Monthly Archives: January 2010

Brian Solis and Privacy v. Publicy

Brian Solis and Privacy v. Publicy
For some reason, Brian Solis always brings out my inner writer. This was a comment I made to a post of his, but it took on a life of it’s own. I think it’s an important addition to his thoughts on the impact of the online world on our privacy.

This is a subject on which I have plenty to say. I love the idea of “publicy” and “privacy” as choices, as Brian mentions in his post. I wish I had made that up. All my life I’ve defined which parts of myself are private and which I choose to share, while appearing to share everything. And that’s only because I choose to share different things than other people, not because I share everything. Many things I share only with my two daughters, who are also my closest friends. Some things I share only with my friends, my doctor, my accountant…
Yet even before the web, almost everybody somehow thought that I told too much, was too transparent, lived too openly. I didn’t need the internet to live a public life. The multiple husbands, the children out of wedlock (later married the father), the hippie lifestyle — all lived in Barry Goldwater Country –freaked people out. And yet, I’ve never revealed anything I’ve felt sorry about later, or anything with which I feel uncomfortable. Everything about me that’s online is intentionally online. People in my generation, after being horrified by what I “reveal,” are thrilled to read it and to have someone to talk to about things they have done and don’t readily “confess.”Since I started sharing long before ARPAnet, I don’t reveal because I want to be Internet famous. I don’t even look at numbers, and at my age, I don’t care. I reveal because I want to connect, or to help. I’ve made a shitload of mistakes in my life and had a lot of adventures, and some of them can be helpful to others. In other cases, I can learn something if I put myself out there. After all, the worst thing about life, especially about adversity (divorce, failure, illness, child problems) is feeling as if you are the only person ever to have had this experience.

I wrote a book about my foster parenting experience, and it was because I thought at the time that I had failed, and I was trying to understand why. I wrote a blog about my hip replacement because I thought I was going to die of some hospital-related mistake and I wanted there to be a record for others about what to expect. I blog every day because life is complicated, and I like to hear what other people have to say about things I’m thinking about.

Giving up my privacy? I don’t think so. While I don’t have a carefully constructed brand, I do have a presence I can stand behind and be proud of. It’s my “oeuvre,” and it’s authentic and rationally created, not just spilled. If I were a “social media guru,” that’s what I’d be teaching. Like all of life, living online involves thought. You know what old maxim about teaching a man to fish? Teach people to think, and the online privacy issues will disappear.

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

Entrepreneurs Aren’t Hiring: Kauffman Foundation

Entrepreneurs Aren’t Hiring: Kauffman Foundation

Stealthmode Partners has been working with the Kauffman Foundation since 2003, as a regional center for its Fasttrac Entrepreneurial Education program. On Friday, Jan. 29, the Foundation issued a large report about the state of entrepreneurship in America. Unfortunately, it’s not as good as I had hoped, and much more confusing. But that’s why I like Kauffman; they take the time to do the research. And I can supplement their rigorous research with our own anecdotal data points.

In most previous recessions, more new businesses start. Or at least that’s the conventional wisdom. Unhappily, in the current downturn, the formation of businesses did not increase appreciably. That sucks, because young businesses (rather than small businesses) create all the jobs. We’ve been saying it’s small businesses, but we’re looking at the wrong measurement. Mature businesses, large or small, do not create the number of jobs new ones do.

So we need the creation of new businesses. Well, why aren’t they forming? After all, 10% of us are out of work. Isn’t that when new businesses form?
Paul Kedrosky did the Kauffman research that explodes the theory about new businesses forming and beocming successful in recessions:

“removing the Great Depression and WWII years, both of which have exceptional conditions, shows that 138 companies per year went public in expansion periods, and 140 in recession periods. These data therefore suggest that the likelihood of a company being part of the public IPO set post-1975 is unrelated to whether it came from a recessionary or non-recessionary period.”

Who forms these businesses? Kauffman says:

70 percent are men-owned; 30 percent are women-owned; 
81 percent are white-owned;
9 percent are African-American-owned
; 6.6 percent are Hispanic-owned;
4 percent are Asian-owned
;5 percent are owned by Native Americans, Pacific Islanders and individuals of other racial groups.

And if you think tech companies are founded only by 20-somethings, think again. The average age of U.S.-born tech founders when they started their companies was 39. In fact, twice as many were older than 50 as were younger than 25. 

Why aren’t new companies forming at a more rapid rate in this environment? I think I know why. 75% of startup companies are founded with owner equity and bank debt, mostly credit cards. How many 20-somethings have that equity and those credit cards to fund their businesses? Not many.

We have seen over 400 businesses in the past seven years. This is the first year the numbers in our Fasttrac programs haven’t grown. Kauffman’s research tells me why.

1)No optimism. People are bummed. It’s difficult to motivate yourself when you are bummed about the country’s direction, the magnitude of its problems, or your own situation. Young people graduating from college can’t get jobs and are moving back with parents, who are being laid off. Not a high energy environment. Even entrepreneurs who did start businesses do not plan to hire in 2010.

2)Regulatory confusion. Is there, or is there not, going to be health care reform? Bank reform? Uncertainty paralyzes even the most energetic people.

3) No access to capital. In the past, even though most new businesses couldn’t get bank loans, the founders could use credit cards. But not at 29.99%, and not when everyone’s lines of credit have been cut. And there’s no home equity. The time-honored second mortgage entrepreneurs put on their homes to finance new businesses don’t exist. And we entered this recession with the lowest savings rate in decades, so people can’t tap into their savings.

Kauffman says The heavy reliance on external debt underscores the importance of well functioning credit markets for the success of nascent business activity.

Obama is begging the community banks to lend money, and is willing to give them TARP funds. But community banks are businesses, too, and they don’t want to take risks right now for the same reasons would-be entrepreneurs don’t. And they don’t want TARP funds, which come with strings.

I’m going to make a plea here, for angels. If you have any extra money that you were planning to gamble with or invest (it’s almost the same), for God’s sake put it into a startup. You would be surprised how little the average entrepreneur needs. $10,000 goes a long way. Structure it as a private loan if you wish.

We are going to have to make our own credit markets. Let’s get going.

Amplify

Bailout Nation: a Comedy

Bailout Nation: a Comedy

So I'm listening to Barry Ritholtz's new book, "Bailout Nation," in my car. (Bless you, Audible). I'm laughing out loud. Barry is about the best financial writer I've read this year, and I've read plenty in my effort to understand how I came to lose my own financial security and almost everyone around me pretty much did the same.

Why am I laughing? Because Ritholtz combines a research guy's willingness to get into the history and causes of the current meltdown, player by player, and crazy financial product by financial product,  with documentation of the compensation all the C-level players receive for their part in bringing down their institutions (astronomical), and garnished with a smart New York Jewish guy's sarcastic sense of humor.

Mostly it's his choice of metaphor that gets me giggling. Here's how he explains why AIG was bailed out: compared to the other companies, AIG wasn't like the kid who pulls on the dog's tail, because that kid will get in trouble sooner or later, but will hurt only himself. And it wasn't like the kid who plays with matches and might burn the house down, and even the neighborhood. Rather, AIG was like the kid who got into the bio-tech weapons lab, saw the pretty colored vials, grabbed a handful of them and stuffed them into his pocket as he headed off to the playground.

Barry's tone, even more than his words, leads you to the conclusion that the people who led our financial system were totally incompetent, and bitten by the get-rich-quick examples of tech companies during the dot-com era. Those examples of young billionaires led bank CEOs to bet the house. And then he explains the difference between the failure of Wall Street firms and the failure of venture-funded companies in Silicon Valley:  venture capitalists are playing with high risk money that they and their investors know is high risk; Wall Street banks played with customers' retirement money, their homes –"their blood money." 

I've read "Too Big to Fail," by Andrew Ross Sorkin, and I've read David Faber's "And Then the Roof Caved In." But those guys are reporters, and they are, no matter how well-connected, on the outside. Ritzholtz actually works on the Street. He understands the "eat what you kill" mentality so pervasive in those fancy offices. And he understands why we, the taxpayers, now own so much of Citibank and AIG.

You might want to read this book. And then be careful where you put your money. The rating agencies, the mutual fund managers (who are paid to analyze investments), the regulators — none of them were on the ball. Next time some financial planner tells you what do do, maybe you should tell him where to go:-)

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

IPad in Health Care? Not Yet

IPad in Health Care? Not Yet
Such a bummer. Health care workers, like everyone else, love Apple.  And they love mobile devices in the hospital, the office, and the field. But Mobile Health News has decided that the new iPad won't be easily adapted to the specialized use-case of health care. And it's not just because of apps, because the apps are there — many have been developed for the iPhone. Here's what the experts say:

  • The iPad has no camera, an important feature for any connected health tablet.
  • Despite the iPad's rather impressive “up to” 10 hours of battery life, the Center for Connected Health's Rob Havasy lamented Apple's continued use of non-swappable batteries. Most tablets targeting the healthcare environment boast swappable batteries so clinicians can continue using them without waiting for a charge.
  • Chilmark Research's John Moore pointed out that the iPad's 9.7 inch screen is not quite big enough for use with intensive medical applications.
  • Voalte's Rob Campbell argued that the iPad was perhaps too big for many clinicians who would prefer a device that fits snugly into their pockets.
  • Belgium-based senior managed care manager and respected mHealth pundit Bart Collet noted that unlike many other healthcare tablets, the iPad is not ruggedized and its screen would likely break if dropped. Many healthcare tablets claim to be drop resistant from about three feet.
  • Quintiles' Adam Istas believes the iPad's healthcare opportunity should not be judged until medical apps specifically built for the platform (and not just those ported over from the iPhone/iPod) come to the market.
  • Havasy also believes that the iPad's inability to multi-task, meaning it can't run more than one application at once is another big shortcoming that might hamper uptake for healthcare workers.
  • Most healthcare tablets have barcode scanners — the iPad does not.
  • Most healthcare tablets are easily disinfected, water-proof and dust resistant. The iPad does not appear to address any of those issues.
What has always interested me is why consumer device makers always diss health care as though it were not a big market segment. When they do that, the field is left to the specialized device companies, who overcharge and under-deliver for devices that are not nearly as easy to use as what the RNs and MDS have at home.

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

A Unique Visitor Weighs In $SCOR

A Unique Visitor Weighs In $SCOR
"Jason Calacanis Punches Comscore In The Face. Comscore Punches Back. Fred Wilson Drags Us Into It. $SCORWoke up this morning to the breakup of Brangelina,  the new litter of Shiba Inu puppies, and this answer to a post of Jason's that I read yesterday and felt unequipped to weigh in on.  I don't put ads on my blog, I don't have do look at my numbers, and I am happier not to. Honestly, I'd probably quit writing if I looked. 

Yesterday afternoon, while this bitch-meme was escalating, I was at a rather more benign event in Phoenix where newbies were discussing how to develop passionate communities using social media. (Which probably means the stakes for this kind of argument are going up every day as all the small business owners discover this new means of marketing).

But reading all the posts by various parties to the debate, I have to say that what's missing now is the point of view of someone like myself: just a plain old visitor to these sites.

Here I am, a person who deletes cookies rather often, changes browsers, and works typically from three different computers and an iPhone.

Here's what Comscore's CMO said:

1) First of all, we measure Unique People rather than Unique Cookies which web analytics systems erroneously can unique visitors. I would challenge you to find any kind of server side measurement system that measures people, not machines or cookies. To show you how absurd server side numbers are, AOL Inc. had about 259 MM Unique cookies which gives it over 125% reach compared to a true reach of 54%. The inflation is driven by cookie deletion, multiple browsers, multiple machines for the same users, multiple devices etc… Large companies do not complain about their numbers because they know their server side numbers are flawed as obviously evident by the AOL metrics, not because ‘comScore fixes your number”. This dynamic is less obvious with smaller sites—they don’t realize how inflated their numbers are until their reach starts exceeding 100%.

2) Our Hybrid measurement is not mere pixel tracking as you assert. Our panel, which allows us to distinguish people from cookies, is a central part of the system used to correct for the inflation of cookie based server-side measurement.

Since that's what I do. She has to be right, using pure, simple common sense. I know I am only a single data point, but think of all the people who use IE6, keep getting those messages about security, and keep calling tech support people who always tell you to delete your cookies every time something goes wrong.

Cookies have to be a primitive way to measure visitors. At best, the measure computers, not people.  At worst, they measure the same person re-setting things all the time.

About the rest, I have nothing to say, since I "know" and respect everyone involved. I admire all of them for their distinctive energy, and I feel the same way I used to feel when my kids got in a fight: don't put me in the middle, because I love you all.

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

Woody Allen: “95% of Life is Just Showing Up”

Woody Allen: “95% of Life is Just Showing Up”
t's Saturday afternoon and I'm sitting in the Executive Boardroom of the Cronkite School of Journalism at ASU. The room is overflowing, and it is only one of 4 different rooms that are part of CenPhoCamp, a social media conference/unconference organized by  Tyler Hurst. I'd guess there are over a hundred fifty people in attendance — maybe more. It was completely marketed on Twitter and perhaps Facebook, although I didn't see it there, and I'm amazed at how many people just showed up. I'm a curious sort, and a lot of these people are my friends, so that's why I'm here. My attendance is pretty random — I didn't even know what I was going to. I just came to support the community:-) But what a pleasant surprise.
Ironically,the discussion is about Generating Event Buzz, and it's absolutely out of the park!  The people are bright, knowledgeable, connected, and wonderful. And the main theme of the discussion is the counterintuitive point that "exclusion" can become a useful tool for marketing an event. Specifically, it is about defining the precise audience to whom an event is targeted, and reaching that audience only. There's value in focused marketing. This event has clearly been targeted at the young creative class. My "age appropriate" friends will never have heard of it.

Contrary to everyone who likes to say there's no creative class in Phoenix (you know who you are, @jontalton), It's amazing how far the Phoenix world has moved. In the next couple of decades, Phoenix will be run by the people I'm listening to in this room.

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

It’s Been a Tough Week

It’s Been a Tough Week

Here's something to help us laugh a little, courtesy of SFWeekly

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

Less Bad News Than Usual for the Economy and Real Estate

Less Bad News Than Usual for the Economy and Real Estate

Peter Linneman, the founding head of the Wharton School real estate department, gave the keynote at today’s ULI Trends Day event in Phoenix. For those of you not in real estate, the Urban Land Institute is the professional association for high-powered real estate people.

There are two kinds of real estate economists, dry and funny, and Linneman is a funny one, who opened by saying he has been trying to do a deal in Phoenix for about five years, during which the gap between the local market’s valuation and his valuation of the same deal has shrunk from 10x to 10%.

He told the group that he predicted the US was on the verge of a “typical recession” in 2006. A typical recession, except for the one in 2001, centers on housing and auto and their financiers; by 2006 everyone knew there was too much supply of housing, cars, and money.

When we go into a typical recession, housing and auto, which normally account for 5% of GDP directly and another 10% spillover, are usually the sectors affected. A drop in housing and auto production can cut normal GDP growth and typically triggers losses of 1.5-2 million jobs. That’s because we hire both to replace people and to deal with future growth. When a recession comes and we lose faith in growth, companies always think they have too many people.

But the recession in 2008 was not just a typical recession; it turned out to be a Super Recession. People began losing home equity, which is a key driver of consumer confidence.

We’ve had three of those, however: 1973-5, 1980-82, 2008-2009
All three Super Recessions have been complete disasters.
–excessive fall in housing and auto
–broken housing finance system
–enormous political uncertainty (Nixon resignation)
–panic
–destroys the housing finance system as we know it

So all this has happened before. We have even destroyed the housing finance system before. Each time, some new fix comes out of it, and we go on to destroy that.

What changed our most recession from typical to Super? Panic. The Fed panicked and said the world’s coming to an end one Friday in September 2008. People believed them and took their money out of the banks. The ensuing panic wiped out 2.5% of the GDP.

The people who should have lost jobs were in housing, autos, and the people who finance them. All the other job losses in the non-center of the storm ( hiring freezes in pharmaceuticals, tech education and health care), and came from people who responded to the Fed’s panic with their own. Thus, job losses of 1.5-2 million common to a typical recession ballooned to the 7.4 million we have today.

The good news is that almost every metric of the economy hit bottom between Feb. 2009 and July 2009 (except jobs). We have had rising profits in business for 4 quarters, so Linneman believes jobs, a lagging indicator, will start to come back in June. And just replacing the people who retired, died, or left their jobs during the hiring freezes caused by the Super Recession should create about 3 million jobs a year. In Linneman’s eyes, we don’t even need to grow to generate those jobs. They will be in health care, pharma, and energy.

As soon as jobs begin being formed, young people will move away from their parents, where they have been hiding while unemployed, and form households. And that will take care of the housing surplus naturally. But, you ask, aren’t there19 million vacant housing units in the US?
Well, yes, but…
4 million are rentals (1.6m above the norm)
5 million are seasonally vacant
8 million are abandoned (uninhabitable)
There are about 2 million legitimate single family home vacancies, which is “only” 625,000 above the norm. Most of them are in Vegas, Fort Myers, Phoenix, and the inland Empire.

On the commercial side, real estate lags coming in to a recession and lags coming out. The first jobs just fill the empty desks. We are 9 million jobs short to get back to the office rents and absorption we need. We will get back there in 2014. In the mean time, there is nothing to be developed.

And in the mean time, the big problem is the threat of inflation. Our budget deficit has gone from 2-3% of GDP to 12%. What do countries do when they run big budget deficits? Raise taxes? Cut spending? Float bonds. That’s what we’ve been doing. How long can we float an additional 1.5 trillion on a 15 trillion economy? The Chinese will stop buying our bonds.

If that happens, the only hope is to print money. We are creating a serious bias toward inflation.
Now that asset prices have stopped falling, the banks have plenty of money to make loans. When they start, the Fed has to pull all the recent stimulus measures out of the economy. How do they unwind that? No one knows. This has never happened before.
We are going to have a huge budget deficit problem, and nobody sees a way out. In our country, we are going to have a “don’t hurt me, hurt them” battle among conflicting interest groups.

There are also a few even less cheerful scenarios: Iran could go nuclear; the Fed could mismanage monetary policy; we could have trade wars; we could have another a confidence crisis event like 9/11.

So, Linneman ended blithely, real estate is closer to good times than bad, but since the cost of money is going to go up before demand does, many people will have trouble staying afloat

Amplify

Economy and Real Estate: Live Blogging ULI Trends Day in Phoenix

Economy and Real Estate: Live Blogging ULI Trends Day in Phoenix
–Thanks to Maureen Karabatsos, my dear friend from Empire West Title for the wi-fi that makes this live post possible. Her Verizon mi-fi is my lifeline:-)

The economists always speak first:
Joshua Scoville, Chief Financial Adviser, Property and Portfolio Research

5-8% GDP growth in Q4 is expected, but its mostly from inventory restocking. Companies allowed themselves to run out of inventory and then the consumer started spending a little. Consumption in Q3 incresed, but mostly from Cash for Clunkers = govt induced 
Net exports are a little bit of a positive. Employment numbers will probably be revised up.Temp employment is coming back.

Nationally, employment may come back in 2010.
But for real estate, there are still problems:
–Serious overhang in retail space
Inventory/sales ratios still favor too much inventory

–Office: We have 20 years of supply in Phoenix at the current rate of absorption
Inventory today is more about people. As people inventories correct, the office market becomes more volatile.
Future job growth will be in professional and business services, which means volatility doesn't go away
Phoenix is very close to being near the bottom

–In housing, echo boomers are having a hard time finding jobs and are living with their parents=fewer household formations
Foreclosed homeowners are also moving into apartments.

–The national view of Phoenix v. the Bay Area:
Both good markets long term Phoenix is an opportunistic market that gets hammered and comes back.
Both San Francisco and Phoenix will recover somewhat in 2011
Tech, energy and demographics will drive the recovery

Eliott Pollack ( a local Phoenix dude who has lived through all the cycles)

He's more negative:
Predicts 2014 will be when we get even

–Phoenix infrastructure for growth of 120k a year implodes when growth slows.
–Utlities have seen the lowest growth in 50 years
–102,000 excess housing units according to ASU
–Phx lost 210,000 jobs since 2007. Won't recover till 2014
–Investors are sucking up 37% of homes in Maricopa County- they will be back on the market
  However, we have 84% affordability, and housing prices have turned up

–Apartment absorption negative. People are doubling up and moving into single family homes. Outlook for apartments is ugly

–We are in horrendous shape compared to the rest of the country in office. There will be no more office building in Phoenix for 5 years. —Industrial is grim, too. There's been a huge decline in absorption because of businesses shutting down and downsizing.
–Retail: negative absorption will take a decade to resolve

Greater Phx will recover in 2014, with growth back end loaded. There will be no new lots needed until 2014, and only 95,000 new homes needed.

Eliott predicts that the Fed will start closing banks as market improves, and that inflation will drive interest rates up in about two years.
In the next cycle, real estate will be an investment, not a trading vehicle, and lower internal rates of return are coming. Those returns will be in cash flows, not appreciation. And yet,real estate will still beat the stock market.

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

Stealthmode Partners and West Mesa Launch Business Incubator: Come Join Us

Stealthmode Partners and West Mesa Launch Business Incubator: Come Join Us
Hooray!!! I'm here at the West Mesa Business Incubator, the culmination of almost a year of planning on the part of the West Mesa Community Development Corporation and Stealthmode Partners. WMCDC has an almost empty building on the outskirts of downtown Mesa that they have given us to use as space for co-working, business acceleration, and resources.  We've got all the basics: free wi-fi, tables and chairs, conference and training rooms, a kitchen, the wonderful executive director with all her connections to resources, and us.

This is big for the Phoenix area, which already has Gangplank for tech company acceleration (we're there, too), and now will have a place for health care and retail support businesses. After forty years, this community is beginning to support its local businesses and provide some infrastructure to help them grow.

We're going to kick the incubator off formally with an Open House on Tuesday, Feb. 2, from 4:30-6 at 587 W. 10th St., in Mesa. Here's a map.

This particular partnership is trying to grow businesses in the vicinity of downtown Mesa, especially the kinds of businesses that will support the expansion of Banner Health, whose corporate center is across the street, and which is in the middle of a big expansion. We will once again use the Kauffman Foundation's Fasttrac program, because we love it and we know it works.

If you, or anyone you know, has a home-based business and would like to co-work, or is up for starting a business to serve this part of the community, we can get you all the help you need.  We also have a place for user groups and community groups to meet, too.

Now that we've done this, we will have to prove to the community that it works. That involves people coming to work here. Jo Ellen and I have a dream that there can be child care here one day, too:-)

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify