Category Archives: World Affairs

Khushwant Singh’s 8 Clues to Happiness should Drive USA Housing and Social Policy

July 29, 2011 – 4:18 pm

My friend Jaspreet Sihota shared with me Khushwant Singh’s 8 Clues to Happiness. Khushwant Singh is a famously happy (and old) Sikh author and I agree with him 100%. In fact, I believe these 8 principles should underly housing and social policy in America where millions of families are obese, financially unstable (and insecure about their work prospects due to globalization), and worried that a home of their own may not be a reality for future generations.

EIGHT CLUES TO HAPPINESS

By- KHUSHWANT SINGH

Having lived a reasonably contented life, I was musing over what a

person should strive for to achieve happiness. I drew up a list of a

few essentials which I put forward for the readers’ appraisal.

1. First and foremost is GOOD HEALTH. If you do not enjoy good health

you can never be happy. Any ailment, however trivial, will deduct from

your happiness.

2. Second, A HEALTHY BANK BALANCE. It need not run into millions but

should be enough to provide for creature comforts and something to

spare for recreation, like eating out, going to the pictures,

traveling or going on holidays on the hills or by the sea. Shortage of

money can be only demoralizing. Living on credit or borrowing is

demeaning and lowers one in one’s own eyes.

3. Third, A HOME OF YOUR OWN. Rented premises can never give you the

snug feeling of a nest which is yours for keeps that a home provides:

if it has a garden space, all the better. Plant your own trees and

flowers, see them grow and blossom, cultivate a sense of kinship with

them.

4. Fourth, AN UNDERSTANDING COMPANION, be it your spouse or a friend.

If there are too many misunderstandings, they will rob you of your

peace of mind.

5. Fifth, LACK OF ENVY towards those who have done better than you in

life; risen higher, made more money, or earned more fame.

Envy can be very corroding; avoid comparing yourself with others.

6. Sixth, DO NOT ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE to descend on you for gossip. By

the time you get rid of them, you will feel exhausted and poisoned by

their gossip-mongering.

7. Seventh, CULTIVATE SOME HOBBIES which can bring you a sense of

fulfillment, such as gardening, reading, writing, painting, playing or

listening to music.

8. Eighth, every morning and evening, devote 15 minutes to

INTROSPECTION. In the morning, 10minutes should be spent on stilling

the mind and then 5minutes in listing things you have to do that day.

In the evening, 5minutes to still the mind again, and 10minutes to go

over what you had undertaken to do.

RICHNESS is not

Earning More,

Spending More or

Saving More, but …

RICHNESS IS WHEN YOU NEED NO MORE

Tags happiness, healthy living, home ownership, housing policy, khushwant singh | Comment (0)

Business Politics Public Policy Real Estate World Affairs

Strategies to address the elephant in the python: housing market stability we all want

February 12, 2011 – 8:07 pm

I spoke yesterday in Utah at the mid-Winter Housing Finance Conference on the subject of loan Servicing (what’s wrong and how to fix it). The focus of my presentation was on outlining a new vision for default management – the business of Banks (loan servicers and investor) working with consumers in default on their mortgage. Here is the document I shared with the audience.

Implementing the ideas shared in the presentation is possible – I know of others or am personally involved in implementing several of these approaches myself. The end result of adopting these approaches would be much higher success in preventing residential real estate foreclosures than the default industry is achieving today PLUS significant reductions in investor mortgage loan loss severity relative to current approaches.

Strategies to Address the Elephant in the Python: Housing Market Stability We All Want

Tags default, distressed consumers, foreclosure alternatives, foreclosure prevention, foreclosures, housing market, housing policy, housing stability, housing strategy, loan modifications, short sales | Comment (0)

Business Life People Politics Public Policy Real Estate World World Affairs

Responsible 2nd Chances: Loan Modifications Addressing the Issue of Negative Equity and (Borrower) Moral Hazard

January 9, 2010 – 11:46 pm

Proactive government and bank efforts to help distressed borrowers have largely, if not exclusively, been focused on ‘home retention’ programs in 2009. On the one hand this focus makes sense: the first question that should be asked and answered when a family stops making their mortgage payment due to financial hardship is whether an change to the loan terms would make the home affordable for the same borrower (thereby avoiding all the negative effects of a pre or post foreclosure home sale) while being acceptable to the investor.

On the other hand, given constrained resources this almost exclusive focus on home retention, which has come thus far at the expense of those that could not afford to keep ownership of their home, has been a little confusing to me, a former Chief People Officer who had to layoff over 7000 people between mid-2007 and mid-2008 due to the mortgage crisis. Most of these above mentioned responsible employees of my former mortgage bank employer, unfortunately fall into the latter category of families who would not be able to afford homes they once could, and I think we have missed the boat thus far on properly providing and supporting home and life transitions for these families.

My issue with the focus of government and bank programs thus far is not that they shouldn’t focus on helping every family in trouble first try to keep their home if they want…but on the public message and conversation we are having.

America is undergoing a fundamental shift in consumer behavior and economic activity today, and as Charles Darwin said, ‘It’s not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent. It’s the ones most adaptable to change’.

Americans (myself included) need to adapt to the new economy…and if this means they need to sell their home and move…so be it. (Family), jobs and financial stability are more important, in my view, than holding onto a home one cannot afford.

Notwithstanding the above gap in proactive bank and government programs till date, let’s circle back to the issue of home retention first. Early results are in on government and bank home retention efforts…and performance thus far is viewed as below expectations. Only about 20% of the families in trouble have been provided a temporary modification (mod) yet…and conversion rates of these temporary mods to permanent mods are very low thus far. 2 things should be noted before one judge’s the above too soon:

1. The number of loan modifications attempted (this is where progress starts – with a step in the right direction) is significantly larger than in the previous year/s and under the previous administration/team

2. In some ways, the problem isn’t the number of people in trial mods. While lots of effort is and will be put on solving the current problem (hopefully successfully) of converting the 75% or so performing trial mods into permanent ones (except where there was mis-statement of income, which is not kosher in my view), the real issue is improperly set expectations…and lack of enough alternate modification programs (addressing the diversity in situation among those in trouble right now).

A key flaw in most loan modifications offered today including HAMP is highlighted by the article I am including below on a recent by the New York Federal Reserve Bank: they do not address the issue of negative equity.

Since 25% of US homeowners have negative equity today, and since our national goal is to do more to help those in trouble who want to retain their home, I thought I’d resurface a simple loan modification proposal I first introduced in an April 2009 blog….which I believe could significantly expand the success of our home retention efforts.

Responsible Second Chances: A break today in exchange for some of tomorrow’s upside

For every American family who is unable to afford the payment on their primary residence, I would offer them a one page loan modification with the following terms:

1.    Reduction in loan principal down to current market value.
2.    30 year fixed mortgage at current historically low market rates.
3.    25% of any equity appreciation from the written down loan principal (the remaining 75% would go back to the investor taking the loss on the principal write-down today)…thereby reducing the bite of the loss of principal taken today.

4. Requirement that if the borrower misses more than 3 mortgage payments again and is unable to reinstate their loan, they would voluntarily exit the property within 6 months of falling behind…either via a Short Sale or Voluntary Foreclosure.

Why do I think the program above would help many not being helped today? Here’s why:

1.    It addresses the issue of negative equity…which is critical, per the article and study mentioned below
2.    It is ‘economically’ the right answer (in effect, any family that can afford their home today at current values and mortgage rates, gets to keep it)
3.    It addresses the issue of moral hazard: there’s no free lunch in America (at least not for long). The family gives up 75% future equity appreciation in exchange for the investor taking a significant loss on the loan today (via the principal write-down). This should largely eliminate, in my view, the need to collect financial hardship documentation…which is a key reason many mods are not becoming permanent today.
4.    It is simple to understand, unlike the HAMP program…which does not result in a principal reduction, as many borrowers applying for HAMP mistakenly believe it does.

5. It addresses the issue of what happens if the loan goes bad again…which is important for the investor who is making a big compromise today.

Implementability

It is likely my proposal is not implementable in many parts of the private market…particularly the securitized loan market. However, it could be implemented for government sponsored and owned enterprises…Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA…which represent a large part of the market.

Article from DSNews.com: Fed Study Finds Principal Writedowns Minimize Risk of Redefault

Servicers who lower distressed homeowners’ mortgage payments by reducing the principal balance, as opposed to just making interest rate adjustments, are much more likely to see the payments keep coming in and ward off a redefault, according to a new study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The economists found a definite pattern among modifications made since December 2005 that suggests “an intention among servicers to make the loans more affordable, while not losing any of the underlying principle.” However, their analysis shows that modifications that trim off some of the loan balance have higher rates of success and “can double the reduction in re-default rates.”

While principal writedowns essentially mean the lender or investor must eat a loss, many analysts argue that it’s a smaller loss than comes with the eventual foreclosure and the price tag of a nonperforming asset in today’s housing market, already swollen with REO inventories and vacant properties.

According to the New York Fed’s economists, when a borrower’s monthly mortgage payment is cut by 25 percent by reducing the interest rate only, the borrower is 11 percent less likely to default within one year.
But, if the monthly payment is lowered by the same 25 percent, this time by shaving 25 percent off of the outstanding loan balance, coupled with a small interest rate cut, the chances that the borrower will defaulting again within one year drops by nearly 27 percent.

The report’s authors also concluded that borrowers who have a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 115 percent or higher – meaning they owe 15 percent or more than their homes are worth – pose a 51 percent higher risk of redefaulting after a modification.

According to a blog by Wall Street Journal reporter Nick Timiraos, the findings of the New York Fed paper could have big implications on the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Timiraos explained that while the program doesn’t preclude principal forgiveness on the part of lenders, HAMP’s primary push is on lowering interest rates and extending the loan term to bring monthly payments down – exactly the types of modifications that the Fed report says have a higher chance of becoming delinquent again.

The Congressional Oversight Panel and the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) have criticized the government’s mortgage modification efforts on numerous occasions for not addressing the issue of negative equity, which would ultimately involve trimming LTV ratios by shaving off outstanding mortgage balances.

A growing number of mortgage experts and foreclosure counselors agree with the federal watchdogs and the New York Fed economists that principal reduction is a powerful incentive for borrowers to keep up with their restructured payments, particularly now, when such a large number of mortgages are underwater.
First American CoreLogic says that nearly 10.7 million, or 23 percent, of the residential mortgages in the United States had negative equity at the end of the third quarter of 2009, with the homeowner owing more on the home than it was worth.

A modification is only worthwhile if it induces borrowers who would otherwise default to continue paying, the New York Fed’s economists noted, and they argue in their analysis that borrowers with positive equity in their properties have a strong incentive to keep current on their mortgage, since delinquency and foreclosure will ultimately lead to a loss of the asset.

“In fact,” they wrote, “borrowers with positive equity (that is, borrowers whose house is worth more than the balance on their mortgage) should rarely default, since refinancing the mortgage or selling the property are better options than foreclosure, which may cause the borrower to lose [their] equity.”

Tags foreclosure prevention, HAMP, home retention, loan modification, Making Home Affordable, negative equity, principal writedowns | Comment (0)

Business Los angeles People Public Policy Real Estate World World Affairs

Who should get to keep their home and who shouldn’t? Simplicity is key for success

April 23, 2009 – 1:54 am

There are a lot of people who have gotten “unlucky” recently, in one way or another, and are finding themselves unable to make payments on their debt because their income and expense equation is no longer what it used to be (i.e., their income is down, or their expenses are up). Of the millions of homeowners currently not making their full monthly mortgage payments, it’s hard to tell which ones were unlucky, who got defrauded or lied to, and who just plain made a stupid (intentional or unintentional) mistake and bought something they couldn’t really afford.

So who – of the large number of people that aren’t able to make their currently monthly housing payments – should get to keep their home and who shouldn’t? This is more than a million dollar question and we’re having a helluva time as a nation trying to answer this question, in policy and in practice, fairly, systematically and timely.

There are currently a myriad home retention programs implemented across dozens of servicers nationwide, and if I had to pick one word to describe the current landscape of options made available to troubled borrowers, I would pick “complicated”.

I think if we could come up with a simple common sense rule of thumb to answer this key question, we would be much further ahead in stabilizing our housing market. So in the spirit of proposing solutions instead of criticizing current approaches, here’s my simple solution to this problem:

If you can afford the home you currently live in at its current market price with loan terms based on current (historically low) market housing rates….you should get to keep it. If you can’t, you should move on and find rental housing that you can afford based on your current financial reality.

How would I achieve the above if I were designing our national housing programs? I’d keep it pretty simple (although I acknowledge that making it so would be rather complicated and time consuming…with no guarantee of success):

1. Do principle write-downs to current market value for all troubled borrowers who can afford their home on current market terms…but in return for this (massive) accommodation…require them to give up 75% of future home equity appreciation back to the investors who took the loss resulting from the initial principal write-down…until the investors are made whole. After that point, allow the homeowner to keep any remaining equity upside.

2. Allow every other owner occupied troubled borrower to sell their property via a servicer offered short sale accompanied by a cash payment to help the family move to affordable rental housing. Forgive the “deficiency” for these borrowers including any tax that might be owed on the amount forgiven (most families in trouble can’t afford a hefty tax payment anyways, so this would only push them further into the hole)

3. Allow every other non-owner occupied borrower to sell their property via a servicer offered short sale, but with no cash payment and no automatic forgiveness of deficiency

Would we likely require a new governmental entity/group to track the details on the principal write-downs and resulting future home equity appreciation share on behalf of impacted investors? Yes.

Is this simple proposal difficult to gain agreement on? Yes…very difficult. But no more difficult than it will be to deal with the millions of avoidable foreclosures that we will experience otherwise.

Tags foreclosure crisis, foreclosure prevention policies, housing crisis, short sales, systematic short sales, US housing market | Comment (0)

Life Politics World World Affairs

Contrarian View: Tough Times All Around Will Raise America’s Reputation Abroad

March 12, 2009 – 7:20 pm

Most everyone knows that America is not very popular abroad right now, and hasn’t been for the past several years. Just ask any American who has travelled abroad recently. From Davos to Delhi, the general current perspective is that America is on the decline and other countries (such as China and India) will be the global leaders of tomorrow.

While I certainly agree that countries like India and China will continue to gain importance and power as their economic power increases to levels consistent with their massive populations, I disagree with this pessimistic view of the future of America.

I am an Indian born immigrant to America myself and based on what I’ve learned and seen of the world and America, I believe the American framework of life, liberty and opportunity is superior to the socio-economic frameworks in place most anywhere else.

The election of Barack Obama as US President is but one example of the beauty of the American framework….and this example is repeated daily, in ways small and big, by those who weren’t born into money or power but who gain opportunity and success in America as a result purely of their hard work and smarts.

As the economic crisis works it’s way around the world and once fast developing countries slow down and deal with the now-more-apparent weaknesses in their own social, economic and legal frameworks….I actually think America’s reputation abroad will improve.

Tags america's reputation, america's reputation abroad, american views abroad, criticism of America, developing countries, emerging economies | Comment (0)

Business Life Los angeles Public Policy Real Estate World Affairs

Foreclosure Prevention & Housing Market Stabilization: Thoughts from the Ground Level

February 5, 2009 – 6:30 pm

Please find below a brief proposal I have put together on the issue of foreclosure prevention and housing market stabilization based on what I and the team at HausAngeles as well as our colleagues, clients and strategic partners are actually seeing (and not seeing) on the ground in Los Angeles/Southern California. I and we do not claim to have all the answers on this “massive issue”. Nor do we claim all of the ideas below are mine or ours (please see footnote 1: acknowledgements). However, refining and executing on some or all of these ideas will be a key focus for me and the team at HausAngeles for the foreseeable future and until the housing market stabilizes. Our primary geographic focus is Los Angeles, but we plan to share learnings and information widely and freely to maximize impact at the ground level.

Preventing Foreclosures, Helping Consumers and Accelerating the Stabilization of the US Housing Market

Background and Context

I am the former Chief People/Administrative Officer and CEO Chief of Staff of Indymac Bank, who found herself at the epicenter of the mortgage and housing crisis since mid-2007. I resigned from Indymac after the FDIC placed the company into conservatorship, but decided to continue to focus on the housing/real estate sector where I saw and continue to see tremendous opportunity for positive impact, both personal and professional.

As I have gotten deeper into the real estate market and understood the reality on the ground on foreclosures[1], I have discovered numerous untapped and under-tapped opportunities to better help consumers manage their financial issues/life transitions, prevent foreclosures, reduce lender/investor losses, and help the housing market “find its bottom”. I strongly believe the housing market reaching bottom (or close to it) will mark a crucial turning point in our economic recovery.

Two interesting and important characteristics that I believe many of these opportunities share are:

1. Many (if not most) of the proposed initiatives actually help consumers, lenders/investors and the US economy. This alignment of interests is historic as these stakeholders often have competing objectives, especially in times of crisis;
2. Many of these opportunities require government coordination and support to work effectively and expediently, as key implementation challenges are common across industry players and/or require government support/regulatory changes.

Untapped and Under-tapped Opportunities to Help Consumers, Reduce Loan Losses and Accelerate the Bottoming of the Housing Market:

1. Ensure every homeowner in trouble who can realistically afford to continue to own their home with a modified loan, gets one as soon as possible

* One of the big reasons a large percentage of borrowers in trouble currently don’t get timely help via a loan modification is literally because they don’t respond to letters from their Bank. It’s not difficult to understand this behavior: consumers delinquent on payments are scared to open/respond to letters from the very organization that they owe money to (which they are not sure they can pay back as promised).
* On the other hand, there are thousands (likely millions) of licensed professionals (e.g., realtors, financial advisors/planners) already living in the same communities as the borrowers in trouble…who are not being leveraged to solve this communication problem.
* So let’s leverage these licensed professionals on the ground to ensure we have evaluated every borrower who is behind on their mortgage to see if there’s a way to realistically help them retain ownership of their home[2].

2. Turn more owners into renters:

* In times of crisis, it’s critical to prioritize what’s most important. My belief is that safety and family are more important for homeowners in trouble than ownership, given the seriousness of the crisis we are facing.
* As a result, I believe we should implement programs that turn some current homeowners into renters without making them move e.g., by transferring ownership of the homes they are living in and love to investors who are looking for income earning assets.

3. Implement systematic, lender supported short sales:

* Where it is not possible for the current homeowner to continue to own their home, we should avoid the foreclosure process (which is painful, time consuming and expensive) and instead facilitate the sale of the home with the borrower and lender working as partners instead of adversaries.
* As someone in the real estate business I can tell you that getting a short sale executed right now is nightmarish. There are no industry standards and most lenders are not set up internally to properly approve/manage short sales. Yet short sales nip the foreclosure process in the bud and are better for homeowners (who would have the opportunity to adjust their housing reality to their economic reality and prospects with greater dignity and respect), lenders and the US economy[3].
* Since systematic, lender assisted short sales are a lower cost option to foreclosure, it may be possible to divert some of the cost savings back to consumers to help them with their life transition (e.g., for relocation and/or other expenses related to their move/life change)

4. Implement rent to own programs to expand demand
* For families who do not have enough saved to make a down payment or qualify for a conventional mortgage but who have jobs/steady monthly income there is an opportunity to create future home ownership opportunities through creative rent to own program designs

5. Expand the nation’s affordable housing stock:
* In many cities across the country there is currently an acute shortage of affordable housing and the existing affordable housing stock is in poor condition. In Los Angeles (where I am personally involved), as an example, we are embarking on a 25 year plan to redevelop our ~10,000 public housing units. Such redevelopment and development programs will take decades and cost billions.
* Why embark on that costly and time consuming process, when we have an excess supply of housing nationwide already? Instead, let’s turn some of these currently empty/lender owned properties into affordable housing and bring hope to those that sit at the bottom rung of the economic ladder in our society.
* I believe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac REO’s (which are currently being held on these entities’ balance sheets due to recent foreclosure moratoriums), or a significant portion of them, are likely best suited for this purpose. Some of this newly created affordable housing could be transferred to public housing authorities across the nation for management/administration, while some could be sold to investors as income-earning Section 8 or other affordable housing.[4]

Thoughts on Implementation

Given the seriousness of the current housing and economic crisis and my view that housing reaching a bottom will mark a crucial turning point in our economic recovery, I believe a cross-functional, multi-agency, multi-lender task force/team should be put together with a goal of clearing the market of the current total inventory of bank/lender/investor owned single family properties over the next 12 months.

In other words, let’s do whatever we can (after agreeing on some basic principles and philosophies) to try to have the housing market bottom by the end of 2009/early 2010. Once the current inventory has been cleared, we can focus on efficiently clearing the market only of new inventory (which should hopefully be at lower levels with the help of the President’s job creation plan and the effect of some of the above described programs).

Concluding Thoughts

I believe there are 2 key flaws in our current approaches on foreclosure prevention and clearing the market of troubled real estate inventory. First, foreclosure moratoriums, although well intentioned, only “push the ball down the road” to be dealt with at a later time i.e., these moratoriums are reducing supply today and are likely to prolong the duration of home price declines. Second, I believe there is an excessive focus on home ownership as a primary goal, whereas I believe we are ‘beyond ownership’ as a country. Dealing with the housing crisis should be about safety and family, and about reflecting American families’ actual economic reality in their housing reality (as gracefully and kindly as possible). These core principles are a foundation of this proposal.

[1] My views/ideas on foreclosures, REO’s and the real estate market reflect key input and insights from: Tony Ebers, Chief Operating Officer (Indymac), Eric Friedman, SVP Default Management (Indymac), John Olinski, EVP (Indymac), Ron Bergum (CEO, Prospect Mortgage), and Ron Garber, CEO, shortsaleplan.com

[2] Note: The Hope Now alliance does not include individuals including licensed professionals

[3]For example: Short sales result in an ~2year credit impact for homeowners in CA vs. ~5 years for a foreclosure. Also, short sales are significantly less expensive than foreclosures (e.g., legal fees, home damage) and don’t have the reputational stain of foreclosures. Finally, short sales in a declining home price environment result in significantly less loan losses by accelerating the timing of asset sale

[4] I should note that I believe any new affordable housing created should come “with strings” i.e., individuals and families should be committed to learning and earning their way out of government subsidized housing within a defined period of 3-5 years to be eligible to move into the new housing.

Tags foreclosure prevention, foreclosures, housing bottom, housing crisis, housing market crisis, housing market stabilization, loan modifications, short sales | Comments (4)

Business Life Los angeles People Public Policy Real Estate World World Affairs

A Roof Over Every American’s Head: Addressing the Core of our Current Crisis of Confidence

January 12, 2009 – 4:50 pm

What is the #1 worry that most Americans have when they get laid off? I believe it is that they might lose the roof over their and their families’ heads in a worst case scenario (i.e., if they are unable to find adequate alternate sources of income).

Now imagine if the government of this country was able to promise all of its lawful citizens this: “No matter what, you and your family will always have a roof over your head. We know we are in the middle of the greatest economic downturn since the 1930’s and we also know that there has been overbuilding in the housing sector. We have put these two realities together to make a unique promise to all Americans today so that you may feel secure and confident about their family’s safety.”

Do you think the above promise would help the nation stabilize (and possibly even start an economic recovery)? I believe it might because it addresses the very heart of the problem in America today: a lack of confidence in our future and a deep worry (almost and actually a panic in many people) about what this future will bring.

Now, I am not one who believes that every American can and should own a home (even though I do strongly believe in the societal and familial benefits of home ownership). Nor do I believe that we should subsidize home ownership for current home owners any more than we would subsidize it for new homeowners. But we do have plenty of housing available in America today….and the government can and should do more to help those Americans who suddenly find themselves in an economically precarious situation.

The US government already provides rent subsidy at varying levels to the lowest income in our society…primarily through the Section 8 and public housing programs (Disclosure: I am on the Board of the Los Angeles Public Housing Authority, which owns/administers both programs in Los Angeles). So why not expand this concept to stabilize our families in a manner that is sensible, fair and proactive? This might just be the type of bold action we need given the times we are experiencing currently.

Tags crisis of confidence, economic crisis, economic recovery, foreclosures, housing crisis | Comment (1)

Business Health care Life Public Policy World World Affairs

Transparency and Tradeoffs: The Missing T’s in The Healthcare Industry

December 23, 2008 – 10:30 pm

AV’s recent inpatient surgery experience – she had a cervical dystectomy (relatively common neck surgery) – reminded of how fundamentally flawed our US healthcare system is. Almost every industry/market that’s “efficient” functions on some basic common principles/dynamics: Customers make purchasing decisions based on cost, quality and service and producers/companies compete on the basis of these 3 core product/service “differentiation” dimensions.

Let’s take the retail industry as an example. Walmart is all about being low cost and has build a business model that continuously wrings cost out of the entire supply chain for the goods they sell. A store like Nordstrom on the other hand tries to be more upscale, so it competes on service and to a lesser extent quality (by carrying brands perceived to be higher quality). And Louis Vitton, Tiffany, and other luxury brands compete largely on quality only (with quality being defined as a combination of style/perception, brand value, material, cut, etc.).

The key to the above tradeoffs occuring, of course, is information (transparency) about the 3 differentiating dimensions, particularly quality and cost….to enable consumers to evaluate different companies and make their decision based on what matters most to them. But none of this is possible in healthcare – an industry that is almost a fifth of US GDP!

In healthcare, you make a decision with no idea of what it will cost you and really no way/system of getting such a cost estimate without significant effort. And quality is an entirely different matter. Where cost is difficult but not impossible to assess, quality is. There is absolutely no data available to consumers to help them understand the experience level and output/performance (aka “outcomes” in healthcare) of the doctor they choose to go with. And did I mention there’s no systematic way of finding a doctor that meets your needs? The whole system of finding a doctor is primitive – you ask around to see if anyone you know (including other doctors one might know) have a recommendation (which is again, largely based on perception/reputation and not facts).

I am definitely a believer that government led investment in infrastucture is a key tool to help get the US out of the current economic crisis (while making sensible investments which will pay off and are required for our long term health). I would love to see the Obama administration address some of the issues above to help get the US healthcare industry more nimble, competitive and no doubt efficient.

Tags health outcomes, healthcare, healthcare cost, healthcare efficiency, healthcare quality, tradeoffs | Comment (0)

Capital and Risk-Sharing: Smart Crisis Fighting Tools That Should Be Used Much More

November 30, 2008 – 10:23 pm

I’m glad to see the government is finally using 2 “smart” tools – capital and risk sharing – to help address the financial institution panic and resulting failures we have seen since earlier in 2008 which have seriously escalated the financial and economic crisis facing the US and global economies today. While these tools don’t comprehensively address the myriad of financial and economic issues facing the US or the world today, they:

· Help stabilize Banks when no other 3^rd party can/will do so: this is critical to stabilizing consumer sentiment, the markets and economy

· Are leveraged in their impact to the real economy: Because Banks typically lend $10 to $20 for every dollar in capital they hold

· Help minimize the tax-payer bill from all this government investing and intervention: by acknowledging the uncertainty around where the housing and credit/financial markets will bottom out, and putting a “cap” on the maximum losses a private investor can incur on an investment

· Help establish a floor for asset values (by limiting downside risk for investors): and therefore support and encourage the return of private investors into the capital markets

The need for government provided capital was obvious to me months ago at Indymac since such a significant capital infusion would likely have prevented the Bank’s failure and no private capital was available for the job. Every investor who had invested capital into any financial institution in the 12 months leading up to Indymac’s failure had lost all or a big portion of their money by the summer of 2008, so this lack of private capital was a rational market outcome. And risk sharing can and should reduce the size of the loss the government creates by selling Indymac’s assets as it will help mitigate the negative financial impact of the fact that Indymac’s assets are being sold by the government into the worst housing asset market since the Great Depression.

A wise man once said it was possible to “transform a breakdown into a breakthrough” and I think the tools above can be powerfully applied to the global economy today. After all, no large company is just a “US” company today. All major American companies are generally global in the markets they serve, the organizations they work with, and the workforces they leverage (even “little Indymac” which only operated in the US supported over 1000 employees in India). So by supporting US Banks and Financial Institutions the US government is already supporting the global economy (not just the US economy).

Why not do this more directly and on a bigger scale worldwide? As someone who is optimistic about the global economy’s long term prospects, I think we should. The US taking an ownership stake in a wide array of businesses all over the world could indeed help turn this breakdown into a breakthrough.

Tags economic crisis, financial crisis, government capital, government risk sharing, indymac | Comment (0)

Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Redefining the War on Terror

November 28, 2008 – 10:33 pm

The Mumbai “terrorist” attacks are a clear message to President Elect Obama, us, and the rest of the world. The problems of the world aren’t just economic….they are equally urgent, social and extend deeply into our homes and places of worship.

The Bombay attacks are highly symbolic in their location/s, organization-level and timing. And they hit home. I definitely feel the significance of these particular attacks personally. The violence was directed at the heart of India’s financial system where my (our) friends hang out, my (our) colleagues stay when they visit India, and our companies establish offices when they enter the Indian market (the 5 star hotels Taj and Oberoi in Bombay have been the India office for many a blue chip multi-national corporation). The targeting of westerners by the attackers is particularly galling since it targets a big source of support and growth for India and it’s democracy, philosophies and people. India is getting more integrated with the west and the global economy, and the attacks sought to strike at the core locations and symbols of this progress.

So what? Since change is in the air, here’s the 2 key changes I’d like to see made immediately in our”war on terror”:

1. Rename it in a way that reflects what it is. In some ways I think we have glorified what is really going on, by allowing this global problem to be named a “War on Terror” fought against Terrorists. Certainly the acts can and do bring terror into people’s hearts. But why not (at least) try to take away this terrible power? There is clearly no moral equality in this war, and the battleground is people’s minds and hearts (not a physical battlefield). The truth is these so called terrorists are generally pathetic (and often unlucky) losers perpetrating violence in the name of God. Calling their movement what it is will go a long way towards accelerating it’s end, in my view…and also helping make it less and ultimately non-violent.

2. Acknowledge that this is not only about Islam and is truly global/multi-national. Violent Islamic fundamentalists are certainly creating massive problems worldwide, but the problems extend beyond Islam. In my (our) lifetime the forces of religious fundamentalism have risen dramatically across the globe in reaction to the forces of globalization, westernization and modernity….and many outside Islam are also perpetrating violence in the name of their God. Broadening the focus beyond Islam will, I think, help address it more quickly in Islam also…as it will remove the ego and pride barrier created by the perceptions of denouncing an entire (and majorly important and large) religion.

Tags india and pakistan, islam, mumbai attacks, terrorists, war on terror | Comment (0)

Public Policy World World Affairs

A New Focus for American Foreign Policy: Human Rights

October 24, 2008 – 10:40 pm

One of the fatal flaws of the Bush approach/policy framework that I would love to see Barack Obama change…is this idea that it is America’s job to spread Democracy around the world. As a student of Democracy and child of the largest Democracy in the world (India), I do believe in and love Democracy. However, just like Capitalism….Democracy, too, is a flawed, chaotic, and imperfect system and I just don’t think it’s America’s job to tell other countries what political system is best for them.

In fact from a purely theoretical standpoint, I believe a ‘benevolent autocracy’ is likely the best political system to help efficiently/quickly advance a society economically and socially. The only issue is, those benevolent/enlightened autocrats are really difficult (virtually impossible) to come by….and power corrupts, so this too is a slippery slope.

In any event, to get back to the original point of this blog….I believe America needs to officially change this stated policy of spreading Democracy….and focus primarily on spreading/ensuring basic human rights for every human being. Even if you disagree with my point on Democracy….I think most should agree safety comes before politics…and the problems the people of the world face in so many countries (including the Middle East) are still about safety.

Let’s work on the basics, and get to politics later.

Tags democracy, foreign policy, international affairs, middle east, obama, Politics | Comment (0)

Life Politics World Affairs

Rascist slurs at McCain/Palin rallies should be denounced by candidates and party

October 21, 2008 – 10:45 pm

I was trying last night to have a mellow evening at home after a full day of work. The full day of work was quite an experience after spending 3 blissful months ‘Exploring my Zen’ (as I like to call it) following the collapse of Indymac during the Summer. So here I was…cuddling with my 2 freshly bathed (and good smelling) Great Dane’s Lara and Tank…watching TV. But what I saw on CNN shocked me.

It looked (from the multiple clips they showed) like many people (definitely way more than a handful) at Palin/McCain rallies were screaming rascist comments and the crowd was supporting them. This included statements like “Obama bin Ladin”, “Mohammed Husein Obama”, “Them Commies”…etc.

Could this really be going on in America, without bipartisan public denunciation? As I recall, McCain actually defended the people attending their rallies during the final presidential debate. Is this new, or do these conversations go on in this rough tone more regularly? I sure hope I see McCain or Palin step up and call this nastiness what it is – unacceptable in America.

On a broader note: We take things like equal protection under the law and non-discrimination so much for granted at least all the places I’ve lived in America which includes Universities (New Jersey), Cities (Los Angeles, Chicago), Companies (McKinsey, Indymac, and many Fortune 1000 clients served while at McKinsey), or just plain walking around (anywhere….from San Francisco to Michigan to Oregon to Dallas to Seattle to Arizona…the list goes on).

But none of these “now so obvious” modern principles of equality so clearly embodied in the US constitution came naturally to Americans, or really to most societies around the world. They (for the most part) had to be inflicted on the majority by the righteous/enlightened minority or the founders of the modern day states.

Tags discrimination, mccain, palin, Politics, presidential race | Comment (1)

Education Life Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Fighting and debating the wrong “war”

March 30, 2007 – 10:49 pm

I find myself quite uncomfortable with the near consensus I see in America today (as reflected in the media and recent policy coming out of the House and Senate) on the belief that “the war” on terror is going poorly, and the answer to this problem is for America and the world to pull out and leave the Middle East to solve it’s own civil and societal issues.

My two main contentions/concerns are as follows:

1. I feel everyone is missing the forest (the real war), as they are focused on the trees (Iraq, and sometimes Afghanistan). The war, and I do believe, we are in the midst of “the third world war” is much broader than just the conflicts in these 2 countries….and I fear “pulling out” of Iraq, may reflect a broader pull back on any sustained attack or defence against the root cause of the war….which I believe is largely, if not fully, unaddressed today (more than 5 years after 9/11).

2. The real war we have is not a physical war at all. It is a virtual or mental war….a war of beliefs and values (largely Islamic beliefs and values on key issues, but broadly religious fundamentalism and the violation of basic human rights using religious beliefs/edicts as a justification).

This real war is the ultimate untraditional war. Yet, the world has largely responded to it with traditional tactics….i.e., physical attack and defence. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent already, on physical conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine what this money could achieve if appropriately redirected into fighting the real war….the war of beliefs.

I think it’s time to take a step back, somehow firmly but fairly extricate ourselves out of Iraq over time (I know this in itself is a huge issue, but I’ll leave my thoughts on Iraq specifically for a separate discussion. I will say I think it’s key despite all the past mistakes….to leave Iraq a much better and more peaceful place than it was and is), redefine and understand the real war against terror, and get cracking using more “untraditional” means such as economic policy, incentives, education, TV and the internet, opportunity and basic common sense and logic….to help the muslim world adopt a more moderate version of their religion (as has happened with other religions, including Christianity over the past few hundred years).

It won’t be easy for people to ignore the actual words from the Quran that are used by some to justify killing, discrimination against women, and other inhumane and backward practises….but this is religion….and muslims must adopt moderating changes themselves after debate and discussion….if they are to retain their pride….which is paramount when you are talking about religion and culture.

Tags Education, george bush, iraq, middle east, obama, Politics, Public Policy, war on terror | Comment (0)

Education Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

How the middle east will be liberated

May 13, 2006 – 10:53 pm

Ultimately, I believe true ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’ for the oppressed in the middle east (those that are denied opportunity and freedom….particularly youth, women and children) will have to be achieved by the people in the middle east for themselves.

Perhaps I am biased, being Indian (given our history of achieving freedom from the British through struggle). This freedom will be achieved on the ground over time with education, knowledge and a taste for how it feels to be able to determine one’s own future. Check out this great article from last week’s Wall Street Journal. To me, the media is the most important tool in helping bring information to people….so their own minds and hearts are changed. We should be spending billions on this….not mere millions. Look what TV, knowledge/information and opportunity have done for post-liberation India!!
Lastly, to clarify, I am talking about true internal change….not just a change in the broad, high level framework of government (which the US has facilitated in places like Iraq). The high level framework too is important…but not nearly enough in an of itself.Liberty TV

By KENNETH Y. TOMLINSON
May 6, 2006; Page A8

In recent weeks, we’ve heard a great deal in Washington about how we ought to be broadcasting to Iran. But it might be instructive to examine what U.S. international broadcasting is already doing.

Very recently, on a Persian-language satellite television broadcast from the United States, the people of Iran learned that Iran’s oldest and largest student organization, Tahkim Vahdat, urged the government to suspend uranium enrichment and to cooperate with the international community by restricting nuclear development to peaceful uses. The group called the government’s behavior “irrational and confrontational.” Needless to say none of this appeared in Iran’s government-controlled media; few rulers on earth exercise the degree of censorship enforced by the Iranian government.

Another program featured the story of Hossein Derakhshan, once jailed in Iran for starting an Internet blog. Upon his release, he managed to get to Canada where he now runs the most popular blog — in Iran.

Or consider this exchange that occurred on our nightly Persian-language news and current affairs program on the Voice of America.

Moderator, Ms. Setareh Derakshesh: “Our guests today are Mr. Bijan Kian, a businessman associated with the American Council on Foreign Relations, and Dr. Abbas Maleki of Sharif University in Tehran, who is currently a Harvard Research Fellow in the United States. Dr. Maleki, how do you see the possibility of direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran on Iran’s nuclear policies?”

Dr. Maleki: “From the beginning, direct talks have been part of Iran’s agenda. From Iran’s point of view, the nuclear issue is not a real problem. This is part of the overall process of development which is going on in all parts of our society, like nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT and so on . . .”

Mr. Kian: “It is amazing to hear about such claims as progress in nanotechnology in a country where there is widespread unemployment, poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, so many women’s issues and, finally, political repression and coercion. The real dispute is not between our two countries. It is between the Iranian people and the government of the Islamic Republic . . .”

Dr. Maleki: “Well! Using polemic language and slogans talking about political coercion is very easy. Even in the U.S., that technologically speaking is the most advanced country in the world, you still have poverty everywhere, unemployment and so on. Tehran is so much cleaner than New York. You can go and check the trash-ridden streets of New York. Go and have a look at poor people there. . . . Just look at the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and now this atmosphere of war the U.S. government is creating about Iran . . .”

Ms. Derakshesh: “Dr. Maleki: The majority of the people in Iran live under the poverty line — and Iran’s prisons are filled with political prisoners . . .”

Dr. Maleki: “Excuse me! You are the moderator yet you are passing a wild judgment.”

Ms. Derakshesh: “This is not my personal opinion, sir . . .”

Dr. Maleki: “Whose facts are these, where did you get them — that there are political prisoners in Iran?”

Ms. Derakshesh: “These are facts reported by credible international human rights organizations.”

Mr. Kian: “Whenever we talk about what is really going on in Iran, what we say will be branded as slogans by supporters by the regime. I have to emphasize that the American government is not in favor of war with Iran. Just look at what has been said by President Bush and his secretary of state.”

* * *
In VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the U.S. has a model illustrating how broadcasting news and information (i.e., the truth) can lead to the liberation of a people.

That certainly occurred in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Recognizing that fact, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors moved to increase television and radio to Iran long before the current crisis in that country. In early 2003 we launched Farda, a round-the-clock, youth-oriented radio service to Iran. A few months later we began broadcasting daily Persian news and current affairs satellite television.

The television launch may have been modest — $1.9 million for 30 minutes daily with repeats. But we have come to recognize that satellite television is to the future what shortwave radio was to the past.

That daily program today is an hour (with repeats), and by September, thanks to better than $9 million from the Bush administration and Congress, we will be broadcasting four original television hours — with news, debates and call-in shows — daily. Funds in a supplemental now before Congress could increase these broadcasts even more — and strengthen our coverage.

Small satellite dishes are proliferating in Iran and there are strong indications that VOA’s nightly programming is becoming a staple for large numbers of Iranians. Telephone polling (which tends to undercount audiences living under repressive regimes) show that better than one-in-five adult television viewers say they regularly watch VOA’s satellite television programs.

As was the case with RFE/RL and VOA in the Cold War, it is important that our broadcasts are provocative — and credible. Intense journalistic supervision is critical to achieving this goal. Truth does not lie half way between the views of Washington and Tehran. But talk and debate programs give Iranians a taste of freedom — and enlightenment.

Ultimately, the future of Iran rests with the people of Iran. Just as in the Cold War when the people ultimately prevailed over their oppressors, it will be the people of Iran who will deliver their country from the tyrants who rule them now. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we can give them the tools — information the mullahs don’t want them to hear and debate challenging the lies of mullah-sympathizers — and the people of Iran can finish the job.

Mr. Tomlinson is chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees U.S. international broadcasting.

Tags culture, freedom, media, middle east, Politics, Public Policy, World Affairs | Comment (0)

Business World World Affairs

GM, France and Albany

April 8, 2006 – 10:54 pm

I couldn’t agree more with the conclusions and similarities this article from today’s Wall Street Journal draws about unions. If organizations can’t fire easily, they definitely don’t hire easily. Did you know that Michigan had the lowest rate of home price appreciation of all 50 US states last year? This theme also rings true in the Indian context….labor reform is key to a vibrant future India. I, personally, have observed the impact of unions on 2 of my former clients. At a mining client, we had a really tough time implementing pay for performance on the front line…as unions are generally anti performance based differentiation (which I’m definitely for!). At a hospital client, I saw how expenses grew uncontrollably due to unions…forcing prices up and/or profits down (usually into the red).

Here’s the article:

At first glance, they seem to have little in common. But the riots in France over labor reform, the slow-motion suicide of General Motors, and the continuing decline of the New York economy all share one defining trait: entrenched and unchangeable union power.

These columns have always favored the right to collectively bargain, and any private company that allows a union to organize its workers deserves what it gets. But that doesn’t mean we should fail to appreciate the consequences when unions become entrenched inside any organization. On the evidence throughout business and politics today, unions do not provide individual job or income security. On the contrary, they undermine security by contributing to broader business and economic decline.

At the national level, the French example is clear enough. While the French private sector is less unionized than America’s, it must cope with mandated work rules that make it all but impossible to fire someone; so naturally companies are also reluctant to hire. The jobless rate is double America’s, while youth unemployment is 23%. More significant is that the political clout of public-sector unions has blocked all but minor changes in these rules. Public-sector workers account for more than a quarter of the entire French work force (6.4 million of out 24.6 million), and their salaries and pensions made up 45% of the entire state budget as recently as 2003.

Is General Motors Unraveling? The current French protests are in response to a modest change that would allow employers to fire people under age 26 more easily. So entrenched has the politics of union entitlement become in France that even at the onset of their careers these young protesters are demanding security over opportunity. In the global economy, this means they will end up with less of both.

France remains a wealthy country, and its economic decline can be masked for a time as it lives off accumulated capital. But already the promises that its unions have extracted from the government seem unlikely to be kept. A growth rate of between 1% and 2% a year won’t be enough to finance the pensions and health care of an aging nation. And facing up to those facts will require an increasingly painful political reckoning.

* * *
Here in the U.S., the same burden is slowly crippling New York, once a bulwark of American industry. Power in the state capital of Albany is shared by Republicans and Democrats. But both parties bow before the public-sector unions, especially the teachers, and the health-care workers led by perhaps the most powerful man in the state, Dennis Rivera.

Thanks to his political clout, New York’s Medicaid costs are higher than those of Texas and Florida combined; a health-care insurance premium for a young family of four is roughly six times what it is across the border in Connecticut; and high-deductible health-savings accounts that can help the self-employed afford insurance can’t even be offered in the state. New York is also a rare state that actually taxes private health insurance, to the tune of about $2.4 billion a year.

Another union-driven business cost is workers’ compensation, and in New York the average cost per claim is second highest in the nation (after Louisiana) and 72% higher than the national average. Governor George Pataki has proposed a reform that would lower costs while actually raising the average payout for the truly disabled, but he’s run up against a French-like union roadblock in the legislature.

Thanks to immigration, as well as America’s continuing advantage in financial services, New York City has so far been able to avoid another fiscal collapse of the kind it had in the 1970s. But upstate is a different story, with jobs and young people fleeing to better business climes. New York manufacturing employment fell by 41% between 1990 and 2005, or double the national rate.

Even Eliot Spitzer recently referred to upstate New York as “Appalachia.” Alas, the Attorney General shows no sign of understanding that the heart of the problem lies in Albany. One reason he hasn’t pursued the state’s rampant Medicaid fraud with any vigor is because it would get him crosswise with Mr. Rivera.

As for GM, its management mistakes are legion and its weak product line well-known. But the root of its problem is that it long ago became a corporate version of the welfare state, with the same entrenched union interests. Yes, as a private company it has had to answer to shareholders. But the size of its market dominance going back to its heyday 40 years ago allowed its managers to avoid confronting its uncompetitive wages, benefits and work rules even as they saw Toyota and Honda gaining in the rearview mirror.

In retrospect, GM management should have provoked a union showdown. Yet only a very brave CEO would have been willing to risk a potentially catastrophic strike on his watch for the sake of making the company more competitive after he retired. In any case, would the United Auto Workers really have budged? In 1998, young executive and future CEO Rick Wagoner endured a 54-day UAW wildcat strike at two plants in Flint, Michigan, after GM had tried to change some production rules. The strike shut down most GM production in North America and cost the company some $2 billion. In the end GM caved and the UAW escaped, having made virtually no concessions.

Even now at auto-parts maker Delphi — which is already in Chapter 11 — the UAW is declaring it will take a strike that could destroy both Delphi and GM rather than agree to Delphi’s proposed job cuts and work changes. As in France and New York, these union leaders would rather sink the company than make concessions that would reduce their own power.

This pattern has repeated itself again and again — in the steel and textile industries attacked by foreign competition, or the unionized grocery chains routed by Wal-Mart. The union answer has rarely been to work with a company to allow more job flexibility to become more competitive. The answer has typically been to seek a ruinous strike or lobby for political intervention that might stave off disaster for at best a few more years.

We recount all this because, even amid GM’s decline and France’s economic turmoil, most of America’s liberal elites refuse to draw the right lesson. They cling to the belief that if only the Democrats can retake Congress, or the union movement can once again organize more of the American labor force, the old economy of union-backed job security and egalité will return. Or, worse, they propose seceding from global competition via protectionism. It is all a delusion. Down that road lies France — a nice place to vacation, but you wouldn’t want to work there.

Tags Business, capitalism, labor laws, publis policy, unions | Comment (0)

Business Life People World Affairs

Money Buys Happiness?

December 10, 2005 – 10:57 pm

The role of money in creating or facilitating happiness is a subject of great interest to me. I find every individual has their own unique relationship with money. Here are some fascinating excerpts from a recent Wall Street Journal article on this topic:

“During the holidays, we will give thanks for the important things in our lives. For most people, money is not one of these things — at least this is what we would like others to think. We are after all constantly reminding each other that “money doesn’t buy happiness.” Economists aren’t so sure.

They note that people with a lot of money tend to express a higher subjective happiness than people with very little. According data from surveys by the National Opinion Research Center, for example, people in the top fifth of income earners are about 50% more likely to say they are “very happy” than people in the bottom fifth, and only about half as likely to say they are “not too happy.”

There is, however, generally very little change in the average level of happiness in populations getting richer over the years. For instance, the percentage of the U.S. population saying it was “very happy” in 1972 was exactly the same as it was in 2002: 30.3%. Social critics of “consumerism” explain this by claiming that what makes rich people happy is not money per se, but rather the fact that they have more of it than others — so if everybody gets richer, happiness remains unchanged.

…beyond earning, taxing and spending, there is an even clearer link between money and happiness: charity. The evidence is unambiguous that donating money (and time) is one of the best ways to buy happiness. People who donate to charity are 40% more likely to say they are “very happy” than non-donors. Psychologists have even tested whether charity makes people happy using randomized, controlled experiments — the same procedure used for testing pharmaceuticals, except that, instead of administering a drug to one group and a placebo to the other, researchers randomly assign one group to act charitably toward another. The results are clear: Givers of charity earn substantial mental and physical health rewards, even more than do the recipients of charity — empirical evidence that it is indeed more blessed to give than to receive.

The bottom line is that the old axiom about money and happiness, properly understood, is quite wrong.”

(Mr. Brooks (the author) is an associate professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Affairs)

So what do I think? When I was younger, I focused more on the negatives of money….and tended to notice when rich people were also unhappy. Over the years, after many courses on economics taught by compelling ‘free marketers’, after seeing the enormous positive impact economic liberalization has had on the India I am familiar with, and after getting practical experience making and spending it – I’ve come to view money as a powerful facilitator and enabler…and financial independence as a critical positive step in everyone’s life.

I’m getting ready to write some checks for my favorite charities before year end. It’s that time of year. Act now to get that tax break in the 2005 tax year….it can only help the way you feel.

Tags culture, happiness, money, personal finance | Comment (0)

Business Life People Politics Public Policy Real Estate World World Affairs

If you don’t know it, you can’t fix it? Unsexy but critical: Data/Metrics

November 15, 2005 – 10:58 pm

I was reading an article about the french riots and the core liberal philosophy underlying french society and government. The french believe (rightly) that all people are equal and that race, color, ethnicity shouldn’t matter. As a result, they don’t measure any of their social outcomes by race, color or ethnicity.

No data on whether there are particular ethnic or racial segments of society that are having major problems? No way to fix these problems. If you’ve read the papers at all in the last few weeks, you know what I’m talking about.

Not sexy, but true (to me anyways). You achieve what you articulate and focus on. You fix problems you see. You improve metrics you measure and report regularly.

So why the hell is this the subject of a blog? Well, I’m not sure this is going to be a crowd-puller, but I was reading an article my boss sent me from the Wall Street Journal and I’m feeling validated (enough to share anyways!). The article is about Michael Walker, founder of the Fraser institute in Canada. A few snippets from the article which I totally agree with:

“A debate about government policy isn’t likely to be settled around values. But when there is objective measurement, resolution emerges”

“The dirty little secret of Canada’s single payer health system: that care is rationed through time rather than price”

“I firmly believe that you become what you think about, and that is as true for countries as it is for individuals”

Tags Business, data management, economics, measurement, Public Policy | Comment (0)

Business Real Estate World Affairs

Bullish in Baghdad?

October 24, 2005 – 11:00 pm

“A five-bedroom river-view house sold three years ago for $45,000. Two years ago it sold for $80,000. It sold a third time in August for $300,000. Who would have guessed it was in Baghdad? The place is a disaster, and keeps getting worse. Despite the violence, property values have increased close to 1,000% in the past three years in parts of town. Go figure.”

I was struck by the above quote (and information)in a real estate newsletter I recently received.

Besides providing a fascinating peek into an Iraq dynamic I wasn’t aware of, this quote brought to my mind an issue that is popping up more and more for me.

Where does one go for the real story nowadays? The world is globalizing…but the media seems incapable of providing a balanced view of ‘reality’. Is it time for a brand new non-profit, non-political, non-partisan global news organization?

Tags communication, home prices, information access, iraq, media, public affairs, real estate | Comment (0)

Business Education Public Policy World World Affairs

Knowledge Creation

October 20, 2005 – 11:01 pm

I just received my latest edition of the McKinsey Quarterly, a pretty interesting business journal mailed regularly to me by my former employer. I get about 6 a year, which I loyally place on a bookshelf at home for future knowledge seeking moments. But this one caught my attention: Fulfilling India’s Promise.

The various articles analyze (and offer a ton of facts about) many business/economic aspects of India: the view of foreign and indian executives, the indian consumer, marketing to the masses, when to make india a manufacturing base, india’s offshoring future, reforming india’s financial system, securing india’s energy needs, an interview with manmohan singh (the prime minister) on india’s economic agenda. the recommendations in the aggregate could transform the economy i.e., the lives of the population!

The sheer power of the knowledge creation I was witnessing amazed me. Echoing Gotham’s recent optimistic post, although problems do sometimes seem to abound, there are some things that are amazing about what’s going on in this new, developing, evolving world of ours!

Tags Business, content, knowledge creation, mckinsey | Comment (0)

Life People Politics Public Policy World World Affairs

Fitting yourself into a neat box: The problem with bundling opinions

September 21, 2005 – 11:03 pm

Some on this blog have complained about the use of labels to denote ‘bundles of opinions’. Liberal. Conservative. Democrat. Republican. Gay. Straight. Pro or Anti-Hindu. These complaints struck a cord with some of the feelings I have on this issue. Why do we need someone else…a political party, a social group etc to tell us which opinions and views ‘belong together’?

I have a practical answer to this question: most people don’t have or want to take the time to think through how they really feel about each issue that is important to our society, particularly if their own life is ‘OK’ in that particular area. So, they align broadly with a group or party…and vote based on this broad choice, thinking most of the time they will vote ‘right’ (i.e., consistent with a more thought through personal choice on any particular topic).

This practical consideration, however, doesn’t make me feel better about the choices available, as I believe they significantly (and potentially adversely) impact legislation ‘on the margin’ (i.e., active legislation today).

A few examples:

1. Why does a pro-free trade stance belong with an anti-gay rights stance? Trade doesn’t have much to do with religion.
2. Why can’t you be pro-teacher and pro meritocracy and pay-for-performance in education (charter schools in America)?
3. Why can’t you be pro-Hindu (one of the greatest, and most flexible religions in the world!) without being anti-Muslim?
4. Why can’t you be pro-business and pro-gay rights or pro-choice? Who do you vote for if this is the case?

I think it’s time we started voting for issues, not parties!!

Tags parties, partisanship, Politics, public affairs, voting | Comment (0)

rayman mathoda