Wednesday, January 1, 2014

A Question for the New Year: What Do You Want to Be Remembered For? - TIME

A Question for the New Year: What Do You Want to Be Remembered For?

Read more: A Question for the New Year: What Do You Want to Be Remembered For? | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/12/31/a-question-for-the-new-year-what-do-you-want-to-be-remembered-for/#ixzz2p9kyEprt



New Year's
Getty Images
This is a time when many of us turn inward. We consider what we’ve done over the past 12 months. And we resolve to do better during the 12 months ahead.
For Peter Drucker, though, such a pensive posture wasn’t simply the stuff of New Year’s. In fact, he was always asking the question, “What do you want to be remembered for?” He asked it of his corporate clients. He asked it of his university students. He asked it of himself.
“It is a question that induces you to renew yourself,” Drucker wrote, “because it pushes you to see yourself as a different person—the person you can become.”
At the Drucker Institute, we raise this question a lot, as well. Phalana Tiller, the host of our monthly podcast on management and leadership, “Drucker on the Dial,” ends every interview by asking an executive, author, academic or other guest what he or she wants to be remembered for.
“It’s as if I’ve sucker punched them, but with the gentlest and most loving soft blow,” Tiller says. “Having to name and share the thing they want to be remembered for requires them to consider what they’re doing in their daily choices, actions and interactions. It places a mirror before them where, for a brief second, they have to confront whether they’re actually living up to their stated values.”
For those in business, the question is also a powerful reminder that there is more to what they do than simply trying to maximize profits—or at least there should be.
“I don’t want to be remembered for an athletic shirt,” Kevin Plank, the founder and chief executive of Under Armour, the sports apparel company, told Tiller. “I’d like to build a great brand, but I’d like it to be more than convincing someone to buy my shoe because athlete X wears it and it’s really expensive and I can make a great margin on it. I want our brand to be inspirational . . . that it gives you that ability to want to get up and want to go do something important yourself.”
For Paul O’Neill, who once ran the aluminum giant Alcoa, the idea of legacy is tied directly to worker safety. “When I was the CEO . . . I did say that Alcoa would become an institution where people were never hurt at work, and we substantially achieved that objective,” O’Neill said. “When I was there, there were 143,000 people and our injury rates were behind the second decimal point. I think there are more and more places where people are striving for that, and I would take a little bit of credit for that.”
Tom Gardner, who co-founded the Motley Fool, the financial-services company, wants to leave behind an organization that will sustain itself long after he is gone. “I want to be like Jim Sinegal at Costco,” he explained. “When he stepped away as CEO, the announcement of his departure was in paragraph 12 of their quarterly earnings announcement. I think the best way to be remembered is that your organization thrived without you.”
Paul Zak, whose research as a neuroeconomist has led him to explore why people engage in what he calls “courageous acts of compassion” in the workplace and beyond, would like his insights to have a lasting impact. “I think if I increase the love in the world a teeny bit, that’s a great thing,” Zak said. “That’ll cut across my family, the people I work with and maybe complete strangers. That would be fine by me.”
Philip Levine, the former poet laureate of the United States whose verse captures the grittiness of blue-collar Detroit, suggested to Tiller that he already may have achieved what he wants to be remembered for.
“I got a letter the other day from a 25-year-old guy who lives somewhere in Pennsylvania who has been teaching himself to become a poet . . . and he bought one of my books, and he read the poem called “You Can Have It,” which is a poem really about my brother and me,” Levine recounted. “He said he read it to his mother, and when he finished reading it they were both weeping, weeping with a kind of joy, because of the love that was expressed in the poem. It was one of the most touching letters I’ve had in years, and I thought, ‘Oh god, I did what I wanted to do.’”
As for Drucker, he was first asked, “What do you want to be remembered for?” when he was a 13-year-old schoolboy in Austria, and his teacher, Father Pfliegler, posed the question to the class. At that tender age, Drucker recalled, “None of us, of course, could answer it.”
“I didn’t expect you to be able to answer it,” Father Pfliegler replied. “But if you still can’t answer it by the time you’re 50, you will have wasted your life.”
Drucker noted that he and some of his classmates began to wrestle with the question in earnest when they were about 25, though most of them “answered it foolishly” at that point. That’s not surprising. What you want to be remembered for “should change both with one’s own maturity and with changes in the world,” Drucker observed.
Over the course of the next 70 years, Drucker settled finally on his answer—one that I find both humble and inspiring. “My definition of success changed a long time ago,” he said. “Making a difference in a few lives is a worthy goal. Having enabled a few people to do the things they want to do, that’s really what I want to be remembered for.”
Here’s hoping that all of us make a difference in a few lives in 2014.


Read more: A Question for the New Year: What Do You Want to Be Remembered For? | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/12/31/a-question-for-the-new-year-what-do-you-want-to-be-remembered-for/#ixzz2p9lVUwrY

Monday, December 30, 2013

Forecasting the Year Ahead, and Preparing to Be Wrong - New York Times

Forecasting the Year Ahead, and Preparing to Be Wrong


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/your-money/gleaning-clues-for-forecast-of-year-ahead.html?ref=your-money-email&nl=your-money&emc=edit_my_20131230&_r=0

THIS is the time of year when investment analysts predict what they believe will happen over the next 12 months. That they are invariably wrong about something is a given. Or, to be more charitable, it is a given that events that no one could have foreseen will have caused their deeply researched predictions to be incorrect.
John Marshall Mantel for The New York Times
Mike Ryan, a strategist at UBS Wealth Management Americas, said something — he can’t say what — was bound to go wrong.
Wealth Matters
Wealth Matters
Paul Sullivan writes about strategies that the wealthy use to manage their money and their overall well-being.
Barbara Reinhard, of Credit Suisse, expects a brighter growth picture in 2014.
Consider the sustained increase in United States stock prices this year. Many predicted that the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index would have a good year, but no one predicted it would rise 29 percent.
And already one prediction that every strategist I talked to made for next year is wrong: that the Federal Reserve would curb its bond-buying program in March or later, if the economy remained weak.
On Dec. 18, the Fed announced that it would buy $10 billion less in bonds a month starting in January.
After the announcement, Gary Thayer, chief macro strategist at Wells Fargo, pointed out in a note to clients that the unemployment rate at 7 percent was about one percentage point lower than when the Fed started this round of bond-buying.
Clearly, he and some of the other strategists who watch these things did not think a 7 percent unemployment rate was all that good, but the Fed disagreed.
It’s easy to pick on strategists for what turn out to be miscalculations, but it’s not terribly productive. If clients did not want one-year predictions, Wall Street would probably stop providing them. And the timing, in the case of tapering, may not matter since it signaled that the economy is doing better.
So this year I wanted to do something more than just look at the year ahead and argue the pros and cons of various predictions. After asking what people were predicting, I wanted to know why we still bother with these predictions. If the last decade has taught us anything, it is that unexpected events can knock our portfolios for a loop.
Next week, I’ll look at views on what is likely to happen during the next three to five years and ask why there has not been more of a push for longer predictions.
Up first, the year-ahead game.
CONSENSUS VIEWS The United States stock market has had a remarkable run this year, and the view is that it will continue. But unlike this year, that rise is likely to be more uneven.
Barbara Reinhard, chief investment officer for the Americas at Credit Suisse, said: “Global growth is going to be better in 2014 than 2013.”
In the United States, she said, the drag of the sequester cuts would disappear, and Europe was expected to move into modest growth. Stocks, on a historical basis, are not expensive, and investors have been slow to put money back into equities, so there is reason to think they could continue to go higher.
“This doesn’t mean we aren’t in for some sort of pullback,” she said. “We should experience a 5 to 7 percent pullback at some point.”
Katherine Nixon, chief investment officer at Northern Trust, said an anomaly of this year’s rally was the lack of large dips compared with previous years.
“Investors haven’t experienced a truly volatile market in quite some time,” she said. “Volatility is normal, but we’re riding below normal. So to get us back to normal may feel like a real increase in volatility to people.”
Her concern is that when normal volatility returns in the United States, investors could get spooked.
Next year is also predicted to be one in which Europe may begin to do better, and that means European companies, beyond financial institutions that rebounded broadly this year, are expected to do well.
Ms. Reinhard said her favorite countries were Germany and the peripheral countries that were hit hardest by the recession but have since engaged in structural reforms: Ireland, Italy, Spain and Greece. “Europe is one of our favorite regions in 2014,” she said. “We like it over the U.S.”
Dean Tenerelli, European stock fund manager for T. Rowe Price, said that anyone looking to invest in European companies should have at least a two-year time horizon to weather possible volatility. “Even if things are looking more positive, we’ll still have 1 to 1.5 percent G.D.P. growth in 2014,” he said. “There is still a long way to go before our companies recover to normalized earnings. It’s possible we have a correction next year.”

(Page 2 of 2)
AREAS OF CONCERN Bonds are one area of concern. Since interest rates on fixed income, particularly benchmarks like 10-year United States Treasury notes, fell so much over the last few years, the view is they will begin to rise as the Fed ends its bond-buying program and the economy improves. As that happens, the value of bonds that people already own decreases.
Wealth Matters
Wealth Matters
Paul Sullivan writes about strategies that the wealthy use to manage their money and their overall well-being.
Expecting such a situation, the prevailing wisdom is not to buy bonds or to buy bonds with shorter maturities, say under five years, which will lose less of their value. But thinking in binary terms like this has risks.
“We either love or hate an asset class and go all in or all out,” said Mike Ryan, chief investment strategist at UBS Wealth Management Americas. “I don’t know what is going to go wrong in 2014, but I know something will. Every allocation has to take into account that there will be stresses, and bonds are a counterweight to that.”
Municipal bonds are their own area of worry. Hugh McGuirk, vice president and head of municipal bonds at T. Rowe Price, said the market this year was down about 2.5 percent and he did not have high expectations for a positive return in 2014. “The best-case scenario for municipal bonds is the economy doesn’t grow like people think and the effects of coming out of the recession peter out and maybe rates don’t move at all,” he said.
In that instance — which would be awful for anyone who was not a municipal bond investor — he foresaw returns from a positive 3 to 4 percent to a negative 2 to 3 percent. If there is an upside, he said it would be in municipal bonds tied to essential services like water and sewer rates. The general obligation bonds, once seen as the safest to own because municipalities could just increase taxes to make their payments, have been tarnished by financial crises in Puerto Rico, Detroit and Illinois.
Then there is China, which is a special case since it is causing worry for 2014 and also for the next three to five years. The fundamental question is what will happen to companies and countries that have depended on China for trade as the country tries to move its economy away from being export-based. One fear is that commodity producers and exporters will be hit hard by China’s changes.
WHY PREDICT? Whatever its value, the one-year prediction, Mr. Ryan said, is ingrained in who we are as people. “We account for our life in four seasons,” he said. “What did farmers focus on in the summer? What the fall crop was going to be. What did they focus on in the winter? How much rain they were going to get in the spring. We talk and think in temporal terms. The year ahead — it’s always reinforced.”
Ms. Reinhard, however, sees real value in predicting what will happen next year if people are looking at the right indicators. She said looking at gross domestic product, for example, was not forward-looking in the way that analyzing manufacturing orders was.
Her stock market number for the S.&P. 500 this year had been 1,750, or a 20 percent increase from where it closed in 2012. It was at 1,841.40 on Friday. For next year, she put that number at 1,960, which would only be a 6.4 percent increase from Friday’s close.
Others find the exercise of one-year predictions a waste of time. “Nine out of 10 times when I’m asked what will happen next year, I say stocks will tend to perform along the historical average, which is 10 to 12 percent a year,” said John Buckingham, chief investment officer of Afam Capital and editor of the Prudent Speculator newsletter. “Have I ever been right? No. I don’t care what the market will do. I had an expectation of 12 percent at the beginning of the year, and I was wrong. But I’m up 30 some percent in my portfolios and I’ll take that.”
He added that revising predictions during the year could be equally perilous: “The best time to get out of equities this year was August. We had Syria, the Fed talking about tapering, a government shutdown and September and October are generally bad months. What happened? We were up 4 percent each month.”
But his biggest worry was the predictions he had seen for another 20 percent increase in stock prices. “I’d rather have a contrarian view,” he said.
Of course, that is still a prediction, even if it goes against the grain.

Americans Still Pessimistic About Economy - TIME

Americans Still Pessimistic About Economy


http://business.time.com/2013/12/27/americans-still-pessimistic-about-economy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Almost 70 percent think the economy is in bad shape
Never mind a stock market breaking records and an unemployment rate inching down: Americans still think this economy stinks.
That’s according to a new CNN poll out Friday, which found almost 70 percent of respondents think the economy is in bad shape, while only 32 percent think things are good. More than half of Americans don’t think conditions will improve next year, according to the poll.
The economy has seen marked improvements in recent weeks. Stocks have surged, unemployment is the lowest it’s been in five years, gas prices have dropped and even the housing market is recovering. But the long-term unemployed or under-employed continue to cut back. The poll found 36 percent were reining in spending on food or medicine, a five-percent increase from 2008, during the height of housing market crash.
Those who viewed the economy negatively are mostly rural residents, according to the poll. The poll surveyed 1,035 Americans by telephone between Dec. 16 and 19, with a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.


Read more: Americans Still Pessimistic About Economy | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/12/27/americans-still-pessimistic-about-economy/#ixzz2p1bOvs7X

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Why 3D Printing Is Turning Out to Be Risky - TIME

Why 3D Printing Is Turning Out to Be Risky

Read more: Why 3D Printing Is Turning Out to Be Risky | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/12/27/why-3d-printing-is-turning-out-to-be-risky/#ixzz2ovKDbMYW


3dprint
In a year when investors were willing to make speculative trades in emerging technologies, one of the hottest areas was (and continues to be) 3D printing. While recent rallies in the sector have yielded gains – with stocks rising several times over in a matter of months, if not weeks – the uncertainty of how 3D printing will evolve makes the high valuations that have resulted look risky.
Over the past several years, 3D printing has grown from an intriguing idea with seemingly limitless potential to a fledgling industry that each month seems to bring new real-world applications. The technology could bring dramatic changes to industries such as mass manufacturing, the delivery of consumer goods and the creation of artificial organs.
Already, General Electric is manufacturing new turbines with 3D printers, while New Balance is making custom-fit shoes and others are working on disposable panties and personalized sex toys (like the early web, 3D printing business models may be pioneered by the sex industry). Meanwhile, a DIY community reminiscent of the hobbyists who helped shape the PC is experimenting with other uses.
The promise of 3D printing isn’t just in how things are made or how goods are delivered, it’s in the ability to dramatically reduce costs of production. Already, 3D printers have made tweaking prototypes and customizing products much cheaper because the machinery involved doesn’t have to change, only the computer-aided design. In the era of 3D printing, designers may become as powerful and sought after as coders have on in web software.
All of this explains why investor are getting excited about the handful of companies that are making 3D printers for companies and hobbyists. Remember the old chestnut that the people who make money from gold rushes are the ones selling the tools? That thinking is driving a big rally in the shares of 3D printer companies. In fact, for investors, it’s as if a gold-rush mentality has seized them.
The problem is that it’s still so early in the 3D printing industry that there have mostly been small companies in the space, many of which were bought up in a wave of acquisitions. That consolidation is creating a handful of leaders.
3D Systems, founded in 1986 by the inventor of the first rapid prototyping system, has bought 28 small companies since 2011, including Geomagic and Phenix Systems this year. Stratasys, another industry veteran founded in 1989, merged with Israel-based Objet in April 2012 and bought MakerBot, a company focused on the consumer side of the industry, for $400 million last July.
For a few decades, 3D Systems and Stratasys focused on the market for designing prototypes quickly and cheaply. Even now, the bulk of 3D printers are used for such rapid prototyping in industrial design. The two companies have the biggest market caps – $9.5 billion for 3D Systems and $6.3 billion for Stratasys. But as the more disruptive potential of 3D printing has emerged, they’ve been joined by younger, smaller companies that have gone public in the past two years.
Proto Labs, founded in 1999 went public in February 2012 at $16 a share and now trades at $72 a share. ExOne, founded in 2005, went public a year later at $18 a share and now trades at $60 a share. And voxeljet, founded in Germany in 1999, debuted only two months ago at $13 a share and is trading around $39 a share.
The two veterans have performed the best, with Stratasys quadrupling in the past four years and 3D Systems rising eightfold in the same period. Neither rally is showing signs of flagging right now. The younger three, following strong first-day pops (not shown on this chart) and early rallies, have been weakening on valuation concerns.
With or without recent corrections, these five stocks are trading at irrationally high valuations. 3D Systems, the strongest performer of the group, has a trailing 12-month price-to-earnings ratio of 199 and a price-to-sales ratio of 19. Stratasys is trading at 15 times recent sales, Proto Labs at 12 times, ExOne at 20 times and voxeljet at 30 times.
This month, following the Euromold Conference in Frankfurt Germany, several Wall Street analysts began or amped up coverage of 3D printer companies. Barron’s Tech Trader Daily blog has been faithfully cataloging the reports, which have been more favorable to recommend 3D Systems and Stratsys over the smaller companies.
In short, 3D systems is favored for its broad offerings, Stratasys for its move into the consumer market, and both for their long experience in the industry as well as their strong base of corporate customers. Both, however have grown mostly through acquisitions in the past couple of years, making organic growth harder to gauge.
Among the smaller players, analysts tend to favor ExOne for its (relatively) lower valuation, while voxeljet is still seen as overpriced given some concerns with customer loans.
Then there’s the question of how much of the speculation driving 3D printer stocks will turn in time to the steady, long-term profit growth the prices imply. Earlier speculative rallies in biotechnology and nanotechnology never panned out as hoped. Not all of the promise of 3D printing is fanciful, but it’s not clear which industries it will catch on in, and whether consumers will find it to be more than a novelty.
“We think people may be overestimating the 3D printing ramp in mass manufacturing over the next year but underestimating it over the next five years,” wrote Jeffries analyst Peter Misek in a report this month. That’s the catch with speculation: Between the potential and the profit lies a valley of uncertainty. Crossing that valley is usually harder than it looks, and a lot of hope and money can be lost in the process.