It's sometimes easy to get lost in the cloud of discontent and feelings that things aren't going according to plan.
Those are the times, that I think it is imperative that one find's inspiration in little things like the ability of sunflowers to brighten any patch of ground on a rainy day. Or, the ability of some individuals to give without question.
I came across this story over the weekend - and it puts things into perspective. I am sharing this story, as sometimes its nice to be reminded of our privileged lives and how inconsequential what we probably all fret about is in the big scheme of things.
The spirit of giving.
Several years ago a thirteen-year old boy who attended Mohawk Central School in New York heard an appeal for contributions to Santa Claus Anonymous, a group that provides gifts for unfortunate children that otherwise would go without Christmas presents.
The boy struggled to save a few pennies for this purpose. On the Friday before Christmas vacation he had fifteen cents and planned to turn in this small treasure at the school that day. But a furious blizzard blasted the area that Friday and the school buses could not run.
So the boy waded a considerable distance through the deep snow to give his fifteen cents to the school principal. The principal found it difficult to control his emotions as he accepted the gift, for the youngster was one of the destitute children listed to receive a Christmas present from Santa Claus Anonymous.
Now that is the generousity of spirit and the only question that remains to be asked - how can you be generous today? How about starting with a kind word...
And here is a song about "Little Things" by the very gifted Artist, India Arie,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvD6qyNxVAI&mode=related&search=
The contagion that is the credit crunch continues, and begins to impact others, such as MGM and throws KKR's planned IPO into question. See stories below & listen to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35tPLijkhDQ - describes my sentiments on the current economic situation.
Sharp sell off continues on European markets
European stock suffered further sharp falls at the open after continuing worries about the health of financial companies led to heavy falls in Asia and and a late sell-off in the US.
Leading indices across the region lost hundreds of points in heavy selling, with financial stocks once more at the forefront of the continued flight from risk.
London’s FTSE 100 fell under the 6,000 mark for the first time since October, losing 122 points to 5,986.7 a decline of 2 per cent. That took the index 241 points from the level at which it started trading in 2007.
The Xetra Dax 30 in Frankfurt fell 1.8 per cent to 7,312.9, a loss of 134 points and Paris’s CAC 40 was 1.9 per cent weaker at 5,339.6, a loss of 103 points. Overall, the continent’s FTSE Eurofirst 300 was 1.8 per cent lower at 1,464.5.
The downbeat showing followed heavy losses in Asia where financial companies led the fallers amid persistent worries about their exposure to losses related to the subprime mortgage sector in the US.
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial, Japan’s largest lender fell 3.7 per cent in morning trade, while in Australia investment banks Babcock & Brown, Commonwealth Bank of Australia and National Australia Bank all fell more than 5 per cent.
Rams Home Loan, the Australian mortgage lender which on Wednesday warned profits would fall this year because of the turmoil in the credit markets, plunged nearly 60 per cent.
The falls in Asia came after another sharp sell-off in the last few hours of the trading session in New York which left the financial sector bruised as concerns about the health of the US economy grew and calls for the Federal Reserve to intervene with an emergency rate cut grew louder.
The losses among financial stocks pushed the benchmark Nikkei 225 in Tokyo below the 16,000 level and it is poised for its lowest close in 10 months.
The falls in Asia followed heavy losses on Wall Street. Shares in Countrywide closed down 13 per cent after Merrill Lynch raised the prospect of the biggest mortgage lender in the US going out of business if short-term lending rates continued to rise. Countrywide shares are now down more than 50 per cent since the start of the year.
Fortress Investment Group, the hedge fund manager, dropped 8.6 per cent to $17.56, below its intial public offer price of $18.50. The drop followed a fall of 6.6 per cent on Tuesday.
KKR Financial was down more than 30 per cent at one point. The affiliate of the leveraged buy-out firm said it would lose about $40m on a $5.1bn sale of residential mortgages and warned that an additional $200m loss could be in the pipeline.
Financing problems in the vast commercial paper market this week have raised fears among investors that the funding for financial institutions and companies is faltering.
The mounting concerns about the state of the credit market sent the S&P 500 into negative territory for the year. The index closed 1.4 per cent down at 1,406.70. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 167.45 points at 12,8641.47.
In the UK too mortgage lenders were under pressure on Wednesday. Northern Rock, which relies particulaly heavily on the wholesale money market for financing, fell more than 5 per cent.
The yen continued its recovery against the dollar. The Japanese currency rose 0.89 Y0.89 on Wednesday’s close of Y116.80.
US Treasuries also benefited from the increasing aversion to risk. By lunchtime in Asia the yield on the 10-year bond had been pushed down to 4.675 per cent, and the two-year yield was 4.237 per cent, its lowest level for nearly two years.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Credit crunch hits $1bn MGM finance plan
The credit crunch shaking world markets has hit Hollywood after Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, which were trying to raise up to $1bn to finance films for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, withdrew their commitment to underwrite the deal. Bringing in private equity, hedge fund and institutional investors to fund “slates” of several films has become a popular way for Hollywood studios to spread the risk attached to production.
But with credit markets tightening, the attempt by the banks to raise $700m-$1bn for MGM productions and co-productions has been blown off-course, according to people close to the situation.
The financing would have provided funds for films including The Hobbit, an MGM co-production with New Line Entertainment, and the fourth instalment in the Terminator franchise. It is also likely that funds would have gone towards the next James Bond film, an MGM co-production with Sony.
Goldman declined to comment and Deutsche did not return calls. The financing has not been abandoned, however, with the banks believed to have moved from an underwriting commitment to a “best efforts” commitment to complete the financing.
But the underwriting withdrawal amid a broader credit crunch means the deal will be delayed. It is unclear when it will be revived.
MGM also declined to comment. However, the studio is understood to be relaxed about the delay because none of the films in line to receive funds from the financing is due to start production imminently.
MGM was sold to Texas Pacific Group, Providence Equity Partners, Sony and Comcast in 2004. The four shareholders bought the studio and its 4,000-title library from Kirk Kerkorian for $4.8bn.
Since the sale, MGM, under CEO Harry Sloan, has moved to a new business model, streamlining its operations and beefing up its distribution business, where it has deals with independent producers including The Weinstein Company. Mr Sloan has also revived the United Artists studio label, which is controlled by MGM, bringing in Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner, the film star’s production partner, to run the division. UA is close to securing $500m financing for its production slate. The deal is being arranged by Merrill Lynch.
Meanwhile, MGM is keen to boost its film library by producing a limited number of “tent-pole” movies each year. With the average cost of a Hollywood film close to $100m, the studio is keen to tap other sources for production funds.
Other studios, such as Warner Bros Entertainment and 20th Century Fox, have raised funds from private equity and hedge fund investors. More than $12bn has been committed to film financing projects in the last year, with investors attracted by deals that allow them to share in the success of films that perform well at the box office.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Mortgage loss puts KKR IPO in doubt
James Politi in New York and Peter Thal Larsen and David Oakley in London, FT
Published: August 15 2007 20:02 | Last updated: August 15 2007 20:02
A unit of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, the powerful US private equity group, became the latest victim of the mortgage crisis on Wednesday, casting a cloud over its plans to raise $1.25bn in an initial public offering.
KKR Financial, which was floated two years ago to raise money from stock market investors for so-called mezzanine debt deals, said it was forced to sell $5.1bn in residential mortgages for a loss of $40m.
The San Francisco-based unit also warned it could lose up to $250m due to its remaining portfolio of residential mortgage-backed securities, worth $5.8bn.
KKR Financial said this was due to its inability to fund the mortgage loans by issuing asset-backed commercial paper. It was talking with investors about alternatives because of “unprecedented disruption in the residential mortgage and global commercial paper markets”.
The news sent shares in KKR Financial tumbling 24 per cent to $11.59, a far cry from their peak of $29.47 in February. At one point they fell as low as $9.59.
European bank shares also came under renewed pressure amid continuing fears among investors about subprime mortgage losses and a lack of liquidity in the commercial paper market.
When it founded KKR Financial in 2004, KKR chose to structure it as a real estate investment trust for tax purposes. This meant that at least 75 per cent of its gross income had to be generated by property investments.
KKR Financial switched its structure to a partnership this year, allowing it to divest its real estate portfolios.
The woes at KKR Financial could prove damaging to KKR’s prospects for a successful stock market listing later this year if it undermines its credibility.
This week, KKR had already been forced to acknowledge its returns could be hit by the meltdown in the credit markets by pushing up the cost of financing its trademark large leveraged buy-outs.
KKR on Wednesday declined to comment on the impact of the KKR Financial announcement on its IPO plans.
Since announcing its plans for a stock market listing on July 3, KKR has watched with concern the poor share performance in Blackstone, its arch-rival, which began trading on the New York Stock Exchange in late June.
Blackstone shares were down 1.3 per cent to $24.26 by noon on Wednesday, after floating at $31.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Came across this interesting article on LinkedIn which I have a feeling is now the fashionable thing to do. I joined LinkedIn quite a few years ago and aside from the initial extention of invitations - it never caught my fancy.
In theory, it should have as I quite like to be social & connected. However, I just found that I tended to receive more invites then I sent, and on the whole was a little too busy to accept links. A very poor state of affairs.
However, I had to concur with the opinions written in this article - what is the point of 500 or more connections? I guess, my personal opinion was influenced by working for a short period with an individual who spent most of her time meeting, chatting, breakfasting, coffeeing (is there such a word?!), suppering and schmoozing with every Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally and Anna. She is probably one of the best and most networked individuals that I know and also the busiest person that I know. The two seemed to be highly correlated. I guess, I am just a lazy person or perhaps, I just value my time more. But, for the life of me, watching her in action, I just could not figure out what the point of this rather excessive networking?
There has to be a point to being networked or LinkedIn to someone - doesn't there. In other words, in order for someone to make it into my network (physical or virtual), I need to genuinely like the person, or am impressed by what they do or have a common interest in say, media, venture capital or private equity. But, to spend valuable time, just to inflate one's database of connections with random people. I don't know...seems to be a very strange, strange way to spend one's time.
Of course, I might be all wrong about all this. And, LinkedIn is the future and the only way to be successful. In which case, I guess I am stuffed. Read the article below and make up your own mind.
And as for me, I am going to go back on this Sun morning to listening to Coldplay! Listening to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8trwjzJMEk
LinkedIn & The Games Behind Modern Adult Social Networking, DMW, August 3rd 2007
Recently speaking to a colleague who had invited me to join his LinkedIn network, I found myself in summer camp again, when merit badges and sailing awards were the coveted prizes. “I have over 500 connections,” he proudly puffed. “How about you?” Embarrassed by my frail figure (you’ll have to join my network to see how pathetic I am) I provided the rationale, that being my tendency to receive invitations rather than extend them. My colleague said “What an idiot” with his silent response and change of subject. I felt withered and inferior. Having 500 connections on LinkedIn is the new cool. Soon it will be double that size, and not long from now having 10,000 connections will be the norm. But when I lost sleep that night thinking about my anorexic LinkedIn profile, I finally found peace when I decided that it isn’t the size of your network that matters, it’s the quality. Ho ho.
But if only that was true!
Have you ever received a LinkedIn invitation you were utterly puzzled by? One of my connections comes from someone with whom our brief email dialogue resulted in a shun; one of those “We have no further need for contact,” non-email emails, when a very simple and important question goes entirely ignored. I thought I would never hear from this person again, only to receive an invitation to their LinkedIn network several months later. This brings up a point:
Are you sending invitations to everyone in your email address book, or do you carefully consider each invitation?
No answer is wrong here. Social networks like Facebook are, after all, replacing email accounts for tweens, so why couldn’t it be the same for LinkedIn?
Some might view each invitation and connection as a special one, someone with whom you now share an important bond. You are linked forever. You’ve joined their family!
Others, like the colleague I surprisingly got an invite from, probably see LinkedIn through cold, distant eyes. “You’re in my address book,” they seem to say, “so now I’ll put you in my LinkedIn network as well.” They keep it simple and “professional.” No looking each other in the eyes, no kissing. This is business!
But which one are you dealing with? The first person – the one who looks after their LinkedIn account like a child – seems open to a more valuable relationship. They’re like your new aunt or uncle, the one you can ask anything. But the second person – the one who just sends invites because they’re either trying to keep up with the competition or because they’re sending invites to anyone in their address book – is like the plumber you get a Christmas card from, yet undoubtedly is not your friend.
How do you know which is which? And does it even matter?
Which brings up another point:
Why are we using LinkedIn to begin with?
The answer is different for everyone I suppose. I can’t say I’ve directly realized the benefit, aside from the fact it provides a justifiable and occasionally interesting way to kill time. It’s also nice to see what old classmates are up to, etc.
And it must be valuable for job-seekers and employers, too. That makes sense.
One question I find myself asking a lot, however: Where’s the benefit for someone with 500 connections? That seems like an awful lot to manage. I also think having too many connections either makes you highly approachable, or completely unapproachable. For instance, someone with that many connections has clearly taken to LinkedIn and given it quite a bit of his or her time. Does that mean, for example, they’re more open to doling out recommendations, one of the tools LinkedIn says will make you “three times as likely to be found in searches?” Or will they treat you like the unimportant connection you really are?
I don’t have an answer here: I’ve never sought a recommendation because, for the time being, I’m not sure it’s important to me to be three times more likely to be found in searches.
On the other hand…
The more connections you have, the more opportunities for connections you will have in the future.
And that’s the point of LinkedIn: to make connections. I’ve heard gaming experts say that social networking is just a game in and of itself, the object being to add friends in a contest for which popularity is at stake.
You have to hand it to LinkedIn: They’ve managed to create the exact same game under the guise of a setting in which popularity is not the issue. This has allowed people like my colleague who showed off his 500 connections like a new Porsche to feel safe gloating. He’s no child playing a popularity game! No! He’s a professional acting like a professional, adding valuable connections that will make him a more professional professional!
That said we can’t forget to mention:
The “I Couldn’t Care Less About the Games Being Played” Crowd...
LinkedIn, for people who have important things to do in their life, for people who already find balancing family and work difficult enough, for people who thought merit badges and sailing awards were stupid, even when they were 12, is just an organizational tool. Nothing more.
How do we identify these people? Hard to say. But they’re probably the most valuable people to be connected to. They’re the heads of companies or they’re the bosses of heads of companies. Their networks are huge, but still under 500 because they’re too busy to have created a network so large, and their networks are made up of other people like them.
Their profiles are pretty thin because they don’t have much time.
They more often receive invitations than send them.
And if you do receive an invitation from one, you’re likely the head of a company or the boss of a head of company. Or you work for them.
So what exactly is the point of Adult Social Networks if not a form of entertainment?
I still think the jury’s out on this one. For now we’re still in the early stages; people are building their networks (or choosing not to and instead waiting for invitations). There’s clearly some good information being made openly available and in an organized format.
But what’s the point? Are people finding that their careers and personal lives have improved? Are employers finding higher quality people more easily? Are job-seekers making contacts that lead to better positions? Sure, these are the outspoken intentions of adult social networks, but are they the point?
Or are we still 12-year-old campers showing off our trophies to each other, making “connections” for what amounts to nothing more than a casual game?
Scott Goldberg
Dedicated to a friend who always brings clarity to any situation by asking - "do you know?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzH83zV9C0g&mode=related&search=
