Earlier today, I wrote : I read something Neil Gaiman wrote a couple of days ago about writers. He said that anyone can start, but real writers actually finish. By that metric, I'm currently not a real writer. I misread the source, and used the wrong word there. It's actually "professional writer" and not "real writer." There's a huge difference between "not real" and "not professional." Anyone who is passionate and creative can be a "real" writer, whether they are "professional" or not. By my own metric, I'm not meeting my personal creative expectations right now, and that paragraph in my post was more about how I have all these zombie creations all over the place that have been started and abandoned, not because I don't want to bring them fully to life, but because Real Life seems be getting in the way of my creative passion right now, leaving me without a lot of energy at the end of the day to climb into my mad find a lawyer cientist's writing lair and unleash some creative monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Thats why I wrote: When I was a kid, when I was asked "what would you ask for, if you could have anything you want?" I used to reply, "X-ray vision" or "the ability to fly!" or some other super power. These days, all I want is more time. I admire Neil Gaiman deeply, and it kills me that I misread and therefore unintentionally misrepresented him on my blog. I deeply regret the error, and I hope this corrects the record.

Or is it Oprahtastic? Whichever it is (and maybe it's both), the Charm School reunion is unlike any of the other reunion shows of the whole Flavor of games for imac ove gravy train. Of course, there are still some of the constants we've come to expect from the reunions: the transformations, the crowd favorites, the confrontations, the host. We've got to quit meeting like this, LaLa. Continue reading "1-11: It's Springerrific!" »

Earlier today, I wrote : I read something Neil Gaiman wrote a couple of days ago about writers. He said that anyone can start, but real writers actually finish. By that metric, I'm currently not a real writer. I misread the source, and used the wrong word there. It's actually "professional writer" and not "real writer." There's a huge difference between "not real" and "not professional." Anyone who is passionate and creative can be a "real" writer, whether they are "professional" or not. By my own metric, I'm not meeting my personal creative expectations right now, and that paragraph in my post was more about how I have all these zombie creations all over the place that have been started and abandoned, not because I don't want to bring them fully to life, but because Real Life seems be getting in the way of my creative passion right now, leaving me without a lot of energy at the end of the day to climb into my mad scientist's writing lair and unleash some creative monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Thats why I wrote: When I was a kid, when I was asked "what would you ask for, if you could have anything you want?" I used to reply, "X-ray vision" or "the ability to fly!" or some other super power. These days, all I want is more time. I admire Neil Gaiman deeply, and it kills me that I misread and therefore unintentionally misrepresented just in time manufacturing im on my blog. I deeply regret the error, and I hope this corrects the record.

Or is it Oprahtastic? Whichever it is (and maybe it's both), the Charm School reunion is unlike any of the other reunion shows of the whole Flavor of Love gravy train. Of course, there are still some of the citi card login onstants we've come to expect from the reunions: the transformations, the crowd favorites, the confrontations, the host. We've got to quit meeting like this, LaLa. Continue reading "1-11: It's Springerrific!" »

Earlier today, I wrote : I read something Neil Gaiman wrote a couple of days ago about writers. He said that anyone can start, but real writers actually finish. By that metric, I'm currently not a real writer. I misread the source, and used the wrong word there. It's actually "professional writer" and not "real writer." There's a huge difference between "not real" and "not professional." Anyone who is passionate and creative can be a "real" writer, whether they are "professional" or not. By mobile home mortgages y own metric, I'm not meeting my personal creative expectations right now, and that paragraph in my post was more about how I have all these zombie creations all over the place that have been started and abandoned, not because I don't want to bring them fully to life, but because Real Life seems be getting in the way of my creative passion right now, leaving me without a lot of energy at the end of the day to climb into my mad scientist's writing lair and unleash some creative monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Thats why I wrote: When I was a kid, when I was asked "what would you ask for, if you could have anything you want?" I used to reply, "X-ray vision" or "the ability to fly!" or some other super power. These days, all I want is more time. I admire Neil Gaiman deeply, and it kills me that I misread and therefore unintentionally misrepresented him on my blog. I deeply regret the error, and I hope this corrects the record.

Earlier today, I wrote : I read something Neil Gaiman wrote a couple of days ago about writers. He said that anyone can start, but real writers actually finish. By that metric, I'm currently not a real writer. I misread the source, and used the wrong word there. It's actually "professional writer" and not "real writer." There's a huge difference between "not real" and "not professional." Anyone who is passionate and creative can be a "real" writer, whether they are "professional" or not. By my own metric, I'm not meeting my personal creative expectations right now, and that paragraph in my post was more about how I have all these zombie creations all over the place that have been started and abandoned, not because I don't want to bring them fully to life, but because Real Life seems be getting in the way of my creative passion right now, leaving me without a lot of energy at the end of the day to climb into my mad scientist's writing lair and unleash some creative monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Thats why I wrote: When I was a kid, when I was asked "what would you ask for, if you could have anything you want?" I used to reply, "X-ray vision" or "the ability to fly!" or some other super power. These days, all I want is more time. I admire Neil Gaiman deeply, and it kills me that I misread and therefore unintentionally misrepresented him on onkyo tx sr502 y blog. I deeply regret the error, and I hope this corrects the record.

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the panama umbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she paranoid schizophrenia symptoms an subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

While I think it's a virtue to find common ground and agreement when possible, and to exhibit tolerance when it's not, I really appreciate clarity when there is true disagreement. I'm afraid that sometimes ecumenical efforts are achieved at the expense of blurring and papering over real differences. It's not bad per se to disagree; what's bad is if we are acrimonious when we do. There are principled differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestants. After all, either the Reformation was unnecessary or Roman Catholic theology Marshmallow Peeps equired reformation compromising the claim to apostolic authority. The theological differences then and the differences now are real, and they're about profound fundamental issues of theology. That's why the statement issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarifying ecclesiology in the Second Vatican Council is quite interesting. Vatican II has often been used to justify ecumical efforts. But this statement seeks to clarify Roman Catholic ecclesiology, drawing lines of distinction, thus claiming the church of Rome to be right and other churches and fellowships of Christians to be wrong. Such willingness to draw lines of distinction is becoming rarer these days. I applaud that spirit affirming what is considered to be the truth, and I strongly think it's wrong about its claims. Too often these days we respond to disagreement with emotion by claiming offense.

Earlier today, I wrote : I read something Neil Gaiman wrote a couple of days ago about writers. He said that anyone can start, but real writers actually finish. By that metric, I'm currently not a real writer. I misread the source, and used the wrong word there. It's actually "professional writer" and not "real writer." There's a huge difference between "not real" and "not professional." Anyone who is passionate and creative can be a "real" writer, whether they are "professional" or not. By my own metric, I'm not meeting my personal creative expectations right now, and that paragraph in my post was more about how I have all these zombie creations all over the place that have been started and abandoned, not because I don't want to bring them fully to life, but because Real Life seems be getting in the way of my creative passion right now, leaving me without a lot of energy at the end of the day to climb into my mad scientist's writing lair and unleash some creative monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Thats why I wrote: When I was a kid, when I was asked "what would you ask for, if you could have anything you want?" I used to reply, "X-ray vision" or "the ability to fly!" or some other super power. These days, queen tour dates ll I want is more time. I admire Neil Gaiman deeply, and it kills me that I misread and therefore unintentionally misrepresented him on my blog. I deeply regret the error, and I hope this corrects the record.

Click Here

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. Ok, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should wireless pos software now why you're subtracting.

This week Gretchen Morgenson is writing about executive compensation. Who'd a thunk it. Her specific issue is how share repurchases can help executives whose pay is pegged to earnings per share. So she's proved that she can divide -- when the denominator goes down and the numerator stays the same the fraction is larger. Very good, Ms M. But here comes the tricky part. What if the numerator goes down too??? The question is, what was the cash doing before it bought the shares. Morgenson assumes that "companies can hurt their financial positions by putting scarce cash into repurchases." So she figures that the cash was being used more productively before it bought the stock. That's why it was "scarce." This suggests that earnings might go down because of the repurchase. And then eps might go down, or stay the same. But I'll pass all that and get to the dumbest part of the column. She says when buybacks are used to offset multitudinous stock option grants to corporate executives, an even more pernicious outcome can occur: the purchases may actually destroy shareholder value by forcing companies to essentially buy stock in the open market at high prices to cover shares sold at lower prices to executives. hot spot in a box k, now Ms M proves she can subtract, too. But wait. How does one number relate to the other? It's fine to prove you can subtract, but you really should know why you're subtracting.

Continuing Going Private's shamefully incestious link-sex with Abnormal Returns, today it points us to a slightly more masturbatory bit of link-sex in the form of a DealBook piece in which Andrew Ross Sorkin cites an Andrew Ross Sorkin article (registration required but entirely avoidable as Andrew Ross Sorkin has thoughtfully copy-pasted the Andrew Ross Sorkin article in the New York Times into Andrew Ross Sorkin's DealBook entry) on the often unrecognized long-term holding strategies by certain buyout shops in the private equity world. Says Sorkin, citing Sorkin: But while private equity firms may be larding companies with debt, they aren't dumping them as quickly as you might expect. Buyout firms often stay at the party much longer than critics acknowledge because public offerings don’t offer an immediate way for firms to generate big returns free spyware adware software nd attract new investors for future deals. The firms typically have lockups that prevent them from dumping their shares, and it often takes them several years to sell their shares — if they do so at all. The firms that own Hertz will retain an 80 percent stake in the company after it is public. Few people have acknowledged just how many private equity firms have ended up remaining big investors in companies after taking them public again. Little noticed — or at least little noted — is the fact that “tens of billions” of private equity dollars, according to Thomson Financial, are now floating around the public stock market.