Artificial Intelligence Strategy Starts With the CIO and Chief Data Officer.
Link >> http://buff.ly/2EHTJSS
Investor. Any references to securities are not recommendations or solicitations to buy or sell anything. I may have positions in securities mentioned.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Julian Robertson
Money
|
Exclusive: Billionaire investor Julian Robertson pulls plug on protégés fund
| NEW YORK/BOSTON
Billionaire investor Julian Robertson is shutting a portfolio that let
outsiders bet with him on would-be star managers and has exited entirely
from former protégée Nehal Chopra's Ratan Capital Management, according
to recent regulatory filings.The
closure of Tiger Management Advisors LLC's six-year-old Tiger
Accelerator Fund comes after poor performance and sharp declines in
assets at its underlying hedge fund firms.For now, it marks the end of retired hedge fund legend Robertson's side-business of gathering other people's money to invest in smaller hedge funds, even though he left open the possibility of pursuing such a strategy again.
For nearly two decades, Robertson has made investments with roughly three dozen hedge funds, including a number run by his former employees, whose firms are often referred to as 'Tiger Cubs,' in a nod to the name of Robertson's hedge fund Tiger Management.
The Tiger Accelerator Fund was unusual in that it grouped six such individual funds together and allowed investors, who might not be able to afford getting into some of the other funds that Robertson backs, to track the billionaire's best new prospects. The fund gave them stakes as limited partners and let them share in the revenue.
It managed just $28.5 million of outside capital as of Dec. 31, 2016, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing made on March 30. That is down more than 90 percent from $450 million at its launch in 2011, which marked Robertson's return to accepting outside capital, a practice he had ended in 2000 when he shut his hedge fund.
A spokesman for Robertson, 84, declined to comment.
Tiger Accelerator joins the growing list of failed hedge funds hurt by investors flocking to the exits in the face of high fees and sluggish returns. Data from Hedge Fund Research show 1,057 portfolios shuttered last year, the most liquidations since 2009.
Among the latest wave of managers supported by Robertson, the reversal of fortune at Chopra's Ratan Capital Management has been particularly stark. Her fund, named after the Hindi word for jewel, grew quickly to manage more than $1 billion, with capital from a public pension fund in New York and the family foundation of Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots.
Working in the same Park Avenue, New York City building as Tiger, Ratan produced three straight years of double-digit gains until a big bet on drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc (VRX.TO) soured and hurt the fund in 2015 and 2016. The fund managed just $375 million as of Dec. 31, according to its latest regulatory filing.
Robertson has pulled out of the Ratan fund completely according to a separate March 30 SEC filing.
Most of the other five Tiger seedlings have also suffered. Tiger Veda closed down in November 2015. Cascabel Management shut down in the first half of 2015.
Robertson pulled his money out of Long Oar Global Investors LLC in early 2014, and the firm is no longer registered with the SEC, an indication that it is either out of business or manages less than $100 million.
Tiger Eye Capital, now the largest of the Tiger Accelerator Fund cohort of managers, has seen its assets drop to $923 million at the end of last year from $1.4 billion at the start of 2016, according to a recent SEC filing.
Teewinot Capital Advisors LLC decided to stop managing money for the Tiger Accelerator portfolio in the third quarter of 2016, a source familiar with the matter said. At the end of last year, Teewinot managed $154 million, up from $138 million in April 2015.
Representatives for the six funds either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.
For more on the history of the Tiger Accelerator Fund, click here: (reut.rs/2oKuIll)
DIASPORA DELIVERS MIXED RESULTS
Some of the managers in the fund initially posted strong performance and assets grew significantly, especially at Tiger Eye and Ratan. As a result, early investors in the Tiger Accelerator Fund appear to have made money. As of August 2015, about $15 million has been paid out by Tiger Accelerator to investors from their minority stakes in the underlying hedge funds, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
A more up-to-date figure was not available. The fund has been run day-to-day by Chief Investment Officer Gil Caffray and President Alex Robertson, Julian's son.
Julian Robertson's personal wealth continued to climb even as the Tiger Accelerator Fund has stumbled. Forbes puts his net worth at $3.8 billion, up from $3.4 billion in 2015 and $1.5 billion in 2000.
Robertson had more than $230 million invested with the six newcomers in the Tiger Accelerator Fund in January 2011 before raising outside capital with the help of Morgan Stanley marketers, according to fund materials seen by Reuters.
While many members of the Tiger diaspora boast strong long-term results, some have struggled lately.
Tiger Global Management, led by Robertson protégé Chase Coleman, lost 15 percent last year. This year the firm's hedge fund is making money again, having returned 13.5 percent in the first quarter, an investor said.
Another Tiger-seeded firm, Hound Partners LLC, ended 2016 with a 2.3 percent loss and is roughly flat this year after a 1.1 percent gain in March, an investor said. And Viking Global Investors, led by former Robertson deputy Andreas Halvorsen, ended 2016 with a 4 percent loss, but is up 4.9 percent this year, an investor said.
Representatives for those funds declined to comment.
(Reporting by Svea Herbst-Bayliss and Lawrence Delevingne; Editing by Bill Rigby)
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Douglas Murray McGregor's : Theory Y and Theory X
Theory X and Theory Y
Douglas McGregor was a management professor at MIT Sloan School of
Management and president of Antioch College from 1948 to 1954. He also
taught in IIM Calcutta . In his book The Human Side of Enterprise,
he talked about two theories called Theory X and Theory Y. McGregor
identified an approach of creating an environment within which employees
are motivated via authoritative, direction and control or integration
and self-control, which he called Theory X and Theory Y.
THEORY X
Theory X is an authoritarian style where the emphasis is on “productivity, on the concept of a fair day's work, on the evils of feather-bedding and restriction of output, on rewards for performance … [it] reflects an underlying belief that management must counteract an inherent human tendency to avoid work”. Theory X is the style that predominated in business after the mechanistic system of scientific management had swept everything before it in the first few decades of the 20th century.
Following are the assumption made by Theory X style of management :
- An average employee intrinsically does not like work and tries to escape it whenever possible
- Since the employee does not want to work, he must be persuaded, compelled, or warned with punishment so as to achieve organizational goals. A close supervision is required on part of managers. The managers adopt a more dictatorial style
- Many employees rank job security on top, and they have little or no aspiration/ ambition
- Employees generally dislike responsibilities
- Employees resist change
- An average employee needs formal direction
Managing your X theory boss
Working for an X theory boss isn't easy - some extreme X theory managers
make extremely unpleasant managers, but there are ways of managing
these people upwards. Avoiding confrontation and delivering results are
the key tactics. Following points should help in managing Theory X
managers :-
- Theory X managers are primarily results oriented - so orientate your your own discussions and dealings with them around results - ie what you can deliver and when
- Theory X managers are facts and figures oriented - so cut out the incidentals, be able to measure and substantiate anything you say and do for them, especially reporting on results and activities
- Theory X managers generally don't understand or have an interest in the human issues, so don't try to appeal to their sense of humanity or morality. Set your own objectives to meet their organisational aims and agree these with the managers; be seen to be self-starting, self-motivating, self-disciplined and well-organised - the more the X theory manager sees you are managing yourself and producing results, the less they'll feel the need to do it for you
- Always deliver your commitments and promises. If you are given an unrealistic task and/or deadline state the reasons why it's not realistic, but be very sure of your ground, don't be negative; be constructive as to how the overall aim can be achieved in a way that you know you can deliver
- Stand up for yourself, but constructively - avoid confrontation. Never threaten or go over their heads if you are dissatisfied or you'll be in big trouble afterwards and life will be a lot more difficult
- If an X theory boss tells you how to do things in ways that are not comfortable or right for you, then don't questioning the process, simply confirm the end-result that is required, and check that it's okay to 'streamline the process' or 'get things done more efficiently' if the chance arises - they'll normally agree to this, which effectively gives you control over the 'how', provided you deliver the 'what' and 'when'.
THEORY Y
Theory Y is a participative style of management which “assumes that people will exercise self-direction and self-control in the achievement of organisational objectives to the degree that they are committed to those objectives”. It is management's main task in such a system to maximise that commitment
Following are the assumptions made by Theory Y style of management :-
- Employees can perceive their job as relaxing and normal. They exercise their physical and mental efforts in an inherent manner in their jobs
- Employees may not require only threat, external control and coercion to work, but they can use self-direction and self-control if they are dedicated and sincere to achieve the organizational objectives
- If the job is rewarding and satisfying, then it will result in employees’ loyalty and commitment to organization
- An average employee can learn to admit and recognize the responsibility. In fact, he can even learn to obtain responsibility
- The employees have skills and capabilities. Their logical capabilities should be fully utilized. In other words, the creativity, resourcefulness and innovative potentiality of the employees can be utilized to solve organizational problems
Many people interpret Theory Y as a positive set of assumptions about workers. A close reading of The Human Side of Enterprise reveals that McGregor simply argues for managers to be open to a more positive view of workers and the possibilities that create enthusiasm
CONCLUSION
Though
these theories are very basic in nature, they provide a platform for
future generations of management theorists and practitioners to
understand the changing dynamics of human behavior. Taken too literally,
Theories X and Y seem to represent unrealistic extremes. Most employees
(including managers) fall somewhere in between these poles. Recent
studies have questioned the rigidity of the model, yet McGregor's X-Y
Theories remain guiding principles to the management to evolve processes
which help in organizational development. A mix of practices which
ensure a healthy blend of systems and the freedom to perform at the work
place is likely to motivate the employees more. This mix of practices
calls for induction of technology into HR. How we can practice Talent
Management in all types of organizations will indicate how well we have
understood & deployed these theories X and Y in our real time
environment
Really
want to check whether your company follows Theory X or Theory Y style
of management or You your self is Theory X worker or Theory Y worker.
Visit Theory X & Theory Y
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Innovation of how energy can be a local affair
This New York #startup lets residents give or sell #solarpower to each other through a #blockchain-powered microgrid allowing residents to bypass the power company.
We have the solutions to the #climatecrisis. Let's implement them. #PanelsNotPipelines
#ActOnClimate #climate
LO3
Energy is developing blockchain based innovations to revolutionize how
energy can be generated, stored, bought, sold and used, all at the local
level.
2,400 years ago, Plato saw democracy would give rise to a tyrannical leader filled with “false and braggart words”
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
DEMOGOGUECRACY
2,400 years ago, Plato saw democracy would give rise to a tyrannical leader filled with “false and braggart words”
By Olivia GoldhillJune 2, 2018
Plato was not a fan of democracy. Many might consider this just a blip on the philosopher’s otherwise excellent political analysis. But his description of the “democratic man” does give pause for thought.
In the Republic, written in 380 BC, Plato describes such the democratic man—by which he means a democratic leader—as one of “false and braggart words and opinions” who dismisses moderation, calls “insolence ‘good breeding,’ licence ‘liberty,’ prodigality ‘magnificence,’” and “temperance they call ‘want of manhood’ and banish it with contumely.”
Remind you of anyone?
Josiah Ober, professor of political science and classics at Stanford University says the passage does read as “a particularly harsh description of the most tyrannical parts of Trump’s public personality.” Plato’s Republic, which evaluates the nature and justice of various political regimes, and examines how individuals’ moral psychologies are interlinked with the moral psychology of their state, is intended as a work of philosophy rather than a prediction of how political events would unfold. That said, Plato’s critique of democracy contains a number of aspects relevant today.
Plato believed that the key and driving feature of democracy is desire for freedom; this very trait, though, ultimately leads a state to tyranny. A democratic regime involves such a plurality of interests, he believed, that the only way anything can be achieved under it is to have strong leadership that can unite interests. “It’s not a complete portrait of modern democracy but it captures something: This desire for a strong leaders who can give guidance to diverse pluralistic uncoordinated desires,” says Oder.
Strong leaders, in Plato’s view, ultimately become demagogic tyrants. “The tyrant wants to be completely free of all constraints and yet he’s the most enslaved, because he has to surround himself with bodyguards, and yes-men, and people who will feed his ego and desires,” explains Ober.
The tyrant mistrusts both those within and outside his circle, and so essentially ends up in a sort of servitude himself.
Those around him are “necessarily slavish,” Ober adds, as “they’re willing to debase themselves to the grotesque deformed soul of the tyrant.” But the tyrant mistrusts both those within and outside his circle, and so essentially ends up in a sort of servitude himself. “He recognizes that he’s always in danger and sees plots everywhere,” says Ober. “He therefore lives a life that’s as abjectly awful as possible to live. Though he seems to be living in a glittering palace with wealth and access to all good things, in fact he lives a shrunken existence as a slave to slaves.” Paranoia and desire for sycophancy are familiar features of many contemporary democratic leaders.
In Plato’s view, each political state naturally devolves into another in systematic order. Rule by philosopher-king gives way to timocracy (rule by property owners), which gives way to oligarchy, followed by democracy and then tyranny. As democracy is preceded by rule of the rich, Plato believed that under a democratic regime, there would be considerable resentment against the wealthy; the first step of the democratic demagogue, he claimed, would be to attack these wealthy elites. “He says they’re bad people and we should prosecute them, especially in the law courts,” says Ober. Accusing the wealthy of crimes and prosecuting them is, in Plato’s view, simply the easiest way of extracting wealth from them. Contemporary politics only half fulfill this assessment: There’s certainly considerably resentment towards the elite, but there’s noticeably little criminal prosecution of the very rich, even among those who’ve committed serious crimes.
Certain aspects of the democracy Plato describes—and which we are now seeing—are not sudden, recent developments. Politicians have long been criticized for being loose with the truth or pandering to populist interests, for example. But Ober believes many modern democratic states have a declining sense of shared interests; this, in Plato’s view, makes them particularly vulnerable to tyranny. Brexit has divided Britain, he notes, Belgium is fracturing along its French and Flemish demographic lines, the United States is more partisan than ever. All these divides can lead to the decline of a functioning democratic state.
“A platonic vision of a state that’s divided against itself is vulnerable to this demagogic appeal, a tyrannical takeover,” says Ober. “I think we’re at greater risk than before.”
Can we resist tyrannical leaders? Plato believed that a constitution, which should lay out clear rules that everyone must abide by, provides some protection. It may not prevent demagoguery, but it can offer a baseline of equality under the law. He also advocated citizen responsibility: “[Citizens] have to know enough about what’s going on, to speak out and join with other citizens when there are violations,” says Ober. They can’t wait for others to do the work for them.”
Despite these protections, Plato pessimistically believed that democracy inevitably devolves into tyranny. On this point, though, Ober disagrees. “Historically, it can,” he says. “But democracies emerge in rejection of tyranny. You get democracy by saying we refuse to be ruled by a tyrant, king, or small gang of elites. When democracies work, we remember that’s what they’re all about”
For a more optimistic interpretation of today’s political regimes, Ober suggests looking to Aristotle, who understood that true democracy is fundamentally opposed to tyranny. Contemporary politics may cause consternation, but Ober says it’s worth believing in the political regime. After all, he adds, “Democracy has to be built on hope.”
2,400 years ago, Plato saw democracy would give rise to a tyrannical leader filled with “false and braggart words”
By Olivia GoldhillJune 2, 2018
Plato was not a fan of democracy. Many might consider this just a blip on the philosopher’s otherwise excellent political analysis. But his description of the “democratic man” does give pause for thought.
In the Republic, written in 380 BC, Plato describes such the democratic man—by which he means a democratic leader—as one of “false and braggart words and opinions” who dismisses moderation, calls “insolence ‘good breeding,’ licence ‘liberty,’ prodigality ‘magnificence,’” and “temperance they call ‘want of manhood’ and banish it with contumely.”
Remind you of anyone?
Josiah Ober, professor of political science and classics at Stanford University says the passage does read as “a particularly harsh description of the most tyrannical parts of Trump’s public personality.” Plato’s Republic, which evaluates the nature and justice of various political regimes, and examines how individuals’ moral psychologies are interlinked with the moral psychology of their state, is intended as a work of philosophy rather than a prediction of how political events would unfold. That said, Plato’s critique of democracy contains a number of aspects relevant today.
Plato believed that the key and driving feature of democracy is desire for freedom; this very trait, though, ultimately leads a state to tyranny. A democratic regime involves such a plurality of interests, he believed, that the only way anything can be achieved under it is to have strong leadership that can unite interests. “It’s not a complete portrait of modern democracy but it captures something: This desire for a strong leaders who can give guidance to diverse pluralistic uncoordinated desires,” says Oder.
Strong leaders, in Plato’s view, ultimately become demagogic tyrants. “The tyrant wants to be completely free of all constraints and yet he’s the most enslaved, because he has to surround himself with bodyguards, and yes-men, and people who will feed his ego and desires,” explains Ober.
The tyrant mistrusts both those within and outside his circle, and so essentially ends up in a sort of servitude himself.
Those around him are “necessarily slavish,” Ober adds, as “they’re willing to debase themselves to the grotesque deformed soul of the tyrant.” But the tyrant mistrusts both those within and outside his circle, and so essentially ends up in a sort of servitude himself. “He recognizes that he’s always in danger and sees plots everywhere,” says Ober. “He therefore lives a life that’s as abjectly awful as possible to live. Though he seems to be living in a glittering palace with wealth and access to all good things, in fact he lives a shrunken existence as a slave to slaves.” Paranoia and desire for sycophancy are familiar features of many contemporary democratic leaders.
In Plato’s view, each political state naturally devolves into another in systematic order. Rule by philosopher-king gives way to timocracy (rule by property owners), which gives way to oligarchy, followed by democracy and then tyranny. As democracy is preceded by rule of the rich, Plato believed that under a democratic regime, there would be considerable resentment against the wealthy; the first step of the democratic demagogue, he claimed, would be to attack these wealthy elites. “He says they’re bad people and we should prosecute them, especially in the law courts,” says Ober. Accusing the wealthy of crimes and prosecuting them is, in Plato’s view, simply the easiest way of extracting wealth from them. Contemporary politics only half fulfill this assessment: There’s certainly considerably resentment towards the elite, but there’s noticeably little criminal prosecution of the very rich, even among those who’ve committed serious crimes.
Certain aspects of the democracy Plato describes—and which we are now seeing—are not sudden, recent developments. Politicians have long been criticized for being loose with the truth or pandering to populist interests, for example. But Ober believes many modern democratic states have a declining sense of shared interests; this, in Plato’s view, makes them particularly vulnerable to tyranny. Brexit has divided Britain, he notes, Belgium is fracturing along its French and Flemish demographic lines, the United States is more partisan than ever. All these divides can lead to the decline of a functioning democratic state.
“A platonic vision of a state that’s divided against itself is vulnerable to this demagogic appeal, a tyrannical takeover,” says Ober. “I think we’re at greater risk than before.”
Can we resist tyrannical leaders? Plato believed that a constitution, which should lay out clear rules that everyone must abide by, provides some protection. It may not prevent demagoguery, but it can offer a baseline of equality under the law. He also advocated citizen responsibility: “[Citizens] have to know enough about what’s going on, to speak out and join with other citizens when there are violations,” says Ober. They can’t wait for others to do the work for them.”
Despite these protections, Plato pessimistically believed that democracy inevitably devolves into tyranny. On this point, though, Ober disagrees. “Historically, it can,” he says. “But democracies emerge in rejection of tyranny. You get democracy by saying we refuse to be ruled by a tyrant, king, or small gang of elites. When democracies work, we remember that’s what they’re all about”
For a more optimistic interpretation of today’s political regimes, Ober suggests looking to Aristotle, who understood that true democracy is fundamentally opposed to tyranny. Contemporary politics may cause consternation, but Ober says it’s worth believing in the political regime. After all, he adds, “Democracy has to be built on hope.”
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Leyla McCalla - 'The Capitalist Blues' (Lyrics Video)
The Carolina Chocolate Drops cellist
finds modern social and political issues
in a 1930s calypso song.
Watch the video premiere of @LeylaMcCalla’s "Money Is King".
Track taken from "The Capitalist Blues"
Out January 25th on Jazz Village.
Order _ add to favorites here : http://smarturl.it/LeylaMcCalla2019
https://twitter.com/jazz_village
Leyla McCalla - 'The Capitalist Blues' (Lyrics Video)
Track taken from "The Capitalist Blues"
Out January 25th on Jazz Village.
Order _ add to favorites here : http://smarturl.it/LeylaMcCalla2019
https://twitter.com/jazz_village
Friday, January 4, 2019
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Professor Jeremy Siegel: WisdomTree is the Only Company I've Ever Endorsed
Learn more about our focus on performance:
https://www.wisdomtree.com/etfs-built...
https://www.wisdomtree.com/etfs-built...
Follow us for more info on WisdomTree ETFs:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WisdomTreeETFs
For more on our prospectus visit our website: https://www.wisdomtree.com/
WisdomTree Funds are distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC in the U.S. only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)