E-mail This Article To A Friend:

moneyboxMoneyboxDaily commentary about business and finance.3NA=1154&NC=1180&DI=4098&PS=58341&PI=7315MoneyboxfalsefalseError:System.Xml.XmlException: This is an unexpected token. The expected token is 'EQUALS'. Line 2, position 30. at System.Xml.XmlScanner.ScanToken(Int32 expected) at System.Xml.XmlTextReader.SetLiteralValues(XmlAttributeTokenInfo fld) at System.Xml.XmlTextReader.SetAttributeValues() at System.Xml.XmlTextReader.ParseElement() at System.Xml.XmlTextReader.Read() at System.Xml.XmlValidatingReader.ReadNoCollectTextToken() at System.Xml.XmlValidatingReader.Read() at System.Xml.XmlLoader.LoadCurrentNode() at System.Xml.XmlLoader.LoadDocSequence(XmlDocument parentDoc) at System.Xml.XmlLoader.Load(XmlDocument doc, XmlReader reader, Boolean preserveWhitespace) at System.Xml.XmlDocument.Load(XmlReader reader) at System.Xml.XmlDocument.LoadXml(String xml) at Publisher.PageBase.ExpandPage(Stack PageStack)MoneyspacernotembeddedmoneyboxCash and CarryDaniel GrossGreenspan's latest gift to the markets.noCash and CarryGreenspan's latest gift to the markets.noLast Friday's surprisingly lousy employment report certainly troubled the White House, but it produced at least a few smiles on Wall Street. This evidence of economic weakness indicated that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan would not raise short-term interest rates any time soon. And that gives banks a license to continue what has been one of Wall Street's most lucrative lines of business in recent months—the "carry" trade.truenotochyperlinkno200431254417PMFridayMarMarch173/12/2004 10:44:17 PM632147102570000000200431254417PMFridayMarMarch173/12/2004 10:44:17 PM632147102570000000moneyboxThe Social Security Crisis—Solved!Daniel GrossA Democratic economist's miraculous plan.noThe Social Security Crisis—Solved!The Social Security crisis—solved!noThis is the fantasy of every Washington politician: You wake up one morning, and the Social Security crisis has vanished. Who knows where it went? Maybe a kind old wizard made it disappear. Who cares? It's gone! The magic solution—a Social Security fix with no tax increases and no benefit cuts—is the dream that will not die.truenotochyperlinkno20043952453PMTuesdayMarMarch173/9/2004 10:24:53 PM63214449893000000020043952453PMTuesdayMarMarch173/9/2004 10:24:53 PM632144498930000000moneyboxRevenge of the Bean CountersDaniel GrossAt last, CFOs are turning on the CEOs who abused them.noRevenge of the Bean CountersRevenge of the bean counters.noFor those of us who follow the corporate scandals, the last several weeks have been pure bliss. In Lower Manhattan, the Martha Stewart jury is deliberating. The Rigas family is on trial for its Adelphia shenanigans. The defense has rested in the Tyco trial. And federal prosecutors have finally secured indictments against two of the most notorious CEOs—Jeffrey Skilling of Enron and Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom.truenotochyperlinkno20043464626PMThursdayMarMarch183/4/2004 11:46:26 PM63214022786000000020043464626PMThursdayMarMarch183/4/2004 11:46:26 PM632140227860000000moneyboxAd Report Card: Financial Responsibility for SaleRob WalkerDaily commentary about business and finance.noAd Report Card: Financial Responsibility for SaleAd Report Card: Financial Responsibility for SalenoFirms like John Hancock and The Hartford face a special challenge in building and promoting their brand identities: What they fundamentally stand for is financial responsibility, which at the end of the day is kind of boring. (That's less true for firms built around the idea that financial responsibility is best achieved by way of rapid-fire stock trading, but that's another story.) Recently, these two companies have produced ads that, whatever their relative strengths and weaknesses, are not boring. The Hartford ads involve saving for retirement and estate planning. The John Hancock ads, which are less current but still worth noting, generally turn on the theme of unpredictability as illustrated by scenes of adoption and divorce, among other things.truenotochyperlinkno200112220822PMMondayJanJanuary141/22/2001 7:08:22 PM631157693020000000200112220822PMMondayJanJanuary141/22/2001 7:08:22 PM631157693020000000moneyboxRats in a RageRob WalkerDaily commentary about business and finance.noRats in a RageRats in a RagenoThis past November, a study released by a firm called Integra Realty Resources painted a picture of a stressed-out American work force increasingly prone to "desk rage," manifested in shouting matches and even violence. Stories appeared in USA Today and elsewhere, and the issue resurfaces today in the Wall Street Journal under the headline "Increasing Incidents of 'Desk Rage' Disrupt Offices." (Actually there was an earlier bout of publicity about desk rage as well stemming from an earlier survey in the U.K.)truenotochyperlinkno200111642529PMTuesdayJanJanuary161/16/2001 9:25:29 PM631152591290000000200111642529PMTuesdayJanJanuary161/16/2001 9:25:29 PM631152591290000000200311442648PMTuesdayJanJanuary161/14/2003 9:26:48 PM631781584080000000200311442648PMTuesdayJanJanuary161/14/2003 9:26:48 PM631781584080000000falsetruefalsefalsefalsefalsetrue20011018111443PMThursdayOctOctober2310/19/2001 3:14:43 AM63139043683000000020011018100740PMThursdayOctOctober2210/19/2001 2:07:40 AM631390396600000000By xJames SurowieckixSurowiecki, JamesJamesSurowieckifalse13James Surowiecki writes the financial column at The New Yorker.508jamessuro@aol.com718-596-1079718-596-3766245 President St., #2BrooklynNY11231USAemail: Motley Fool 123 N. Pitt St 4th Fl Alexandria VA 22314110793620011018111443PMThursdayOctOctober2310/19/2001 3:14:43 AM6313904368300000002001101875029PMThursdayOctOctober1910/18/2001 11:50:29 PM63139031429000000021Moneybox199862120000AMTuesdayJunJune06/2/1998 4:00:00 AM630323424000000000289720011018111443PMThursdayOctOctober2310/19/2001 3:14:43 AM6313904368300000002001101875030PMThursdayOctOctober1910/18/2001 11:50:30 PM631390314300000000Reader Comments From The Fray: Let me add another backlash signal to the list: No more free fruit. About nine months ago, the outrageously rich and powerful investment bank for which I work decided the best way to keep its analysts and VPs from jumping into the arms of any dot.com whispering about stock options, was to disperse free fruit and soda throughout the office. At that time I thought this was an innovation in the company-employer relationship. I waxed poetic to my Marxist friends about the care firms have to show their employers in the New Economy, in fear of the employee leaving for free fruit and fusball in other companies. The little guy was getting a little back, and it inspired me. Not even a year later and suddenly my free bananas have been slashed in a cost-cutting measure. It seems the $500 a month was a completely gratuitous expense only appropriate for boom years, and not the coming famine. The significance of this, I quickly realized, was that the fruit was not a New Economy entitlement on the same inviolable plane as healthcare or free coffee, but was actually a bonus. So when the company is doing well, peons such as myself get an apple while the MDs get 15 million dollar bonuses. When the economy is bad I don't get fruit and the MDs are forced to rely on only 10 million dollar bonuses. When I pointed this out to my co-workers, they replied that we'll probably also lose the coffee soon. I walked by a board meeting today and saw that all the guests were given a little fruit salad to tide them through the meeting. Seems the New Economy backlash simply means a return to normal. --DW (To reply, click here.) Stock options: Offering options as an enticement to desirable, prospective employees to come to work for high-risk, high-gain companies is, really, a fundamentally sound idea. It was just far too over-applied, misunderstood, and misused. Eventually, everyone came to think this was a free-lunch. Now they know it's not. Options, as Walker points out, have a downside for both employers and employees. But what's a surprise is that that's a surprise to anyone. Are options now going to be thought to be as "bad" as they once were thought to be "good"? Why? Business plans on napkins: People aren't very rational at spotting trends or patterns. We're wired to error on the side of over-reacting, which isn't a bad evolutionary strategy. Successful businesses that started as jottings on a napkin--either literally or metaphorically--were no more common in the last few years than they ever were. People read of a few dramatic success stories, and never think to ask just how many more failures there were for each success. Does this mean there's nothing new under the sun, that there aren't visionaries who come up with great, immensely profitable ideas after a few cocktails and perhaps a handful of salted nuts? Of course not. Most successful businesses, however, are the result of a lot of research, planning, and hard work. Foosball: What's wrong with foosball? Is treating employees well either a very "new", or a very "bad" idea? I recall shooting hoops in the early eighties at a broadcast radio automation company. There are diminishing returns in treating employees well, but there's diminishing returns in treating them like slaves, too. Where to draw the line is always going to be a subject of debate, more driven by whim than careful consideration. When I think about how extraordinary these last few years have been for me, I don't really think that I was lucky to have lived during a time when "everything changed". I think I was lucky to live in a time during which I was lucky, if you know what I mean. What seems striking to me is the sense of mania that accompanied these years--in other words, people acted a little weird, but the world itself wasn't all that different. Wait twenty or thirty years 'till half the U.S. is either a desert or underwater--then we'll see what legitimate, justified shadenfreude is. --Keith M. Ellis (To reply, or to read this post in full, click here.) (1/26)  10000false2310falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse24619986433000AMThursdayJunJune36/4/1998 7:30:00 AM6303252780000000001999630121700AMWednesdayJunJune06/30/1999 4:17:00 AM630662986200000000