Quote of the Week: Occupy Wall Street


Protesters-in-chicago-jump-on-the-occupy-wall-street-bandwagon-which-has-spread-to-a-number-of Intro to the quote:

Observing Occupy Wall Street protesters right there by Zuccotti park, my cynic mind could not help itself to see social, rather than political event.  Guys and gals hanging around, having a good time.  Many analysts from all over the world have been trying to understand if these people have any agenda, if their protesting have some sort of intelligent purpose.  And there is nothing… Just young people with nothing better to do being upset that they cannot become rich and famous overnight.  Very few of them have attained above average complex of general knowledge and they know nothing about work ethics.  In their poorly constructed bursts of words they bring up "disappearance of the middle class," but none of them understands that you are not born into middle class – you have to work for it, and maybe after 20 years of professional excellence you can claim your rightful place among its members.  The paper wealth of Wall Street phenomenon is a perversion, no question about that.   But securities balloons are not the only reasons middle class disappears in this country.  None of the protesters want to work real jobs to earn their daily bread, or start small businesses that would keep them physically and mentally busy 24/7.  Instead they want to magically transport themselves into the very places occupied by people with million-dollar bonuses they claim to despise.

And then there was that September 30th plot concocted by the protest organizers in order to get more people on location by announcing a Radiohead appearance?!  People who supposedly oppose the concept of misleading, blatantly lied to the general public!  What's up with that?  There could only be three possible explanations why these protesters did not run away in shame after the falsification was exposed – they are either blind, stupid, or really have nothing else to do.

Meanwhile, the electronics were polluted with the false news of Radiohead's "spontaneous concert", and exchanges among some people I know have produced some wonderful pearls (I know a few very smart people).  One of my funniest friends felt sorry for the "poor hippies crawling over each other's stomped bodies." 

But the first prize definitely goes to the following quote:

"It's the perfect cherry on top of their worship of spectacle rather than substance."

                                                                                Zach Caceras

… And the Economy News


2_great_depression More Americans fell below the poverty line last year, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday.

The nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993.

Last year marked the third year in a row the rate increased. All told, 46.2 million people are considered in need. In addition, real median household income last year was $49,445, a 2.3% decline, the Census Bureau reported.

Perversity of Super-Rich: Walmart


Walmart Since Walmart and their subsidiaries (including Sam's Club) are public companies, the Waltons (Jim, Alice and S. Robson) are on the Forbes' billionaires list – numbers 20, 21, and 22 at $21 billion each.  That's their holdings in Walmart stock.  Well, let's say there is a few more billions in their private holdings.  Does not matter.  When it comes to bargaining for the Walmart's interests they come as one, so to evaluate their real power we should combine their wealth.  That puts them into competition for the first place on the world-wide list – definitely above Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.  No question – a very power family.

Many people have problems with Walmart for many reasons – they destroy local business, they discriminate, particularly against women (Funny how that class action suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court on account of women being too different to represent a class.  Well, they all have vaginas, don't they?) But you cannot deny the fact that they are the country's largest employer with a steady growth.  Remember my previous New-York-Magazine-Intelligencer-prompted post The New Economic Reality of Unemployment?  2.1 million people – where would they go, if it was not for Walmart?  Of course, most of them make very little money, but it's still more than the government's help.  

Anyway, it's a free country and I love capitalism (not the bastardy, distorted, perverted paper version we have now, but the real demand & supply model).  Then again, if they push out of business your local bakery, there is no way you will ever be able to get the same quality bread in Walmart.  So,  that's kind of sad.  But as long as they compete fairly… 

Well, that's a bit of a problem.  Look, now they are planning on coming to the place that cultivated boutique retailing for decades now, my hometown – New York City.  And there is nothing fair about the way they try to get in.  As a matter of fact, they do it in  the most perverse way  – by buying their way through resistance with charity donations.  According to Eric Benson's Intelligencer report from the last New York Magazine shown here (you can also read it here Big-Box Rolling), since they started campaigning for the location in Brooklyn, they have spent $13 million on charitable giving in New York.  Which small farm-to-table store can compete with that?

And I am sure there are plenty of people who think it's a good thing – "they are helping…"  They are helping themselves to increase those $260 billion of annual revenues – that's what they are doing.  They did not give a penny to those charities before and, I am sure, if someone told  them "No" today, the donations would stop immediately.  How sick is that?  You cannot openly bribe the officials, so you do this?  That's not charity, that perverse marketing, and they shouldn't be allowed to use it as a deduction on their tax return.

Well, what can we do?  They are super-rich.  As I said in my last post, they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT.   

CFO Folklore: The Home Front


Images-1 I touch on the gender inequality among financial execs once in a while – an obligatory topic for a female CFO/author/blogger.  I mean, everyone writes about it.  Entire institutions and organizations compile sociological studies dealing with these issues.  None of it seems to be creating any changing momentum, but hey, at least someone is willing to pay the researchers their salaries. 

The interesting thing, though, that most of the time these topics (including my earlier posts) deal with the social, rather than practical, aspects of the phenomenon.  People talk about advancement rates, compensation levels, female-to-male executives proportions, etc.  In a very scientific way, we say: all things being equal (education, achievements, intelligence, etc.), women still don't get a fair shake.   And nobody talks about the fact that, on a practical level, things are never equal between men and women, who strive for, or already achieved, top job positions.

First of all, women by nature are more conscientious and responsible than men.  That is why we have higher percentage of female straight "A" students both in high schools and colleges (yet, there are more male valedictorians!).  Secondly, women know only too well that they are at disadvantage due to the simple fact that they are not men.  That makes them work ten times harder than any man in their position would.  So, in truth they get rewarded at lower rates not for the equally good work, but for the job done much better.

But the biggest practical inequality occurs on the executive's home front.  I remember having a friendly airplane conversation with my CEO, on our way to a meeting in Germany.  At one point he said that I was the hardest working person he knew besides him – he honestly believed that he worked as hard as I did.  Of course, he was talking about the job itself.  Well, I thought that even at that I worked much harder (I did not take Friday's off during summers), but I chose to turn to more obvious facts of life.

I asked, " Who prepares your suit, shirt and tie for tomorrow every evening?"  "My wife," he said.  "We frequently work until 9 or 10 pm, is the dinner ready, when you come home?" "Yes."  "Who writes checks?  Who deals with repairmen?  Who talks to teachers?  Who buys groceries? Who takes kids to the doctors'?"  "The wife" was the answer to all the questions.  "Now, who do you think does all that in my home?"  

He knew the answer, of course.  So, every day I was working my executive job, let's say, just as hard as he did, plus his wife's job.  And that's true for most of female CFOs, whether married or single, with or without children. 

Look, how many unmarried male CFOs or Controllers you know?  I don't know any.  Even if their wives leave them, they get remarried very quickly – someone needs to take care of the home front.

On the other hand, a woman expected either to give up her personal life for the career, or hide it away, as if she does not have any.  It is especially true for those female executives who work in small and midsize companies – the salaries are not large enough to afford a Mr. Mom of a husband.  So, we are talking inequality cubed: the majority of women work harder, plus cover the home front (or give up life outside of the job), and still get paid and promoted on a much smaller scale. 

Here is the funny part.  At the end my boss asked, "How come you still read more than I do and go to the theater all the time?"  "Because I don't sleep," I answered.

The Frustrated CFO Plays the Identity Game


Well, not exactly – rather we shall play a slightly modified version.  Instead of matching different profiles to people, I will provide just one set of characteristics and a multiple choice to pick a correct answer at the end.  Ookey-dookey, here we go!

This financial being…

  1. Never produces/makes enough to support himself/itself  and his/its dependents.
  2.  Yet, it habitually spends more than he/she/it can afford.
  3. To sustain his/its spending habit it constantly takes money from others – people and institutions.
  4. When the time comes to fulfill payment promises he/it gets money from another place and pays the old outstanding amounts, thus replacing the old obligation with the new ones.
  5. To keep appearances and convince everyone that  everything is fine, he/it acts very confident, as if he/it is on the top of the world and his/its own dealings are in perfect state.
  6. In the process of such activities, he/it pulls into this bullshit game everyone who depends on him/it, exposing them to the future financial problems.
  7. Eventually he/it runs out of places and people to take money from – some or all obligations remain unfulfilled.
  8. As a result, the entity looses his/its official and unofficial creditability and has to suffer punishment and/or public humiliation.
  9. When that happens, the entity acts as if it does not understand why it happened and claims it to be a misunderstanding on the part of those responsible for punishment.
  10. Of course, those related to the entity, whether formally or informally, closely or remotely, directly or indirectly, all get hurt.
  11. Under the new conditions, it is even more difficult for the entity to survive; the game of obligations replacement becomes more and more expensive, further deteriorating the financial situation.
  12. Yet, he/it tries to put on a smiling face, hiding from the rest of the world that the worst is yet to come and that a complete bankruptcy and collapse are just around the corner.

Who or what is this financial being?  Please select the correct answer:

A.  A credit card junkie

B.  A Ponzi-schemer, such as Bernie Madoff

C.  US Treasury

D.  All of the above.