Friday, March 13, 2009

Cramer v. Stewart

A lot is being made of the faceoff beatdown that occurred on the Daily Show last night. I don't really know what to make of it because I don't have TV but the best indication of what we (i.e. anyone who's paying attention to this type of stuff) was posted at Daily Intel by Chris Smith. Whole thing here. This excerpt hits the nail:

But what Cramer and CNBC do will always be showbiz, to a large extent. What Stewart did last night was very, very important. Not so much because he voiced — articulately, backed by evidence, and with real feeling — the rage of millions. It was important because Stewart reminded journalists of the standards they're supposed to live up to: to call bullshit, no matter the trouble it may cause them professionally. Reporters are generally compromised already, to some degree, but the conflicts will only get worse as job security in the mainstream media continues to evaporate. It's going to take more courage to fight The Man, but it has never been more important. Some bloggers are stepping into the void already, to be sure. But Stewart showed last night that there's no substitute for having a big, well-funded megaphone. (Emphasis mine)

I think most would agree that this even goes back to the pre-Iraq war days in 2002-early 2003. Journalists knew that the war was going to be waged on false pretenses and they did nothing. Now most of them regret not speaking up.

No different here.

If the "experts" at CNBC actually knew what they should have known, they sure as hell didn't tell anyone (which is incidentally, their job) and if they didn't know, then their comptenency is nil and they should all be fired.

They could have done anything to have gotten the warning out into the mainstream media and it didn't happen. Who knows if it would have done any good anyway (see above). Bottom line is that everyone needs to start questioning anyone or anything on their TV more and exploring more alternative forms of information to find out what's going on out there because, apparently, it's pretty not good. Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Links 3/12/2009

Now, this is a financial scandal! [Diane Francis/National Post]

Congress says blame the accountants! [Accounting Observer via Floyd Norris]

Fake SEC filings. This is comforting. Prediction: new audit procedure will require Senior Associates to watch the person clicking the button to file the SEC form [footnoted.org] Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

SHOCKER: Insurance Trainings are Really Boring

Last summer I did some writing about sitting in trainings and considering feigning choking to get out of them (at least that's one solution I didn't previously think of).

After joining a new company, I've learned that regardless of the company you are working for, these trainings do not vary in the level of boringness. That being said, usually the subject matter is probably of some importance to the job. The whole challenge is that 99.9% of the time, the individual presenting the material wouldn't be able to talk about adult entertainment without being boring.

Being in trainings, especially when you're new to a company, is terribly more boring than a typical training session than if you've been with a company for some time. It also makes for several awkward introductions with those sitting in your general vicinity. This is also common when a professional is attending a conference alone. These introductions typically occur right at the beginning of the class when everyone goes around and says their name, what they do at the job they hate, and their best sexual experience. Ok, not the last one but usually the presenters usually request some "interesting" fact about each person. Interesting is subject to interpretation of course.

Oh and training with lunch provided is the worst. Forced to sit in the training room and listen and watch people eat has got to be the worst punishment a person could receive. Especially strangers. I can't really think of anything more awkward and socially disgusting than eating with a bunch of strangers who are learning about insurance. You definitely find yourself thinking, "oh, well judging by what you're putting in your body right now, I'm not surprised at the size of your pants" or "OH, that's definitely going to be coming up later. Would you like me to give you my girlfriend's business card? She's an eating disorder therapist".

During lunch, the unthinkable happens. It just so happens that several of the women sitting nearby are pregnant or had recently given birth. Now, just so we're clear, I'm a big fan of kids (no seriously) and healthy nurturing families (again, I'm being serious). What I don't necessarily care for is a gaggle of women talking about their personal experiences at length in the ear shot of people who could easily be offended or made to feel uncomfortable.

Oh, morning sickness? That sounds wonderful. Oh, that's your favorite baby book? I'll be sure to write that one down. Oh, three centimeters dilated? Shouldn't you be going to the hospital? Oh, your husband is putting on weight too? Great! This is your third child? I guess you're not from China...

It never ends.

Until, of course, the Power Point presentation continues. At which point the maternal blabbing stops and the stimulating conversation of premium financing continues. Power Point. I'm sure Microsoft's intentions were genuine when thinking, "what kind of product can we create that will make presentations less unbearable?" At least they disposed of those awful overhead projectors that would use transparencies or had to be sprayed every 10 minutes after the presenter used colored marker...It was a noble task they undertook in Redmond and I would largely say they succeeded in terms of the actual medium used to present material.

Again, but once subject to average human use, that's when it became a failure. Slides with too much information on them for starters. Nothing better than sitting in the second row and suffering from chronic eye strain because the creator of the presentation thought it was imperative to get all the information on one slide.

Oh and the fancy bells and whistles. The text fades in to Star Trek beaming audio. OOOOOHHHHHHHH. There's a "choo-choo" sound and the text rolls in like a Union Pacific into Omaha. Fancy. This makes me more apt to be interested?

At one point, I make the mistake of participating in the discussion by answering a question. It was a simple question that obviously no one knew the answer to. Apparently the majority of people who work in insurance have barely gotten out of high school. I must have sounded like a know-it-all because I felt some subtle ridicule after I answered. That's the last time I participate...

The presenter tells bad jokes. Really bad. They might be funny if he had any sense of comedic timing. Any comedian will tell you that timing is everything. This guy didn't have it. Not only that, he told the jokes flat. No change in the tone of his voice, no pause in between the lines, punch line was a lame pun. Footage in the Gaza Strip is more amusing.

I guess my final question would be, why the hell are there games? I understand that presenters are trying to make things interesting but playing games that are insurance related are not really games. They are sleeping aids, disguised as quizzes that are disguised as a "game". Just because they're keeping track of points doesn't make it a "game". UGH.

I guess I should be grateful that I have a job in this economy. And maybe these people that I was in training with aren't so bad after all. Or maybe I'm just bitter because I haven't been discovered as a blogger. Hmmmmmmmmm Sphere: Related Content

Links 3/11/2009 - the morning after

Believe what you want but CFO may need to do some internal communication [CFO]


300. Not the movie, just the worst of the worst. [re: The Auditors]


Citi is playing the game [FT] Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Great Job = Discount on a Membership at Costco

My previous employer, the one that sounds like a radio station (rhymes w/ "MG"), made a lot of noise of being an "Employer of Choice". This pretty much entailed giving unique benefits like discounts on big box store memberships or allowing employees to cut out of work at three on Fridays during the summer (as client demands would allow, which basically meant that no one that was working for a client would leave early).

The Radio Station was OBSESSED with being the best Final BIG 4 firm. The general idea was to create the perception that people loved working there because of all these great "perks". I suppose if you removed the providing of professional services aspect from the business model, then it could possibly work that way.

As you might expect, these initiatives basically did not apply to the majority of the professionals working there. Turns out, this is NOT the strategy a professional services company should employ when they want to be the "best" according to a CFO magazine article that came out today that centers around a speech given by a human resources professor from Rutgers. Read here.

The nail is hit on the head with these two paragraphs (emphasis mine):

"HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role," [Professor Beatty] said. "Low turnover isn't necessarily a good thing. Think about where you might want to disinvest."

Human resources is also behind what Beatty called the "silly" idea that a company should try to be the "employer of choice." If you are the employer of choice, he asked rhetorically, who's going to be applying for your jobs? "Everybody and their dog's brother," he said. "You want people who are excited, enthused, and understand how to contribute to what you do, as opposed to those who simply want to find a good place to hide out."

This pretty much sums up the experience that I had working at this "great place to work". It was fairly obvious that many of the people at this firm were not the "best" as I and many of my colleagues would define them. I don't have an ivy league degree or anything but if you find yourself constantly explaining simple analyses performed to your supervising manager, you might conclude that you may be working for someone far less intelligent than yourself.

Furthermore, the individuals that were often the most intelligent and able to contribute constructively were looked upon as people who weren't willing to tow the company line and that made noise when obvious mismanagement was occurring or incorrect procedures were being applied. It was fairly clear that the management group wanted sheep in the firm that wouldn't question the status quo and would simply follow orders. As I recall, there was quite a bit of that going on at Nuremberg... Sphere: Related Content

Links 3/10/2009

This is important. [DealBreaker]



Bank killer waxes on consumer debt [WSJ]



Misery loves company [Floyd Norris] Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 9, 2009

Links 3/9/2009

See here for explanation. I promise, more substantive material will be coming....


Lehman [Paul Krugman]

Rambo [Daily Intel]

Pot & Kettle [Reason]

Sphere: Related Content