Parsing Select Annual Reports: Part 2 [View article]
CME also "operates two self-regulatory futures exchanges" and offers information products--I did not mean to imply that CME is only a clearinghouse. I apologize for the confusion, if any.
1. One constant variable in life is that change will occur.
2. The ability to keep up with change and adapt to changing environments provides an advantage.
3. Entities and people who adapt the quickest to change will have an advantage and will be ahead of their competition. In economic terms, this is called the ability to adapt to "creative destruction" (See Joseph Schumpeter).
4. As of 2009, the world population is becoming and has become more and more inter-linked. Globalization is occurring rapidly, causing persons who would have never interacted fifty years ago to now interact and to engage in numerous economic and social transactions.
5. Organizations and entities that have more knowledge and ability to interact on a positive basis with numerous cultures will have an advantage over entities that either lack this ability or that have less of it.
6. Due to globalization, the world is becoming more diverse.
7. Entities that lack diversity appear to be slower to adapt to change.
8. Entities that lack diversity as their surrounding local or non-local environment becomes more and more diverse show that their internal culture is more resistant to change or that they are unable to gain talent from a diverse range of sources.
9. Entities that are unable to draw talent from a diverse range of places or that are resistant to change will be disadvantaged against more fluid, diverse entities.
10. As globalization increases, entities that are more diverse will have both tangible and non-tangible advantages over non-diverse entities.
11. Therefore, more diverse entities will be more competitive than non-diverse entities.
12. As of 2009, Asians are approximately 60% of the world population. As of 2009, persons of African descent are approximately 20% of the world population. As of 2009, the United States has only 5% of the world population. Mandarin and Spanish are more commonly spoken worldwide than English.
13. The United States is a consumer-based economy that relies on domestic and international consumption of its products to increase growth, profits, and influence.
14. To fully maximize one's successful interactions with worldwide entities, one must be fluent in more than one language and well-versed in several cultures.
15. Multinational entities that fully maximize their ability to engage with several cultures will maximize their ability to gain new customers and allies.
16. Entities that fail to maximize their their ability to engage with several cultures will be disadvantaged against multinational entities.
17. Familiarity with different cultures and languages will maximize a multinational entity's ability to compete globally, providing it an advantage over entities that fail to maximize their ability to compete globally.
18. "Familiarity with different cultures and languages" may be called "diversity."
19. Multinational entities that favor diversity will be more competitive than entities that do not favor diversity.
Notes from Brocade Communications' Shareholder Meeting [View article]
To edb:
You don't have enough data to analyze whether more diverse companies' stock prices do better than non-diverse companies. Almost every publicly traded company in the U.S. has non-diverse upper management. In the future, assuming more publicly traded companies gain diversity in their upper ranks, you may be able to make comparisons.
Shareholder Communications: Kudos to GE's Immelt, Dominion [View article]
1. Methinks the gentlemen doth protest too much. Other than completely exiting the financial business, what could Immelt have done better? Immelt was not the only person who didn't see the financial train wreck coming--every major investment bank was caught by surprise, too. Even Goldman Sachs had to recently convert itself to a bank holding company.
Immelt deserves some recognition. GE going from 6/sh to 12/sh is a noticeable improvement. I said Mr. Immelt is doing a great job "re-building" his own and his company's reputation. The market seems to agree.
Federal Pension Trouble: Its Shift to Stocks [View article]
Public pensions are a major problem because public sector unions negotiated MOU/CBA terms that assumed at least a 10-12% annual return, plus consistent COLA increases. Taxpayers and their children will suffer unless something is done to fix this financial time bomb. More below:
Pensions: The Biggest Story of the Week - Or the Year [View article]
Excellent, excellent article--I've been trying to warn the public about the danger of underfunded public pensions. The government's actuarial projections border on being deceitful. Links to my articles are below:
Don't Be Scammed by Madoff Investor Sob Stories [View article]
SPK, you make some very good points. My article was primarily against the idea of bailing out Madoff investors using taxpayer funds. Sympathy is one thing--taking taxpayer funds is another.
To "devassocx": I don't claim to know exactly how much undocumented workers cost or add to California's finances. I was just pointing out that a reasonable analysis of the net gain or loss of undocumented workers must include the children of these undocumented workers and their future contributions. For me, the turning point is the reality of the situation--it would be nearly impossible to collect all the undocumented workers and deport them to Canada, Mexico, etc. Once I realized this, I started to focus more on how to make the children of undocumented workers productive, taxpaying residents.
Some people have made comments about undocumented workers on this post. For the record, I do _NOT_ agree that undocumented workers are a cause of California's budget crisis. Once you factor in the amount they pay in sales taxes and gasoline taxes, it's hard to say whether undocumented workers are a financial net positive or negative.
in addition, without the immigrant population, both legal and illegal, America's population would be declining--which would be bad news for all entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Social Security. You have to factor in the children of undocumented workers and the taxes these children will pay over the next 60 years if you want to make a reasoned analysis.
To "Allscrewedup": I appreciate your comments and welcome the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue. I have to go to a trial right now, so I will just correct one statement you made. You said that I was making "a personal attack, for some unknown reason, against public safety." That is patently false. I've said over and over that all workers should be entitled to respect, including police officers and firefighters. The question is whether Californians are overpaying people during a budget crisis.
This particular article happened to focus on police officers and firefighters. I have other articles on other aspects of public spending, such as education, and yes, teacher's unions. (Education continues to suck up a massive amount of taxpayer funds, and there are questions about whether the increased funds actually improve student knowledge or abilities.)
I hope you will read my article carefully before making unsubstantiated comments, and again, I look forward to reading your comments. You have a forum here where you can provide facts to convince the public about your arguments. I hope you use it well.
Dear "allscrewedup": I didn't say police had no impact whatsoever on crime--I said, "police and firefighters are only two components in the public safety analysis." That means other components affect the balance, too.
For example, you wrote, "Crooks and criminals from East Palo Alto, Oakland, Salinas, etc. all commit therir [sic] crimes in Santa Clara County. In fact, the majority of our criminals hail from those cities." Don't these cities also have police officers who risk their lives every day? Under your own example, Oakland, East Paly, and Salinas should be very safe because they have police officers who work hard and risk their lives every day. But you admit these cities are not as safe as San Jose. Why is that? I believe it's differences in education levels and the high cost of living, as I pointed out in the article. If we switched the Oakland PD with the SJPD, I don't think there would be much difference in crime rates post-switch.
Now, the NYPD is an interesting example. It did a great job cleaning up NYC, especially the areas around Times Square. Even so, it's hard to conclude that NYPD single-handedly caused the crime rate in NY to decline. Too many different people were involved in the turnaround effort, including local residents. Was the prior decline in crime a result of having a better economy, which usually leads to less crime? Was it having more officers? Better training? More resident involvement? A mayor willing to try new approaches? Better drug rehabilitation efforts? It's probably a combination of all these factors. My point is, having good police officers is definitely one relevant component in analyzing NY's crime cleanup. But it's only one component in a complex, ever-changing picture. The fact remains that in most major cities, if you switched police departments, you probably wouldn't see a major difference in crime rates.
Don't Be Scammed by Madoff Investor Sob Stories [View article]
To "Phil the Victim": I did _not_ favor the corporate or auto bailouts; however, I recognize that the auto bailout helped thousands of Americans who suffered because their unions and irresponsible boards made poor decisions. That's the difference between Madoff investors and the auto workers and lower level banker employees: one group (Madoff investors) could have diversified or chosen to do better diligence before investing, while the other group (lower level corporate and auto employees) had little power or say in any substantive decisions.
With power comes responsibility. You had the power not to invest in a certain fund or investment. Instead, you apparently delegated power to a mutual fund manager, who failed to do due diligence and invested with Madoff. You admit this when you wrote, "We were in a general partnership, [and] none [of us knew] how our money was invested."
The general taxpayer had no involvement in your decision to invest with your mutual fund or other investment vehicle, which then apparently chose to over-invest with Madoff. Given the lack of general taxpayer involvement or culpability, it is difficult to see any rational reason taxpayers should bail you out. The appropriate recourse is with your mutual fund manager, Madoff, or insurance (SIPC), not with the general taxpayer.
You mention you have lost your life savings and are in your 70's. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security income will prevent you from being impoverished. Thus, the general taxpayer is already assisting you and protecting you from dire poverty. You appear to want the general taxpayer to provide you with more of their money because you failed to diversify your investments. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, a government that is big enough to help you avoid all your mistakes is also big enough to tell you exactly how to live your life.
You appear willing to hold other Americans and the general taxpayer responsible because you and your mutual fund manager/trustee made a mistake. Your mistake should not hurt responsible Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom diversified their investments, still lost thousands of dollars, and won't get a bailout.
Charlie Munger on Economics: Excerpts from 2003 Speech [View article]
willworkforjustice.blo...
Party Like It's 1931? [View article]
Parsing Select Annual Reports: Part 2 [View article]
Notes from Brocade Communications' Shareholder Meeting [View article]
1. One constant variable in life is that change will occur.
2. The ability to keep up with change and adapt to changing environments provides an advantage.
3. Entities and people who adapt the quickest to change will have an advantage and will be ahead of their competition. In economic terms, this is called the ability to adapt to "creative destruction" (See Joseph Schumpeter).
4. As of 2009, the world population is becoming and has become more and more inter-linked. Globalization is occurring rapidly, causing persons who would have never interacted fifty years ago to now interact and to engage in numerous economic and social transactions.
5. Organizations and entities that have more knowledge and ability to interact on a positive basis with numerous cultures will have an advantage over entities that either lack this ability or that have less of it.
6. Due to globalization, the world is becoming more diverse.
7. Entities that lack diversity appear to be slower to adapt to change.
8. Entities that lack diversity as their surrounding local or non-local environment becomes more and more diverse show that their internal culture is more resistant to change or that they are unable to gain talent from a diverse range of sources.
9. Entities that are unable to draw talent from a diverse range of places or that are resistant to change will be disadvantaged against more fluid, diverse entities.
10. As globalization increases, entities that are more diverse will have both tangible and non-tangible advantages over non-diverse entities.
11. Therefore, more diverse entities will be more competitive than non-diverse entities.
12. As of 2009, Asians are approximately 60% of the world population. As of 2009, persons of African descent are approximately 20% of the world population. As of 2009, the United States has only 5% of the world population. Mandarin and Spanish are more commonly spoken worldwide than English.
13. The United States is a consumer-based economy that relies on domestic and international consumption of its products to increase growth, profits, and influence.
14. To fully maximize one's successful interactions with worldwide entities, one must be fluent in more than one language and well-versed in several cultures.
15. Multinational entities that fully maximize their ability to engage with several cultures will maximize their ability to gain new customers and allies.
16. Entities that fail to maximize their their ability to engage with several cultures will be disadvantaged against multinational entities.
17. Familiarity with different cultures and languages will maximize a multinational entity's ability to compete globally, providing it an advantage over entities that fail to maximize their ability to compete globally.
18. "Familiarity with different cultures and languages" may be called "diversity."
19. Multinational entities that favor diversity will be more competitive than entities that do not favor diversity.
© Matthew Rafat
Notes from Brocade Communications' Shareholder Meeting [View article]
You don't have enough data to analyze whether more diverse companies' stock prices do better than non-diverse companies. Almost every publicly traded company in the U.S. has non-diverse upper management. In the future, assuming more publicly traded companies gain diversity in their upper ranks, you may be able to make comparisons.
Shareholder Communications: Kudos to GE's Immelt, Dominion [View article]
Immelt deserves some recognition. GE going from 6/sh to 12/sh is a noticeable improvement. I said Mr. Immelt is doing a great job "re-building" his own and his company's reputation. The market seems to agree.
Federal Pension Trouble: Its Shift to Stocks [View article]
willworkforjustice.blo...
willworkforjustice.blo...
willworkforjustice.blo...
Attending Media Giant Disney's Annual Shareholder Meeting [View article]
willworkforjustice.blo...
Pensions: The Biggest Story of the Week - Or the Year [View article]
willworkforjustice.blo...
willworkforjustice.blo...
willworkforjustice.blo...
Don't Be Scammed by Madoff Investor Sob Stories [View article]
California Bonds Downgraded Again [View article]
California Bonds Downgraded Again [View article]
in addition, without the immigrant population, both legal and illegal, America's population would be declining--which would be bad news for all entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Social Security. You have to factor in the children of undocumented workers and the taxes these children will pay over the next 60 years if you want to make a reasoned analysis.
California's Tipping Point [View article]
This particular article happened to focus on police officers and firefighters. I have other articles on other aspects of public spending, such as education, and yes, teacher's unions. (Education continues to suck up a massive amount of taxpayer funds, and there are questions about whether the increased funds actually improve student knowledge or abilities.)
I hope you will read my article carefully before making unsubstantiated comments, and again, I look forward to reading your comments. You have a forum here where you can provide facts to convince the public about your arguments. I hope you use it well.
California's Tipping Point [View article]
For example, you wrote, "Crooks and criminals from East Palo Alto, Oakland, Salinas, etc. all commit therir [sic] crimes in Santa Clara County. In fact, the majority of our criminals hail from those cities." Don't these cities also have police officers who risk their lives every day? Under your own example, Oakland, East Paly, and Salinas should be very safe because they have police officers who work hard and risk their lives every day. But you admit these cities are not as safe as San Jose. Why is that? I believe it's differences in education levels and the high cost of living, as I pointed out in the article. If we switched the Oakland PD with the SJPD, I don't think there would be much difference in crime rates post-switch.
Now, the NYPD is an interesting example. It did a great job cleaning up NYC, especially the areas around Times Square. Even so, it's hard to conclude that NYPD single-handedly caused the crime rate in NY to decline. Too many different people were involved in the turnaround effort, including local residents. Was the prior decline in crime a result of having a better economy, which usually leads to less crime? Was it having more officers? Better training? More resident involvement? A mayor willing to try new approaches? Better drug rehabilitation efforts? It's probably a combination of all these factors. My point is, having good police officers is definitely one relevant component in analyzing NY's crime cleanup. But it's only one component in a complex, ever-changing picture. The fact remains that in most major cities, if you switched police departments, you probably wouldn't see a major difference in crime rates.
Don't Be Scammed by Madoff Investor Sob Stories [View article]
With power comes responsibility. You had the power not to invest in a certain fund or investment. Instead, you apparently delegated power to a mutual fund manager, who failed to do due diligence and invested with Madoff. You admit this when you wrote, "We were in a general partnership, [and] none [of us knew] how our money was invested."
The general taxpayer had no involvement in your decision to invest with your mutual fund or other investment vehicle, which then apparently chose to over-invest with Madoff. Given the lack of general taxpayer involvement or culpability, it is difficult to see any rational reason taxpayers should bail you out. The appropriate recourse is with your mutual fund manager, Madoff, or insurance (SIPC), not with the general taxpayer.
You mention you have lost your life savings and are in your 70's. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security income will prevent you from being impoverished. Thus, the general taxpayer is already assisting you and protecting you from dire poverty. You appear to want the general taxpayer to provide you with more of their money because you failed to diversify your investments. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, a government that is big enough to help you avoid all your mistakes is also big enough to tell you exactly how to live your life.
You appear willing to hold other Americans and the general taxpayer responsible because you and your mutual fund manager/trustee made a mistake. Your mistake should not hurt responsible Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom diversified their investments, still lost thousands of dollars, and won't get a bailout.