a large enterprise with such a long time horizon would never be formed in the first place. And, as one would expect, it never was. There is no Islamic GM.
So, what is done with accumulated capital? Well, the religious trust, or waqf, is more favorably treated than business entities. A waqf receives favorable tax treatment compared to a profit-seeking entity, as non-profits do in the United States. In addition, waqfs are easier to set up, being encouraged under Islamic law. More importantly, when a tyrant decides to confiscate property, the consequences to him are more severe in the case where he 'nationalizes' assets from a religious trust than from a profit-seeking business. Waqfs are politically sacrosanct, businesses are not.
So, while very small proportions of national wealth are held in trusts in the U.S., far larger proportions are held in the Middle East. However, this creates problems all its own. Large proportions of assets are held in institutions which are not controlled by shareholders disciplined by the profit motive. In addition, waqfs have their own duration problem. While the problem with business partnerships is that they have short lives, the problems with waqfs is that they have eternal life. They have infinite duration.
Making matters worse, the original mission of the waqf goes on forever. If one forms a waqf for the purpose of providing lodging to Muslim traders to return to Mecca along the silk road, the mission of that waqf set in 1100 AD is by law the same mission in 2013 AD. In other words, the waqf model assumes a stagnant world and makes no provision for and does not anticipate the upheavals associated with economic progress. It freezes time. And this freezing of vast quantities of assets leaves very little left for commercial and technological development.
In short, the capital-impeding effects of Islamic law can be captured in one word: banks. Banks require large scale capital accumulation in order to diversify risk, and banks require by their nature long spans of time in order to match the duration of savers' needs with borrowers' needs. No diversification and no long-term orientation means no modern banking and no modern economics. Professor Kuran provides more detail than I have space for here, and if you'd like a deeper drive, click here and listen to our discussion.
The consequences of all this are far reaching. For example, if Sharia law makes the formation of corporations impossible, or even difficult, this goes beyond business implications. It's not just businesses which have corporate status; many more forms of human cooperation take this form. For example, local units of governments are corporations, so are labor unions, schools and religious institutions. That's right: churches are typically incorporated. In fact, the Christian church is the origin of the concept of a corporation. It is the Corpus Christi, from which the idea of an organization which outlives any of its members arose in medieval Europe. Once there was something like that, accountable directly to God and not via the state, that created the intellectual space into which other independent entities could form themselves. Universities, for example, arose this way.
With no choice between short term joint ventures lasting a year or two on the one hand, and religious trusts frozen in amber for all eternity, the formation of adaptable long-lasting institutions becomes very difficult. Mediating institutions between the individual and the state do not flourish. Before the U.S. places more diplomatic, financial and even military bets on the 'Arab Spring,' we'd better take a long look at whether the Sharia-dominated regimes which are likely to follow are able to create the kind of civil society necessary to sustain liberty beyond the fleeting moment of revolution.
|
98699518dadb0dc0c2aa7e49c084de96 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2013/07/30/your-help-is-hurting-how-church-foreign-aid-programs-make-things-worse/ | Your Help Is Hurting: How Church Foreign Aid Programs Make Things Worse | Your Help Is Hurting: How Church Foreign Aid Programs Make Things Worse
Peter Greer, President and CEO of Hope International
Recently I interviewed Peter Greer via skype to talk about philanthropy, and why it often makes things worse. Peter is the President and CEO of Hope International, which is a microfinance organization. If you don’t know what microfinance is, then this is your opportunity to learn about it. I think it is probably the most important phenomenon in international philanthropy right now, and in economic development. Peter Greer and the work that he’s doing with Hope International is I think taking this idea of microfinance to a new level, so it was an honor to spend time with him. You can listen to the entire interview by clicking here.
Transcript:
Jerry: “Peter, thanks so much for joining us.”
Peter: “It’s a privilege. Thanks, Jerry.”
Jerry: “Peter, this area, microfinance, is probably the area of philanthropy and alms-giving that gets entrepreneurs more excited than any other area. When an entrepreneur writes to ask me a question about philanthropic matters, they are almost always more intrigued by microfinance then they are by any of the more traditional approaches to philanthropy. This podcast is kind of aimed at that investor class and that entrepreneurial class, so I think that’s why we’re focusing on this and bringing this to them today. But just in case somebody doesn’t know what that is, let’s just start from the basics: What is microfinance?”
Peter: “Sure. Well, really interesting that you say that because that actually is the history of Hope. There’s an entrepreneur named Jeff Rutt, and after the fall of the Soviet Union he had a desire to go over with his church and help. So, initially they did what people so often do, which is see that people don’t have food and then send over food, and see that people don’t have adequate clothes for the harsh Ukrainian winter and then go in their closets and send things over. And all of that is good, all of that is appropriate, all of that is needed in response to a crisis. But as Jeff did that, after a couple of years it was the team in Ukraine that eventually said—“
Jerry: “Your help is hurting.”
Peter: “Exactly, yeah. And anyone that’s been involved in philanthropy eventually comes to that point. When you try to help, you try to give things, you start to have the consequences. There’s an author Bob Lupton, who really nails it when he says that when he gave something the first time, there was gratitude; and when he gave something a second time to that same community, there was anticipation; the third time, there was expectation; the fourth time, there was entitlement; and the fifth time, there was dependency. That is what we’ve all experienced when we’ve wanted to do good. Something changes the more we just give hand-out after hand-out. Something that is designed to be a help actually causes harm. And so, microfinance turns that model on its head, and instead of going in and just saying, “We’ve got a lot of things you don’t, so we’re just going to give it to you,” it turns that model completely on its head and says, “Every single individual is created by a God who loves them, and that means there is worth and there is dignity and there is ability.” So we go in and say not, “What don’t you have,” but, “What do you have? What are you dreams for your kids? What are your aspirations? What are your hopes? What is it that is in your hand to do?” That changes everything. Microfinance then is the belief that everyone has ability, everyone has capacity, and it asks the question, “What is required to unlock that potential in that community to get them in productive employment?” And so, just real quick, just what that means is we do training, we do financial literacy, we do a place for people to save money, and then for people that are ready, we give them access to small loans so they can invest in their business ideas.”
Jerry: “’Your help is hurting’ is an incredibly powerful four-word sentence. And I’m just kind of wondering, why is it that the philanthropic world is so slow to see this, because I think—I don’t think Jeff Rutt’s philanthropic endeavors just in Ukraine were hurting, I think a lot of philanthropy is hurting. A whole lot of well-intentioned help is hurting, and yet global philanthropy is a huge, huge business. So why isn’t this whole industry of helping people picking up on the fact that in many cases, their help is hurting?”
Peter: “Yeah. I don’t want to be too cynical or negative. Maybe just a little bit.”
Jerry: “Just as much as truth requires.”
Peter: “Yeah. Right. So there’s a challenge here, right? Because there’s the wrong constituency oftentimes in how organizations are rewarded. So let me unpack that little more: So, in a business setting, you’ve got to provide value to your customers so that they pay for the goods and services that you’re providing. Philanthropy is unfortunate in that the people that your customer base is made of oftentimes are the people that are writing the checks to support you. The people that are writing the donation checks are what keep organizations in business oftentimes. The people that are receiving the services, then, are oftentimes not paying for the services, and therefore their voice is not heard. And so within the nonprofit space, we’ve created a system where he/she who tells the best story is the one that’s rewarded. There’s an incentive to push down the stories that are not of positive impact. There’s the incentive to pretend that there are no negative things that happen, there’s the incentive to make sure that our failures are never made public, and there’s the disconnected between who’s paying for the service and who’s receiving the services. When you disconnect those two aspects, you do not have accountability that acts in the best interest of the people who are receiving what we are all trying to do, which is just to help in places of great need.”
Jerry: “So, in some sense, the philanthropy, the global-development philanthropy industry, is an industry that trades stories for dollars. Now if it’s an honest operation, the stories it tells are true and the dollars it receives it uses as intended. I’m assuming that the vast majority of it is honest. But still, at basis, it’s the trading of a story for an amount of money, and the story that makes the giver feel best is the story that attracts the most money, even if it’s not the story that actually does the most good for the recipient.”
Peter: “That’s right. And think about someone that goes on a short-term trip. Them going over and being involved in building a house is a beautiful, beautiful thing, and that week probably changed their life. But there always is the challenge, then, of asking, “What happens when the house needs repairs? What happens when the other community members see that this one family got lucky, and they won the charity lottery? Does that incentivize them to build and actually do more?” We were doing a study in Haiti and actually found that in this one community, every year there would be one family that would be selected, and it would be the poorest family, to get a new home from this very generous group. But what that did is create a disincentive for people to make modest improvements, and it actually disincentivized people to say, “I’m going to do something to improve my house, my home.” Because one woman said, you know, “If I do that, then I won’t be seen as the neediest, and I’ll miss out on my chance to have the extreme home makeover.” So there is a problem, where what is good in short-term and what is good for the experience of the giver, might not be what is more difficult candidly and more long-term. It’s easier to give someone something and feel good about that in the short-term, than it is to do the much more difficult work of helping someone provide for their needs so that that person can be generous to others in their community.”
How Our Help Hurts Us, Too
Jerry: “Let’s invert this a little bit. Let’s swap out direct objects. The implied direct object of that sentence, “Your help is hurting,” is us. Poor people are saying, people in Ukraine are saying, “Your help is hurting us.” How about this: “Your help is hurting you.” Is there something about the way that ministry and philanthropy is often done that doesn’t just inadvertently hurt the recipient, but inadvertently hurts the provider?”
Peter: “Jerry, this is something that I’ve been thinking a lot about recently. And I do think that it is really important to have a look at, internally, what motivates us to do this good. I think there have been clearly times in my life where doing good, you kind of get a little bit confused and almost feel that you are the great hope.”
Jerry: “Yes. The great white hope, in many cases. The ‘I’m from America, and I’m here to save you.’
Peter: “Yeah. ‘I’ve got the education, I’ve got the knowledge, and if you would just do what I tell you to do, you’d be better off.’ And that breeds pride, and that breeds further problems – further definition of poverty in the community, and it idttaking this whole idea t phenems really bad for our heart and for our soul when we get mixed up about what our role is. You know, for me, there is a very different approach. Instead of going in and saying, “I’m going to do this because it makes me feel good about myself,” -- I like the line that Jesus said, that it’s more blessed to give than it is to receive. We’ve all received so much. And gratitude as being the motivator, as opposed to what it does for me or how it makes me feel. I think those things are dangerous compared to a different motive of saying, “Man, God is at work everywhere. We want to participate in that, and we’re not the only hope that the world has. Far from it.””
Jerry: “So, paternalism is damaging on both sides of the transaction.”
Peter: “Oh, absolutely.”
Jerry: “In different ways, but still damaging. I’m just thinking, sort of flashing back to many of the church stories over the years, and I remember one woman reaching out to another woman and said, “Well, I just want to minister to you,” and all of a sudden the dynamics were different. At one point it was friendship and at another point it’s a ministry. If it’s a ministry then I’m superior, you’re inferior, and now you have a choice: You can grow out of my ministry or you can play that part and get more ministry. I’m wondering…if this phenomenon that you’re talking about isn’t a good argument for your particular policy in microfinance of charging interest for loans rather than just making it a no-interest loan.”
Peter: “Man, that’s a great point. And you know, the thing about charity is it’s someone giving someone something. So it makes someone feel even more superior and it makes the other person, the recipient, feel even more inferior. Business is different. Business at its core is about exchange, that someone has something that someone is willing to pay for or trade for. And business is a great equalizer, whereas charity actually further pushes people apart. And interest—there are a lot of good reasons to have interest. Interest means that we’re able to cover the cost of providing this so we that can have sustainable entities around the world that don’t have this never-ending need for more charity dollars. It allows growth to happen on its own, but it also—there was one woman that, at the end of the day, when she repaid her loan, her final one, she had enough savings that she was going to continue to grow on her own. She said, “I’m not poor anymore,” and it was so clear that she knew that this was not charity. This was something that she had done and that she had paid for. She was not someone’s charity case. She was a hardworking, entrepreneurial woman who wanted to take care of her family, and who finally had an opportunity to do so and the pride and the dignity with which she said, “I’m not poor anymore.” She knew that her hard work had been so essential in this pathway out of poverty. It was really, really beautiful.”
Jerry: “If you pay back the loan with interest, then you can look the lender in the eye as an equal.”
Peter: “That’s exactly right.”
Jerry: “And if you don’t, then there’s still that stigma that this was, in fact, a transfer payment. This was, in fact, alms-giving. Which reflects a certain amount of dependency and therefore inferiority.”
Peter: “That’s right, yeah.”
Jerry: “People in the third world aren’t inferior, are they?”
Peter: “Oh, man, Jerry. In my job I lived in Rwanda, lived in Cambodia, and Zimbabwe, and travel around to the sixteen countries where Hope operates, and any notion that there is this superiority complex is not only wildly offensive but completely untrue. You look at what people have done to survive in these places, you look at how hard people work in these places where we serve, and they have my utmost respect and my admiration. I could not do what they do, and that’s not just some platitude. I believe that at the very core of who I am. I could not do what they do. So absolutely, the people that we serve: hardworking, faithful, competent. It’s just that they were born into a very different circumstance than you or I were born into.”
Jerry: “Right. The institutions under which they’re forced to operate might be inferior institutions. You know, lack of rule of law, military dictatorships, situations of chronic unrest or civil war. That’s an inferior way to run a country, to not respect peoples’ property rights, but that doesn’t mean the people there are inferior. They’ve got a system foisted upon them. It has to do with history and has to do with all sorts of factors, right? There’s spiritual factors, geographic factors; they’re in a lousy situation. But they’re resourceful, intelligent, ambitious people in a lousy situation. They don’t deserve to be hungry. They’re not hungry because they deserve to be hungry. They’re hungry because the incentives that they’ve been handed create poverty.”
Peter: “That’s right, yeah. That’s exactly right.”
Jerry: “Alright, so, let’s kind of get a sense of—I don’t know whether to move on from this, “Your help is hurting,” thing or not because it’s such a powerful theme. Let’s just do one more on that, and then sort of transition over. “Your help is hurting,” and eggs. You’ve got a story about eggs that I think really communicates how our help hurts. Can you tell that, please? That’s Rwanda, isn’t it?”
Peter: “That’s right. So, you know, you look at the world differently when you have a chance to get out of America and my view on charity and philanthropy has been radically shaped by my time overseas. But, yeah, there was one story where an individual after the genocide was starting to rebuild his community, and so he got some hens and started having an egg business, and he was growing that, rapidly expanding it. Then there was a church that decided to target his community as their area of philanthropy, and so as part of their charity they provided eggs for everyone as a source of protein. You don’t criticize that, right? That’s great that someone, a church, wanted to help. But what did that do to my friend and his business? Anyone who understands business knows that there’s no business model where you can compete with completely free or significantly subsidized goods, so, in his case, recognizing there wasn’t a market, he ended up selling his hens and getting out of the egg business. All of that is fine, the community was still having eggs, but people engaged in philanthropy oftentimes have short-term time horizons. Not surprisingly, eventually that church decided to focus its energy on another part of the world, and ended up getting out of that business. So the community ended up without the local provider, and without the charity. You look at that situation and ask, “Was the community really better off? Is that really the most effective way to help?” And I guess, increasingly, I say no, that there’s got to be a better way of helping then putting out of business the local providers of the goods and services. Even though it feels good, it looks good, it’s great to take pictures of that, there’s got to be a better way of helping.”
To be continued. Next topic how government takes the mistakes of private philanthropy and makes them even worse…
Peter Greer is president and CEO of HOPE International, a global nonprofit focused on Christ-centered job creation, savings mobilization, and financial training. A graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School and the former Managing Director of Urwego in Rwanda.
The Poor Will Be Glad (2009), The Spiritual Danger of Doing Good (2013), and Mission Drift (2014). Peter blogs at www.peterkgreer.com. Twitter and Facebook: @peterkgreer, www.facebook.com/PeterKGreer.
|
275813f54ac6775107bea7b627f7efbc | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2013/10/23/my-friendly-debate-on-the-gold-standard-with-allan-meltzer-the-worlds-leading-monetarist/ | My Friendly Debate On The Gold Standard With Allan Meltzer, The World's Leading Monetarist | My Friendly Debate On The Gold Standard With Allan Meltzer, The World's Leading Monetarist
Alan Meltzer is probably the greatest living disciple of Milton Friedman in relation to Friedman’s views of monetary policy. Meltzer is the monetarist par excellence, author of the definitive series of volumes on the history of the Fed which probably makes him our greatest authority on Federal Reserve history, bar none, not just our greatest monetarist historian of Fed history. He has been a friend and mentor of mine since the mid-90s. His three volume A History of the Federal Reserve System is dense and magisterial, while the men about which he writes tend just towards being dense, though not generally very magisterial. His most recent book, Why Capitalism? is a short and easy ready. We had a wide-ranging discussion, which included a friendly debate about the gold standard. Audio of the complete interview is here, and you can read an excerpt from the discussion below:
Jerry: “I would say on balance Clinton was a spending cutter and a tax cutter and, let’s switch over to your main area of expertise, a functional monetarist in many ways. I mean, I know it’s not just the president, you had a Fed chair there—“
Allan: “And a Secretary of the Treasury.”
Jerry: “And the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, who also was a strong dollar advocate. So you didn’t have the traditional liberal devaluation philosophy, you actually had a president who was probably more committed to a strong dollar than the president who followed him, who was a Republican.”
Allan: “That’s right. He was in the camp of John F. Kennedy. John F. Kennedy wanted a strong dollar -- he worried a lot about the loss of gold, the possible weakness of the dollar. In fact, what is not well-known is that in 1962, just before the Cuban missile crisis when he was worrying about the dollar and the loss of gold, he threatened to take the troops out of Europe to prevent the French and Germans at that point from buying our gold.”
Jerry: “That’s interesting. Well, the French resented the strength of the dollar, didn’t they?”
Allan: “Yes. The Frenchmen didn’t like the dollar.”
Jerry: “Exorbitant privilege, right? Isn’t that what they called it?”
Allan: “Yes, and they were right about that. It did give us a privilege. It gives us a privilege now, but we’re losing it.”
Jerry: “Alright, you brought up gold. We might end up debating a little in this next section.”
Allan: “Probably.”
Jerry: “I’ve softened in my view towards the gold standard. It used to be that most of the writing that I did about the gold standard was negative. I’m beginning to wonder if one could ever really have the moral force in the political arena around an equation like the Taylor Rule, which is an admirable equation, that one could have over something that’s got basically over 4000 years of recorded history behind it, which is a reliance on gold. I’ve come to see the gold standard as maybe the only real hope we’d have of getting some kind of price stability, given the fact that it’s so easy to manipulate theories and to manipulate equations, but it’s not easy to manipulate the supply of gold. I know you don’t agree, or I don’t know, maybe you’ve softened too. We won’t find out until you answer, so tell me your response, please.”
Allan: “Well, all the way back to the 1970s I used to debate Ron Paul on radio about the gold standard. And of course, as you know, he’s an advocate of the gold standard – was then and is now. My final remark to him on almost every occasion was, “Look, we don’t have the gold standard. It’s not because we don’t know about the gold standard, it’s because we do.” The gold standard says we’re going to commit ourselves to maintain the exchange rate for gold. That’s not what people in democratically-elected governments want; they want something done about employment and inflation. Now, you can tell them, of course, that the gold standard would be a way of maintaining and controlling inflation, but they just don’t buy that argument. You’re never going to see the gold standard. The only way the gold standard would work would be as a multinational standard –“
Jerry: “Right, like Bretton Woods.”
Allan: “There isn’t the slightest chance in the world that you’ll get the Europeans, the Japanese, and the Chinese to agree to a gold standard.”
Jerry: “Well, it depends on what their paper currencies do and how sick their own populations eventually get of the decline of paper currencies. But I’ve heard you make this argument before, and it seems to me that there’s something different about the notion that you’ll never get it and the notion that it’s wrong.”
Allan: “I don’t say it’s wrong. I say it’s possible. I mean, it’s a plausible system.”
Jerry: “Is it better than our current fiat system?”
Allan: “There are a lot of things that are better than our fiat system. I’m hardly the person to defend what we’re doing, certainly not what we’re doing at the present time.”
Jerry: “So it is better?”
Allan: “The fiat system worked very well from 1985 to 2003, because that’s the longest period in Federal Reserve history and it’s the only period of length like that in which we had steady growth, stable growth, low inflation, short and brief recessions. That was a very good policy arrangement. Unfortunately, we overthrew it, abandoned it. What we need to do is go back to something that follows that rule. I testified in Congress a couple of weeks ago and I had support from some Democrats on the Financial Services Committee, not all but some, for the idea that what happens to money -- Congress has the responsibility because Article One Section Eight of the Constitution gives it to them—“
Jerry: “The authority to coin money, which might imply a metallic standard. I mean, you read the minutes and the background discussion, I think the most reasonable interpretation of that clause is that it’s a metal standard—“
Allan: “Well, that’s because that’s all they knew at the time.”
Jerry: ‘Well, no, they knew about paper money. I mean, they had lengthy debates about paper money. Under the Articles of Confederation they had a paper money crisis –“
Allan: “But that was much later.”
Jerry: “The Articles of Confederation later than the Constitution?”
Allan: “Oh, no. That was before.”
Jerry: “Right. You can read, actually, Witherspoon – I just read a book of his, a series of speeches against paper money. So the founders had a debate about paper money and gold standard and they seem to come down to—“
Allan: “They knew paper money was inflationary. They surely knew that because they were living with it.”
Jerry: “Right. And they seem to have written a metallic standard into the text of the Constitution.”
Allan: “Well, we can debate that but let’s not.”…
My interview with Dr. Meltzer continues with a discussion about his book Why Capitalism?, and about North and South Korea, which you can read here next week.
|
abbec5799e12904544f7b2cfd804807e | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2013/11/06/why-capitalism-allan-meltzer-on-why-south-korea-thrives-while-north-korea-starves/ | Why Capitalism? Allan Meltzer On Why South Korea Thrives While North Korea Starves | Why Capitalism? Allan Meltzer On Why South Korea Thrives While North Korea Starves
Park Geun Hye, Member of the GNP and Member of the National Assembly of Korea (Photo credit:... [+] Wikipedia)
A continuation of my interview with Carnegie Mellon Professor, Allan Meltzer about his book Why Capitalism? which is based on his very popular MBA course, Capitalism. He reflects on why students from South Korea are so much more able to understand the benefits of the free-market system. (Audio of the complete interview is here.
Jerry: “Now this book is, as you said, partly based on a course in which you teach MBA students.”
Allan: “Right, I’m teaching it currently.”
Jerry: “I see. At Carnegie Mellon University, not far from where I am right now. We live in the same town, in the Pittsburgh area, although this will be listened to by people around the world. But I’m kind of curious about what you’ve learned from them. Do MBA students need a course on capitalism? Do they have doubts about the moral superiority of the capitalist system? Have they been bombarded with propaganda before they get to the class? How do MBA students think about capitalism, at least before they get to you?”
Allan: “Let me say first that a modern university of the kind I’m in, that is, a world-class university, has students from all over the world. So I have Russian, Chinese, Korean… from many, many countries. Their experience is very different, so the answer is: Some come in with a predisposition toward capitalism, some come in with a predisposition against it.”
Jerry: “How long have you been teaching the course?”
Allan: “25 years.”
Jerry: “Has there been a change in the trend of the ratio of those students who come in with an attitude predisposed towards or away from capitalism over that 25 years?”
Allan: “Well, it’s hard to answer that directly because the composition of the class has changed enormously. 25 years ago there were probably many fewer women, and many, many fewer foreigners. So, that’s a big change in modern American universities, like Carnegie Mellon or MIT or Stanford.”
Jerry: “Okay, let’s subdivide. White male Americans: Have they changed over the 25 years that you’ve changed this course? Have they changed towards capitalism?”
Allan: “The simple answer is ‘I don’t know’.”
Jerry: “Got it. Do you notice differentiation in terms of country of origin? Are the Koreans more or less friendly towards capitalism than, say, the American students?”
Allan: “Koreans are very market capitalist oriented. That’s one of the reasons why their country, which is strongly capitalistic, has done so well. I mean, they’ve come from being a poor nation to one of the wealthy nations of the world.”
Jerry: “Yes, and with the recent election of Park Geun-Hye, almost a kind of Korean Thatcher-type figure, I think they may do even better in that regard in the future than they’ve done in the past.”
Allan: “And all Koreans have the advantage that they can see how well they have done compared to how well their brothers and sisters in North Korea have done, or really, how poorly they have done. Whereas the people in North Korea are eating tree bark and grass because they don’t have enough food, the people in South Korea are developing, expanding, improving, and raising their living standards. You know, it’s got to be important to you in your thinking if you go to work at something like five times the income that your father went to work at. That’s what happens with the high growth rates that they’ve experienced in countries like Japan and Korea – China, now.”
Jerry: “I see. So, they live in an object lesson and adjacent to the opposite object lesson, so they can see it more clearly maybe than a continental nation like the United States – more clearly than people who dwell in the United States can see it.”
Allan: “Yes. You know, it seems to me rather obvious that when Deng Xiaoping became the Prime Minister of China, he looked around -- perhaps he had looked around before -- and he saw that the Chinese diaspora all over Southeast Asia was getting rich, while they were still living in poverty and their system had failed.”
Jerry: “That’s a good point, because that Chinese diaspora killed any notion that the Chinese are genetically incapable of being wealth-creators or that their cultural background of Confucianism made them unconducive to wealth-creation. Chinese people were getting rich every place but in China.”
Allan: “Right! In fact, you know, we have the wonderful examples of Singapore, which is heavily Chinese, but also of Korea, of Japan, of Taiwan—“
Jerry: “Which is basically China. The Republic of China.”
Allan: “It’s basically a part of China. And all these people are getting wealthy, and they’re living in poverty. Let that be an object lesson. You don’t need a book to figure that out, you just need a pair of eyes.”
Jerry: “I know we’re talking about your book Why Capitalism? rather than the course on which it’s based, but I’m curious: Other than Koreans, which other national origin category of students seem to be most friendly to a market economy?”
Allan: “Well, the Indonesians are pretty good that way, at least the ones that come. In the Muslim countries the tradition is not capitalist, so for them, that’s a stretch.”
Jerry: “I see. There’s an interesting point made by Robert Kaplan in his book Monsoon, where he says that you really need to talk about two different forms of Islam -- that the Islam of North Africa, where basically you have land-based conquest, is not market-friendly; but the Muslims who got on ships and went across the Indian Ocean, the trading Muslims, which is basically where the Indonesians came from and the Malaysians came from, that that’s a much more market-friendly strain of Islam. Any thoughts on that?”
Allan: “I had not heard that. I think that’s an interesting conjecture.”
Jerry: “Yeah, I find it interesting, too—“
Allan: “Because there certainly is a difference between, say, the Middle Eastern attitudes and the attitudes of countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. I think you do see among the young in places like Egypt and Tunisia… I mean, the young man that burned himself and caused, or at least started, the change in Tunisia was trying to make a living and he realized that the rules that they were imposing on him were preventing that. So he saw the advantages of a freer market system.”
Jerry: “That’s interesting. I wasn’t aware of that. That’s fascinating. Now, of course, the people who started these revolutions in the Arab world are not necessarily the people who are finishing them.”
Allan: “That’s true. But Egypt, which is much the key of what we hope to have happen there… Egypt is the sorry mess that it is economically because Mubarak gave control of the economy to the military and they control everything. Although, many of the protestors wanted to break that up, the fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood has continued it and that’s why it’s in trouble.”
Jerry: “It’s such a tragedy. I mean, what you saw with Nasser and Mubarak, and what you saw before that with Saddam and in Syria, the Ba’ath party, you saw what they themselves call Arab Socialism rise and fall. I would hate to see it replaced by Sharia Socialism, which doesn’t give any more economic freedom and takes away even more personal freedom.”
Allan: “Yes. When I look at North Korea, I say, “They call it a communist country but how would you distinguish it from the worst kind of medieval oligarchy with hereditary passage of power from a grandfather to a father to a grandson?” It looks to me like feudalism, the worst kind. That is the most oppressive kind of feudalism. At least in the feudal system, you were a serf but you were able to perhaps survive as a serf. You could be a journeyman. It wasn’t completely rigid and authoritarian, but this is completely rigid and authoritarian and they call it communism.”
Jerry: “I think I read somewhere that serfs on average paid thirty percent of their income to the lord, to the lord of the manor. The road to serfdom, literal serfdom might be better than some of these communist countries.”
Allan: “You at least get to keep seventy percent.”
Jerry: “Yeah, precisely. Instead of giving seventy percent and keeping thirty percent.”
|
8da78127df215ae021ec985c99f7f667 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2014/04/18/jesus-of-nazareth-enemy-of-the-state-executed-for-treason/ | Jesus Of Nazareth, Enemy Of The State, Executed For Treason | Jesus Of Nazareth, Enemy Of The State, Executed For Treason
Jesus of Nazareth was executed today on the orders of the Roman State. Method of execution: Crucifixion. The charge under Roman law was treason, and under Herodian law blasphemy against the Temple. The evidence against this anarchist was so strong that authorities of both the Roman State and the Kingdom of Herod concurred with the arrest and execution, and he was subjected to trial by both governments. And in a rare uprising of spontaneous collective justice, the mass of people who were gathered for Passover called for his execution as well. The mob affirmed their loyalty to the state, chanting, "We have no king but Caesar."
Friday's execution ended a career as an anti-government agitator with a long history of lawlessness. The family was in possession of falsified, illegal, and unsanctioned genealogical records which claim to indicate that Jesus was of royal lineage, and undermined the legitimate claim of Herod to the throne. The malicious claim, which has been spread widely among the people, is that the King is an Idumean and not a Jew. The king is tormented by this claim, and laments that shortly after his father's rise to power the genealogical records (which would certainly have proven his legitimate right to reign) perished in a mysterious fire, likely set by anti-government agitators.
Even as a young child, Jesus was recognized as an enemy of the state and was sentenced to death by the current King's predecessor, Herod the Great. Subversive foreign agents lied to the king, and with their help Jesus and his family escaped the lawful orders of the government authority by illegally emigrating to Egypt, where they remained in hiding until the death of the king. Afterwards they are known to have illegally immigrated back into greater Israel, where they settled in Galilee, toward the edge of the kingdom, and far from the swift justice of the capital region.
Jesus, who is also treasonously called The Christ by his followers, embarked on a public career roughly three years ago, with the assistance of his cousin, John, who himself was executed by the state for lack of respect for the office of the king.
Jesus' criminal career included public insults of the king (calling Herod a 'fox' and 'a reed blowing in the wind'), implying that the Roman state was under God and not properly the other way around, harassment of government officials including at least one tax collector and one Sanhedrin member, as well as ordering and/or encouraging them to remit wealth back to the people from whom it was lawfully taxed. He was also guilty of a series of actions which treasonously called into legitimacy organs of the state such as Herod's Temple. For example, he offered forgiveness and fellowship with God to sinners, violating the temple monopoly of public expiation and forgiveness. Furthermore, he illegally trespassed on government property and interfered with state-sanctioned money-changing operations which were properly operating with the permission of the appointees of the king at state-approved exchange rates.
He was able for a time to avoid arrest through a tactic of cleverly disguising his anti-government propaganda in the form of coded answers, suggestive but ambiguous analogies, and confusing aphorisms, by which he managed to gather a following without giving clear evidence of his treasonous views. However, his anti-government propaganda eventually became undeniable: Predicting the destruction of Herod's temple, and even denying its legitimacy, declaring it to be "desolate."
His execution was swift and merciless, and his disciples have been scattered. Authorities are confident that his name will quickly be forgotten, while Rome, the eternal city, will last forever. The temple built on the power of the Roman state and Herodian kingship will stand forever. Authorities assure the people that the ultimate punishment on which all state power rests, death by execution, is the final word on this short episode in Roman history.
|
f10df404b3eae3d1a22e4d5cfcabfc0b | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2015/11/30/rene-girard-the-einstein-of-the-social-sciences-rip/ | René Girard, 'The Einstein Of The Social Sciences' | René Girard, 'The Einstein Of The Social Sciences'
René Girard (December 25, 1923 - November 4, 2015), despite being a member of the French "Immortels" has passed away. But I think his influence is only still in its infancy. Girard has been called the “Einstein of the social sciences,” but I don't really know what that means. It seems to be intended to imply that Girard, like Einstein, created a framework into which the various subdisciplines could be integrated. However, Einstein never really did reach his life goal, the unified field theory. Girard, on the other hand, did. He created a framework which has been used to integrate anthropology, sociology, economics, religious studies, and to some degree economics, into one set of basic ideas - into one story.
What is that story?
Girard saw it first in literary studies. While engaging in a close examination of several great novelists, (Proust, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, even Cervantes) Girard noticed that despite the consensus that the great novelists were 'singular', i.e. one of a kind, they actually had several powerfully unifying themes. Those themes were that human desire does not generally emerge from within us, but rather comes from some ‘other’. We naively imagine that we simply are who we are, and that we want what we want because we are who we are. However, the great novelists present us with an inconvenient truth - that we import our most powerful desires from imitating other people.
Girard gives the example of a young man who admires the world's greatest pianist. He is drawn to the pianist, and therefore he is drawn to what the pianist is drawn to - great achievement in piano performance. The great man wanted to be the best piano player in the world, and he got what he wanted. The younger man wants to be like his hero. But at precisely that point, when the younger man most idolizes his hero, they also become rivals. To truly imitate the master, the student must become the greatest piano player in the world. The two want the same thing, a thing which there cannot be two of - the title “greatest.”
The first stage Girard calls 'mimesis' – imitation. Young man wants to be like great man. The second stage is 'mimetic desire' -- young man wants what his master wants (to be the greatest). The third stage is called 'mimetic rivalry' -- young man and master want the same unique object of desire, so they become enemies.
Once you become aware of this process, you see it everywhere: celebrity feuds, geopolitical rivalries, financial asset valuation bubbles, everywhere that people interact. It's even there among the animals, especially in the form of sexual rivalry, or rivalry over food. The Bowyer dogs desire a chew toy more when it is desired by another dog.
The idea is revolutionary because it overturns what Girard calls 'the romantic illusion', the illusion which goes back at least as far as Rousseau, that humans can be authentic. The romantic illusion proclaims that we can throw aside cultural and societal norms to follow our inner desires, that we can and must (as a thousand schlocky movie characters tell us to do) follow our hearts. Girard says we can't follow our hearts instead of the group, because without the imitated other we don't have desires in our hearts. Certainly we have instinctual urges, but not the higher purposes which we describe as desires. We get those from others.
But there is a problem larger than the disappointment in realizing that the romantic illusion is false and that genuine 'authentic' autonomous desire is an illusion. The larger problem is that the rivalries of mimetic desire tend to spin out of control. Switching to another of Girard's metaphors: if I love a woman and you admire me and I praise that woman to you, you will tend to be drawn to her as well. Shakespeare does this a lot -- it is the basis of the Rape of Lucretia and of Midsummer Night’s Dream, for instance. So I love her and you imitate me and come to love her too. But the fact that you desire her makes me even more confident in my initial desire for her. I am confirmed. I was right to desire her: the proof is the desire which you have for her. This can stay contained in a little love triangle or it can expand into a square, or even a pentagon… which reminds me that all of this can take on a military significance: the object of desire can become a casus belli. As Peter Robinson said in Girard's last public interview, "There is only one Helen of Troy." Not that the object of desire in war is typically sexual, but there is not just only one Helen -- there is also only one Hellespont, and as Russia and Turkey are all too aware, only one Black Sea.
This is a self-reinforcing mechanism. Mimetic desire increases the intensity of desire, and the intensity is also then imitated, and the imitation then sets off another round of desire. This often leads to physical clashes. Girard calls this stage ‘mimetic violence’.
When the process enters the violent phase, there is a subtle shift in the system. The original object of desire is no longer the point. No one cares that much about Helen anymore. Now it's about fallen comrades: Hector must be avenged. Achilles' cousin cannot be allowed to have died in vain. Agamemnon cannot go home empty-handed after so much shedding of Greek blood. The conflict itself takes on a life of its own. Menelaus cannot just go home and wed the second most beautiful girl in Greece after all those years of fighting. Ever have an argument with someone which quickly becomes an argument over the argument itself? Someone can appear from another room and settle the original point of dispute with a, “Hey guys, I googled it, and it turns out that what really happened was X,” but the argument keeps on going, the conflict generates new injuries, new injustices, new grudges. This can become a war of all against all, described in thousands of papers by anthropologists documenting thousands of 'primal chaos' rituals. The rituals re-enact the primal violence which preceded the establishment of our clan, village, city, empire -- out of which order came. The rituals remind us how bad things can get.
So then why aren’t societies in a perpetual state of war? How did order come? How did mankind survive this long? This is where Girard gets really interesting. Order comes from a scapegoat, someone on whom the hatred and guilt of the community can be affixed, someone who can then be sacrificed to purge the hatreds of the community. The scapegoat is not truly guilty. He couldn't possibly be. He probably wasn't even there when the mimesis started, scapegoats are frequently foreign visitors. He doesn't have the power to send a whole community into chaos. This blind man who wandered into the village couldn't have stolen all those sacred artifacts. That strange babbling woman couldn't have ruined the crop. Those Jews and/or Gypsies would have absolutely no reason to poison the village well. But the community needs them to be guilty, so it often invents supernatural powers (witchcraft) or supernaturally wicked motivations (devil worship), and the community has now found its point of unity – the strangers must be killed. Oedipus must have been a moral monster, a mother-raper and a patricide. He has brought the wrath of the gods down upon us and he must die, at his own hand or ours. Usually it's the latter -- the hands of others, lots of hands, either casting stones or casting ballots.
The victim dies, and by dying, reunites the community. Now that they have died and are no longer a threat and have performed the sacred function of re-founding the city, they are to be honored. When a champion dies in the Hunger Games, the majestic music plays -- they are now 'the fallen'. They are heroes – the social order depends on them. They have restored order by their death. They save many lives by dying. Girard suggests that the rehabilitation of the victim is perhaps an unconscious admission that the victim was, in fact, innocent. The innocence of the victim is a useful lie which cannot be acknowledged; otherwise, it is no longer useful and the violence must begin again. Girard calls this final phase 'the scapegoat mechanism'.
The discovery of this pattern is what Girard called his 'first conversion'. This is the conversion away from the romantic illusion that autonomous authentic man was an achievable idea, from the modern idea that religion was optional for mankind and that violence was an interruption of, and imposition upon, the default equilibrium of peace. For Girard, violence is the origin of archaic religion and archaic religion is the foundation of human culture itself. These are the 'things hidden from the foundation of the world', mankind's need to reenact the cycle of violence no matter what his intentions or aims. Modern man pretends that we're past all that, but that is another useful life - another romantic illusion.
Girard's 'second conversion' came from reading the Gospels in the light of mimetic theory. The standard anthropological reading had come from Frazer's The Golden Bough, which showed the recurrence of the myth and the ritual reenactment throughout the 'primitive' world of a god/king dying for his people and then being resurrected. Christianity was just another iteration of this nearly universal theme. C.S. Lewis' intellectual conversion began when he overheard a hardcore atheist in the faculty rooms talking about the historical evidence for the Gospels and remarking that it looks like this time the 'corn god' actually did rise from the dead. Lewis' conversion of the imagination and of the heart came in a late-night discussion with J.R.R. Tolkien (and Hugo Dyson) who helped him to see that the universality of the 'myth' of the dying and rising god could be as much a case for its truth as it is against its truth. Tolkien suggested that if the Gospel story were the true story of humanity, of its universal need, then the universality of it could be a confirmation of the theory. In other words, if Christianity were true, then there probably would have been something about the human psyche which would have told stories very much like that story in anticipation of it.
But Girard approached the question of similarities of Christianity and myth differently than both Lewis and Frazer (which sounds a lot like a boxing match). Girard saw that the most significant thing about the Gospels is their difference from every other scapegoat story of the ancient world. What difference? The difference was that Jesus, the victim, was innocent and that his innocence was acknowledged by the text. The Gospels are clear about this. Jesus was not guilty. He didn't blaspheme against the Temple, He didn't try to stage a revolution against Rome (at least not a military one). He was unjustly executed. For Girard, this was revolutionary -- in the sense that it overturned the scapegoat mechanism definitively.
Scapegoating depended on the lie, that the victim really was a monster. Take away that lie and you take away the power of scapegoating. In fact, you reverse that power. Girard says that wherever the story of Jesus of Nazareth is told, scapegoating itself begins to decay in potency. We see this in the modern western world, in which the title of 'scapegoat' has now become a coveted one. If I say you are scapegoating me, I'm not saying that I'm guilty and must be punished. Quite the opposite: I'm saying that I am innocent and that you are guilty of making a false accusation.
The story of the Gospels has shaped us to such a large extent that now victimhood becomes a new form of power. To name oneself the victim is not to confess to guilt, but to claim the moral high ground. The unmaking of the scapegoat mechanism has worked so well, that now we compete with one another for the title of scapegoat.
Girard's influence has been quite wide in academic circles. But his best known student is probably the philosopher capitalist Peter Thiel. Thiel is in some sense an applied, rather than a theoretical, Girardian, using those insights in investment decisions. Mimetic theory has tremendous implications for understanding business cycles and bubble pricing, mimesis leads to desire, desire to more mimesis, mimesis to more desire… until valuation levels become unsustainable. The academic Girardian world (which tilts to the left) doesn't quite know how to think about Thiel who is in the suspect place of being a libertarian-leaning billionaire. Some wonder how to reconcile mimetic theory with libertarianism. I wonder how to reconcile mimetic theory with anything other than libertarianism. Once it is revealed that the political order depends on sacred violence and the scapegoat mechanism, it's hard to have benign thoughts even about my local school board, let alone our gargantuan, nuclearized federal government. Perhaps Girard leans more towards what Thiel calls 'political atheism', the refusal to believe in any political or ideological program.
Left-Girardism shows just how insidious mimesis and scapegoat mechanisms are - even Girardians fall into them. The 'top 1%' is a particularly tempting target of the scapegoat mechanism. Thiel's latest book Zero to One is drenched in Girardian insights. We talk about that a bit in my interview with Peter.
My friend, Reverend Richard Bledsoe is a different kind of applied Girardian. He uses mimetic theory as a practicing pastor in Boulder, Colorado, and finds that the theory is remarkably practical. His manual on the spiritual and pastoral uses of Girard can be found here. I plan to interview Bledsoe in a future column.
Girard's final interview was with Peter Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge (which I consider to be the true successor to Buckley's Firing Line). Robinson interviewed Girard sometime around Christmas 2009. That half hour interview is probably the best short introduction to Girard the man, and the mind. His brilliance and geniality both show through.
Girard ends the interview with the profound observation that in order to avoid the global violent destruction which world-wide mimetic violence and modern military power threaten is simply for people to “act like Christians.” Girard was born on Christmas day (his middle name is Noel) and died the day after All Saints Day. That all seems appropriate. He, like many French intellectuals, spent his time in atheism but went on to take the Christmas story, and the Easter story, and use it to re-found social sciences. The man who helped us perhaps more than any other social thinker of our time to understand violence, death and martyrdom and put modern man back in continuity with ancient man left us on All Saints Day, the time when the curtain between the living and the dead is alleged to be at its most 'thin'. That too is apropos.
Resciequat in Pace, René Noël Théophile Girard.
|
ccaa5ae277d1032f5f6c9732dcab19e9 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2016/07/26/the-inklings-at-war-c-s-lewis-j-r-r-tolkien-and-wwi/ | The Inklings At War: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, And WWI | The Inklings At War: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, And WWI
Joseph Loconte is a professor of history at The King's College in Manhattan whose recent book A Hobbit, a Wardrobe, and a Great War has been good food for my soul. It is also a biography of three historical agents of change: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and WWI. He decided to write the book when he learned that not just Lewis, but Tolkien had served in that devastating conflict. As I surveyed the landscape of our leadership class here in America, I found myself tempted to despair. And then I spent several hours in the company of two World War I officers: C. S. Lewis and his future friend J.R.R. Tolkien, and I actually found myself refreshed. They were part of a generation which endured far worse than we have, and yet Lewis and Tolkien came out... I won't say 'unscathed', but I will say scathed in a way which left them with empathy and wisdom along with their permanent scars. No, they never fully healed. Like Frodo, and Percival, The Fisher King, and like the Patriarch Jacob they carried their wounds for the rest of their lives. But they bought something with their wounds. Wisdom came from suffering.
Lots of people have written about the 'Lost Generation', that is the generation which came out of The Great War. That generation was lost by the Church, lost by most British institutions, lost by patriotism, lost by their parents. But few have written about the 'Found' Generation. People who gained moral clarity partly through this conflict.
Someone once said that WWI was Christendom's suicide attempt. There's a lot of truth to that. But in many ways it was as great a repudiation of scientism, the modern religion which had already supplanted Christianity in high places. Scientism as a religion even had its own school of eschatology, Progress with a capital P. But when clergymen whip young men into war fervor and scientists invent fiendish new devices to poison and shatter them, the idea of progress, moral and scientific, rings hollow. And so after WWI neither God, nor any of His purported replacements seemed like viable options to the young men who lived through the slaughterhouse. The lesson they learned was to believe in nothing. But believing in nothing is believing in something too. Nihilism is not the lack of a philosophy, it's just an empty philosophy.
The U.S. had a similar trauma but for us it was our Civil War. As Louis Menand’s 2001 book, The Metaphysical Club, documents, the specifically American brand of relativism known as Pragmatism, was spearheaded by Civil War veterans who fought for the North and came out of the experience convinced that no more absolute, not even abolition of slavery, was worth all that pain. My friend, David Goldman has also written eloquently about this. The people who told us that the constitution can be whatever we want it to be and that law is just the current consensus of the country which can lick all the others, did not come from a place of disinterested contemplation. They came from a place of trauma. Modern legal theory is an emanation of a penumbra of their PTSD.
And so it was with much of the intelligentsia of post-WWI Britain. Most, but not all. The lost generation dragged high culture down into nihilism and low culture into decadence, but the Found Generation founded a counter-counter-culture. The novels of Tolkien, and not those of Gertrude Stein, or T.S. Eliot, or even Ernest Hemingway are read widely by the general public (and not under compulsion of class syllabus). The Lord of the Rings was voted most beloved novel of the century by the British public. Lewis has a wide subculture to his name, and there's serious talk about a C.S. Lewis College at Oxford. That's because the middle and working classes cannot live on a diet of nothingness, they need meat, and in Lewis and Tolkien, they have been served red beef and strong beer. Loconte has given us a glimpse into the Hell's Kitchen from which that meal came.
I interviewed Loconte about his book, and you can listen to that interview here.
|
58a6384e281419ff1d779eb542d231d2 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryjao/2013/12/04/optimism-vs-realism-which-breeds-more-entrepreneurial-success/ | Optimism vs. Realism: Which Breeds More Entrepreneurial Success? | Optimism vs. Realism: Which Breeds More Entrepreneurial Success?
Optimism Breeds More Success?
Entrepreneurs usually lean toward one of two business mindsets – they’re either optimists who remain exceedingly positive about outcomes or they’re realists who downplay the good and see the bad as inevitable. When starting and running a business, does one inherently serve you better?
While studies show a strong link between successful entrepreneurs and optimism, having too sunny of a disposition can lead to delusions of success. It can spur people to overestimate the market and their abilities to execute, while being unaware of crucial facts or possible setbacks.
Entrepreneurs must learn to balance their inner cheerleader and realist, and it isn’t always a clear-cut line down the middle. Some business situations require more optimism than realism, while others call for a different ratio.
Here are some instances that outline when it’s best to have a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty mindset:
Leading a company – While realism should dominate a leader’s business viewpoint, a dash of optimism is required to move forward and stay upbeat about the future.
As a startup founder and CEO, my leadership philosophy is to be 60% realistic and 40% optimistic. My dominant realism allows me to stay humble and make decisions based on facts, rather than on gut feelings or aspirations. However, I also recognize that entrepreneurs don’t achieve success without taking risks, and my optimism enables me to take those risks and move forward despite uncertainties. It’s important to trust that all of your blood, sweat and tears will pay off, and what’s where optimism best serves weary startup entrepreneurs.
Allotting company resources – This requires equal parts optimism and realism. On one hand, you must be practical when setting a budget so you can allocate your resources effectively, negotiate better agreements with vendors and partners, and only shell out money when needed.
That said, you have to spend money to make money, and being too practical can hinder your growth. I’m still learning to take this advice myself, as I tend to be a little too economical with company resources. My investors regularly remind me that I need to spend more when building a business. I have to invest first before seeing a return and have faith those investments will deliver a return.
Correctly deciding where and how to spend your money calls for both rationality and optimism. You have to be generous but not reckless, practical but not stingy, and level-headed while also open-minded. It’s a tricky balance that can be achieved through market research, consulting with advisors and self trust.
Market testing your product – Entrepreneurs should be extremely realistic—even critical—when testing their product in the market. You may think that you’re solving a problem and convinced others will love your business, but don’t let your biases and wide-eyed optimism get in the way of evaluating your “baby.” In every instance, product development and design calls for critical thinking. Listen to feedback. Ask yourself if your product truly is making an impact. Actively look for flaws and holes, then iterate accordingly. Leave optimism out of this process.
Selling and marketing the business – Conversely, entrepreneurs can benefit from optimism when selling and marketing their products or services. Getting others to care or buy into what you’re doing is tough, and it’ll be downright impossible if you don’t have a positive, can-do attitude. I had zero sales experience before becoming an entrepreneur, and dealt with constant rejection as the first salesperson in my company. That’s why my approach to selling today is 90% optimist and 10% realist (for actually figuring out the logistics of closing a business deal).
Even the biggest businesses have built a case for prioritizing optimism. In the 1980s, life insurance company MetLife spent millions training salespeople, only to see a significant number quit after a few years. The company brought psychologist Dr. Martin Seligman on board to improve its hiring process, and Seligman suggested that MetLife hire people based on their optimism.
MetLife then hired 15,000 consultants in two categories: one group was hired using the company’s standard screening tests, while the other group was comprised of those who failed the screening process but had high levels of optimism. The result? The optimists outsold the regular group by 21% in the first year, and by 57% by year two.
Managing your employees – Instead of managing people with an iron fist, I contend that keeping the team enthused unlocks their potential and helps them become the best versions of themselves. I try to remain optimistic, even when my team falls short of expectations. I always want to give them the chance to improve first.
This isn’t to imply that I overlook their mistakes. I expect that my employees will not make the same ones twice and, when I see them underperforming, I invite them to meet so I can learn more about their personal situations before taking a more drastic corrective action. So, when comes to managing employee performance, I’m 80% realistic about what they’ve demonstrated and 20% optimistic about the potential they can further achieve.
Dealing with failure – About half of all small businesses fail in the first year. If and when your endeavor gets derailed, take an extra high dose of optimism to move forward. As cliché as it sounds, treat those failures as learning experiences and don’t allow your positivity to get bogged down by too much realism or even pessimism.
Prior to Retention Science, my co-founder and I started two companies that were not huge successes. If it hadn’t been for our ridiculous optimism (often questioned by friends and family), we wouldn’t have tried again, we wouldn’t have built our third company, and we would have never gotten the opportunity to work with some of the most amazing people that we have the privilege of sitting next to now.
Or take a look at the story of Ole Kirk Christiansen, founder of the LEGO group. Christiansen had to deal with a lot of major setbacks, from losing his job during the depression to losing his wife and being left to raise four sons. When he started his own toy company, a fire broke out at the workshop, destroying all their drawings and models. In spite of that, he still found the strength to rebuild, and his company bought its way back to the market. If Christiansen had given up hope, the world would’ve missed out on one of the greatest toys of all time.
Handling success – It may seem counter-intuitive, but when dealing with success, a reality check never hurts. I’m not telling you to rain on your company’s parade. If you deserve it, go ahead and rejoice. Just don’t rest on your laurels for too long and always evaluate how you can do better next time.
As Psychology Today put it, “When we've been successful before and have a realistic expectation of being successful again, we may be lulled into laziness and overconfidence.”
At Retention Science, my current company, we’ve had our share of wins and we make a point to celebrate them. But we go back to work the next day, and it’s business as usual in our office. By doing so, we prevent complacency and we continue to challenge ourselves to do better.
Every entrepreneur is different, and my personal style might not match your personal preferences, but it is important to remember that the right entrepreneurial mindset is a moving target, so you must carefully assess your business, yourself, and your environment to determine the right outlook – whether it’s looking at it with an optimistic or realistic point of view.
What do you think – is it inherently better to be more optimistic or realistic when running a business?
|
e139984b3ea034112b48ee6fd92158a1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrymichalski/2012/11/14/hack-one-launch-a-network/ | Hack One: Launch a Network | Hack One: Launch a Network
This post (and several that will follow) is co-authored with Rachel Hatch, Research Director at the Institute for the Future. Her info is at the end of each post.
Our first post described the incipient rise of hacker culture inside large corporations, outlining four tactics for hacking. This post elaborates on the first tactic, Launch a Network (please download its PDF here; we’ll be talking around it).
This tactic is about jump-starting a conversation with a curated crowd. Recruit them to get the word out and to improve the initiative you want to seed. This could be as simple as creating a new circle via Google+ or a discussion on Facebook or LinkedIn. Share the nugget of your idea with the crowd. It’s more compelling to hear your voice and see your face, so create a short video to invite them to engage.
Shoot a video?
Don’t be daunted: It’s crazy easy to craft a short video. The aim isn’t to go viral a la Kony 2012. Rather, it’s just to demonstrate that there are real live people awaiting responses from the network who care about what they’ll hear back. Here’s an example video, shot for the Rio+20 conference, which took an hour from idea to visibility on YouTube.
Here’s how. If you use a relatively modern smartphone, you’re already packing a high-definition video camera every day. Give it a whirl now, just to test it. Film the dog. If you don’t have a smartphone, most newish digital still cameras take surprisingly good video, or your laptop or tablet likely have webcams built in.
For very short videos, it’s easier to re-shoot several times until you have a take you like than to go learn video editing tools such as iMovie. Then you need to do the only technical step, which is to get the movie from your recording device up to YouTube (if you don’t already have a Google/YouTube account, you may need to open one – or use a different video host altogether).
Normally, the upload requires using a USB cable and moving the video file. Some cameras and apps even support direct upload to YouTube. Fifteen minutes after you upload, the video should be ready for public viewing.
For the video above, Jerry wrote a script by hand on one sheet of paper, separating each line as a bullet point. Each person read one bullet as he walked past them, holding the paper next to the camera. It’s primitive, but fun, and it works. Keep it short. Don’t overthink.
Two paths
Since we’re intentionally oversimplifying here, we’ll declare that there are two paths you can choose from: a short-duration conversation with everyone you can reach right now, or a long one with a few people you invite with care. You’ll use different approaches (and possibly tools) for each.
To help frame this decision, get clarity about what you hope to get from your network.
Short/many: If your initiative is more about seeding the idea with the multitudes to gauge the potential for momentum, aim for a short time duration with a broad network. You might be taking a quick poll around an important question (are you affected by Hurricane Sandy? what do you need?), or asking for feedback on your new initiative. For short/many, think short cycles: 4 hours, 3 days – 30 days max. Make it clear to your network that this conversation is time-constrained.
For the short blast, you’ll want to avail yourself of all the social media tools at your disposal: email, mailing lists, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest – whatever tools you use regularly. You may also want to ask this question of your closest colleagues, so you all work all these angles.
Then go crazy getting the word out. Blog, tweet, retweet, like, pin, repin. Remember that people are more likely to respond to a personal request, so if you have time, sit with Skype or something similarly personal and ping them directly.
You’re almost certain to hit an important moral dilemma: should you blast your message to everyone in the world, or keep it safely in the confines of your organizational firewall? We urge you to be courageous and leap outside. The more diverse the people you reach, the more interesting the responses and results are likely to be. Also, if you set up a boundary even as you ask people to repeat the message, you’ll dampen its energy.
Long/few: If what you need is input from a strategic constellation of people, then go for a longer term conversation. You might convene a group of interested people around a discussion of the future of alternative currencies, the future of work or the history of what got us into the financial meltdown of 2008.
Note that for the long-term conversation with a select group, you’ll be much more conservative with your use of media. Many people are already on too many mailing lists, so you should weigh that factor. Others don’t participate in online forums or discussions. If the group is small enough, copying everyone on email may work; if they’re Millennials, a private Facebook group might do the trick.
What you create won’t quite be a community of practice yet, though it could turn into one over time if the topic is meaningful to the group and the conversation catches fire.
(If you’re following the Launch a Network template, please ignore Step 4, which was there for the report-back during the Ten Year Forecast.)
Debrief
If you’ve taken the plunge and acted on this hack, reflect for a moment how long it would have taken you, using standard operating procedures, to get the opinions you got from this action. What if you had vetted your video outreach through layers of management before sending it off into the world? (Just one of many typical choke points.)
Reflect also on how your close colleagues and extended network reacted to the hack. Did people jump in? Were they energized? Do they see new possibilities? If your answers to all of these is “no,” what might you do differently if you try again?
You’ve just taken a small bite out of a larger set of movements: the shift toward smart mobs, social production and more. You’ve also experimented with a new form of leadership that is highly participatory.
Designing networks and thoughtfully engaging them is clearly a necessary skill for the 21st century. Here is your chance to practice.
Rachel Hatch is a Research Director in the Ten-Year Forecast program at Institute for the Future, whose mission is to catalyze the global community to think more systematically about longer term futures.
|
592edde54b7f5287e029a5f552cc2350 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryweissman/2011/05/18/eight-presentations-a-day/ | Eight Presentations a Day | Eight Presentations a Day
Cause and Effect
Every year, for the past 40 years, the American Electronics Association, under the auspices of TechAmerica, holds its Classic Financial Conference at which more than 1,800 technology companies and more than 6,000 investors come together in one venue. Presenting companies deliver 8 to 10 iterations of their corporate pitch in one day, giving existing investors multiple opportunities to get updates on their holdings and potential investors multiple opportunities to learn about new businesses.
One of the presenters at the most recent conference was Noland Granberry, the CFO of Silicon Image, Inc., a public company that is a leading provider of advanced, interoperable connectivity solutions for consumer electronics, mobile, and PC markets. Over the course of his eight presentations, Mr. Granberry experienced a progressive dynamic that provides a helpful lesson for any presenter.
As he delivered each iteration of his corporate pitch, Mr. Granberry felt his comfort zone increase, resulting in what he believed to be a smoother delivery; he also felt he portrayed his company more confidently and authoritatively. This progressive evolution also produced another benefit:
At the end of each presentation at the AEA conference, each presenter opens to the floor to questions. As a matter of course, most investors ask challenging questions—after all, they want to be sure that their investment is in good hands. Mr. Granberry got his share of challenging questions in his sessions, but he noticed that, as they day wore on, the questions became less challenging—in direct proportion to the improvement in his presentation delivery.
Think about that: Mr. Granberry delivered the identical content each of the eight times and nothing changed but his delivery. He had experienced—in real time—the power of Verbalization, a rehearsal method of speaking the presentation aloud multiple times.
Unfortunately, most presenters bypass any rehearsal at all. If they do rehearse, they either mumble, “Blah, blah, blah…” or they talk about their presentation, “On this slide, I’ll discuss…” Neither of these methods is Verbalization. Verbalization means delivering the presentation in rehearsal as if there were an actual audience in the room, “Good morning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to…”
This powerful—and yet underutilized—practice technique clarifies the words and the flow of the content, giving presenters the assurance to present with conviction. If you prepare, practice, and deliver your presentation thoroughly, you can not only present your story more effectively, you can also diminish the challenges in your Q&A session.
You can control your own destiny.
|
c6c7e332673955ffb17aeccfae1f556e | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryweissman/2014/08/13/obamas-rhetorical-gaffe-dont-do-stupid-stuff/ | Obama's Rhetorical Gaffe: 'Don't Do Stupid Stuff' | Obama's Rhetorical Gaffe: 'Don't Do Stupid Stuff'
Even Barack Obama’s sternest critics admit that he possesses considerable talent as a speaker, but when, in an off-the-record session at the end of his trip to Asia in May, he reportedly described his foreign policy as “Don’t do stupid stuff”—the last word a euphemism for a sharper term—the press pounced all over it. Not for the allusion, but for his inaction.
Now, after three months of additional challenges to U.S. foreign relations, Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former Secretary of State and ally, has joined the critics and revived the term. In last weekend’s much-publicized interview with The Atlantic columnist Jeffery Goldberg, he reported “what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: ‘Great nations need organizing principles, and “Don’t do stupid stuff” is not an organizing principle.’”
Simply put, the president’s mistake was to express himself negatively. This political gaffe is a close cousin of the business blunder when presenters describe their company as “What we’re not is…,” or the social snub, “I can’t make it.” Flipping those statements to read, respectively, “Our foreign policy is …,” “What we do is…,” and “I have another engagement,” not only removes the negativity but becomes assertive—an essential quality for any leader.
Clinton offered Goldberg her own version of assertiveness: “…when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you’re not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward.”
Accentuate the positive.
Barack Obama’s last California visit, Silicon Valley (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
|
ac424af3581e9abcc2ea5d6cb25b817a | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryweissman/2015/04/20/how-to-remember-what-to-say-and-four-ways-to-make-it-stick/ | How To Remember What To Say And Four Ways To Make It Stick | How To Remember What To Say And Four Ways To Make It Stick
By several measures, author Joshua Foer is a media super star. His bestselling book, Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything, earned him a $1.2 million advance, its movie rights wereoptioned by Columbia Pictures, and his 2012 TED Talk, based on the book, had over 3.5 million views.
The art and science that Mr. Foer proffers has helped countless people to improve their memories—it helped him win the U.S.A. Memory Championship by memorizing a deck of 52 cards in 1 minute and 40 seconds—it has also helped countless other people to remember what to say in their presentations and speeches. But therein lies a trap: a presentation must be a story with a clear, continuous progression; not a shuffled deck of cards, and certainly not, as far too many presentations too often are, a laundry list.
Mr. Foer refers to his skill as the “memory palace” because it is based on a 2,500 year old method initiated by a poet in ancient Greece named Simonides (556-468 BCE) who used the physical elements of a palace to help him recall the people who had attended a banquet there. Three centuries later, Cicero (106–43 BCE), the Roman orator, learned about Simonides’ technique and used the columns of the Roman Forum as prompts for his own speeches. Today, in what has also come to be known as the “Roman Room Method”—a Google search produces more than 85 million results—the mnemonic method has become mainstream.
One the practitioners is Arash Bayatmakou, a motivational speaker who captivated the audience at the recent Global Technology Symposium in Silicon Valley. Mr. Bayatmakou shared his version of the technique with me by showing me a small sheet of paper on which he had sketched the furniture arrangement in his home. Each of the pieces represented a key element of his speech annotated by a word or two, and each piece was linked to another by an arrow. I asked him how he implemented the links and he said that he followed the timeline of his dramatic personal story.
In 2012, Mr. Bayatmakou was the victim of a devastating Spinal Cord Injury that left him paralyzed. He was told that he had no chance of recovery, but rather than accept this fate, he has spent his time relearning how to move and walk. In so doing, he has become a source—and a persuasive evangelist—of inspirational efforts.
While Mr. Bayatmakou used a time progression to connect the dots of his memory palace, other speakers who use the technique often lapse into a “first-this-then-that-and-then-this-and-last-but-not-least” laundry list. To avoid this trap, you must find an overarching structure to connect the diverse parts of your story. In addition to the chronology that Mr. Bayatmakou used, here are three other proven options:
Numerical: Assign a number to your key themes, such as David Letterman does with his Top Ten List, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Vox’s Top 100, or BuzzFeed’s endless “Listicles.” Case Study: Also known as A Day in the Life. Discuss a person whose progression over time illustrates the key themes of your presentation. Life sciences companies often tell their entire story by following the course of treatment of a single patient. Problem/Solution: Identify a need and how you and/or your premise provide a unique solution.
The Greek architects who built the palace that helped Simonides’ recollections used blocks of stone, but they also used mortar to hold the stones together. Find the mortar for the memory palace of your story.
|
1de328b65e5865177c8ded279a193a1d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryweissman/2015/07/13/marco-rubio-ducks-the-donald-trump-question/ | Marco Rubio Ducks The Donald Trump Question | Marco Rubio Ducks The Donald Trump Question
Ever since Donald Trump made his controversial statement about Mexicans during his announcement of his intention to seek the Republican Party nomination for president, his poll numbers have surged. Despite angry backlash from the Hispanic community, dismissals from his sponsors, dismay from Republicans and derision from Democrats, Mr. Trump has jumped from the back of the pack of 16 candidates to seventh place in the aggregate RCP poll and as high as second in two other polls. He is now challenging veteran front runners Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and, particularly, Marco Rubio. One might expect that, as a Hispanic, Mr. Rubio, would have a point of view on the controversy.
Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida and U.S. presidential candidate, speaks during a... [+] conversation at the National Review Institute 2015 Ideas Summit in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, May 1, 2015. Rubio this week signed conservative activist Grover Norquist's pledge to oppose and veto "any and all" tax increases if elected president, he announced Wednesday on Twitter. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg *** Local Caption *** Marco Rubio
Last Tuesday, Neil Cavuto, the Fox News anchor, sought Mr. Rubio’s point of view during an interview on Fox Business: “Donald Trump has [said]...that you can’t be half-hearted when it comes to going after illegals. He’s all but claimed that you are, how do you answer that?”
Well first of all what happened in San Francisco is a horrible tragedy, and our heart goes out to that family—it’s such a horrible incident. Irrespective at the beginning of who did it, it’s just a terrible tragedy and our heart breaks for that family. That individual, that criminal responsible for that act, had been deported on four separate occasions and each time snuck back in, and it is absolutely true that we have a border and illegal immigration issue that’s very serious. I talked about that repeatedly, I have tried to pass bills to address it, I will continue to work to try to address it.
The question was about Mr. Trump’s claim that Mr. Rubio was soft on illegal immigrants and his answer did not address that, so Mr. Cavuto asked again: “Were you troubled that Trump keeps saying this stuff about you? What do you feel about that—is he being fair to you?”
Well, here’s the problem. The problem is that border security is a very legitimate issue. Illegal immigration is a very serious issue. What’s happened now is he’s made some other comments that are less responsible, and those comments are now what everyone’s focused on, you know, I think the bottom line is the issue is that we’re sort of let off the hook, all of these people who don’t want to have a debate about illegal immigration, they want to focus on Trump’s comments about, you know, Mexicans.
Again, the answer did not address the question about Mr. Rubio’s performance, so Mr. Cavuto, looking for a counter, broadened the issue: “Do you think he’s hurting the party, Senator?”
I think the comments he has made—not about the party—I think the comments he’s made has allowed people who don’t want to have a debate or to talk about illegal immigration to distract from the very serious debate on hand and that is this: we have a broken legal immigration system…
Again, not an answer to the question asked.
In my prior Forbes blog, you read about how Chris Christie, Mr. Rubio’s other competitor for the Republican candidacy, recently also ducked a question from a reporter—another example of the widely-tolerated practice of a politician not answering a question. As usual, the numbed electorate rolls its collective eyes and moves on.
This practice is unacceptable in business and private lives, how much longer will we continue to tolerate it in politics?
Jerry Weissman is the country's leading presentation coach and bestselling author. To learn more visit powerltd.com. You can follow him on LinkedIn, Forbes & Twitter @PowerPres.
|
774ea50689e63e97a98f8557c82b581f | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2016/09/30/the-new-biography-an-affair-with-beauty-sheds-light-on-the-most-famous-painter-of-the-jazz-age/ | The New Biography, 'An Affair With Beauty', Sheds Light On The Most Famous Painter Of The Jazz Age | The New Biography, 'An Affair With Beauty', Sheds Light On The Most Famous Painter Of The Jazz Age
Chances are that you have never heard of the "Christy Girl" or its creator, Howard Chandler Christy. However, Christy was the most famous painter of the Jazz Age. He knew presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to FDR, legends like Amelia Earhart and Babe Ruth and tycoons including William Randolph Hearst. “From the Gilded Age to the post-World War II boom Christy was a household name with a celebrity status akin to a modern day rock star,” says James Philip Head who wrote the new biography An Affair with Beauty—The Mystique of Howard Chandler Christy: The Magic of Youth. The book is the first book in Head’s trilogy.
In fact, Head was so fascinated by Christy and committed to telling his story, in the 1980s he began a lifelong a quest to understand the artist and his work.
Christy was a highly sought-after portrait artist and rapidly rose to become the most popular commissioned artist of the era, capturing the likenesses of senators, congressmen, princes, industrialists and movie stars. His work hangs in the U.S. Capitol, White House, U.S. State Department, and many museums and state capitols throughout America. His lush and vibrant paintings that he did for the glamorous restaurant Café des Artistes (now the Leopard at des Artistes) still adorns the walls.
Head who tells Christy’s epic story through the eyes of painter’s wife and former model, Nancy Palmer Christy, shared more about the artist and his great allure.
James Philip Head (Courtesy James Philip Head)
Jeryl Brunner: What did Christy do for women?
James Philip Head: Christy helped usher in the age of the modern American woman. Through his work, he could transform the way society perceived of women by simply painting them in various fashions, poses and settings that not only accentuated their physical beauty, but portrayed them as independent, confident, intellectual, and even athletic. This was a sea change from the restrained Victorian era where women were seen, but seldom heard. During the first half of the twentieth century, his Christy Girl illustrations appeared in scores of books and periodicals, inspiring thousands of young women to look, dress, and act like the idealized woman he had envisioned. The rise of the Christy Girl empowered women to aspire to greater heights both personally and professionally.
Brunner: Why isn't Christy more of a household name like other artists such as Charles Dana Gibson?
Head: The primary reason was the modern art movement of the mid-twentieth century. It was so sweeping and powerful that a lot of once well-known artists fell into obscurity. Another has to do with marketing and branding. As Christy once said, “We are remembered by what we give.” Unfortunately, up until now, no one had taken affirmative steps to perpetuate his legacy so that future generations would remember him. I hope my interpretative biography about him will change that, and perhaps develop a renewed interest in his extraordinary life and artwork.
Brunner: What gave you the inspiration to stick with the book after so many years and stay on course?
Head: The journey. I started researching his life in June 2006, and became enamored with the compelling life of his model and wife, Nancy, along with many models and the famous people whose portraits he painted. I still recall my first trip to the Skillman Library at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania, where his archives are located. This is the best story I have ever ventured upon, I thought, thumbing through signed letters from U.S. presidents and their wives, senators, great industrialists, and other notables such as magician Harry Houdini, dictator Benito Mussolini, aviatrix Amelia Earhart, heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post, and film star Mary Pickford, just to name a few.
Brunner: How did Christy help people view women in a more positive light?
Head: His Christy Girl became an icon in America. Women wanted to be her. Men wanted to marry her. During the first decade of the 20th century, major newspapers in the United States held contests to find the perfect personification of the Christy Girl. Any woman, regardless of age or marital status, could enter by sending a photograph to the newspaper editor. Over time, the face and figure of the Christy Girl changed. During World War I, when the United States began mobilizing troops, Christy dressed women in men’s military uniforms to create eye-popping, sexual gender-bender posters that not only compelled thousands of men to enlist, but women as well – a first for the U.S. Armed Forces. In the 1920s, the Christy Girl emerged as the ubiquitous and elegant Jazz Age flapper. By the 1930s, a glamorous, if not sultry, Christy Girl became the face for advertisements, including the famous Lucky Strike cigarette ads. By the 1940s, using his favorite model, Elise Ford, Christy sought to personify America as a beautiful woman representing liberty and freedom.
Brunner: What was one of the biggest surprises writing the book?
Head: Christy’s life was not a model of perfection. He had hardships and tragedies. He grew up in near poverty. In 1890, he went to art school in New York City, ran out of money and was forced to return home and earn the funds necessary to return again. He struggled with alcoholism, was committed to a sanitarium by his wife and father, lost his eyesight and miraculously regained it, almost died from a bout with pneumonia, and then suffered through a bitter child custody battle with his first wife, Maebelle. In 1910, Christy vs. Christy was the largest child custody case Ohio, if not America, had ever seen up until that point. How could a man who had gone through all this become so successful, have his paintings prominently displayed in the White House and U.S. Capitol and count as his friends U.S. presidents, living legends and movie stars?
|
955cc1997ff7562ab114bbbc76a6b1d1 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2016/12/22/forbes-exclusive-where-will-steve-cohen-the-millionaires-magician-take-his-show-next/ | Forbes Exclusive: Where Will Steve Cohen, 'The Millionaires' Magician,' Take His Show Next? | Forbes Exclusive: Where Will Steve Cohen, 'The Millionaires' Magician,' Take His Show Next?
Steve Cohen can’t remember a life without magic. At family parties his Great Uncle Nat Zuckerman, a talented amateur magician, would pull out a deck of cards and do magic for everyone. Or he could make a Morgan silver dollar disappear. “I saw the sparkle in his eye and it spoke to me,” recalls Cohen. “I thought, if I could give that excitement to other people, I will feel that I have done some good.”
Magician Steve Cohen had to find a few venue to perform his hit "Chamber Magic" show. Guess where he... [+] is taking it next? (Photo courtesy Lotte New York Palace.)
After the show, Zuckerman who was also an introvert, except when performing magic, retreated to the corner to practice card tricks. Cohen always wandered over. "What are you doing, Uncle Nat?," he would ask. “My uncle saw that I was genuinely fascinated," Cohen explains. “Magic is kind of a meritocracy. Magicians don’t teach others unless those people have demonstrated a desire plus a real ability." Zuckerman taught his young nephew everything he knew.
The pair traveled from Westchester County into Manhattan to visit the infamous Tannen’s Magic Store, which still exists today. “We bought little tricks together. I learned how to do the color changing knife trick, the ball vanishing from the box trick, the color changing handkerchief trick,” says Cohen. At the time, the magician’s apprentice was six-years-old.
Cohen kept practicing and honing his skills. At ten, he landed his first paid gig to perform a half hour magic show at four-year-old’s birthday party. He made a candle turn into a pillar of salt. “I got paid $25," he recalls. "In 1981 when you're a ten-year-old kid, $25 is a lot of money.” When he was 13, he attended Tannen’s Magic Camp, a sleep-away camp for young magicians. His fellow campers were David Blaine and Adrien Brody.
Warren Buffett and Steve Cohen. (Photo courtesy of Steve Cohen.)
After graduating from Cornell University, Cohen knew he had to perform magic for a living. But he had no contacts and barely any money. “I was a real starving artist,” he says. Ever resourceful, he managed to get hired for corporate parties and events. Once he charged more, he became in demand. He did private shows for Mike Bloomberg and was invited to perform at the White House Correspondents' Dinner afterparty. However, he also discovered that just doing individual gigs was not a very affirmative way to build his career.
Thinking as a businessman, he knew he needed to showcase his talents to corporate bookers. When he got calls asking for his fee, the response was often, ‘that’s a lot of money, how would we know you are good?” He set up a public showcase at his friend’s Greenwich Village apartment and invited corporate bookers for $30 a piece. “They loved the show,” offers Cohen. After a few weeks he was able to move it to the National Arts Club on Gramercy Park where he performed for several months. After his last show there, a woman in the audience approached. “I heard you are looking for a new venue," she said. "Let me introduce you to my contacts at the Waldorf Astoria.”
Steve Cohen and David Letterman. (Photo courtesy of Steve Cohen.)
Sixteen years later Cohen continues to perform Chamber Magic in a private suite in the Waldorf Towers for just sixty well-dressed guests. This intimate parlor magic show is modeled after the great Austrian Viennese magician, Johann Hofzinser, who captivated audiences 150 years ago in small gas lit-lit rooms. "I just love the idea of a salon,” says a dapper Cohen who dons a Phineas Cole tailcoat and stands just a few feet from his constantly participating audience. “People used to talk about politics or entertainment, but I wanted to actually make a magic salon.”
Chamber Magic doesn't contain pyrotechnics, smoke or wind machines or flashy lights. But the awe is constant. “It's a very classical form of magic," says Cohen. In fact, many famous magicians have been to his show including, David Copperfield, Teller from Penn and Teller and David Blaine. He’s also performed for Warren Buffett, Stephen Sondheim and Barry Diller. Buffett paid to cancel all of Cohen's shows one weekend and flew him to Omaha to do a private performance for Walter Scott's birthday party. "It was one the greatest shows of my life," says Cohen.
After getting some press, including an eight minute TV piece on CBS Sunday Morning, the show gained a fervent following. Now dubbed “the Millionaires’ Magician” people have traveled from around the world from São Paulo to Sydney to see this master at mind-reading, sleight of hand, and an astonishing trick called Think-A-Drink (which is best to see live than give away.) He asserts that the show is purely entertainment. “I don’t do any fortunetelling. It's not something I have any ability for," he says. "If a pregnant woman asks, 'Am I having a boy or a girl? I’ll say, ‘yes, you are."
Now that the Waldorf Astoria is temporarily closing in February 2017 for a major renovation what will happen to this unique show?
On March 3, 2017 Chamber Magic will have a new home in a jewel box of a setting in the Madison Room in the Lotte New York Palace. For Cohen, the historic space in the hotel is transporting. “It looks like you're stepping back in time to Versailles or some grand room of yore,” he says of the Madison room, which is one of landmarked interiors from Henry Villard's 1882 mansion. The 19th Century Stanford White-designed drawing room is a wonder with vaulted ceilings and original panels painted by P.V. Galland dating back to 1891.
Steve Cohen on the grand marble staircase in the new home of his 'Chamber Magic' show: Lotte New... [+] York Palace. (Courtesy Lotte New York Palace.)
For Cohen who was recruited by all the top hotels, the Lotte New York Palace is the ideal fit. “I want to give people an experience," he says of the show that will take place every Friday and Saturday before just 60 people. "The look of the Palace is overwhelming. You walk into that gorgeous courtyard, through the wrought iron gate, up the grand stairway and into an Italian palatial hallway with gold trim on the ceilings.” The allure is also that the Palace is right down the street from the Waldorf. “I know that my Waldorf audiences are going to love the Palace,” says Cohen who explains that plans to add a new trick to his show, perhaps more. “It's easy for me to tell people that I'm switching to a place only a block away.”
Even with his loyal fan base and the show grossing over 20 million dollars since it began, Cohen insists that he has to work harder than ever to keep up the momentum. “I am still hustling doing everything to be out there. You can never take anything for granted,” says Cohen. At the end of the day, his greatest joy is to share that same sense of excitement and magic that he had all those years ago when he watched his Uncle Nat perform. “A singer can make you tap your toe. A comedian can make you laugh. But a magician can give you wonder," he softly says. "I really believe I can give that gift of wonder.”
Steve Cohen (Photo by Murphy Made.)
Steve Cohen (Photo by Clay Patrick McBride.)
Steve Cohen (Photo by Clay Patrick McBride.)
|
b8999befeb007fff8f39dadfab27345d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2017/01/16/what-songs-will-jill-kargman-star-of-odd-mom-out-sing-in-her-cafe-carlyle-cabaret-show/ | What Songs Will Jill Kargman, Star Of 'Odd Mom Out', Sing In Her Café Carlyle Cabaret Show? | What Songs Will Jill Kargman, Star Of 'Odd Mom Out', Sing In Her Café Carlyle Cabaret Show?
Jill Kargman insists she is a sloth. “I’m so lazy, I just want to climb under the covers and take naps,” she reveals. “People always say, ‘Oh, you’re doing so much,’ but they don’t know I love getting in bed and laying there for 10 hours.” She further explains that she’s probably not the ideal client for her agents because she’s not a serious go getter. “I think I’m kind of an annoying client because I don’t want to do anything,” says Kargman.
Jill Kargman (Photo by Pamela Berkovic.)
But even under the covers Kargman seems much more jack rabbit than sloth. A successful novelist and essayist, she created and stars in Bravo's hit scripted comedy series Odd Mom Out. Kargman plays a fictionalized version of herself — a woman, with a loving husband and their three kids navigating a very unique and often brutal jungle, better known as New York’s Upper East Side.
Within the past six months, the second season of Odd Mom Out debuted and was renewed for a third season. In September she published a new hilarious book of essays, Sprinkle Glitter on My Grave: Observations, Rants, and Other Uplifting Thoughts About Life. Oh, and there's her weekly radio talk show, The Jill Kargman Show, on Andy Cohen’s SiriusXM channel, Radio Andy.
But wait! And if that’s not enough, from January 17 through January 28 she makes her debut at the historic Café Carlyle with her show, Stairway to Cabaret. In her irresistible and refreshingly unique way Kargman will perform heavy metal tunes as cabaret numbers at the glamorous supper club. She first performed the show at Williamstown Theatre Festival in the Berkshires last summer. “I had practice and know that I can do it,” she says.
Kargman credits her idol, singer, actress, comedienne Bridget Everett for inspiring her to do the show which was directed by revered director Trip Cullman, (Six Degrees of Separation, Significant Other, Yen.) “It’s kind of half standup, half music, but Bridget really has a voice of an angel in addition to being a comedic genius,” says Kargman of Everett. “And I’ve always loved eighties rock and metal. They’re done with humor, but also makes you cringe a little bit at the songs that you used to worship. Plus I have this fantasy that I would resurrect my a cappella singing from college.”
What guidance can she offer millennials? How did she develop her writing chops? Kargman shares her insight.
Jeryl Brunner: I love that you picked a heavy metal repertoire of songs for your Café Carlyle debut.
Jill Kargman: The thread to all of them is that they are sexist and disgusting, but I’m re-appropriating them as a 42-year-old Jewish female. I grew up watching MTV. I would sit there singing Motley Crüe and listing all the strip clubs in America. No one really noticed. It was only when I got older that I realized I knew every strip club in America because of singing "Girls, Girls, Girls." You just reframe things in your life that were classics that you didn’t ponder too much.
"My agents would say we have an audition for a mom in yoga pants in this movie. I thought what do I... [+] need it for? I’m not trying to be famous. I just want to do what I have fun doing." (Photo by Deborah Feingold)
Brunner: Did you always want to perform?
Kargman: I was a performer in high school and college. All through Yale I was never not in a play. I would have loved to be an actress. But I sort of said goodbye at the end of college when I took my last bow senior year in Christopher Durang’s play The Marriage of Bette and Boo. I thought, all right. Well, that’s it.
My dad always said, 'If you want to be an actress you have to need it. You can’t just want it.' I thought, well, I want it, but I don’t need it. If you can just say, okay, now I’m an actress and I’m going to act, I would have done that. But you have to support yourself, audition, and work your ass off. And it might not go anywhere. I didn’t want to spin my wheels for something where no matter how work you might not move forward.
Brunner: And then you did become an actress.
Kargman: Years later Bravo was potentially interested in me for a reality show. I made it clear that I would never do a reality show. I wasn’t trying to get famous. I don’t want to just have my name out there. I had written all these books. NBC had optioned Momzillas. I said, 'there’s a show here about Upper East Side mothers.' I showed it to Andy Cohen, and Lara Spotts, who is now my showrunner. She is a genius and understands me more than anyone else.They agreed. I went through a real collaborative development process with Bravo where I pitched it. We made a pilot, and then they picked up the pilot after a long testing period. I was so ecstatic.
The first day of principal photography people asked, 'are you nervous?' and I said, 'not at all, I’ve got this.' It came so naturally to me from being a trained actress. I hadn’t done it in twenty years but I knew that I could do it. It’s not like it’s a stretch. I’m not playing a dead queen from five hundred years ago, I’m playing myself.
Brunner: You constantly create your own material to perform. What advice would you give to women starting out in their careers and don’t know what to do?
Kargman: There was no YouTube or anything like that when I was younger. Millennials, compared to Gen Xers have so many outlets for their work. So I say go guerrilla-style. Make a short film with your friends and put it online. You can get traction that way. If you look at Broad City, which is a show by my same producer Jax Media, that was a short and online. Amy Poehler saw it and shepherded them. Now it’s a hit show on Comedy Central.
You can start out in ways that we never had. So I would encourage people to do their own work. You just go renegade and try to make it with your talented friends. Just go put it out there. I probably would have tried a little harder if I felt like I had that outlet. But it felt so impossible to me. I knew that there was such a thing as shorts because there was a short for the Oscars, but there wasn’t YouTube. There was no forum to distribute your ideas. So get everyone together who has talent in your posse. Have fun and put it out there.
Brunner: How does your family respond to Odd Mom Out which is loosely based on your lives?
Kargman: They love it. Last year, my daughter played a teenage blogger, The Bag Bitch. I believe they think it’s funny and weird and surreal. But it’s not like they sit and watch it. They’re at camp, have their own lives and plenty of friends. We are very close as a family but I tend not to talk about work that much.
Brunner: How did you become such a good writer?
Kargman: I never took an English class. I took French, Spanish, and Italian. I was recruited by the CIA at Yale. They wanted to know why I picked so many languages. They said I was the seventh person at Yale to take three languages concurrently all the way through.
I never took English. In the English department at Yale I believe there were four hundred-and-some English majors. In art history there were twenty eight. I got so much more personal attention from tenured professors than they did. They all had teaching assistants and people who were also trying to be writers who were just getting their PhDs. They were, in a sense, competition. I felt very encouraged about my writing. Whereas if I’d been an English major I wouldn’t be a writer.
Reservations for Stairway to Cabaret can made by phone at 212-744-1600. Or visit here for more information.
|
b6c8a65fd46f3b67d9f651ef4c7a92c0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2018/12/04/this-bestselling-author-reveals-how-you-can-eat-for-your-brain/ | This Bestselling Author Reveals How You Can Eat For Your Brain | This Bestselling Author Reveals How You Can Eat For Your Brain
Cristina Ferrare is a great believer that food is medicine. She has spent many years researching foods and their direct effects on health. “My mother was suffering from dementia then developed Alzheimer’s disease,” she explains. “I watched her slowly disappear into the abyss from Alzheimer’s disease and felt helpless to help her.” She devoted herself to understanding the symptoms and causes of Alzheimers and Dementia.
Cristina Ferrare Boone Studios
To that end the New York Times bestselling author, entrepreneur, former model and television host wrote the new book Food for Thought: Recipes for Ultimate Mind and Body Health. Ferrare takes a refreshing look at how foods people love can be delicious and healthy. With a forward by Maria Shriver, proceeds from Food For Thought, on sale December 4, will benefit The Women's Alzheimer's Movement. Ferrare shares all of her favorite recipes, like caramelized roasted beet salad with goat cheese, gazpacho with habanera pineapple salsa, miso-glazed sea bass in lemongrass coconut Thai broth, and pumpkin cupcakes with cream cheese frosting. She shared more.
Jeryl Brunner: Why do you believe that food choices can help benefit all aspects of dementia?
Cristina Ferrare: The Alzheimer’s Society says that a Mediterranean-style diet can help reduce the risk of forms forms of dementia. These diets are high in fruits, vegetables, legumes and cereals. They suggest less intake of oily fish, dairy, meat, sugar and saturated fat. Excess sugar impacts the body in a negative way. It will shock you how much “sugar" is in practically every single packaged or canned products you buy in the grocery stores. It is addictive. Seeing it may even jump start you to actually make a change. That is why it’s important to eat clean natural organic foods.
Brunner: So many people want to eat healthier. But with the holidays and our constant exposure to sugar, how can you be completely disciplined?
Ferrare: After you eat like this for a while it won’t be a problem because your desire for sweet won’t overwhelm you. It doesn’t taste the same. But hey, if you want a piece of pumpkin pie, cookies, brownies, etc. don’t deprive yourself. I guarantee you won’t over indulge because your taste buds have changed and it won’t be satisfying. I love Sees candy. I buy six pieces at a time that are my favorite and hide them from my family. And I will, on occasion, have one after dinner with hot tea. One is all I seem to need. There is no way you will feel deprived. You simply eat the foods you love and eliminate all processed sugar, and most gluten. Don’t worry you can still have desserts! It’s all in how it’s prepared and the ingredients you will use to substitute processed sugar, oils and fats.
Brunner: Maria Shriver wrote the forward to your book. How is she involved in your mission?
Ferrare: Maria and I have been friends for over 30 years. She inspires me everyday and is one of the greatest role models in my life. She is above all an outstanding mother, daughter, sister and friend. She is loving, kind, inclusive, giving, fiercely loyal, and a force of nature to be reckoned with when it comes to causes that are close to her heart, like Alzheimer’s disease. Her father Sargent Shriver passed from Alzheimer’s. Maria has made it her life's work to find a cure, raise awareness and funds for research and be an advocate for patients and caregivers. Maria asked me to join her cause. I wanted to educate people on the direct correlation between the foods we eat and the effects it has on your health. She suggested writing a cookbook.
Brunner: What advice have you received early on that has stayed with you?
Ferrare: Over the years my mother always gave me the best advice. I still apply it to my everyday life.
1. Always be polite and respectful.
2. If you need to get a point across don’t yell, people stop listening when you yell.
3. Listen to the opinions of others and don’t try to convince them that yours are better. That is one I am still working on.
4. Anger is better served up cold. Wait a day then address it, cooler heads prevail.
5. Speak up with conviction!
6. Don’t let anyone tell you you can’t do anything because you are "a girl.”
7. I got this from Oprah Winfrey herself. She said, “ When someone pays you a compliment own it. Take it in and don’t deflect. It is positive affirmation and you are sending your body healing thoughts. Just say thank you!
Cristina Ferrare's newest book is Food For Thought Courtesy Post Hill Press
|
d945bceaf28c58c6645830f8ea993dbc | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2018/12/12/a-tony-winning-broadway-star-scores-big-with-her-13th-show-the-prom/ | A Tony-Winning Broadway Star Scores Big With Her 13th Show, The Prom | A Tony-Winning Broadway Star Scores Big With Her 13th Show, The Prom
Beth Leavel was a college student getting a social work degree at Meredith College in Raleigh, North Carolina when she took a field trip to New York City. She and her pals had just arrived on an overnight bus and checked into the Edison Hotel when they had to rush off to a matinee. “We were sleepy and had not eaten” recalls Leavel. “We sat in the last row of the theater. The person in front of me was eating a pastrami sandwich.”
Beth Leavel Broadway.com
She remembers enjoying the show. “But I just really wanted some of that pastrami sandwich,” says Leavel. Later that day that night she saw Pearl Bailey in Hello, Dolly! and waited for her at the stage door. “By then I had been fed and was awake. Pearl Bailey was really magical and she signed my playbill,” says Leavel. On that same trip she also saw A Chorus Line. It was one of her many discoveries that revealed glimpses of a possible career.
Although she didn’t grow up performing in school musicals, she remembers being cast in her sixth grade’s goofy history piece set during the Revolutionary War. She did something that was not in the script which involved egg going down her back. “I remember getting a huge laugh,” says Leavel of the joyful moment. “I thought, what is that feeling?”
Leavel grew to love that feeling.
She remembers more glimmers of the bug when she did Brigadoon senior year in high school. However, at that point in her life, the Raleigh, North Carolina native wasn’t ready to go off to pursue performing as a career. Instead, she got a degree in social work and minored in theater at Meredith College. While there she did all the community and black box theater she could get her hands on. She played Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz at the Raleigh Little Theatre. Her teacher and mentor, Linda Bamford, inspired her to give performing a shot. That led to getting a master's degree in theater at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro “I had no choice. I just jumped,” says Leavel. “I could do nothing else.”
Then Leavel leapt and landed in a very big way. Five years after that famished college student saw Grease on Broadway from the back row, she was on Broadway herself in the hit show 42nd Street. She had been in the national tour and then took over the role of Dorothy Brock making her Broadway debut. “When I saw that performance of Grease, if somebody had said ‘In five years you are going to be on Broadway,' I would have said, ‘no way!’ But somewhere deep down inside me I thought this is what I'm supposed to do. You’re going to do this.”
A Tony Award (for her epic performance in The Drowsy Chaperone) and many shows later, (Baby It’s You!, Bandstand, Elf, Mamma Mia!, Young Frankenstein, 42nd Street, Crazy for You, Show Boat), Leavel is still knocking it out of the park. This time she brings down the house in the musical The Prom at the Longacre Theatre. The show was inspired by several real life events involving high school students who wanted to take their same sex partners to the prom. However, many were prevented from doing so and treated horribly.
In the musical, a group of Broadway performers (played by Leavel, Brooks Ashmanskas, Christopher Sieber and Angie Schworer) more or less ambush a small midwestern town with their can-do theater press agent (Josh Lamon). They are convinced they can fix everything so a young lesbian couple Emma and Alyssa, (Caitlin Kinnunen and Isabelle McCalla) will be permitted to attend the prom together. And in the process, the actors will put on a savvy pr spectacle set to catapult their careers. Leavel deliciously plays Broadway belter Dee Dee Allen, a queen bee narcissist with a special gift for slaying 11 o'clock numbers. As The New York Times review declared, “Ms. Leavel, is, as always, scarily brilliant."
The Prom’s home-run creative team includes director and choreographer Casey Nicholaw (Mean Girls, Something Rotten!, The Book of Mormon, Aladdin, Elf, Drowsy Chaperone), book writers Bob Martin (The Drowsy Chaperone) and Chad Beguelin (Aladdin), composer Matthew Sklar (Elf) and lyricist Chad Beguelin (Aladdin, the Wedding Singer, Elf). It is based on an original concept by Jack Viertel.
The roles were specifically crafted for Leavel, Ashmanskas, Sieber and Schworer, so their tailor-made parts are a total feast. “We love that these Broadway actors with a notorious reputation for being egomaniacs think that they would be the ones who can change peoples minds. But in fact they learn how to be better people,” shares Beguelin about the hit musical with heart and humor that received rave reviews. “It is taking a subject near and dear to our hearts and exploring all this fear. It’s just a girl wanting to take another girl to the prom.”
Case in point. As the song “Dance With You” goes: “I just wanna dance with you. Let the whole world melt away and dance with you.” Adds Leavel, “This story is constructed so splendidly. You see us going from narcissistic to better people. We discover our humanity and we have so much fun.”
The Prom is also special for Leavel because it marks her 13th Broadway musical. An amazing feat. When asked to share what she wishes someone had told her early in her career, she pauses: “There is just no one like you. So celebrate that. Explore, develop what you have, learn and grow,” shares Leavel. “You’re gonna have bad days. You’re going to have good days. But remember what you do is special.”
|
c0eb7ee108ac28ff818ed2317623003f | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2019/03/05/this-female-founded-entertainment-collective-is-revolutionizing-the-marketing-biz/?sh=59afe17e3645 | This Female Founded Entertainment Collective Is Revolutionizing The Marketing Biz | This Female Founded Entertainment Collective Is Revolutionizing The Marketing Biz
One of the Coachella’s hottest tickets is the invite-only Revolve Festival which takes place off grounds during Weekend 1. The shindig is held over two days at the swank Merv Griffin Palm Springs estate Revolve’s many A-list performers and DJs entertain 3,000 attendees (including celebrities, artists and other cool people). Last year ASAP Rocky, Snoop Dogg, Kendall Jenner and Chance the Rapper showed up.
(From left) Kellie Pean and Alyssa Convertini created the innovative marketing collective Brand New. Cam Kirk
To create such an envy-inducing, I-wish-I-was-there experience takes a fierce strategy. Brand New works alongside Revolve's internal talent team to help secure the right performers and ensure that all elements of production and on-site experiences relating to that talent are in top form.
Alyssa Convertini and Kellie Pean are the power force behind Brand New. The former Billboard executives have vast experience spearheading marketing, branded content and music strategy under Billboard and The Hollywood Reporter’s suite of music and entertainment brands. Through Brand New they provide immersive branded content marketing and experiences to artists and brands. They are valued collaborators for both small and large scale businesses and artists. “Our clients span across a multitude of verticals and have a unique approach to how they market their own brands,” explains Convertini. “Therefore our role with each of our clients is vastly different.”
(From left) Marketing masterminds Kellie Pean and Alyssa Convertini Cam Kirk
At its foundation Convertini and Pean are marketing strategists who help brands understand how to organically establish their position in culture. They do this by connecting brands to the right lifestyle extensions, partnerships, content creation and experiences. “It’s really taking the time to ask why we are doing something, who is it for and does anyone actually care?,” says Convertini. To successfully answer those questions means being highly in tune with the lifestyle of consumers. “We don’t create content for the sake of making a video or securing an artist just because they’re trending on a chart,” Convertini adds. “Everything we produce is done with intention.”
A decade ago brand partnership alliances were somewhat taboo for artists. By aligning with a brand many musicians believed that they were selling out. “Now, it’s one of the top drivers of revenue for an artist and responsible for over $1.6 billion of reported earnings within the industry,” adds Convertini. Of course conventional methods of brand building continues to include social media or press. “But we believe that the right alliances with brand partners infused with the right aspects of storytelling can really help an artist build their personal brand, shed light on their interests, and connect with their fans in a meaningful way,” says Convertini. That also yields partnerships that are more long term.
Take their recent launch with 1800 Tequila and Pusha T which promoted new artist discovery. They worked alongside the 1800 Tequila brand team and a handful of their agency partners to create an integrated program celebrating rising hip-hop artists, music creation and discovery. The project spanned across talent procurement, live events, content creation, custom merchandise, media and more. “From our perspective, this program is the gold standard of what brands wanting to tap into culture can achieve because 1800 Tequila wasn’t afraid to actually let the artists lead the narrative,” says Convertini. The program matched the brand’s values of hard work, passion, and honesty as it brought together ten rising artists and one hip-hop legend, providing immense resources to change the course of their artistic careers.
A large part of Brand New’s success is that they are rooted in cultural relevance and relatability. “Representation matters. People often only focus on the functional skill sets without critically thinking about the importance of having a team and network that is reflective of your market,” says Pean. “Our network of peers and friends are vast and reflective of the multicultural landscape that comprises our surroundings. We are a direct part of this fabric — always sharing, learning, exploring and seeking what is next.” This approach allows them to work with brands and artists to curate content and experiences in which people have a genuine interest.
When Convertini and Pean established Brand New they were laser focused on the vast opportunities they were creating. “Change often comes with a natural element of fear, but our fear was never centered around failure,” shares Pean of having the courage to branch out beyond their comfort zones. They understood that going out on their own meant taking a huge risk. So they spent about a year planning, challenging themselves and seeking advice. During that time they identified goals, created a business plan and a solid market approach. They also secured a handful of initial clients. “At some point during that process, the fear faded and we were able to move forward with confidence,” says Pean. They also credit their network of friends, family and professional peers who reminded them of their value and capabilities during any doubt.
Also, the women specifically sought to define Brand New as a collective versus an agency. Their vision was to highlight the importance of working with a wide network of experts. “Brand New flips the paradigm on the traditional agency structure, and instead, relies on the ability to have key managers, like ourselves, curate the optimal mix of talent to deliver for our clients,” explains Pean about finding the best team to execute nuanced and diverse programs at the highest level. “We believe that having a 360, we-do-everything agency mentality, can often prevent people from achieving that level of greatness.”
Reflecting on their success the women thought about valuable advice they received along their prospective journeys. Pean’s was crawl before you walk. She received that simple but practical guidance from her uncle right after graduating college as she started her first job at Motorola. "It stays with me to this day. Because throughout my life, especially early on, there have been multiple times when I thought I deserved things that I actually wasn’t ready to receive,” she shares. “Thankfully, the universe kept me going and grounded because the knowledge of patience, humility and understanding that all things come in due time is a matter of fact.”
Convertini’s was don’t ask your employees to complete a task that you cannot do yourself. That advice was offered by one of her first bosses who she particularly admired. At the time Convertini was made responsible to manage a team of eight in her early 20s. “This advice really stayed with me and has come full circle as the co-founder of a start up,” says Convertini. “We really do everything ourselves. I’m grateful I never skipped over the details of how to get the job done.”
|
67e6ddc2309eaa71e49a3241989577db | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2019/05/31/julie-white-brings-her-unique-hilarity-and-heart-to-taylor-macs-play-gary/ | Julie White Brings Her Unique Hilarity And Heart To Taylor Mac's Play 'Gary' | Julie White Brings Her Unique Hilarity And Heart To Taylor Mac's Play 'Gary'
To say that Julie White is a warrior is an understatement. The Tony-winning actress began performances in Taylor Mac’s Broadway play, Gary A Sequel to Titus Andronicus, after just five rehearsals.
Julie White in a scene from Gary, now playing on Broadway at the Booth Theatre Julieta Cervantes
After breaking four ribs in an accident while rehearsing the show, beloved actress Andrea Martin had to depart the production. Kristine Nielsen, who was already in the play with Natan Lane, stepped into Martin’s role. So White took over Nielsen’s part to play Carol. Without giving too much away, Carol is a well-meaning midwife in a whole mess of trouble.
“I know Andrea Martin and she is such a trooper,” says White. “I knew she had to be in dire straights not to go on. So I felt sad.” She was also floored by Mac’s script, which manages to be both hilarious and stunningly profound. “The play is so astounding. And when I read it on the page, I thought this is an extraordinary piece of literature. But how could anyone stage this and on Broadway?” explains White of the George C. Wolfe directed piece. “And I was so proud and impressed that Scott Rudin would produce it on Broadway.”
As White explains, as terrifying as it was, she was ready to roll up her sleeves and start working. “To quote Renée Zellweger from Cold Mountain, “You need help. Here I am!,” she says in a Southern drawl. “I learned the lines, made some choices and went for it.”
And went for it she did. White was nominated for a Tony award playing Carol in play that takes in the year 400, during the fall of the Roman Empire. Set just after the grisly ending of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, the world is falling apart, chaos rules, lunatics are in charge. Life is a mess. But in the midst of it all is Gary, a little clown who dreams of making the world a better place. And maybe, just maybe, Gary, Carol and Janice can change things.
Kristine Nielsen and Nathan Lane in Gary Julieta Cervantes
Julie White, George C. Wolfe and Kristine Nielson at The 73rd Annual Tony Awards Meet The Nominees... [+] Press Day at Sofitel New York Photo by Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images for Tony Awards Productions
Jeryl Brunner: What do you love about Carol?
Julie White: In some ways I feel that she is the audience's avatar. She didn’t mean to do anything bad. Yet, through the course of the play she realizes that by standing by and doing nothing, she did something bad. She is inspired by Gary, the artist, to be brave. I believe that everybody identifies with that. I have had many people waiting for me to sign their programs, young girls, who say, “I am Carol.” That's is fantastic and gratifying to hear.
It’s funny, a lot of Carol is like my mother, Sue Jane, who passed away this year. She even had Carol’s puffy beehive hair do in the sixties and seventies. My mother was very dramatic and really adorable. If you came in wearing a great outfit, she would throw up her arms and fall back on the couch and say, “Oh I can't have even stand it. You look so beautiful!”
Brunner: Within all the craziness and humor is a very profound message about humanity and hope.
White: Taylor Mac has said "subtlety is a privilege.” He throws it all at you. He wants you to feel almost like you are on acid. What is it happening? Why am I laughing so hard, but also feeling so many other emotions at once. He challenges the audience. I think about the line, “When the world beats us up with all of its brutality, we show the brutal up with our totality.” Taylor's language is so dense. Many people say “I want to see it again or read it.” The experience of the play is so flipping funny. Stuff goes by and you think, what happened?
Brunner: When did you first start to perform?
White: We were kind of a showbizzy family and put on shows in the neighborhood. I remember doing fashion shows using my grandma’s lingerie. But I didn’t audition for a show until high school. I had so much detention for being late to English class, I had to sit in the same classroom where they were holding auditions. As I watched the auditions I thought, wait a minute I could do that. I asked, “If I audition, could I be finished with detention?” The teacher said “Yes.” So I learned the song Adelaide’s Lament (“A Person Can Develop A Cold”). And I got to play Miss. Adelaide in Guys and Dolls. it was so fun. And then I just kept going.
Julie White Photo by Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images for Tony Awards Productions
Growing up in Austin, Texas, I didn’t imagine it being a viable career path. I thought I would have to be something else for a living. But this the business has been so good to me. Here I am on doing this extraordinary piece of work on Broadway. Then, as a voice actor, I am recording the second season of Nick Kroll’s animated show Big Mouth. And on June 7 Kiefer Sutherland’s drama, Designated Survivor, comes out on Netflix. I play his campaign manager. It’s amazing that I get to do so many things at this stage in my career. I think, yippee-ki-yay. I sure am glad I stuck with it.
Brunner: What is it like working with Kiefer Sutherland?
White: He is amazing. He has done all that television and is so skilled. His acting style is so quiet and I'm so loud. When I was doing the series Go On with Matthew Perry, Matthew and I hit it off so much that we became this weird buddy act. I was his wing man. Very often I would say a line to Matthew and he would look at me and say, “Julie, who are you talking to? I'm standing right here.” By the end of the season, my character's nickname was “loudy.”
Brunner: What are you wearing to the Tony awards?
White: I’m wearing a Christian Siriano gown and it is fabulous. I just went to his offices to pick it out. We nicknamed the dress “Carol.” it's gorgeous and even has the spirit of Carol.
Brunner: Do you remember the first Broadway show you ever saw?
White: I had grandparents who lived in Florida and were very sophisticated. When each grandchild hit the fourth or fifth grade, they would take each one on a trip. All the kids went to different places. My trip was to New York. We stayed at the Plaza and they took me to see Company. It was far into the run, so the Elaine Stritch role was played by Jane Russell.
The first time I flew myself to see a Broadway show I was 18 and went to see Evita. I was about to do a production of a show called The Baker's Wife at a theater in Austin. Up to that point, the only other person who played that role in The Baker’s Wife was Patti LuPone. So I flew myself to see my idol, Patti LuPone, who was doing Evita on Broadway. That production of Evita was so beautiful and good. Patti is so magnificent in everything she does. She is an amazing person. And now, Patti LuPone is a friend of mine. I can't believe I get to say that.
|
7cc9c37ae62d1fc76d416f4306ffeddc | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2019/12/14/miranda-priestly-has-been-cast-for-elton-johns-broadway-bound-devil-wears-prada-musical/ | Miranda Priestly Has Been Cast For Elton John’s Broadway Bound Devil Wears Prada Musical | Miranda Priestly Has Been Cast For Elton John’s Broadway Bound Devil Wears Prada Musical
Beth Leavel is existing in “kind of a dream state,” as she describes it. And understandably so. The cat was finally out of the bag.
Beth Leavel at the The 73rd Annual Tony Awards Meet The Nominees Press Day Jemal Countess
Make that a Prada bag.
Last week it was announced that the highly anticipated The Devil Wears Prada musical had their Miranda Priestly. Leavel, a Tony-winning triple threat, fresh from her dazzling portrayal of Dee Dee Allen in The Prom, is coming back to Broadway for her 14th show. And she is playing hotshot editor-in-chief of Runway magazine.
The Devil Wears Prada has a dream creative team including music by Sir Elton John, lyrics by Shaina Taub, book by Paul Rudnick with Anna D. Shapiro directing. Taylor Iman Jones will play Priestly’s assistant Andy Sachs. Before coming to Broadway in 2021, the musical will debut at Chicago’s CIBC Theatre in July 2021.
48 hours after the news was announced Leavel was at Feinstein’s/54 Below belting her heart out at during a special preview of her upcoming solo show that she will be performing there from January 14 to January 20th. Also at the preview were singing sensations Norm Lewis, Christine Pedi, Seth Sikes who also all have upcoming standout shows at Feinstein’s/54 Below.
(From left) Seth Sikes, Beth Leavel, Christine Pedi and Norm Lewis each have upcoming shows at ... [+] Feinstein's/54 Below BFV Marketing
MORE FOR YOUWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentThe One Who Changed Everything For Tiffany Aliche, The BudgetnistaMeet This Savvy Entrepreneur From Rhode Island
At her show Leavel will performing songs from her 13 Broadway musicals.”I always want to sing the numbers that people want to hear, like stuff from The Prom and The Drowsy Chaperone. But then I've also got some surprises,” she says. Leavel is also trying her best to get permission to sing a song from The Devil Wears Prada. Wouldn't that be cool?,” she says.
Leavel knew for about a month that she was cast as Priestly but was not allowed to say anything. So until it was officially announced it didn’t feel like a reality for her. “Then when the news was out, it was like my wedding or the night of the Tony awards,” says Leavel. “I was so overwhelmed, it just made me float.”
In fact she was so overcome she got in her car and drove across the river just so she could take some time for herself. “I drove to a mall in New Jersey and walked around, just processing. I felt such gratitude and joy,” shares Leavel. “I don’t know a lot of people in the show. So I'm going to discover a whole new chosen family. Let’s go. I’m ready!”
Jeryl Brunner: Can you bring us to when you first learned about the role?
Beth Leavel: I knew the potential was happening after The Prom. I had a couple of meetings and then I waited and waited, hearing rumors and speculations. Then I found out about four weeks ago that it was definitely going to happen. I just had to sit on it.
Brunner: Have you met Sir Elton John yet?
Leavel: I have not. I met the director, Anna D. Shapiro, who is amazing. Sir Elton is on a tour. He's a little busy. I can't wait to say, 'Oh Elton can you plunk out that C for me?’ Who do I think I am? It's going to be an adventure. The film is one of my favorite movies ever. Apparently, I’m not alone. It resonates with so many people. And it’s a little surreal to me that I'm going to be singing his music. And there’s all these fabulous talented artists. Shaina Taub and Anna D. Shapiro.
Brunner: What do you love about Miranda Priestly?
Leavel: Just that she exists and I get to embody her and all that energy. I have songs that they are writing for her to express that energy. It's kind of fun to be the bad guy who's maybe not really a bad guy. It’s going to be a challenge to have people fall in love with her but I cannot wait.
Brunner: Do you know anything yet about your wardrobe and hair?
Leavel: Can you imagine what they're going to do? I'm anxious to hear what they're thinking about my hair. Do they do the iconic silver? It's all new to me. I’m talking like an excited school child.
Brunner: Have you connected with Meryl Streep? (Meryl Streep, who famously played Mirada Priestly on screen, is starring as Dee Dee Allen in Ryan Murphy’s adaptation of The Prom for Netflix. Leavel originated that role on Broadway.)
Leavel: It’s fascinating that she is sharing Dee Dee. For one thing, Meryl Streep is my idol and I see everything she is in. She's such an amazing artist and powerful woman. I look up to her. So if I'm going to share Dee Dee with someone, it's a privilege to share Dee Dee with her. I hope she's proud of my Miranda. And I hope sometime, in this crazy universe, we can have a coffee. I’ll buy.
Brunner: What do you miss most about doing The Prom?
Leavel: It is such an important story. It literally changed lives. Imagine doing that with a musical comedy? So I'm sorry that it can't change lives on Broadway right now. But there is going to be a movie and a tour. The power and the impact of The Prom will be felt for years to come in ways that we can't even really understand right now.
Brunner: Why do you like doing your show at Feinstein’s/54 Below?
Leavel: It’s not like any space I've ever played before. It's so intimate. I feel the DNA history everywhere in the wood of the place. I have performed there many times, but this is only my second solo show and the first time I've actually done it for a week. Also, performing there is so joyous . I think of the misbehaving that audience and I can do together. You have permission here to do the things you would love to do in a Broadway show, but can't. When Beth Leavel is here during that week, it's just play. And I love to open up the room to questions. Sometimes that leads into a song we haven’t planned or a great story. I’ve been in this business long enough I have so many stories and love to share them.
Beth Leavel Broadway.com
|
89dfaa1b999a766985693c3204506ff8 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2020/04/13/the-extreme-power-of-imperfection/?sh=5e6d486e1abe | The Extreme Power Of Imperfection | The Extreme Power Of Imperfection
In his #RecipesforthePeople Twitter video Chef José Andrés is making sugar omelettes while dancing with charming panache in his kitchen. One of the world’s greatest chefs is rapping and singing to “Ten Duel Commandments” from Hamilton. “One. Two Three. Four. Five,” Andrés speaks/sings while tossing sugar, caramelizing concoctions and flipping an omelette. “More sugar!” Andrés lovingly commands his sous chefs/daughters. “This is a mess,” he says.
Resident faculty member Lynzy Lab during at class at The Performing Arts Project where students are ... [+] encouraged to fail forward. James Jin
Suddenly he pauses, looks right into the camera and gently pleads:
“But who cares, if it’s good!” Another time, when cooking leftover brisket and eggs he Tweeted: “It’s not pretty but pretty good.”
In this time of fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants D.I.Y. productions, it’s refreshing to see a focus on capturing moments rather than exacting camera angles or precise blocking. Take Jimmy Fallon who does The Tonight Show from his home. Fallon’s adorable daughters, Winnie, 6, and Franny, 5, draw homemade graphics. His wife, Nancy Juvonen, handles the camera. While trying to do his monologue the kids giggle, boo, climb on dad and sometimes clomp really loud from upstairs. Fallon plows on with an impish grin.
These moments are delightfully human and genuine. “If we’re not ourselves and authentic and in our sweatshirts and taking walks and being messy and doing life, then (the audience is) going to feel it, and we can’t sustain it,” Juvonen told New York Magazine.
In the age of Pause we have grown to expect messy, mishaps and letting the chaos in. This is life. And there’s a lot to be gleaned of power in imperfection. Bring. It. On.
Just ask the people behind The Performing Art Project (TPAP). The nonprofit organization is made up of mega-talented performers, writers, producers, directors, and choreographers devoted to offering theatrical training to young people. Through their innovative programs TPAP is at the forefront helping the next generation figure out who they are as artists. “It’s important to us to create a sanctuary, a kind of laboratory, for artistic experiment,” says artistic director Jonathan Bernstein.
MORE FOR YOUWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentTerri Sewell And The Women Over 50 Raising Their Voices For Voting RightsHow This Celebrity PR Agency Represents The Alcohol Industry
Key in the TPAP lexicon is mistakes are gifts. They are, no doubt, a vital part of learning. “But instead of teaching our students to expect mistakes and to embrace them, we teach our students to actively seek them out,” explains TPAP resident faculty member Lynzy Lab who wrote the hit song and created the viral video, “A Scary Time (for Boys).” “Many people are under the misconception that success is only obtained once the goal has been met, or the skill has been achieved. But we believe that success is ever-present in the process.”
As TPAP co-founder and program director Juliet Gray shares, fear keeps us from doing things we really want. “We are so afraid of making mistakes we become afraid to take risks,” says Gray. “But at TPAP, we believe that being an artist is all about taking risks. The only way to get better at anything is to try it, fail at it, move through that moment, and try it again.”
During the Pause TPAP just launched their weekly Upstage Left Art-Making Jamboree. Held on Wednesdays at 7pm EST, the donate-if/what-you-can Zoom event features artists in a virtual roundtable discussion. The jamboree supports TPAP’s message that authentic storytelling and open-hearted exchange yields compassion and bravery. The event also has an artistic challenge. All who register are invited to create a piece of jamboree-inspired art to be displayed on TPAP's social media (@perfartsproj). This week’s jamboree features Be More Chill composer Joe Iconis and one of the show’s stars Lauren Marcus, who is also married to Iconis.
Throughout TPAP’s summer intensive programming, there is a focus on “failing forward.” As Lab observes it means trying things, on purpose, knowing you will fail. The more you try and fail, the closer you get to not failing. “To do what we do, and do it well, you have to be curious and fully invested in the work itself,” says Lab. “And if you're truly approaching the work with authenticity and humility, you are failing 99% of the time.”
TPAP's Blueprint Acting Class James Jin
At TPAP students are often asked “how did you fail today?” That question is followed up with “what did you learn from that?” As Gray explains, “The students get used talking about it and the idea that failure is part of the process of anything worth trying. If everything was easy, everyone would do it.”
Bernstein points to the Kurt Vonnegut quote as one of the bedrock philosophies of TPAP: “We have to continually be jumping off cliffs and developing our wings on the way down.” Bernstein, speaking strictly in metaphor adds, “When you are free falling and don't make your wings on time and hit the ground, it doesn't hurt as bad as you think.”
Juliet Gray Jordan Puhala
The TPAP approach to failing forward even extends to their fundraising. Every fall they hold an event in New York City at Feinstein’s/54 Below called Let Me Try That Again. Dazzling Broadway performers share their most embarrassing moments onstage. Then they get a chance to redeem themselves by recreating that moment live.
TPAP students James Jin
By the end of the night the the audience votes on the performer who most redeemed themselves. Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ben Platt, Kelli O’Hara, Krysta Rodriguez, Gavin Creel and many others have helped them raise much-needed funds for scholarships and operating costs. “We are a nonprofit and fundraising is a necessary part of our organization, but Let Me Try That Again is such a fun experience that also reminds everyone all about persistence and focus as an artist,” says Gray. “The stories the artists tell and subsequent redeeming performances are so special.”
Juliet Gray, Jonathan Bernstein and Lynzy Lab shared more.
Jeryl Brunner: So many people dream of creating something meaningful and making an impact but don’t have the confidence or feel worthy. What would you tell them?
Lynzy Lab: Just make something. ANYTHING! And once you’ve done that, you can begin to create work that is meaningful to you. Keep doing that. We all hope that art we create will make an impact on the world. That it will change someone’s life or start a revolution. But to have those expectations of yourself and of your art, is a lot of pressure. It’s a surefire way to stifle your creativity and muffle your true, authentic voice. If even 10% of your process is spent focusing on the impact your art will make, then that’s 10% of time, energy, curiosity, and commitment that is being taken away from the art itself. There are so many important discoveries to be made in that 10%.
Juliet Gray: Talk to your true friends. We all have at least one person who gets us. It helps to get it out of your head. We are all worthy and sometimes we need to have a friend remind us of that. We all have that voice in our head telling us we can’t. Even the most successful people in the world have that voice inside their heads. But it is what they do with it that makes the difference. You have to learn how to quiet that voice and tell yourself that “yes, I can.”
One way to help quiet the voice is to try this exercise: Take yourself back to a moment where you succeeded at something and felt excited and proud. It doesn’t have to be a grand thing. We have little victories every day. Choose one that meant something to you. Remember that joyful feeling. Then lean into that joy and give it a fun word. Name it. When the negative thoughts come into your head, say that word to yourself. Keep that word next to your computer. Write it down and put it somewhere you can see it. Remind yourself to remember that joyful feeling. If you keep doing that, the times that voice will come back into your head will be fewer.
Brunner: What would you like people to know about TPAP?
Lab: TPAP will change your life. If you are involved in ANY capacity, whether as a student, faculty member, administrator, your life will never be the same. It sounds dramatic, but that’s because the impact this program has on anyone fortunate enough to experience it is dramatic.
Gray: It is a unique experience to work directly with people who are extremely successful and lauded in the entertainment industry, but are also open-hearted and devoid of the kind of ego that gets in the way of learning and making great collaborative art. On any given day during our summer intensives, we have faculty members taking each other’s classes, making mistakes and learning right next to the students who are doing the very same thing in the safe environment. We all focus on process over product, so we are in the class/rehearsal rooms working together up until everyone leaves.
We do not put on a show at the end of the intensives, but instead invite parents and friends into class observations, panel discussions, and open rehearsals so they can see what we have been up to while we keep learning up until the last minute of our time together. One summer, during our three-week Panorama intensive, we challenged the students to do something every day that scared them. Well, something scary that was safe! Examples include: eat lunch with someone at TPAP who you don’t know, raise your hand to volunteer first in class, actually ask the faculty member the questions rumbling about in your head. I took that on as well and for 21 days straight I tried something new or scary-to-me. It is impossible to take that on and not come out on the other side with a deeper understanding of who you are and who you can be.
A class at The Performing Arts Project James Jin
Brunner: Jonathan, can you talk about how your mother helped shape your ideas about creativity?
Jonathan Bernstein: My mother, who passed away several years ago, was a remarkable and inspiring figure and great artist. She constantly leaned towards what scared and worried her most. To see her tackling fears, especially as I was growing up, was a great act of bravery. She was always intrigued, but profoundly scared, by fire and metal welding. My mother was primarily a ceramicist and a master of Ikebana, the Japanese art of flower arranging and was in shows at galleries.
In her late fifties she decided to tackle her greatest fear. She bought a pair of steel tip boots and a helmet with a visor. She had a friend teach her to weld metal. She would scour junk yards and married stone, metal and wood in fascinating and deeply meaningful ways. My mother created beauty from these forgotten objects and rescued them. In her studio I would be doing my homework in the corner, look up and say, ‘Mom, your sleeve is on fire.’ She would pat it with her Kevlar gloves and get back to work.
Jonathan Bernstein Vesic Photography
Juliet Gray and Lynzy Lap at TPAP's Let Me Try That Again benefit at Feinstein's/54 Below James Jin
|
6036812a56cdb479c1de6444a3012407 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2020/12/23/this-innovative-producer-mixes-up-cocktails-and-virtual-theater-bringing-them-to-your-door/?sh=1fd2aa9e2969 | This Innovative Producer Mixes Up Cocktails And Virtual Theater, Bringing Them To Your Door | This Innovative Producer Mixes Up Cocktails And Virtual Theater, Bringing Them To Your Door
Like so many industries, the pandemic has ravaged the performing arts. According to research by The Brooking Institution, performing and fine arts suffered an epic blow with losses of nearly 1.4 million jobs and $42.5 billion in sales.
Yet Holly-Anne Devlin is devoted to keeping the arts alive. Even now this producing powerhouse is creating and investing in new projects.
Holly-Anne Devlin Megan Campbell
“Art is essential,” says Devlin who has worked on the creative teams of ten Broadway shows in various capacities starting as a production assistant, working her way up to being a resident director. “Art crosses all divides. It breeds hope and optimism. It bridges the gap between all human beings regardless of politics, religion, race and sexual preference. It unites humanity, which is something that we always need, but so desperately this year.”
Throughout her career as a director, writer and producer Devlin has sought innovative ways to create theater. Fifteen years ago, while she was working on Broadway shows, she produced and directed an interactive wine tasting Off Broadway musical comedy, Wine Lovers: The Musical. Throughout the show the audience drank six glasses of wine. "I turned an initial $25,000 investment into a multi-million dollar enterprise,” says Devlin. The show has been seen by over two million people on six continents on land and sea.
From there, Devlin continued to work on Broadway and all over the world with productions like Jersey Boys, Bring It On The Musical, Walking With Dinosaurs, and many more. This was all while she was also operating her own theater companies.
Currently, her company, Kaleidoscope Entertainment, oversees a dozen immersive theater productions which have been entirely created in house. Devlin’s newest production is one creative concoction. She recently partnered with Bar Lab Cocktails and Absolute Elyx to create Speakeasy on Demand. This virtual burlesque variety show combines burlesque, dance, cocktails, acrobatics and mixology. And the cocktails are brought right to your door.
MORE FOR YOU3 Steps To Succeed With A Side Hustle In Affiliate MarketingMarani’s Ann Holder On The Importance Of Improving Maternal And Fetal Health Outcomes, Collaboration With The Mayo Clinic And The Future Of Remote HealthcareHow To Find Your Entrepreneurial Spirit
Not only can viewers access the show on any computer, smart tv, tablet, or phone, they get a shipped cooler filled with ingredients for ten bespoke cocktails with fresh ingredients. There are cold mixes for a Rosemary Old Fashioned, a Cucumber Thai basil Collins and a Strawberry Field Swizzle with strawberry puree. With a dash of panache, the Bar Lab mixologists, using their best mixology moves, demonstrate all the steps to create each cocktail at home as part of the show.
“It’s a mash up of many forms told through a high end film medium. People can celebrate all the good that remains in the world and step outside of themselves for a bit,” says Devlin of Speakeasy On Demand. “I wanted to create a space at home for people to feel free to laugh, connect with friends via Zoom, let loose and feel totally uninhibited. But with complete safely.”
Devlin produced Speakeasy entirely on her own scraping together savings and taking out a non-forgivable loan. “I held it all together with dreams and scotch tape,” she shares. “It has definitely been a journey. And it’s a celebration of voices that is so desperately needed right now.” And she is partnering with Broadway On Demand, Fever, Broadway Booking Office and other platforms who are all desperately trying to save the arts one performance at a time.
In what should have taken two weeks the shoot was crammed into four days. “I paid everyone at least three times over SAG scale because that was the right thing to do,” says Devlin who had the challenge of making the movie during the pandemic. “Every other minute of the filming we would be on the verge of tears because we were so grateful and humbled to be doing what we love. To have the opportunity to fuel someone’s inner spirit and passion is a gift and I wouldn’t give that up for anything,” she says.
However she discovered that catering lunch alone was full-time job. Everything had to be individually wrapped and sanitized. “Even just preparing dressing rooms and bathrooms is a feat unto itself,” explains Devlin. “But I committed to this project and fought tooth and nail to make it happen. And I’m proud to say that not a single member of our production member in any city was diagnosed with Covid-19 during filming.”
If all this wasn’t enough, this past June, as soon as it seemed safer to be outside, Devlin also created the Hell’s Kitchen Happiness Krewe. To help rebuild communities her company Kaleidoscope has hosted musical pop up shows in all five boroughs. The acts ranged from Fogo Azul, the Brazilian marching drum line to the Street Beat Brass Band.
The concerts are free and are are strategically positioned in front of small businesses that desperately need help. “People see our performances, feel a spark of joy and perhaps get a little rumble in their tummy and patronize the bakery that we’re standing in front of,” says Devlin. “Or, if it’s a gorgeous night, maybe they’ll have dinner at this lovely restaurant outside?”
The Hell’s Kitchen Happiness Krewe has performed in more than 80 events and utilized artists from all five boroughs to help revive the city. And Kaleidoscope has collaborated with the Mayor’s Office, The Manhattan Borough President’s Office, The City Council, Times Square Alliance, The Urban League, Broadway Inspirational Voices and many more organizations. “What started as a few friends on a street corner, trying to save our local restaurant has turned into a massive movement,” says Devlin. “If you bring arts back into the community you fuel commerce, create desperately needed jobs for arts workers, help support the hospitality industry, break down the barriers of civil unrest, and revitalize spaces that have sat empty for many months.”
Jeryl Brunner: How did you get your start?
Holly-Anne Devlin: I moved to New York City 20 years ago to attend Fordham University, Lincoln Center as a theater major. I started immediately interning at wonderful theaters like Second Stage, New York Theatre Workshop and the Signature Theatre. While interning at Second Stage in 2002, Mary Zimmerman’s Metamorphoses transferred to Broadway. The production took place in this stunning life-sized swimming pool . This was my first real opportunity to work in immersive theater. That has been a big focus for me ever since.
I had the honor of working on ten Broadway shows including Jersey Boys from its inception at the La Jolla Playhouse, when it was a ten-page treatment and Billy Crystal’s 700 Sundays, which was an incredibly special experience. I worked on tiny shows in black box theaters in Iowa to Broadway in Asia with Bring It On the Musical for Universal Pictures. It has been a wild journey, but the most important thing to me is that I develop pieces that are accessible and inclusive for everyone.
Brunner: When did you know you had to be a director and producer?
Devlin: The turning point in my career was meeting iconic theater director, Des McAnuff. We worked together for much of my adult life, with our biggest shows being Jersey Boys, which I still work on new productions today. And we did Billy Crystal’s 700 Sundays on Broadway.
I never could have imagined how much Des would teach me. Watching him juggle the massive job of overseeing the La Jolla Playhouse while also creating his own projects was a master class for almost a decade and I am eternally grateful.
Holly-Anne Devlin directing Speakeasy On Demand. The cast features Autumn Miller, Big Will Simmons, ... [+] Miss Miranda, Hazel Honeysuckle, Dan Sperry, Christian Stoniev and Scooby, Mike Peele, Ivan “Flipz” Velez, Dushaun Thompson, DJ Brynn Taylor and more. Cory Miller
Brunner: Why is helping to rebuild community so important to you?
Devlin: Building community is vital to the future of New York City. Many of our fellow New Yorkers were unable to stay due to financial hardship. So those of us who are left must continue to lift our communities up with a positive show of support and celebrations for what makes New Yorkers great, like diversity, curiosity and an unending appetite for bettering ourselves. I’m here to support the most vulnerable artists, those who can’t put food on the table, or have had to move back in with their parents because they can’t pay their rent. They are the voices that fight the hardest and will help our industry to survive and their voices deserve to be amplified.
|
f47a4fb9c7d04e2f82083e3ac12e9b82 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2021/01/05/catching-up-with-anna-chlumsky-and-her-illuminating-role-in-photograph-51/ | Catching Up With Anna Chlumsky And Her Illuminating Role In ‘Photograph 51’ | Catching Up With Anna Chlumsky And Her Illuminating Role In ‘Photograph 51’
When Playwright Anna Ziegler was commissioned by Active Cultures Theatre to write a play about female scientists, she knew nothing about pioneering biochemist Rosalind Franklin. Even though Ziegler lacked any kind of science background, she soon discovered that Franklin's life was pure dramatic gold.
Anna Chlumsky plays trailblazing biochemist Rosalind Franklin in Photograph 51 Courtesy Williamstown Theatre Festival
During the early 1950s, Rosalind Franklin, PhD was a genius British biochemist and x-ray crystallographer. Her X-ray photographs of DNA played a critical role in discovering the double helix structure of DNA. While she conducted her research at King’s College in London her Photo 51 was key to understanding the mystery of how life is passed down to generations and the basic structure of DNA.
And yet this was also a time when women were navigating the challenges of being the lone female scientist in the room. In 1941, when Franklin graduated from Cambridge, women were not even awarded degrees. It wasn’t until 1947, when Cambridge changed its rules, that Franklin could receive it. She also received a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge.
Ziegler was so taken with Franklin’s life she wrote the play Photograph 51. “She was someone who was both brilliant but also got in her own way. She was a great lens in which to investigate gender and the world of science at that time,” says Ziegler about this trailblazing scientist who was never fully recognized for her discoveries. “…this brilliant woman could get so far in her field in the 1950s and yet be hampered by the same things that got her as far as they did. Her determination and brilliance also made her stubborn and guarded.”
Photograph 51, which opened in London in 2016 to great acclaim starring Nicole Kidman, has now been revived in audio form. Audible Theater and the Williamstown Theatre Festival have joined forces to produce Photograph 51. The play stars Anna Chlumsky as Dr. Rosalind Franklin and is directed by Susan Stroman. David Corenswet, Stephen Kunken, Aasif Mandvi, Omar Metwally and Ben Rosenfield round out the cast. The play is one of seven audio shows that is part of Williamstown Theatre Festival season on Audible.
MORE FOR YOUWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentWhy You Should Write A Book As Part Of Your Content StrategyWomen In Cannabis: 8 Founders On Breaking The Grass Ceiling And How To Keep It Broken
“A woman as independently-minded as Rosalind is pretty irresistible,” says Chlumsky of playing this visionary who struggled to be taken seriously. "She was educated to have a career in the sciences at a time where women weren’t only an afterthought in higher educational institutions, but purposefully discouraged. She knew her mind was a precious tool not to be wasted. And though she actively searched places in this world where fighting wasn’t necessary she fought for its freedom and agency her entire life.”
Chlumsky shared more.
Jeryl Brunner: What would you like people to know about Rosalind Franklin and how will listeners be inspired by her story?
Anna Chlumsky: It is encouraging to discover that Rosalind has posthumously become a bit of a feminist icon for those who know her field. The fact that so much of the information we have of Rosalind is via the memories of her male colleagues brings a whole new meaning to the notion of, as I say cheekily, “feminine mystique.”
Brunner: How much research did you do?
Chlumsky: I pored through The Dark Lady of DNA, the biography by Brenda Maddox, to which Anna pointed me. Maddox does an incredible job of filling the blanks of Rosalind’s personal life and the influences which may have shaped her. She was meticulous as well as ferocious in her pursuit of answers, process and life’s design. Rosalind had a dry wit and a knack for finding enjoyment in her personal life, while perhaps saving these things for only the people in her life she could truly trust her heart to.
Brunner: What is cool about Williamstown Theatre Festival?
Chlumsky: I love, love LOVE Williamstown. The organization is fantastic at championing theater and fostering the love of what we all do through their amazing apprenticeship program. Some of the loveliest and dedicated people I’ve worked with have been at Williamstown. And the caliber of art is top notch. It’s a thrill, an honor, and a total respite to spend a summer in the Berkshires making art. The Audible experience, of course, was completely different from that. However, the cast and creative staff were every bit as excellent, regardless of the location of the work.
Brunner: Had you worked with Anna Ziegler, Susan Stroman or your castmates before?
Chlumsky: This was my first time working with everyone. While I cherish those two weeks in closets and isolated office booths, I do sort of pine for the idea of spending a whole summer with them. What an awesomely talented group of people to Zoom with together. I can only imagine what it would have been like to be on our feet in person.
Brunner: What was the process of getting the accent right?
Chlumsky: I have always adored dialects. I’m sure to the annoyance of many in my personal life. Ha! This was a dialect we had to do detective work on and build on our own, as I didn’t hear any audio recordings of Rosalind. There were great clues all around the Maddox book: The time period. Rosalind’s Kensington upbringing. Her schooling as well as an understanding of how much speech and class meant to her. There are descriptions from other people about the way she spoke. I listened to interviews of Rosalind’s relatives. And so we went from there. Barbara, our dialect coach, kept me within the left and right limits. It was very fun to do.
Brunner: What are you doing to stay sane and creatively nourished right now? How are you getting through this time?
Chlumsky: I have been very fortunate to finish filming a Netflix limited series [Inventing Anna] on a super Covid-19-safe set since September. So I feel very lucky to be doing work. Before that, it was a steady stream of Met Opera and Hamilton that gave me just the littlest reminder of how wonderful it is to sit in those audiences.
Brunner: What do you miss most about live theater?
Chlumsky: You know, it’s funny. This whole year I’ve said to anyone who’ll listen how much “I miss theater.” But I have sort of left it at that. I haven’t really thought about the reason. I supposed it is so much a part of me that it’s like discerning what I miss about a necessary bodily function. But it’s worth it to try and answer. I think I miss the ritual of people gathering together to commit to receiving a story together. I could say so much more, but it would probably all boil down to that. A theater is a sanctioned meeting ground for communally exploring the human condition. Be it in song, in dance, in spoken narrative. That is what we’re doing.
The cast and creatives of 'Photograph 51.' Courtesy Williamstown Theatre Festival
|
f12a5d12c8b09f9764cd84928bb9c105 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2021/02/11/how-judy-collins-returns-to-her-musical-and-activist-roots/?sh=1baff64fc381 | How Judy Collins Returns To Her Musical And Activist Roots | How Judy Collins Returns To Her Musical And Activist Roots
A century ago in 1921 The Town Hall was founded by suffragists to offer a locale where people could join together, offer visions about the future, converse about important issues and raise consciousness.
Judy Collins Louis Nelson
It was also a concert venue where artists could tell stories, perform songs and offer hope through music. It was a place where you could experience Billie Holiday, Langston Hughes, Sarah Vaughn, Dizzy Gillespie or Eleanor Roosevelt on its stages. It was a place where Margaret Sanger was arrested when she dared to speak to men and women in the audience about birth control. It was a place where Bob Dylan performed in his first major concert. The concert hall continues to play a key role in the fabric of the culture of New York City.
In March 1964, Judy Collins was all of 24 when she gave her first Town Hall concert. She was a relative newbie recording artist living on West 10 and Hudson Street in New York City and had a deal with Elektra records. Jac Holzman, founder and president of the label decided they should record her show. “I was very nervous since my record company decided to record this concert and put it out as an album,” she recalls about making her first live record.
1964 was a fraught time for the nation. Five months before John F. Kennedy had been assassinated. “The feeling that we would never quite get over this terrible loss swept over much of the country,” says Collins who has spent her life as an activist. “Soon there would be marches against the Vietnam War and evidence in the United States that racism was still in full throttle.”
The time was also personally fraught for Collins. She was in the midst of a divorce from her first husband which would would result in her losing custody of her son Clark. She was also recovering from tuberculosis. As Collins describes it, she “lived in a sort of wave that varied between ecstasy and despair.” She looked towards the concert to help raise awareness to the needs of justice. She hoped to help inspire change.
MORE FOR YOUWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentThis Femtech Company Is Pioneering Mucus Engineering As A New Alternative To Hormonal Birth ControlThe Four Steps That Will Help You Decide If A Work Meeting Is Necessary
Who says you can’t go home again? On February 12, The Town Hall is presenting a special streaming concert Judy Collins: A Return To Her Legendary 1964 Concert as she recreates her Town Hall debut. An album was also recorded as it was half a century ago, with some new material.
Filmed onstage with just Collins and a crew the concert will be streamed on February 12 at 8 p.m. EST. “Making this album and concert at The Town Hall, my very first solo appearance at one of the great concert stages in New York, was a joyous event,” she says. “It feels right to go back to the material and time period now with the knowledge and life lessons learned in 2020.”
The original Town Hall live concert album Courtesy Judy Collins
Collins shared more.
Jeryl Brunner: During the 1960s, you were such a strong voice in the civil rights movement and you continue to be one. Why was it important to become an activist?
Judy Collins: I was born into a family where activism was a birthright as well as an obligation. My father was outspoken on his radio show for thirty years where he sang beautifully, played the piano and stimulated with his poetry and lyrics. He also spoke his mind about Joseph McCarthy whom he loathed. He would be very vocal about the Vietnam War and anything else in the pursuit of manifest destiny.
Around our dinner table we were very much expected to express our views about politics, art, books like Moby Dick and the turmoil of the times,. By the time I picked up the guitar and started playing and singing around the country I had a sense of wonder about how much we are lied to by the government. I understood how often things go awry when they shouldn’t. And I felt the deep obligation to say something and do something. Nowadays they say, “If you see something, say something,” and that was from my upbringing as well.
Brunner: How did that translate into your music?
Collins: I found great songs about things that troubled me. This was a time when I did not write songs of my own at all but found them in profusion—songs of love and pain, war and peace, justice and crime. Writers like Tom Paxton and Bob Dylan walked around the streets of Greenwich Village and met me with their songs and burning hope and conviction that things could change. I am and always have been an optimist and a dreamer. And I believe that everyone has the potential to change.
Brunner: Was there a key moment in your life when you knew you had to be an artist?
Collins: I believe my path was chosen for me at a very early age. I started playing the piano at four, sang on my father’s radio shows and performed in the choirs at church and school. There were constantly performances where I learned about not letting my nerves shake me and about taking my time doing what I was supposed to do.
My father also performed in concerts. So when I was little, I traveled with my father and my mother on the road, touring the Northeast when I was four. I sang my first solo, “I’ll Be Home For Christmas,” on stage in Butte Montana. It went all right even though it was April. It might have been that moment that I knew that this is what I was going to do. I didn’t have any fear about performing.
Brunner: Did you study music?
Collins: In my piano lessons with my teacher, Dr. Brico, I had to practice a couple hours a day in order in order to play Beethoven, Mozart and Rachmaninov. And that gave me a steady discipline. It has seen me through these 60 years of being a singer-songwriter and hopefully entrainer who can bring people to their feet as well as break hearts and cause people to—at least on occasion—do the right thing.
Brunner: How are you staying sane and creatively nurtured during this time?
Collins: I practice most days, playing the piano and singing some of the new songs that I’m writing for my new album “Beauty and Resistance.” It will be released in the Fall of 2021. I keep up with friends and family as much as possible. We Zoom as a continuation of the social dinners my husband and used to have throughout the year. I also read and watch wonderful movies. I should send you my movies list it is amazing! I also write in my journals and keep my exercise up on regular basis. I have a treadmill and a stationary bike in the apartment which helps when it’s snowing.
Brunner: Is it hard to describe how singing makes you feel?
Collins: Singing is my painting. It is my observance of things around me. It’s the way I express my dreams and it’s the way I vent my frustrations. It’s divinity and perpetuity and seems to be the way I best communicate. It’s a dream come true really.
Brunner: So many people long to help make change in the world, but feel powerless or don't think they the resources. What would you like to tell them?
Collins: Do what's in front of you. Don’t be afraid. Remember perfection is sometimes your enemy. You find out you can do most anything you set your mind on.
Brunner: Among your many interests and talents, you are a musical mentor. What does mentoring give you?
Collins: I did not know when I was growing up that I was going to have this career or that it was possible. There was no Great folk Revival when I got my first paycheck. As far as I was concerned it was the passion of this thing that drove me. But what people told me about my work was always tremendously important.
I remember Edward Gordon who ran Ravinia Festival, the Arts Festival outside of Chicago told me in 1968 that I was an artist. He said it in such a way to assure me that I was on the right path. We need that assurance. The applause is wonderful but as my father would tell me “don’t worry about who is in the audience or how many one of them there are. One could be the queen of England.” You never know.
|
4e6ddf85815a7c9ed0a1724d36044a3d | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2021/02/26/taking-agency-over-their-careers-these-beloved-improvisers-formed-their-own-non-profit-comedy-theater-and-school/ | Taking Agency Over Their Careers, These Beloved Improvisers Formed Their Own Nonprofit Comedy Theater And School | Taking Agency Over Their Careers, These Beloved Improvisers Formed Their Own Nonprofit Comedy Theater And School
When she was in the fourth grade Corin Wells had to memorize and recite Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have A Dream speech. While the task might seem daunting and a lot of pressure for a fourth grader, she performed to great acclaim and even got a standing ovation.
Corin Wells Michael Kushner Photography
“All I remember was that I was wearing white tights, how proud my grand pop was and the high of getting that standing ovation,” says Wells who can still recite the speech by heart.
Thankfully for us, she has been chasing that high ever since.
Wells found her mojo when started taking improv classes at Philly Improv Theatre. “I fell in love. Or was I brainwashed?” she wonders. “Hard to say.” In 2014, Wells began studying improv at the Upright Citizen’s Brigade (UCB). Considered one of the world’s leading improv schools and theaters, Corin was a standout there.
She joined the beloved musical improv team Rumpleteaser, which literally created a brand new musical on the spot. As Mike Birbiglia said after seeing the show, it was “the hardest I’ve laughed in a long time.” She also created some fiercely funny characters like “Cupid Joins The Black Panther Party” or “Eve Giving Birth,” performing them at UCB’s Characters Welcome show.
For Wells, creating and performing at UCB gave her that high like no other. “I drank that sweet Kool-Aid and would have done whatever I needed to to get on that UCB stage,” she says. “There is nothing more freeing to me than performing in front of a packed audience or in a bar, basement or on Zoom and just messing around with a bunch of people who I love, respect and make me laugh. It’s basically adult pretend and once you learn how to do it really well, it’s the best feeling in the world.”
MORE FOR YOUWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentTerri Sewell And The Women Over 50 Raising Their Voices For Voting RightsThe Pandemic Has Created A New Kind Of Burnout, Which Makes Well-Being More Critical Than Ever
Last April after the pandemic hit UCB’s training center and theater were shut down. For many in the UCB community the news was devastating. “When UCB made the decision to close, a lot of people, including myself, were at a loss. We all thought, going into the lockdown and quarantine, that we would have a stage and a community to come back to,”explains Wells.
With her artistic home gone she and her several other UCB performers found a way to build a brand new one where they could where they could create, perform and teach. “We set out to create a space where everyone, including those disenfranchised with other theaters, could rebuild and redefine the New York comedy scene and create weird stuff with weird people,” says Wells.
This past November Wells and five other UCB talents—Lou Gonzalez, Michael Hartney, Patrick Keene, Maritza Montañez and Alex Song-Xia formed the nonprofit Squirrel Comedy Theatre. Their mission is to provide a creative home for sketch and improv comedians. At its core the theater celebrates community, representation, transparency, and equality. They are also devoted to financially compensating artists, which many improv theaters don’t do.
The founders of The Squirrel Comedy Theatre. (From top left): Michael Hartney, Maritza Montañez, Lou ... [+] Gonzalez, Corin Wells, Patrick Keene and Alex Song-Xia Courtesy Squirrel Comedy Theatre
“No one owns The Squirrel Comedy Theatre so every decision we make will be purely for the good of the theater,” explains Hartney who was also an original cast member of the Broadway musical School of Rock. “Nonprofit status also makes us eligible for grants and large, tax-deductible contributions that will help us secure a physical space and subsidize classes for scholarship students from diverse backgrounds. And finally, having to be transparent about our financials means accountability, something I believe the community has been demanding for a long time.”
For Wells and the rest of the Squirrel Comedy Theatre founders inclusion and equality is embedded in their fabric. Core in their beliefs is to foster an environment where people can fully express themselves and not feel like their identity is a limitation or a tokenized commodity. Starting with its majority-queer and POC foundership, they aim to create a community that fully resembles myriad diverse voices.
“I’m a black woman who has had to navigate predominantly white spaces my entire life. And let me tell you, it’s exhausting. Especially when you are trying to create art that is authentic to you while also having to appease and impress the white gaze,” shares Wells. “We want everyone to feel a sense of belonging when they come to Squirrel. We want them to feel that this theater is theirs.”
Jeryl Brunner: It’s hard to create a sketch and improv comedy theater and school, period. But it would seem especially hard during a pandemic. Why was it important to create Squirrel Comedy Theatre now?
Corin Wells: This life pause allowed us to really do our homework and research so we could do this the right way. We were able to really flesh out what we want this theater to look like. Also, a lot of people went from performing and taking classes everyday to instantly nothing. That’s jarring and dare I say, traumatic. So filling that void for our community as soon as possible was really important to us.
Brunner: So many people dream of doing something super creative like starting a comedy venue like The Squirrel Comedy Theatre. What gave you that courage?
Wells: Honestly, it’s the other Squirrel founders. I trust Michael, Patrick, Lou, Maritza and Alex fully. They are so passionate, talented, driven and smart as hell. They are a really great group of freaks who have a similar vision and love for New York comedy.
Brunner: What kinds of virtual courses are you offering via Zoom?
Wells: Squirrel offers online classes in sketch, improv and characters at all levels. I teach a character class called Creating Characters that guides students through conception, writing and performing their own original characters pieces. Teaching via Zoom has been surprisingly fun and easy. The class is a good balance of writing and performance and discussion so Zoom really lends itself well to the format. Some of my students have said how cathartic it is to have a consistent creative outlet every week where they can talk to and create with people. It’s been very cathartic for me too.
Brunner: What would you like people to know about your shows?
Wells: We currently do shows Wednesday and Thursday nights starting at 8 on our Twitch Live Stream. They are so fun and weird. It’s amazing to see people create through this panda mic.
Brunner: What has kept you sane during this time?
Wells: Assuming I am sane. The jury is still out. I’m rewatching True Blood with my roommate, performing with Borabish! every week and playing Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla. I feel exposed.
|
8f22c7ca787040c427dcda1c8a57266c | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2021/02/27/how-to-support-womenin-the-workforce-careerbuilders-president-offers-her-guidance/?utm_source=elinfonet | How To Support Women In The Workforce: CareerBuilder’s President Offers Her Guidance | How To Support Women In The Workforce: CareerBuilder’s President Offers Her Guidance
The pandemic has impacted all of our lives. And that is especially true for women in the workplace. This unprecedented time has exacerbated a long-term problem: the wage and promotion gap for females.
CareerBuilder president Sasha Yablonovsky Courtesy CareerBuilder
According to data from the Census Bureau in July, women are more than three times more likely not to be working due to pandemic-related caregiving needs. As Sasha Yablonovsky, president of HR tech company CareerBuilder and a mother of two explains, often times the woman, who by force of necessity, has to leave her career.
“Women in dual households with children have usually been the parent forced to quit their jobs to become caregivers because they typically make less than their male partners,” she says. Yablonovsky believes that employers should be paying more attention to this trend.
“Ideally, workers at every level in a company should feel comfortable asking for better work-life-family balance or talking openly about compensation. But we’re not there yet. So company leaders need to take the first step in raising the conversation,” says Yablonovsky. “They have the most to gain from being flexible.” As she explains, good leaders should be committed to finding a solution for their employees. They should be willing to do what it takes not to lose a valued employee.
Yablonovsky has noticed a great stigma around discussing pay imbalance. It’s so awkward for people to discuss that she finds that many people will quit their job and search for the next rather than ask for a raise. “Just as you wouldn’t shy away from a real conversation about give and take with your partner, you shouldn’t have to hold back with your manager, either,” she says.
MORE FOR YOUStacey Abrams To Female Business Leaders: You Can Use Your Platform To Amplify Need For Voting RightsThis Woman Raised Over $400 Million For A Hormone-Free Contraceptive Gel So That Women Feel EmpoweredHow To Whisper Pitch Your Email List
Yablonovsky has also found great professional benefit from one of the often-overlooked aspects of supporting female workers: time off for men. Before the pandemic, she worked in Chicago Monday through Friday. Then she flew home to Boston on the weekends. Her husband took the lead on home and childcare responsibilities while she focused on her career.
Throughout the pandemic, Yablonovsky has used the lessons from her life to remain devoted to jobseekers who have lost work due to Covid-19. She also looks for ways to help companies grappling with supporting their workforce amid an uncertain economic horizon. Her mantra for employers is: “End the gap. Fight for your employees and include everyone.”
As one of many parents trying to navigate a remote work environment since early 2020 she offers her guidance to both employers and employees.
Jeryl Brunner: What actions can employers take to support women in the workforce?
Sasha Yablonovsky: Three things come to mind. First, close the wage and promotion gaps in your own company. Women are usually the parent forced to quit their jobs to become caregivers, because they are underpaid compared to their partner. To prevent this, ensure women are not just making as much as their male counterparts, but that they are promoted at the same rate. Consider adapting performance reviews to account for the extra challenges women have faced during the pandemic.
Also, fight to keep employees. Design and offer flexible options to employees who might otherwise resign due to childcare concerns. Focus on accomplishments and execution of tasks or projects versus just hours worked and how many of those hours are worked during the day. Allowing for that flexibility while expecting high yield results will benefit the company and the employee. Offer leave of absence where possible and assure employees that their jobs will be held for them when they're ready to return.
Additionally, don’t forget about men’s role. Men should be offered the same benefits and flexibility as women. This means they have the ability to take PTO or rearrange their schedule so they can take on more caregiver responsibilities and more evenly distribute workloads at home.
Brunner: During this pandemic, while many parents work from home, how can you juggle your family and personal life while excelling at work?
Yablonovsky: Bringing my best to work was easier when I was out of the house. It used to be that Monday through Friday, I was in Chicago with all work and no play. On weekends, I was laser-focused on my kids. My husband and I divided our week that way. It worked for us, and our kids were aware of it. Since working from home, my focus on weekdays is still mostly work. But I also need to dedicate time to engaging with my family at home. It means I work more on the weekends.
I feel guilty being at home and not spending time with my family. So I have started pre-planning weekend activities with my kids to make the most of those times. Having hard lines for start and end times at work helps too. But I’m still working on balancing. It’s not a perfect formula.
My advice for blending personal and work life: You can only do your best. We are all human. While I keep hearing “the new normal,” I’m reminded that it was never normal for me. Embrace it. Work will continue to evolve. And as it shifts, we need to shift too.
Brunner: What advice would you give those who are looking for a job right now?
Yablonovsky: Keep in mind that the skills you have gained throughout your career and your life can be applied to multiple roles and industries. If you have been caring for your kids, most likely you are an expert in patience, communications skills, budgeting, and vendor management. Working with telecom companies and managing how your household runs is vendor management. It involves all sorts of problem solving. You can parlay these skills into job opportunities.
Think about deliberately taking action to conquer your self-doubt. Here’s an exercise: list the skills you have developed over your career, including those you’ve gained while being out of work. Then write how your new skills translate to the job you’re applying for.
Brunner: What tips or tools can you use when looking for a job?
Yablonovsky: You can find tools and build your professional network via virtual networking sessions. Because everything went digital in 2020, you’re no longer confined to your location for career fairs. At these online events, there are usually activities, agendas and guided discussions. You never know who you might meet, the resources you’ll gain or the information you will learn.
Brunner: What about job sites?
Yablonovsky: Job sites are a great tool and can help recruiters proactively find you. When selecting a job site, keep a couple of things in mind. Ensure the site lets you customize your profile so you can show yourself off as a well-rounded candidate, including your social media profiles and professional accomplishments. Also, make sure it lets you store multiple versions of your resume tailored for different types of positions. That way you have versions on-hand to quickly apply to postings.
Brunner: What is one piece of advice you would give for the working parent?
Yablonovsky: Talk to your kids. Engage them in conversations. Let them understand your work, your obstacles and limitations, and be honest with them.
Often, we want to shelter our kids from reality when we think it is scary. But we need to explain to our children when changes happen. Kids are intuitive. They do not like uncertainty. The more they know, the less anxious they’ll be.
|
92fb4fedaf0f9bce6142fa280ca63537 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2021/02/28/this-actress-made-a-giant-career-pivot-and-got-a-stylish-and-wildly-successful-second-act/?sh=335f26b26e7d | This Actress Made A Giant Career Pivot And Got A Stylish And Wildly Successful Second Act | This Actress Made A Giant Career Pivot And Got A Stylish And Wildly Successful Second Act
You know that saying, “when one door closes a window opens”? Kate Dawson’s window is covered in sparkles and glitter and is filled with possibilities that she could never have imagined. At the age of 44, with no formal training, Dawson, a successful actress, built her own thriving interior design business, Decor Whore.
Kate Dawson Mallika Malhotra
Over the years friends always told Dawson that she should be an interior designer. But front and center was the pull to become an actor and singer. Her passion for design goes back to childhood and the joy she felt when her mother let her decorate her own room. “And whenever I played with Barbies I was really only focused on creating an amazing home for her and Ken,” she shares.
During her Junior year in college when Dawson moved into an apartment with a roommate, her friends were dazzled by the little apartment she decorated on the cheap from antiquing and flea market finds. The place contained beautiful fabrics, stylish artwork and splashes of color.
“It felt like a real home. Most college apartments are just a hodgepodge of inexpensive stuff thrown together with no style or design,” recalls Dawson. That was the first time she discovered her talent for interior design.
Meanwhile, Dawson continued to purse her performing dream. After getting a degree in musical theater from Millikin University she moved to New York and made her Broadway debut landing the plumb role of Emily for three seasons in A Christmas Carol at Madison Square Garden. She did loads and loads of voiceovers for film and TV and acted in theaters around the country from California to Alabama.
MORE FOR YOUWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentTerri Sewell And The Women Over 50 Raising Their Voices For Voting RightsThis Femtech Company Is Pioneering Mucus Engineering As A New Alternative To Hormonal Birth Control
She created and co-produced the children’s book and CD Over the Moon: The Broadway Lullaby Project and birthed and performed her one-woman show, The A**hole in My Head. Along the way Dawson married actor Jedidiah Cohen, who played Rod McCallister in the Home Alone movies and they had a son.
Dawson’s design expertise showed up for her in a big way when she and her family had to downsize to an apartment. After a promising investment in a new business went wrong they could no longer afford their house.
“When we were forced to sell our beautiful home, which was heartbreaking, and move to an apartment, I wanted to make our new space feel cozy and homey and had to do it on a budget,” she shares. Through that experience, she discovered that loving your space changes the way you feel. “Our environments have a huge impact on our mental health,” says Dawson.
Friends would come over and complement them on the décor. When one particular friend shared how much she loved the place, Dawson sort of chuckled and said, “It’s all T.J. Maxx, HomeGoods, estate sales and Craig’s List… cuz I’m a whore for a good deal…In fact, I’m a whore for decor too!” Then these words tumbled from her lips, “You can call me a Decor Whore!”
She and her friend laughed so hard. Dawson had a revelation. She said, “OMG. If I ever start a business I’m calling it that.” After they finally stopped giggling, the friend hired Dawson to design her office. In 2019, Decor Whore was born.
After Dawson posted before and after pictures of the office people went “kinda crazy” over them. Suddenly she received messages and texts requesting to upgrade other spaces. Her business grew from there.
Since starting Decor Whore, Dawson has transformed more than 50 spaces in the New York City area. Her mantra is that any designer can take you to a pricey store and show you a $12,000 couch. (Which she can also do.) “But where is the fun in that? Where is the individuality? Where is the creativity? Where is the thrill of the deal and the quest?” She asks. “Well that’s where I come in.”
Kate Dawson Mallika Malhotra
Jeryl Brunner: How did you transition from actor to business owner?
Kate Dawson: It wasn’t a one-step process. It happened in stages. But when I look back, I realize that all of my experiences prepared me for exactly what I’m doing today. Especially performing. What I love about theater, and art overall, is connecting to others through stories. Storytelling is essential to humanity, and it’s the only way we can truly get into someone else’s world to try and understand our differences and also our sameness.
One of the things I realized early on in my career as a designer is that our homes tell a story. And in order to design a space that my client loves, I need to be able to get inside his or her head and be a great listener and observer. And that is something my years as an actor definitely helped. I also think it prepared me for putting myself out there over and over again. As an actor you gotta go out and find the jobs. It is the same with my business.
Brunner: What would you tell your younger self?
Dawson: I’d tell her that she’s not too much. I’d tell her that all those “toos” that she’s heard through the years, you’re too loud, too dramatic, too sensitive, too much, are actually the clues to her true self and her life purpose, and that the more she can stay true to that self, the more success she’ll have. I’d also tell her to trust that there is something greater at work – cuz there is.
Brunner: So many people dream of doing something super creative like you are doing. What would you advise?
Dawson: When I was toying around with the idea of Decor Whore, I remember stumbling upon a quote I saw on Facebook that my friend Dee had posted. It said, “Successful people start before they’re ready.” That stopped me in my tracks because I had been dragging my feet trying to figure out SO MANY things. I thought that once I had, I’d be “ready” to take this leap. When I read that quote I realized that there was no way to figure it out without doing it. So my advice is to just start. Just do the thing. And know that you will likely have to re-invent it a million times. But you can’t learn to ride a bike by staring at it. Get on the bike and see what happens.
Brunner: How has your business been impacted by Covid-19?
Dawson: Surprisingly, and thankfully – it’s made people reassess their homes and realize how life enhancing it is to love your space! I do not want to make light of this worldwide crisis, because the truth is that this pandemic has changed the world in ways that we can’t even fully comprehend yet. And it has been a roller coaster to say the least. But I’m also grateful that it’s forced us to slow down.
Before we were are just running and racing to get to the next meeting, music class, or swim lesson. Before Covid it was easier to not love your home since we spent so little time there. Now, people are seeing that being surrounded by beauty brings joy, and literally changes the way you experience life, which changes the way you show up in the world.
Brunner: What are some tips to freshen up your space on a small budget or without doing an entire overhaul of our house?
Dawson: I have a completely un-scientific totally made-up algorithm for styling a room like a pro. I call it the “FOUR P’s.”
Paint. The number one game-changer for a room is paint. It is a decorator’s miracle. There are so many things you can do with paint, whether you decide to paint the whole room, or maybe just an accent wall. Or how about the ceiling? Or if you have a lot of brown wood furniture paint it white.
Pillows. Throw pillows! Do you have an old sofa or chair that you can’t replace or reupholster? Go to HomeGoods and bring home an assortment of fun and colorful pillows that you love! Remember you can always return them. So if you see a bunch in the store that you like, but can’t decide, buy them all and play with them back in the space! And even throwing a blanket that ties in with one of the pillows over the side of a sofa arm will enhance the overall look. Never underestimate the power of pillows.
Pictures. You cannot have a room with blank walls. And I’m not talking about one picture hung in the middle of the wall in the middle of the room. I’m talking about an assortment of framed pictures, or artwork, that you can hang in a grouping that will bring interest, color, and texture into the space. And make sure you have pictures hanging on several walls. Not just one.
Plants. That’s right. Plants. I know that most of you are thinking, “I kill every plant I own.” So do I! But here’s the good news! There are so many fantastic faux plants out there now! Home Goods has an assortment of sizes. Nothing brings in the energy of life the way a plant does. If you have an empty corner, get a big faux fiddle leaf fig tree potted plant. Tuck those cute little faux succulents you’ll find in the check out line in coffee, end tables and bookcases. It’s a game changer! Bringing in that green gives a new pop of color and vibrancy to the space. So don’t shy away from the faux plants.
|
79c1d564cad479513235edfb910158d3 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunner/2021/03/24/this-visionary-nonprofit-amplifies-the-voices-of-female-musicians-who-make-up-musical-theater/ | This Visionary Nonprofit Amplifies The Voices Of Female Musicians Who Make Up Musical Theater | This Visionary Nonprofit Amplifies The Voices Of Female Musicians Who Make Up Musical Theater
Women make up roughly 51.4% of the population. However, when it comes to a variety of fields they are vastly underrepresented. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics just 19% of software developers are women. Only 9.8% of them work in construction. They make up a mere 9.9% of the construction industry and a mere 5.2% of US aircraft pilots and flight engineers are female.
Georgia Stitt and Kate Baldwin Kristin Pulido
In musical theater the odds for women aren’t much better. Only 22% of musicians in bands and orchestras in Broadway musicals are women. In the last decade just one woman, Lynne Shankel, the orchestrator for the Broadway show Allegiance was the sole orchestrator on a Broadway show.
Georgia Stitt, a respected composer and music director is devoted to helping change this void. In 2016, when she was working as the music director for the Off-Broadway production of Sweet Charity the show’s director, Leigh Silverman, asked to hire an all-female band.
“Trying to find those women was hard and forced me to look outside the core group of guys I had defaulted to hiring in the past,” says Stitt. Once she got through the hiring process, she realized she possessed a rather vast and valuable spreadsheet of women musicians. She then hired a web designer to build a directory. It has since grown to include more than 1000 profiles. “They are all women, non-binary, and TGNC musicians who are ready to work,” says Stitt.
Stitt’s next mission was to figure out how to support and showcase all these talents who are not always visible. And in 2017 Maestra Music was born.
Maestra Music, which became an official 501(c)3 in 2019, offers support, visibility, and community for the female, non-binary, and TGNC music makers in the theater industry. Ever growing its many members include Tony and Grammy Award-winners like Hadestown creator Anais Mitchell, Frozen composer Kristen Anderson-Lopez, singer, songwriter Julie Gold, Fun Home composer Jeanine Tesori and more. They can all be found in a directory that makes it easy for those doing the hiring to search for women who match their musical needs.
MORE FOR YOUStacey Abrams To Female Business Leaders: You Can Use Your Platform To Amplify Need For Voting RightsMarani’s Ann Holder On The Importance Of Improving Maternal And Fetal Health Outcomes, Collaboration With The Mayo Clinic And The Future Of Remote HealthcareThis Woman Raised Over $400 Million For A Hormone-Free Contraceptive Gel So That Women Feel Empowered
On March 29, Maestra will host its inaugural concert event, #Amplify2021, a new virtual venue powered by Broadway Unlocked. Directed and co-produced by Tony Award-nominee Kate Baldwin, the concert will include exclusive performances from a plethora of Broadway talents including Ashley Park, Nikki M. James, Brandon Victor Dixon, Eva Noblezada, Reeve Carney, Shoshana Bean and Bernadette Peters.
Viewers will be able to enter in and out of virtual rooms, connect with more Broadway stars and experience an after party. The pre show and event are free, but the post show rooms, with Broadway stars, require a donation of $50 or more.
When Stitt thinks of the future of Maestra and theater she is filled with hope. “If we have done our job right, when the theater starts to come back, people in all sectors of the industry are going to be having conversations about racial and gender equity,” she shares. “They will look to Maestra and our partner organization MUSE (Musicians United for Social Equity) for resources about to how to make the changes the industry is asking of them.”
Yet the thing that excites her most is the day when she can hear the musicians play together in three dimension. “The big halls, the small clubs, the jam sessions—I miss it all,” she adds. “I can’t wait to sit in a Broadway theater and watch a conductor give her downbeat and hear the audience burst into applause because the show is finally starting.”
Jeryl Brunner: Is it still true that just one female orchestrator, Lynne Shankel, worked on Broadway in the last decade? And how is Maestra helping to change the landscape of inclusion?
Georgia Stitt: According to our research, the only person in the last decade to be the sole orchestrator on a Broadway show is Lynne Shankel, for Allegiance in 2015. Though there are several other women who have participated as part of an orchestration team. I’m specifically thinking of Catherine Jayes (The Color Purple), Sara Bareilles (Waitress), Katie Kresek (Moulin Rouge) and AnnMarie Milazzo and Haley Bennett (Once On This Island). Going a little further back Mary-Mitchell Campbell worked on Company in 2006 and Sarah Travis worked on Sweeney Todd in 2005. But those credits are few and far between.
Why is that? Most people don’t know so much about what orchestration is. And so when it comes time to hire an orchestrator, they reach out to someone who has done it before. But if you’ve never done it before, how do you break in, even when you’re skilled? That lack of access is part of what Maestra is trying to address.
Brunner: How can audience members and producers help Maestra’s mission?
Stitt: The idea of visibility is an important one. Producers can commit to hiring more women musicians. And artistic directors can program a different kind of season, seeking out women writers and directors, or even take a risk on a talented voice who hasn’t already proven herself somewhere else. Men are often seen for their potential. Women are seen for their past achievements. Hire a woman because you believe she CAN do it, not just because she’s already done it. Audience members also have an enormous amount of power. If you have never seen a woman conductor, mention it to your local theater, your local orchestra. Find the women artists you like, follow them on social media, support their work.
Brunner: How has Covid-19 changed your programming and mission?
Stitt: In March 2020, we were less than two weeks away from our Maestra launch party when the industry shut down. Instead of launching, we threw ourselves into moving our Technical Workshop Series online. Hundreds of people started showing up each week, almost no matter the topic. We leaned into the community aspect of our mission statement more than ever. We began to understand how important it was for us to be filling this enormous empty space in these musicians’ lives.
Brunner: You have so many incredible guests at your upcoming gala. What can viewers expect?
Stitt: We have partnered with Broadway Unlocked to create a virtual venue. It’s really a website but you’ll see it’s also a virtual venue. The way it works is this: you'll enter the venue at 7 p.m. ET (4 p.m. PT). You can check out the bar, the piano bar, the chat rooms, the gallery, the lobby or the green room. At 8 p.m., we all head to the stage to watch the show together, chatting in real time and celebrating the programs and people who make up the Maestra community. It’s almost like you’re in a real theater! Then, if you want to stick around and donate, the after-party will include VIP rooms hosted by a slew of Broadway stars.
Brunner: Why is Maestra special?
Kate Baldwin: Georgia Stitt has been my collaborator, music director and favorite composer for years. When the pandemic closed down all live performance, I looked around for ways to get involved with organizations I care about. One of them is Maestra because it is looking to raise awareness about gender parity in the Broadway music scene. So I offered to help as a volunteer.
Brunner: What has been your experience working with female musicians and why is it important to have more equity in this arena?
Baldwin: I've had two female music directors on Broadway and one Off Broadway. I was in one musical composed by a woman and had numerous female musicians as collaborators in Broadway pits. It is important to see more equity in this arena because there are talented female players who have the skills to fill the many positions within the music department. But they have been left out. This business, like most businesses, relies on “who you know” so often and if you're not “known” you don't get an opportunity.
Brunner: Can you give a preview of what people will experience at #Amplify2021?
Baldwin: Viewers will hear stories from our members along with performances from Broadway friends who are representing the work of four Maestras. Ashley Park sings a song from KPOP, with words and music by Golden Globe and Academy Award nominee Helen Park. Eva Noblezada and Reeve Carney sing from Hadestown, with words and music by Tony winner Anais Mitchell. Brandon Victor Dixon will sing an original tune by Larson Award winner Rona Siddiqui. Nikki M James, Kenita Miller, Shelley Thomas, and Tanya Birl will sing from The Bubbly Black Girl Sheds Her Chameleon Skin by Obie Award winner Kirsten Childs.
Brunner: How will funds raised at the gala help support Maestra programs?
Baldwin: The money raised will fund the Maestra technical workshops which are offered for free to anyone, not just members, who want to learn from them. It will fund Maestra chapters in other cities around the globe and support programs including the Mentorship Program, the Maestra Care program and Maestra Moms. It will also help fund more statistical research and DEI training.
Brunner: When Broadway returns what are you most excited about and what do you miss most about it?
Baldwin: I’m excited to see the explosion of new work featuring new voices which will burst forth after being held back during this long year. The thing I miss most about Broadway is the community. For me, it's about the people I work with and Maestra has provided that incredible community during this year of isolation. It has been the thing that has kept me going—the hope that we can build something that better represents who we are as a group.
|
3e78f3424eed1efe9fbc91bc45a51db7 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jesscording/2017/10/10/real-life-ways-to-up-your-water-intake/?sh=4b36cbe77232 | Real-Life Ways To Up Your Water Intake | Real-Life Ways To Up Your Water Intake
You’ve likely heard health professionals say you need to up your water intake, but they don’t always go into why or how. Here’s one big reason I talk about water with my nutrition clients: When you find yourself feeling sluggish and a little foggy-headed during your workday, it's often because you're a bit dehydrated, which can impair cognitive function—major productivity killer.
Some other common symptoms of mild dehydration that can throw a wrench into the day may include headache, irritability and, of course, thirst. Ever notice how when you stop and drink a glass of water, though, you perk up like a flower?
Aside from keeping our brains powered up, we need water to regulate body temperature, lubricate the joints and cushion our organs. It also helps keep food moving through the digestive tract and enables the body to effectively eliminate waste.
There’s no official recommendation for how much plain water you should be drinking, but there are general guidelines about much overall fluid you should aim to consume between foods and beverages. Exactly how much depends on various factors like age, activity level and certain medications and underlying health conditions. We might need more if we’re very physically active, sweating or experiencing vomiting or diarrhea or have a fever. Certain health conditions and medications can also impact fluid needs.
A jumping-off point for most healthy adults is about 30-35 milliliters per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight. For a 70 kilogram (154-pound) person, that’s about 2100-2450 milliliters, or 70-82 ounces. To give yourself an easy starting place, take your weight in pounds, divide it by 2, and that’s your baseline of how many ounces of fluid you need a day. Tack on a little extra to account for physical activity or other things that may increase your needs. Divided into 8-ounce cups, 70 ounces is almost 9 cups per day.
Easy Ways To Increase Your Water Intake Jessica Cording Nutrition
The right approach to help you increase your water intake depends on what your personal barrier is. Try these healthy hacks to make it easier to drink up:
If You HateThe Taste
Pretending to like the taste of plain water and choking it down likely won’t work for you, so don’t force it. Instead, make it interesting. Try sparkling water or add lemon, lime, or cucumber slices to flat. You can also infuse it with fresh fruit and herbs and strain out. Voila—instant fancy, flavored water without added chemicals. Just steer clear of those artificially flavored water beverages. They’re often packed with stuff like additives, dyes and artificial sweeteners.
Another convenient non-water way to increase fluid intake is to include fruits and vegetables with a high water content as well as soup and non-caffeinated tea. That said, minimize fruit juices. Even though that sugar is naturally occurring, it's still a big load for the body to process at once, which can make you feel sluggish and cranky as your blood sugar spikes and then crashes.
If You'reToo Busy…
Make hydration convenient by putting a pitcher and a glass on your desk or keep a refillable bottle in easy reach. Make sure it’s something that suits your lifestyle (on the go versus sitting all day, for example) and something you’ll want to look at—you’ll be more likely to actually use it that way.
If remembering to refill said refillable container is the struggle, buy a liter of bottled water (or two!) on your way to work and make sure it’s gone by the end of the day. Drink another glass or two before and after your workday to help fill in the gaps.
If You Can't Remember To Drink Water…
Auto-piloting has its upside. Fit water into your routine so you don’t have to think about it. Have a glass or two when you first wake up, another with breakfast, and a glass of water with each meal. When you’re ready, add a glass between each meal.
You could also set alerts on your phone to remind yourself to drink up or try the old-fashioned approach of a post-it on your computer monitor, bathroom mirror or another place you’ll see a reminder.
If You’re Worried About HavingTo Pee A Lot…
It’s totally normal to worry about having to get up a lot to use the restroom. Try looking at it as an excuse to get up out of your chair more often, another thing lots of us are trying to remember to do more often.
All that said, if you’re noticing dramatic changes in your energy or feeling excessively thirsty, touch base with your doctor to get checked out.
|
fbfb1522b4ba80135b0f7ead8c98f15b | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jesscording/2020/04/11/wellness-experts-self-care-covid-19/ | Wellness Experts Share The Self-Care Tactics They’re Relying On During COVID-19 | Wellness Experts Share The Self-Care Tactics They’re Relying On During COVID-19
As a dietitian and health coach, navigating my own self-care—and how to talk about it—during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a balancing act. I’ve written before about finding that right place for yourself of sharing without oversharing personal details in your work life, and this experience has been a refresher in the importance of that pre-post gut check. I’ve been sharing a lot of what’s working for me while sheltering in place: meditation, at-home workouts, balanced meals, letting my cats be my alarm clock...I’m also acknowledging that I have my struggles and am taking a lot of my own stress management advice.
I reached out to some friends and colleagues in the wellness world about the self-care tactics they are relying on and recommending to their patients and clients during this time. Here’s what they had to share.
Taking walks—even short ones—is one way health experts share they're practicing self-care during the ... [+] COVID-19 pandemic. Jessica Cording Nutrition
Dr. Serena Goldstein is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in hormone concerns. She has been staying with family in Florida during the pandemic. She says, “One of my best pieces of advice is to batch your time. What time of day do you like to work out? What is your most creative time? Use that time to think about how you can continue to not just organize your life, set yourself up for the future, and truly create from the heart. That way you have a general routine, plus some flexibility.”
New Jersey-based dietitian Lauren Harris-Pincus, who is author of The Protein-Packed Breakfast Club, says, “Maintaining a nutritionally balanced diet can help keep your immune system functioning properly and even improve mood. Eating protein and fiber at every meal and snack will help to keep energy levels more stable and also reduce mindless snacking. Plus according to a recent study, ‘Habitual diets rich in dietary fiber and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids may be linked to reduced risk of developing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress.’ This is particularly relevant during these challenging times.”
Eating balanced nutrient-rich meals is another way health experts recommend supporting overall ... [+] wellness during stressful times. Jessica Cording Nutrition
MORE FOR YOUWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentThis Femtech Company Is Pioneering Mucus Engineering As A New Alternative To Hormonal Birth ControlConquering Your Everest: Leadership Tools That Will Help You Climb To The Top
Frances Largeman-Roth is a dietitian, wellness expert, and author of Eating In Color, who lives in Brooklyn, NY. “I’m doing online workouts early in the morning before the ‘school day’ starts and it gives me time to myself. I’m also scheduling Happy Hour Zoom calls with friends and enjoying a glass of wine while we catch up and share quarantine stories. I’ve ordered some nail polish and a waxing kit. I’m also using an incredible smelling ginger lily bath gel. It’s expensive, but worth it when your only break in the day is your shower.”
Monica Monfre is a teacher, coach, and yoga instructor in Brooklyn, NY who’s been finding it helpful to schedule time away from her computer. “I’ve been adding in more stretches and every day I go for a walk at 3pm. Working from home is so different than our normal day so I’m trying to stay active.”
Dietitian Maria Adams, who is an Adjunct Professor at Endicott College in Massachusetts, says that even though her self-care routine hasn’t changed much, she finds it even more important to stick to now. “Most mornings I wake up early, before my kids and husband, so I can enjoy some quiet time. I savor a cup of coffee, make oatmeal, and write down what I'm grateful for and my plans for the day. I also light a candle if it's still dark out or a particularly gray morning. I'm no longer going to my local yoga studio but instead streaming their classes live via Zoom three mornings a week to stay connected to the yoga community and keep up with my practice. I also make sure to get outside every day, rain or shine. It's amazing how even a 15-minute walk around the neighborhood can lift your spirits.”
NYC-based wellness trainer and fitness coach Whitney Tucker is among those who has had the virus and shared her experience with her online community. “As a health and wellness provider that is supporting clients, I urge people to keep their lungs healthy with breathwork and movement. If people are feeling up to it, getting their bodies moving regularly through cardio will help condition their diaphragm and respiratory responses. As well, doing any form of breathwork with meditation will achieve multiple aspects of down regulating the nervous system.”
Health and fitness professional Julia Nichole Lopez left NYC to be with family in Virginia and has been focusing on self-care essentials that were harder to make time for pre-pandemic. “Typically, I’m up at 5:00 or 5:30 AM six out of seven days a week. However, now I’m allowing my body to rest. I don’t even feel guilty about not setting an alarm. Our puppy wakes us up anyhow when she’s ready to go on her morning walk. During such a stressful time, sleep is an essential form of self-care.”
|
2ebc5756ac37f029e7ed75f3949f7632 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jesscording/2021/01/31/the-work-from-home-power-lunch/?sh=54b7a636343a | The Work-From-Home Power Lunch | The Work-From-Home Power Lunch
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, “sweatworking” gatherings and healthy power lunches were popular ways to connect with colleagues, build new professional relationships, and make and implement important plans. Then in early 2020, work life changed dramatically for millions of people. Amidst the challenges of adjusting to work-from-home life, people also took the opportunity to develop new ways of incorporating healthy habits and self-care into their workdays and finding opportunities to connect with others professionally.
The New “Power Lunch”
Once a term used to describe a daytime meal where business deals are made, the “power lunch” of the pandemic world is a lot more about taking a break from your screen to energize and fuel your body before you have to dive back in and fight through Zoom fatigue for the rest of the day. Here are some key pieces of the work-from-home power lunch. Whether you incorporate just one or all three, they can help you optimize your lunch break so you can feel and work your best.
Working from home during covid has inspired many people to redefine the "power lunch" getty
Move Your Body
Lunchtime workouts have become increasingly popular. According to ClassPass’ 2021 trends report,12 p.m. has become the most popular time for workouts during the workweek. Not having to get to and from a gym or studio saves tons of time and opens up lots of options for getting in a great workout in 30-45 minutes. The top digital workouts of 2020 on the platform were:
Yoga HIIT Pilates Barre Dance Stretching Boxing
While a midday at-home workout could be the “me” time many need, those really missing the chance to get their sweat on with colleagues can sign up for a live virtual class together and then reconvene on Zoom or FaceTime to chat over lunch. Sure, it’s not quite the same as in-person, but still an opportunity to connect.
Refuel
With more people using their lunch break to exercise, squeezing in both a sweat session and a meal to refuel before returning to work can be a challenge. Skip the protein bar or meal replacement shake and enjoy an actual meal.
MORE FOR YOUWoman Over 50 Are Having A Moment3 Steps To Succeed With A Side Hustle In Affiliate MarketingHow To Find Your Entrepreneurial Spirit
Simplify and save time with prepared or frozen meals. Weekend meal-prep or even packing the next day’s lunch works just as well when you work from home as when you’re in an office, and there are tons of convenient healthy options available now that all you have to do is heat and eat. There are also lots of healthy meal delivery services available like Sakara, Daily Harvest, and Freshly (who recently introduced a lower-carb, more protein-forward FreshlyFit line and has plans to roll out more plant-based options), just to name a few. There are also some frozen and shelf-stable options like Amy’s Organic, whose vegetarian and vegan entrees and soups can be found in many supermarkets and online grocery retailers. A vegan burrito you can microwave in less than three minutes or a can of lentil soup, especially when paired with a simple side salad, can totally be a legit lunch.
Eating healthfully at home can be convenient and enjoyable getty
Refresh
For many, one of the attractive parts about conducting business behind a screen is that nobody can smell you, but you still know if you’re a little stinky after that lunchtime sweat session, which could potentially impact your virtual work interactions. If you don’t have time to shower after that lunchtime workout, stock your space with dry shampoo, face and body wipes, your favorite natural deodorant, and easy-to-use cosmetics like tinted moisturizer and blotting papers to help you feel camera-ready ASAP.
|
eed3950107357f55d076585e58cd5db7 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jesscording/2021/03/21/how-this-entrepreneur-created-a-work-culture-around-mental-wellness/?sh=15d8bc2034b1 | How This Entrepreneur Created A Work Culture Around Mental Wellness | How This Entrepreneur Created A Work Culture Around Mental Wellness
Monet Bush is a mother, business owner, and mental health advocate. She is the creator of Earth & Olive, a marketing firm that markets and brands for the wellness world, specializing in companies and organizations that want to make the world a better place. I spoke with her about her career journey and to learn more about how the company builds wellness into its own culture.
Monet Bush is the founder of Earth and Olive Earth and Olive
Jess Cording: What is wellness design?
Monet Bush: It’s actually a term that we made up! Wellness design mixes graphic design, marketing—everything that we do at Earth and Olive within the wellness world. We like to make sure that people know what types of clients we're trying to attract.
Cording: What inspired you to do this work?
Bush: I started out in corporate design, working with all types of clients, and throughout those opportunities, I got to work with some wellness brands and health-focused organizations. Just seeing how marketing and graphic design could align with people that these brands were trying to help and reach felt so much more fulfilling. Knowing I had the tools to help reach people and align them with products that could actually help them long-term was where that switch came and how I got into the wellness side of things.
Cording: What is your process like for working with clients?
Bush: We offer full-service branding and upkeep services like social media marketing and brand application. A new branding project always starts with understanding who our client wants to get in front of and aligns with their overall branding ideas. The branding process is collaborative—we join a client's needs and wants with our knowledge of how they can reach their goals. We help you make sure they’re landing on solid ground with all the tools and hands on deck to keep them moving forward. There is a pre-design phase, a design phase, and a post-production phase. We use our design and marketing knowledge to create solutions that resonate and surge client retention and sales based on merging these outcomes.
Unlimited mental health days and flexible hours are part of the Earth & Olive work culture. Earth & Olive
MORE FOR YOUThis Femtech Company Is Pioneering Mucus Engineering As A New Alternative To Hormonal Birth ControlWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentMeet This Savvy Entrepreneur From Rhode Island
Cording: What inspired you to found your own company?
Bush: I originally started a company called Modern Monet. I was just taking whatever work I could get to make sure I could support myself on my own so I didn't fail. I worked on that brand for about seven years and through that, I went on a path to healing, understanding my value and my worth. I also started better understanding the needs of others around me. Like when they're talking to me and telling me what they want, seeing if our values aligned, right? For me, as I started to choose who I was working with, it always ended up being wellness clients. That's when I knew I could pivot. We're not trees—we can move, get up, change, grow. So I did a rebrand and within two years I had surpassed the sales that I made in seven years of working in this space that didn't align with who I was becoming as I leaned into uncovering my true values, what's always been in there. So that's how Earth & Olive was born.
Cording: You also make wellness and self-care part of the company culture. Can you tell us about that?
Bush: My own mental health requires a lot of pivoting, screening, assessing what I need and doing that so that I can create the best work possible. I was not able to do that when working in spaces where they don’t work like that, which is fine, but I had to realize I didn't need to fit this mold to be successful. Learning that really helped me define my boundaries. I could say, this doesn't work for me, so what does? When I wrote those things down, it pointed straight to entrepreneurship, which is not, to say, easy, or that it's always going to be on your schedule, but you do get a better handle on understanding that you get to build something that is tailored to what your goals are.
That was really powerful for me. From growing up in between overseas and the States, I also realized there was this hustle culture here that drives people into the ground. At first I had it drilled into my head that was how to survive here but then realized it's not for me. Taking mental health days, that's something huge for my company. Anybody that works with us as a contractor or full-time has unlimited days. We make sure that our work is done, but you don't have to work in certain time limits, unless there's a meeting or something like that, and if you do need someone to cover for you, you can do that without us looking sideways. The culture creates a safe environment for someone with mental health issues that are known or unknown.
|
a512d383021468aeab45d5549f59f4a0 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jesscording/2021/04/03/whole-foods-and-headspace-team-up-in-a-mindful-eating-series/?sh=6a200dd4793e | Whole Foods And Headspace Team Up In A Mindful Eating Series | Whole Foods And Headspace Team Up In A Mindful Eating Series
When you’re feeling frazzled, a nourishing meal and a few deep breaths can make a world of difference. Whole Foods Market and Headspace meditation app have teamed up this spring to help consumers improve their wellbeing, eat more mindfully, and feel more connected to food—all things a recent Harris Poll survey conducted on behalf of Whole Foods revealed were especially important to consumers a year into the Covid-19 pandemic.
The two brands have collaborated on a new wellness series, which includes four “food for mood” episodes available on the Whole Foods Instagram TV channel, each featuring a mood-enhancing recipe created by Chef, Food and Welfare Advocate, Sophia Roe and Harvard nutritional psychiatrist, chef and author of This Is Your Brain on Food, Dr. Uma Naidoo. The themes of these episodes are Joyful, Energized, Focused and Relaxed. Consumers can also enjoy three new free Headspace meditations on mindful shopping, cooking and eating, along with a free one-month trial of Headspace Plus.
Sonya Gafsi Oblisk, Chief Marketing Officer of Whole Foods Market, said, “After a year of shifting routines and priorities, we know customers are eager to reprioritize well-being. While Whole Foods Market has always been a leader in this space, we wanted to offer our customers tangible solutions to empower their well-being—body and mind—which is what brought about the idea of collaborating with Headspace.”
"Focus" was one of the themes Dr. Uma Naidoo and Sophia Rowe co-created as part of the mindful ... [+] eating Whole Foods / Headspace collaboration. Sophia Roe
According to Eve Lewis, Director of Meditation at Headspace, mindful eating is an essential part of cultivating a sense of wellbeing. “There's a lot of focus on how food affects us from a physical standpoint and a nutritional perspective, but it's often overlooked how the foods we eat have the ability to affect us from a mental and emotional standpoint as well. We all have our comfort foods and foods that we turn to when we want to feel joy or feel energized. By tapping into mindful eating practices, we're able to be more conscious about our experiences with food. Can we be more present as we enjoy a meal? Can we inspire a sense of gratitude for all the people and processes that brought the food to our plate? Can we take note of how food affects how we feel, both physically and mentally? Through practicing mindful eating, I hope that we can spark a greater sense of awareness and appreciation for what food brings us.”
Roe said, “Teaming up with Whole Foods Market and Dr. Uma to create recipes that encouraged positive moods was such a unique experience. As a chef, working with Dr. Uma was fascinating and brought a new perspective to my typical recipe development process. She identified the key mood-boosting ingredients and the benefits of each one, then I was able to create recipes with optimal ingredient combinations to meet each mood.”
MORE FOR YOUThis Femtech Company Is Pioneering Mucus Engineering As A New Alternative To Hormonal Birth ControlWomen Over 50 Are Having A MomentMeet This Savvy Entrepreneur From Rhode Island
The other recipes created were designed to help consumers feel more joyful, energized, and relaxed. ... [+] Free mindful eating meditations are also available on Headspace. Sophia Roe
To decide on the four moods to focus on, explained Dr. Naidoo, the recipe development process started with identifying what people were struggling with the most. “From a mental wellbeing perspective, many Americans—as well as people worldwide—are suffering with poor sleep, increased stress, feeling blue and so much more. It seemed appropriate to help bring forward these messages with positivity by sharing tasty recipes paired with good brain foods. We selected the words to highlight the feelings individuals may want to improve. Rather than 'sadness,' a positive way to share this is ‘joy’—it’s called ‘positive reframing’ in psychology. For the four emotions we identified, we offered a solution. Sadness became joy. Fatigue became energized. Brain fog became focused. Stressed became relaxed. We hope you love it as much as we all do.”
|
b503ea3f9d88d1a70e0c9ee7e5488fab | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/10/08/why-stocks-are-undoubtedly-experiencing-a-massive-bubble/ | Why Stocks Are Undoubtedly Experiencing A Massive Bubble | Why Stocks Are Undoubtedly Experiencing A Massive Bubble
In the five years since the Crash of 2008, U.S. stocks have been in an inexorable bull market that not even the Eurozone crisis, the U.S. debt downgrade, the Fiscal Cliff, rising levels of poverty, and this past summer’s bond and emerging market plunge could put an end to. After a half-decade of this seemingly paradoxical situation, investors are becoming conditioned to ignore risks and the warnings of skeptics. I appreciate bull markets like any normal person, but I want it to be predicated on sustainable growth rather than a speculative bubble that will end in heartbreak. Unfortunately, I believe that the current bull market has devolved into yet another bubble, and I will show the numerous reasons why I believe this to be the case.
One of the foremost reasons why I believe that the U.S. stock bull market is an unsustainable bubble is because the rest of the world is currently experiencing a massive bubble, as I wrote in my recent Forbes piece. To summarize my ideas, the global economic recovery is actually what I call a “Bubblecovery” or a bubble-driven economic recovery that is driven by inflating post-2009 bubbles in China, emerging markets, Australia, Canada, Northern and Western European housing, U.S. housing, U.S. healthcare, U.S. higher education, global bonds, and tech (Web 2.0 and social media).
To be conservative, only a few of these bubbles need to pop to create a devastating economic shock that reverberates around the world, which means that another economic crisis is already “baked into the cake.” Even if the U.S. stock market was not experiencing a bubble in its own right, it is safe to say that the ultimate popping of some or all of the aforementioned global bubbles will cause U.S. stocks to crash, which means that they are at least a bubble in a de facto sense.
There Is A Bubble In Corporate Earnings
In my experience as an anti-economic bubble activist, one of the most common objections that I face when warning about stock market bubbles is this: “How can stocks be experiencing a bubble if earnings are growing?” This notion is a fallacy, however, because corporate earnings themselves can experience a bubble as we saw in the last bubble cycle, when the growing U.S. housing and credit bubble temporarily bolstered earnings in sectors such as homebuilding, consumer goods, mortgage lending and other areas of finance. The current Bubblecovery cycle is similar to the last one, in terms of inflating bubbles contributing to earnings growth.
When analyzing the U.S. stock market, it is important to realize that around 50 percent of the SP500’s earnings are generated overseas (up from 30 percent a decade ago), so economic bubbles that are currently ballooning around the world matter a great deal and should be expected to boost U.S. corporate earnings until they pop. Similarly, exports have helped to create 6.1 million jobs and accounted for half of U.S. economic growth from 2009 to 2012, which is about four times exports’ weight in the economy. Approximately 75 percent of U.S. exports head to Canada and emerging markets, which are both experiencing bubbles (click on the links to learn more).
Like many U.S. multinationals, automobile companies are now relying very heavily on emerging markets for growth. U.S. exports to emerging markets are exposed to significant risk if emerging market currencies experience another plunge like the one this past summer, which I expect to happen when the overall EM bubble truly pops. While most commentators have a favorable view of U.S. corporations’ growing reliance upon overseas markets for growth, I view it as a reason for alarm now that many countries are making the exact same mistakes that the U.S. was making from 2003-2007.
During Japan’s epic bubble of the 1980s, a term called “zaitech” came about to describe corporate earnings that were generated through financial activities and speculation. The U.S. is currently experiencing a zaitech-like bubble that is fueled by ultra-low interest rates, which can be seen in the chart of financial sector profits:
Source: Dr. Ed Yardeni
As financial profits continue to climb past their peak reached during the prior bubble, the financial sector is poised to leapfrog over tech to become the most-profitable U.S. industry once again, accounting for nearly 20 percent of the SP500’s earnings. Despite the Global Financial Crisis that had its epicenter in the financial sector, the trend of increasing financialization of the economy has continued surprisingly unabated.
"The problem with the refinancialization of the U.S. economy is it puts us at greater risk for another financial collapse," said Barry Ritholtz, analyst and CIO of Ritholtz Wealth Management. "The collapse started the process of definancializing, and now we're back to refinancializing." In addition, the U.S. economy is actually releveraging rather than paying down its debts, which is further inflating our longer-term, still-unpopped credit bubble:
Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Global Investment Strategy, Haver
The rebound in U.S. housing prices is a major reason why the financial sector’s earnings have been increasing, which is worrisome because there are many signs that housing is experiencing an “echo bubble.” Housing prices rose 11.2% in the first seven months of 2013 – the fastest growth rate since the heyday of the housing bubble – and house flipping is making a comeback in former bubble markets such as Arizona, Nevada, Florida and California.
In addition, there are many signs that a Fed-fueled automobile loan bubble is growing, which, along with student loans, has been one of the two main drivers of consumer credit growth since the Great Recession. To make matters worse, many of these auto loans are being granted to subprime borrowers, which resulted in an 18 percent increase in these types of loans in 2012. Surging financial sector earnings are a significant (though not the only) reason why U.S. corporate profitability is hitting all-time highs:
How The Fed Is Driving The Stock Bubble
Any analysis of bubbles would be remiss without discussing the role of central banks, and the current U.S. stock bubble is no exception. Since the financial crisis, the Fed has flooded the financial system with nearly four trillion dollars of liquidity by increasing the holdings on its balance sheet (through its QE programs):
The Fed’s quantitative easing or bond-buying programs have helped to bring interest rates to all-time lows. An ultra-low interest rate environment forces investors out of conservative investments, such as CDs and savings accounts, and into riskier assets such as stocks.
The chart of the soaring U.S. M1 money supply vs. the GDP shows the extremes that the Fed had to go to create our spurious economic recovery:
Source: Mike Shedlock
Since the peak of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has created the perception that it will always stand by to support U.S. financial markets if they fall too sharply. This perception has become known colloquially as the “Bernanke Put” (“put” implies a market floor, in this case), which was derived from an earlier term, the “Greenspan Put.”
U.S. stocks have slumped several times during the five year-and-counting bull market, but each time, the market reversed and continued rising after the Fed indicated that it would provide more monetary support if needed. After several of these bear market “fake-out” episodes, traders became conditioned like Pavlov’s Dogs to expect the market to recover and rally to new heights after each rout. This phenomenon led to a sarcastic meme that spread among skeptical traders after QE2 was announced in 2010 called “BTFD” or “buy the f*ing dip!”
The Bernanke Put has helped to inflate the U.S. stock market by greatly reducing traders’ fear of downside risk, which has lulled them into a sense of complacency and encouraged them to chase the market higher, leading to a self-fulfilled prophecy. Bubbles frequently form when governments and central banks put guarantees or price floors underneath markets, whether explicit or implicit. Anecdotally, there has been a growing subset of U.S. stock market participants who have developed a “stop worrying and make money” mentality, which is reminiscent of property speculators’ mentality during the U.S. housing bubble.
In a 2012 study, the Fed has even admitted that U.S. stocks would be 50 percent lower if it was not for their aggressive stimulation (using a 1994 to 2011 sample period, which is pre-QE3):
Valuation And Sentiment Confirms The Bubble Thesis
Numerous valuation and market sentiment indicators, which have a history of accuracy, confirm the U.S. stock bubble thesis.
A valuation measure called the Shiller P/E Ratio (price to earnings ratio based on average inflation-adjusted earnings from the previous 10 years) shows that U.S. stocks are currently as overvalued as they were before the most important generational bear markets of the past century, though some of those bear markets occurred in real terms rather than in nominal terms (the bottom chart is the S&P500):
Source: VectorGrader.com
The rising P/E multiple, as opposed to earnings growth, was the primary driver of stock market gains in the last two years. In the first eight months of 2013, multiple expansion was responsible for 16 percent of the market’s 19 percent rise.
Source: Guggenheim Partners
Another valuation measure, Tobin’s Q Ratio (the ratio of the market’s price to replacement costs), shows that U.S. stocks are richly-valued:
Source: VectorGrader.com
Though many market “permabulls” are quick to dismiss these valuation measures as flawed in some way or another, their market overvaluation readings are confirmed by other indicators that use completely different inputs (aside from price).
The total market capitalization to GDP ratio, which Warren Buffet described as "probably the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment”, clearly shows that stocks are in bubble territory:
Source: VectorGrader.com
Dividend yields, which peak at generational market lows and trough at generational tops, also show that stocks are overvalued in the longer run. Some argue that dividend yields have dropped since the 1990s due to companies’ greater preference for reinvesting earnings rather than paying dividends (and this is true to an extent), but I don’t believe that it fully explains why dividend yields are so low, especially when so many other valuation measures are giving similar overvaluation readings.
Source: VectorGrader.com
U.S. equity market valuations have been high since the late-1990s Dot-com bubble, which has caused mainstream market participants to ignore valuation warnings as if we are in a “New Era” of permanently high valuations. I believe that this thinking is completely wrong, and my position is that we are still in a longer-term “Bubble Era” since the late-1990s that has not popped yet, despite the popping of individual bubbles like the Dot-com and housing bubbles. My Bubblecovery report shows that there are many global bubbles that have inflated in the past decade or so that still have not popped yet, and are actually acting as global economic growth engines. Warren Buffett’s well-publicized difficulties in finding undervalued investments in the past decade or so is actually due to the fact that overall market valuations have been abnormally high during this period. Buffett’s best investments were made in the 1970s and 1980s, when valuations were extremely low.
In the past year, many commentators have been calling the U.S. stock market fairly valued or even cheap because valuations don’t appear to be at extremes when compared to the average stock market valuations of the past two decades, especially compared to the valuation peak that was reached at the height of the Dot-com bubble. I believe that this notion is patently false because we have been in an era of abnormally high valuations (especially skewed by the Dot-com bubble), so a sample size of two decades is too small to use as a comparison, and doesn’t include periods of fair or low valuation that have been common for most of the past century up until the late 1990s. To say that the market’s current valuation is cheap because it is not as high as the Dot-com bubble era’s unprecedented valuation is simply lying with statistics; most secular bear markets of the past century (aside from the Dot-com bubble) have started at a time when valuations were roughly half of the valuation seen at the peak of the Dot-com bubble.
Another popular fallacy is the assertion that the brief, several month valuation trough reached in early 2009 was a generational valuation trough (like 1921, 1949, and 1982) that occurs before the start of a secular bull market. This idea is wrong because these troughs take many years to form (often a decade or more), certainly not just a few months, and valuations never dropped as low they do in true generational troughs. Historic generational bull markets have started when the Shiller P/E ratio hit approximately 7, which is nearly half the market’s valuation low that was reached in early 2009. I expect the ultimate popping of the world’s remaining bubbles to finally put an end to the “Bubble Era” and abnormally high stock valuations. When the U.S. stock market’s valuation hits 1949 or 1982-like levels, I will finally feel confident to make long-term stock investments in expectation of a coming secular bull market.
The main reason why the U.S. stock market’s valuation is so high is because interest rates are near all-time lows. Low interest rates set the tone for returns in other investments: high interest rates lead to low investment valuations (1982 is a great example), while low interest rates lead to high valuations.
Sentiment indicators also show that U.S. stocks are currently experiencing a bubble. The Volatility Index or VIX is a gauge of investor fear, and indicates buying opportunities in times of fear (readings of 40 and above), and times to be cautious when investors are too complacent (readings under 15). The VIX is currently indicating that investors are too complacent, which is exactly what happened during the last bubble cycle from 2004 to 2007.
Another sentiment indicator, NYSE margin debt, has soared to levels that marked the peaks of the prior bubbles in 2000 and 2007. This shows that traders so confident in the market’s prospects (a contrarian signal) that they are leveraging their bets with borrowed money, which is further boosting the market by increasing traders’ buying power.
How The Stock Bubble Will Pop
Though I have made it clear that I believe that the U.S. stock market is experiencing a bubble that will lead to a generational bear market, I am not calling for an immediate crash just yet. My belief that we are experiencing a Bubblecovery or bubble-driven economic recovery implies that bubbles lead to rising stock prices.
There are two primary scenarios that I foresee leading to the popping of the U.S. stock bubble, but both involve rising interest rates:
Scenario #1: After several more years of the Bubblecovery, The Federal Reserve has a “Mission Accomplished” moment and decides to end QE and eventually increase the Fed Funds rate, which pops the post-2009 bubbles that were created by stimulative monetary conditions in the first place. Rising interest rates are what ended the 2003-2007 Bubblecovery, which lead to the Global Financial Crisis.
Scenario #2: The Fed loses control of longer-term interest rates after investors sell their Treasury bond holdings en masse in fear of a sharp decline in the U.S. dollar's value after years of money printing.
Personally speaking, I would not make any long-term stock investments during a bubble, but I have given tactical bullish calls that I play as a shorter-term trader. Timing the popping of the stock bubble can only be done using traders’ tools, including chart analysis. I will be publishing tactical market analyses in this column, and I hope to spot the ultimate market breakdown that leads to the popping of the U.S. stock market bubble.
Please follow me on Twitter and Facebook to keep up with the latest bubble news and my related commentary.
|
0d0ac45b02aa9cb96f2d6abe55b43f6c | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/11/21/heres-why-the-philippines-economic-miracle-is-really-a-bubble-in-disguise/ | Here's Why The Philippines' Economic Miracle Is Really A Bubble In Disguise | Here's Why The Philippines' Economic Miracle Is Really A Bubble In Disguise
I am reluctant to write about the Philippines' economic bubble after the devastation that the country has endured due to the recent typhoon. My heart goes out to all of the victims and their families. Please visit this page to learn how you can donate and help the victims of typhoon Haiyan. I have been writing a series of reports about bubbles in Southeast Asia, and the Philippines is one of the economies that I have been warning about even before the typhoon. My goal is to warn about economic bubbles to prevent humanitarian crises that result when bubbles pop.
The archipelago nation of the Philippines is part of the overall emerging markets bubble that has been inflating since 2009 after China launched a $586 billion economic stimulus plan to counter the negative effects of the global financial crisis on their economy. China's stimulus plan called for an aggressive credit-driven infrastructure and residential real estate-based economic growth strategy that resulted in the building of scores of cities and other projects - many of which are still empty or unused - across the entire country. The stimulus plan succeeded in temporarily boosting economic growth, and drove a global raw materials boom (and bubble) that benefited commodities exporters such as Australia and emerging market nations. Very soon, investors the world over were clamoring into emerging market investments to diversify away from investments in troubled Western economies.
Record-low interest rates in the West and Japan, along with the U.S. Federal Reserve's multi-trillion dollar quantitative easing or QE programs led to an epic $4 trillion surge of speculative "hot money" into emerging market investments from 2009 to 2013. A global carry trade developed in which traders borrowed large amounts of capital at cheap interest rates from the U.S. and Japan, and reinvesting the proceeds into high-yielding assets in emerging markets for the purpose of earning the "spread" or favorable interest rate differential. The explosion of demand for emerging market investments helped to inflate bubbles in those countries' assets, particularly in bonds, which resulted in incredibly low borrowing costs for EM governments and corporations. Ultra-low interest rates have enabled government-driven infrastructure booms, as well as dangerous credit and property bubbles across the emerging world.
Soaring capital inflows into the Philippines after the global financial crisis caused the peso currency to rise 25 percent against the U.S. dollar:
The Philippines has been a major beneficiary of the emerging markets bond bubble, which has pushed the country's 10-year government bond yield down to an unprecedented 3.61 percent (the U.S. 10-year Treasury bond yield is 2.79 percent):
Source: TradingEconomics.com
Investors' insatiable hunger for emerging market debt has caused the Philippines' external debt to spike in recent years:
Foreign direct investment (net inflows, current dollars) has boomed in the past ten years:
Source: IndexMundi.com
The Philippines Stock Market has more than tripled since 2009 as interest from foreign investors has grown significantly, making it the most richly-valued stock market in Asia, with an approximate price to earnings ratio of 19:
The Philippines' Economy Is Driven By A Credit Bubble
Growing by over 7 percent for the past four quarters, and by similar amounts for the past several years, the Philippines' $250 billion economy is Southeast Asia's fastest growing major economy, and is one of the fastest growing major economies in the entire world.
The Philippines' benchmark interest rate, which is set by the country's central bank, is at an all time low and is fueling an asset and credit bubble that is growing at a 13 to 14 percent annual rate:
Interbank interest rates show the same pattern:
The country's credit boom is also enabled by record low bank lending interest rates (for loans to private individuals and companies):
The Philippines' M3 money supply, a broad measure of total money and credit in the economy, has more than doubled since 2008, and sharply accelerated in 2013 as interest rates hit new lows:
As is typical during credit bubbles, consumer spending is growing at a rapid rate:
Decreasing personal savings rates are another hallmark of credit-driven consumption binges, and the Philippines' current bubble is no exception:
Plunging personal savings rates and double-digit auto loan growth has helped Philippine car registrations (a proxy for auto sales) to soar by 50 percent since 2008:
The Philippines' economy is far less reliant upon exports than most Asian countries, while it is one of the most consumer-driven economies in the region, with household consumption growing to nearly three-quarters of the country's GDP from 63 percent a decade ago, according to World Bank data. Domestic consumption is now the largest expenditure component of the Philippines' GDP.
As the Philippines' consumer economy grew during the course of their inflating bubble, exports as a percentage of the country's GDP fell significantly (even as exports grew):
Cheap credit and soaring asset prices, which are known for creating times of good feelings, are a major reason why Filipinos are currently the world's second most optimistic consumers. Unsurprisingly, Western financial services firms are looking to get a piece of the country's credit bubble action, including Citigroup, which is expanding its local credit card business. While household debt levels are fairly low at 35 percent of GDP, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Philippines' central bank, has been using this as an excuse to encourage banks to lend even more aggressively to consumers and businesses in order to spur further rapid economic growth. Simply stated, the Philippines' central bank is actually trying to inflate a credit bubble, which is very alarming and reminiscent of the pro-credit growth policies of the Greenspan Fed during the 2002 to 2007 credit bubble.
The surge in the Philippines' consumer spending has led to a bubble in shopping mall development, and the country now hosts 9 of the world's 38 largest malls - beating even the U.S., China, and most other developed countries. Global consumer brands are now flocking to the country's malls, and luxury goods companies are looking to become players in the consumer market, including Rolls Royce and Bentley.
The two most common, but flawed, explanations given for the Philippines' growing middle class and consumer spending boom are the rise of the business process outsourcing or BPO sector (call centers are the most common form of BPO) and remittances from overseas Filipino workers. While the BPO sector has grown healthily in the past decade, it only accounts for $11 billion or 4.4 percent of the Philippines' $250 billion economy. Similarly, remittances have grown at a high rate, but they only account for $26 billion or 10.4 percent of the country's economy. These two popular explanations for the economic boom only account for a combined 14.8 percent of the Philippines' economy, so are overstated in their impact, while the role of cheap credit and asset bubbles is greatly understated.
There is also reason for skepticism about the growth and sustainability of remittances to the Philippines because 53 percent of remittances originate from the United States, with much of it sent from Filipino nurses who are benefiting from an unsustainable healthcare bubble that is driving salary and employment growth in the U.S. healthcare industry.
The Philippines Has An Inflating Property Bubble
As with most other emerging markets now, the Philippines has a property bubble in addition to its credit bubble, which is creating a wealth effect that is boosting economic growth and optimism.
In the first six months of 2013, the average price of a 3-bedroom luxury condominium in Makati CBD rose by a frothy 12.92 percent (9.98 percent inflation-adjusted), after rising 5.6 percent in Q1 2013, 8 percent in Q4 and 8.3 percent in Q3 2012. The average price of a premium 3-bedroom condominium in Bonifacio Global City surged by 12.4 percent y-o-y, while secondary residential property prices in Rockwell Center rose by 10.6 percent y-o-y.
Philippines' housing prices, as measured by prices in the Makati CBD, have nearly doubled since 2004:
Source: GlobalPropertyGuide.com
Rising by a scorching 42 percent in 2012, mortgage loans are growing at an even faster rate than consumer credit. According to the World Bank, lending standards have been relaxed, with some local banks raising their loan-to-value ratio to 80 or even 90 percent in addition to waiving requirements such as proof of income. The proof of income requirement has been waived for many overseas Filipino workers or OFWs who are unable to provide proof of income, yet are able to pay the 20 percent down payment. There is also evidence that easy-pay mortgages are being offered to home buyers, such as those with zero down payment or low payments in the first few years of loan amortization.
The IMF has warned that “real estate developers may (have been applying) less-stringent lending standards and more-generous loan terms than required of banks, including (a higher cap than the standard 60 percent loan-to-value) and by offering initial teaser terms.” The IMF explained that “about 80 percent of new residential construction (by number of units) is in the low middle price bracket. Of these, about half are reported to be purchased pre-construction by overseas foreign workers.” This poses a risk because “possible non-renewal of OFWs’ short-term employment contracts” could spell doom for some real-estate projects. According to the IMF, another reason for concern is the fact that “no institution has oversight responsibility for the housing sector from a macro-financial perspective.”
There are also reasons for concern about residential real estate overbuilding because many developers only start construction projects after receiving 60 percent in pre-sales, but only 10 percent of Filipino households have non-passive disposable income (excluding remittances) of at least 30,000 pesos or $648 dollars per month. According to the World Bank, “If 10 percent of these households are prospective end-user buyers, this leads to a projected demand of around 50,000 units, which is much less than the current and pipeline supply.”
Thanks to the growing property bubble, the Philippines' construction sector is expected to expand by double digits in 2014, and account for nearly half of the country's economic growth.
Due to concerns about a property bubble, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas mandated a 20 percent limit on banks' exposure to real estate loans, though many banks have already exceeded that limit.
The Philippines' growing asset bubble, which includes property and stocks, is a primary reason why the collective wealth of the 40 richest Filipino families soared by 37.9 percent in 2011, which accounted for an incredible 76.5 percent of the country's overall increase in GDP that year, leading to the highest income disparity in Asia.
Government Spending Is Boosting The Philippines' Economy
The emerging markets bond bubble has helped to dramatically reduce the Philippines' government's borrowing costs, which has enabled more spending on infrastructure and social services to boost economic growth. In the first eight months of 2013, infrastructure spending rose by 38.5 percent, and the government plans to increase infrastructure spending in 2014 by nearly 60 billion pesos or $1.4 billion (worth 3.5 percent of GDP) to counter the effects of typhoon Haiyan on the economy.
Government spending has risen significantly in recent years:
The Philippines' government has been running a budget deficit since 1999:
The Philippines' government’s debt-to-GDP ratio fell to 50 percent in 2012 from 70 percent in 2004, though a very good portion of this improvement is due to unsustainable, credit-fueled economic growth. The Philippines was upgraded to investment-grade status this year by all three major credit ratings agencies thanks to its booming economy and ultra-low government borrowing costs.
How Typhoon Haiyan Will Effect The Economy
Though typhoon Haiyan exacted a terrible human toll, its economic impact is expected to be muted because it bypassed Manila, which is the economic heart of the country. Total typhoon-related costs are expected to reach $14 billion or 5.6 percent of the country's economy, which should reduce 2014 GDP growth by about 1 percent. Philippines' economic planning chief Arsenio Balisacan estimates that reconstruction costs may reach $5.8 billion. Remittances are expected to rise significantly as overseas Filipinos increase their support for their family members as well as donations to help the country's rebuilding efforts. Rice prices have skyrocketed after large portions of the Philippines' rice crop were destroyed in the storm.
How The Philippines’ Bubble Economy Will Pop
The Philippines' bubble will most likely pop when China’s economic bubble pops and/or as global and local interest rates continue to rise, which are what caused the country’s credit and asset bubble in the first place. The resumption of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s QE taper plans may put pressure on the Philippines' financial markets in the near future. Another global economic crisis (as I expect) also puts remittances at risk.
As I’ve been saying even before this summer’s EM panic, I expect the ultimate popping of the emerging markets bubble to cause another crisis that is similar to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, and there is a strong chance that it will be even worse this time due to the fact that more countries are involved (Latin America, China, and Africa), and because the global economy is in a much weaker state now than it was during the booming late-1990s.
In the coming months, I will be publishing more reports on other countries that I consider to be part of the emerging markets bubble. Please follow me on Twitter, Google+ and like my Facebook page to keep up with the latest bubble news and my related commentary.
|
d366e3e0cf2cdf789722ba9b4ec02293 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2014/03/05/why-the-worst-is-still-ahead-for-turkeys-bubble-economy/?sh=466d5faa4145 | Why The Worst Is Still Ahead For Turkey's Bubble Economy | Why The Worst Is Still Ahead For Turkey's Bubble Economy
The explosive rise of Turkey's economy in the past decade is one of the most fascinating growth stories of all time. Since 2002, Turkey's economy nearly quadrupled in size on the back of an epic boom in consumption and construction that led to the building of countless malls, skyscrapers, and ambitious infrastructure projects. Like many emerging economies in the past decade, Turkey's economy continued to grow virtually unabated through the Global Financial Crisis, while most Western economies stagnated.
Unfortunately, like most emerging market nations, Turkey's economic boom has devolved into a dangerous bubble that is similar to the bubbles that caused the downfall of Western economies just six years ago. Though Turkey has received significant attention after its currency and financial markets fell sharply in the past year, there is still very little awareness of the country's economic bubble itself and its frightening implications.
Turkish flag (Photo credit: quinn.anya)
The emerging markets bubble began in 2009, shortly after China pursued an aggressive credit-driven infrastructure-based growth strategy to boost its economy during the global financial crisis. China’s economic growth immediately surged as construction activity increased dramatically, which drove a global raw materials boom that created a windfall for commodities exporting countries such as Australia and emerging markets. Emerging markets’ improving fortunes began to attract the attention of global investors who were seeking to diversify away from Western nations that were at the epicenter of the financial crisis. As the bubble progressed, even developing countries that were not significant commodities exporters (such as Turkey) began to benefit from the growing interest in this investment theme.
Rock-bottom interest rates in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, combined with the U.S. Federal Reserve’s multi-trillion dollar quantitative easing programs, encouraged a $4 trillion torrent of speculative “hot money” to flow into emerging market investments over the last several years. A global carry trade arose in which investors borrowed at low interest rates from the U.S. and Japan, invested the funds in high-yielding emerging market assets, and pocketed the interest rate differential or spread. Soaring demand for EM assets led to a bond bubble and ultra-low borrowing costs, which resulted in government-driven infrastructure booms, alarmingly fast credit growth, and property bubbles in numerous developing nations.
Like many other emerging nations, Turkey's economic boom since the financial crisis has been heavily predicated upon a combination of foreign "hot money" inflows, ultra-low interest rates across the yield curve, rapid credit growth, and soaring asset prices. The charts of Turkey's benchmark interest rate and three-month interbank rate show how they were cut to all-time lows in the years following the financial crisis:
Turkey's idiosyncratic monetary policy of the past half-decade was responsible for these unusually low interest rates: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey's Prime Minister, believes that a zero real interest rate policy is the best practical implementation of sharia law's ban on usury, or lending for interest, for modern Islamic societies.
"We aim to cut the real interest rate in the long run, so people will increase their incomes through working, not through interest," he said in 2011. "Eventually we aim to equalize the interest rate and inflation rate."
Turkey's Economic "Miracle" Is Driven By A Credit Bubble
Ultra-low interest rates are, of course, notorious for creating temporary economic booms that are driven by credit and asset bubbles - a fact that likely wasn't lost on Erdoğan, who vowed to make Turkey one of the world's ten largest economies by 2023. Loans to Turkey's private sector have more than quadrupled since 2008, even though the country's real GDP only increased by approximately a third (and a good portion of that GDP increase was driven by debt):
Turkey’s M3 money supply - a broad measure of total money and credit in the economy - shows a similar ominous increase:
The emerging markets bond bubble enabled a corporate borrowing spree that caused Turkey's external debt, or debt owed to foreign creditors, to surge to a record high of U.S.$372.6 billion or nearly 47 percent of the country's GDP:
90 percent of Turkish corporate debt is denominated in foreign currencies, which dangerously exposes the country's corporate borrowers to weakness in the Turkish lira currency, which is down by over 18 percent against the U.S. dollar in the past year:
Even more worrisome is the fact that U.S. $129.1 billion, or just over a third, of Turkey's external debt is short-term debt that will come due in the next year, which is a sharp increase from the country's short-term external debt of U.S. $100.6 billion at the end of 2012, and U.S. $52.52 billion external debt in 2008. Turkey's short-term and long-term external debt have both increased at a faster rate than economic growth in the past half-decade. Having a large stock of short-term external debt makes economies more vulnerable to rising interest rates, as many emerging market nations have experienced in the past year after the U.S. Federal Reserve's QE taper plans surfaced. Turkey's short-term external debt burden exceeds 100 percent of its currency reserves, making it one of the highest risk emerging economies based on this metric.
One of the reasons for Turkey's rapid accumulation of external debt in the past decade has been the need to finance its growing current account deficit, which the country's economy has become increasingly reliant upon to continue growing:
Turkey's current account deficit to GDP ratio has swelled to over 6 percent - a level that has led to currency crises in the past:
Turkey's Consumption Boom Is Actually A Bubble
Accounting for 70 percent of Turkey's GDP, consumer spending has been the country's primary engine of economic growth in the past decade. Unfortunately, much of this consumer spending has been financed by debt, as with many other areas of Turkey's economy. Personal loans grew at a scorching 61 percent average annual rate from 2005 to 2008 and barely slowed down after the financial crisis, while loans to households were increasing at a 28 percent annual rate in 2013. Credit is so free-flowing in Turkey that consumers are even able to receive approvals for personal loans via text message and ATM machines.
In addition to personal loans, credit card debt has played a significant role in enabling Turkey's consumption boom, with credit card loans from the country's leading banks having risen by 77 percent from 2010 to mid-2013. Turkey's 74 million citizens now own 57 million credit cards and carry approximately $45 billion in outstanding credit card debt - nearly a third of which is considered to be nonperforming. Turkish consumers' embrace of debt-driven consumption has caused household debt as a proportion of disposable income to rocket from 4.7 percent in 2002 to 50.4 percent in 2012.
As is common in low interest rate and credit bubble environments, Turkey's consumption boom has been abetted by a savings rate that has fallen to its lowest level in at least three decades, which places Turkey dead last among fourteen other developing countries for this metric. An IMF study found that the average developing country has a savings rate of 33.5 percent, which is nearly triple Turkey's 12.6 percent savings rate.
The combination of Turkey's falling savings rate and credit binge has helped to propel the country's consumer spending to an all-time high in the past decade:
Turkish consumers have focused much of their discretionary spending on goods such as automobiles, consumer electronics, and household appliances. Numerous foreign multinational corporations have flocked to Turkey to profit from the country's spending boom.
Turkey Has A Property Bubble
Like many other emerging market nations, Turkey's frothy, low interest rate environment of the past half-decade has led to the inflation of property bubbles in major urban centers. Turkish housing prices have soared by nearly 53 percent since 2009:
Source: GlobalPropertyGuide.com
Turkey's property bubble was driven by mortgage interest rates that have plunged from nearly 50 percent in 2002 to under 10 percent in 2013, which led to a more than sixfold increase in the country's total outstanding mortgage loans since 2005:
Turkey's ballooning mortgage bubble - which expanded by 28 percent last year alone - helped to finance a 78.7 percent increase in property sales in 2013, which has led to a bubble in residential construction activity in turn.
Construction Plays A Key Role In Turkey's Bubble
Construction is one of the most common drivers of economic activity during bubbles, and Turkey's bubble economy is no exception to this pattern. Now accounting for $170 billion or approximately 20 percent of Turkey's $789.3 billion economy (when including related activities), construction of all types have been booming, particularly construction of residential buildings, malls, hotels, skyscrapers, airports and other massive infrastructure projects. Growing by 42.9 percent in 2013, construction-related loans are a major component of Turkey's overall credit bubble.
Since 2008, 39 new skyscrapers have been completed in Turkey, and there are 42 more skyscrapers currently under construction. After its completion in 2011, the 856-foot tall Istanbul Sapphire became both Turkey and Europe's tallest building outside of Russian territory. Turkey's skyscraper construction frenzy is a reason for alarm according to the Skyscraper Index, which posits that many of history's worst economic crises - including the Great Depression and 1997 Asian financial crisis - were preceded by the building of record-breaking skyscrapers.
Sapphire Tower - the tallest building in Istanbul (Photo credit: Charkrem)
Skyscraper booms and economic bubbles go hand-in-hand because excessive optimism combined with the availability of cheap credit leads to wildly ambitious, "pie in the sky" business decisions that are later regretted when the boom inevitably turns into a bust. Turkey's skyscraper mania is funded in large part by the risky short-term U.S. dollar-denominated loans that were discussed earlier. Property development conglomerate Kiler Group - which owns the Istanbul Sapphire - had 164 million liras worth of debt in 2013, 154 million liras of which are U.S. dollar-denominated loans. Property development firms that have large amounts of dollar-denominated loans are dangerously exposed to adverse moves in the Turkish lira's exchange rate against the U.S. dollar.
Shopping mall development is another important facet of Turkey's construction bubble: Turkey had only 46 malls in 2000, but now has over 300, and there are plans to build at least 300 more in the next decade. 1.5 million square meters of shopping space is expected to come online in 2014, representing an 18 percent increase in Turkey's total shopping mall space. Turkey's mall construction bubble is being encouraged by the country's unsustainable credit-driven consumer spending boom that was discussed earlier.
As with malls, there has been an explosion of new hotels built in Turkey in the past decade, and many more are in the pipeline. In the next three years, 65 new four and five star hotels with a total number of 38,853 beds are expected to be completed. Western hotel companies have been clamoring to get a piece of the hotel bubble action: Hilton Worldwide had 20 hotels under construction in 2013, Radisson has 15 Park Inn properties planned, while Wyndham has 9 more Ramadas, an additional Wyndham, and 20 Super 8 hotels planned, to name just a few examples. According to Mehmet Onkal of BDO Hospitality Consulting, 95 percent of Turkey's hotel projects are funded by local investors.
Ambitious government-led infrastructure projects have been a significant driver of Turkey's construction activity and economic growth as well. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is the mastermind behind Turkey's decade-long, $200 billion construction plan that includes mega projects such as:
A third airport in Istanbul that is expected to be one of the world's largest when it opens in 2019. Costing an estimated $29 billion, this is currently Turkey's most expensive mega project A 26-mile shipping canal to link the Marmara and the Black Sea, which is expected to cost $15 billion A 24-tower public-private real estate development that will contain approximately 5,000 luxury apartments, at a cost of $8.4 billion A $5 billion rail tunnel that will run under the Bosporus A third bridge across the Bosporus that will cost $4.4 billion A $2.6 billion financial center complex for the central bank, financial regulators, and private financial firms A $2.5 billion luxury high-rise that includes a hotel, a new mall, office space, and a spacious performing arts center A large new tunnel under the Bosporus that will cost $1.4 billion A $1.35 billion development with two marinas, two five-star hotels, a massive mall, and a 1,000-capacity mosque A $700 million ship port, along with luxury hotels and offices A $180 million luxury hotel and office skyscraper called the Diamond of Istanbul that will replace the Istanbul Sapphire as Turkey's tallest building when completed
Public construction projects are the primary reason why Turkey's government spending has increased by nearly two-thirds in the past decade:
Turkey's construction boom has been rife with corruption and scandals involving allies of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. On December 17th 2013, news of a 15-month secret investigation broke that led to the arrest or questioning of over 100 people. Among those people were sons of three of Erdogan’s cabinet ministers, the CEO of a state-run bank, and a construction tycoon who has become one of the wealthiest men in Turkey thanks to the country's bubble economy of the past decade. The allegations against those arrested range from taking bribes to bid rigging. Millions of dollars in cash have been found in some of the homes of the accused. Erdoğan dismissed the criminal investigations of his allies as a plot by foreign interests to hamper and detract from Turkey's economic boom.
Turkey's Bubble Has Created An Illusion Of Prosperity
Turkey's inflating bubble economy has helped the country's GDP to nearly quadruple in a little over a decade:
Source: World Bank
Turkey's stock market soared by ninefold from 2003 to its peak in early 2013, and is still up by sixfold despite the recent market rout:
Booming stock and property prices have led to a surge in the number of wealthy Turks since 2002, including a 10.5 percent increase in the number of ultra-wealthy individuals with net assets of $30 million and above in 2013. Turkey now has the world's seventh highest number of billionaires according to Forbes' billionaire list. Many of Turkey's new billionaires hail from the finance and construction sectors, which are typical epicenters of wealth generation during credit-driven economic bubbles.
Though traditionally an emerging market, Turkey's frothy economic boom has recently led to its reclassification as a newly industrialized country by economists and is considered to be a developed country by the CIA. Turkey is a member of the MINT, CIVET, and Next Eleven groups of emerging economies that are being touted as the next BRICs, which is an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Many of the countries in the aforementioned groups are experiencing economic bubbles of their own and are part of the overall emerging markets bubble.
Cracks Are Beginning To Show
Turkey's economy and financial markets were sailing fairly smoothly until a perfect storm of events in late-May 2013 caused a change of sentiment virtually overnight. From late-2012 until May 2013, Turkey's financial markets had levitated on a new wave of liquidity that was provided by the U.S. Federal Reserve's $85 billion per month QE3 program and Japan's new Abenomics stimulus program. In the spring of 2013, rumors of an upcoming tapering or downsizing of the Fed's QE3 program began to put global financial markets on edge - particularly those that were the greatest beneficiaries of the Fed's liquidity such as emerging markets and bonds.
With markets already uneasy over QE3 taper rumors, one catalyst was all that was needed to send Turkey, and soon the rest of emerging markets, reeling: a wave of protests and riots began in Turkey on May 28th 2013 over a slew of discontent that had built up despite the country's booming economy. Often compared to the Occupy protests and movement, Turkish protesters expressed their dismay over numerous environmental issues that resulted from the country's construction boom, excessive use of police force, the lack of freedom of speech and right to assembly, government encroachment of the country's secularism, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's authoritarianism. 3.5 million of Turkey's 80 million people took part in the protests, which resulted in 11 deaths, over 8,000 injuries, and more than 3,000 arrests.
Protests in Istanbul (Photo credit: Daniel Etter/Redux)
The combination of QE3 taper speculation, the persistent current account deficit, and civil unrest, led to a sharp loss of confidence that caused Turkey's stock market to plunge by over 25 percent in just one month, sparked a selloff in the Turkish lira currency, and caused 10 year Turkish government bond yields to spike from 6 percent to 10 percent.
I predicted the turmoil in Turkey and other emerging markets just a few months before it started in a report that I wrote when I was a contributor to Business Insider called "All The Money We're Pouring Into Emerging Markets Has Created a Massive Bubble."
Turkey's financial markets stabilized after their spring rout until December 2013, when the country's corruption scandal came to light and the Fed's imminent QE taper caused the Turkish lira to crash by over 12 percent to a record low against the U.S. dollar, bringing the currency's total loss for the year to nearly 22 percent:
Turkey's latest turmoil led to its categorization as one of the “Fragile Five” emerging economies, which also includes South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, and India. The Fragile Five experienced the most pain among emerging markets since the spring 2013 because of their large current account and trade deficits, high inflation, significant dependence on foreign capital inflows, and slowing economic growth.
To shore up Turkey's currency after its sharp decline, Prime Minister Erdoğan was finally forced to give in to the demands of a group of Turkish leaders that he called the "interest rate lobby” that he had long battled against due to their calls for higher interest rates. On January 28th 2014, Turkish Central Bank Governor Erdem Basci - a member of the so-called "interest rate lobby” - surprised the world when he ordered dramatic hikes of the overnight lending rate from 7.75 to 12.5 percent, the overnight borrowing rate from 3.5 percent to 8 percent, and the benchmark one-week repurchase rate from 4.5 percent to 10 percent:
The World Is Still Unaware Of Turkey's Economic Bubble
Though Turkish and international financial markets initially cheered January's surprise rate hikes, I view this as evidence that the world is still unaware that Turkey's economic boom is actually a credit-driven bubble that is predicated on ultra-low interest rates, both foreign and domestic. Falling interest rates helped to inflate Turkey's bubble economy, and rising interest rates will put an end to it. This is a very simple concept, yet so few people understand it - even after the events of 2008.
I see even more evidence that the world is largely unaware of Turkey's economic bubble in the fact that the vast majority of the recent discourse about Turkey's problems is myopically focused on the country's current account deficit and currency weakness, while virtually ignoring the risks posed by the eventual popping of Turkey's credit bubble. I believe that this myopia is caused by denial of the existence of Turkey's economic bubble in the first place, along with a mental block that is causing economists and commentators to focus too much on a 1997-style currency crisis, as if that is the only possible template for emerging market crises to follow.
It is important to remember that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. The popping of the overall emerging markets bubble will cause a very severe global economic crisis, but it is wrong to expect this crisis to play out identically to the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Like snowflakes, no two economic crises are the same.
Contrary to popular belief, Turkey's currency weakness is not a new phenomenon, as it has been a consistent trend for the last six years:
Despite the Turkish lira's downtrend of the past six years, Turkey's credit and asset bubble has continued to inflate to dizzying new heights, as it has also done since the spring 2013 panic. I am certainly not denying the risks posed by the Turkish lira's rout, but I do not believe that Turkey's economic bubble has truly popped yet. The lira's weakness is the precursor to Turkey's coming economic bust, but it is not "The Crisis" in and of itself.
Lack of awareness and understanding of the implications of Turkey's credit-driven bubble economy is the reason why most mainstream economists and commentators are still relatively optimistic on the country's long-term economic prospects, even if they concede that growth will slow. Unfortunately, credit bubbles of the magnitude of Turkey's do not end in a mere economic slowdown, but in a crisis.
How Turkey's Economic Bubble Will Pop
Turkey's economic bubble is likely to pop as a result of rising short and long-term interest rates, and may coincide with the popping of the overall emerging markets bubble. As the U.S. Federal Reserve follows through with its QE taper - which is expected to be completed this year - the flow of "hot money" to emerging markets will reverse, which will cause those countries' currencies to decline and bond yields to climb. Turkey's $129.1 billion short-term external debt that will come due over the next year is an additional related catalyst that will likely contribute to the popping of the country's bubble.
Here is what to expect when Turkey's economic bubble truly pops:
The country's runaway credit boom will turn into a bust Countless construction and property development projects will turn sour Many banks and property developers will go under Many corporations that have large foreign currency debts will default Over-leveraged consumers will default on their debts Economic growth will go into reverse Unemployment will surge Government and corporate debt downgrades by rating agencies Property, the lira currency, stock, and bond prices will fall significantly, leading to higher interest rates Political backlash against the current leaders and more public protests
Credit-driven construction and consumption have been Turkey's two main engines of economic growth in the past decade, and the inevitable ending of those unsustainable booms will leave the country without a viable source of growth. The popping of the overall emerging markets bubble will likely lead to a crisis that is worse than the 1997 Asian financial crisis because more countries are involved (Latin America, China, and Africa) this time, and because the global economy is in a much weaker state now than it was during the booming late-1990s.
I will end this report with my favorite quote from economist Ludwig Von Mises:
“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”
I will be publishing many more reports about dangerous bubbles that are currently developing around the entire world – most of which you probably never even knew existed. Please join my 70,000 person community by following me on Twitter, Google+ and liking my Facebook page so that you can stay informed about the most important bubble news and my related commentary.
|
9249f92ec75e8d79840fe5cf820faf19 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2016/01/31/what-comes-next-for-junk-bonds/ | What Comes Next For Junk Bonds? | What Comes Next For Junk Bonds?
In September, I warned that U.S. high yield "junk" bonds may be forming a bearish technical pattern called a "double top." In addition, I explained how a bubble formed in junk bonds thanks to central banks' quantitative easing programs and record low interest rates. To summarize, desperate central banks created a global hunt for yield after the financial crisis as investors clamored into risky, but higher-yielding junk bonds to maximize their returns in the low interest rate environment.
In response to the unprecedented investors demand for high-yield bonds, speculative companies such as those in the shale energy sector issued trillions of dollars worth of bonds to fund activities such as exploration, takeovers, and more. The epic oil price crash combined with the ending of the Fed's QE3 program and rate hike has led to the beginning stages of the junk bond bubble's popping.
Since my last junk bond update, the U.S. junk bond market (as represented by the iShares High-Yield Corporate Bond Fund) broke beneath its $81 - $83 neckline support level, which confirmed the bearish double top pattern. In addition, junk bonds fell under their key uptrend line during the summer market rout. Junk bonds are in a weak technical position with much further downside risk as long as they remain under the $81 - $83 resistance zone.
Source: StockCharts.com
I continue to stick by my assertion that the junk bond bubble will end disastrously. Despite the rout of the past year, I don't believe that the junk bond bubble is anywhere near fully unwound. To make matters worse, the growing gap between junk bonds and U.S. stocks foreshadows more pain ahead for stocks - a scary implication considering how frothy stocks have become.
Please follow or add me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay informed about the most important trading and bubble news as well as my related commentary.
(Disclaimer: All information is provided for educational purposes only and should not be relied on for making any investment decisions. These chart analysis blog posts are simply market “play by plays” and color commentaries, not hard predictions, as the author is an agnostic on short-term market movements.)
|
c5bc41fbe7ae5a29eda7120cd233851b | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2016/12/31/key-levels-to-watch-in-the-u-s-dollar-and-euro/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix | Key Levels To Watch In The U.S. Dollar And Euro | Key Levels To Watch In The U.S. Dollar And Euro
For the past few years, I've been watching an important consolidation pattern in the U.S. dollar because I believed that another major move would likely occur when the dollar finally broke out. The U.S. Dollar Index finally launched a bullish breakout due to optimism about Donald Trump's election win and higher expectations for future U.S. economic growth, inflation, and interest rates.
The chart below shows the former trading range between 92 and 100 in the U.S. Dollar Index. The dollar's break to the upside creates a bullish signal as long as the Dollar Index stays above the 100 support level. A strong break below the 100 level would be necessary to negate the bullish signal. A pullback or re-test of the 100 support level is certainly possible and wouldn't negate the bullish signal provided the Dollar Index doesn't break below the support.
Source: Barchart.com
The long-term U.S. Dollar Index chart shows the former trading range and recent breakout. As long as the Dollar Index holds above the key 100 support, there is very little resistance overhead all the way up to 120, which marked the highs in 2001 and 2002. Due to its history and psychological significance, the 120 level may act like a magnet for the U.S. Dollar Index over the next couple of years.
Source: Barchart.com
The euro, which trades inversely with the U.S. dollar, is also showing signs of a nascent breakdown from its two year-old trading range. 1.05 is the key support level to watch - if this level is broken convincingly, further downside may be ahead for the euro along with more upside for the U.S. dollar. If the euro breaks back above this level, the bearish signal would be negated.
Source: Barchart.com
The longer-term euro chart shows the former trading range and breakdown in a larger context. If the euro stays below the 1.05 support level, it may try to gun for the long-term price target and support level at .8500 - the 2001 and 2002 lows. Any weakness in the euro would help to support the U.S. dollar.
Source: Barchart.com
The maturation of the current U.S. economic cycle combined with optimism about President-elect Donald Trump's fiscal stimulus plans are causing inflation expectations and interest rates to spike, which creates a positive bias for the dollar. At the same time, Brexit and other anxieties about the viability of the European Union are weakening the euro, which also benefits the dollar. While the fundamental backdrop is fairly straightforward, technical confirmation is still necessary: the U.S. Dollar Index needs to stay above 100 and the euro needs to stay below 1.05 in order for the current trends to remain intact.
Please follow or add me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay informed about the most important trading and bubble news as well as my related commentary.
(Disclaimer: All information is provided for educational purposes only and should not be relied on for making any investment decisions. These chart analysis blog posts are simply market “play by plays” and color commentaries, not hard predictions, as the author is an agnostic on short-term market movements.)
|
5ca007e6c91d01b35b1b5d9545229c4f | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2017/07/30/heres-what-the-smart-money-thinks-about-the-dollar-and-euro/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix | Here's What The Smart Money Thinks About The Dollar And Euro | Here's What The Smart Money Thinks About The Dollar And Euro
Shutterstock
What a difference eight months make: at end of last year, the U.S. dollar, interest rates, and inflation expectations were soaring on the back of Donald Trump's surprise election win. Even though the underlying "hard" economic data had not changed much, the "soft" data (sentiment-based economic indicators) immediately jumped as investors expected imminent tax cuts and economy-boosting fiscal stimulus programs. Over the past several months, however, investors have been disappointed by the Trump administration's lack of progress toward its goals.
The disappointment can be seen in the U.S. Dollar Index's false breakout. For most of 2015 and 2016, the U.S. Dollar Index was trading in a range between the 93 support and 100 resistance. A breakout above 100 occurred after the election, but could not be sustained. The Dollar Index is now approaching its old 93 support level that should help determine whether there will be a bounce from here or a further breakdown. A convincing break below this 93 support level increases the chances of further downside (assuming no false breakdown, of course). It is worth noting that the commercial futures hedgers (often considered "smart money") have built a relatively bullish position on the U.S. Dollar Index, which increases the likelihood of a bounce in the near future. There have been notable rallies the last several times the hedgers built similar bullish positions in the U.S. Dollar Index.
Dollar Weekly Chart Finviz.com
Weakness in the U.S. dollar along with discussions of a scale-back of the ECB's quantitative easing program have contributed to strength in the euro, which trades inversely with the U.S. dollar. Similar to the dollar, the euro traded in a range for most of 2015 and 2016, but recently experienced a bullish breakout above the 1.1500 resistance level. The commercial futures hedgers have built their most bearish position in years, which means that they are positioning for a pullback. If such a pullback occurs, watch the 1.1500 support level.
Euro Weekly Chart Finviz.com
For now, traders should watch how the U.S. Dollar Index acts at the 93 support level (whether a bounce occurs or if there is a convincing breakdown). In addition, traders should watch if the euro is able to sustain its momentum after breaking above 1.1500 or if it experiences a pullback to this level.
Please follow or add me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay informed about the most important trading and bubble news as well as my related commentary.
(Disclaimer: All information is provided for educational purposes only and should not be relied on for making any investment decisions. These chart analysis blog posts are simply market “play by plays” and color commentaries, not hard predictions, as the author is an agnostic on short-term market movements.)
|
eb3c54f9be2df92b86202abb3fdd8a12 | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2017/09/30/can-the-u-s-dollar-get-its-groove-back/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix | Can The U.S. Dollar Get Its Groove Back? | Can The U.S. Dollar Get Its Groove Back?
Since the start of the year, the U.S. dollar has been in a firm downtrend as the "Trump Trade" euphoria dies down and hard economic data has remained lackluster. The "bearish dollar/bullish commodities and emerging markets" mentality has become entrenched as traders expect the trend to continue. In this piece, I will show several charts that may be helpful for determining whether the dollar is headed for even more pain or is able to stage a bounce.
For much of 2015 and 2016, the U.S. Dollar Index traded in a range between the 93 support and 100 resistance. The post-U.S. presidential election breakout proved to be short-lived, and the Dollar Index has fallen back to its old support level at 93 (and even broke below it recently). The index is now at a critical juncture because how it acts at this level will determine its next major move. If the index is able to break back above 93 in a convincing manner, then it has a fighting chance of staging a bounce off of this level. If the index is not able to stage a successful breakout, however, then further weakness becomes more likely.
The commercial futures hedgers (often considered "smart money") have taken a bullish stance on the U.S. Dollar Index, which increases the chances of a bounce soon. Several rallies have occurred the last several times the commercial hedgers became bullish on the U.S. Dollar Index.
Weekly Dollar Chart Finviz.com
The short-term chart shows how the U.S. Dollar Index fell within a downtrend channel since February, but has recently broken out. As mentioned before, the index needs to break above 93 in a convincing manner in order to negate the recent bearish price action.
Daily Dollar Chart Finviz.com
The U.S. dollar's weakness since the start of the year has corresponded with strength in the euro, which recently broke out of its two-and-a-half-year-old trading range. This breakout creates a bullish bias in the euro and a bearish bias in the dollar as long as it remains intact. If the euro manages to correct back to the 1.1500 support level and break below, that would be a bearish signal for the euro and a bullish signal for the dollar.
Weekly Euro Chart Finviz.com
In a pattern similar to the dollar (but inverse), the euro has been climbing within a rising channel that it recently broke down from. As mentioned before, if the euro were to break below the 1.1500 support level, it would be concerning for the euro bulls.
Daily Euro Chart Finviz.com
For now, traders should see if the U.S. Dollar Index is able to regain the 93 resistance level or if it fails to do so. Traders should also watch if the euro tries to re-test the 1.1400 to 1.1500 zone and how it acts if it does.
Please follow or add me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay informed about the most important trading and bubble news as well as my related commentary.
(Disclaimer: All information is provided for educational purposes only and should not be relied on for making any investment decisions. These chart analysis blog posts are simply market “play by plays” and color commentaries, not hard predictions, as the author is an agnostic on short-term market movements.)
|
e4ea6ae594bf71346d80eb29f91730ad | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2021/02/28/here-are-the-key-gold-charts-to-watch-right-now/ | Here Are The Key Gold Charts To Watch Right Now | Here Are The Key Gold Charts To Watch Right Now
After briefly rising above $2,000 per ounce in August, gold has not been able to catch a break. While Bitcoin and many stocks have gone ballistic in recent months, the yellow metal has fallen 17% since its peak last summer. There are many investors in the cryptocurrency community who believe that Bitcoin is the new “digital gold” that is poised to surpass and replace metallic gold, which explains gold’s lackluster performance in the past several months. There are other investors, however, who believe that Bitcoin is a gigantic bubble or Ponzi scheme that will end in disaster, which will ultimately help to reaffirm gold’s place as the premier safe haven asset.
Other investors (including myself) take a more inclusive approach and believe that Bitcoin and precious metals can and should co-exist in a portfolio of safe haven assets. In this piece, however, my goal is not to debate the merits of Bitcoin vs. gold; I simply want to share some key charts that I believe are helpful for determining where the price of gold is likely heading next.
The daily chart shows that gold futures have been trading in a channel pattern since August 2020. Gold is also sitting above the $1,700 support level that formed last spring. If gold can push above its channel pattern in a decisive manner, it would increase the odds of further bullish action. On the other hand, if gold breaks below this channel pattern and the $1,700 support, it would give a bearish signal.
Daily gold chart Finviz.com
The weekly chart shows gold’s channel pattern as well as an uptrend line that started in early-2019. Gold’s uptrend of the past couple years remains intact as long as it stays above this uptrend line; if it breaks below it, however, it would give a bearish confirmation signal.
Weekly gold chart Finviz.com
MORE FOR YOUCoinbase Is Not Worth $100 Billion But Its Stock Could Double On Direct ListingChina’s Economy Surged 18.3% In The First Quarter Of 2021Bitcoin Nears $60k, Which Crypto Stocks Should You Buy?
The monthly chart shows a much-longer term uptrend line that started in the early-to-mid-2000s. Gold’s long-term uptrend remains intact as long as it stays above that uptrend line.
Monthly gold chart Finviz.com
For now, I am watching how gold acts at the lower bound of its channel pattern as well as the $1,700 support: will it stage a rally or break below? Regardless of the short-term action, I am a long-term believer in gold and silver as a hedge against the actions of global governments and central banks, which have been recklessly racking up debt and printing money like there is no tomorrow with no end in sight.
Please add me on Twitter and LinkedIn to follow my updates and economic commentary
|
d5585cf284bd400626ea59b08fc3a61a | https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessedamiani/2017/11/06/simplyvital-health-blockchain-revolutionize-healthcare/ | SimplyVital Health Is Using Blockchain To Revolutionize Healthcare | SimplyVital Health Is Using Blockchain To Revolutionize Healthcare
Maybe the most comforting healthcare development of 2017.
It’s no secret that America has a complicated relationship with healthcare. And with all the uncertainty of 2017 looming large over 2018, it can feel like a subject you just want to avoid reading about altogether.
But one startup is out to change all that.
SimplyVital Health is using blockchain technology to give the healthcare industry a facelift. The company has developed two products, both of which address different aspects and targets within the industry: ConnectingCare and Health Nexus.
Healthcare + Blockchain SimplyVital Health
ConnectingCare
The first, ConnectingCare, is designed for healthcare providers, such as hospitals. It helps these customers streamline data to save time and money.
“ConnectingCare is our current revenue-generating, blockchain-backed platform,” SimplyVital Health CTO Lucas Hendren said in an interview with the author. “It uses care coordination and financial forecasting to help providers in bundled payments get insight into what happens to patients when they leave the hospital. It is a strategic early use case for blockchain in healthcare because it uses blockchain as an immutable audit trail.”
A new healthcare ecosystem SimplyVital Health
The need for ConnectingCare grew from CEO Katherine Kuzmeskas's personal need for a system like this while working as a hospital administrator at Yale New Haven.
"Our Minimum Viable Product hit the market ready for feedback and tweaks, based on customer preference," Kuzmeskas said in an interview with Shari Medini. "Because we use blockchain technology in our ConnectingCare platform, we gathered strong intel on what healthcare needed and wanted in blockchain technology. This validated our decision to build Health Nexus."
Introducing: Health Nexus SimplyVital Health
Health Nexus
Now, the company is launching its other product, Health Nexus, a blockchain protocol SimplyVital Health is building to dramatically broaden its scope—and revolutionize what we even mean by medical records (and how they can be used).
“Health Nexus [handles] data liquidity, payments, and storage, and is specifically designed for healthcare,” Hendren said. “[It] will have an entirely new protocol for governance and data security that will allow for enterprise and the public to interface with sensitive data for the first time.”
The Health Nexus blockchain protocol SimplyVital Health
That might sound a little complicated, but it’s actually really straightforward, and has huge applications for all of us. Not only does it make it easier for healthcare providers to share data more efficiently, it also opens up the possibility of each individual monetizing their medical data by selling it to interested parties. By becoming the basic infrastructure for this information, Health Nexus also stands to become the de facto marketplace and matchmaking service for individuals, healthcare providers, and researchers.
“Anyone can use Health Nexus for secure medical data exchange,” Hendren said. “An example of this would be that a patient could sell their private medical data to a research institute. That being said, the first users we are approaching are healthcare entities—allowing them to share data for care coordination and financial risk management.”
Health Cash Token Sale
To support the growth of the Health Nexus ecosystem, SimplyVital is running a token sale for Health Cash (HLTH). You’ve probably heard a lot of talk about ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings) lately—a token sale is in the same ballpark, though instead of distributing coins, tokens are the distributed commodity. Tokens fulfill the function of coins, but are generally more versatile. This is an evolving topic with no hard-and-fast guidelines; if you feel like understanding the particulars, check out these articles.
SimplyVital Health is in pre-sale for accredited investors until Nov. 20, and the token sale makes its public launch, Nov. 22.
An open-source infrastructure for medical information SimplyVital Health
For those who want to ensure that this network is worth the investment, Hendren explained that SimplyVital has gone to great lengths to ensure that both the company’s products and the token sale are legitimate and verified from a variety of different vantage points.
“We have traditional venture backing from Yale University and other ventures, and we are revenue-generating with the first HIPAA compliant blockchain protocol,” Hendren said. “We also have unique algorithms at the protocol levels. Finally we have day-one usability for our token that will help bring liquidity to data.”
Furthermore, the sale is backed by TokenMarket and Cooley, as well as by new advisor Dr. John Halamka, CIO of Harvard’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who led the pilot implementation of the MIT Media Lab MedRec blockchain project.
For a deeper dive with SimplyVital Health and the token sale, read the whitepaper here. For those interested in investing, visit SimplyVital’s token sale site.
Health Cash (HLTH) SimplyVital Health
Editor’s Note: the author met SimplyVital Health during BoostVC’s Tribe 9. Neither the author nor Forbes endorses participation in any token sale or cryptocurrency investment, all of which have significant inherent risk. Seek advice from a financial advisor as well as do your own due diligence before considering investment.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.