Tuesday, March 31, 2015

7 Ways to Eliminate (Almost) All of Your Pre-Interview Jitters - TIME

http://time.com/3735338/eliminate-pre-interview-jitters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

March 7, 2015
    

Getting an invitation to interview is always exciting—but the second that post-interview invitation glow wears off and the pre-interview jitters sets in, it’s all downhill from there. Your anxiety builds and builds, and by the time the meeting rolls around, you’re just a ball of nerves. It doesn’t help that first impressions are so critical.
To make sure you don’t walk into your next big interview a sweaty and nervous mess, here are a few strategies to try out prior to the big day.

1. Meditate and Breathe

You’ve probably read all about the benefits of meditation. If you haven’t tried it, now (before your interview) would be the time. The good news is, it doesn’t have to be this big serious thing with a floor pillow and Buddha statue. Try this quick and simple two-minute exercise a little bit before walking into the interview to help clear your mind and rid yourself of those clammy hands.

2. Eat a Banana

Musicians do this all the time before a big audition or concert. Supposedly, some combination of tryptophan, potassium, and beta-blockers found naturally in bananas calms shaky nerves. While there’s some debate over how true this is, even the placebo effect of thinking a banana will calm you down helps your body actually relax.

3. Exercise

The benefit of eating bananas before an interview might be disputed, but exercising for a little endorphin rush is pretty well established. Try waking up extra early and hitting the gym, taking a yoga class, or doing a run around the neighborhood to get an extra little burst of natural energy and to clear your head. It might take a little more effort than, say, meditating for two minutes, but it’s worth it if you want to be at the top of your game for the interview.

4. Visualize Success

It’s easy to let your mind run wild with ways you could completely bomb your interview, but you’re not doing yourself any favors by letting it. You’re much better off visualizing yourself charming your interviewer, nailing all the questions, and being offered the job before you even walk out of the door. Your brain favors proving itself right, so go ahead and be generous with yourself.

5. Do a Power Pose

Your uncontrollable mind obviously has a lot to do with getting worked up over an interview, but as it turns out, your body has some control over this, too. According to Amy Cuddy, professor at Harvard Business School, positioning your body in stance of power or powerlessness actually impacts the way you behave. To take advantage of this, do a “power pose” for two minutes (watch the video for samples of poses) prior to your interview. You’ll magically be more calm and charismatic.

6. Smile Like You Mean It

Want to be cheerful on the big day? Force yourself to smile. Can’t do it on your own? Put a pencil between your teeth. Like power poses, smiling tricks your brain—the physical act, even if it’s forced, will prompt you to actually feel happier. It’s a neat little pick-me-up from your brain for when you’re feeling a bit down.

7. Practice


This is all great advice for getting the most out of your brain and body, but in the end nothing will trump practice. The more practice you can get answering interview questions (start with these) aloud, the more confident you’ll be when the real thing happens. End of story. Certainly do follow the tips and tricks—even professional performers do it, after all—but don’t make the mistake of relying on them for the actual meat of your interview. Confidence comes from ignorance or experience. Source yours from the latter.

Monday, March 30, 2015

11 Ways to Generate Valuable Ideas for Your Blog - StartupCollective

http://time.com/3758938/generate-ideas-blog/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

March 26, 2015
    

Question: What’s one way I can generate valuable ideas for my company blog or social media?

Follow the Energy

“We do not assign content creation, and yet, we create pages every day. It all begins with where the energy flows. We send out a daily email to our staff with inspiring quotes our clients have shared that day. If one resonates with a staff member, they get to claim it and create something around it. I won’t let them write until the fire in the belly is there, so I inspire them.” — Corey Blake, Round Table Companies


“Look at the questions your audience is asking. There are a number of resources that your audience is already using to find out more about services like yours (e.g., Q&A sites, your social media pages, industry-related FAQ pages, etc.). Scanning through these will give you a wealth of information about what topics your potential customers want to know more about.” — Phil Laboon, Eyeflow Internet Marketing

Listen to Your Clients

“Client feedback is a great tool for improving your business. It’s also a great way to keep your finger on the pulse of what matters to your clients, what they are interested in and what they want to know more about. By listening to your clients’ concerns and responding, you can generate a whole host of valuable topics to explore via your company blog or social media.” — David Ehrenberg, Early Growth Financial Services

Survey Your Email List

“If you want to produce valuable content for your audience, surveys can help you discover what information would be valuable to them. For example, we host webinars every month. A couple weeks before the webinar, we survey our email database asking what specific topics people would like us to cover and what questions they have. This helps us provide content that our audience will value.” — Pete Kennedy, Main Street ROI

Find the Best Sources and Disconnect

“Ironically, blogging and social media inspiration doesn’t happen behind a computer, phone, tablet or any other device. Get out there, talk to the smartest people you know in your industry, have face-to-face conversations, create space to think critically (away from your daily routine) and find time to disconnect. Reading is also invaluable — but pick only the best 10 sources.” — Sharam Fouladgar-Mercer, AirPR

Don’t Just Write About Yourself

“All too often, a company’s blog and its social media accounts are devoted to pushing products and services. It’s fine to share successes, but nobody is going to become a regular reader if that’s all you do. It’s good to read widely about the topics you’re interested in, and then re-pot and riff off of these. This approach provides value rather than making readers feel like they’re reading ads.” — Grant Gordon, Solomon Consulting Group

Visit Google Trends

Google Trends is an amazing tool that allows you to create relevant content. Simply go to Google Trends, look at what the world is talking about and see how your company could potentially contribute to the conversation. Not only will your content be relevant on social media channels, but you may be able to capture search traffic to your site as well.” — Brett Farmiloe, Markitors

Read Trade Publications

“A simple way to stay on top of your industry is to read as many relevant trade publications as possible. Identify industry trends, and relate them to your business and your products. Educate yourself first, then educate and engage your readers.” — Elliot Fabri, EcoCraft Homes

Borrow Ideas From Other Sites

“The great thing about being a small business is that there are a lot of bigger businesses in the world that you can emulate. Look for companies that are doing a great job with their company blogs or social media, and figure out how to replicate those ideas on your own properties. Make sure your search is broad enough to include industries other than your own.” — Brittany Hodak, ZinePak

Use Google

“One of the easiest ways to find new content is to Google around and see what your competitors are writing about. I’m not suggesting you copy their content, but usually what’s relevant to them is relevant to you too — just put your own unique spin on it.” — Emerson Spartz, Spartz

Ask the People Around You

“Look to your friends, mentors and people in your industry, and ask what content they are looking for. Take those ideas to help create great content that people can read and share.” — Amanda L., shatterbox
The Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) is an invite-only organization comprised of the world’s most promising young entrepreneurs. In partnership with Citi, YEC recently launched StartupCollective, a free virtual mentorship program that helps millions of entrepreneurs start and grow businesses.

This article was originally published on StartupCollective.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

The 10 Commandments of Leadership - TIME

http://time.com/3758898/10-commandments-leadership/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

March 26, 2015
    

A group of archeologists digging through ancient corporate archives recently uncovered two mysterious tablets (aka “wall plaques”) engraved with the following laws:

I. Thou shalt remain optimistic.

Since thy employees look to thee for leadership, thou must not let thy worries and concerns cast a black cloud over everyone else, for that way lies certain failure.

II. Thou shalt set a clear direction.

If thou wouldst be a leader, thou must create a vision in the minds of your followers whence and whither thou art leading them. Fail at this, and thy organization will wander into the wilderness.

III. Thou shalt create a workable plan.

While no plan should be engraved in stone and plans should be amended when conditions change, if thou hast failed to plan, then verily thou hast also planned to fail.

IV. Thou shalt secure sufficient resources.

While it is written truly that faith can move mountains, that faith must be accompanied by bulldozers, dump trucks, and paid employees who know how to use them.

V. Thou shalt listen more than talk.

Leadership doth not consist of giving lectures and then issuing orders. Leadership consists of understand what others desire and harnessing that desire to serve the common good.

VI. Thou shalt not hold meetings without agendas.

Before each meeting send out a decree defining what will be discussed and for how long. Then adhere to thy own decree as if the productivity of the entire team depended on it. For verily it doth.

VII. Thou shalt not criticize in public.

Though thy staff and colleagues consist of fools and rogues, public shaming creates resentment. Should a follower deserve a reprimand, provide it in the privacy of thy office.

VIII. Thou shalt not ask an employee to do something that thou wouldst not do thyself.

Truly great leaders, should they perceive a scrap of litter on the floor of a hallway, will bend down, pick it up and throw it into the trash.

IX. Thou shalt not make of thyself a bottleneck.

If thou insist upon making every final decision, the progress of thy organization will grind to a halt. If thou canst not delegate, thou hast no business pretending to be a leader.

X. Thou shalt give thy team the credit.


True leaders accept the blame when things go awry and take no credit when things go right. Thy rightful reward will the love and commitment of those who continue to work for thee.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

5 Tips to Increase Clicks and Shares on Your Social Media Posts - TIME

http://time.com/3760112/increase-clicks-shares-social-media/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

March 27, 2015
    
Have you ever tried to unravel the mysteries of what makes a blog post or article go viral, capturing readers’ interest so that they share it again and again across social media platforms?
To explore this question, the content marketing company Fractlteamed up with content analyzer Buzzsumo. They reviewed shares of 1 million articles from 190 top publishers (including this one) across five social media platforms over six months–2.7 billion shares in all. The findings were thought-provoking (check out the full report at the bottom of this post):

1. Different social media have different moods.

It turns out 70 percent of the 500 most-shared items on LinkedIn were positive in sentiment. Similarly, 65 percent of the top shares on Pinterest were positive. That contrasts with Twitter, where only 40 percent of the top 500 shares were positive, 46 percent were negative, and 14 percent were neutral. Google+ was only slightly more upbeat, with 45 percent positive stories, 38 percent negative stories, and 17 percent neutral.
On Facebook, negative stories were much more successful, making up 47 percent of the top 500 most-shared, with 36 percent positive, and 17 percent neutral. Correct for the relatively uplifting effects of Buzzfeed, Upworthy, and ViralNova, and you have an even darker mood: Only 30 percent of the most-shared stories are positive, and 57 percent are negative.
Does this mean that LinkedIn users are happy-go-lucky souls and Facebook users are incorrigible curmudgeons? Not necessarily, the study’s authors warn. “The emotional landscape of each network may be more a reflection of the publishers who are succeeding best at sharing on a particular platform,” they note. Still, it seems likely that matching the emotional mood of your content to the prevailing mood of shares on each platform may help you get more attention and more page views.

2. Surprise and mystery always appeal.

Wondering just what sorts of stories or posts will appeal most to readers? Analyzing the pieces’ headlines only, the researchers discovered what many readers already know: Pieces that make you go “huh!” as in “I didn’t know that,” or “huh?” as in “I want to know more,” are always the most popular. “Headlines that incorporated surprise and built on the reader’s feelings of curiosity dominated the Top 10 regardless of topic or content format,” the study’s authors report.
But if you’re tempted to write clickbait headlines whose stories don’t deliver the goods–don’t. Keep in mind that we’re looking for shares here, and not just fooling people into clicking a headline and then regretting it. You’ll get nowhere unless readers find your content compelling enough to read through and pass on to their friends.

3. No surprise–Facebook dominates shares.

Well, of course it does. With 1.3 billion active users, there are so many more people on Facebook than any other social platform that it can’t help but have many more shares than the others. Still, although Facebook has about 62 percent of the total users of the five social media platforms, it gets about 82 percent of the shares, indicating that users are either more engaged with Facebook, likelier to share content there, or both.
On the other hand, Twitter appears to be punching above its weight. Though the Pew Research Institute recently named it the smallest of the major social networks, Twitter saw four times as many shares as similarly sized LinkedIn.

4. It’s tough to get huge amounts of attention.

Even among top publishers, getting a lot of attention for content can be tough slogging. Ninety-three percent of the publishers in the study averaged fewer than 5,000 shares per article. and only two, BuzzFeed and ViralNova, averaged more than 25,000 each. But those two had impressive share rankings with more than 60,000 shares on average per article.
Why? Probably because they put a lot of thought into the science of garnering shares. This analysis of Buzzfeed and Upworthy by study author Kelsey Libert provides some clues as to what they’re doing right.

5. You can stop feeling guilty.

If you’re like most people (including me) you’re in a constant state of guilt over the many social media platforms you’re ignoring. I, for instance, have a Pinterest account that I never use, even though I’ve written about Pinterest.

I’ve been feeling bad about this, but it turns out there’s no need. Even for large publishers, it’s tough to get significant traction on more than one platform at once. Though the study’s authors set out to name the five best publishers at getting shared on multiple social media platforms at once, there weren’t enough to fill up the roster. My interpretation: It’s fine to limit your attention to one or two platforms.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Many Young Adults Need Parents’ Help to Buy a Home - TIME

http://time.com/3756425/many-young-adults-need-parents-help-to-buy-a-home/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

March 26, 2015
    
Daniel Acker—Bloomberg /Getty Images

At least they’re out of the basement

Three out of four young adults who recently bought their first home needed their parents’ help to afford the down payment, closing costs or other expenses, a new survey finds.
Interest in homeownership is picking up, especially among first-time buyers, and mortgage lender loanDepot LLC commissioned a survey to find out how today’s millennials — 97% of whom will take out a mortgage to buy their homes — plan to pay for their investment.
It seems the “bank of mom and dad” is a fallback most count on, with 75% of young adults who recently bought a home saying their parents helped them out. Another survey, this one from BMO Harris Bank, finds that about a quarter of first-time homebuyers expect to get money from their parents or other relatives.
Among parents of future would-be homebuyers, 17% of respondents to the loanDepot survey say they expect to have to chip in, up four percentage points from five years ago — a gap that suggests a number of today’s wanna-be homeowners expecting financial assistance probably shouldn’t hold their breath.
There are some indications that, even as young adults expect more assistance from their parents, the older generation has a dwindling amount of resources they can use to help. Over the past five years, just under three-quarters of parents who helped their kids buy homes used their savings, but that number is expected to fall to about two-thirds in the future, according to the survey. Instead, more parents will refinance their own homes, take out personal loans and borrow against their 401(k)s — potentially risking their own financial security.
And parents are digging deeper into their pockets to help out in other ways, too: Almost a third say they’ll pay some of their kids’ other expenses to help the younger generation save money, and 18% plan to help their kids pay down their student loans. Of the parents who are contributing to their kids’ investments, half say they’ll help their kids make the down payment, 20% say they’ll help with closing costs and 20% say they’ll actually co-sign the loan.

This might be reasonable in markets where high down payments are the norm, but experts warn that parental assistance sometimes can mask the fact that the home just isn’t affordable for the aspiring homebuyers. “One of our clients helped the child buy into the same neighborhood they lived in. The parents were excited, but it turned out to be a huge burden for the kids,” Brett Gookin, principal at wealth management firm Aspiriant, told SFGate.com last year. (San Francisco has the second-highest average down payment in the country, just behind New York City.)

Thursday, March 26, 2015

The Neurochemistry of Positive Conversations - Harvard Business Review


by Judith E. Glaser and Richard D. Glaser  |   11:00 AM June 12, 2014

Why do negative comments and conversations stick with us so much longer than positive ones?

A critique from a boss, a disagreement with a colleague, a fight with a friend – the sting from any of these can make you forget a month’s worth of praise or accord. If you’ve been called lazy, careless, or a disappointment, you’re likely to remember and internalize it. It’s somehow easier to forget, or discount, all the times people have said you’re talented or conscientious or that you make them proud.
Chemistry plays a big role in this phenomenon. When we face criticism, rejection or fear, when we feel marginalized or minimized, our bodies produce higher levels of cortisol, a hormone that shuts down the thinking center of our brains and activates conflict aversion and protection behaviors. We become more reactive and sensitive. We often perceive even greater judgment and negativity than actually exists. And these effects can last for 26 hours or more, imprinting the interaction on our memories and magnifying the impact it has on our future behavior. Cortisol functions like a sustained-release tablet – the more we ruminate about our fear, the longer the impact.
Positive comments and conversations produce a chemical reaction too. They spur the production of oxytocin, a feel-good hormone that elevates our ability to communicate, collaborate and trust others by activating networks in our prefrontal cortex. But oxytocin metabolizes more quickly than cortisol, so its effects are less dramatic and long-lasting.

This “chemistry of conversations” is why it’s so critical for all of us –especially managers – to be more mindful about our interactions. Behaviors that increase cortisol levels reduce what I call “Conversational Intelligence” or “C-IQ,” or a person’s ability to connect and think innovatively, empathetically, creatively and strategically with others. Behaviors that spark oxytocin, by contrast, raise C-IQ.
Over the past 30 years, I’ve helped leaders at companies including Boehringer Ingelheim, Clairol, Donna Karen, Exide Technologies, Burberry, and Coach learn to boost performance with better C-IQ. Recently, my consultancy, The CreatingWE Institute, also partnered with Ryan Smith, CEO ofQualtrics, the world’s largest online survey software company, to analyze the frequency of negative (cortisol-producing) versus positive (oxytocin-producing) interactions in today’s workplaces. We asked managers how often they engaged in several behaviors — some positive, and others negative — on a scale of 0 through 5, in which 0 was “never” and 5 was “always.”

The good news is that managers appear to be using positive, oxytocin and C-IQ elevating behaviors more often than negative behaviors. Survey respondents said that they exhibited all five positive behaviors, such as “showing concern for others” more frequently than all five negative ones, such as “pretending to be listening.” However, most respondents – approximately 85% — also admitted to “sometimes” acting in ways that could derail not only specific interactions but also future relationships. And, unfortunately, when leaders exhibit both types of behaviors it creates dissonance or uncertainty in followers’ brains, spurring cortisol production and reducing CI-Q.
Consider Rob, a senior executive from Verizon. He thought of himself as a “best practices” leader who told people what to do, set clear goals, and challenged his team to produce high quality results. But when one of his direct reports had a minor heart attack, and three others asked HR to move to be transferred off his team, he realized there was a problem.

Observing Rob’s conversational patterns for a few weeks, I saw clearly that the negative (cortisol-producing) behaviors easily outweighed the positive (oxytocin-producing) behaviors. Instead of asking questions to stimulate discussion, showing concern for others, and painting a compelling picture of shared success, his tendency was to tell and sell his ideas, entering most discussions with a fixed opinion, determined to convince others he was right. He was not open to others’ influence; he failed to listen to connect.
When I explained this to Rob, and told him about the chemical impact his behavior was having on his employees, he vowed to change, and it worked. A few weeks later, a member of his team even asked me: “What did you give my boss to drink?”
I’m not suggesting that you can’t ever demand results or deliver difficult feedback. But it’s important to do so in a way that is perceived as inclusive and supportive, thereby limiting cortisol production and hopefully stimulating oxytocin instead. Be mindful of the behaviors that open us up, and those that close us down, in our relationships. Harness the chemistry of conversations.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Maybe We Really Are Alone In the Universe - TIME


March 20, 2015
    

Jeffrey Kluger is Editor at Large for TIME.

As a new TIME book explains, a cosmos with trillions of planets does not guarantee more than one with life

You may as well get a lot friendlier with life on Earth—every microbe and mammal, every bird and bug, and especially every human being. Because when it comes to biology, our planet may be the whole show.
Forget the overwhelming math—those trillions upon trillions of planets that are likely out there, at least some of which should be inhabited. Snuff out the one match head that is life on Earth, and the whole universe goes biologically black. We can search for biology all we want, send up all the here-we-are signal flares we can invent, but the fact is, no one will answer—ever—because no one is there.

Sign up for THE BRIEFand more view example  

That, like it or not, may be the truth, and it’s not just the picnic skunks who say so. Some very credible researchers have crunched the numbers and run the odds and taken a good hard look at them without the little frisson of hope even many of the most serious scientists bring to their work—and they come up empty. That’s not easy to accept because for a long time other, equally credible scientists have made a strong case for alien life.
Perhaps the most influential of the life-is-out-there advocates, astronomer and SETI Institute founder Frank Drake, made his bones in the extraterrestrial game with his eponymous equation, a satisfying—if coldly arithmetical—case for the likelihood not only of life in space but of intelligent life. According to Drake, the n in his equation—the number of civilizations in the Milky Way alone capable of producing detectable radio signals—equals the rate of the formation of sunlike stars in our galaxy, times the proportion of stars that are orbited by planets, times the proportion of those planets that would offer life-supporting conditions, times the fraction of those on which life does exist, times the fraction of life-forms that are intelligent, times the fraction of intelligent life-forms capable of transmitting signals, times the length of time such a civilization actually sends those signals before either perishing or going silent for any other reason.

Simple, right? Honestly, it kind of is. Filling in all of the x’s in the Drake equation—which, admittedly, is itself an act of conjecture, albeit highly informed conjecture—typically yields an estimate of thousands of civilizations. Drake himself put it at 10,000. The late cosmological popularizer Carl Sagan estimated the figure at an astounding 1 million. Even if they were off by a factor of 10 or 100 or 1,000, it is clear we are not remotely alone.
Unless we are.
Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University and the author of the book Eerie Silence—which takes exactly the dim view of our ever encountering an alien intelligence that its title suggests—finds almost no part of the intelligent-life argument persuasive. The biggest hole he finds in the Drake equation is the one involving the subset of planets that could support life that actually do. The fact is, we have absolutely no empirical data that allows us to put a value on that variable in a responsible way. We know of precisely one world on which life has existed, and the rest is largely guesswork. Fill in that one Drake blank with a zero, and the entire equation collapses to zero too.
Davies, though, goes well beyond the flaws of the equation, arguing that there is a perfectly credible case to be made for the presence of life on Earth as a result of a succession of flukes, each more improbable than the one before it, which, together, could occur only a single time in a trillion trillion tries. A chimp randomly pounding a typewriter might indeed come up with Hamlet. Once. It wouldn’t matter if there were 40 billion other chimps hammering away, just as, as Davies has written, it doesn’t matter if there are 40 billion planets in the Milky Way capable of sustaining life. Only a single one will.
Furthermore, he believes that in the improbable event an intelligent civilization exists, it is surpassingly unlikely it would send any messages our way. The popular notion is that because we’ve been transmitting radio and TV signals for more than a century—and because those signals are spreading into space at the speed of light—surely a sophisticated species would have gotten wind of us. Problem is, in a universe that stretches for 13.8 billion light-years in all directions, the 100 light-years our signals have traveled so far make them a decidedly local broadcast.
Most discouraging is that in all the years we’ve been looking for an extraterrestrial sign (and no, crop circles don’t count), there has been, well, only an eerie silence. SETI’s antennas have been pointed skyward for half a century, listening for a repeating signal that would suggest an intelligent sender; so far, nothing. There was one thrilling moment—on Aug. 15, 1977—when SETI scientist Jerry Ehman, working with Ohio State University’s radio telescope, picked up a signal a full 30 times as strong as the background noise of deep space. It was tracked for 72 seconds and had a frequency similar to that of the spectral line for hydrogen. (That’s relevant because SETI scientists have long believed that since hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, it might be chosen as a sort of universal sending frequency.)
On the printout that the radio telescope produced of the signal, Ehman wrote one word: “Wow!” Forevermore, what he heard that night has been known as the Wow! signal. It was never heard again, though, and today it is assumed to have been an atmospheric anomaly, a reflection from space debris or of earthly origin. What it almost certainly was not was an alien semaphore.
Of course, it’s much too early to consider any of this proof of a negative. The universe is huge and ancient, and a 50-year exploration isn’t even a single pixel in the sweeping mural of time. Science does make hard, sudden turns: one day there was no Copernicus saying the Earth isn’t the center of the universe, and then there was—and nothing was ever the same again. Ditto Einstein and his relativistic universe; ditto Leeuwenhoek and the previously unseen biosphere revealed by his microscope. And so it could still be with the discovery of alien life.

Until then, there may be something to be gained from thinking of the Earth as the universe’s only wilderness preserve. If life is indeed a cosmic one-off, it makes it all the more important that we act as this planet’s responsible caretakers. Snuff this biological light, and the descending darkness won’t just be our fault. It will be our crime.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Exchange rates: Transatlantic divergence - Financial Times


High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/49e49f66-cef3-11e4-b761-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3VChmEL00
March 22, 2015 7:56 pm

Exchange rates: Transatlantic divergence

Ralph Atkins, Sam Fleming and Claire Jones
There are signs Europe’s economy is turning a corner, but will dollar strength curb the US recovery?

Angry protesters surrounded the European Central Bank’s new headquarters in Frankfurt last week, saying its response to the financial crisis had only brought poverty and high unemployment. Some even torched cars. Calling themselves the “Blockupy” movement, they echoed the message of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in 2011, when the US economy was just emerging from the 2008-09 global financial crisis.
If that parallel holds, the unrest outside the ECB may be coming just as the region’s economy is finally showing signs of turning the corner. Even as smoke rose over Germany’s financial capital, the eurozone was enjoying the strongest glimmers of economic hope since the credit crunch.
Central to that revival is the euro’s dramatic dive against the dollar. Since the ECB started preparing a “quantitative easing” programme — involving €60bn a month of purchases of public and private debt — the euro has seen its biggest year-on-year declines against the greenback since its launch in 1999. Investors are betting that the weaker euro will boost exports, reviving the eurozone’s fortunes.
Eurozone stocks have risen 18 per cent this year, far outpacing the near 3 per cent rise in the US S&P 500 index. The “pop” in European equities appears to follow a pattern set in American stock markets after the US Federal Reserve embarked on its QE programmes. The prospect of a recovery taking hold in Europe would be welcome news to US policy makers, who have been urging the ECB to take more aggressive action for years. But the sharp decline in the euro’s value — and the resulting strength of the dollar — also poses a challenge to the US just as its own recovery appears to be picking up steam.
Janet Yellen, Fed chairwoman, warned last week of a “notable drag” on net exports this year due to the strengthening dollar. She also highlighted downward pressure on prices for imported goods, which could mean a longer-lasting spell of low inflation — not what the Fed wants as it is mulling its first interest rate rise in almost a decade.
For American multinationals, the stronger dollar is expected to hammer profits over the next two quarters.
“We are already seeing a fair amount of pushback from a lot of companies,” said Fred Bergsten, senior fellow and director emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
The effects of the stronger dollar may be offset by further improvement in the US economy, which is being helped by steadily falling unemployment and lower energy costs. Ms Yellen’s warnings last week reversed some of the most recent falls in the euro, which notched up its biggest weekly rise against the dollar in more than three years.
But if the dollar resumes its surge, it could cause political and economic problems. Another 20 per cent rise in the dollar would drive up the current account deficit by another $500-$600bn, Mr Bergsten estimates, prompting a bigger backlash in Congress and the corporate sector. (Congress has already drafted bills to punish governments it found guilty of currency manipulation.)
With a number of major trade liberalisation measures on the table, the gains come at a sensitive time. “Historically an overvalued dollar and a big rise in the trade deficit have been the leading predictor of US trade protectionism,” said Mr Bergsten.
Globally, the boost to economies from widespread “competitive easing” by central banks “needs to be balanced with the risk that such large currency swings get out of control, creating so much volatility that it impacts on world trade,” says Gilles Moec, European economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Deutsche Bank’s index of expected currency volatility has hit highs this year not seen since the eurozone debt crisis — although it remains well below levels seen in 2008-09.
The currency moves highlight the pitfalls central banks will face when they seek to unwind the policies deployed to fight the financial crisis. The euro-dollar relationship is a crucial axis in global finance; big moves in the two currencies ripple around the world, including across fast-growing emerging market economies.
“Our clients in America with big operations in Europe are very much focused on this,” says Erik Nielsen, chief economist at UniCredit, the Milan-based bank. “Significant exchange rate moves and volatility are not good for the economy.”
With the Fed expected to be the first of the world’s main central banks to raise interest rates, its struggles could be a harbinger of the problems others — including the ECB — will have in winding down their easy-money policies. “There are people 30 years old in markets who have never known a Fed rate increase,” says Michael Kushma, chief investment officer for global fixed income at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. “Nobody has a lot of conviction about how it is all going to play out.”
Since May last year, the euro has fallen almost 25 per cent against the dollar. To the surprise of ECB officials, its decline accelerated when the first bond purchases under eurozone QE started on March 9. On a trade-weighted basis, the euro has fallen 13 per cent over the past year — while the dollar has risen 22 per cent on a comparable basis.
A weaker euro is exactly what Mario Draghi, ECB president, had in mind. When campaigning last year to persuade his colleagues on the ECB’s governing council to back his plan for QE, he said a cheaper euro was one of the most important ways more aggressive monetary easing could boost the region’s recovery.
More recently, he has cited the currency’s depreciation as one of three reasons — the others are cheaper oil and QE — why the eurozone’s recovery would begin to broaden and strengthen. The hope is that a weaker currency will provide a much-needed boost to the region’s exporters by making their goods and services cheaper to customers outside the currency area.
“The ECB will welcome the fall in the euro as one of the transmission channels of QE,” says Nick Matthews, economist at Nomura. “A weaker euro has already partly explained some of the upwards revisions to growth and inflation in the central bank’s latest forecasts.”
This view hinges, in part, on whether the recovery in the US, in particular, will prove sustainable. If it stalls, the euro area’s reliance on exports could quickly prove its undoing. Germany in particular has long attracted criticism from US officials because of its massive trade surplus, and its reluctance to pursue policies to stimulate domestic growth. Jack Lew, the US Treasury secretary, has been warning that the US economy cannot go it alone.
On Friday, he reiterated the long-running mantra of American officials in saying that the strong dollar was “good for America”. But he reinforced the US’s longstanding calls for other countries to do more to stimulate their economies, saying that if Europe’s growth improves “you’ll see some movement in relative currency values, because our economy won’t be so much stronger on a relative basis”.
Even if US companies are being hit by a strong dollar, Washington policy makers can hardly complain about the boldness of the actions Mr Draghi has taken — though they may argue it should have happened earlier. Senior US officials have consistently viewed the economic crisis in Europe as one of the key risks to America’s recovery. “Europe needed overwhelming force but didn’t seem willing to apply it,” Tim Geithner, the former US Treasury secretary, wrote in his memoir. In June 2012, as the eurozone debt crisis threatened to spin out of control, Mr Geithner wrote to Mr Draghi, saying the world was looking to him to use “a dose of smart, creative, central bank force”.
With QE finally in effect, the hope is that Europe will begin to see economic growth — and any impact of euro weakness on US companies could be countered by increasing demand for its products. “It could well be that this is a smooth adjustment — and that what we are seeing is simply the depreciation of a euro currency which was overvalued,” says Mr Nielsen at UniCredit.
After Friday’s euro rebound, some currency strategists argued the dollar run may soon draw to a close — assuming there are no great global economic upsets. “If the only thing you have is the transatlantic interest rate divergence — the Fed trying to normalise policy and the ECB doing QE — well, we knew that,” says Daragh Maher, currency strategist at HSBC. “For the dollar’s rally to become destructive would need something else — such as an emerging market crisis or a eurozone break-up threat.”
Even if the dollar is provoking howls from exporters, that segment only drives 13 per cent of the US economy, a far lower share than in countries such as Germany where it is above 40 per cent. Private spending is a far more important driver, as is the resurgent labour market, which has seen jobs gains of more than 200,000 a month for more than a year.
Ms Yellen and Stanley Fischer, her vice-chair, have both emphasised that the dollar’s surge is partly a reflection of the US economy’s momentum. And while the dollar’s strength is being driven in part by an ongoing round of monetary easing by foreign central banks, the Fed has recently sounded a positive note about these moves. Minutes to its January meeting said the actions of overseas central banks had “likely strengthened the outlook abroad”.
As eurozone growth improves, the euro should resume its rise with investors piling back into eurozone assets, including equities. That verdict may well prove too sanguine, however. A weaker euro does not guarantee eurozone QE will work. A serious risk is that the boost to the economy proves shortlived and simply distracts governments from structural reforms. There remains, too, the threat of Greece being ejected from the eurozone, creating turmoil across the continent — and global markets.
For now, there are signs that QE may have averted a prolonged period of dangerously low inflation and weak growth, just as policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic had hoped. Even if the euro’s decline clouds the US economic outlook and provokes discontent in Congress, this may be a lesser evil than a eurozone that is mired in deflation.
***
Emerging markets: No declaration of currency wars — yet
As the dollar has risen, the currencies of big emerging markets have fallen, writes Jonathan Wheatley. The Brazilian real has lost more than a fifth of its dollar value in two months. The Turkish lira, Russian rouble and South African rand have not fared much better. How much will this hurt?
In some quarters, not much. It was Brazil, after all, that coined the term “currency war” in 2010, in objection to what it saw as a competitive devaluation of the US dollar that was hurting Brazil’s exporters. Now, those exporters are cheering. A study for Valor Econômico, a business daily, shows exporters’ profits rising by 11 per cent in the first half of 2015 with the real at R$3.20 to the dollar — it broke through R$3.30 last week — even though global prices of their exports will be 18 per cent lower.
As exports become cheaper, imported goods and any locally-made products with imported inputs become more expensive. Yet, with falling oil and other commodity prices, those imports are much cheaper, even when paid for in a weaker currency. For commodity exporters such as Brazil and South Africa, domestic growth is so weak that companies will find it hard to pass on rising import costs to consumers.
The “original sin” of borrowing money in dollars that must be repaid in a potentially devalued currency was one cause of the crises that swept emerging markets in the 1990s. Many sovereign borrowers have since cleaned up their balance sheets. But over the past decade, in an environment of cheap money supplied by the commodities boom and quantitative easing, many EM corporates have borrowed heavily. Some of them face serious trouble.
“It’s definitely an issue they will have to deal with,” says Simon Quijano-Evans of Commerzbank. But for economies like Brazil’s, struggling with recession and unemployment, a collapsing currency may be the least of policy makers’ worries.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Drones and privacy A looming threat - The Economist


A looming threat 

Mar 19th 2015, 22:32 BY K.K. | WASHINGTON, DC
UNMANNED aircraft, otherwise known as drones, are becoming common. Many are familiar with America’s use of armed drones in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, but drones are increasingly being used by other parts of the government, as well as by companies and individuals. Drones can be far cheaper to operate than anything that requires an on-board pilot, and they are handy for making maps and taking pictures and videos. The FBI uses a small fleet of drones for law-enforcement surveillance. Customs and Border Patrol uses them to monitor the American border with Mexico (though the programme was recently found to be ineffective and expensive). Commercial drones are now regularly used for real-estate photography and to monitor oil and gas pipelines, among many other applications.
The proliferation of drones—which include both small fixed-wing aircraft and small rotorcraft with multiple propellers—raises some vexing public-policy questions. In an effort to safely integrate drones of all sizes into American airspace, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is now figuring out how to regulate the small ones (ie, less than 55 pounds). As drones acquire so-called “sense and avoid” technology to automatically avoid collisions, the FAA and the aviation industry more broadly must parse thorny questions about how to either prevent accidents involving flying robots or assign liability in the inevitable event of one.
But questions of air safety are relatively straightforward compared to another broad set of concerns that drones raise: how do they impact privacy? At issue is the way some drones can loiter overhead for long stretches, engaging in what is called “persistent surveillance”. As drones—and other airborne surveillance platforms, such as circling manned aircraftand lighter-than-air craft—become cheaper and more effective, persistent aerial surveillance could become the norm, and no privacy or transparency measures currently exist in the law. So figuring out how to protect privacy without pre-empting innovation is as tricky as it is necessary. On February 15th, the same day the FAA announced its new proposed rules for small drones, Barack Obama published a memorandum calling on government agencies to study the matter. The president also called on an agency in the Commerce Department to examine the privacy implications of drones used by individuals and corporations.
The current state of the law—both legislation and court decisions—is poorly suited to deal with persistent surveillance. This is because privacy law is tailored to questions of whether one is in public—an open field—or in a space where one has a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. The Supreme Court has, at times, expanded such spaces, for instance finding in 1967 that the FBI cannot eavesdrop on conversations in telephone booths without a warrant. But in this era of “big data”, the line between public and private can no longer be delimited by physical boundaries.
Complicating matters, there is no clear line between episodic surveillance—a snapshot—and persistent surveillance, even though the effects are profoundly different. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in a 2012 case, incremental observations by the government may not violate a person’s privacy, but the sum total do. It’s the difference between a snapshot and an overhead video that shows the comings and goings of everybody in a city over the course of a week. In such a video, a so-called “pattern-of-life” emerges. Any still frame from the video might be a defensible incursion on privacy, yet the whole video is something more than the sum of these parts.
What are the dangers of such videos? Plenty of similar information is available from mobile-phone records, which track the physical position of their users. Indeed, many technologies, from mobile telephony to e-mail, have been widely adopted before their impacts on privacy could be parsed by either consumers or regulators. But therein lies the value of regulating drones. As Ryan Calo, a University of Washington law professor, optimistically suggests, drones may serve as a “privacy catalyst”. Once regulators assess the ramifications of persistent aerial surveillance, he argues, they may then turn to the privacy implications of a whole host of other gadgets and innovations.
Discussions about privacy often involve the question of why it is something worth protecting. People tend to invoke Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren’s definition of privacy in 1890 as the “right to be let alone”. But this view does not fully capture the purpose of privacy in modern society. A better explanation comes from Julie Cohen at the Georgetown Law School, who argues that “the liberal self and the liberal democratic society are symbiotic ideals.” So persistent surveillance—whether through monitoring internet browsing habits or from a drone overhead—undermines the formation of liberal individuals in the way that an over-reliance on GPS undermines the formation of a sense of direction. This is because pervasive surveillance tends to shape the actions, thoughts and personalities of those being observed. Such changes happen gradually, even imperceptibly. But ultimately excessive surveillance encourages people to behave predictably. To oversimplify her argument, democracy needs privacy to breathe.
It is worth noting that not all persistent drones are a threat to privacy—NASA’s Global Hawk Earth science missions, for instance, are exactly what they claim to be: new tools for studying hurricanes and other natural phenomena. But it is essential that these questions about drones and privacy are being asked now. This is because the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test depends on whether technologies are already widely adopted. If no restrictions are put in place and persistent drones become more common, then the legal system allows the fait accompli to stand.
It is unclear whether Mr Obama is serious about addressing the privacy concerns raised by drones. His February memorandum had large carve-outs for “law enforcement or national security” that could undermine his attempts to address “privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties concerns”. However, if he is serious, restrictions on persistent surveillance would be a fine place to start.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

China will not thank perfidious Albion for joining its new bank - Financial Times

March 18, 2015 at 2:59pm
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/870e470a-cbc1-11e4-aeb5-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UhmLHn6Y

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/870e470a-cbc1-11e4-aeb5-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3Uhquq4KK

Jamil Anderlini in Beijing

All of Beijing’s diplomatic dealings with Britain start from a position of injured pride

The UK’s decision to join China’s new alternative to the World Bank has disrupted London’s “special relationship” with the US and left seasoned Sinologists and diplomats scratching their heads.
What does Britain possibly hope to gain by signing up to an institution so clearly aimed at challenging the US-led postwar global order?


The most convincing answer seems to be UK chancellor George Osborne’s desire to place the City of London at the front of the queue of European cities hoping to become offshore financial centres for China and the renminbi.
In private conversations last week, Treasury officials gloated about how the move gave London an advantage over Frankfurt in the race to attract Chinese business.
But following the decisions this week by Germany, France and Italy to join the bank, it is unclear how much of a first-mover advantage Britain has got.
Mr Osborne’s explanation that the UK wants to join China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to ensure it is ethical, transparent and efficient is unpersuasive.
For one thing, it is doubtful that China would change the way it operates the AIIB just to please the UK.
In acknowledging Britain’s “application to join” the bank last week, Beijing said it would consult more than 20 other countries that have already signed up and get back by the end of March with a decision on whether the UK is allowed into the club.
It is inconceivable the UK would have risked public rebuke from Washington only to be turned down in its attempt to join the new bank. But the lukewarm Chinese response does suggest a misjudgment of what might be gained from this move.
In the case of New Zealand, until this week the only other “western” country to join China’s AIIB, the motivation is clear and rational.
Wellington is pursuing a traditional “vassal state” policy vis-à-vis Beijing in order to secure its supply of dairy products to the growing Chinese middle class, by far its biggest single market.
The Kiwi kowtow appears to have worked quite well but British attempts to curry favour are met with a very different response. One prominent Chinese commentator who works at a top government think-tank in Beijing said in international organisations Britain acted as “America’s thug for hire”.

Europeans defy US to join China-led development bank
France, Germany and Italy have all agreed to follow Britain’s lead and join a China-led international development bank, according to European officials, delivering a blow to US efforts to keep leading western countries out of the new institution.
Continue reading
To understand the sentiment behind such remarks, British policy makers need a clear understanding of history and the way it is taught and viewed in China.
Very few British adults have a working knowledge of the opium wars, the history of gunboat diplomacy or the legacy of Britain’s “unequal treaties” and colonial subjugation in China.
In stark contrast, every single Chinese primary school student can rattle off a long list of national humiliations suffered at the hands of barbarian invaders, led by the UK and later Japan.
Several weeks ago in a village in rural China, a seven-year-old boy accosted a Financial Times reporter and demanded to know why he had burnt down the Summer Palace in Beijing.
All of China’s diplomatic dealings with Britain start from this position of injured pride, so acts of apparent British goodwill are often greeted as a cunning ploy or with a special contempt reserved for a weak, failed empire.
The UK’s historical handicap when it comes to China appears poorly understood by modern British politicians.
Perhaps this is partly because old-fashioned Foreign Office Sinologists are often sidelined in favour of salespeople who can rack up investment and trade deals.
But even if Britain’s actions are viewed from a purely commercial perspective, they still do not seem to make much sense.
London is one of the world’s top financial centres and Chinese financial flows will naturally gravitate there no matter what her majesty’s government does to “accommodate” Beijing.

Q&A: the Asian Infrastructure Investment BankThe Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is one of four institutions created or proposed by Beijing in what some see as an attempt to create a Sino-centric financial system to rival western dominated institutions set up after the second world war.
Continue reading
The same goes for Chinese trade and investment, which soared spectacularly even in the 18-month period when Britain was in diplomatic deep-freeze following Prime Minister David Cameron’s public meeting with the Dalai Lama.
Both measures have carried on growing roughly as before, even after the series of conciliatory moves the US is so unhappy about.
Perhaps there is a more prosaic and petty explanation for this latest move.
Late last year, as China prepared to unveil the new AIIB, several European countries including Luxembourg and Germany came quite close to signing up to the bank — a move they thought would help them to promote their own financial centres to the Chinese.
They decided against it then, in part because of perceived opposition from the US and UK.
Maybe by allowing them to believe there was a united front against joining the AIIB, perfidious Albion was able to get one over on its European rivals, if only for a few days and even if the prize was not really worth the effort.