text:
Ann Iveson's Blog
Friday, July 24, 2015 by Ann Iveson
|Private Equity still under attack
However this time it's not only the GPs that have come in for negative critique (well not directly). Instead the journalists have gone for their investors or should I say some of them. In poker everyone knows the patsies and if you don't then you're it, but does the same hold true for capital markets? In truth the SEC now knows who are the patsies in PE. After all they've gone through enough LP agreements. Additionally does the very private nature of this investment increase the likelihood of the less rigorous investor, and is this by design or circumstance?
You would think its long term illiquid characteristics together with the fact that many of those investors, such as pension funds and endowments, publish annual reports should act as a counterbalance. But who really reads them? Who determines the governance or benchmark for the quality of information included? What are the Guidelines Monitoring Group (you remember them - I am sure you have examined all their reports!) doing in the UK to reflect the SEC insights?
Why has the dial turned and the finger pointed now? Simply because the SEC has been doing the work perhaps those investors and/or their advisors might have or should have done. They have dug and asked the questions others haven't. I am not so naive to be oblivious to the extra powers they have over the GPs. I realise a difficult investor, by that I mean an astute one asking the poignant probing questions might ironically have been dismissed by the GP unless that said investor had very deep pockets or the market for funding was more precarious as it was post the financial crisis. I say ironic as it is this exacting nature of GPs that give them their edge in assessing investments and making those operational improvements. Should ILPA have acted much earlier to leverage their position and question the proliferation of fees or did the LPs pull against uniformity; each thinking they had negotiated a better side deal?
Prior to the SEC's involvement investors were very aware of the the 2/20 costs of investing in PE funds but many were not aware of the other transaction and monitoring fees involved. They were blinded by the concept of alignment not where conflicts of interest might exists. The SEC has been rigorous, honing their examination and highlighted these areas. Transaction fees are not a private equity phenomena. They are, given their prevalence, a practice. Suddenly the first question many LPs now ask when considering an investment with a GP in the post SEC pe regulated world is "Have you had a SEC audit?" This audit is a better endorsement than any credit rating but the SEC just like the ratings agencies is not a substitute for doing your homework and the SEC should not position itself as such.
The lobbyists for the private equity industry argue that fees and access to co-investments are all part of a complex negotiated contract between sophisticated, well informed parties. I would argue that the SEC findings and consequential investor reactions might question certain aspects of this statement. Indeed to continue to defend this position without question is damaging to the credibility and integrity of the overall industry, which at its best, can provide a better governance model for corporate profitability and generate superior net returns for its investors.
But just as the private equity managers have until now confused privacy with transparency, meaning the former negates the need for the latter, the investors have not always continued with their due diligence post selection according to Andrew Bowden.
Now it s not enough for pension funds and maybe endowments to quote their returns net of fees. As the SEC has shown such valuations have not always been accurate or methodologies consistent. Rigour and records are needed to know the quantity of the carried interest and the extent of other fees from each investment because politicians are asking. However despite this pressure some GPs will not provide the data although I would hazard a guess that they will certainly know the amount and source of fees earned by their funds. With vastly inadequate systems it is little wonder some state pension funds are cutting back on the number of managers with which they will have investments.
So I imagine a busy summer for all those that have assisted in the due diligence of fund performance as they play catch up with all the requests coming from investors, their respective trustees and the burgeoning chain of command and interest from political circles. After all they have supposedly had a year to obtain the information or at least demand it from their GPs post the Bowden speech. And what of the GP behaviours that have been found wanting by the SEC. Perhaps a cool breeze has wafted through the managers' financial citadels to temper their enthusiasm for allocating fees erroneously or unfairly but the fines being levied are not a disincentive, being little more than 'holiday money' for most. Will those managers that have never charged such fees benefit as investors start to aggregate their total costs of investing.
However it is summer and despite all the above private equity can, as the recent report from Oxford University Endowment Fund (OEF) shows, generate a strong return. A relatively young fund, OEF has increased its exposure to PE from 2% since inception (2008) to 18% as at the end of 2014. Additionally it has significantly outperformed global equities in every reported category. However little information is provided on how the valuations are derived and how they make their decisions. Like I asked at the start - "who's the audience for the report and what do they derive from it?"
Footnote: For more information on SEC Filings look at our Adveq Report by Professors Francesca Cornelli and Florin Vasvari
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
With news that Blackstone is planning a hedge fund to take big (?) bets just how timely is our second report in the ADVEQ series "Risk Management Practices within Private Equity" ?
Monday, June 30, 2014 by Ann Iveson
|Risk Management in PE
Private Equity pleaded for separate treatment when regulations were introduced in the aftermath of 2008 financial meltdown but with news of Blackstone's latest hedge fund plans (http://online.wsj.com/articles/blackstone-readies-big-bet-hedge-fund-1404082286) and several direct lending funds announced in the last month just how important and how appropriate are the risk management practices within the private equity industry?
However this report goes beyond what is prescribed from a regulatory perspective and attempts to take a broad view of the risks faced by private equity and how they are measured and thus managed.
Please download our latest report on the subject. (http://www.collerinstitute.com/content/userdocuments/newsdocuments/21.pdf)
Risk management is a clear focus for many GPs - however the extent to which the risks and their respective management is reported to LPs is less than might be expected. Whilst you don't need a sledge hammer to crack a nut, the sophistication adopted may also raise a few eyebrows.
I sense a huge amount of sensitivity around this topic and it would be good to have some feedback once you have had a chance to read it. This is an important contribution to what is a surprisingly barren yet important issue.
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
Why you should eat at PE owned restaurants | Private Equity Findings Issue 10
Tuesday, June 17, 2014 by Ann Iveson
|Academia goes creative
Shai Bernstein and Albert Sheen of Stanford and Harvard respectively devised a far better method for drilling down to determine the operational impact of PE at the micro level of the firm.
In their paper "The Operational Consequences of Private Equity Buyouts: Evidence from the Restaurant Industry" they examine the health inspection records of 94 restaurant chains with a presence in Florida during the period 2002-2012.
They find that the number of health violations fall 15% in the four years post PE acquisition for the directly owned and managed outlets. They are able to compare this to franchisee owned outlets within the chain. Furthermore these improvements did not come through hiking menu prices. Prices actually fell 4.4% whilst headcount was reduced by 2.8%. Finally the study found that PE owned outlets were 4% less likely to close.
This is just one of the many interesting research articles in the current issue of Private Equity Findings - Serving Up Change.
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
University Endowments – No longer the stellar investors | Private Equity Findings Issue 10
Tuesday, June 17, 2014 by Ann Iveson
|University Endowments
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
Talent Turnover at GPs is not at all bad for future performance | Private Equity Findings Issue 10
Monday, June 16, 2014 by Ann Iveson
|Team Stability
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
SMART BETA or just SMART MARKETING?
Tuesday, February 18, 2014 by Ann Iveson
|Smart Beta
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
Tuesday, May 1, 2012 by Ann Iveson
Since the start of the year and no doubt prompted by all the additional exposure heaped on the industry from Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, I have been toying with the idea of writing about why PE contradicts that often cited phrase "all publicity is good publicity".
Bad news, especially with respect to finance, sells. However there appears to be so many bad aspects relating to the private equity industry that all the positive news on deals securing more investment, facilitating management access to operational expertise, building jobs and generating real value creation is crowded out by the seemingly abundant negative coverage.
All industries, business models and business people have elements that exhibit shall we say questionable business behaviours but is private equity really the commercial black hole equivalent, sucking in every nuance of bad practice that the media would have everyone believe?
Or is it just envy; the same old adage reconstructed and rehashed to fill the content demand on media channels? I decline to comment but instead ask whether the industry behaves in ways that helps engender a negative view?
Hence my earlier blog on transparency. If you operate under the cloak of being private then it's best not to be caught with your hands in, or perceived to be in, the cookie jar, such as the siphoning off and allocation of transaction fees. Once trust or commercial integrity is challenged it is difficult to regain. Although neither am I advocating that confession, in this case, transparency completely excuses (nor will indeed eradicate) bad behaviour! However what I really wanted to pose, by way of an example of questionable behaviour, is the decision of private equity to list, especially when many listings have not performed well subsequently.
I thought I would wait until after the Coller Institute, together with the Corporate Finance Faculty of the ICAEW co-hosted their event on 28th March with a head to head debate between Jon Moulton and Louis Elson. Highlights of the event can be seen in this video.
A very entertaining and informative evening essentially highlighted that one size, or one listing model, does not fit all. Indeed listing seems to have as many varieties as Heinz and Mr Moulton himself was not a proponent of listing per se. His variety, a self-distributing fund with fees that are NOT based on NAV, was designed to address many of the criticisms investors have raged about, namely shares trading at a persistent, and often large, discount to NAV.
True the evening primarily focussed on those companies or funds listed in the UK which tend to be relatively small. (Even 3i no longer reigns within FTSE100). We did not talk of the US behemoths, whose management companies, have listed with varied success. These hybrids, in that listing creates a currency or a founders' praecipium, rather than a new pool of capital to deploy in new or existing portfolio companies, are perhaps what Professor Michael Jensen was referring to where he termed Listed Private Equity as a non sequitur in both English and economic senses.
With Carlyle Group's listing just days away the topic is poignant. Denigrated by some journalists from a governance point of view, most of the clauses limiting shareholder rights are common to listings of other large PE groups.
Equity is always subordinated capital but here the shareholder, devoid of the usual governance levers, is somehow super subordinated. So what should the shareholder of a PE management company earn in this position of the overall capital structure?
The GPs will of course argue that such constraints on shareholder actions are in keeping with their overall governance model, an alignment of interests, where shareholders with varied interests are considered not to add value. May be that is true but what about LPs who have in the past been central to this theory of alignment. With large funds now comprising several hundred LPs, does the alignment proposition still hold?
Are new listed shareholders being short changed - the Carlyle Roadshow talks of an annual dividend which including special distributions and based on 2011 earnings could be between a yield of 7.6% and 9.3%? Attractive returns indeed. But remember they are "what if", not real, outcomes and 2012 could be more challenging than last year. Like all shareholders, they will be subject to risks within management's control; such as their ability to ensure the maximisation of distributable funds (essentially fees plus carry less costs) and those beyond their remit; such as the taxation of carry, which has been up for discussion for the last five years.
However beyond these more obvious risks, and this is where we return to behaviours, there is the risk that management could adopt "bad" behaviours, counter to shareholders' interests. There are many ways that management could divert distributable earnings if they wanted (see today's news on Actis), special fees and subordinated notes inserted anywhere along the chain of their complex group structures, probably being the easiest.
Let's go back to basics and ask why do large PE companies list their management companies? Is this just another example of opportunism by PE firms so derided by the media? From the performance of earlier listings you might be forgiven for thinking so. However Carlyle are keen to counter this accusation by pricing at a discount to where peers are currently trading thereby leaving something on the table as an incentive.
Alternatively have the dynamics of acquisitions changed whereby having a currency on tap has distinct advantages over 10 year funds? It is quite possible they have. In more uncertain times PE funds may have been more reluctant to bid at certain fixed prices whereas equity will give more of a market hedge.
However perhaps there is another more obvious reason. LPs today remain the key stakeholders, as through their commitments they create the framework from which the GPs can build their portfolios and generate returns. Or do they? Is this public listing a means of recalibrating the balance of power? GPs have, over the last three years, needed to accede to LPs' requests for lower fees, managed accounts, better information and a more equitable split of transaction and other fees. Are these listings one way of redressing these changes?
Finally with all the current focus on remuneration I did want to make one point to demonstrate bad behaviours proliferate in other industries as for some reason media coverage remains siloed with little focus on lateral or comparative analysis. If most of the banks featured in the recent remuneration debacles had adopted pay out policies akin to PE then no bonuses would have been paid in any year since the crisis and would not be paid until the shareholders had earned a cumulative 7-9% hurdle rate (on their original investment). I am also ignoring additional factors such as bonuses being paid out on unrealised gains (versus realised in PE) and that many banks are generating returns from having access to government subsidised funding!
template name Monday, January 1, 0001, 12:00 AM Report Abuse
Thursday, March 8, 2012 by Ann Iveson
Have I missed something or has the latest report produced by BVCA and Ernst & Young on the disclosure of performance KPIs per the Walker Guidelines received little to no commentary in the press?
The rhetoric and coverage afforded to this supposedly much needed reform of the industry was vast in the two years ahead of the code's introduction. But now this 4th report has come and gone without so much as a comment let alone some pithy insight.
Why should this be?
It might be worthwhile at this stage to differentiate the performance report from that produced by the Guidelines Monitoring Group which is reporting on compliance with the disclosure requirements per se at both the level of private equity firm and at the portfolio company. However the fact that sample sizes are not easily reconcilable may incite an immediate level of frustration amongst interested readers.
This years' report aggregates data over 60 portfolio companies from 28 private equity groups representing £87 bln of investment in terms of enterprise value and involving over 370,000 jobs. Whilst in number this is a significant increase over last year (43 portfolio companies for 2010) as the criteria barriers for recognition were lowered, their economic impact on the overall disclosed group in terms of enterprise value, revenue and employment is less than 20%.
Sector Focus:
The report tackles sector focus in terms of percentage of employment. 62% of all Portfolio Company employees were employed in the consumer services sector (including retail), followed by industrials, financials and consumer goods, collectively a further 24%. This is very different from FTSE.
Performance: Year on Year
This has to be the real focus doesn't it? Year on Year growth in revenue, EBITDA, FTE, productivity and capex is all really modest. But in a difficult environment any increase is welcome, although we know nothing about where this growth is coming from; current or new customers, new versus existing products or whether it is UK, overseas or export led. However what is striking is the aggressive change and efficient pruning of working capital to boost cash flow.
Good news then?
Well not really as in comparison to a sector weighted FTSE the results look different. Growth in revenue and Ebitda is much stronger in the sector weighted benchmark compared with the portfolio companies. But, and this will come as a surprise, employment grew within the portfolio companies versus a decline in the benchmark. So the fears and allegations levelled at private equity companies in terms of reducing employment especially in a downturn have not occurred in 2010 for this sample.
Performance: Longer Term
But Private Equity is all about the long term and the report tracks growth against the respective benchmarks over the last 4 years. Whilst annual revenue growth at 6.2% since acquisition is lower than 7.4% for the sector weighted benchmark, Ebitda growth at 5.3% compares favourably with 1.3% for the benchmark. Employment growth has been lower at 0.4% versus 1.3% which supports other research in this area.
The focus of so much criticism, the leverage ratio (debt/ebitda) at acquisition was 7.9. At the end of 2010 this declined to 7x. Third party debt was £70.6 bln gross and £64 bln net. Over the year net debt declined by £1bln funded through disposals, improved operating capital against minimal equity withdrawals.
The portfolio company average leverage of 62% compares to the sector benchmark of 18% and its impact is seen in the attribution analysis of the returns from those that have exited. These number 21 since 2005 generating a gross return of 3.13x versus that of the FTSE. The basis on which these returns are calculated, relative to FTSE rather than absolute, and the fact they are gross is somewhat confusing and could be argued counteracts the desire for disclosure. The total relative return comprises the market(FTSE) return of 100%, 154% from the leverage amplification with a further 59% coming from strategic and operational improvements.
But despite the impact of leverage we know little about the debt profile, its maturity, to what extent covenants have been met, waived, altered or breached. But there again we don't get this much information for listed companies. However when debt is so central to the capital structure (and returns) should private equity reveal more? As an employee or trade creditor I would find this information useful.
Indeed the Sharman Panel on behalf of the Financial Reporting Council is looking at going concern and liquidity risks faced by companies throughout an economic cycle, suggesting that such information should be routinely reported as part of directors on-going discussion on strategy and risk.
We await the outcome of the consultation period and subsequent report especially in relation to question 3 posed by the panel :
"Should the scope of any final recommendations be applicable only to listed companies or also to other entities? If they should be applicable also to other entities, please indicate whether to all or only some types of other companies and entities and whether any adaptations should be made to the recommendations in doing so."
So does the current level of disclosure in this performance report tell us anything; are we, or the stakeholders better informed? The problem of aggregation smoothes out the wide dispersion of outcomes, doing no one other than the poor performers, any favours. Moreover the data points while increasing in number are relatively small; just 52 after companies with incomplete annual data or previous negative numbers are excluded.
The cynics thought this code would be little more than a channel to highlight the best of the industry. This is certainly not the case as in places it creates more questions than it purports to address.
But it was created to deal with a real or perceived issue of non disclosure at great cost. The industry can afford it you cry. Yet in the past, rightly or erroneously, we have treated the data like an iceberg, ignoring the headlines to worry about what lurks beneath the surface. Have we now just decided to ignore it completely and if so, why?
I believe it should be useful. By that I mean it should be used and not there for transparency sake. Therefore I would like to hear from those who use this data and how they use it in terms of planning or decision making to better understand just who is in this community of stakeholders.
Certainly many private equity firms are facing challenging times as they seek investors for their next funds. But I doubt if these reports played a role in sorting the wheat from the chaff!
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
Monday, November 7, 2011 by Ann Iveson
- Masters and PhD Prize Winners 2011 announced at Annual Coller Prize Evening
- Tim Parker's learnings from an impressive career
Now in its 6th year, last Wednesday was the Annual Coller Prize for the best case study and management report completed by Masters students at London Business School in the field of venture capital or private equity. In 2010 we also introduced a new category - the PhD prize that is open to all PhD students at any academic institution focussing on research theses in this sphere.
Congratulations to all the winners and runners up. You can find out more about them and their work on our website.
However I want to devote this blog more to the introduction given by Tim Parker an alumnus of the School and now an Industrial Partner at CVC Capital Partners. Although not a hagiography, it nevertheless provided some interesting and useful insights to the essential elements or lessons for running a successful business and why these might more readily exist within private equity owned firms.
Having witnessed, changed and imposed governance at a variety of organisations including Plcs, family businesses and pe owned firms these are his take aways from his impressive career.
- Failure - To fail is good for a career, especially if it occurs early and is not too spectacular.
- Managing People - For success it is critical to develop sound judgement about people - which to motivate and promote and which to remove. The role of the CEO is to pick and trust the right people. He avoids so named "political" people; those that will put their interest and agenda above that of the company or main mission.
- Delegating Power - real delegation creates real power to leverage (not in the financial sense) the organsiation to develop a collective responsibilty. This is different from a blurred sense of shared responsibility. It means encouraging disagreement and promoting a direct feedback to the CEO on problems and disagreements.
- Incentives - They can make the same people have different behaviours. Whilst at least in the financial sector incentives are a bad word, he showed that structured correctly and based on realised results not just valuations they can make those potential recipients to ask tougher, more demanding questions of their and others performance. Most importantly they can make those same same people move at a faster pace to correct and improve imediments to performance.
- Tempo - The speed of decision making is imperative. Opportunities are often lost to procrastination, analysis paralysis or just down right laziness. With volatility a seemingly constant, the ability to make a decision is key. The art is to know when you have enough of the right information. It is, he said, better to make the wrong decision than no decision - wrong decisions can usually be reversed.
- Execution and Knowledge - Great execution is everything and the catalyst for this is specific indepth knowledge to anticipate and avoid pitfalls.
Tim closed his candid and engaging talk on a more serious and poignant note; after a comment on succession planning at pe firms he made an observation on the increasing pressures facing everyone running a business today, explicitly that 'the cake' is no longer growing. Although open to interpretation I saw this as implying a flaw in or a warning on capitalism as the mechanism for empowering wealth creation. Whilst there is an increasing return on intellectual capital the middle classes are not just being squeezed but evacuated he stated.
So may be he rightly earned his albeit ersatz tltle "Prince of Darkness" and we should tune out this blog to Elgar's Nimrod, a sombre melody, the type which Tim had told us is used by the media to signify, as in some theatrical ensemble, "the bad guy". But there again honest should not be confused with bad just because you don't like the message!
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
Monday, October 31, 2011 by Ann Iveson
- Can you really be taught Private Equity or is it, as Oscar Wilde might have suggested, something you have to experience firsthand?
- Is a Business School able to manage the gap between rigour and resonance?
- In summary what makes this executive education course an investment rather than just an expense?
I last wrote about the MasterClass in the Private Equity Findings Issue 3 and essentially focused on the participants, their seniority and geographic diversity, and syllabus together with some of the course alumni comments.
However I was prompted to revisit it because :
- The time of year - the MasterClass is held in London biannually (March and October) and
- Perhaps more pertinently by an email we received from an US based past participant who wrote to say how directly impactful the course was in (re)viewing and ultimately selling his company
I have sat in earlier MasterClasses and must confess at this point, my allegiance. However, this time to create a level of detachment I sat at the back not in the lecture theatre desks.
It was half way through Day 2 and the sold-out class of 40, divided into 8 groups, were on their current assignment - adopting the role of an LP and deciding whether and in what GPs to invest based on their respective track records. This is a simulation using real, unattributed data.
On paper, the seniority and diversity of this class were no different than other executive programmes; indeed I had to go and check out a few of the flags on name plates which were not immediately recognisable. What's more and despite the sombre economic mood, well at least in the western world, this class was sold out months in advance.
It's accepted wisdom that business school enrolments are negatively correlated with the economic cycle - I think it's the same for books on leadership but I don't have the stats, but is it true for Executive Education?
And this is Private Equity. You might have thought the media coverage and reality of tough fundraising, reduced leverage and barriers to exit may have proved all too much but, no, the interest in the sector remains. Indeed this class is populated with participants from leading GPs and Investors as well as many from corporates and the professional services.
As the class came in I was struck by the positive ambience; a blend of camaraderie and friendly rivalry amongst the teams. I know it's cliched but there was a real buzz in the room. Each team had been set a slightly different task or question on reviewing the data and each presented their findings, seeking out the hidden DNA of each GP.
"Making an impact on how we do business"........has always been the genesis of the School's teaching and now it is the current strapline for all our programmes. So how do we convey this in the MasterClass?
Well what do you get?
- First Rate Teaching - from Faculty and Practitioners. It's a packed 3 days. You have to participate - this is not for observers!
- Case Studies - tackling real situations co -authored by Professor Eli Talmor, Chairman of the Coller Institute with appearances from many of the cases' protagonists. Here you are in situ, sharing examples of responsible ownership (and not so great ownership) - always a hot potato - where it's about evaluating operational risks, opportunities and capturing those option values. It is not all about the leverage and financial wizardry. It's about stories and experiences which are delivered brilliantly.
- International Private Equity - written by Professors Eli Talmor and Florin Vasvari; the current almanac of the PE industry.
- Simulations - as described above on investing in GPs.
- Technical Input - from lawyers on matters such as Fund agreements
- Networking - a chance to spend time and work with senior professionals from varied business and geographic backgrounds and become part of the Coller Institute network though Linked In connections with current and previous programme participants
- All the above with first rate administration on campus in London!
As I re-joined the class for the concluding remarks and drinks it was clear that lasting connections had been forged. At this level most of the participants come with a sense of purpose and all were enthusiastic about what they had learned, how the knowledge had been transferred and most importantly how they might use it!
So we remain true to our ethos and hopeful that we will have more stories from alumni and their experiences of how the School and the MasterClass have made an impact on them and others.
Oh and if you want to hear the real stories and secrets behind the deals then look out for our next MasterClass in 2012 !
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 by Ann Iveson
Well according to the FT today that may be the belief of Ed Miliband as he espouses his plans for promoting ethical business behaviour during his inaugural speech as party leader at the Labour Party Conference.
Good ideal we say. However what about execution. I have grave concerns as all that emotive language such as "wealth creators" versus "asset strippers" comes to the fore again.
Creating a forum for debate is a fundamental tenet of the Coller Institute but we hope that those we host have protagonists and antagonists, that are both open minded enough to listen to the opposing arguments, and have sufficient integrity and judgement to question their original positions.
Mr Miliband plans to use tax and regulation to differentiate between "good" and "bad" businesses. Just who will be the arbiter and when in the business' life or cycle will it be decided? Any politician as Dumbeldore with the Sorting Hat is not a good image but worse yet he comes to the debate with a bias for they state that Southern Cross is the definition of a bad company.
To say Southern Cross is a bad company without a debate as to the why, what and who exactly made it, if indeed it was, does not augur well for many businesses irrespective of their ownership structure. There may well have been governance and operational issues at Southern Cross that could have been better (I am writing a separate blog on this very topic) but to label private equity as bad with one holistic badge is inappropriate and devoid of any analytical rigour.
Take Southern Cross for example. The business was publicly listed since 2006; ample time for so many stakeholders to question the business model. Why didn't they - were they conflicted, ignorant or both?
Additionally "Sale and Leaseback" the financial tool so heavily criticised for causing the company's demise, is used successfully in many industries such as retail. It is not the tool but the workman in defining the terms of the leaseback that is at fault. In a publicly listed company those workmen are visible and accountable and yet when were they called to account? Some have interpreted Mr Miliband's intention as changing the tax advantage currently enjoyed by debt. What about rentals in sale and leasebacks and payments under PFI?
This week we learned how poor use of the private finance initiative (PFI) by the past government has exposed parts of the National Health System to potentially excessively high future liabilities. However, many PFIs have proven to deliver value for money for governments around the world in the delivery of social infrastructure. Again it is not the tool per se but at least it has been discovered now, with hopefully enough time to renegotiate and restructure.
In the past private equity has been likened to locusts - now they are in the same camp as anti-social tenants and like bankers just after a "fast buck"; the antithesis of grafters. But quick flips were the exception not the norm; indeed the holding period (acquisition until exit) is increasing. Furthermore remuneration methodology within PE is based on realised not mark to market gains and probably more objective with an audit trail than in banking. Time for a response? Should we host an event "PE - Grafters or Predators? Let us know.
Interestingly in his speech the world is divided between "producers" and "predators" the former invest, produce and sell. Okay so you know what to include in your slide pack to the shadow government!
Comments: 3 Comment(s)Back To Top
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 by Ann Iveson
- the IPO would pay them out at par thereby creating a second payout
- they would "cheat" the subordination/ risk element of the note by receiving preferential pay out
- they would leave the senior debt more expensive as an increased margin was agreed by way of compensation for the change in the capital/ subordination structure and may impact the overall capacity with senior lenders
- the PE owners would create different returns on this investment for their respective LPs, depending on whether the PIK was recorded in the same fund - this creates conflicts and inbalances to the PE ethos of alignment
Comments: 3 Comment(s)Back To Top
Friday, March 11, 2011 by Ann Iveson
Last week the Coller Institute hosted an event entitled "Leadership Risk in Private Equity".
Business School students are bombarded with theoretical and empirical studies on both leadership impact and styles. Yet leadership, good and bad, outside a short list of stereo typing adjectives, or at least the execution of it remains elusive. Moreover it is often an ex post rationalisation, requiring a crisis or significant event, for the defining assessment. So one size does not fit all but what if anything is special about Private Equity?
- Situations - This is the context in which the leader operates, the business environment, the people around him/her - their capabilities and state of mind and the challenges he or she faces. This context is not a constant but a dynamic and, according to the second law of thermodynamics, a chaos seeking variable. Does the situation shape the leader? This depends on:
- Qualities - This is the leader's character; the will, the skill. These are often difficult to change. Does he/she accept or question the context. Does he/she shape the world around them?
- Processes - These are the styles, tactics and strategies a leader deploys in dealing with "Situations" or how the "Situations" make a leader react.
- The shareholders are different - more active, demanding and with greater access to data and management
- The information required by those shareholders is often narrower but considerably more in depth and more frequent
- The Leadership balance changes as shareholders have a major impact on strategy and often add/insert new members to management team
- The communication between management and shareholders changes becoming more frequent and often less formal.
- more equity/less leverage (although this is now creeping back)
- focus on the portfolio rather than new additions
- greater focus on downside risk vs 100% on returns
- greater responsiveness to LP concerns
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 by Ann Iveson
I'm hoping you've had a chance to dip into the latest issue of Private Equity Findings. It's all interesting but perhaps this issue's "Beyond the Abstract" entitled The End of the Captive is worthy of an extra mention here.
Academics are often criticised for having their heads either in the sand or stratosphere not on what's happening right now. Not in this case though! The research paper "Unstable Equity? Combining Banking with Private Equity" by L Fang, V Ivashina and J Lerner is spot on given the resurgent wave of criticism levelled at banking models, bankers and their worth.
I should say upfront that these are my opinions, not those of the Coller Institute. However as an Institute focused on Private Equity such criticism provides an interesting distraction. Indeed many in PE would side with those that argue bankers, on average, are richly paid in relation to what they earn for their investors. But that's not my point here.
Although focused on captives, what this paper is really examining and accumulating evidence on is the much broader and evocative question - the extent to which banking activities are cyclical and whether specific types of activity promote cyclicality within the financial system? This in essence is what the Volcker rule is all about and its sceptics should look at the authors' findings at least as it relates to bank affiliated private equity businesses.
- The findings are based on a sample of 7,902 unique US private equity transactions between 1978 and 2009.
- The 14 captives identified during the period 1983 – 2009 were involved in over 25% of all the deals done. Significant as this is, the real issue is that their involvement was pro-cyclical, peaking at over 45% of dollar volume at the height of the market (2006).
- Overall the amount invested equalled 9.4% of the parents' total equity (not just Tier 1 !) during this period although it peaked at 23% at the top of the cycle (2005-2006).
- It is the concentration of exposure amongst the affiliated group that should at least raise a regulator's eyebrow if not their blood pressure – the top 5 account for 80% of the total dollar value transacted by this entire group and the leading captive – Goldman Sachs Capital Partners alone accounts for 36%! In the non-affiliated group KKR accounts for 15% of the dollar volume and the top 5 transacted 50%.
The former if prevalent would be demonstrated by the affiliated deals selecting financially stronger ex ante targets. This they do find but when the parent bank is a lender in the syndicate the targets are weaker.
Who is driving this? – the leveraged loan group, knowing that they can record the fees today, syndicate or securitise most of their residual exposure and book the loan at cost with no mark to market, brings in the prized equity of the captive in order to earn a league table lending position or is the captive in the driving seat? No longer able to find the growth equity transactions it changes focus, wanting exposure to the larger deals to improve their future potential deal flow and so persuades the leveraged loan group. Or is it simply evidence of opportunistic behaviour deployed by banks during boom times. Those appearing in front of the Treasury Select Committee have and will no doubt continue to deny such a stance!
So with no comparative advantage on sourcing better deals, what about access to capital? Here is the edge, bank affiliated deals enjoy much better terms when the parent is in the lending syndicate with the greatest advantage concentrated during the boom years.
- The amount of the loan is increased by US$ 557 million – almost double the average loan size,
- the maturity is extended by 4.3 years - two thirds increase above the average 6 years and
- the spread is reduced 33 basis points – a 10% reduction to the average spread.
Whether pushed or pulled apart by regulatory or management pressure is it any wonder then that the incidence of banks shedding their captives has increased. The promise of cross selling revenues from exit IPOs and future lending cannot make up for the increased cost of capital let alone the new regulatory stance.
The evidence provided in this paper does indicate that banks' private equity in house groups added to the overall cyclicality within private equity and that one of the key factors was the parent bank's involvement as provider of debt capital. The positive impact of cheaper and longer term financing has not allowed their affiliates to generate superior returns but has created additional and detrimental repercussions as part of the credit expansion.
If this is the case relating to private equity activities one may ask what other businesses have banks created, that a crisis and regulatory shift is required to force a management rethink.
Whether a comparative advantage for banks operating within private equity existed is unclear – they certainly have not been able to exploit it. Indeed the corollary is that non-banks have an advantage; perhaps created by the shift in talent, a more aligned remuneration structure, better information and until now, lighter regulation. However comparative advantage is not static and regulators should be vigilant to ensure that such advantages, comparative or absolute, are not being driven by regulatory and fiscal differences.
Which brings me back to the bankers and one last question - does the absolute advantage conferred by being too big to fail warrant the bonus payments currently under consideration?
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
Thursday, June 3, 2010 by Ann Iveson
On behalf of the Coller Institute of Private Equity I'd like to welcome you all to our new website. Here you will be able to
- sign up for our events
- search for and download articles and research on private equity
- see the latest content and archive copies of our Private Equity Findings
- submit your papers for the Annual Coller Prize
- comment on our blogs
- or just learn more about us.
To get all this just register your details under log in
Comments: Add a commentBack To Top
About me
- July 2015(1)
- June 2014(4)
- February 2014(1)
- May 2012(1)
- March 2012(1)
- November 2011(1)
- October 2011(1)
- September 2011(1)
- March 2011(2)
- January 2011(1)
- June 2010(1)


text:
Train Low. Race High.
Even if you live at sea level you can run a mountain trail race
Photo by Rob O'Dea
When runners cross the finish line of the Leadville Trail 100, a broad-shouldered beast of a race between 9200 and 12,600 feet in the Colorado Rockies, they receive a medal, hug from Race Director Merilee O'Neal and an escort to the medical tent, just 20 yards away. Inside the army-green canvas tent, it feels like a M.A.S.H. unit. Filthy runners are supine, many wearing oxygen masks and draped with wool blankets. Chunky coughs and soft moans reverberate.
Medical personnel take runners' oxygen-level readings, connecting a small clip to a finger. The normal level here, on America's highest Main Street (elev. 10,152 feet), is in the low 90s.
After completing the 2008 race, Joe Kulak, who lives in Oreland, Pennsylvania (elev. 259 feet), registered an 80. Friends helped him over to the oxygen tanks, where he sucked on the facemask for an hour.
In extreme cases, high-altitude pulmonary edema (swelling or fluid accumulation in the lungs) or cerebral edema (fluid in the brain—a malady which may prove fatal) may occur. Fortunately, these circumstances are rare, and nobody has ever died during the race.
Still, high altitude scares away even the most ambitious runners—especially those living at low elevations. But with the proper approach, even runners from New York City or the Bay Area can excel in rarified air—and enjoy the experience.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A Note About Small Amounts of Animal Products in Foods
Some packaged foods have a long list of ingredients. The farther an ingredient is down the list, the less of that ingredient is in the food. People who have made the compassionate decision to stop eating animal flesh, eggs, and dairy products may wonder if they need to read every ingredient to check for tiny amounts of obscure animal products. Our general advice is not to worry too much about doing this. The goal of sticking to a vegetarian or vegan diet is to help animals and reduce suffering; this is done by choosing a bean burrito or a veggie burger over chicken flesh, or choosing tofu scramble over eggs, not by refusing to eat an otherwise vegan food because it has 0.001 grams of monoglycerides that may possibly be animal-derived.
We discourage vegetarians from grilling waiters at restaurants about micro-ingredients in vegetarian foods (e.g., a tiny bit of a dairy product in the bun of a veggie burger). Doing so makes sticking to a vegetarian diet seem difficult and dogmatic to your friends and to restaurant staff, thus discouraging them from giving a vegetarian diet a try (which really hurts animals). And we urge vegetarians not to insist that their food be cooked on equipment separate from that used to cook meat; doing so doesn't help any additional animals, and it only makes restaurants less inclined to offer vegetarian choices (which, again, hurts animals).
Remember that every vegetarian saves more than 100 animals a year from horrific cruelty—and by encouraging people around you to follow your lead, you can save many more.
Commenting is closed.
THANK YOU for posting this. I really struggle with this, especially because I was recently diagnosed with a nut and sesame allergy, so it's nice to be able to order a veggie burger without stressing about whether the bun may have a little dairy in it. I can't live on salads. I am really a perfectionist and it stresses me out as a vegan of 50 weeks.
I was wondering if you had any advice for me with regards to what action I could take about the following situation.
In March Tesco's own brand cheese sauce changed packaging and no longer carried the suitable for veggies symbol. I emailed to complain about what I thought was a backward step, got nowhere so tweeted them. They confirmed that packaging was wrong and product was suitable for veggies on several occasions each time I chase this over last six months. Now they tweet me this morning and say it isn't!
I am a strict vegetarian and have been eating an animal product on their say so for six months. I am absolutely outraged and want some form of compensation about this that I can donate to good cause, to alleviate my feelings about eating an animal product for so long.
Does anyone have any advice on what I should do?
Egg-Free Dairy-Free Nut-Free Cake Original recipe yield:1 8 8 cakePREP TIME 15 MinCOOK TIME 35 MinREADY IN 50 Min INGREDIENTS * 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour * 1/2 tpooesan salt * 1 cup white sugar * 1/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder * 1 tpooesan baking soda * 5 tablespoons vegetable oil * 1 tablespoon white vinegar * 1 tpooesan vanilla extract * 1 cup cold water * 1/2 cup semi-sweet chocolate chipsDIRECTIONS 1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Grease an 8 8 inch baking pan. 2. In a large bowl, combine flour, salt, sugar, cocoa powder, and baking soda. Mix well with a fork, then stir in oil, vinegar, and vanilla extract. When dry ingredients are thoroughly moistened, pour in cold water and stir until batter is smooth. Stir in chocolate chips and pour batter into prepared pan. 3. Bake in preheated oven for 30 to 35 minutes, until a toothpick inserted in center comes out clean. Cool on a rack.
I would not follow any fad diet if I were you. The best diet is spmily to eat a well-rounded diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables. Sorry, there is no magic pill to lose weight and keep it off long term.I would add cabbage to your diet though, if you don't eat much of it. Cabbage is a wonderful food .very high in vitamins, minerals, and various phytonutrients. Even coleslaw would be a good way to eat more cabbage! : )
@ the hardline vegans….there is NO SUCH THING as a 100% vegan diet. There are traces of animal products in the fruits and vegetable you eat, due to the fertilization process. Denouncing/shaming people who aren't food nazis (inspecting every single ingredient in every morsel of food and badgering wait staff at restaurants) doesn't do anybody any good. Not only does it make you look like a jerk but it also scares people away from ever giving vegetarianism/veganism a chance.
I love this article. I am still only a part time vegan, the main reason I started eating vegan meals is because I have minor intolerances to milk and eggs. I agree that having an intolerance or an allergy is WAY different than being 100% vegan. asking about trace amounts of animal products may not offend the waiter, but it may discourage someone sitting close by who is thinking of becoming vegetarian or vegan that its not worth the effort and put them off from trying. I disagree that supporting restaurants that have meat options is a bad choice. that to me is like saying that supporting friends who eat a vegan meal once a weak is wrong as well. the bottom line is be supportive of anyone trying to become vegetarian or vegan, keep living your lifestyle the way you want. If you want to be 100% vegan do so but don't say the vegans who are 99% vegans are not against animal cruelty because that is still saving 99 animals no mater which way you look at it.
Meltem Dennis, you really are militant aren't you? As for your comment of making the Holocaust look humane, do you even know what the Jews at Auschwitz went through? Study your history, then talk. As for you 'dares', do you really think anyone will respond positively to being abused that way? Do you honestly think that you're helping the cause of ending animal cruelty by being like that? You're really not. Humans are spiteful creatures, and those men you challenged might just munch down a piece of bacon in your face just to spite you. And as for the female solidarity you're trying to push…. between human women and cows… I don't see any heifers out with picket signs screaming for equal rights with bulls. Grow up and learn to communicate in a more dignified and calm manner and you'll get a lot further.
I've been vegetarian since 1991 and I really do agree with this statement. I had a friend that was vegan at the time and she would do what she called "play 20 questions" with restaurant staff when eating out. There are plenty of Vegan options out there if you research ahead of time and dont make the waitstaffs life a living hell by doing this to them.
Since going vegan I have been stressing out over ingredients (like Coffemate Coffee Creamer is not 100% vegan) and have vowed to stop. It true: it doesnt help the cause, nor does it save animals. Ive decided to focus on more pressing issues.
@Meltem Dennis. To say that animal cruelty makes the holocaust look humane shows absolute ignorance. If you don't care about humanity how will anyone take your care about animals seriously? They won't. Thank you PETA for asking people not to alienate others- it's a shame what people who support animals have done and said, one step forward three steps back.
Meltem Dennis- I can't watch those videos either. To be honest, watching cruelty to animals doesn't make you better than anyone else.
I don't need to watch it to know how horrible it is. Which is why I'm vegan.
Becoming a vegan from vegetarian was very easy for me after watching peta's John McCarthy video which explains and shows the conditions these animals are in, makes Holocaust look humane really. Also just as valuable Sharon Needles video showing the terrified cow trying to breath as the blood gushes out of her slashed neck, then the pigs hanging by their feet, frantically struggling to escape while their throats are being cut. Anyone men enough to watch those, come on, I dare you (I am a women, stronger in my convictions of decency and respect for every species then any men who claim strength but have to drink their their milk and eat their bacon and eggs like good little boys). Wake up or should I say grow up, you're not mamma's boy anymore, make your own decisions, don't be afraid to watch these videos. Oh, for the women, stop supporting death and slavery, you're supposed to set the higher standard of caring and relating, do you realize those cows are females whose milk is for their young, same goes for chicken eggs, are you just blind, clueless, of afraid to see reality?
Milk contains pus from chronic udder infections and leftover antibacterial agents used for such infections. No matter how much post processing dairy goes through pus remains a large percentage of matter that makes up milk. Got pus? No thanks.
@anyone concerned with dairy products: dairy was never made for human consumption…hence why every mammal has their own unique milks to nourish their young. This is what I believe. The abuse alone is terrifying to me, those poor cows are kept pregnant and raped in a sense to stay that way and are pregnant every day of he year to provide humans milk. What is in that milk?
Thank you for this article. I've been thinking about transitioning from vegetarian from vegan. Already, I don't buy dairy products or eggs. However, I wouldn't turn down pizza with real cheese (no meat on it of course!) or baked goods with eggs and milk in them. One of the reasons why I'm NOT a vegan is because I don't want to go through long lists of ingredients each time I want to buy a food item to see if it has some animal product in it. I also don't think I'd be able to memorize all these names for animal products. This has made me feel better, that it's OK to not make a big deal about those small things. But to focus on the big things, that's what is important after all! I think I'll just stick with "vegetarian" but try and avoid dairy/egg as much as possible.
nice article. Since i have been a vegetarian my whole life, I always wanted the restauraunt to cook my veg food separately. I always got the subway ppl to change their gloves and stuff…
Since being veg, was part of my culutre it was easy to adapt (hey i never knew the taste of meat to even want it).
I truly respect the vegan/veg converted ppl, as i think it takes a lot of committment to adapt the lifestyle.
Big thumbs up to you gys…
now iam working towards becomming vegan, but its taking a bit of work than i anticipated…:P…
To Erin below,
On a small scale, I personally think raising animals for their flesh and product is fine. If everyone was responsible for their own meat/dairy production (family farming) is totally fine. The problem, in my opinion, is that it isn't and everything is blown out of proportion and things get f*cked up in the long run. That is part of my reason for a meat free lifestyle (and hopefully someday animal product free); I didn't know what went on with my meat before it got to me.
The most significant problem that I see with this entire discussion is the constant insistence on titles. Being a vegetarian is about not eating meat, not lording it over a waiter or a friend or a stranger. The obsession with being able to "call myself" a vegan is missing the entire point. It took me several years to get over the fear that I would call myself a vegetarian and then accidentally ingest some small amount of meat and be "called out on it.". Now that I am a vegetarian, I decided to test out being a vegan for a while. When I mentioned my plan to a friend, her first comment was, "well, TECHNICALLY, you shouldn't be wearing those clothes if you were a TRUE vegan.". This from the ultimate carnivore! So, now I have decided to call myself a vegetarian and live a vegan lifestyle to the best of my ability. No need for fancy titles. When my kids think I'm making vegan soup, they balk at it. When I make soup for dinner, without the title, they eat the leftovers for snack as well. The best leaders don't need titles.
I haven't eaten dairy products since March 9th and today for the first time I forgot about it and ate some chesse at lunch and 15 minutes later had severe stomach pains and was wondering if any would might know why this was?
Well I wprl at a Christian school where my daughter goes to. When I announced that I was going vegan every one at the school I worked with looked at me like I was nuts and out of my Mind. I am 41 years old and I feel like no one really care about animals and there saftey the way that I do and every one says what I read on Peta is nuts as Peta doesn't know what they are talking about. The Lunch Lady says to me today that I am not being a good example to the kids by going vegan and not eating meat or dairy products. We have a boy from inda in Pre-K at my daughters school that is vegetarian and no one says anything to him but for me I am a adult and not a good example by doing this the lunch lady tells me. What should I do about this?
it's not always the hens or cows that directly suffer from producing the products we consume (but they do suffer greatly often enough because of rough treatment) Also, i consider dairy to be far more twisted and sickening than eating flesh products. The reason for this can be greatly explained if you look it up, but basically cows have to have given birth to produce milk and their baby is taken from them within hours and the milk is taken for our consumption and male calves are considered a 'by-product' of the dairy industry and killed shortly after birth to be used in pet food and other poor quality products. And male hens, because they aren't "high quality meat" and cant lay eggs are dropped into a macerator alive to be 'processed'. so, really, eggs and dairy are still truly horrific.
ok so I'm really confused about eggs and dairy. I have hens who lay eggs and they are not being mistreated. Cows give milk but are not being harmed. I do believe that being vegan is healthier and would like to consider this lifestyle but I think that eggs and dairy should be ok. Please attempt to explain this to me or convince me otherwise I'm going vegan and still eating eggs and dairy. Thanks for the help.
I have to disagree with those who insist that being vegan refers to people who exclude all food and medicine products with trace amounts of animal products. Certainly I would agree to sign a petition so that pharmaceutical and food companies make a full disclosure of ingredients and provide 100 percent vegan alternatives. But in the meantime, I'm not going to stop taking life-saving medicines and supplements until the companies are regulated. The default for all medications should be not only vegan, but also hypo-allergenic and gluten free.
I began to be a vegan the first time I came home from the grocery store without any (overtly) meat products. I ate or gave away the meat products that were already in my house and just didn't buy any replacements. That was several years ago. I wavered back and forth until recently, being a "mostly-tarian".
Now, I'm "in".
A lot of people have to abstain from meat to save even a single cow from a horrible life and a gruesome death, so whatever I do is no more than an incremental contribution to a combined whole. For me, being vegan is not a grudge match or a holy crusade … it is simply taking responsibility for my health and that of the planet to the extent that I reasonably can. I agree with the writer of the precipitating post whose reasoning seems to be "do the best that you can without repelling others and move on".
You people who take the hard line … do you have ANY idea what you sound like to newcomers? Why not present this life style as "eventually you'll end up -over there-, but, for now, start -here-." It seems that having a million people who are 90% vegan would accomplish far more good than having 100,000 absolutists.
There is a place for militancy … but there is also a place for walking softly.
I respectfully decline to shuffle around feeling guilty for not having a perfect understanding of the chemistry underlying some non-meat product — you will never get me aboard that particular guilt train. I'm reading. I'm learning — quite a bit. But I'm not obsessing.
BTW, I just read / viewed "Forks Over Knives" (book + DVD). It makes some compelling motivational arguments for the vegan lifestyle from the health-conscious / selfish point of view. If it will make me & mine healthier that's all I need to know. The rest … the humane treatment of animals and the environmental bullets avoided … are bonuses.
I 100% agree with sam.
This article is SO wrong in so many ways. If you don't care to "devote so much time to anything", don't bother calling yourself a vegan or telling yourself that you are doing the animals any good at all. It is not doing the animal any favors by only using "trace amounts" of them. There is nothing Nazi about that way of thinking either. It is easy being vegan. It is a simple healthy way of cooking and living that people would quickly realize once given a chance. There is a right and a wrong way to inform others that you have food sensitivities. You don't need to be an ass about it. It is simply being informed about what you purchase and making the quiet statement by not buying an item contains animal products.
This in my opinion is a great article. When I go to the grocery store I check every single ingredient of items that I buy. I make sure I pay attention to trace amounts. When I go out to eat though , I will not fuss about small trace amounts. I have turned my whole family onto meatless mondays and if I scolded them for using a piece of bread with trace amounts of anything that would just be moronic. I am someone that stays away from animal products but will not associate myself with ego maniac nazi vegans that turn the general public off. Dont you all understand that things like the launch of meatless mondays in breweries ect. cut down so much on meat production and show people that meatless can be easy and great? For example- if everyone stopped eating meat do you really think there would even be a market for trace amounts in anything? There wouldnt be because it would be too expensive. if everyone all of a sudden started eating no meat or dairy and ate veggie burgers instead of hamburgers do you really think farms would stay in production just for trace amounts of whey to put in bread and patties? If everyone switched to soy-cheese that may have any trace amounts would diary farms last? Obviously not. This is about trying to get the world to help animals out , not about narcism and people that think they are better than others.
PETA, I have to agree with Harvest. While I respect and value the information you are giving it would be nice if you could label things with "pure vegan" or "trace amounts" so that people, like myself, who wish to completely abolish animal products, even trace amounts, will still have convenient and useful information.
Great advice! As a vegan myself I follow this way of thinking and have had many friends and family members ask me about this with concern if they wanted to be vegan how difficult it would be to do so with these restrictions…I find that having an open mind and outlook and not getting caught up in the unwritten "rules" is a simple and empowering way to remind oneself of what it is that vegans and vegetarians are trying to do in the first place: choose a compassionate way of living in order to save animals lives as much as we can do so! Thanks PETA for being so bad ass as always. All my love!
This is the part that scared me off initially from being Vegan. I thought to be Vegan you had to be a animal product Nazi and I don't care to devote that much energy, time, and resources to anything, let alone what I eat. I think this really opens Veganism up for me and makes it a real option. As for people who really do insist on everything being 'pure', I would say that's impossible and puts off people like myself from Veganism and from that person. I don't want to spend time with a nut.
I think this is reasonable advice. I want to try to go vegan but the more i think about it this could be really hard. I'm hoping that if i do my best that over time i can look back and see that i've consumed fewer animals. (i don't think that giving up food made from animals will be that hard, now that i've read about how animals are treated in the 'food industry' but buying products that are cruelty free may be too expensive. i'm going to try)
I'm a strict vegetarian and the thought of having a veggie burger cooked in the same place as a beef burger really does put me off, so I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for food to be cooked with seperate utensils.
I've been a vegetarian for several years now and I am planning to go vegan as soon as the dairy products I've already purchased are gone. I found this article very helpful and encouraging. In fact, I was about to scrap the idea of becoming vegan because it seems as though there is a trace amount of animal derived products in so many unbelievable items. I don't think many of those denouncing this list realize what they are actually doing. Vegans already have a reputation as being crazy. If your personal choice is to eliminate even trace amounts of animal derived products, great. Just don't derided the rest of us who are trying. The time those folks use worrying about a minute amount of animal product could go to a much better use if they'd volunteer at an animal shelter, a wildlife rehabilitation center, or a farm sanctuary.
I think this is a good point to make. I do wish there was a good list out there of animal product ingredients and such, sometimes I look at nutrition facts, and I don't have any idea. I also don't micro manage small intakes of whatever, in fact, in my own personal belief, more of it for me is that -I- (my family) don't buy meat whether at the grocery store, or a restaurant. (i'm only vegetarian.)
The 'all or nothing' attitude is what makes for the impression that vegans are "total whack jobs" … and keeps more of us from associating with you.
It's not good enough for you that we go 99% of the way. Nope, in order to call ourselves 'vegans' we have to be 'pure'. Sounds like Germany in the 1930's … it's just a way to justify ostracism.
Very few people "just become" vegans. Nearly all transition to it. We develop a taste for meat while still in diapers and that never leaves us until we learn appetizing alternatives and adjust our expectations regarding food — and that takes time. In many cases, it also means developing new social networks and that can be very, very, difficult. Making friends on the basis of a shared revulsion for powdered eggs makes little sense … as does dropping an old friend because the restaurant they favor serves no vegan fare.
So don't get in my face about a minor ingredient in a hot dog bun that I've filled with an Italian sausage flavored hunk of vegan soy-meat. I have no intention of becoming an absolutist / fanatic about my food, but I -am- working on eating in a way that is healthy for me and for the planet. When I get to the point where none of my food is obviously from meat origins, I'm going to call myself a vegan and there is not one thing you can do about it.
Think about your 'all or nothing' attitude the next time you turn a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon or Adventist away from your door … the same mechanism is at work. You want acceptance and converts to your absolutist sense of morality but you reject theirs because it, also, seems absolutist. (None of them actually are and a large proportion of Adventists are vegetarians.)
I'm here because I am looking into – and leaning towards – veganism just the same as I looked into and became one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I don't like your earth-religion focus … it is very troublesome for me and will keep me from ever fully associating myself with you. It's like that minor defilement of the food that you find so repugnant … so I'm sure you'll understand.
You make good points. I'm not always picky about micro-ingredients, but when I am, I make sure no jumpy potential vegans can hear me and get scared off. 😀 Hehe.
It frustrates me to see that a person making steps toward vegetarianism is discouraged by vegans that say vegetarian is not against animal cruelty. I wish everyone would know their roots. If you were not raised as a vegan, you too ate meat at one point. You learned about the cruelty, health benefits or many other reason to become vegan/vegetarian and made the change. Most people transition from vegetarian to vegan, but need time to feel comfortable with that. Other vegans make me NOT want to say that I'm a vegan. They put people down (including other vegans) for making choices that may go against their own extremist belief. For vegans to stand there and police each other really only hurts their argument of eliminating animal cruelty because it discourages others that may transition to vegetarianism and then veganism eventually to even TRY vegetarianism is the first place. http://www.nomeatathlete.com/does-your-label-still-fit/
PETA, I respect your position. However, as a vegan looking for accurate information, I would appreciate you being more careful about labeling foods, restaurant meals, etc. vegan. By dismissing "trace" animal products in these items, you are essentially re-defining what is vegan. We vegans hope that you will appreciate our motivation and ask that you not "lighten" up our defining conviction.
My general advice is to do what you feel comfortable with. If we only buy pure vegan products then surely the market sees a REAL higher demand for vegan produce (i.e. products marked as 100% animal product free. If vegans continue to buy seemingly vegan products that actually contain trace amounts of animal product then we are encouraging the market to produce goods with animal product in them. No 'vegan message' sent there I'm afraid. And I'd find it hard, personally, to call myself a vegan if I were consuming food I knew contained animals.
In principle, I agree with you, however for many vegans the thought of eating something that was cooked on a grill contaminated by flesh fat is abhorrent. You do not have to 'grill' the restaurant staff to politely inquire if an option of cooking a vegan item separately is possibe? If not, fine, I'll have the salad. One can gently and politely educate without bullying. You are more likely to get an honest answer that way anyway. This helps all vegans in the end.
Bottom line:don't be a veggie Nazi!
Thank you PETA. Big changes take small steps. A vegan diet is less daunting when it is done in stages, and anyone making the transition should take this advice. If you wish to be the purest of vegans, that is your personal choice, and I think it is obvious that trying to force this difficult ideal onto others causes more harm through angry words, dissonance, and a frustration with the difficulty of the lifestyle and the people who live it rather than the non-harm that your heart wishes on the world.
LOVE this article, thank you PETA. I think most of the comments below are ridiculous. Look, if you want to be your "100% I won't ever touch anything animal whatsoever" vegan who will deny eating a piece of something because .001% of an ingredient might be from animal product, I TOTALLY support you. But please cut the crap and whining that PETA is telling people to not worry about .001% of something being animal related. And even though the article is clear, some people don't get it. It's not saying accept milk in your coffee. It's not saying eat cheese on your veggie burger. It's saying that if there's an ingredient that is very very insignificant and you can't tell if it's animal-derived, don't worry about it. FYI, PETA's goal is to stop the suffering of animals. Not to cater to the 100% vegans. FYI to the 100% vegans, ALL of the fruit you eat has traces of animal product in it because of the fertilizer, so there's your 100% down the toilet.
I pledged to be vegan yesterday afternoon I've done a lot of research but i still don't know about the random items in my house that might be cruel to animals. May someone please tell me what i should and shouldn't use and may you please dumb it down.
For true vegans (I'm new and want to be 100% vegan), we cannot go by this list from PETA. The point about leading others along may be helped by this list. I'd love to eat Cap'n Crunch Peanut Butter, but if there is refined sugar in it that has been processed with bone char, I'm not doing it.
Sorry but I don't get it… either you are against animal cruetly or you are not… And being vegetarian is NOT against animal cruelty. Ever see those battery cages those hens are kept in… yeah go ahead and enjoy that omelette. Being vegan on the other hand, is… NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS OR BY-PRODUCTS… THAT is to be totally against cruetly to animals. And unfortunately, I'm not sure that being vegan or vegetarian is saving any animals… there is more meat thrown away in this country than you can imagine. I wish there was some kind if national registry where we could sign up… then we might actually do some good and save some animals. I am still sticking to my vegan lifestyle though, no matter what. I am not going to be responsible for the suffering of these poor animals. And if you are worried about what you are possibly getting if you eat out… then eat at home… it's not the end of the world!
Actually, a lot of sushi places are very vegan friendly – And if you'd smell the fish, it's not a good sushi place. Haha 😛 But before I turned vegan, I was addicted to sushi, and it was kinda sad parting with it. I found out that you can just request the chef to prepare something vegan for you. They'll usually happily agree. They love a challenge(: As for BBQ places… Well, from my experience in a small town in a meat-and-dairy county… Almost everything is slathered in some sort of animal product and the smell is obvious, haha. But yeah. I just wanted to tell you about the sushi thing.
I've been a vegetarian for almost 10 years, and I have recently started cutting back on eggs and dairy. When I move to Chicago for grad school this fall, I hope to transition to being completely vegan. I see no harm in courteously asking for an ingredient list at a restaurant or politely refusing a dish in someone's home because it contains trace amounts of animal products. It creates awareness without causing undue tension. However, I would never expect a restaurant to wash all of their surfaces, especially for me, although I can understand why some would. Whenever friends say, "I don't think they have anything you can eat there," I simply reply that I'm creative and will be able to find something, which is usually the case. The only restaurants I absolutely refuse to go to are sushi and barbecue joints because the smell absolutely nauseates me, and they are notoriously bad for not catering to vegetarians, much less vegans.
Allergy = one could DIE if the substance is ingested.
Vegan = choice.
By all means, request your veggie burger be cooked on its own grill, I don't disagree…just stop saying it's the same as an allergy. It simply isn't.


text:
Food Habits
Females build webs that they use to capture prey. A female sits facing down in her web, awaiting her prey on the central disk. When a small insect flies into the web, she moves toward it, then snaps the radii on either side of the insect. In order to secure the prey, the spider snaps more of the web around the area, then rushes toward the prey in order to determine its exact location and bite it before carrying it back to the central disk where she feeds.
To carry a prey item back to the central disk, the female either climbs back up the web with her food, or swings down a drag line then climbs up to her resting area. If the prey is smaller than the spider, she will just paralyze it, carry it to her spot, and eat it without wrapping it up. If the prey item is larger than the spider, it requires wrapping before being carried to the central disk.
Sometimes several prey insects become caught in the web at the same time, so that the spider must find and paralyze them all. If it is not necessary to carry them away to eat them, the spider may just feed on them where they are, then come back to them as she pleases.
Gasteracanta cancriformis feeds upon the liquified insides of her prey. Deliquified carcasses are discarded from the web and are easily recognized in their mummified state.
Foods eaten: drosophilids, whiteflies, beetles, moths, other small fly species (none appear to have been rejected). (Muma, 1971)


text:
Share Your Reflection

Thank you Mr. Droff for sharing your thoughts. I
Thank you Mr. Droff for sharing your thoughts. I particularly enjoyed hearing about your wish for economic wisdom. The fact that there really isn't anyone out there who can definitively tell us what to do, might be very unsettling for those of us who are suffering as a result of loss of jobs or savings. Yet, I also wonder, as you mentioned in your comparison to handling illness, whether the present crisis doesn't precisely do what crises are meant to do. And, that is to pass the main burden of responsibility for decision-making back upon our own shoulders. Have we not spent enough time seeking advice from others instead of learning to live with the consequences of our own making?

So refreshing to hear the "i" word used to describe all
So refreshing to hear the "i" word used to describe all of this. I wonder why so few clergy are using it. Is the big lesson that every generation will be blind to its own idolatry and injustices, all the while harping on about superiority over people of the past? Anything to distract us from living in the moment, fully conscious, fully aware of cause and effect, and fully responsible.
I have pointed it out to my own Bishop and national church leaders, but there seems to be a code of silence. I know it has to do with money gifts.
Of course, they should have seen this a long time ago, since those sacred texts in all of these western faith traditions, of which they alone are expert for all their complexity, speak of it in the whole story of the formation of the Hebrew nation: golden calves, foreign lands, and later a desire for a king and a temple and probably many other things we don't even perceive yet. The Prophets spoke unpopularly then about injustices, indifference and self-serving social systems built around 'temples' and the societies they spawned.
The Clergy, and all their hierarchies they themselves serve (and any of the idolatry that symbolizes), have a lot to answer for once again. They alone are paid to understand the conditions of hearts of people in their care who work every day in the 'marketplace', and make all the decisions that got us to where we are today.
Perhaps, they will see fit to pass along the donation money they've all received from their spiritual charges needing to unload their subconscious sense of guilt to the little people in society now who need real support since there are not little jobs for them anymore!


text:
"I only drink champagne on two occasions: when I am in love and when I am not. "
Taking off in a hurry
You absolutely, positively have to get there right away. How quickly can you be airborne?
A quality charter operator should be able to arrange a rush booking–variously called a "pop-up," "go-now" or "time-critical" flight–in about two hours for a typical domestic trip. You may have to give three hours' notice for nearby international destinations or if you're chartering a large-cabin aircraft that requires a long time to prepare. And the wait could be even longer for other international destinations, including the U.S. In fact, you might be able to travel roundtrip via airliner to some places in less time than it would take to receive approvals and permits for a charter flight.
The crew that will be on your aircraft isn't standing by at the airport, ready to hop aboard. They're on call, and typically must live within an hour of the airport. Their commute accounts for roughly the first of the two hours to takeoff, while flight planning, weather briefing, aircraft preflight and servicing and taxi time account for the second. In a best-case scenario, which could reduce wheels-up time to less than an hour, an appropriate airplane with crew has just returned to your local airport, or your charter broker finds a nearby deadheading aircraft that can divert. In a worst-case scenario, the airplanes and crews at your airport are all occupied, and getting one ferried in could take several hours.
Crew duty time can also be a factor. If your need for charter occurs near the end of their shift, your flight could put them over their allowable work time. A fresh crew would have to be rounded up, likely extending your wait for departure.
One bit of good news: while businesses in most fields charge a premium for a rush job, charter operators do not; rapid response is in air charter's DNA. Nevertheless, you may wind up paying more, as you'll have fewer options. "Last-minute bookings may mean that the customer has to choose a larger aircraft and position it from another airport, driving a higher cost," said Jeff Trance, director of sales at UK-based charter broker Air Partner. Additionally, if the mission involves flying into a destination after the regular business hours of an FBO there, you will likely incur a call-out charge for after-hours service.
How to Speed Things Up
Drive to another airport. More readily available aircraft may be at a different airport. If so, consider going there rather than waiting for the airplane to come to you. "The time and cost required to transfer the client to another airport by ground is usually far less than the time and cost necessary to ferry the aircraft to the preferred departure point," said Jeff Trance of charter broker Air Partner.
Verify your provider's capabilities. "If you're dedicated to an operator, check out their fleet and what they have in it as backup," advised Wayne Rizzi, president and CEO of Los Angeles-based charter broker Air Royale International. If you work with a broker, probe its relationships with operators. "Brokers typically all claim to have more than a thousand quality jets at their disposal," Rizzi noted. "But how many operators does your broker actually work with, operators that they can call for last-minute needs?"
Cut through red tape. International flights require permits based on their origin and destination, the aircraft's registry and countries being overflown. A charter provider should be able to secure permits for travel to the Caribbean, Canada and Mexico for U.S.-registered aircraft within two to three hours and for flights to Western Europe in about 24 hours. Permits for flights to Asia and South America can take 24 to 72 hours. European-registered aircraft flying to the U.S. require at least 24 hours' notice for U.S. DOT approval. "We often come up with creative solutions, such as flying into a country not requiring permits and arranging a charter to pick the passenger up there for the final leg," noted David Rimmer, president of charter operator ExcelAire in Ronkonkoma, N.Y.
Keep info on file. "It helps to have all your details [on file] with a 24/7 charter provider," said Tom Bax, president of Sentient Jet Charter, a charter broker in Weymouth, Mass., that is a division of Sentient Jet. "That way, passport information, dates of birth, contact phone numbers and method of payment aren't an issue when you're trying to set up last-minute travel."
Pressure to crew/s to take off "yesterday" couls lead to
disaster. Pressure to reach destination at the time (already squized to limit), led to act non professionaly
and forgeting numer of special circumstances, ended in the
river and death of young sportsmen team and crew.
Lack of professional ground handling, had to engage more
attention than usual, focusing on weight&balance and CG,
having non standard passengers and their (most probably)
extraordinary heavy hand luggage.
That case-Yak42 and hockey team, is not unique, but still
there is no enough applied knowledge, tohappen, never again.
Aircraft owners and busines trip users / organisers, must
learn (one of essential Human Factor issues)that "hurry up"
presurecould triger first ring in the chain ...
Article calls up for understanding reality in urgent trip
limitations, but not the danger of "market orientated" pressure.
Srboljub Savic
[Former non-commercial pilot, among other aviation occupations & experience.]
Add your comment:
By submitting a comment, you are allowing AIN Publications to edit and use your comment in all media.


text:
About the Author: Ruth Bennett serves as the Public Affairs Advisor for the Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues.
From the Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues– S/GWI, in Department-speak – welcome to the new "Global Women's Issues" channel of Dipnote!
We're going to be speaking to you directly, so we'll start with what's perhaps a startling confession: here at S/GWI, we have mixed feelings about using the term "women's issues" to describe our work. On the one hand: yes, we'll be using this blog to tell you about the human rights issues – broadly defined – that women face around the world, and how those problems connect with the larger social, economic, political and environmental challenges that every country confronts.
On the other hand, we don't mean to imply that this blog is women-only or deals with issues that only women, or a subset of women, should care about. In fact, we feel pretty strongly that everyone should care about "women's issues." These are, after all, issues that cut across every region and most major topics, and if women participated fully and equally in their societies, it's the entire world that would benefit.
And – while we're confessing – you won't just be hearing from us, either. S/GWI coordinates women's issues within the Department of State, but every office and bureau within the building addresses women's issues, from the offices that focus only on specific regions of the world to the ones that focus on particular issues, like human rights or climate change, in every part of the world. We're going to be inviting all of them to open their doors to you in this forum.
S/GWI itself was established in April, 2009, integrating two smaller offices for women's issues that had existed in the Department. We're led by Ambassador-at-Large Melanne Verveer. About 20 of us, of both sexes, many ages, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and points of view, work on women's issues from both a regional and issue-oriented perspective. We do it because we believe, as Secretary Clinton has said, that no nation can get ahead if half its citizens are left behind. We do it because we believe that the complex nature and transnational scope of the most serious problems we face – terrorism and organized crime, nuclear proliferation, political and economic instability, environmental threats, global disease outbreaks – won't be solved without the ingenuity and creativity of everyone, male and female. We do it because we believe it isn't just the right thing to do; it's also the smart thing.
And we do it with the hope that you'll want to learn more and join with us in advocating for a more equal, safe, and prosperous world.


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This won't relay the important "secrets" for Round Table Pizzasauce, but about 20 years ago I worked at Round Table in Palo Alto, CA. We would make the sauce using 6 #10 cans of Heinz tomato paste. Then we'd fill the 6 #10 cans with waterand add that to the mixing bucket. Then there was a packetof seasoning (man how I wish I had one of those packets today) you'd add it and mix. That was it. As I recall the packetshad the indredients listed and I think the directions I spelledout above too. Now I live in CO, land of no Round TablePizzas....my family and I have cravings often. Someday, perhaps someone will happen upon one of these spicepackets and be able to send the list of ingredients. Untilthen, when the urge gets to strong, it's road trip time for RTP.
I know this is an old thread but the most important ingredient, besides the paste is dehydrated red wine. I worked in a round table in fremont Ca in the early eighties.


text:
SRDC, businesses talk solar energy
SLAYTON?- Area farmers, businessmen and homeowners gathered in Slayton on Monday to learn how solar energy can benefit their bottom line.
The Solar Energy Seminar was sponsored by the Southwest Regional Development Commission (SRDC) and Minnesota energy and lighting firms.
"We're here to help improve the knowledge of solar thermal and photovoltaic energy and what's available out there," said Annette Bair, physical development director of SRDC.
Subjects that were presented included systems for passive solar heating, solar electrical systems, reducing power consumption with energy-efficient lighting and financing options, grants and tax incentives for going solar.
"Food is cheapest at the farm," said Curt Shellum, owner and CEO of Rochester-based Solar Connection. "The price doubles by the time it gets to the store. Where is energy cheapest? Where you produce it. Why you own it, it gives you leverage, and you've got the price fixed for 20 years."
Sunlight is free, but the initial cost of harvesting its energy can be high. Solar power can be used to generate electricity with high-tech photovoltaic panels, or heat buildings with simple panels that create an air chamber heated by the sun and circulated throughout the structure. Once installed, the systems are relatively maintenance-free.
Though start-up costs have been high, they are declining and grants and loans are available.
"For a long time solar was pretty expensive, and it's not inexpensive now, but the cost of solar has gone down 60 percent in the last two years," Shellum said. "Some of it is economy of scale, improved production methods, and some is frankly overproduction."
Photovoltaic solar panels produce electricity that can be used on site, and excess power can be sold back to the utility company at retail rates.
In older communities though, houses are often shaded by trees. An option for homeowners is to get together and form solar gardens, much the same way people start community gardens. Individuals buy solar panels to install in any community space with lots of exposure to the sun, sometimes in association with an existing solar installation.
"Every school I've done an assessment on has more room on the roof than needed to meet the needs of the building," said Chris Gamer, photovoltaic manager for Novel Energy Solutions.
The most efficient option for solar to date is passive solar heating. Sheathing a building with polycarbonate or metal panels with lots of tiny holes to admit outside air creates a plenum chamber, an air space that heats rapidly in sunlight. A simple fan with a thermostat exchanges the heated air with air in the building. There is no maintenance and no moving parts aside from the fan.
Passive systems are easy to install with local labor.
"We'll work with local people, train them and subcontract so the revenue stays in the community," said Bill Holzer, CEO of Novel Energy Solutions.
Initial costs for solar installations can be reduced through USDA REAP (Rural Energy for America Program) grants and PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) loans.
"Commercial and industrial clients can take out loans for retrofitting existing buildings," Bair said.
PACE loans can be applied to the costs of solar panels or building insulation. The owner pays the loans back through increased property taxes but can begin saving on energy costs immediately, possibly resulting in net gains.
In addition, solar installations are usually exempt from sales tax and property tax evaluations.
With the loans and subsidies available, payback can be reduced to a reasonable time frame, after which the energy is essentially free.
"The thing I like about this is there are panels out in the field 50 years old and still producing power," said Micah Johnson, operations manager at Solar Connection. "I have to believe we're making them better now than then."


text:
This film by Hal Ashby has had an inexhaustible effect on me. For a long time I fell in love with boys who had Bud Cort's eyes; I only realized watching it tonight that the relationship depicted was/is my relationship to the late great Barbara Epstein specifically, with aspects of Alice in Ruth. I saw the movie over and over again as a teenager. I couldn't believe how in love I could be with someone on the screen before I saw Bud, who looked like a grammar school crush–Andy. I had never seen a movie that documented my feelings so, and yet it was "fiction." But utterly real to me. When Maude tells Harold she's chosen to die, I convulsed over and over again during the many screenings I went to. My mother didn't say that, but I knew it was happening. Every time I see this film, I feel as though my skin is being peeled off.
[nggallery id=2]


text:
Farmer D Biodynamic Blend Organic Compost Mix
- Summary
Daron Joffe, the founder of Farmer D Organics, is committed to biodynamic farming and earth-friendly practices. His living, organic compost gives plants an infusion of beneficial microorganisms and nutrients for continuous soil improvement.
- Living, organic compost to improve soil fertility and texture.
- Protects crops from adverse conditions.
- Reduces need for weeding and combating insects.
- Custom formula is a balanced blend of natural plant and animal materials.
- Made using local and sustainable ingredients, including special Biodynamic® ingredients that support the soil's vitality and the health of the plants that grow in it.
- Each batch ishand prepped and cured over a 10- to 12-week maturation.
- First Biodynamic® compost in the USA to be certified by Demeter, an internationally recognized certifier of Biodynamic® farms and agricultural products.
- 8-qt. bag: 11 lb.
- 16-qt. bag: 20 lb.
- Made in USA.
- Dimensions & More Info
- Recommended use: 8 quarts per 10 square feet, incorporated to a depth of 4"–6".
- Ingredients
- Made from a combination of green waste from the prepared food and produce departments of Whole Foods Markets and byproducts from pine forests, cotton gins, chicken litter, granite dust and biodynamic soil preparations such as chamomile, yarrow, dandelion and valerian flowers, stinging nettles, oak bark and equisetum.
- Shipping
Shipping Information
This item will be shipped directly from the manufacturer and is not eligible for rush shipping. Please allow up to four weeks for delivery.
Shipping Rates
The shipping rate varies depending on your order total and shipping destination. View Shipping Options and Charges.
Return Policy
At Williams-Sonoma, we take great pride in the quality and craftsmanship of our products. Attention to design, materials, safety and construction are our priority. Upon receipt, please inspect your purchase and notify us of any damage; we will arrange for a prompt replacement.
If within 30 days, you are dissatisfied for any reason, you may return your purchase for a refund of the merchandise value. An original receipt or gift receipt is required for all returns and exchanges. Returns with a gift receipt will be refunded in the form of a Merchandise Credit for the amount indicated on the gift receipt. Returns with original receipt will be refunded in the original form of payment, cash and check refunds over $100 will be issued as a company check (may take 14 business days from time of request).
For all cutlery returns (knife sets, single knives, cutting boards, knife sharpeners, and knife storage) please contact us at 888.922.4108 to initiate the return.
We cannot accept returns on monogrammed, personalized, special-order items, custom upholstery, food, items shipped direct from the vendor, or on items damaged through normal wear and tear. Final sale items ending in .97 or .99 cannot be returned.
For returns of items purchased from your Williams-Sonoma Gift Registry, we will gladly provide a refund or exchange for the merchandise within 90 days of your event or within 90 days of purchase, whichever date is later. View Full Return Policy.


text:
5 Most Infamous Cars Of 2012
For Generation X, the Pontiac Trans-Am is the phoenix-painted hellwagon Burt Reynolds and Sally Field took bootlegging in Smokey and the Bandit, that David Hasslehoff spoke to in Knight Rider and that Dwight Schrute commuted in during The Office. Ford
Hundreds to thousands of cars fly by the average person each day. Why should any of them be memorable unless their driver left grille marks on your hip as you were crossing an intersection or flipped you off while crossing five lanes of traffic to reach an exit?
Only because it somehow slipped into the garage of your subconscious. Parked there next to the van from The A-Team, Ryan Gosling's 1973 Chevy


text:
Donald Trump may not have many fans left after his controversial birther comments and insanely douchy $5 million challenge video, both intended to block Barack Obama's reelection. But Trump's kids are still on his side.
The New York Daily News recently published a report that Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric held an intervention against their father to have him chill out on the Obama bashing, expressing fear that it would ruin his reputation and the family business. But now, all three kids have come forward to say that's simply not true.
What did the younger Trumps have to say? Find out after the jump!