text:
[…] http://venturehacks-dev.mystagingwebsite.com/articles/opt… […]
Nivi · April 10th, 2007
"Follow the money card!"
Summary: Don't let your investors determine the size of the option pool for you. Use a hiring plan to justify a small option pool, increase your share price, and increase your effective valuation.
If you don't keep your eyes on the option pool while you're negotiating valuation, your investors will have you playing (and losing) a game that we like to call:
Option Pool Shuffle
You have successfully negotiated a $2M investment on a $8M pre-money valuation by pitting the famous Blue Shirt Capital against Herd Mentality Management. Triumphant, you return to your company's tastefully decorated loft or bombed-out garage to tell the team that their hard work has created $8M of value.
Your teammates ask what their shares are worth. You explain that the company currently has 6M shares outstanding so the investors must be valuing the company's stock at $1.33/share:
$8M pre-money ÷ 6M existing shares = $1.33/share.
Later that evening you review the term sheet from Blue Shirt. It states that the share price is $1.00… this must be a mistake! Reading on, the term sheet states, "The $8 million pre-money valuation includes an option pool equal to 20% of the post-financing fully diluted capitalization."
You call your lawyer: "What the fuck?!"
As your lawyer explains that the so-called pre-money valuation always includes a large unallocated option pool for new employees, your stomach sinks. You feel duped and are left wondering, "How am I going to explain this to the team?"
If you don't keep your eyes on the option pool, your investors will slip it in the pre-money and cost you millions of dollars of effective valuation. Don't lose this game.
The option pool lowers your effective valuation.
Your investors offered you a $8M pre-money valuation. What they really meant was,
"We think your company is worth $6M. But let's create $2M worth of new options, add that to the value of your company, and call their sum your $8M 'pre-money valuation'."
For all of you MIT and IIT students out there:
$6M effective valuation + $2M new options + $2M cash = $10M post
60% effective valuation + 20% new options + 20% cash = 100% total.
Slipping the option pool in the pre-money lowers your effective valuation to $6M. The actual value of the company you have built is $6M, not $8M. Likewise, the new options lower your company's share price from $1.33/share to $1.00/share:
$8M pre ÷ (6M existing shares + 2M new options) = $1/share.
Update: Check out our $9 cap table which calculates the effect of the option pool shuffle on your effective valuation.
The shuffle puts pre-money into your investor's pocket.
Proper respect must go out to the brainiac who invented the option pool shuffle. Putting the option pool in the pre-money benefits the investors in three different ways!
First, the option pool only dilutes the common stockholders. If it came out of the post-money, the option pool would dilute the common and preferred shareholders proportionally.
Second, the option pool eats into the pre-money more than it would seem. It seems smaller than it is because it is expressed as a percentage of the post-money even though it is allocated from the pre-money. In our example, the new option pool is 20% of the post-money but 25% of the pre-money:
$2M new options ÷ $8M pre-money= 25%.
Third, if you sell the company before the Series B, all un-issued and un-vested options will be cancelled. This reverse dilution benefits all classes of stock proportionally even though the common stock holders paid for all of the initial dilution in the first place! In other words, when you exit, some of your pre-money valuation goes into the investor's pocket.
More likely, you will raise a Series B before you sell the company. In that case, you and the Series A investors will have to play option pool shuffle against the Series B investors. However, all the unused options that you paid for in the Series A will go into the Series B option pool. This allows your existing investors to avoid playing the game and, once again, avoid dilution at your expense.
Solution: Use a hiring plan to size the option pool.
You can beat the game by creating the smallest option pool possible. First, ask your investors why they think the option pool should be 20% of the post-money. Reasonable responses include
- "That should cover us for the next 12-18 months."
- "That should cover us until the next financing."
- "It's standard," is not a reasonable answer. (We'll cover your response in a future hack.)
Next, make a hiring plan for the next 12 months. Add up the options you need to give to the new hires. Almost certainly, the total will be much less than 20% of the post-money. Now present the plan to your investors:
"We only need a 10% option pool to cover us for the next 12 months. By your reasoning we only need to create a 10% option pool."
Reducing the option pool from 20% to 10% increases the company's effective valuation from $6M to $7M:
$7M effective valuation + $1M new options + $2M cash = $10M post
70% effective valuation + 10% new options + 20% cash = 100% total
A few hours of work creating a hiring plan increases your share price by 17% to $1.17:
$7M effective valuation ÷ 6M existing shares = $1.17/share.
How do you create an option pool from a hiring plan? #
To allocate the option pool from the hiring plan, use these current ranges for option grants in Silicon Valley:
Title Range (%) CEO 5 – 10 COO 2 – 5 VP 1 – 2 Independent Board Member 1 Director 0.4 – 1.25 Lead Engineer 0.5 – 1 5+ years experience Engineer 0.33 – 0.66 Manager or Junior Engineer 0.2 – 0.33
These are rough ranges – not bell curves – for new hires once a company has raised its Series A. Option grants go down as the company gets closer to its Series B, starts making money, and otherwise reduces risk.
The top end of these ranges are for proven elite contributors. Most option grants are near the bottom of the ranges. Many factors affect option allocations including the quality of the existing team, the size of the opportunity, and the experience of the new hire.
If your company already has a CEO in place, you should be able to reduce the option pool to about 10% of the post-money. If the company needs to hire a new CEO soon, you should be able to reduce the option pool to about 15% of the post-money.
Bring up your hiring plan before you discuss valuation.
Discuss your hiring plan with your prospective investors before you discuss valuation and the option pool. They may offer the truism that "you can't hire good people as fast as you think." You should respond, "Okay, let's slow down the hiring plan… (and shrink the option pool)."
You have to play option pool shuffle.
The only way to win at option pool shuffle is to not play at all. Put the option pool in the post-money instead of the pre-money. This benefits you and your investors because it aligns your interests with respect to the hiring plan and the size of the option pool.
Still, don't try to put the option pool in the post-money. We've tried – it doesn't work.
Your investor's norm is that the option pool goes in the pre-money. When your opponent has different norms than you do, you either have to attack his norms or ask for an exception based on the facts of your case. Both straits are difficult to navigate.
Instead, skillful negotiators use their opponent's standards and norms to advance their own arguments. Fancy negotiators call this normative leverage. You apply normative leverage in the option pool shuffle by using a hiring plan to justify a small option pool.
You can't avoid playing option pool shuffle. But you can track the pre-money as it gets shuffled into the option pool and back into the investor's pocket, you can prepare a hiring plan before the game starts, and you can keep your eye on the money card.
Topics Hiring · Option Pool · Valuation
35 comments · Show
Very informative article, this applies to us directly too (we're reviewing Series A term sheets right now). While the above is presented as a somewhat combativitve strategy, I think the result of using the above and focusing on the hiring plan result in both the VC and the Entrepreneurs feeling better about the post-deal plan. Thanks!
Adam, let them chase you a little bit too. Most VCs can appreciate an entrepreneur who is focused on building his business and doesn't want to raise money full-time. If a VC is asking for an inordinate amount of diligence and meetings, forget them and move on. They'll be even worse once they're on your board. If you need to get in touch with people who can decide quickly (even if the decision is no), drop me a note at myfirstname at mylastname dot com
One negotiation tactic I've used successfully when there's unreasonable pushback regarding size of the option pool is to propose that upon an acquisition all unallocated/unvested options that would be cancelled instead convert into common shares (obviously, various ways to implement mechanics of that that don't all require actual conversion). I've never seen this actually get implemented, but I've found that this helps cut straight to the chase and reach a compromise number that works for both sides.
The option pool raised a question for me, if you could kindly comment. What if the founder already included an option pool in the existing shares outstanding? For example, assume 5M shares outstanding out of which 20% (or 1M shares) is reserved for employee stock options.
Let us further assume that the pre-money valuation is agreed at $5M, can we claim effective share price is $5M/5M or $1/share?
My understanding is in your scenario, new shares had to be issued, but not in my scenario. Am I correct?
Correct – in your scenario, most likely, no new options would have to be issued since you already have a 20% pre-money pool allocated. Your pre-money would be $5M, but on an apples-to-apples basis to how we're encouraging you to think about pre-money (the value of the stock allocated to the people who are already shareholders of the company), it's $4M. But, this is basically just semantics. The key question is how much the new investors are valuing the contributions of the existing shareholder, and in that sense, even in your scenario, it's at $4M.
This is very helpful. My question is — what if you are still fluid in terms of how much money you are raising for your Series A. As an example, let's say all you really need is $2M, but there's enough interest in the market to raise $5M — and ultimately they will be similarly dilutive. That being the case, one would have a markedly different Use of Funds and hiring plan for the $2M vs. $5M scenario. Any thoughts on how to have a raise-independent approach?
One corollary to the Option Pool Shuffle is "What's in the fully-diluted shares outstanding if you have convertible notes or warrants outstanding?" The issue is whether shares issuable upon conversion of a convertible bridge note or warrants issued in connection with the bridge should be considered part of the pre-money fully-diluted shares outstanding in calculating price per share of the Series A. Remember, more fully-diluted shares outstanding drives the Series A price per share down, resulting in more dilution to the founders.
Given that many companies are doing convertible note bridge financings as their seed round, this seems to come up relatively often.
VCs will take the position that all of the shares issuable upon the conversion of the bridge note and any warrants granted will be part of the denominator for calculating the price per share of the Series A.
At first glance, it seems like there is a good argument on behalf of the company that the shares issuable upon the bridge note are no different from shares issued in the Series A, and should not be included in the pre-money fully-diluted shares outstanding. In addition, warrants issued in connection with the note typically have an exercise price equal to the Series A price, so these warrants are not dilutive like cheap founders common shares.
The response from the VC is (1) the money from the bridge is gone and the value created by that money is reflected in the pre-money valuation, so the shares issuable upon conversion of the bridge count against fully-diluted shares, (2) in any event, there is a conversion discount on the note conversion so these shares are dilutive to the Series A, and (3) even though the warrants aren't dilutive today with an exercise price at the Series A price, they will be dilutive in the future in the next round of financing, so the pre-Series A investors should bear that dilution.
Of course, with respect to (1), if there is still money in the bank at the time of Series A, perhaps some portion of the shares issuable upon conversion of the bridge should be taken out of the pre-money fully-diluted share number to the extent of the money left in the bank.
And with respect to (2), perhaps the discount portion of the conversion shares should be included in the pre-money fully-diluted share number, but the rest (to the extent there is money left in the bank) should not.
Finally, with respect to (3), perhaps the warrant overhang is not too different from multiple closings on a Series A round, where the price is set at the first closing, and second closings seem to go on for long periods of time after the first closing at the same price per share as the first closing.
I'd be curious in the VC reaction to this, because the last time I tried this, I lost arguments (1) and (2) (with not too much more logic than "no, those shares are in the denominator" – end of argument) and item (3) warrants was not applicable.
I'm going to have to reuse this comment in a slightly different form on my own site. Typical disclaimers about legal advice apply to this comment.
Aside from the swipe about startup company lawyers not negotiating hard against the VCs (which I vehemently disagree with as a WSGR partner), I think you've done a great job educating entrepreneurs about subtle nuances in negotiations with VCs.
We were able to get our bridge note shares not included as part of the premoney fully-diluted shares outstanding. In our case, it was a bargaining chip used in conjunction with a decision to take slightly more money, not unlike raising the valuation to take additional funds. Only difference is that we had agreed to a certain valuation and a certain amount raised, and then one investor didn't pan out in the final stages (with definitives written up), so we said we'd take less money at the same valuation. We were given the choice of doing that or upping the premoney full-diluted.
we're looking at doing a series a preferred and a note with granted shares at the same time. for example, we are raising $1 million in Series A and issuing $1 million in notes. the debt holder wants free equity equal to half the equity the Series A will get.
how do you think the series a share price should be calculated? should we take dilution on the shares granted to the debt? or, since we havent received benefit from those yet, they should be excluded – even though no new "equity" is coming in from the debt?
post response here or email me at email@example.com.
OK…saw the chart on
"How do you create an option pool from a hiring plan?"
Is it correct to assume that the %s shown are post A round share %s?
Also if CEO, COO, etc are also founders and have founders shares…do they double dip and get the %s shown in addition to founders shares?
[…] You want a small option pool. The investors will tell you that the company needs a large option pool. Balony. The debate is really about who pays for the option pool. VentureHacks has a relevant article. […]
One question occurred to me after reading your article, if you could kindly shed some light on it. In your example, if the option pool is lowered to 10%, let's suppose it be a round number of $1M new options, shouldn't the post-value be:
$6M effective valuation + $1M new options + $2M cash = $9M
Why would the VC's ever want to raise the real value of the company to $7M if they think the company is worth only $6M? Keeping it at $6M would certainly also increase their percentage, wouldn't it?
We are launching a company that will require 4 rounds of funding over say 4 years. We have two choices:
1. Allocate a single option pool up front for all hiring for the next 4 years
2. Allocate an option pool that will be cover hiring only up to the next round
Which dilutes the founder less? My intuition says that the second option is better because the early investors are diluted along with the founders during the creation of the new option pools.
Got a spreadsheet that models multiple rounds of funding and option pool creation?
[…] Venture Hack's post on option pools, which provides some handy equity ranges for different types of hires […]
[…] a legal one. Much information is available on the web. Make sure you understand the effect of including the option pool in the pre-money valuation. Think about alternatives to simply changing the valuation, such as using […]
[…] piece of the pie and do not intend for the stock or stock options to be handed out in reality (word is out on this one, guys), or (b) you only give out stock and stock options carefully and then only to those officers, […]
[…] This starts with understanding how VCs and entrepreneurs often see valuation differently. And no prizes for guessing which side of the table really understands the right answer. I'm not sure I really even need to write this at length because Nivi absolutely nailed the topic in his article "The Option Pool Shuffle." […]
Hi Nivi,
Excellent post. Makes interesting reading.
Can you kindly mention what are the typical ranges for the founder's shares ( Options ) taking a used case scenario.
That would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance.
Vengo Ventures
[…] I totally agree with Mark Suster: Nivi at VentureHacks nails the options topic in his post "The Option Pool Shuffle." Fundamentally, providing stock options to employees dilutes the ownership percentage of […]
Nivi and Naval, found your article helpful.
A quick question as I am prepare the terms sheet; since me (CEO) and my partner (VP Tech) are the founders and majority shareholders, would there be a benefit in reserving ANY stock options for ourselves?
I am thinking of suggesting 4.5% pool, (2.5% for all the directors and an additional 2% for two hires that we are planning).
Will appreciate your comments. Thanks, Mihir
This is a great post . When bringing in a CEO on board in a Non Funded , prerevenue generating company which is ready to launch after a year plus of product development do you give options or common stock ? what is preferred and why?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
GREAT ARTICLE! I sincerely appreciate the resources you all have made available for entrepreneurs through VentureHacks.
This article brings up a question for me: Since shares are vested….when using the hiring plan to determine the size of the option pool, can (or should) you get granular to look at how many shares will be VESTED during the period before the next round of funding or just look at the total figure of shares you are allocating in a new employee's hiring contract? (eg. a VP joining the team is getting 5% total which will be reflected in their contract BUT only .1% may be vested by the time the next round of funding comes, etc)
"Why would LeBron waste his talent on a team like the Chicago Bulls…stupid"
[…] incubators may want to set up an option pool. If so, the startup's founders need to know this option pool lowers your pre-money valuation. Using the previous example, if an incubator wants your startup to set up a 15% option pool as part […]
Why are companies always chasing growth?…
The answer is different for public companies, startups, small businesses, family businesses, and so on. For public companies The value of a company is significantly tied to growth, because the current stock price reflects what investors anticipate futu…


text:
Popular Science
Popular Science gives our readers the information and tools to improve their technology and their world. The core belief that Popular Science and our readers share: The future is going to be better, and science and technology are the driving forces that will help make it better.
Common terms and phrases
airplane American amperes Army arrow aviation backgammon beam splitter Benny beryllium bomber bombs booklet BUILDING BUILT camera casein Castle Films catalog Chicago circular saw color copper copper hydroxide course defense Dept diameter drill drive easy edge electric embroidery hoops Engineering equipment feet film finished fire Flight archery flying FREE BOOK fuses glass glue guns handle HARLEY-DAVIDSON hole illustrated incendiary bombs inch industry install invention Jointers keep knurl lathe light machine magnesium Mail coupon mechanical ment metal motor operation paint paper patent Patent Attorney piece pilot plane plugs plywood POPULAR SCIENCE Radio rubber ruby School screw Send serum ship shown side Slide Rule speed steel strips tank target tion tires tool tray tube turn U.S. Army vise wheel wire wood Write

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for time to intervention for any mood episode (A) or discontinuation from the study (B).
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for time to intervention for a depressive episode (A) or a manic, hypomanic, or mixed episode (B).
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Bowden CL, Calabrese JR, Sachs G, et al. A Placebo-Controlled 18-Month Trial of Lamotrigine and Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Recently Manic or Hypomanic Patients With Bipolar I Disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(4):392–400. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.4.392
© 2023
Lamotrigine has been shown to be an effective treatment for bipolar depression and rapid cycling in placebo-controlled clinical trials. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to assess the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine and lithium compared with placebo for the prevention of relapse or recurrence of mood episodes in recently manic or hypomanic patients with bipolar I disorder.
After an 8- to 16-week open-label phase during which treatment with lamotrigine was initiated and other psychotropic drug regimens were discontinued, patients were randomized to lamotrigine (100-400 mg daily), lithium (0.8-1.1 mEq/L), or placebo as double-blind maintenance treatment for as long as 18 months.
Of 349 patients who met screening criteria and entered the open-label phase, 175 met stabilization criteria and were randomized to double-blind maintenance treatment (lamotrigine, 59 patients; lithium, 46 patients; and placebo, 70 patients). Both lamotrigine and lithium were superior to placebo at prolonging the time to intervention for any mood episode (lamotrigine vs placebo, P = .02; lithium vs placebo, P = .006). Lamotrigine was superior to placebo at prolonging the time to a depressive episode (P = .02). Lithium was superior to placebo at prolonging the time to a manic, hypomanic, or mixed episode(P =.006). The most common adverse event reported for lamotrigine was headache.
Both lamotrigine and lithium were superior to placebo for the prevention of relapse or recurrence of mood episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder who had recently experienced a manic or hypomanic episode. The results indicate that lamotrigine is an effective, well-tolerated maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder, particularly for prophylaxis of depression.
BIPOLAR DISORDER is a chronic, severe disease with a prevalence of approximately 1.6% for the bipolar I form and more than 3% when other forms are included.1-3 Social and vocational morbidity is high, and the mortality rate from suicide is estimated to be 3 times that of the general population.4,5 Nine of 10 patients with an initial episode of mania experience subsequent manic, hypomanic, depressed, or mixed episodes that are characterized by significant cognitive and behavioral dysfunction as well as mood impairment.6 Each additional mood episode increases the risk of future recurrences and worsens the prognosis.7,8 Therefore, although effective treatment of acute mood episodes in bipolar disorder is important, a primary treatment objective is the prevention of subsequent mood episodes.9-11
On the basis of studies conducted primarily in the 1960s and 1970s, lithium has been the cornerstone of maintenance therapy for bipolar disorder,9 but its efficacy in open and blinded, randomized maintenance studies of the last 15 years has been consistently below 50%.10-13 These considerations notwithstanding, lithium is the most well-studied and established pharmacotherapy for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder and is indicated for this use in most countries. A recent meta-analysis of 9 placebo-controlled studies (n = 825) of lithium as maintenance treatment for mood disorders concluded that the drug is effective in preventing the relapse of bipolar disorder, despite considerable between-study heterogeneity in results.14 However, this review also emphasized the unmet need for effective, tolerable maintenance therapy for bipolar disorder and called for additional controlled studies comparing lithium with other therapeutic options.
Lamotrigine, which has worldwide regulatory approval for the treatment of epilepsy, has also demonstrated efficacy in bipolar depression and rapid-cycling bipolar disorder as indicated by the results of open as well as randomized blinded, placebo-controlled studies.15-24 Lamotrigine monotherapy was more effective than placebo on a variety of key outcome measures for depressive episodes of bipolar I disorder.15 In a second study with parallel-group and crossover components, lamotrigine monotherapy was more effective than placebo or gabapentin in the treatment of patients with bipolar and unipolar mood disorders who were refractory to or intolerant of lithium, valproate acid, or carbamazepine.24
In a 6-month blinded, randomized, parallel-group study, lamotrigine was superior to placebo in time to intervention or early discontinuation for any reason in patients with rapid-cycling bipolar illness.23 After 6 months of monotherapy, 41% of patients treated with lamotrigine compared with 26% of placebo-treated patients were stable without relapse. This study was the first randomized, double-blind demonstration of the efficacy of lamotrigine as maintenance therapy. The current randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to further these observations by assessing the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine and the standard maintenance therapy, lithium, compared with placebo for the prevention of relapse or recurrence of mood episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder who had recently experienced a manic or hypomanic episode.
Patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder were eligible for the study if they (1) were currently manic or hypomanic as defined by the DSM-IV25 or(2) had been manic or hypomanic within 60 days of the screening visit, had manic or hypomanic symptoms at enrollment, and had at least 1 additional manic or hypomanic episode and 1 depressed episode (including those of a mixed episode meeting DSM-IV criteria) within 3 years of enrollment. Patients were excluded if they had experienced more than 6 DSM-IV manic, hypomanic, mixed, or depressive episodes in the year prior to enrollment; had a DSM-IV diagnosis of or had received treatment within the year prior to enrollment for panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social phobia, or bulimia nervosa; had a history of or current epilepsy; had clinically significant cardiac, renal, hepatic, neoplastic, or cerebrovascular disease; or were actively suicidal or had a score of 3 or more on item 3 of the 31-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).26 All patients provided written informed consent prior to study participation.
The protocol for this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study conducted at 64 centers (Glaxo Wellcome protocol SCAB2006, GW606) was approved by an institutional review board or ethics committee at each study site. The study included a screening phase of up to 2 weeks, an 8- to 16-week open-label phase during which lamotrigine was initiated as adjunctive therapy or monotherapy and other psychotropic drugs were discontinued, and a 76-week double-blind phase during which patients received lamotrigine, lithium, or placebo as maintenance therapy. Patients could be discontinued from any phase of the study for reasons including poor tolerance of study medication, lack of efficacy, pregnancy, investigator's or patient's unwillingness to continue the study for any reason, and noncompliance with study procedures. Patients experiencing a rash of unknown origin while taking lamotrigine or undergoing double-blind therapy were to be discontinued from the study regardless of the severity of the rash.
The screening phase occurred within 2 weeks after the patient's entry into the open-label phase. During this phase, psychiatric and medical histories were obtained; physical examinations including clinical laboratory tests were performed; and scores on psychiatric rating scales, including the Mania Rating Scale (MRS) from the Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, change version,27 the HAM-D,26 the Clinical Global Impressions–Severity and –Improvement scales (CGI-S and CGI-I),28 and the Global Assessment Scale (GAS),29 were recorded. Patients eligible by inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the open-label phase.
During the 8- to 16-week open-label phase, all patients received open-label lamotrigine (target dosage, 200 mg/d; minimum dosage, 100 mg/d) as adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. When used as monotherapy, patients began a 6-week titration of lamotrigine to a target dosage of 200 mg/d (weeks 1-2, 25 mg/d; weeks 3-4, 50 mg/d; week 5, 100 mg/d; and week 6, 200 mg/d). When used as adjunctive therapy with valproate, the lamotrigine starting, minimum, and target dosages and the rate of titration were halved. When used as adjunctive therapy with carbamazepine, the lamotrigine starting, minimum, and target dosages and the rate of titration were doubled. In both cases, these concomitant antiepileptic drugs were gradually withdrawn so that lamotrigine monotherapy at target dosages was received for at least 1 week before the double-blind phase, with the lamotrigine dosage immediately doubled after discontinuation of valproate and gradually halved after discontinuation of carbamazepine.
Concomitant antiepileptic drugs and other psychotropic medications were permitted during the open-label phase as needed to treat an ongoing manic or hypomanic episode but were discontinued a minimum of 1 week (for oral antipsychotics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, lithium, and benzodiazepines) to 2 weeks (for anticonvulsants, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, and reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors) before entry into the double-blind phase. For patients receiving lithium during the open-label phase, the dosage was tapered over at least 3 weeks and discontinued a minimum of 1 week before they entered the double-blind phase of the study.
Clinic visits were scheduled to occur weekly (or as necessary to ensure appropriate patient care) during the open-label phase. At each clinic visit, psychiatric evaluations from the screening visit were administered again, and patients were queried regarding the occurrence of adverse events, defined as any untoward medical occurrence, regardless of its suspected cause. Beginning at week 8 of the open-label phase, patients who had reached a stable dose of lamotrigine and met the criterion for response, defined as a CGI-S scale score of 3 or less maintained for at least 4 continuous weeks, were eligible to enroll in the double-blind phase of the study. Patients not meeting the criterion for response to lamotrigine at the end of 16 weeks of open-label treatment were discontinued from the study.
Patients who responded to treatment with lamotrigine during the open-label phase of the study were randomized 1:1:1 to receive double-blind treatment with lamotrigine (100-400 mg/d, depending on clinical response; starting dosage, 200 mg/d), lithium (titrated to serum levels of 0.8-1.1 mEq/L), or placebo for up to 76 weeks. Psychotropic drugs other than study medication were not permitted during the double-blind phase, with the exception of short-term, intermittent use of chloral hydrate, lorazepam, temazepam, or oxazepam at low doses as needed for control of agitation, irritability, restlessness, insomnia, or hostile behavior. In the event of a mood episode, antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants and mood stabilizers, or electroconvulsive therapy were administered as treatment intervention, the primary study end point.
Clinic visits were scheduled to occur weekly during the first 4 weeks of the double-blind phase, biweekly through week 8, and every 4 weeks thereafter, through week 76. At each clinic visit, psychiatric evaluations from the screening visit were administered again, and patients were queried regarding the occurrence of adverse events. At the week 52 clinic visit, patients were evaluated to determine whether they should continue the study. Those who had not experienced a relapse or recurrent mood episode could proceed with double-blind treatment for an additional 6 months (through week 76); those who had been treated for a relapse or recurrence during double-blind treatment through week 52 were discontinued from the study.
Two modifications in the planned study design occurred to deal with a rate of enrollment that was substantially slower than planned. Approximately midway through the study, the lithium arm was closed to enrollment in order to divert new patients into the treatments of primary interest, lamotrigine and placebo. Subsequently, the study was terminated prior to enrollment of the full planned complement of patients (100 per group). No interim analyses or other type of unblinding were used in reaching these administrative decisions.
The primary efficacy end point was the time to intervention (addition of pharmacotherapy or electroconvulsive therapy) for any mood episode. Secondary efficacy measures included time to early discontinuation for any reason (ie, survival in study); time to intervention for a manic, hypomanic, or mixed episode; time to intervention for a depressive episode; and mean change from baseline (defined as day 1 of the double-blind phase) in scores on the MRS, HAM-D, CGI, and GAS scales during double-blind treatment.
For statistical analyses, the efficacy population comprised all patients randomized to treatment during the double-blind phase who received at least 1 dose of study medication and provided at least 1 postbaseline primary outcome assessment.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for the time-to-event data, and differences among treatment groups were compared using log-rank tests at an α = .05 level of significance. Patients discontinuing from the study for reasons other than the defined events for the analysis were censored at the time of drop out. For the analysis of survival in the study, all patients discontinuing prematurely for any reason except termination of the study by the sponsor were categorized as treatment failures, as were patients who had intervention for any mood episode. Patients who were discontinued due to termination of the study by the sponsor were censored from all analyses at the point of their discontinuation.
Mean change scores for the psychiatric evaluations between groups were examined with repeated-measures analysis using generalized estimating equations at an α = .05 level of significance using observed, last observation carried forward, and mean change data. For the latter analysis, the mean of all observed data was applied to missing values. Results for all 3 analyses were similar. Mean change data are reported here. Categorical variables were analyzed using the Fisher exact test. No interim analyses were performed on any of the study end points. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied.
The incidence of adverse events was summarized for each phase of the study for all patients who had received at least 1 dose of study medication during that phase. Laboratory and vital signs data were analyzed for frequency of clinically significant shifts.
Projected sample sizes were based on the number of patients deemed necessary to detect differences between the lamotrigine group and the placebo group in the incidence of relapse or recurrence of a manic episode during the double-blind phase. It was estimated that a minimum of 62 patients per group was required to detect an incidence of relapse or recurrence of a manic episode of 65% for placebo and 40% for lamotrigine at a power of 80% and an α of .05.
Of 349 patients enrolled in the open-label phase, 175 were randomized to maintenance treatment during the double-blind phase (lamotrigine, 59 patients; lithium, 46 patients; and placebo, 70 patients) (Table 1). One patient each in the lamotrigine and placebo groups had no postbaseline assessments following entry into the double-blind phase of the study and was excluded from all further efficacy and safety analyses. Two patients in the lithium group did not provide any postbaseline efficacy assessments following entry in the double-blind phase of the study and were excluded from all further efficacy analyses. The lithium sample size was smallest due to truncation of this arm partway through the study. Because some study centers did not randomize complete blocks (n = 6) of study medication, the sample sizes for lamotrigine and placebo were unequal.
The most common reason that patients in the open-label phase were not randomized to the double-blind phase was the occurrence of adverse events(12%). Of the 175 patients who entered the double-blind phase, 35 patients were discontinued prematurely because of early termination of the study by the sponsor. The mean (SD) length of time these patients spent in the study was 300 (115) days (range, 136-582 days). For the remaining patients, the most common reasons for discontinuation from the study, other than intervention for a mood episode, were adverse events for the lithium group (24%; P = .01 vs placebo; P = .003 vs lamotrigine) and withdrawal of consent for the lamotrigine group (7%).
Demographic characteristics and psychiatric history of patients enrolled in the double-blind phase are summarized in Table 2. The patient sample enrolled in the study had a mean age in the early 40s and was approximately equally divided between men and women. Nearly all patients had previously received medication for mood-related disturbance, and roughly two thirds required psychiatric hospitalization at some point. Overall demographic and disease characteristics of the sample were comparable across the 3 treatment groups, with 2 exceptions. A history of previous suicide attempt was more frequent in the lithium group (41%) compared with the placebo group (19%) (P = .01). Among patients who had previously received at least 1 psychotropic medication, fewer patients had previously been treated with valproate in the lithium group (23%) compared with the placebo group (51%) (P = .005) or the lamotrigine group (49%)(P = .01).
In addition to lamotrigine, other psychiatric medications were allowed during the initial part of the open-label phase and were used by 78% of all patients and 75% of those eventually randomized. Medications used by 10% or more of all patients were lithium (18%), lorazepam (18%), clonazepam (15%), valproate (14%), and haloperidol (14%). These percentages were only slightly lower for patients who were eventually randomized, except for clonazepam (9%) and haloperidol (9%), and were comparably distributed among the double-blind treatment groups. Of 349 patients who entered the initial open-label phase of the study, 175 (50%) achieved stabilization criteria and entered the double-blind phase of the study.
Both lamotrigine and lithium were significantly superior to placebo on time to intervention for any mood episode (lamotrigine vs placebo, P = .02; lithium vs placebo, P =.003) (Figure 1A). Lamotrigine and lithium did not differ from each other on this parameter (P = .46). Median survival times are provided in Table 3. Medications added at the point of intervention included antidepressants (n = 19 patients), lamotrigine (n = 19), typical antipsychotics(n = 16), benzodiazepines (n = 14), atypical antipsychotics (n = 9), valproate(n = 6), lithium (n = 3), and carbamazepine (n = 1). The distribution of medications used as treatment interventions was comparable across the 3 treatment groups.
In the analysis of overall survival in the study (ie, categorizing all early discontinuations as events), lamotrigine was superior to placebo (lamotrigine vs placebo, P = .03; lithium vs placebo, P = .07) (Figure 1B). Lamotrigine and lithium did not differ from each other on this parameter (P = .72). In the placebo group, 11 (16%) of 69 patients completed the study or were terminated from the protocol because of study discontinuation vs 18 (31%) of 58 in the lamotrigine group (P = .05) and 10(23%) of 44 in the lithium group (P = .27).
Among patients experiencing mood episodes that required intervention during the double-blind phase, episodes of elevated mood (mania, hypomania, and mixed states) were more frequent than depressive episodes for the lamotrigine and placebo groups. Thus, of 28 interventions for mood episodes among patients in the lamotrigine group, 20 (71%) were for mood elevation (mania, 11; hypomania, 5; and mixed, 4), and 8 (29%) were for depression. Of 49 interventions among placebo patients, 28 (57%) were for mood elevation (mania, 13; hypomania, 9; and mixed, 6), and 21 (43%) were for depression. In contrast, depressive episodes constituted a majority of events requiring intervention for the lithium group. Of 18 interventions among patients in the lithium group, 10 (56%) were for depression, and 8 (44%) were for mood elevation (mania, 4; hypomania, 2; and mixed, 2).
Lamotrigine, but not lithium, was superior to placebo at prolonging the time to a depressive episode (lamotrigine vs placebo, P = .02; lithium vs placebo, P = .17) (Figure 2A). Lamotrigine and lithium did not differ from each other on this parameter (P = .36).
Lithium, but not lamotrigine, was superior to placebo at prolonging the time to a manic, hypomanic, or mixed episode (lithium vs placebo, P = .006; lamotrigine vs placebo, P =.28) (Figure 2B). A trend favored lithium over lamotrigine on this parameter (P = .09).
Change from baseline scores for the HAM-D indicated lesser overall degrees of worsening with lamotrigine compared with placebo (Table 4). Change scores in the lithium group did not differ from those in the placebo or lamotrigine groups for these evaluations. Conversely, change from baseline scores for the MRS indicated lesser overall degrees of worsening with lithium compared with placebo and lamotrigine. There were no overall differences between any of the treatment groups for CGI scale or GAS scores.
A regression of individual patient end point changes in the MRS vs the HAM-D indicated a marginally significant positive relationship for the lamotrigine group only (lamotrigine: mean [SE], 0.41 [0.21]; r2 = 0.06; P = .06; lithium: mean [SE], −0.02[0.11]; r2 = 0.001; P = .82; and placebo: mean [SE], −0.12 [0.14]; r2 = 0.01; P = .40).
The most common treatment-emergent adverse event occurring during the open-label or double-blind phases was headache (Table 5). During the double-blind phase of the study, the incidence of headache was significantly higher in the lamotrigine group compared with the lithium group. The incidence of diarrhea was significantly higher in the lithium group compared with the lamotrigine group. Most adverse events were considered to be mild or moderate and resolved without sequelae, regardless of the study phase. A 54-year-old female patient developed a moderately severe maculopapular, nonpruitic rash during the open-label phase, and it resolved uneventfully following hospitalization and discontinuation of lamotrigine. There were no cases of serious rash during the double-blind phase of the study.
Adverse events led to the withdrawal of 42 patients from the open-label phase and 16 patients from the double-blind phase (placebo, 3 patients; lamotrigine, 3 patients; and lithium, 11 patients) (lithium vs placebo, P = .01; lithium vs lamotrigine, P = .003). The most frequent adverse events leading to withdrawal from the open-label phase were rash (17 cases; 5% of patients) and mania (12 cases; 3%). The most frequent adverse events leading to withdrawal from the double-blind phase were mania (placebo, 2 patients; lithium, 2 patients; and lamotrigine, 2 patients), somnolence (lithium, 2; lamotrigine, 1), depression (placebo, 1; lithium, 2), diarrhea (placebo, 1; lithium, 4) (lithium vs lamotrigine, P = .04), nausea (lithium, 5) (lithium vs lamotrigine, P = .02; lithium vs placebo, P = .009), and rash (placebo, 2; lithium, 2).
The incidence of laboratory values not within reference ranges and/or clinically significant changes from normal was low and did not suggest an effect of either of the active treatments, except for an increase in the number of lithium patients with elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone levels (prospectively defined as > 4.67 mIU/L). In this group, final postbaseline assessments for 7 (18%) of 38 patients were elevated compared with 1 (2%) of 60 placebo patients and 0 lamotrigine patients. Also as expected, the mean total white blood cell count increased in patients receiving lithium compared with placebo. The incidence of patients with a 7% or greater increase in body weight during the double-blind phase of the study was 11%, 10%, and 2% for the lamotrigine, lithium, and placebo groups, respectively.
One patient in the lamotrigine group, a 47-year-old woman, attempted suicide 24 days into the double-blind phase of the study by taking an overdose of study medication after reporting auditory hallucinations and hearing voices that told her to kill herself. She recovered uneventfully following gastric lavage and hospitalization for several days. In the treating psychiatrist's opinion, the events were not reasonably attributable to the study medication.
The number of patients in each treatment group who ever had a score of 3 or greater on HAM-D item 3 (suicidality) during the double-blind phase did not differ significantly between any of the treatment groups (lamotrigine, 2; lithium, 0; and placebo, 2).
In this double-blind comparison of lamotrigine and lithium monotherapy vs placebo in the maintenance treatment of recently manic or hypomanic patients with bipolar I disorder, both lamotrigine and lithium were more effective than placebo at prolonging the time to any mood episode, which was the primary efficacy end point of the study. In a previous large maintenance-therapy study, significantly fewer patients with rapid-cycling bipolar disorder relapsed during 6 months of therapy with lamotrigine compared with placebo.23 These 2 studies provide strong evidence for the efficacy of lamotrigine in preventing the relapse and recurrence of bipolar illness.
These results also extend the accumulating evidence of the efficacy of lamotrigine administered either acutely or long-term in controlling depressive symptoms of bipolar disorder.15,16,23,24,30 In this study, lamotrigine was superior to placebo at prolonging the time to intervention for a depressive episode. In addition, lamotrigine improved scores compared with placebo on psychiatric evaluations of depressive symptoms (HAM-D). Considering the morbidity, mortality, and overall burden associated with the depressive phase of the illness,31 lamotrigine appears to provide a complementary benefit to other drugs used in the treatment of bipolar disorder.
This study does not suggest that lamotrigine is effective for preventing relapse or recurrence of manic symptoms. Lamotrigine was not statistically superior to placebo at prolonging the time to a manic, hypomanic, or mixed episode and did not significantly improve scores compared with placebo on the psychiatric evaluation of manic symptoms (MRS). However, regression analysis changes in the HAM-D and MRS scores of individual patients did suggest that, for patients in the lamotrigine group, there was a positive correlation between the degree of protection against return of depression and manic symptoms. Moreover, compared with placebo, there was no evidence in this study that manic symptoms worsened during lamotrigine treatment.
This is the first study in a bipolar I population in which lithium differentiated from placebo using modern survival analytic methods, and it arguably provides some of the strongest evidence available for the efficacy of lithium in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. Along with the study of Bowden et al,32 it provides the only placebo-controlled data in which lithium taken during open-phase treatment was tapered at the point of randomization, avoiding abrupt withdrawal-induced relapse on placebo. In line with the results of the current study, Bowden et al reported a nonsignificant extension of time to 25% relapse with mania among lithium-treated, compared with placebo-treated, patients (293 days vs 189 days) but did not suggest that lithium was efficacious in delaying the relapse time to depression. Few other maintenance studies of treatments for bipolar disorder have separately analyzed relapse of manic and depressive episodes. The studies of Dunner et al33 and Denicoff et al34 also suggest that lithium has maintenance efficacy for manic, but not depressive, dimensions of bipolar disorder. Because the number of lithium-treated patients in the current study was smaller than originally planned, the results of lithium treatment reported here should be interpreted with caution.
This study is one of few placebo-controlled trials that provides a direct comparison of the efficacy of 2 or more medications for the prevention of relapse and recurrence of bipolar illness. The anticonvulsant carbamazepine has been compared with lithium in several maintenance-therapy studies lacking a placebo control group.10,35-37 Most of these studies demonstrate that carbamazepine is less effective than lithium. Lithium has also been compared with valproate in a large placebo-controlled maintenance-therapy study.32 In the latter study, valproate was not more effective than placebo or lithium in preventing or forestalling recurrence of manic or depressive episodes, although valproate was significantly more effective than placebo or lithium in preventing the recurrence of mood episodes severe enough to prompt patients' discontinuation from the study.
Lamotrigine was well-tolerated and had an adverse-event profile consistent with other studies of bipolar disorder15-24 as well as epilepsy.30 The incidence of discontinuations because of adverse events and the incidence of several of the most common adverse events were lower with lamotrigine than with lithium. The relative tolerability of lamotrigine compared with lithium was also indicated in the analysis of survival in the study, which captures the contribution of tolerability to patients' longevity in the study. Lamotrigine was superior to placebo in prolonging overall survival in the study when all discontinuations were considered treatment failures, but lithium was not.
This study has both strengths and weaknesses. It employed a classic enriched maintenance design that is used in most maintenance studies in psychiatry. Enriched designs decrease variance in the population of patients randomized to double-blind treatment and, for this reason, have been commonly employed in previously conducted lithium maintenance studies. By using an open-label treatment period to exclude patients who respond poorly or fail to tolerate study medication, a more homogeneous population is randomized to double-blind therapy, and, potentially, fewer patients are subjected to placebo treatment. The relative homogeneity of the patient populations facilitates detection of treatment-attributed responses but may limit generalizability.
This is the first placebo-controlled study to follow up bipolar patients for as long as 18 months. The longer duration provided clinical and statistical advantages, the latter via increased power of the survival analyses owing to the observation of more events and less frequent censoring. A potential disadvantage of longer periods of study is that if attrition is nonrandom, then time-to-event analyses will be skewed, a potential bias that may be handled by considering all early discontinuations as events in the time-to-event analysis. This has justification in bipolar disorder studies, as it does in studies of certain other disease states, because failure to stay in treatment is associated with adverse social, financial, clinical, and mood episode consequences.38-42 Overall survival, or discontinuation from the study for any reason, may provide a more clinically relevant measure of overall treatment effectiveness than time to intervention for a mood episode in maintenance studies of bipolar disorder. Moreover, consistency of findings across complementary imputation methods, as we report here, reinforces the strength of the results. The 18-month study period also allows for the detection of differences that emerged later, in this case the recognition of the relatively late-occurring and cumulative advantage of lamotrigine compared with placebo. Had this study been of 6 months' duration, these 2 fundamental advantages would have been lost.
The limitation of the study to patients who had experienced a recent manic or hypomanic episode may have tended to increase the proportion of manic relapses in all groups. A similarly designed study that enrolled patients with a recent episode of depression is nearing completion. Maintenance studies with placebo monotherapy arms also tend to enroll somewhat less severely ill bipolar I patients with less comorbidity than is seen in epidemiological studies.32,35,43 However, the characteristics of the population enrolled in this study (eg, two thirds with previous psychiatric hospitalization and one fourth with a history of attempted suicide) suggest at least a moderately ill population.
In the aggregate, our results indicate that lamotrigine was as effective as lithium, with each drug having a relatively specific profile of benefits and limitations in terms of efficacy. The results complement the growing body of evidence demonstrating the utility of lamotrigine in acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.
Corresponding author and reprints: Charles L. Bowden, MD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Mail Code 7792, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900 (e-mail: email@example.com).
Submitted for publication November 13, 2001; final revision received May 20, 2002; accepted June 6, 2002.
Dr Bowden has received research support from Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Lilly Research Laboratories, the National Institute of Mental Health, Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals, the Robert Wood Johnson Pharmaceutical Institute, GlaxoSmithKline, and the Stanley Medical Research Institute. He is a paid consultant for Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Lilly Research Laboratories, Sanofi-Synthélabo, and UCB Pharma and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Glaxo Wellcome, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Lilly Research Laboratories, and Pfizer.
Dr Calabrese has received research support from Abbott Laboratories, Ciba-Geigy, E Merck, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly Research Laboratories, the MacArthur Foundation, the National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders, the National Institute of Mental Health, Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals, the Robert Wood Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp, GlaxoSmithKline, the Stanley Medical Research Institute, TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals. He is a paid consultant for Abbott Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Elan Corp, Eli Lilly & Co, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals, the Robert Wood Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Shire Laboratories, SmithKline Pharmaceuticals, TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and UCB Pharma.
Dr Sachs has received research support from Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly & Co, and Janssen Pharmaceutica. He is on the advisory board and the speakers bureau for Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co, Elan Corp, Eli Lilly & Co, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, Sanofi-Synthélabo, and Solvay.
Dr Yatham has received research support from and is on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly & Co, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen-Cilag.
This study was supported by a grant from GlaxoSmithKline.
This study was presented in part at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, New Orleans, La, May 5-10, 2001, and the Fourth International Conference on Bipolar Disorder, Pittsburgh, Pa, June 14-16, 2001.
We thank Robert Leadbetter, MD, Paul Greene, PhD, Walter Paska, PhD, Robin L. White, and Gary Evoniuk, PhD, for assistance in the preparation of this article.
Australia: Thomas George, Frank Varghese; Austria: Siegfried Kasper; Belgium: Andre De Nayer, Hugo D'Haenen, Michel Dierick; Canada: Guy Chouinard, Sidney H. Kennedy, Vivek Kusumakar, Lakshmi N. Yatham, L. Trevor Young; Greece: Charalambos Lerodiakonou, Anastasia Karastergiou; New Zealand: Allen Fraser, Peter Joyce, Wayne Miles; Norway: Shaheen Akthar, Tore Faestoe, Magne Hompland, Dag Norum, Jean Max Robasse; Poland: Jan Horodnicki, Andrzei Kiejna, Marcin Olajossy, Andrzei Zieba; United Kingdom: Robin Jacobson; United States: Lawrence W. Adler, Lenard A. Adler, Gregory M. Asnis, Mohammad A. Bari, Charles L. Bowden, Joseph R. Calabrese, Charles D. Casat, Amal Chakraburtty, Lynn A. Cunningham, John M. Downs, Alan D. Feiger, Ronald R. Fieve, Brent R. Forester, Seyyed Nassir Ghaemi, Lawrence D. Ginsberg, David J. Hellerstein, Leighton Y. Huey, Kenneth R. Kaufman, Arifulla Khan, Irving S. Kolin, Robert Howard Levine, Bruce R. Lydiard, Barry M. Maletzky, Denis Mee-Lee, Jorg J. Pahl, Frederick Petty, Mark H. Rapaport, Frederick W. Reimherr, Alan H. Rosenbaum, Anthony J. Rothschild, Gary S. Sachs, Martha Sajatovic, Jeffrey S. Simon, Joyce G. Small, Alan Craig Swann, Scott A. West, John Zajecka; Yugoslavia: Vladimir Paunovic


text:
Did Al Gore get elected President after all? Cuz everywhere Al goes, it snows – and I see Washington is covered in the stuff!
They say a bunch of bureaucrats got the day off. Let's hope the blizzard keeps up – the longer those dodos stay off the "job," the better off we'll be!
I'm surprised the Teleprompter Kid's hot air hasn't melted all the snow by now, though. He was on my damn TV set AGAIN yesterday. Dammit, he still hasn't sent me a check for the new one I needed to buy when his face burned into my old one last year. Now it looks like that stupid Shroud of Turnips those Catholics pray to!
You'd think some of those people in D.C. never saw snow before. 'Course, maybe Obama hasn't, being from Liberia or wherever. But the rest of his crew is from Chicago, so they've got no excuses for whining about a little white stuff.
Hell, when I was a boy, we didn't get "snow days" or any of that crap! We went to our little red one room schoolhouse no matter what. That "blizzard" they've got in D.C. is nothing compared to what we trudged through back in my day.
Kids today are such wimps. All they do is play at their damn video games all day, sitting in their baggy pants, eating Cheetos.
I hope the next bad guys who attack us are zombie skeletons with magic swords, cuz from what I can tell with these video games, that's the only army today's kids know how to fight!
Anyway, I'll be waiting for Al Gore to explain how all this snow is caused by global warming, or else give back all his prizes. But I expect that won't happen until Washington really freezes over!
Want a little more Anger? Check out Ed's own site at EdAnger360.com
Did Al Gore get elected President after all? Cuz everywhere Al goes, it snows – and I see Washington is covered in the stuff!


text:
Get the effects you want without trashing your tone!
On a traditional pedalboard, even when the effects are off, your signal still goes through numerous tone-trashing buffers, solid-state switches and patch cables. Pedal Switcher™ uses 4 true bypass loops to send your signal only to the pedals you're using. Built with the finest gold relays sealed in nitrogen, your tone will stay pure and dynamic no matter what kind or how many pedals you use.
With Pedal Switcher™, you can use all those great classic and modern stompboxes without destroying that pure "straight to amp" sound. Now you have the freedom to use any pedals you want, and never have to worry that the buffer in your overdrive is killing your vintage fuzz!
Pedal Switcher™ features 4 instant access switches, buffered and non-buffered inputs, and a TRS insert for putting devices like a volume pedal between effects. Loops can also be used as a mute for silent tuning onstage, and A/B amp switching. Add a Commander and you can control an unlimited number of Pedal Switcher units allowing you to store combinations of pedals. Check out Commander here.
4 True Bypass audio loops
4 Instant access on/off switches
A/B Amp selector (loop 4)
Loops can be used for signal mute and silent tuning
TRS Insert (between loops 3&4)
Programmable presets via Commander
Fully compatible with Ground Control Pro and GCX Audio Switcher
MIDI In/out
Voodoo Lab's James Santiago shows you how to use a Pedal Switcher™ and Commander system.
There have been some amazing stompbox effects made in the last 40 years. Unfortunately, a lot of those classic pedals don't have true bypass switching. These examples show you what some of our favorite classic pedals sound like when they're bypassed using their internal circuitry.
Pedal Switcher Loops
1 - Thomas Organ Wah
2 - B.K. Butler/Chandler Tube Driver
3 - Dallas-Arbiter Fuzz Face (germanium)
4 - Uni-Vibe (original Univox)
MP3 AUDIO | Loaded Signal Fingers | Loaded Signal Strum
Listen for the difference as we use Commander to switch back and forth between all loops OFF, and all loops ON (with the pedals in bypass). When Pedal Switcher's loops are all OFF, you get that totally transparent "straight to amp" sound. By turning all the loops ON with the pedals in bypass, you get the sound of a standard pedalboard that sucks your tone even when the effects are off! While one setup has the familiar glassy sound of a Fender Stratocaster straight into a loud Twin Reverb, the normal pedalboard signal chain has a tubby "dead strings" vibe with a smeared high-end.
Loaded Signal Fingers
:00 to :05 - Pedal Switcher
:05 to :09 - Standard Internal Bypass
:09 to :14 - Pedal Switcher
Loaded Signal Strum
:00 to :07 - Pedal Switcher
:07 to :13 - Standard Internal Bypass
:13 to :16 - Pedal Switcher
The original Fuzz Face is one of the most treasured guitar sounds in music thanks to the groundbreaking work of Jimi Hendrix. Jimi always had the perfect blend of clear punchy rhythm and warm sounding leads. In fact, most of this was done by just riding the guitar's volume control with the Fuzz Face on. The problems start when you try to incorporate more modern gear like Boss and Ibanez pedals into this classic Fuzz Face to Marshall amp setup. In this test, we've replaced the Tube Driver with a vintage Tube Screamer that uses an internal buffered bypass circuit.
Pedal Switcher Loops
1 - Thomas Organ Wah
2 - TS9 Tube Screamer
3 - Dallas-Arbiter Fuzz Face (germanium)
4 - A/B (ON-Fender Twin/OFF-Marshall JTM50)
MP3 AUDIO | FuzzFace-JTM50
This example is just the Fuzz Face (loop 3) going straight into a 1966 Marshall JTM50 head and 4x12 cabinet. The pedal is on the whole time. Notice how it cleans up or goes into full sounding lead tones just by riding the guitar's volume or playing a bit softer or harder. This is similar to the way Jimi recorded the track "Axis Bold as Love." Now for the bad news…
MP3 AUDIO | TS Buffer-FuzzFace-JTM50
For example two, all we did was turn on the TS9 (loop 2) with the pedal in bypass mode. In this case, the buffer has completely changed the dynamics and warmth of the fuzz. Unfortunately, playing with the guitar's volume control just made things go from worse to painful.
Using Pedal Switcher, you can get your old effects out of the junk drawer and back on your pedalboard in minutes without ruining the rest of your sound! Plus with Commander, you can switch your effects and amps in an instant! From using vintage transistor classics to modern digital marvels, you'll be able to make your ultimate rig with the tones you've always wanted without sacrificing anything!
Now that you've heard the dramatic improvements in just these simple tests, how much better would your rig sound using Pedal Switcher and Commander?
Dimensions: 11-3/4" x 3" (+3/8" for jacks) x 2-1/4" (WxDxH)
*North America only. Other regions contact your country's distributor for warranty info.
Proposition 65 WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm. Click for more info


text:
Greg Hopper and Keith Bachmann discuss strategies advisors can turn to given the struggles in the bond market.
For more information about global fixed income opportunities, visit our website.
Greg Hopper and Keith Bachmann discuss strategies advisors can turn to given the struggles in the bond market.
For more information about global fixed income opportunities, visit our website.
Greg Hopper is a Senior Portfolio Manager and head of the Global High Yield strategy on the North American Fixed Income team. Greg began his investment career at Drexel Burnham Lambert in 1985 before joining Mitchell Hutchins Institutional Investors and then Bankers Trust. In 2000, following the acquisition of Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank, he joined Harris Investment Management, where he launched their High Yield bond product and then Zurich Scudder Investments, where he was responsible for all institutional high yield bond portfolios. After Deutsche Bank acquired Zurich Scudder in 2002, Greg moved to Artio Global Investors, launching the Global High Income strategy that Aberdeen added to their offerings following their acquisition of Artio in 2013. Greg graduated with a BA in economics from Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin and an MBA from Columbia University.
Keith Bachman is a Senior Portfolio Manager and Head of U.S. High Yield. Keith joined Aberdeen in 2007 from Stone Tower Capital where he was director of credit research. Previously, Keith was a Portfolio Manager at Deutsche Asset Management and High Yield Analyst/Director of Distressed Investments at Oppenheimer Funds. Keith has also worked at Merrill Lynch Asset Management and T. Rowe Price in high yield credit. Keith graduated with a BA from the University of Maryland Baltimore County and an MBA from Columbia Business School.
Related Videos:
Preparing a Portfolio for a Rising-Rate Environment
Risks and Opportunities in Emerging Markets
Economic Trends and Outlook for the US Economy
© 2023 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.


text:
In the upcoming municipal election there are actually 10 seats up for grabs. But the drama surrounding the mayoral "Fulop v. Healy" match-up has at times threatened to overshadow the races among the 33 candidates vying for nine City Council seats. Yet the race for the City Council is no less intriguing than the mayoral battle, and could have significant repercussions for the next administration, no matter who is elected mayor.
With less than a month to go before the May 14 election, it appears the next City Council will be a mixture of candidates from the Steven Fulop and Jerramiah Healy slates, and could even include an upset victory from an independent – meaning the next mayor might not have control of the council majority. At present, some Fulop-allied council candidates appear to be ahead of their opponents, depending on the ward, while some Healy-allied candidates seem strong elsewhere in the city.
The City Council at-large race may come down to incumbency versus the coattail effect. Whatever weight voters ascribe to incumbency will favor Healy in the at-large race, since two of the current incumbents are running with him. But if voters decide to clean house of all things Healy and elect Fulop's "change" slate, then incumbency won't count for much in this race.
All three of the current council at-large incumbents – Peter Brennan, Viola Richardson, and Rolando Lavarro Jr. – are running for reelection in May. Brennan, a longtime Healy ally, is on the mayor's slate, as is Richardson, who has had a much stormier relationship with Healy in recent years. Lavarro, who won his seat in a November 2011 special election bracketed with Richardson, is running on Fulop's ticket for his first full term.
The City Council at-large race may come down to incumbency versus the coattail effect.
Mayoral contender Jerry Walker has two at-large candidates running on his slate, former city corporation counsel Sean Connelly and Jersey City Police Officer Ramon "Ray" Regalado.
Angling for attention on the campaign trail
The race for the council's three at-large seats has been one of the most overlooked campaigns this year, and some of the candidates have admitted that it has been challenging sometimes to get their message out to voters who are either disengaged from the election or who are more focused on the mayoral campaign.
"It's been a little difficult," said Rivera, who said that he has still received "positive feedback" while campaigning across the city.
As president of the Roberto Clemente Little League and a longtime coach, Rivera said he often talks to residents and parents about the need for more recreation programs in the city.
"The city has recreation programs that end at age 16. But any parent will tell you, that's the age when our youth needs an outlet like a recreation program the most," Rivera said. "That's the age when they become susceptible to street gangs, thugs in the community, hanging out with nothing to do but get in trouble.
He said that crime and quality of life issues were the top concerns of most voters he has met.
Perez, who is running with Healy, also admitted that "to some degree" it has been difficult getting his message out because of the attention being focused on the mayoral candidates.
"I think people don't recognize that there are nine City Council seats that are running at the same time as the mayor," Perez said. "A lot of my message is being carried out doing my door knocks and lit drops."
Thus, he said he was grateful for the opportunity to participate in the recent at-large candidate forum held on April 18 at the Christa McAuliffe School.
"This gives us an opportunity to share our ideas and what we stand for."
Although he is running with Healy, Perez has admitted that the city can do a better job of communicating with residents. During last week's at-large candidate forum in the Heights he noted that information regarding such services as recreational programs and recycling is available through the city's municipal website, but may not be reaching residents effectively enough – something he would work to improve upon, if elected.
In addition to crime and the usual quality of life issues (litter, graffiti, dog waste on sidewalks, etc.), Perez said residents have expressed concerns about the need for better parking options throughout the city. He said he would favor creating municipal parking lots for residents, as has been done in some other Hudson County cities.
Watterman, who has thus far concentrated her campaigning efforts in wards A, F, and B said public safety is by far the top concern of people she has spoken to, but also identified speeding on residential streets as an emerging problem in the city.
"People have children outside and it's getting nice out," said Watterman. "So, people are concerned about drag racing and speeding in general in the neighborhoods." She said she wants to explore speed bump options in areas where speeding has become particularly troublesome.
Watterman was one of the few candidates who said she did not feel overshadowed by the mayoral race.
"There are people who are paying attention to the council races," Watterman stated. "It's all in the presentation. I know when I go out there campaigning, I try to present myself as part of a whole Team Fulop package."
As one of the at-large candidates running with mayoral candidate Jerry Walker, Sean Connelly said his biggest challenge isn't being overshadowed by the top of the ticket, but rather being overshadowed by the rival Healy and Fulop slates. Realistic about his chances of winning an at-large seat, Connelly said he is most concerned about his placement on the ballot.
"In times past, everybody had a column and the council candidates could look to the top of the ticket to carry them in. Now, it's hopscotch. Like, I'm with Walker. He's column A. I'm Column B. But what can you do? We're all in that same boat."
A lifelong downtown resident, Connelly has positioned himself as the taxpayer advocate on the Walker slate and he has picked up on the "two Jersey Cities" theme that has sometimes also been discussed by Fulop and Ward E City Council candidate Daniel Levin.
"We've become the city of the privileged on the waterfront, the city of the connected few, and the rest of us. That's a problem that has to end," Connelly said.
Referring to the tax abatements that have been given to a number of large residential projects downtown, Connelly added, "Big developers have come here and they have increased the burden on our school system, our sewers, our city services. But we know they are not paying their fair share of the taxes."
If elected, he said he would oppose new abatements downtown, a stance he said has been popular with potential voters.
E-mail E. Assata Wright at email@example.com.


text:
Perils on the Sea of Rhûn
|Perils on the Sea of Rhûn
|William B. Field and Peter G. Strassun
|Iron Crown Enterprises
|ICE stock no.
Perils on the Sea of Rhûn is a module (in the Ready-to-Run Adventure-series) for Middle-earth Role Playing, 1st Edition.
- Cover Art: Richard Hook
Cover/Jacket Text[edit | edit source]
Three low-to-mid level adventures which each stand on their own and can be set up in minutes.
The renowned vessel, Ocean Noise is embarking on her last run of the season across the Sea of Rhûn. The captain has hired three new crew members for his aging ship. All are well-seasoned, but the winter is fierce, and evil is in the wind. Will you be aboard to witness a Murder on the High Seas?
A kidnapper abducts Princess Herufara and sails to a ruined tower above the cliffs of a treacherous shore. The Ocean Noise pursues the villains, but can drop anchor for only a day. At next tide, the captain must abandon the chase and continue his voyage. Are you daring enough To Rescue A Princess?
A Court Adept is tormented by dark visions off ill-doing, and departs the palace in search of their meaning - but he is found brutally murdered! The Realm-master sends adventurers and a princess on the Ocean Noise to consult the mages at an ancient tower. On this long, cold journey to a desolate shore, can you uncover the secret of The Watch Tower Massacre?
Face assassins, the Cult of the Long Night, and Sauron's minions as you brave the Perils on the Sea of Rhûn in these 3 exciting adventures!


text:
Actor and executive producer Seth Rogen (Superbad and Pineapple Express) and show runner Sam Catlin (Breaking Bad) did what fans of the comic book series Preacher thought impossible. They adapted Garth Ennis's comic for the small screen, and created season one as a prequel to Garth's storyline.
The AMC show stars Dominic Cooper as Jesse Custer, a man possessed by a hybrid angel/demon, and his volatile hell-raising girlfriend Tulip O'Hare, played by award-winning actress Ruth Negga.
The writers crammed a lot of craziness, fire and brimstone into the first season. And this looks set to continue in season two, as the cast embarks on a road trip to find God.
Speaking at the SXSW 2017 "Making of Preacher" interview session hosted by Terri Schwartz, Seth Rogen, Sam Catlin and Garth Ennis discussed trusting your instinct, knowing where to draw the line, and translating the ideas in your head.
Schwartz: Welcome back to SXSW. You guys premiered the Preacher pilot here last year, right?
Rogen: Yeah, one year ago we showed the pilot here, and it was one of the most stressful days of my life. But it went well. Thank God we're back.
What was the moment when you realized "Ok, this is how we can bring this to life in a way that no one has done before?"
Rogen: The truth is, we pursued it for years. The first meeting Evan and I had for Preacher was in our trailer while we were filming Pineapple Express in 2006. Then television went from being like the thing you watch on Thursday nights to like an amazing platform to do incredibly innovative things that you probably couldn't even do in movies..
Ennis: A lot of executives who were further down the ladder the first time around, who were desperately trying to persuade their bosses that Preacher would work and it was the way to go, all of a sudden found themselves a bit higher up the ladder. And they were now able to say "This is the thing to do…Its time has come."
Sam, you once described the comic as "profane, perverse and psychotic." Did you break boundaries for the sake of breaking boundaries?
Rogen: I don't think you ever want to do something just for the sake of doing that thing.
We wanted a show that was audacious. I think when you're reading the comics there are a lot of things that just can't believe you're seeing, you can't believe you're reading. You just can't believe the story's going in that direction. Those were things that we really wanted to have in the show.
When something is potentially on for years and years, it really has to have some emotional grounding, so it can never feel like you're doing anything for the sake of doing it. It always has to feel like it's born of character and story and emotion.
But once we feel like we have that, then we like to try to push it to the most original place that we can. Because there is so much on TV right now, originality is one of the beacons that calls people.
There are a lot of great things on TV right now, but there's not a lot of great things that you've also never seen anything like them before. And that's what we've talked a lot about trying to do.
Garth, what are your thoughts on some of the changes that were made?
Ennis: I think they made sense out of things in the comics that are just taken as given. I like the way that I can see that Jesse's life as a preacher has grown over time. I like the fact that reasons are given for Tulip and Cassidy to be there, rather than just being coincidence.
In the comic book, everyone meets up by chance. I think I was just trying to get it rolling as fast as I possibly could. And also, I was 24 when I wrote that stuff. When you're 24 you're just thinking, "Let's get on with it."
On the show you're going to need much more material. So it's obvious there are going to be new things; there are going to be changes. I think they've come up with the right ones.
You set up many mysteries in season one. Did you have to stop yourselves from including too many?
Rogen: I think the first season deals with a lot with Jesse's father's side of the family. I think in season two we start to ask the question, "what was his mother's side of the family like?"
How did you develop God as a character for season 2?
Catlin: It's very challenging, because in Preacher God isn't an idea, he's not a way of looking at life; he's a guy who's out walking around. He's missing and Jesse's gonna be on his trail.
Have you guys received any notes from AMC telling you to lean away from some of these elements?
Rogen: We have not received a lot of that, honestly. They want the show to be good and they want it to represent what we all set out to make in the first place.
We've had a couple of ideas that required like maybe a 10-minute phone call…But I do not feel like we are neutering our ideas, or holding back on the content that we want to be putting out there. If anything I'm shocked we are able to push it as far as we do.
Garth what has been your response to seeing some of these scenes coming to life, and knowing that some of the more controversial things are coming down the road?
Ennis: When we did the comic it was more by stealth. The imprint of DC Comics who did it—at Vertigo—had very sympathetic people in charge, but the actual publishers, the actual executives in charge of DC Comics overall, were not sympathetic. We got as far as we did by stealth, not by meaning to, but by not getting noticed by the wrong people. Now the right people are in charge, and that's why the TV show is able to go as far as it can.
Do any of you have any concepts that you'd love to bring to life if you didn't have to worry about backlash or limitations?
Ennis: Ninety percent of what I do is done without any restrictions but my own. In fact, in a couple of instances I've written stories where I've run into my own limits before I run into those of the publishers.
Rogen: Something I learned years ago is that the idea that you're joking about between takes, when you say "no, we can't do that," that's exactly what we should be doing. That's the type of thing that people will really respond to.
I've seen that happen first-hand, where there have been jokes between takes, and I've said, "You know what would be funny? If one of us said this: but that would be just too fucked up." Then one of the other actors just says it the next day and it winds up in the movie, and being the line that people think we thought of for years and year and years.
If your instinct is "we can't do that, but it would be really good to do that," then you should do that.
Audience Member: How do you know where to draw the line?
Rogen: You're asking a guy who almost started a war with North Korea! [The Interview in 2012.]
I guess you know I'm not the best person for knowing where that line is. I've found that you don't know where the line is until you look back, and think "oh, that's where the line was—a thousand miles back there?"
Yeah, the line is not a deal. We talk more about, "Will the audience get this?" Or, "Have we done the work we need to do to translate this idea from our brains into the eyes and ears of an audience?" That's what I think we do the most.
It's almost like translating. The challenge has been taking into consideration every way they might not interpret it correctly, and taking into consideration every way that you might not do your job correctly in making them understand this thing that you want them to understand
But to me there is no idea that is not explorable. There's only the limits of your abilities to articulate why you feel it's an idea worth exploring, and articulate why you think the audience should be listening to your take on this specific idea.
Ennis: I would say when you're talking about creativity, start with where you want to get to, and worry about the rest later. Because when you try to get published, or when you try to get your film distributed or whatever it is you're doing, you'll find out pretty soon where the limits are then. But you shouldn't be thinking about that when you're putting a story together.
There'll be plenty of time to have people tell you "no." But in the beginning, do what you want.
By Donna Marie Miller.
Preacher Season 2 airs on AMC in June.
Featured image: Dominic Cooper as Jesse Custer in Preacher. Photo by Skip Bolen/AMC/Sony Pictures Tel – © 2017 AMC Network Entertainment LLC. and Sony Pictures Television Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Before You Go


text:
Deep green investing: A closer look
<p>Getting under the surface of green investing funds and strategies. </p>
As you've no doubt heard, Bill McKibben and his allies at 350.org have launched a national campaign to persuade colleges, universities, churches, foundations and, yes, people like you and me, to stop investing in the fossil fuel industry. The campaign raises interesting questions as, I'm sure, McKibben hoped it would. Among them:
Does divestment make sense as a strategy to curb climate change?
If those of us who are concerned about climate change want to align out investments with our beliefs, what options are available?
In a column called Deep Green Investing published last week by Ensia, a lively new online magazine about environmental solutions, I argued that, by itself, divestment will probably not accomplish much. Having said that, the campaign could prove useful as one of a number of tactics being deployed by 350.org, the Sierra Club and others that are aimed at bringing about political change -- namely, taxes or caps on global warming pollutants, EPA rules to curb coal-burning, etc.
In The Nation, Mark Hertsgaard argues that these grass-roots climate efforts have already produced results -- 350.org galvanized opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, which may have persuaded President Obama to delay a decision after the election, and the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign has, along with cheap natural gas, helped drive the decline of coal in the US. Hertsgaard writes:
"As important as the victories themselves was how they were won. Both the Sierra Club and 350.org eschewed the inside-the-Beltway focus and top-down political strategy of big mainstream environmental groups, as exemplified by the cap-and-trade campaign. Instead, they emphasized grassroots organizing at the local level on behalf of far-reaching demands that ordinary people could grasp and support. Their immediate goal was to block a specific pipeline or power plant, but their strategic goal was to build a popular movement and accrue political power."
This is the political context in which the divestment movement makes sense. It won't shake up the oil industry -- the Ensia story explains why -- but it's a useful organizing tool.
But what might the campaign mean for investors? Today, I'm taking a closer look at a couple of "deep green" broadly-diversified mutual funds that have decided, unlike most other funds that market themselves as green or socially responsible," to cleanse their portfolios of companies that extract fossil fuels.
Yes, that's right -- most "socially responsible" funds screen out companies that sell alcohol, tobacco and firearms, but not big oil and gas companies. [See my November, 2012, story in The Guardian, Where can investors who worry about climate change put their pension?] This doesn't make a lot of sense: Are wine and beer bigger threats to the planet than oil and gas?
Portfolio 21 Global Equity Fund (PORTX), which manages about $387 million in assets (as of Dec. 31, 2012), is one of the outliers. It aims to invest in "companies designing environmentally superior products, using renewable energy, and developing efficient production methods." Its top holdings (also, as of Dec. 31) were Google, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Samsung, Novartis, Baxter, IBM, Svenska Cellulosa (SCA), Apple and Novozymes. This is a solid list from a corporate-responsibility perspective.
Portfolio 21 has published a paper called Managing Investment Portfolios Without Fossil Fuel Stocks to explain its thinking about fossil fuels. The focus is risk:
"In our effort to select the best, we also seek to avoid those companies that are resisting the changes that are reshaping the economy; those that are involved in business activities that entail what we believe are unacceptable risks in environmental, social, or governance areas. Our research has found unacceptable risks in the fossil fuel exploration and production industry and therefore we do not invest in companies in the sector."
The paper goes on to cite the political risks facing fossil fuel companies (countries could impose caps or taxes on carbon), the risks of competition from cleaner technologies and the health, safety and environmental risks, citing as an example the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP's share price dropped by about 25 percent since the spill.
Next page: Risk
"The rationale for not owning these companies is not moralistic," John Steuer, the fund's president, told me. "The hydrocarbon industry has evolved to the point that the projects that most of these companies are involved in are very large scale and very high risk projects."
The Green Century Balanced Fund (GCBLX), which is administered by a mutual fund firm started in 1991 by environmental groups, also holds no fossil fuel companies. It's smaller, with assets of about $63 million. Its 10 largest holdings (as of Dec. 31) were Apple, Minerals Technologies, Nordstrom, IBM, Costco, Baxter, Cisco, Wells Fargo, Aflac and General Mills. This, too, is a solid list, although I'd be scared of Wells Fargo after reading What's Inside America's Banks?, the recent Atlantic magazine cover story.
When I asked Leslie Samuelrich, the senior vice president of Green Century Capital Management, why the fund screens out fossil fuels, she replied: "The overarching reason is climate change…We want to make sure we are on the solution side of that problem."
Not all solutions, though -- Portfolio 21 nor Green Century also screen out companies that produce nuclear power ,which provides more low-carbon electricity, globally and in the US, than solar and wind combined. I don't see a way that we can solve the climate crisis without nuclear power, but that's a topic for another day.
To offset the risk of not owning fossil fuel companies, fund managers at Portfolio 21 and Green Century can tailor their portfolios in a variety of ways. They can, for example, buy companies that trade in other commodities which, like oil and gas, tend to be cyclical. They also look for dividend-paying companies since the big oil and gas companies pay dividends.
Next page: Results
So how have the funds done? I'd characterize their performance as mixed. During some periods, they slightly outperformed their benchmarks. During others, they trailed. Both impose relatively high management fees -- 1.47 percent annually at Portfolio 21, 1.48 percent at Green Century -- because they are actively managed funds and they engage in useful, but costly, shareholder advocacy. By contrast, my Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund (which, of course, is not actively managed and does no advocacy) charges just 0.17 percent annually. Over time, higher fees will erode investment returns.
Still, most funds in the socially responsible arena charge similar fees. That's a price investors have to pay if they want their money to be managed for more than a financial return.
The investment research company Morningstar gives Portfolio 21 a three-star rating, putting in the middle of all funds in its category, after comparing its risk-adjusted performance to its peers. Green Century Fund gets a four-star rating, meaning that it delivered above-average returns when compared to its peers. Last week, an investment management firm called Aperio said it ran a series of back-tested simulations and found removing fossil-fuel companies from a well-diversified portfolio has little or no impact on returns.
So it certainly looks as if it's possible to manage broadly diversified portfolios that exclude fossil fuels without sacrificing financial returns. I'd like to see more socially responsible funds try it. And who knows? If the world moves towards low-carbon energy, as it should -- and the big integrated fossil fuel companies fail to adapt -- then divesting from oil, gas and coal investments could turn out to be smart business, as well as a good, albeit symbolic, politics.
Illustration of ladder in a hole in the grassy ground by Zastolskiy Victor via Shutterstock.


text:
TamTam SVN SCC is a Microsoft Source Code Control (MSSCCI) compliant implementation that seamlessly integrates the Subversion (SVN) client with products like Microsoft Visual Studio / Visual Studio.NET, MatLab, FoxPro, 3D Studio Max and other MSSCCI compliant applications.
TamTam SVN SCC supports getting latest files, check-in, check-out, opening solutions/projects, binding to repositories, auto-module creation, file history/diff, and just about all other essential source control features.
Please note that TamTam SVN SCC supports Subversion 1.4.3 and higher commands.
Evaluate TamTam SVN SCC for as long as you'd like. The unregistered version will display a registration dialog. Registration will remove all registration request dialogs.
If you're happy with this product then please register it for ONLY $9.99 (USD).


text:
Is It 'Coz am 33 Already?5:18 PM Saturday, November 27, 2010
I thought before that the desire to shop for clothes and put on makeup was because of pregnancy hormones. Well, I have popped already and am still bent on shopping for new clothes and makeup.
In fact, my next project is to test drive a BB cream!
And I am hemming and hawing on what Infinitude color to buy next... actually, I really want more clothes but as I am hoping to lose more weight, the Infinitude is a better purchase because it stretches and will also shrink with me. But I really intend to keep on looking fab. It's already very encouraging when people tell me I don't look like i've just given birth yet. Plus, I have to maximize the perkier cleavage, right?
I need more accessories too. And maybe a new bag and shoes? :)
Oh, I just noticed that I really do need to moisturize faithfully now as my face has started showing signs of old age dryness (aside from the acne scars). After am thru with the binder, I also vow to faithfully put lotion on again.
Then again, I am also thinking of extending the wearing of the binder since I think it helps curb my appetite.
Is it 'coz am 33 already and I feel the pressure of old age looming? Or I just really had an epiphany of sorts lately?
Still, I did really miss being told I was sexy, and getting compliments on how I look.


text:
Take a minute to appreciate this breathtaking time-lapse compilation of yawning petals, stamens and pistils, created by Czech photographer Kate Pruskova. It will fill you with awe for blooming flowers like you've never experienced before.
Blossoming flowers are one of the most common subjects of time-lapse film, and yet this movie takes things to a whole new level. Maybe the video's novelty stems from its homegrown aesthetic. All the flowers in the video were picked from either Pruskova's garden or her mother's. The footage comprises over 7,100 images and took over 730 hours to photograph. Pruskova's "studio" was constructed inside a cabinet:
I covered the back of the cabinet with black cloth, the flower was placed in the middle, and the whole cabinet was then covered with another cloth to insulate from the daylight (to keep the light constant, which is the most important). Two led lamps were used to illuminate the flowers. Some flowers bloomed in hours, some in few days.. therefore the interval between photos varies from few seconds to several minutes depending on the type of flower.. after several missed tries you'll learn ;)
It's also Pruskova's very first timelapse. Which is just… I mean… wow.
It should go without saying, but you'll want to watch this in HD, full-screened, with the volume up. This is really, really remarkable work — an unbeaten byroad on the well-trodden trail of beautiful (but otherwise benumbed) floral footage.


text:
Managing International Exchanges
The International Center is happy to support faculty in the establishment, management and renewal of international exchange agreements (IEAs). An international exchange agreement is a significant commitment on the part of faculty, the International Center, and the University of Louisville, as is detailed in the following table:
|International Center Staff
|Faculty/ Department Sponsor
|Monitor exchange balances
|Program promotion & outbound student recruitment
|Logistical coordination of outbound students (grade transfer, course registration, etc.)
and inbound students (out‐of‐state tuition waiver requests, etc.)
|Advise outbound students on academics abroad
|Inbound & outbound student application processing
|Welcome inbound students to UofL academic department
|General orientations for inbound & outbound students
In addition to the responsibilities summarized above, please consider the following points when establishing or renewing student exchanges with partner institutions:
- Student exchanges must be kept in balance. Faculty will need to actively recruit UofL students.
- Once an exchange reaches an imbalance of two semester students, UofL cannot accept exchange students from a partner institution until outbound students are sent. UofL must thus temporarily suspend inbound student exchange with our partner.
- Please note that it is awkward and unpleasant to restrict new exchange partners, especially after only two semesters of student exchange. The International Center thus strongly encourages faculty to not sign an international exchange agreement if it is likely that it will be difficult to maintain the balance. It is easier to begin a relationship without student exchange than to restrict partners after two semesters.
- To be in compliance with Federal guidelines for exchange visas, keeping accurate records is critical. Thus, all outbound and incoming exchange students must be reported to the International Center.
- For immigration reasons, bringing faculty and scholars to UofL, including graduate research students, is entirely independent of student exchange. Graduate research students and scholars, visiting for the purpose of research, are served by International Students and Scholars Services at the International Center.
- Inbound students on student exchanges are required to be enrolled full‐time (Minimum 12 credit hours) in classroom based instruction (no audits).
Please note that outbound Faculty and graduate research students, under the terms of International Agreements, should still be directed to the International Center for processing.


text:
If you're involved in Open Government, I encourage you to participate in this first informal open government communities survey. The objective of the short survey is to create a view of the broad community of constituents that comprise the open government movement, with a special interest in understanding the interplay and influence of open source software and the open source community in forwarding their objectives.
The first set of responses collected by September 18th will travel to Northern Ireland for my presentation at the OpenGov Conference in Belfast on September 22nd, 2011. Results of the survey will be shared this fall on the Government Open Source Conference web site (goscon.org). Any questions? email me.
Thanks in advance or your participation!