I love basketball. As an attorney, I handle discrimination claims. What do these two things have in common? Well, some researchers just answered that question:
Using data from the National Basketball Association (NBA), we examine whether patterns of workplace cooperation occur disproportionately among workers of the same race. We find that, holding constant the composition of teammates on the floor, basketball players are no more likely to complete an assist to a player of the same race than a player of a different race. Our confidence interval allows us to reject even small amounts of same-race bias in passing patterns. Our findings suggest that high levels of interracial cooperation can occur in a setting where workers are operating in a highly visible setting with strong incentives to behave efficiently.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14749
In other words, it's the Larry Bird/John Stockton/Steve Nash paper. But was there enough of a sample size to create credible results? Other than Steve Nash, Kevin Love, Kyle Korver, and the Gasol brothers, who else would they have covered? Surprisingly, The Arsenalist--a site named after the popular soccer team--answers my question (click on "The Arsenalist"). I can't believe I left out AK-47.
Speaking of interracial cooperation, here is a post featuring a must-see link--it leads to a video featuring "twins" Steve Nash and Baron Davis. Enjoy.
Credit goes to Marginal Revolution for the NBER paper link.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A Smart Counterargument to Libertarians
The Green Bag, a legal journal, just published a fantastic Almanac and Reader (2008). Law students and lawyers should read the excerpt, "Making Your Case--The Art of Persuading Judges," by Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner. Although I majored in English and took legal writing courses in law school, Scalia's excerpt is a must-read for anyone who wants to write effectively.
The entire book can be found here.
The Almanac has other wonderful articles, including one by J. Harvie Wilkinson III, "Toward One America--A Vision in Law." [page 296] Although I am inclined towards libertarianism, Wilkinson made me see why others are against the view that individual rights and self-interest reign supreme:
Let's restore a constitutional respect for community. It is futile to expect a healthy nation in the absence of a health sense of community. Community instills within us the sense that we live for something larger and more meaningful than just ourselves... Communities are built around shared purposes and values, one of which is surely a respect and appreciation for individual rights. But there must likewise be the sense that individuals contribute to, as well as take from, this larger whole of which we as single persons are but parts...
It must still be asked whether the notion of free-floating, i.e. non-textual, constitutional rights of personal autonomy has not helped to deprive us of a sense of connectedness that is indispensable to the formation of a collective identity. There is a limit to which individual intimacies should be at the sufferance of majorities, but there are likewise limits to the extent that democratic majorities in a state or nation can be deprived of the communal right to promote cherished values. To enshrine a sanctity of self in our founding charter without textual or historical warrant may be just as pernicious as the attempt to enshrine discrimination against those whose personal choices may for good and legitimate reason fail to conform to the majority's own...
When we next drive through the countryside or take a moment's pause, we might reflect on what we get from living in society. We did not build our own home; make our own car or clothes; or invent the computers, phones, lights, or appliances we not take so much for granted. Left alone, we could not enjoy a concert, educate our children, put out a fire, raise capital, or take a trip. We would, in short, be miserable and helpless. [Green Bag Almanac and Reader, 2008, at 303-304]
Wilkinson makes some good points and ultimately claims the middle ground. Continuing on the topic of good writing, he demonstrates the most effective writing style--moving your audience to a reasonable middle ground. However, I still disagree with the idea that communal rights should trump individual rights. The foundation of freedom is built upon two principles: 1) limitation of government power against its own citizens/residents; and 2) respect for the minority. Establishing a community sounds fine in theory, but when push comes to shove, the minority view is usually drowned out, and the government may run roughshod over their rights. Yet, that's precisely when the law and the courts should enter--at the inconvenient time when the majority, already backed by their elected representatives, are attempting to limit the individual's or the minority's freedom.
The law is designed for inconvenient times. When it's heart-wrenching and difficult, that's when the court's pen should be unsheathed to calm the masses and to protect the individual. When the Jehovah's Witnesses are being persecuted and beaten in the schools for not taking the oath of allegiance, that's when the Court should intervene. When a political party is castigating a minority group for a nation's troubles, that's when a strong judge must use the law and remind citizens to let others alone. When the government and the majority see outside threats and want to use torture, that's when the courts should immediately remember why they exist--to use the consistent, steadying rule of law to prevent individual oppression. (By the way, federal judge Jay Bybee and UC Berkeley Professor John Woo encouraged the Bush II administration to define torture as "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." [p. 545] I'll take my individual rights now, please--I don't want any part of that community.)
Viewing his ideas in this light, Wilkinson sounds more like he's arguing for fascism than freedom when he talks about courts respecting the community. In times of prosperity, I would agree with him; however, it's when stress and conflict enter the picture that the rights of the individual are too often ignored in the interests of community and safety. Sadly, in almost every major conflict between community and the individual, courts have initially sided with the majority at the expense of the individual. See segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson); refusing to take the pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis); Guantanamo Bay (it took seven(!) years for a court to finally reject this executive order); Chinese Exclusion Act (1882); and free speech rights (Dennis v. United States). In tough times, I wouldn't put my faith in the community--not with that historical record.
Speaking of the middle ground, Judge Henry Friendly apparently embodied it. He was said to have the "gift of moderation," the "silken string running through the pearl-chain of all virtues." [Id. at 379, Michael Boudin, "Judge Henry Friendly and the Mirror of Constitutional Law."] As an attorney, Judge Friendly seems like my kind of judge--someone who personifies moderation. We have a local judge who embodies this moderation principle, too. I have never seen him lose his temper. Even when he has gotten irritated with my inexperience, his irritation has been swift and has not prevented him from briefly explaining what I am doing wrong. I don't like to name names when it comes to judges, but Santa Clara County is lucky to have a judge like him.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Book Review: The Great Depression of Debt
After reading Warren Brussee's The Great Depression of Debt, you may feel compelled to buy canned goods, water, and weaponry. If a Depression is coming and is as bad as Brussee thinks it will be, Americans are in deep trouble (and yes, "trouble" is a euphemism for something else). Here's one typical excerpt:
[I]t will take until 2012 or 2013 before the economy bottoms out and our economy again begins to grow. In the meantime, the stock market will drop dramatically, unemployment will be over 15%, and the dollar will lose its position as lead currency. Our country will be humbled as it is forced to adapt to a far lower and simpler standard of living. [page xii, hardcover, Wiley, 2009]
The problem with Brussee, however, is that his unpolished writing style mutes his persuasive power. For example, he uses far too many exclamation points, which is especially inappropriate when his message is that a financial apocalypse is near. In fact, I almost stopped reading after seeing yet another unnecessary exclamation point. While I'm glad I continued reading, Brussee needs to improve his writing style. In any case, below are his major points.
1. Brussee neatly summarizes the problems of having a large trade deficit:
If these [U.S.-debt-buying] countries get tired of the current decline in the dollar, which makes their investments net losers, they will will instead use the deficit funds to buy investment instruments elsewhere, for example in Europe. However, the United States needs these countries to buy our bonds because that is how we fund our deficit spending. So, if the foreign investors start to hesitate to buy our treasury bonds, the interest on the bonds will have to be raised high enough that the foreign investors won't go elsewhere. [page 28]
From what I've read elsewhere, if the current state of affairs continues, at least 2 to 3% of America's budget will go to paying interest to foreign investors. That's not a politically stable situation.
2. Listen up, market bears and Nouriel Roubini fans: Brussee thinks the S&P 500 will hit 423. As of February 27, 2009, the S&P 500 was 735.09, so Brussee believes the stock market--which is at 12 year lows--is 42% overvalued (See page 66).
It gets worse--according to Brussee, "[b]y 2013, people in the United States will have given up...the stock market will be akin to poison for most people...We will withdraw from many trade relationships with other countries, having set up trade barriers in response to our country's huge financial and unemployment problems." [page 83] These predictions may come true, but Brussee takes his pessimism to a level of hysterics, which ruins his credibility:
Retirement age will be changed in 2011 to age 70...A law will be passed that companies cannot lay off any more people due to reduced sales...The birth rate will go to zero...No one will want to bring a child into the very tenuous economy that will be gripping the United States. [Page 82]
Let's examine these claims. First, Brussee is vague when he refers to "retirement age," but he is probably concerned with Social Security. However, Social Security is not America's worst problem--Medicare is the much larger elephant in the room. Social Security's problems can be temporarily alleviated by raising payroll taxes and limits. Both these solutions will probably occur before Congress raises the retirement age to 70 for Social Security benefits. As for extending Medicare's eligibility age, it is very difficult to deny senior citizens necessary health care. In addition, senior citizens are a powerful voting bloc and will use their political power to prevent any major changes to Medicare. (See The Simpsons' "Wild Barts Can't Be Broken," Season 10, Episode 11, for a hilarious reminder of senior citizens' voting power.)
Second, the day Congress--with its influential corporate lobbyists--passes a law preventing layoffs is when a socialist party gains majorities in Congress. (Before you make jokes about the Democrats, remember which president increased our deficit by trillions of dollars in just eight years.) What will most likely happen first is that Congress will make it more expensive for companies to lay off workers, increasing corporate unemployment insurance contributions, or lengthening the time period employees can accept unemployment insurance. At most, Congress may require companies to pay some severance pay to laid-off employees.
Third, the idea that America's "birth rate will go to zero" requires an almost impossible set of events to occur: one, all illegal and legal immigration must stop; two, the Catholic Church must cease having influence over its adherents; and three, unplanned pregnancies must cease, or abortions must become as ubiquitous as Starbucks. Yet, none of these things will happen in our lifetimes. Whoops, there goes your credibility, Mr. Brussee. That's a shame, too, because Brussee makes some very good points. See below.
3. Brussee is against Obama's shovel-ready recovery plan, but for clean and renewable energy:
Where possible, government money given to industry should be accompanied by matching funds from the receiving company. In this way, the involved company has a vested interest in success... It will be very tempting to invest money on rebuilding our infrastructure, like roads, bridges, dikes, and so on. This was done in the thirties depression, and we are still enjoying the benefits of this work in our parks and in our infrastructure. But, as desirable as this is, funds invested in infrastructure will not lead to self-sustaining additional jobs...We must stay focused on meaningful job creation...Eventually the goal must be to develop completely electric vehicles. [pages 111-112]
Brussee is saying that shovel-ready stimulus is only a short-term fix. If the government spends money on building bridges, at some point, the bridge will be built, and the job will go away, and it's back to square one. Prior to reading the above paragraph, I had not thought about this now-obvious point.
4. Some random facts:
a. The wealthiest 1 percent of people currently own 40 to 50 percent of the country's [America's] wealth. [page 68]
b. Inflation is running at a 6 percent annual rate. [page 37]
c. In Smithers and Wright's Valuing Wall Street, the authors state that, when using a buy-and-hold strategy, investors never lost money when they were invested in stocks for 20 years. [page 145]
5. What makes Brussee more interesting than the average world-is-coming-to-an-end "economist" is that he's not a gold bug--he's a TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) bug:
[G]old actually went down in price from 1933 (when the United States went off the gold standard) to 1968. It also generally lost money after its peak in 1978. So, it appears that for most periods between 1933 and 2007, the real value of gold did not keep up with inflation...Although gold may be a good crisis hedge...gold has generally not been a good inflation hedge. [page 123]
Investors interested in Brussee's investing tips may want to explore iShares Barclays TIPS Bond (TIP) and/or Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities (VIPSX).
6. Here is Brussee's investment strategy:
[B]uying the most recent stocks added to the Dow, when the S&P 500 price/dividend is 17.2 or below; [and buying] stocks anytime the price/dividend ratio on the S&P is at or below 17.2. We will not only putting investment money into buying these stocks, but we will also sell all the TIPS we have accumulated and use those funds to buy stocks. When the price/dividend again goes above 17.2, we will stop buying stocks with new investment money and start buying TIPS. If the price/dividend goes above 28, we will sell all the stocks we have accumulated and use the funds from the sale to buy TIPS. [pages 116, 261]
Got that? What's the price/dividend ratio right now? Good question--that kind of current data is harder to find for average investors. Googling "price/dividend ratio" got me nothing current or useful.
7. Brussee is obviously a number junkie, and I loved his inflation stats at the end of his book [See page 296 et al]. Brussee lists the inflation rate in each year, from 1900 to 2007, along with some other numbers. You can get more economic numbers by going to Robert Shiller's website, located here.
Overall, Brussee has some compelling ideas. It's unfortunate he intersperses unlikely scenarios in between his rational ideas, which reduces his credibility. Readers deserved more respect and less sensationalism, especially with all the other good ideas in The Great Depression of Debt.
Disclosure: I own shares of TIP.
[I]t will take until 2012 or 2013 before the economy bottoms out and our economy again begins to grow. In the meantime, the stock market will drop dramatically, unemployment will be over 15%, and the dollar will lose its position as lead currency. Our country will be humbled as it is forced to adapt to a far lower and simpler standard of living. [page xii, hardcover, Wiley, 2009]
The problem with Brussee, however, is that his unpolished writing style mutes his persuasive power. For example, he uses far too many exclamation points, which is especially inappropriate when his message is that a financial apocalypse is near. In fact, I almost stopped reading after seeing yet another unnecessary exclamation point. While I'm glad I continued reading, Brussee needs to improve his writing style. In any case, below are his major points.
1. Brussee neatly summarizes the problems of having a large trade deficit:
If these [U.S.-debt-buying] countries get tired of the current decline in the dollar, which makes their investments net losers, they will will instead use the deficit funds to buy investment instruments elsewhere, for example in Europe. However, the United States needs these countries to buy our bonds because that is how we fund our deficit spending. So, if the foreign investors start to hesitate to buy our treasury bonds, the interest on the bonds will have to be raised high enough that the foreign investors won't go elsewhere. [page 28]
From what I've read elsewhere, if the current state of affairs continues, at least 2 to 3% of America's budget will go to paying interest to foreign investors. That's not a politically stable situation.
2. Listen up, market bears and Nouriel Roubini fans: Brussee thinks the S&P 500 will hit 423. As of February 27, 2009, the S&P 500 was 735.09, so Brussee believes the stock market--which is at 12 year lows--is 42% overvalued (See page 66).
It gets worse--according to Brussee, "[b]y 2013, people in the United States will have given up...the stock market will be akin to poison for most people...We will withdraw from many trade relationships with other countries, having set up trade barriers in response to our country's huge financial and unemployment problems." [page 83] These predictions may come true, but Brussee takes his pessimism to a level of hysterics, which ruins his credibility:
Retirement age will be changed in 2011 to age 70...A law will be passed that companies cannot lay off any more people due to reduced sales...The birth rate will go to zero...No one will want to bring a child into the very tenuous economy that will be gripping the United States. [Page 82]
Let's examine these claims. First, Brussee is vague when he refers to "retirement age," but he is probably concerned with Social Security. However, Social Security is not America's worst problem--Medicare is the much larger elephant in the room. Social Security's problems can be temporarily alleviated by raising payroll taxes and limits. Both these solutions will probably occur before Congress raises the retirement age to 70 for Social Security benefits. As for extending Medicare's eligibility age, it is very difficult to deny senior citizens necessary health care. In addition, senior citizens are a powerful voting bloc and will use their political power to prevent any major changes to Medicare. (See The Simpsons' "Wild Barts Can't Be Broken," Season 10, Episode 11, for a hilarious reminder of senior citizens' voting power.)
Second, the day Congress--with its influential corporate lobbyists--passes a law preventing layoffs is when a socialist party gains majorities in Congress. (Before you make jokes about the Democrats, remember which president increased our deficit by trillions of dollars in just eight years.) What will most likely happen first is that Congress will make it more expensive for companies to lay off workers, increasing corporate unemployment insurance contributions, or lengthening the time period employees can accept unemployment insurance. At most, Congress may require companies to pay some severance pay to laid-off employees.
Third, the idea that America's "birth rate will go to zero" requires an almost impossible set of events to occur: one, all illegal and legal immigration must stop; two, the Catholic Church must cease having influence over its adherents; and three, unplanned pregnancies must cease, or abortions must become as ubiquitous as Starbucks. Yet, none of these things will happen in our lifetimes. Whoops, there goes your credibility, Mr. Brussee. That's a shame, too, because Brussee makes some very good points. See below.
3. Brussee is against Obama's shovel-ready recovery plan, but for clean and renewable energy:
Where possible, government money given to industry should be accompanied by matching funds from the receiving company. In this way, the involved company has a vested interest in success... It will be very tempting to invest money on rebuilding our infrastructure, like roads, bridges, dikes, and so on. This was done in the thirties depression, and we are still enjoying the benefits of this work in our parks and in our infrastructure. But, as desirable as this is, funds invested in infrastructure will not lead to self-sustaining additional jobs...We must stay focused on meaningful job creation...Eventually the goal must be to develop completely electric vehicles. [pages 111-112]
Brussee is saying that shovel-ready stimulus is only a short-term fix. If the government spends money on building bridges, at some point, the bridge will be built, and the job will go away, and it's back to square one. Prior to reading the above paragraph, I had not thought about this now-obvious point.
4. Some random facts:
a. The wealthiest 1 percent of people currently own 40 to 50 percent of the country's [America's] wealth. [page 68]
b. Inflation is running at a 6 percent annual rate. [page 37]
c. In Smithers and Wright's Valuing Wall Street, the authors state that, when using a buy-and-hold strategy, investors never lost money when they were invested in stocks for 20 years. [page 145]
5. What makes Brussee more interesting than the average world-is-coming-to-an-end "economist" is that he's not a gold bug--he's a TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) bug:
[G]old actually went down in price from 1933 (when the United States went off the gold standard) to 1968. It also generally lost money after its peak in 1978. So, it appears that for most periods between 1933 and 2007, the real value of gold did not keep up with inflation...Although gold may be a good crisis hedge...gold has generally not been a good inflation hedge. [page 123]
Investors interested in Brussee's investing tips may want to explore iShares Barclays TIPS Bond (TIP) and/or Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities (VIPSX).
6. Here is Brussee's investment strategy:
[B]uying the most recent stocks added to the Dow, when the S&P 500 price/dividend is 17.2 or below; [and buying] stocks anytime the price/dividend ratio on the S&P is at or below 17.2. We will not only putting investment money into buying these stocks, but we will also sell all the TIPS we have accumulated and use those funds to buy stocks. When the price/dividend again goes above 17.2, we will stop buying stocks with new investment money and start buying TIPS. If the price/dividend goes above 28, we will sell all the stocks we have accumulated and use the funds from the sale to buy TIPS. [pages 116, 261]
Got that? What's the price/dividend ratio right now? Good question--that kind of current data is harder to find for average investors. Googling "price/dividend ratio" got me nothing current or useful.
7. Brussee is obviously a number junkie, and I loved his inflation stats at the end of his book [See page 296 et al]. Brussee lists the inflation rate in each year, from 1900 to 2007, along with some other numbers. You can get more economic numbers by going to Robert Shiller's website, located here.
Overall, Brussee has some compelling ideas. It's unfortunate he intersperses unlikely scenarios in between his rational ideas, which reduces his credibility. Readers deserved more respect and less sensationalism, especially with all the other good ideas in The Great Depression of Debt.
Disclosure: I own shares of TIP.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Berkshire Hathaway's 2008 Annual Letter
Every year, Warren Buffett issues a fun, easy-to-read letter to his shareholders. Here are this year's highlights:
Cash is King: As the year progressed, a series of life-threatening problems within many of the world’s great financial institutions was unveiled. This led to a dysfunctional credit market that in important respects soon turned non-functional. The watchword throughout the country became the creed I saw on restaurant walls when I was young: “In God we trust; all others pay cash.”
Government will get bigger without a firm hand: Moreover, major industries have become dependent on Federal assistance, and they will be followed by cities and states bearing mind-boggling requests. Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political challenge. They won’t leave willingly.
The government's interference in credit markets is causing some disruptions: Though Berkshire’s credit is pristine – we are one of only seven AAA corporations in the country – our cost of borrowing is now far higher than competitors with shaky balance sheets but government backing. At the moment, it is much better to be a financial cripple with a government guarantee than a Gibraltar without one.
On bond insurers: By yearend 2007, the half dozen or so companies that had been the major players in this business had all fallen into big trouble. The cause of their problems was captured long ago by Mae West: “I was Snow White, but I drifted.” [Mae West, of course, was the rebel Hollywood sex symbol known for her wit.]
Public pensions are still a major concern: Local governments are going to face far tougher fiscal problems in the future than they have to date. The pension liabilities I talked about in last year’s report will be a huge contributor to these woes. Many cities and states were surely horrified when they inspected the status of their funding at yearend 2008. The gap between assets and a realistic actuarial valuation of present liabilities is simply staggering.
For more on this important topic, see my previous posts, here, here, here, here, and here.
On buying ConocoPhillips (COP) and the future of oil prices: I in no way anticipated the dramatic fall in energy prices that occurred in the last half of the year. I still believe the odds are good that oil sells far higher in the future than the current $40-$50 price. [Looks like investors who want to get a better deal than Mr. Buffett may want to consider buying COP.]
Just darn good writing and advice: Beware the investment activity that produces applause; the great moves are usually greeted by yawns.
On derivative contracts: Receivables and payables by the billions become concentrated in the hands of a few large dealers who are apt to be highly-leveraged in other ways as well. Participants seeking to dodge troubles face the same problem as someone seeking to avoid venereal disease: It’s not just whom you sleep with, but also whom they are sleeping with.
Questions at this year's annual meeting will be handled differently--various journalists will sort through the questions and pick which ones to ask: The journalists and their e-mail addresses are: Carol Loomis, of Fortune, who may be emailed at cloomis@fortunemail.com; Becky Quick, of CNBC, at BerkshireQuestions@cnbc.com, and Andrew Ross Sorkin, of The New York Times, at arsorkin@nytimes.com. From the questions submitted, each journalist will choose the dozen or so he or she decides are the most interesting and important. (In your e-mail, let the journalist know if you would like your name mentioned if your question is selected.)
Disclosure: I am bullish on ConocoPhillips (COP).
Cash is King: As the year progressed, a series of life-threatening problems within many of the world’s great financial institutions was unveiled. This led to a dysfunctional credit market that in important respects soon turned non-functional. The watchword throughout the country became the creed I saw on restaurant walls when I was young: “In God we trust; all others pay cash.”
Government will get bigger without a firm hand: Moreover, major industries have become dependent on Federal assistance, and they will be followed by cities and states bearing mind-boggling requests. Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political challenge. They won’t leave willingly.
The government's interference in credit markets is causing some disruptions: Though Berkshire’s credit is pristine – we are one of only seven AAA corporations in the country – our cost of borrowing is now far higher than competitors with shaky balance sheets but government backing. At the moment, it is much better to be a financial cripple with a government guarantee than a Gibraltar without one.
On bond insurers: By yearend 2007, the half dozen or so companies that had been the major players in this business had all fallen into big trouble. The cause of their problems was captured long ago by Mae West: “I was Snow White, but I drifted.” [Mae West, of course, was the rebel Hollywood sex symbol known for her wit.]
Public pensions are still a major concern: Local governments are going to face far tougher fiscal problems in the future than they have to date. The pension liabilities I talked about in last year’s report will be a huge contributor to these woes. Many cities and states were surely horrified when they inspected the status of their funding at yearend 2008. The gap between assets and a realistic actuarial valuation of present liabilities is simply staggering.
For more on this important topic, see my previous posts, here, here, here, here, and here.
On buying ConocoPhillips (COP) and the future of oil prices: I in no way anticipated the dramatic fall in energy prices that occurred in the last half of the year. I still believe the odds are good that oil sells far higher in the future than the current $40-$50 price. [Looks like investors who want to get a better deal than Mr. Buffett may want to consider buying COP.]
Just darn good writing and advice: Beware the investment activity that produces applause; the great moves are usually greeted by yawns.
On derivative contracts: Receivables and payables by the billions become concentrated in the hands of a few large dealers who are apt to be highly-leveraged in other ways as well. Participants seeking to dodge troubles face the same problem as someone seeking to avoid venereal disease: It’s not just whom you sleep with, but also whom they are sleeping with.
Questions at this year's annual meeting will be handled differently--various journalists will sort through the questions and pick which ones to ask: The journalists and their e-mail addresses are: Carol Loomis, of Fortune, who may be emailed at cloomis@fortunemail.com; Becky Quick, of CNBC, at BerkshireQuestions@cnbc.com, and Andrew Ross Sorkin, of The New York Times, at arsorkin@nytimes.com. From the questions submitted, each journalist will choose the dozen or so he or she decides are the most interesting and important. (In your e-mail, let the journalist know if you would like your name mentioned if your question is selected.)
Disclosure: I am bullish on ConocoPhillips (COP).
California's Governor Race
From the looks of it, the next California governor will be either eBay's former CEO Meg Whitman or Tom Campbell. I hope it's Tom Campbell--he seems very reasonable and has experience as a professor, lawyer, and politician. I like Meg Whitman, too, but Arnold (unfortunately) showed that California politics is too much of an insider's game to favor hard-charging corporate types.
In any case, I am sure most Californians are sick of politics as usual after the budget fiasco, so perhaps we'll get an exciting dark horse candidate. No matter whom Californians elect, the state's main problem is that voters keep approving expensive propositions. For the last time, we don't have any money. Smart Californians should vote "no" on every proposition until California has a budget surplus and can afford to do nice things.
In any case, I am sure most Californians are sick of politics as usual after the budget fiasco, so perhaps we'll get an exciting dark horse candidate. No matter whom Californians elect, the state's main problem is that voters keep approving expensive propositions. For the last time, we don't have any money. Smart Californians should vote "no" on every proposition until California has a budget surplus and can afford to do nice things.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Youth Basketball: Passing Drills
Some readers may know I coach youth basketball on Saturdays. Today, my team finally started passing the ball effectively. (Not quite as good as the L.A. "Showtime" Lakers, but our team is indeed named the Lakers.) The first month of coaching, it's so hard to get the kids to do anything other than basics. Most of the kids don't know each other, and some personalities may clash, but after a few weeks, coaches should move the focus from basics to teamwork. In short, if you want your kids to play effectively, teach them to pass well.
One drill I use to teach kids to pass is "2 on 3." I pick a kid to play defense with me and the rest of the team forms a line in front of us. Then, the first three kids in line have to score against me and my defensive teammate. There is always one offensive player open because it's 2 defensive players against 3 offensive players. If either defensive player swats/blocks the ball, the entire non-defensive team does five pushups. Once there is a change of possession, the next three kids play offense, while the first three offensive players go to the back of the line.
Initially, I make sure any kid who doesn't take a wide open shot gets his shot swatted with authority (I've always wanted to use the phrase, "swatted with authority," in a sentence). After the entire team does pushups several times, no one wants to get his/her shot blocked again. As a result, this drill creates a team culture/peer pressure against taking covered shots.
After about five minutes of this swatfest, I ask who wants to play defense. By this time, the kids are either tired of doing pushups; think it's fun to block shots; or just want to follow the coach. Thus, the drill also manages to make playing defense fun. I highly recommend this drill.
The other passing drill is "2 on 2," with the offensive team having to pass the ball at least three times before taking a shot. The kids move from defense to offense and go through the line. The passes must be at least three feet away--no handoffs are allowed (I call this rule, "No football"). If anyone does a handoff, both offensive players do 10 pushups and move to the back of the line. For some reason, "2 on 3" is much more effective than "2 on 2."
Passing is the key to having an effective youth basketball team, and unfortunately, it is the most difficult skill to teach. Good luck to all the coaches out there, and please post a comment if you have other effective passing drills.
Friday, February 27, 2009
So You Want to Open Your Own Business
The 2/23/09 WSJ had a special report on small businesses, titled, "So, You Want to Be an Entrepreneur." It listed ten questions to ask yourself before becoming self-employed. Here are the two most relevant questions to ask:
1. Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle for (potentially) many years?
2. Are you a self-starter?
I found the WSJ's report timely, because I have a friend who left a well-paying job to go into business for herself, thinking she would be highly profitable the very first year. After over a year in business, she is becoming discouraged by the fact she made only $20,000, mainly from activities unrelated to her core business. I wish my friend had read the WSJ report, which warns, "Entrepreneurs frequently won't pay themselves a livable salary in the early years...until their business is financially sound. That can take eight years or longer."
From my battle-tested perspective, I think my friend is doing very well if she made $20,000 her very first year; however, because she made $80,000 in her old salaried job, she feels frustrated. If you're founding a business, it will take two years to lay the groundwork to get a consistent book of business. I don't care if you're doing law or construction--it takes time and money to advertise and get clients to recommend you to their friends. Think about it--would you recommend someone who hasn't been around for at least two years? Here's my advice: if you want your business to succeed, you need to first save enough money to last at least two years. Then, you need to make sure you're comfortable with the idea of not making a dime until the third year.
But it's question #2--whether you're a self-starter--that really grabs my heart. I call this the Mariah Carey/Chumbawamba rule, after two great songs by the aforementioned artists--"Shake It Off," and "Tubthumping." Basically, my rule is this: The last person standing wins. Therefore, if you want to be a successful businessperson, you need to be able to shake off failure, get back up again, and keep going forward. If you're ultra-persistent, you'll probably succeed. For example, an ex-girlfriend once called me a George Foreman lawyer--I don't have much style, but I just keep coming at you. Unless I run into a Muhammad Ali, chances are, I'll be the last man standing.
The WSJ has a curious term for this attitude--"hypomania," taken from John Gartner's book, The Hypomaniac Edge. The book "theorizes that many well-known entrepreneurs have a temperament called hypomania. They're highly creative, energetic, impatient, and very persistent--trait that help them persevere even when others lose faith." [Emphasis added.] I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm glad there's a positive name for my impatience and energy. Let the hypomania begin.
1. Are you willing to sacrifice your lifestyle for (potentially) many years?
2. Are you a self-starter?
I found the WSJ's report timely, because I have a friend who left a well-paying job to go into business for herself, thinking she would be highly profitable the very first year. After over a year in business, she is becoming discouraged by the fact she made only $20,000, mainly from activities unrelated to her core business. I wish my friend had read the WSJ report, which warns, "Entrepreneurs frequently won't pay themselves a livable salary in the early years...until their business is financially sound. That can take eight years or longer."
From my battle-tested perspective, I think my friend is doing very well if she made $20,000 her very first year; however, because she made $80,000 in her old salaried job, she feels frustrated. If you're founding a business, it will take two years to lay the groundwork to get a consistent book of business. I don't care if you're doing law or construction--it takes time and money to advertise and get clients to recommend you to their friends. Think about it--would you recommend someone who hasn't been around for at least two years? Here's my advice: if you want your business to succeed, you need to first save enough money to last at least two years. Then, you need to make sure you're comfortable with the idea of not making a dime until the third year.
But it's question #2--whether you're a self-starter--that really grabs my heart. I call this the Mariah Carey/Chumbawamba rule, after two great songs by the aforementioned artists--"Shake It Off," and "Tubthumping." Basically, my rule is this: The last person standing wins. Therefore, if you want to be a successful businessperson, you need to be able to shake off failure, get back up again, and keep going forward. If you're ultra-persistent, you'll probably succeed. For example, an ex-girlfriend once called me a George Foreman lawyer--I don't have much style, but I just keep coming at you. Unless I run into a Muhammad Ali, chances are, I'll be the last man standing.
The WSJ has a curious term for this attitude--"hypomania," taken from John Gartner's book, The Hypomaniac Edge. The book "theorizes that many well-known entrepreneurs have a temperament called hypomania. They're highly creative, energetic, impatient, and very persistent--trait that help them persevere even when others lose faith." [Emphasis added.] I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm glad there's a positive name for my impatience and energy. Let the hypomania begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)