Disqus - Friends of GraemeThickins

Re: http://experiencegreatideas.com/Experience_Great_Ideas/ExperienceGreatIdeas/Entries/2009/2/15_A_future_imagined_files/widget1_markup.html

myklroventine — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:17:42 -0000

Love the concept (and the impression). Looking forward to seeing it evolve.

Re: #FollowFriday: The enemy of true conversation?

myklroventine — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:34:19 -0000

Lots of food for thought here, Ruth. I agree that tweets with lists of people to follow without reason are both frustrating and useless. I tend to pay little attention to those. But I believe there can be real value in listing one or two follow suggestions AND a brief pitch as to why. Micah went on to advocate this shortly after the FF phenomenon took off.

The success or failure of the entire Twitter experience hinges on finding the "right" mix of people to follow. "Right" for each user that is. Like RTs, I feel a thoughtful Follow Friday tweet can help connect others in a positive way. I have made many valuable connections via a trusted followers' recommendations. Likewise, I have stopped following certain people who spend all day Friday tweeting lists of names.

Sadly, I think it was inevitable that the concept of Follow Fridays would get watered down or misunderstood as it spread. Much like Twitter suggesting we answer the question "what are you doing?" spawned millions of tweets about what people were having for lunch. Jeremiah Owyang suggested "what are you passionate about?" would be a more realistic jumping off point for Twitter. Perhaps Follow Fridays should be reframed to answer the question "who are you passionate about and why should I care?" In any event, I think it continues to be an interesting experiment and look forward to the next "movement" like it.

Re: Flickr Lost Its Appeal

myklroventine — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:57:07 -0000

Flickr is one of the few web services I pay for as well. While I've been troubled by their lack of innovation for a while, my usage has grown significantly (maybe ridiculously) since becoming a member. I've delved much deeper in my admittedly amateur exploration of photography because of Flickr. I keep coming back to the quality of the community. The folks I've met there are the most generous and supportive I've found anywhere online. Not sure if this is because of the shared passion for common subject or the slight monetary barrier to entry. In any event, that community seems to be their greatest asset right now. I think many of their current problems can be traced back to the acquisition by Yahoo. I really hope they can stop this decline and get back on track.

Re: Why rebranding and a new logo won't fix it.

myklroventine — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:39:53 -0000

I'm honored to "spark" (sorry) such a great post. You really nailed something that has been bothering me all day. Their entire exercise of rebranding seems so hollow. As you've mentioned, it doesn't embrace what the unique parts of the Caribou experience are at all. To make matters worse, they've decided that the one distinctive aspect of their brand (being northwoodsy) is too much of a niche concept. I couldn't agree more that they missed the mark by forgetting what makes a conversation worthwhile. Seem like they forgot how to converse at all.

Re: Facebook Change Asks Users to “Like” Brands Instead of “Become a Fan”

myklroventine — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:25:38 -0000

Great takeaways, Cheryl. Personally, the move feels a little deceitful to me. "Like" has always been such a passive thing on FB and elsewhere. It's a big shift to change it to what's essentially an opt-in. Sure it will be great for brands in the short run, but what happens once folks' news feeds fill up with lots more noise as you mentioned? The backlash won't just be aimed at Facebook. The brands themselves could get caught in that cross-fire too. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Re: Contradictory Views On State Of White House Congress Wall Street Financial Bailout Proposal Talks

JLM — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:18:00 -0000

It is difficult to believe that any proponent of any plan would not have consulted with and solicited the input from each of the caucuses in the House and Senate. This seems to be a lack of experience in dealing with well established legislative protocol. It comes across as amateurish in the science of American legislative politics.

Bomb throwers are not going to solve the problem so the comments and characterizations of elected officials like Rep Frank and Sens Reid and Schumer are particularly troubling. In part because they are not constructive but more troubling because they appear not to be true. Why would any honorable man lie about a situation as serious as this; and, if one would lie about this what would be necessary to extract the truth from them?

We desperately need some adult leadership.

If you could model Sen McCain's behavior yourself, would you have wanted him to have been dominating the conversation or would you have wanted him to listen to every voice before making any comment? The toughest challenge in solving a problem is to let everyone's voice be heard.

It is pretty clear that the sky has not yet fallen and that the fundamental question raised --- taxpayer money v private sector money --- is a damn good question. Clearly the House Republicans favor private sector money buttressed by logical tax reform. Warren Buffet seems to have voted for the private sector with his money.

Who is being bailed out here? Wall Street or Main Street? It is becoming pretty clear that it is Wall Street but Main Street is being asked to pick up the tab.

Let the guys who created the problem provide the capital to solve THEIR problem.

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:55:33 -0000

Sometimes a bit of historic perspective is useful in trying to deal with TODAY. Remember that quote about being doomed to relive the history we ignore? Well we are not being very thoughtful about this. We have actually seen this movie before though maybe it was a shorter version.

Remember the S & L crisis and the Resolution Trust Corp? I do because I hit a very, very good lick in purchasing distressed properties from the RTC, pension funds, insurance companies, banks and S & Ls. I bought them for $0.20-0.30 on the dollar of replacement cost, fixed them up, owned them for about 5-7 years, had the numbers audited annually and sold them all to institutions in 3 transactions in 1995 --- 6,000 apartments, 100 warehouses, 7.5 MM sf of offices.

My partners were the likes of GE Capital (for whom I also fixed up some of their problems), Fidelity and private foreign investors. BTW, GE Capital is the smartest bunch of real estate folks I ever met and the best risk takers a partner could ever have hoped for. And they made a ton of money in the deal while conducting themselves like perfect partners and gentlemen. Private money jumped in big time!

I trooped around Wall Street trying to raise money for a long, long time and shared my contrarian investment strategy (and believe me the folks were looking for the lobotomy scars all the time) with the likes of KKR, Odyssey, Bear Stearns, Allen & Co, Leon Black --- the usual suspects. And guess what? They never gave me any money but they all went into the business themselves. Capitalism was alive and well.

Here's the bottom line: If the RTC had held every property and just injected a bit of management they would have recovered every penny of principal, every penny of interest at the default rate and they would have firmed up the national commercial real estate markets more quickly.

This is not some mythical academic theoretical tale. This is something that a bunch of guys did the last time the markets crashed (then it was more commercial than residential) and the government stepped in to bail out the transgressors. This is reality.

BTW, the final price tag on the RTC was about $200B last time around. How much would that be in today's dollars? Oh, about $700B maybe?

Here's a suggestion based upon what was learned the last time around ---

Let all the originators of the problem fail. Suck their capital dry. Punish them like a VC would punish the first round guys.

Don't use a penny of government money. If pressed, use government loan guarantees only. The only entity left with real credit is the US government. Use it. This will make the markets tell us what this crap is really worth. Right now the issue is the pricing.

Fix the problems that created this mess quick and do it publicly. No 100% mortgages even for Warren Buffet. No low doc mortgages. No financing of closing costs in mortgages. Make all borrowers have skin in the game. No leveraging capital 30-40 times for any financial instititions. No mortgage based derivatives of any kind --- why? Cause you cannot collect mortgage payments when the mortgage is "embedded" and "divided" by securitization. Teach the guys with mousse in their hair how to collect a past due payment. No extraordinary compensation for investment guys who are primarily salary men --- let them take a piece of their own deal if they want an equity style upside. No naked short selling. Ban short selling for 24 months. Then reinstate the uptick rule. Bring all hedge funds out of the woods and under the regulatory umbrella. If you want American markets, tax laws, securities laws, etc, then you have to be regulated. Lower the capital gains rate to 0% for five years --- because that's how long it will take to work this through. The private capital will come to that lowered capital gains rate like a moth to a flame and it will be immediate. Merge Freddie and Fannie and obtain meaningful merger efficiencies.

Stop the foreclosure process on residential real estate which can be salvaged. If a borrower can pay anything --- owes $100 per month but can pay $70 --- keep him in the house because real estate plummets in value the second it is empty and every foreclosure ever sold has been sold at a deeper discount than the foreclosure price. Make a trade. Rework the mortgage in return for a 50% equity slice above the mortgage amount. There is a certain irony in allowing the public to solve their own problems rather than just sending them the bill. It shortcuts the flow of money and it has a social benefit. Can every deal be reworked? No, but many can be and should be.

Oh, yeah, get rid of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Chris Cox.

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:02:03 -0000

Buffet is investing the best company left on Wall Street. The rest of the firms are not as high quality. The new money should be getting a deal substantially better than Buffet's deal. Remember he is in it for the long, long term while the rest of the bunch will be in it for about 5 years. I bet Buffet could have cut even a better deal today.

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:09:37 -0000

Actually the instruments are not really all that complex.

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:28:51 -0000

A horse that does not attract a bid at a livestock auction is not worth zero. It becomes dog food. Somebody will buy every financial asset that has a piece of dirt attached to it. Some are just tougher to price than others and some will, in fact, become dog food.

Real estate values will absolutely recover. Remember we have 4MM new Americans born every single year. Dampen the supply for 18 months and you will wish you could buy a home at 2006 prices.

The first things the SEC needs to do is get rid of "stupid" policies --- naked short selling is crazy. Public stock exchanges exist to allow the many to own companies of the few. They are not casinos where you can simply bet on outcomes. They are about ownership.

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:41:55 -0000

I agree with you completely as it relates to Detroit. I was referring to market values in 2006. I suspect that the Detroit market was just as troubled in 2006 as it is today. I doubt any new mortgages were originated in Detroit's worst areas in 2006 so they are not really part of the current problem.

Even having said that I would opine that even the Detroit situation is not hopeless --- very, very difficult but not hopeless. They are not making any more land these days. It would take some extraordinary vision and leadership to make that happen and I suspect many would think it to be pragmatically worthless.

One of the encouraging things about the current problem is that many of the troubled mortgages are in great markets. I looked up foreclosed properties on the Fannie and Freddie websites the other day and I was very surprised to see so many in "hot" markets (e.g. Austin, TX). In these instances, there is a great market for the properties and the only challenge is pricing. I suspect that places like Las Vegas where both the price of the real estate and the core business of the market[;svr are under pressure may present more difficult problems.

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:01:35 -0000

The hole in Lehman's balance sheet was caused, in part, by two different things:

The difference in value between the underlying mortgages and the sum of the securitized tranches. I would call this the "promote;" and,

The drop in value of the underlying mortgages compounded by the drop in the real estate which secures the mortgages.

The "promote" is gone forever while the drop in value of the underlying mortgages may eventually recover. Time wil ltell.

In any event, Lehman was lying to itself before it lied to the rest of the world.

It gets down to a simple truth: "One cannot make chicken salad out of chicken excrement even if you are a Master of the Universe."

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:07:57 -0000

I think that the issue is really a notch more subtle than just looking at real estate values. It has to do with the value of "shelter" --- right up there with safety and sex in man's hierarchy of needs.

Even if the underlying value of the real estate securing a mortgage declines by 20%, a borrower still has a requirement for shelter.

If the bailout has a provision for lenders to renegotiate the payments with a borrower (which is exactly what a new investor will do if they come into possession of the mortgage at a discount), then the borrower will meet his need for "shelter" by staying in his home at a reduced payment rate even if he has to share the equity at some future date with the new lender.

Remember defaulting on a mortgage has consequences including the creation of a legally collectable deficiency judgment as well as a very negative impact on personal credit.

I suspect that many borrowers cannot afford $100 a month but can afford $75 per month. They will also be willing to share the upside in order to prevent the deficiency judgment against them while avoiding the necessity to move.

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:25:22 -0000

I run a public company and own a substantial amount of its stock. I bought into it as a turn around opportunity. I am iintimately familiar with Nasdaq, OTC-BB, Boston (now defunct) exchanges. I speak only of common stock and simple preferred stock.

Any public company has its stock listed on stock exchanges subject to rules promulgated by the exchanges which have evolved based upon a very simple concept --- allowing the shareholders of the company to trade the company's shares among themselves and prospective shareholders in an efficient manner with full exposure of the bids and asks. This is simply an objective third party auction in which the company allows others to set the price of a trade and agrees to enter on its books the transfer of its stock among folks who have used the appropriate markets to buy and sell its stock. The company has made the decision to provide this service by deciding to be a "public" company.

No company is served by the selling of "naked" shorts --- which by their very nature are not even "shares" but some mythology created by traders. No company should be required to enter on its books the transfer of ownership of something which does not even exist.

The mangement of a public company has a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders to act in the best interest of its shareholders including in protecting the value of shares both through diligence in the management of the enterprise but also in the administration of its records. To facilitate the selling of shares which do not exist and which serve to dampen the price of the shareholders' shares is contrary to that obligation.

"Adding liquidy to markets" and "signaling truth" are not benefits which are conveyed upon investors by deciding to purchase shares in a company.

Re: To Splurge Or Not To Splurge

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:35:13 -0000

Denmark does not guarantee the safety of Europe, North America and southeast asia. Denmark was overrun by the Nazis in about 30 hours in WWII.. Classic micro-macro error of logic.

Re: Tom On The Banking System Architecture Issue

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:21:47 -0000

Perhaps the greatest comfort that I take in this financial crisis is that the mistakes were so fundamentally obvious (well, perhaps in hindsight). I am very, very confident we can correct them for all time.

The first mistake is that lenders wrote mortgages that had obvious flaws which created unacceptably high probabilities of failure. Sure, there was lots of political pressure to make these loans and I give the Barney Franks and the Chris Dodds of the world the blame for that. But, really, no-doc, 100% plus closing costs loans??? This violates every rule of banking 101. Banking is not a social engineering lab experiment.

The second mistake was to allow Wall Street to create derivative financial products which embedded these bad loans in securities (not hugely complicated securities) which purported to concentrate the risk in a lower tier security while magically purging the risk from a higher tier security. Somehow we started with a lump of coal and fooled ourselves into thinking that the top tier was a diamond. Even Wall Street cannot make chicken salad out of chicken excrement.

The third mistake was to strip these securites and distribute them to disparate groups of investors which precluded the possibility of combining them again when it came time to simply collect on the mortgages. It is probably important to note that nobody on Wall Street in a blue shirt with white collar and french cuffs really knows how to collect a past due payment on a single family home in Montgomery, Alabama.

The fourth mistake was to allow firms (Freddie, Fannie) to warehouse these suspect loans (not securities but the loans directly) with no more capital than the current balance on their postage meter. If you want to trade in junk then you should have capital equal to at least twice the annual rate of default. If the annual default rate is 4% then you need 8% capital. Go try to form a de novo bank and see how much capital you are required to raise in order to obtain a new bank charter.

The fifth mistake was we allowed GSEs to lobby and make political contributions which is simply a way of saying they were allowed to bribe their regulators. Does anybody else think it is obscene to allow the head of Fannie or Freddie to make a political contribution to Barney Frank?

It was simply stupid to allow naked short selling and to repeal the uptick rule. And, yes, I think it is time for Chris Cox to go to a well deserved rest in California.

The last thing is that when things were obviously going wrong, no auditor offered a "going concern" opinion on a single one of these firms. How could the entire freakin' industry collapse and not a single auditor expressed any reservations as it relates to capital adequacy on balance sheets which were leveraged 15-40x and contained obvious and significant toxic assets? You would think someone would have by just blind luck.

While this is a huge mess and will take some time to get over it, I am also very confident that even $700B is an insignificant percentage of our GDP and that if we can keep our heads and avoid comparisons with time periods in which our GDP was comparatively smaller then everything will be just fine.

If your annual income is $100K and you have $20K of credit card debt, then you have a problem. If your annual income is $1MM and you have $20K of credit card debt, then you don't have a problem. You simply have a bill to pay.

I think we simply have a bill to pay. A big bill and the kids are not going to be able to borrow the credit cards again any time soon but just a bill.

It would also be very helpful if during the height of a capital crisis, the tax rate on capital gains was reduced to zero if for no other reason than to state the obvious --- there will be huge offsetting capital losses but also to attract huge pools of capital by offering the highest possible tax adjusted rate of return to investors who might contemplate taking a chunk of the action.

Let me close by saying I have huge misgivings in allowing a product of Wall Street to run the triage part of the recovery.

Re: The Public Debate

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:43:11 -0000

Ours is a pretty imperfect system but it is the longest surviving democracy in the world and though our country was born at the tip of a bloody bayonet, we haven't ever had to change our government to the accompaniment of a tank serenade.

What to me is truly bewildering is how silly the media coverage of our elections has become. It truly strikes me as 4th grade recess (with an apology to many 4th graders, sorry). I am offended by the sheer stupidity of the coverage. I am also put off by the sheer meanness of commentators. I am simply amazed at the obvious partisanship of folks and institutions which want to be called journalists.

All of this is set against my sincere admiration for the fundamental goodness of the American people as manifested in the outpouring of sentiment and action in the face of natural disasters, national calamaties and wars.

We are a nation which will ask mothers to sacrifice the sons they have birthed for the Republic and freedom; and, having taken them will promolugate a political system which is not worthy of ther sacrifice.

I just wish we could attract some better people to politics.

Re: The Public Debate

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:35:00 -0000

That would be the "imperfect" part I noted above. Hats off to New Zealand --- the best damn trout fishing on this planet!

From time to time, I tell my wife, a lawyer, that I don't think women should be allowed to vote in the US even now. It is very, very important to have a comfortable couch in your home office. LOL

I admire and respect all democracies in any part of the world. I often think about new democracies trying to understand democratic countries in which democracy has flourished for hundreds of years. Ours is a highly evolved democracy and I fear has become so complex that we lose sight of the basic principles. We were, after all, founded in part because of a tax on tea and yet we are a nation of $4 lattes. It's not the money, it's the principle of the thing.

Re: The Public Debate

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:02:01 -0000

You may be confusing our democracy with our public or international image.

When the world looks for leadership to solve the problems of the world it looks to the United States of America. This is not a tired cliche but rather the reality of the last century whether it was for the physical safety of the world, the advance of technology or the strength and innovation of capitalism. The United Nations is not in NYC by accident.

We have a great secret --- we are a nation of immigrants and we are everybody and nobody all at the same time. We have the poetry of Ireland, the work ethic of Germany, the English sense of empire and the romance of Italy in our veins. [I did not mean to leave out any nationality or ethnic group but I could have gone forever. Sorry!] If there is a nation with a unique characteristic, we have stolen it and incorporated it into the American psyche. Tex-Mex alone is proof positive of that!

All bound together by the American Dream.

The greatest characteristic of America is the complete inability to hold a grudge. No other country routinely rebuilds the cities and economies of those it vanquishes in battle. I have often thought that the Mayor of Newark, NJ should declare war on America, exchange a couple rounds of howitzer fire, surrender and demand to be rebuilt.

Our leaders change and they make mistakes along the way but the strength and defining quality of our democracy is our people. And, our people are the combined strengths of every country on the planet! We are the strongest mongrels every bred.

BTW, I think George W Bush is being judged a bit harshly just now. We will never really know what our government has done to protect us since 9-11 but the record is quite extraordinary. I cannot imagine how we have avoided a similar incident but I am absolutely certain this administration deserves the credit.

Re: Bill Kristol on FNS today: Free Sarah Palin!

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:28:11 -0000

Sarah Palin is accomplished in more fields of endeavor than most folks can dream about. It is impressive to see her winning accomplishments in life, business, sports, politics and feminism. She is the accomplished multidisciplined woman that feminism intended to evolve. She can run with the boys and she can hang with the girls. More impressive is that she simply excels at everything she sets her mind to and she has that unique ability to win with grace.

Stop feeling sorry for this state championship, beauty queen, corruption fighting Governor. Saracuda is gonna be just fine! The woman is a killer!

Re: The liberal Palin Pity Party, lies & self-esteem

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:46:22 -0000

It is pretty obvious that an awful lot of the commentators did not attend their Senior Prom. Sheesh!

Listen, losers, this woman is simply extraordinary and she hasn't done it on the basis of having gotten an Ivy League affirmative action education. She did it with her own grit and determination.

You have obviously never been a point guard entrusted with the "rock" and holding the fate of the entire team in her hands. Of walked out in a swim suit because you needed college money. Or sighted, killed and field dressed a freakin' moose. Or challenged your political party's entrenched, corrupt leadership and, hell, field dressed them also. LOL

Get comfortable that Saracuda is not just OK, she's the woman you would not dare to go talk to across a smokey bar. She is the gal who marries the prom king and lives happily ever after. She is why you are a loser and she is the most popular Governor in the US.

Oh, yeah, she can beat the guys at their own game and she will only get better and better and better.

In your heart you know how much total bullsh!t a "community organizer" really is and you know that BO is truly not ready for much of anything. Your vicious assault on Sarah Palin is simply the compensation for the sum of your fears on BO.

Good luck to all and particulary good luck to President John S McCain.

Re: The Public Debate

JLM — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:00:38 -0000

I have come to appreciate the wisdom of the Founding Fathers more and more as the forces of our country continue to evolve and move. The Electoral College ensures that no part of the country with its unique regional view of the world (e.g. oil producing states or coastal states) is able to dominate the politics of the nation. I think the FFs were very, very clever. For some guys who knew nothing about the Internet, Blackberrys, spreadsheets or cell phones --- they did a damn good job.

On that note, I wonder if there is a politician alive today who could come off the bench and have played in their league. Certanly no point guards!

Re: Bill Kristol on FNS today: Free Sarah Palin!

JLM — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:24:21 -0000

Wow, you losers are really pathetic. Sara Palin is doing just fine. She will do just fine in the debates.

I guess you figure she was the championship point guard, beauty queen, got the Prom King, shoots moose and is the most popular Governor in the country by accident, eh? The lady has grit, detemination and poise. She is a killer!

Worry about the inch deep and a yard wide qualifications of your community organizer. After all, he's supposedly at the top of the ticket, isn't he? Talk about a lightweight! Hell you couldn't become a journeyman plumber in the short time he's been in the Senate. I have taken to calling him the Professor --- ya know what I mean?

If you got it, do it. If you don't, teach!

Saracuda is a killer and she will gut and field dress Joe Biden Thursday night. I bet she can skin him in less than 15 minutes!

Saracuda has got it. The O man is a great professor.

Re: Amid Sagging Polls McCain Campaign Readies New Two-Part Obama Attack

JLM — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:35:18 -0000

Well I guess I am glad that McCain will actually win the election.

Re: Amid Sagging Polls McCain Campaign Readies New Two-Part Obama Attack

JLM — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:36:26 -0000

Well as for me --- "You're absolutely right, John!"

Gee, I do think that McCain did "win" the debate but who really cares.