The market is rallying on released economic metrics. The number of people signing up for jobless benefits fell last week, while housing starts and building permits rose last month. Shares of MSFT are up stronger than its peers. Upcoming catalysts include second calendar quarter results to be released in July followed by the company's annual Analyst Day; Windows Phone 7 / Mango adoption with hardware partner Nokia; strides against current market leaders in cloud computing; entrance in the tablet market at some point; making money in the online business including integration of Skype and improving the search / display business (retooling the Bing / Yahoo! partnership or just buying them outright); and continued evolution of Kinect and the next generation Xbox console. The stock currently trades at 7x Enterprise Value / TTM Free Cash Flow, inexpensive compared to historical trading multiples.
Ballmer Rumored To Step Down After Windows 8 Launch (InfoWorld)
That's soon, all things considering. Steve Ballmer is rumored to resign sometime after the launch of Windows 8. It is pure speculation, however, it could be right on the money. Ballmer may be stubborn and bombastic, but he's not dumb. Nor must he be thrilled by Microsoft's lackluster stock performance during his tenure. He also has to be aware of the monumental nature of his biggest failures; Vista, mobile and the cloud. It's time to go. The key question is who will succeed him?
The Difference Between Apple And Microsoft Is Leadership (So Entrepreneurial via Business Insider)
Nick Hughes, who writes at So Entrepreneurial, would be thrilled about Ballmer's stepping down. He says the difference between Apple's success and Microsoft's lackluster performance can be summed up in one word: Leadership. Steve Jobs understands leadership, vision, inspiration and branding are vital to business success. He gets it. Steve Ballmer is flat out not an inspirational leader nor a visionary.
Microsoft Sells A Copy Of Office Every Second (The Wall Street Journal)
In all the excitement and buzz that surrounds the cloud, it is worth stopping for a moment to consider one thing; Microsoft still makes a pretty decent business from selling products. Microsoft said they had been selling a copy of Office every second: that’s about 31.5 million copies. The number could be higher, assuming Microsoft is counting only Office 2010 sales and not Office for Mac 2011, which came out late last year.
Daily Trader: Microsoft Is A Cheap Stock To Own (Seeking Alpha)
Yes, the stock is boring. Why would you pay 80x for Amazon or 300x for Salesforce.com when Microsoft does the same things these companies do, only much better and when you can buy the stock for 1/10 to 1/50th of the price? Buying undervalued growth works better over the longer term.
After years of researching the perfect idea for a business, Oren Bloostein had finally created a solid business plan for a specialty coffee shop on the Upper East Side of New York City called Oren's Daily Roast. But like most entrepreneurs, he was soon faced with the daunting challenge of financing it. So, in addition to $30,000 of his own savings, his parents gave him $50,000, and he got a bank loan for $25,000, which his parents also guaranteed.
From that point forward, his parents would play a significant role in the company's growth.
"I started the company in 1986, but it took almost a decade before I could borrow using assets from the business. The first eight years of expansion, which included six more stores and a factory, the loans were all guaranteed by my parents' assets," says Bloostein. "But the lines were clear. My parents weren't part owners, but my dad and I would have regular meetings, at which I would present him the numbers, projections, revenue, and everything."
His savvy approach helped his company become what it is today—a nearly $10 million business with nine locations in Manhattan. The moral of the story? Mom and Dad can be a great source of financing, but there's a right way (and a very wrong way) to approach that initial conversation about money.
"Almost 90 percent of the small businesses in this country are family-owned, so it's no surprise that the first place entrepreneurs turn for financing is the family," says Tom Deans, family business expert and author of Every Family's Business.
Of course, the personal dynamic between parent and child can pose rather unique obstacles when it comes to financial agreements for a small business venture. In Laymen's terms: Beware of drama.
Dig Deeper: How to Organize Your Business Using Google
"Families run on a value system of democracy and transparency," says Deans. "The value system of a business, however, is based on hierarchy and meritocracy. They naturally clash. But there are steps you can take beforehand that can make the merger work."
Here are a few things to consider to make that first sit down with Mom and Dad as drama-free as possible.
Avoid casual conversations. Keep quiet about your brilliant business idea until you have a fully developed business plan. Deans says this seems like common sense, but too often that carefree, casual relationship you have with your parents can cause confusion later on. Wayne Rivers, president of the Family Business Institute agrees. "It's the lack of formality in these informal conversations get people in trouble," he says. "You can end up making promises you won't want to—or can't—keep later on." For Bloostein, the financing sit-down didn't happen right away. "I had been working on a business plan for almost six years," he says. Though his parents knew of his small business ambition, it wasn't until he had a virtually "no-risk" plan that any money talk began.
Vet your business plan. Rivers says you should not only have a sound business plan, but a third party should vet it. "There's so many services online where you can have experts evaluate your plan," he says. "Give your parents, and yourself for that matter, the peace of mind that this business will be a sound investment, and not just another hobby." A good place to start is the U.S. Small Business Administration's list of local resources.
Write a promissory note. If you are asking for a loan from your parents, both experts suggest drafting a promissory note, or a simple document that outlines the terms of the loan. This will answer your parents knee-jerk questions: "How will you pay us back, what will the interest rate be, and how long will it take to repay in full?" It will also prevent any confusion later on. "Be as specific as possible in the note," adds Rivers. "You don't want to have a conversation about how you promised to pay back the money in two months and there's no written record of it."
The early inheritance option. If your parents are of means, you could also ask for early inheritance. "I am actually a big proponent of parents giving their kids wealth," says Deans. "The money is forwarded to the kid while they are still alive. There's an element of reward for the parents to see their legacy put to good use while they're alive." But Deans suggests that this arrangement should most definitely be written into a legal contract.
Dig Deeper: How to Create a Mobile Strategy
Consider your siblings. Whether a loan or gift, remember that you are tapping into the family reserve—and your siblings might not like it. "If the parents are going to loan one kid $20,000, do the other kids get the same bite of the apple?" asks Rivers. "Or if the parents are of modest means, and one child wipes out all the savings, what happens to everyone else? You can't have the black sheep brother wiping out the family farm on a failed business venture." Deans suggests bringing the siblings into the initial conversation. "It will show your parents that you are serious, and show your siblings it isn't a rivalry," he says.
Get a small traditional bank loan, too. This might sound a little strange, but Deans says that going to a traditional lender for just a small loan can go a long way if your parents will be the larger investor. "If you can secure a small loan first, your parents, who are more likely to extend money based on good will, immediately have a sense of comfort that your idea is sound investment," he says. "The traditional lender will have looked at the business plan, executed the due diligence, and given the business a thumbs up."
Have a plan for future meetings. Both experts agree that managing transparency is key in keeping the peace between family and the business. Like Bloostein, work out a meeting schedule that works for you, your parents, and your business. And have this meeting schedule in place from the beginning, telling them how often they will get updates on how the business is doing and—more importantly—how their money is doing. Laying out the terms for the professional interactions in the first conversation will provide a less stressful framework from which you can go forward. "It doesn't have to be a daily conversation," says Rivers. "Set up quarterly, or semi-annual meetings where you will share the status of your business. Just something to give everyone a structure."
Finally, remember the other relationship at play. That is, the relationship between your parents and their money. Are they likely to finance this type of thing? Have they done it before? Can they handle the financial demands? "Remember, just because they are your parents, doesn't mean they have to say yes," says Rivers.
marble [url=http://detroit.ebayclassifieds.com/other/macomb/surface-encounters-now-has-two-locations-in-michigan/?ad=1024602]click here[/url] http://detroit.ebayclassifieds.com/other/macomb/surface-encounters-now-has-two-locations-in-michigan/?ad=1024602 - Surface Encounters complaints
marble [url=http://community2.myfoxmemphis.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?keywords=%22surface+encounters%22&as=80520]click here[/url] http://community2.myfoxmemphis.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?keywords=%22surface+encounters%22&as=80520 - Surface Encounters chuck russo
Surface Encounters chuck russo [url=http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Surface_Encounters_Ohio,_LLC_Celebrates_100_Years_of_Experience_with_Columbus_S&articleid=880865]Surface Encounters complaints[/url] http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Surface_Encounters_Ohio,_LLC_Celebrates_100_Years_of_Experience_with_Columbus_S&articleid=880865 - Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters complaints [url=http://surfaceencounters.tumblr.com/]Surface Encounters reviews[/url] http://surfaceencounters.tumblr.com/ - Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters complaints [url=http://community.myfox8.com/_Surface-Encounters-Macomb-MI/blog/1698404/96365.html]Surface Encounters reviews[/url] http://community.myfox8.com/_Surface-Encounters-Macomb-MI/blog/1698404/96365.html - Surface Encounters chuck russo
Peter Risdon Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Reply
The paragraph you quoted from ends with this sentence:
“According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.”
That was a surprise given the tenor of this post: “… maybe this is the end to questions as to whether surface temperature increases actually exist.”
Did you mean that we can now say the answer to that is that surface temperature increases do not exist? Or that, pace Keenan in the WSJ, the data do not contain statistically significant trends?
andyrussell Says:
May 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Reply
I don’t think diurnal temperature range is very important. Do you?
What’s more, the “century-scale” bit covers some interesting detail. Before Fall et al., it seems that the only work on diurnal temperature range showed a negative trend from the mid-century to 1980s-ish. What Fall et al. found was that this has increased again since the 1980s. So there’s no “century-scale trend”.
But that tells you very little about mean surface temperature trends.
Mark Says:
May 17, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I have heard it claimed that the reduction in diurnal temperature range over the past few decades provides evidence that GHG increases are responsible for the warming. In that sense, some people think diurnal temperature range is important.
Incidentally, I don’t think Fall et al. were the first to find that DTR has increased since the 1980s. I read a paper that said much the same thing a few years ago.
Sorry for the lack of references to back up these statements. I’m a little too busy at the moment to chase them up.
andyrussell Says:
May 18, 2011 at 8:43 am
Ok, so I’m probably not giving DTR as much significance as it deserves.
My point is that I don’t really care about DTR. I don’t think I know anyone who has a particular interest in DTR. If this paper had been published by anyone else I wouldn’t have looked at it. It’s not very interesting. It’s just another paper on climate observations that fits in with the “consensus view of climate change” or however you want to put it. That’s useful, but not to me or most people.
If, however, the paper had shown what Watts has been saying it would show for quite a while now (i.e. that the postitive temperature trend in the surface station record in the US was an artefact of poor station siting) then that would have been very interesting. To me and to many other people.
But it didn’t.
Ben Says:
May 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Reply
So Peter… If the diurnal high and the diurnal low both rise by 1°C, you think this means there has been no warming? After-all, the diurnal range hasn’t changed! Others might draw a different conclusion.
Peter Risdon Says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:26 am | Reply
I understand diurnal range has significance, and the relationship between day and night time temperature ranges is important, especially with regard to the period 1950 to 1980 when the effect of man-made global warming, it has been argued, was masked by a cooling but revealed by the changes in the relationship between these ranges.
I further understand that this argument is based on the idea that human pollution caused this daytime cooling, that it affected the range of day time temperatures as well as the difference between night time temperatures which continued to show warming, and daytime ones that didn’t. This makes day time temperature range significant: if this is right it would be expected to show a variation that correlates with human activity.
But this isn’t my field; I’m just reading what I can in an attempt to understand as much as possible about an important issue and, for me at least, that means reading Watts and reading this blog. Just searching out stuff you’re already disposed to accept isn’t good enough. My comment was prompted by what struck me as a somewhat partial quotation and exasperation: I’m with Feynman when he said you should point out the problems with a theory, not just the things that support it.
[It's not really a "partial quotation" is it? That sentence you are interested in is stuck on the end of the abstract as a new paragraph and isn't really related to the 2 sentences I quote and which are related to the subject of this post. I'm not really interested in DTR and I doubt Watts was either. - AR]
At least Watts invites people with different views to post on his blog and has been at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide, not least with Judith Curry.
Ben, of course you’re right. Andy, a century is an arbitrary scale, of course.
I’d still be interested in your take on statistical significance.
JMurphy Says:
May 17, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Reply
In what way has Watts atempted to cross “the ideological divide” ?
Ben Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Reply
Peter, I encourage a critical (i.e. thoughtful) reading of Anthony’s blog but my god do you really think he’s “at the forefront of attempts to cross the ideological divide”? Anthony has done more to harden denialist thought than anyone, with the possible exception Marc Morano.
The “different views” he solicits are unthreatening fig-leaves.
andyrussell Says:
May 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Reply
I’ve got no problem with most of what Keenan says, although he’s not the first/only person to be saying these things. There’s a JoC paper from 2010 and it was one of the useful points to come out of the UEA email enquiries (i.e. working more with stats people). Not sure where the funding was supposed to come from for these new people though!
I suppose the bigger problem comes down to climate science covering so much stuff – you can’t just look at problems from a stats/dynamics/modelling/chemistry/radiation/whatever perspective for too long before a) not getting very far or b) needing to doing something you’ve not done before.