LinkedIn: Our future will be brighter than you think, but more disruptive

Posted on by

This article just in from LinkedIn: Our future will be brighter than you think, but more disruptive.  The article discuss disruptive technologies that can produce unlimited clean water and energy thereby leading to unlimited food supply.  Maybe Agenda 21 (thesis) has these disruptive technologies as the anti-thesis.  Wonder what the synthesis will be?

By the way, the article mentions 3D printing which is something I have mentioned for the last year and a half.  Why isn’t HP, right here in Northern California, leading the world in 3D printing?

Some thoughts on recent developments in online education

Posted on by

In the past couple weeks I was referred to  this video regarding online education and I met a couple publisher representatives about a new online eBook.  “We must meet students where they are and they are on the internet looking at Facebook,” was told to me by the publisher representative.    Those representatives were pushing for me to adopt their new online eBook in my classes for the Fall.

While the eBook is nice, with multiple videos and examples embedded in the text, I felt “my goodness, we sure are spoon feeding students these days.”  I told that to the publishers.  I also mentioned the equivalent of their eBook is available right now in print form.  On reserve at the library I have placed three textbooks and four Schaum’s outline series books with thousands of worked out example problems.  What’s the difference between looking at examples on a computer screen or going to the library to look at them?  We probably could go on and on about the pros and cons of both.  For now, let’s move on to dialectic reasoning about online vs. traditional learning.

  • Thesis: Today’s students are fine.  Today’s instruction needs adjustment.  You must adjust instruction methods to meet the new students of today.
  • Anti-thesis: Instruction is fine.  Today’s students need  to adjust.  Students need to get off of Facebook and get in the library with books from a diverse author base.
  • Synthesis: Students and instruction both need to adjust.

I must admit, I am in-between the “anti-thesis” and “synthesis” positions.  All this talk of “new students of today” reminds me of the “New Economy.”  I remember telling my boss after our startup was acquired in 2000  “our P/E ratio is 400, shouldn’t we sell our stock?”  His reply?  “Your MBA doesn’t apply anymore, this is a New Economy.”  We all know what happened after that.  The fundamentals returned. The stock market plummeted.

I see the same thing here with education.  Replace “New Economy” with “New Students” or “New instructional methods.” Fundamentals will return.  Students will have to spend time and study.

Let me throw one more dart at Facebook as I close.  Economic growth results from productivity enhancing technological innovation.   This is a Schumpetarian view on economic growth.  I ask, how has technological innovation such as Facebook enhanced anyone’s productivity?  Is there a connection between the productivity reducing technological progress called “social media” and lower economic growth?

Shareholders in Swiss companies can have a binding vote on executive compensation

Posted on by

Shouldn’t shareholders have the final and direct say on executive compensation? Note that in the US and UK shareholders votes on executive compensation are non binding. That is, even if shareholders here do not like the pay packages of executives, and pass a vote to cut compensation, executives are not legally required to cut their pay. Don’t we teach FIN101 students that executives work for the shareholders? How did we get to the point where executives can collect money from shareholders (think Facebook IPO) then do whatever the hell they want to? Of course the puppets of the wealthy cite the same old tired concerns: executives are top talent, this will cause companies to leave, these are the job creators, etc. I say enough is enough. We frequently hear about cost cutting and reducing wages of employees. It is about time we have the discussion of cost cutting and reducing wages with respect to executives. Executives are employees too… of shareholders. The masses own shares in their retirement accounts. Let your voices be heard. http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57572249&feed_id=null&videofeed=null

Hypocrisy in Yahoo CEO’s show up to work or quit edict?

Posted on by

In my last post on the Yahoo CEO’s (Marissa Mayer) new “show up to work or quit” edict I voiced my support.  I do support re-humanizing human interactions.

However, after talking with a student here at CSUS, face to face by the way, I found out the Yahoo CEO  had a nursery built at the Yahoo facility for her newborn.  Yes, she used her money to do it.  But it is still in the company building.

So, if other Yahoo employees have money to build a nursery in the next cube, would they be allowed?  I doubt it.  Therein lies the hypocrisy.  Face to face time is important, the CEO is living it.  Family is important.  The CEO is bringing the family with her to work.

But what is Marissa Mayer doing to facilitate work-life balance of those less fortunate employees who can’t afford to build a nursery at work and are no longer allowed to work from home?

Let me quote one of the comments on the article:

Here’s the problem I have with her and her actions. She was elected to the CEO position in July of 2012, and immediately announced upon her acceptance that she was pregnant. She stated that the board knew in advance, and they very well may have. She then announced that she didn’t plan to really take a maternity leave, and spent the weeks she took off before and after the birth of her child working from home. So, in the span of less than a year, this high profile woman in a tech field has dismissed maternity leave as unnecessary – assuming that you consider working from home as actually working (which I suspect at least to some large degree it was). After then taking advantage of the option to work from home during her maternity non-leave, she has now decided that no one else should be allowed to do the same. She, of course, doesn’t need to as she has utilized company resources (office space and utilities) to create her own personal daycare at her office. Clearly, the only concern Ms. Mayer has is for herself.

I will conclude with stating I support face-to-face interaction and work/life balance.  I hope Yahoo’s new CEO figures out how to make that happen for everyone and not just herself.

A not-so-funny pictorial description of the AIG bailout

Posted on by

Thanks to the MBA220 students for their submissions on this one.  I have modified and combined a couple of the submitted pictures here.  If anyone would like to animate this AIG PowerPoint and save it as a movie (I believe it can be done with powerpoint) I would appreciate it.

Fisman: CEO right: Face time needed at Yahoo

Posted on by

So, as humans we still need to interact face to face? See this article.  Here’s a quote:

More recent time use studies by researchers at Harvard, the London School of Economics and Columbia have found that little has changed. Despite the IT revolution, business leaders still spend 80% of their time in face-to-face meetings.

So, as educators we should be mindful of the push for online content.  A measured approach towards online incorporation is needed to ensure we are training business leaders and not solely customer service representatives.

But then again, somebody has to be a customer service representative, right?  Oh, I don’t have all the answers.  In the end, I applaud the effort to re-humanize the work environment.  May it be successful.

Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?

Posted on by

This is another article on the downside of “too big to fail.”  After attaining “too big to fail” status, creditors know these banks will be bailed out by the U.S. government if and when they fail.  As such creditors to these large banks have reduced risk exposure.  According to the article, this amounts to about 0.8 percentage points or $83Billion a year that the top 10 banks save every year as a result of their “too big to fail” status.

Why not break these big banks up rather than letting them become too big and failing?

The article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-.html

 

WSJ: Value Stocks Are Hot—But Most Investors Will Burn Out

Posted on by

I, as well as Warren Buffett before me, and Benjamin Graham before him, emphasize book value.  This article provides evidence that value stocks outperform growth stocks, but only if you hold firm:

20130215_Why_most_value_investors_will_burn_out

On value indexes vs. others…

…the Russell 1000 Value Index, a yardstick of cheap stocks with sluggish expected earnings, is up 19%, compared with 11% for pricier “growth” stocks and 15% for the full Rus- sell 1000 index of big U.S. stocks.

On long run performance…

Since 1926, value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by an average of four percentage points annually

On book value…

The bargain stocks in the best-known Fama- French index were selected on a different measure: book value, a basic yard- stick of corporate net worth. Many stock pickers don’t pay much attention to book value anymore.