text:
Executive Summary
Polls from groups as diverse as Greenpeace and Citizens for a Sound Economy show that most climate scientists are skeptical of claims that the climate change of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions. This is news to network reporters. A study from the MRC's Free Market Project demonstrates that over the past five years reporters have presented a highly distorted picture of the global warming debate. Specifically, researchers found:
1) Thirty-nine of the 48 network evening news stories during the study period simply assumed that science supports global warming theories. Only seven stories mentioned that climate scientists are skeptical of claims that humans are changing the earth's temperature.
2) Of the seven stories which did mention that scientists are skeptical of global warming theories, only two brought up the actual arguments of skeptical scientists. (There were two stories during the study period that neither assumed climate change nor brought up arguments against global warming.)
3) Only two of the 48 stories pointed out that some scientists believe global warming, if it did occur, would be a boon to human health and well-being. The other 46 stories assumed global warming would be disastrous.
4) Only 10 of the 85 soundbite sources reporters interviewed opposed policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, while 60 soundbite sources supported such policies. Fifteen sources were neutral.
In order for their stories to be balanced, reporters must present the arguments of the many climate scientists who are skeptical of claims that humans are disastrously warming the planet. So far, such scientists have rarely been heard from on the evening news.
The theory that the earth is catastrophically heating up because of industrial pollution has become one of the leading environmental topics on network television news. Global warming is a highly controversial issue, with most climate scientists unconvinced that human actions are warming the planet, or that such warming would even be harmful. Such views, however, do not make it into newscasts. Instead, as with so many other issues, global warming is usually portrayed in a science-and-activists-versus-industry paradigm.
Media Research Center analysts reviewed all of the stories about global warming on ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN World News (The World Today, after March 1996), and NBC Nightly News from January, 1993 through October, 1997. Researchers found 48 stories, which were not evenly distributed throughout the years. Global warming has become a bigger story lately, with more stories so far in 1997 (26) than in all of the other years combined (22). The heavy coverage so far in 1997 has been a result of White House public relations activities, such as inviting of the nation's local television weathermen for a presidential briefing. In 1993 and 1994, when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House but didn't push for action on global warming, the networks were largely silent.
No Room for Scientific Debate
Out of the 48 stories during the study period, most (39) simply assumed that science supports warming theories. Only seven stories mentioned that many scientists are skeptical of global warming. Of these seven stories, only two brought up the actual arguments of skeptical climate scientists. (The remaining two stories were about scientific efforts to measure the earth's warming; they neither assumed science supports warming theories, nor mentioned arguments against such theories.)
ABC's Peter Jennings has been the most adamant in claiming that the scientific debate is over. On the April 5, 1995 World News Tonight, Jennings argued that "it would only take a small increase in the world's overall temperature to change life as we know it" and that there was "new evidence that man may be turning up the thermostat." On the November 30, 1995 broadcast, Jennings announced, "2,500 scientists from around the world have finally agreed with one another and are convinced that burning oil and coal is causing the world's temperatures to rise, which may bring with it environmental disaster." On January 4, 1996, Jennings stated as fact that "the earth is getting warmer all the time, in part because the United States has not been practicing what it has been preaching." On the October 1, 1997 broadcast, he claimed that pollution "has already changed the world's climate" and that "if man doesn't stop tampering with the environment, the change in climate could well lead to a world in which we have a very unpredictable future." And then on October 22, 1997, Jennings told World News Tonight viewers that "the overwhelming majority of scientists now agree [climate change] is being caused by man." NBC's Brian Williams, on the August 11, 1997 Nightly News, concurred. "Just about everywhere you look these days there is wild weather to be found," Williams reported. "Just tonight a wild storm swept through Denver with heavy flooding rains, high winds and lots of damaging hail. Some experts are wondering whether or not this kind of thing is related to global warming." CNN's Leon Harris, on the July 24, 1997 World Today, chimed in that President Clinton had met with scientists who "supported the President's assertion that global warming is no longer a theory but a fact."
Others were a bit more balanced. "The earth does seem to be heating," reported NBC's Robert Hager on the April 7, 1997 Nightly News, "some think because of pollution, others say it's just cyclical." And although CNN's Cammy McCormick, on the October 6, 1997 World Today, said that "most [scientists] will tell you that the earth is heating up and people are partly to blame," she pointed out that "some climate scientists say they're not convinced about global warming." None of these reports mentioned that nearly 100 climate scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig Declaration, expressing doubts about the validity of computer-driven global warming forecasts. And about those 2,500 scientists Jennings mentioned, S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, wrote in the July 25 Wall Street Journal: "If one were to add up all of the contributors and reviewers listed in the three [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports published in 1996, one would count about 2,100. The great majority of these are not conversant with the intricacies of atmospheric physics, although some may know a lot about forestry, fisheries or agriculture. Most are social scientists -- or just policy experts and government functionaries. Every country seems to be represented -- from Albania to Zimbabwe -- though many are not exactly at the forefront of research. The list even includes known skeptics of global warming -- much to their personal and professional chagrin."
According to Dr. Singer, "Even some IPCC scientists, in the report itself or in a May 16 Science article headlined 'Greenhouse Forecasting Still Cloudy,' have expressed doubts about the validity of computer models and about the main IPCC conclusion, that 'the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate' -- whatever that ambiguous phrase may mean." He also pointed out that most of the warming over the past hundred years occurred before 1940, even though there were more carbon dioxide emissions after World War II, and that "weather satellite observations, independently backed by data from balloon-borne source sensors, have shown no global warming whatsoever in the past 20 years." All of which leads Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to conclude: "A decade of focus on global warming and billions of dollars of research funds have still failed to establish that global warming is a significant problem." Dr. Singer and Dr. Lindzen aren't alone. Polls from groups as diverse as Greenpeace and Citizens for a Sound Economy show that most climate scientists remain skeptical of claims that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions. This skepticism rarely makes it into news reports.
Disaster Awaits
Not only did the networks report unquestioningly that humans were warming the planet, but they were certain that such warming would lead to disaster. Only two of the 48 global warming stories pointed out that some scientists believe warming would be a boon to human health and well-being. The other stories assumed warming would be bad. Scientists "predict that global warming would add to the infectious disease problem worldwide," claimed ABC's George Strait, on the January 16, 1996 World News Tonight. "As temperature areas become more tropical, diseases such as malaria could spread."
On the October 7, 1997 Nightly News, NBC correspondent George Lewis predicted that warming would lead to "wild swings in the weather, from heavy rains to prolonged droughts, ruining crops all over earth." He also ran a computer animation from an environmental group which "shows how a three-foot rise [in sea levels] would flood New York City, cause some of the Florida Keys to disappear, and expand San Francisco Bay all the way into California's Central Valley." At ABC, correspondent Ned Potter told January 4, 1996 viewers of World News Tonight that "scientists say if [temperatures] keep going up as they have, heat waves will spread across North America, a third of the world's glaciers will melt, flooding coastlines in dozens of countries, tropical diseases will spread, exposing large parts of the U.S. to malaria and dengue fever." CBS correspondent Scott Pelley, on the October 22, 1997 CBS Evening News, said, "Scientists are already measuring the destruction, from floods in American valleys to vanishing ice on world peaks...In fact, it is happening all around the world -- the earth's glaciers have been receding at an increasing pace over the last 100 years."
Dr. Singer, again, dispels these claims. "Judging from the climate record of the last 3,000 years of human history, climate consequences of a greenhouse warming should be generally beneficial," he wrote in a recent Science & Environmental Policy Project report. "One would expect severe weather to be less frequent because of (calculated) reduced equator-to-pole temperature gradients. In fact, the frequency and intensity of hurricanes have decreased over the past 50 years, although the reason for this is not known." Dr. Singer also suggests that fears about rising sea levels are overblown, because "new research indicates that increased ocean evaporation [due to warming] would lead to more rain -- and therefore to more ice accumulation in the polar regions. As such, sea levels may actually drop." Patrick Michaels, also a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, points out that most of the warming of the globe would occur during winter in the coldest air masses. "Warming up the planet's coldest air masses clearly creates little harm," argues Michaels in a June 30, 1997 Washington Post column, "because no plant or animal can feel the difference between -40 degrees and -35 degrees." He further writes: "All totaled, the effects of winter warming and little summer change lengthens the growing season, costs less energy and is, in general, hard to label as a big negative."
Expert Soundbite Sources
The skewed nature of the global warming debate in the media is illustrated by whom network reporters interviewed for soundbites. In the 48 stories during the study period, there were 60 soundbites from those who thought global warming was a problem and favored drastic policy solutions. Ten soundbites came from the other side, with only two of those coming from scientists. (Fifteen soundbites came from neutral sources.) Reporters often used soundbites to frame the debate as being between science and environmental activists on one side and industry on the other. On the October 22, 1997 NBC Nightly News, for instance, correspondent David Bloom pitted the Sierra Club's Dan Becker (who said the Clinton plan to curb greenhouse emissions "is like fighting a five-alarm fire with a garden hose") against a representative of the coal industry, who claimed the Clinton plan would cost jobs. Scientists skeptical of global warming were ignored. NBC News, though, did come the closest to balance of all the networks. Twice the Nightly News used its "In Their Own Words" segment to allow critics of global warming policies to speak. On the July 8, 1996 broadcast, Singer made the case against human-induced global warming and then on October 7, 1997 Thomas Moore of the Hoover Institution argued that global warming would extend growing seasons and, since people in warmer climates live longer, aid public health. But these were the exceptions. For the most part, the media debate over global warming has been one-sided, with the legions of skeptical scientists left out.
|Sallie Baliunas
|Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics
|(202) 296-9655
|Richard Lindzen
|Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|(617) 253-0098
|Patrick Michaels
|University of Virginia
|(804) 924-7761
|William Nierenberg
|Scripps Institution of Oceanography
|(214) 534-6126
|Frederick Seitz
(former President, National Academy of Sciences)
|Rockefeller University
|(212) 327-8423
|S. Fred Singer
|University of Virginia
(also, Science & Environmental Policy Project)
|(703) 503-5064
|Chauncey Starr
|Electric Power Research Institute
|(415) 855-2909


text:
Today's guest blog post comes from Devva Kasnitz (Society for Disability Studies) and highlights an upcoming panel discussion entitled "Tidemarks and Frontiers: Disability in Anthropology". This discussion will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2011 from 10:15-12:00pm. Thanks Devva!
In Montreal, the Committee on Minority Issues in Anthropology (CMIA) is pleased to sponsor a panel called Tidemarks and Frontiers: Disability in Anthropology, organized by Amber Clifford-Napoleon. I will have the honor of participating along with Joseph Kaufert, Jill LeClair, Karen Besterman-Dehan, and Discussant Lenore Manderson. Disability issues have been reframed and a growing part of academia since disability studies emerged as a new specialty in the 1980s. The right to full access has been part of higher education law since 1974 and general law from 1993. Why then is it still a frontier? Why is it an active area of concern for the Committee on Minority Issues in Anthropology?
PANEL ABSTRACT: In 1993, the AAA adopted a statement on disability stating that the AAA "encourages faculty to adopt and apply an attitude of acceptance, adventure, collegiality, and respect toward disabled persons in the attainment of their goals, and commit themselves to becoming knowledgeable with regard to disabilities through interactions with disabled persons (including students), seeking expert input, and reading texts outside of mainstream anthropology on the topic of disability." While this statement represented a tidemark for both disabled anthropologists and the anthropologists of disability, there are still many frontiers left ignored. How has anthropology responded to the AAA call for disability awareness? On this 110th anniversary of the AAA, what challenges remain for disabled anthropologists and anthropologists of disability within the discipline and the profession? Have anthropologists "committed themselves" to a deeper understanding of disability?
The panel session "Tidemarks and Frontiers: Disability in Anthropology" will bring together anthropologists to discuss and explore the status of disability in 21st century anthropology. Panelists will discuss the historical position of disability in the AAA, the intersections of disability with other categories of difference, and the importance of a focus on disability in holistic anthropological research. The panelists will also examine the challenges of accessibility, visibility, and professional parity that disabled anthropologists face within the profession, as well as the issues anthropologists of disability frame as integral to understanding cultural experience.
At first I was hesitant to participate. I'm a bit tired of being the only visibly disabled person talking about marginalization in the Association and the profession. But, I am new to the Committee on Minority Issues in Anthropology and although my campaign was not the first to mention disability as a major experience of minority, it was the first one to foreground it successfully. Bringing my CMIA colleagues up to date, we have talked about the AAA Presidential Commission Disability of the 1990s and the Society for Medical Anthropology, Disability Research Special Interest Group (DRSIG), which is almost 30 years old. Has anthropology and the AAA responded to the 1993 statement on disability in the abstract above? Somewhat, you judge.
Internal to AAA, the SMA DRSIG would prefer to not have to be concerned with issues of meeting access. However, when people have problems, they come to us. There have been enough of these of late that we are trying to build some structure. To date, AAA has dealt with access issues on an individual basis. Our sessions have always been scheduled exactly as we request, once we learned to make very specific, unsolicited requests with our session proposals. AAA has well recognized that planning can avoid problems.
Relatively few individuals make disability access requests. Accommodation for D/deaf members has been the most trying (and expensive to AAA), with confusion over sign interpretation versus live captioning or an FM loop. There is the further confusion in that disability studies and D/eaf studies are not the same and that many students of both or either are organized academically within AAA in linguistics or education, or among the Senior Anthropologists, and do not necessarily identify with medical anthropology. (Our DRSIG has thought of moving to CAE.) However, it is long overdue that all disabled AAA members and their allies know what to expect and how to request best practice solutions to well understood access issues and to new challenges.
In my paper, I'll use myself as an example. After over 40 years of regular attendance and active participation, I am as "out" as disabled as any AAA member. As my speech impairment worsened in the last 15 years, I always present with a "revoicer," a "voice interpreter" or echo who repeats my words. My colleagues have always done this for me. However, in the last 5 years I have realized this is getting more difficult for them, some of them are now having hearing issues, and it also makes me less independent. Also, I want to set an example for young speech-impaired scholars of the help they have the right to request whether to deliver a paper, go to the placement service, or try to sell a manuscript to a publisher at the book exhibit. This year, for the first time, I decided to ask AAA to hire me a revoicer for 2 of my 4 official AAA responsibilities, my paper presentation and the Committee on Minority Issues in Anthropology meeting. In the service of AAA financial austerity, I plan on continuing to request help from colleagues for the 2 events I will Chair, a panel and the DRSIG.
First, I filled out the "ADA" needs field of the required registration for the March 15th 2011 deadline for an invited session. The field allowed only a brief note "I will require a "revoicer." The best source is an ASL interpreter. Another option may be possible t" and I was cut off. I thought, "oh well, they will need to contact me anyhow." In the scheduling field I had already entered "Because of significant speech impairment I use a voice interpreter, or revoicer. This is not like ASL or other simultaneous translation. Therefore, the chair of any session I am in may ask for up to double time for me to present." Second, the email informing us of the scheduling of our session concluded with "Lastly, if you need an invitation letter, handicap accessibility request or for any other information, please feel free to contact us." Well, I had done that. Finally, concerned that I hadn't heard anything and I needed to tell AAA about the CMIA meeting, I asked and was directed to the "Request for Meeting Accessibility Assistance" lined form on the website.
There are 2 problems here. First, we need a single clear, consistent, and highly visible point of entry into a disability accommodation request process. The more important problem, as Joe Kaufert's paper will explore, is the significance behind the discourse used. As soon as requests for disability related assistance are tied to the ADA, we enter the world of law. The clear implication is that only what clearly fits the ADA is acceptable. The ADA is a floor, not a ceiling to help achieve disability justice. It is as if we have returned to a time when only reference to specific laws could justify requests for racial justice. Further, I can't ever imagine needing a "handicap accessibility request." I do not need any further access to handicap. Few people who might want to make a request could get past this antiquated language. It sounds like "negro" sounds to critical race scholars. The website simply says "meeting accessibility." I like that except that access is not only a disability or deafness issue and the form is clearly oriented to D/deaf, or wheelchair using, AAA members.
Having the opportunity to raise these issues in the context of the Committee on Minority Issues in Anthropology is a huge step forward for disabled AAA members and will be part of the solution. AAA, and anthropology as a profession, lags behind other disciplines and their associations in what it has learned from disability studies and about meeting disability access. Jill LeClair will explore how disability is an understudied research variable. This is ironic as anthropologists have disproportionately been involved in the development of disability studies. Three of the last four presidents of the Society for Disability Studies are anthropologists. Karen Besterman-Dehan's presentation will consider this theme. AAA needs to recognize, celebrate, and enhance this contribution to local and international disability justice as it gets its own house in order.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
long stemmed and beautiful. I admired these roses at work when we first unpacked them, but I never would've guessed that I would get to take them home for free. When all the unsold stock that wouldn't keep was being cleaned out, I was offered the chance to choose whatever discarded flowers I wanted. These were my first choice.
I got home and had to go looking for a vase (I've been using mason jars for the tulips, but long stemmed roses need something more dignified ;o). Most of our household is still packed up in moving boxes (yeah, I know. it's been 8 months and counting living out of boxes). Lucky I made a list of what items are packed in my boxes! It didn't take long for me to find a vase for my roses.
Now, as for any sewing news to share... here's one project I'm hoping to get to this weekend. This quilt top has been on my to-do list, but between needing batting for it, starting work outside the home and everyday life... well, I'm obviously not done. I had been using the floor of the second kitchen (we don't use this kitchen) as the area for basting my quilts. Turns out we now need this space (more on that in another post), so I came home from work yesterday to find my husband's solution for keeping my quilt top out of harm's way. Smart man to know I wouldn't be impressed to have my quilt top walked upon. ;o)
Wishing you all a wonderful, creative weekend!


text:
Link Bucks refers you neobux sites, which are really easy to make money online...
Link Bucks refers you neobux sites, which are really easy to make money online...
Yeah, clicking your own links would make you 6 cents maximum daily. A bit more if you use locker links, but that can get tiring.
Never mind, I'm sure Linkbucks will not credit you for any clicks from your own IP since they screen your earnings prior to payout as far as I know.
Linkbucks is essentially a toll booth. You find a major thoroughfare for traffic, and set up a link on it. People gripe at first but will end up paying just to move along their merry way. While some will get around the toll, most will end up paying it. Provided you have regular, high traffic, you can make a fair penny. Even just linking 30 or so people a day a video with an intermission beforehand can reap a good amount.
What I'd be more concerned about is clicking your referrals' links. If you refer your friends and family and they send you links, will you get in trouble for viewing them? I'd think the most fair option would be to simply deny credit for anything your referrals earned from your IP, but I'm not sure. Anyway, that's off-topic.
Last edited by fa4ctor; 08-19-2012 at 01:42 PM.
The click limit is the same for all users, including users clicking their own links. I believe it's currently at 5 per IP daily. The reason for this is to generate as many uniques as possible, and obviously to prevent fraud.
The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change. Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the choices words lose their power when they are used to overpower. Attitudes are the real figures of speech. - Edwin H. Friedman
How to know if someone clicked for than 20?


text:
HISP 611 Historical Research Methods
W 7:00pm - 9:40pm (ARC 1117)
Catalog Description
An overview of common research methods and documentation tools used in historic preservation. Introductions to graphic documentation, building investigation, historical research, socioeconomic data collection and analysis.
Goals and Objectives
- To introduce students to methods of historic sites research through a combination of readings, case studies, and hands-on projects;
- To familiarize students with the various stages of a research process; to assist students in learning a variety of skills used in historic sites research; and to provide an opportunity to explore different approaches to data collection, analysis, and synthesis;
- To provide an intellectually stimulating forum for cross-disciplinary discussion of key concepts and approaches within the field of historic preservation;
- To provide a supportive learning environment in which students can present work and learn to monitor their progress and maintain the momentum of research and writing;
- To encourage students to develop an appreciation for intellectual inquiry and the search for knowledge outside their safety zone
- To help students develop a framework of ethics and values, including self-confidence, self-discipline, organization, and social responsibility, especially regarding academic/professional pursuits;
- To create an awareness of the current and common social, political, and economic issues affecting preservation in the public realm.
Prerequisite: Permission of ARCH-Historic Preservation Program. Credit only granted for: HISP610 or HISP611.
NAAB Student Performance Criteria Addressed (2014 Conditions for Accreditation)
- Deed Assignment (10%)
- Census Assignment (10%)
- Probate Assignment (10%)
- Map / Photograph Assignment (10%)
- Newspaper Assignment (10%)
- Oral History Assignment (10%)
- Final Property History Project (30%)
- Class Participation (10%)
NOTE: late assignments will be marked down the equivalent of ½ grade per day. If you have a personal emergency or illness, please contact instructor prior to the due date if at all possible.


text:
Montezemolo, Felisa and Alonso visiting the Ferrari Summer Camp
Maranello, 20 July 2011 – A very special morning for the more than 400 children at the Ferrari Summer Camp, the Company from Maranello sets up for free for the children of its employees.
The young Ferraristi were visited by Chairman Luca di Montezemolo, CEO Amedeo Felisa and Scuderia driver Fernando Alonso. The excited kids had even prepared a show for the special guests.
The Summer Camps are part of a initiative created by Ferrari in favour of the Company's employees and are open every day, including Saturdays from 7:30am to 8:30pm, to satisfy the different needs of the parents working at Ferrari.
This year it has been decided to extend the service also over the period from 22 August to 15 September, before the schools reopen in Italy.
As of this year the Summer Camp programme is set up not only in Maranello, but also in Modena, to better satisfy the needs of the workers at the Scaglietti works.


text:
CSC and AT&T have signed a seven year agreement for a global strategic alliance to develop next-generation technology solutions for enterprise businesses based on cloud solutions.
Under the agreement, the two companies plan to develop and offer cloud solutions for businesses globally. The companies are combining CSC's cloud services, specialized consulting and applications expertise with AT&T's highly-secure network and cloud infrastructure platform to help global businesses move more quickly to the cloud.
CSC, a recognized leader in enterprise cloud computing, will deliver its BizCloud and other cloud services through AT&T's global cloud infrastructure platform and networks.
"This agreement advances our cloud market leadership position by layering our leading cloud platform on AT&T's worldwide network and infrastructure architecture, capitalizing on quickly evolving technology solutions and enabling AT&T and its clients to modernize their applications to take advantage of these solutions," said Mike Lawrie, president and CEO, CSC.
"This agreement gives companies a new path to innovation," said Andy Geisse, CEO, AT&T Business Solutions.
By harnessing AT&T's global network and cloud infrastructure platform and CSC's consulting and applications expertise, companies can now manage their operations better and create new ways of transforming the experience they deliver to their customers added Geisse.
As part of the agreement, CSC will provide application expertise to AT&T and its customers. Working with AT&T, CSC will enhance and migrate applications to enable AT&T's customers to benefit from a secure cloud environment.
In addition, AT&T will assume management of CSC's internal network and its managed network services portfolio with commercial clients, providing CSC and its clients with a global, highly-secure network capability and enabling development of next-generation network service offerings. With AT&T's network at the edge of CSC's data centers, the companies will be able to deploy cloud solutions quickly for their customers.


text:
Little Union Baptist church 17150 mine road Dumfries, va 22026 703-221-4994
Where people gather ...to worship, share and learn
It is the mission of Little Union Baptist Church to establish a fellowship in Jesus Christ that will promote the Gospel throughout the community and the world by:
As a body of baptized believers, we are committed to worshipping and serving Jesus Christ. Celebrating our centennial this year, we are striving to become one of the two churches that Jesus will commend when He returns (Rev. chapter 3 & 4).
Where people gather...to worship, share and learn


text:
Event Services
This site will provide you with the resources you need to plan your meeting, event or conference on the FLC campus. Whether you need to host a large end-of-the-year gala or a small two-person interview, we can help you find the perfect place to suit your needs.
Our goal is to make the planning and execution of your event run as smoothly as possible, while providing outstanding customer service.
Please take a few minutes to explore our site, and look at the many options of reservable spaces on our campus that include meeting and conference spaces, classrooms, and outdoor sites.
Curious on what location is available for your reservation? Have a look at our Internal Event Calendar to check availability. Once on the main website, click locations on the upper right-hand corner. From there, you can choose which building you are interested in.
Scheduling the correct facility or space is vital to the success of your event. The facility you want can determine audience size, date, and time. Facilities can also set the mood for formal, informal, or auditorium style programs.
If you already know what you are looking for, then click on the button above, and your request will be sent to our office. You should hear from us within 24 business hours. Thank you for choosing Fort Lewis College!


text:
Cutie Sandra
Cutie Sandra's Details
Cutie Sandra's Likes
I love to meet people who like sex as much as I do. Cam2Cam is my favorite, teasing and being sensuous makes me incredibly wet. I want to imagine your hands sliding all over my body. I will push you to the point of no return and have you begging for more.
My Fantasies
Satisfying your every sexual need, the more we get to know each other, the more I will show you my talents. I enjoy oral, giving and receiving, nipple play and lactation, clitoral play, penetration, and last be surely not least, anal, take me private.mm
My Obsessions & Desires
#bush #hairy #feet #milk #anal #daddy #natural #pantyhose #stockings #dirtyplay #pantyhouse #diaper #pacifier
Additional Info
My LOVENSE LUSH VIBRATOR is set to react to your Gold!Make me instantly explode and SQUIRT for you! FLASH MENU in free show:✿200cr-tits, ✿250cr-nipples close up, ✿300cr-long hairy kitty, ✿50-ass!
Special Info
I am a sexy Russian girl, always open to your wishes!
My Fetishes
Anal, Double Penetration, Feet, Lactation, Nipple Biting, Nipple Play, Stockings/Panty Hose, Sugar Daddy, Teasing, Wet and Messy
My Sex Toys
Anal Beads, Vibrator
Role-Playing Scenarios
Cowboy/Cowgirl, Dirty Talk, Student/Teacher
My Schedule
Please change the timezone to your locale by choosing your location from the drop-down menu.
10:00 pm to 12:00 am
9:30 am to 12:00 pm
Cutie Sandra's Awards
Cutie Sandra's Wishlist
Cutie Sandra has setup a wish list at our authorized sex toystore. If you purchase an item from the wishlist it will be sent discreetly to Cutie Sandra!
Your personal information (name, address, etc.) will not be visible to the performer; nor will you be able to access the performer's information.


text:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
2) The game should not have "plagiarized" content such as music or sprites from other games. This has, thus far, never been an issue in commercial RPGMaker titles (EXCEPT FOR MILLENIUM), but it's very commonplace in freeware RPGMaker titles. Xenogears music and Dragon Quest sprites, for example, belong in Xenogears and Dragon Quest respectively. Anti-plagiarism policy applies to storylines/scripts as well.
You can feel free to go ahead and update this pronto. I always wondered how he pooped out games so fast, but I guess now we know.http://www.rpgfan.com/boards/index.php?topic=6528.0
Silentshdw has a good point. We will be keeping an eye on this situation. Thank you for noting it.


text:
main(713) 222-2273
Schedule an appointment online with ScheduleNow
Imaging & Diagnostic Services
Care Services
Appointments & Doctors
Your Visit
Online Patient Services
Patient Support
Digestive Health
To search Houston doctors, please select a specialty & submit your Zip Code below.
To schedule an appointment online, select provider type, service and submit your ZIP code below.
An esophageal stent procedure is a relatively safe and effective method of palliation (improvement of symptoms) and treatment of esophageal disease. Esophageal stents are available in different types and in lengths ranging from 60 to 150 millimeters (2.4 to 5.9 inches), but most have a similar maximal internal diameter of 17 to 23 millimeters (0.67 to 0.9 inch). Esophageal stent placement is performed via an upper endoscopy. The majority of stents have a simple delivery system as shown in the image below.
The stents can be placed temporarily or permanently, depending on indication.
The esophageal stent is placed via an upper endoscopy and the delivery system for most types of stents is simple to apply. The length of the stricture or area of concern is first measured and the appropriate stent length is selected. In general, we use an 18- to 23-millimeter (0.7 to 0.9 inch) diameter stent that is 1 to 2 centimeters (0.39 to 0.79 inch) longer than the stricture or area of concern to avoid infolding of the proximal and distal ends.
A guide wire is then passed through an upper endoscope into the esophagus. The delivery system is passed over the guide wire through the stricture or area of concern and the stent is deployed using fluoroscopy (X-ray guidance). Proper positioning and deployment are confirmed with X-ray and by reinserting the endoscope.
A barium esophagram is obtained if the stent is placed for an esophageal perforation or leak. If the esophagram shows no evidence of a leak following placement of the stent, the patient can start drinking. If the opening of the stricture is too small to accept the endoscope, the narrowing may require dilation. Over time, the stent expands inside the esophagus.
The risk of esophageal stent placement is variable for different type of stents and is known to include esophageal perforation and migration (the stent can move). The permanent stents have a risk of eroding into the surrounding tissues or may result in growth of the tumor into the stent. Overall, the use of esophageal stents in the treatment of patients with esophageal disease is growing.
1. Christie NA, Buenaventura PO, Fernando HC, Nguyen NT, Weigel TL, Ferson PF and Luketich JD. Results of expandable metal stents for malignant esophageal obstruction in 100 patients: short-term and long-term follow-up. The Ann of Thoracic Surg, Volume 71, Issue 6, June 2001, Pages 1797-1802 .
2. Banki F, Hagen JA. Benign Strictures of the Esophagus. Current Therapy in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Mosby, Inc, 2004. Page 422- 424.
3. Sharma P, Kozarek R, and the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Role of Esophageal Stents in Benign and Malignant Diseases. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:258–273.


text:
Friday Intermediate Improv Drop-In
January 3, 2020 @ 6:00 pm
An event every week that begins at 6:00pm on Friday, repeating until October 30, 2020
Event Navigation
This drop in focuses on developing YOU the improviser within the context of the two-hander scene. Themes include the best ways to stay 'in the moment', agreement, showing not telling, heightening, initiations, and avoiding common traps and bad habits.
Teachers: Ralph MacLeod & Jordan Kennedy
Performance Opportunity: That Friday Show follows this drop in at 8pm! Class participants, and others, are encouraged to perform a scene in that show with an experienced improviser. Come down and put your name in the bucket. Space is limited. Those in the class are guaranteed spots if they want them.


text:
One reality of modern software development is that teams are not collocated. Not around the same table, not in the same building, not in the same city, and often not in the same time zone.
- In some cases, companies are taking advantage of exchange rates or pay rates, and locate teams where they can buy more hours for each unit of their currency.
- In other cases, companies cultivate a better work-life balance for their employees, and stop enforcing policies around grueling commutes and time clock punching.
So here's one incredibly good thing you can do, in the face of this potentially toxic communications cocktail: start every project with a requirements workshop where in-person attendance is mandatory (and funded) for the product owner, leads from analysis, development, QA, and operations teams. Sponsors and subject matter experts should be readily available in person as well.
This get-together will require an initial outlay of funds which will hugely repay itself over time. In her 2004 book, Requirements By Collaboration, Ellen Gottesdiener quotes these helpful statistics from Capers Jones about return on investment for such gatherings. According to Jones's empirical measurements of large-scale software projects, a facilitated workshop of this type will:
- Reduce the risk of scope creep from 80 percent to 10 percent, and to 5 percent when combined with prototyping (Patterns of Software Systems Failure and Success, 1996)
- Cut requirements creep in half (Software Assessments, Benchmarks and Best Practices, 2000)
- Provide a 5 percent to 15 percent overall savings in time and effort for the project as a whole (Patterns)
- Reduce defects delivered in software by 20 percent (Patterns)
- Reduce project failure and cancellation rates by about 50 percent (Patterns)
- Provide a 10-to-1 return on investment ($10 for every $1 invested; Patterns)


text:
Friday, February 29, 2008
Dean Foods' New Slogan: "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time"
The poster child of the perils of following Wall Street's whims must certainly be Dean Foods, the low-margin Dallas-based dairy company that almost one year ago to this day proudly "returned value to shareholders" through a special one-time, $2 billion dividend, just before commodity inflation was to rip the guts out of Dean Foods' cost structure.
Its share price was north of $45 at the time.
Last night the same company did a spot secondary of 18.7 million shares in order to help pay the debt incurred in funding that special dividend, at a price just south of $20 a share.
Most galling to shareholders must certainly be that last night's sale price is just a few bucks more than the $15 a share special dividend that destroyed the commodity processor's financial flexibility to begin with.
For those who would defend the investment bankers who came up with the goofy scheme of loading a commodity processor with debt just for the heck of it—not to mention the fees—and the Board of Directors that approved the goofy scheme mainly to feel good about themselves for a few months, we say study the history of Dean Foods' primary cost inputs and ask yourself if a low-margin, highly volatile business model justified anything more than a modest, regular dividend to patient shareholders.
Rather than re-hash the gory circumstances surrounding this travesty of corporate chest-thumping, investment banker hubris and short-term herd-following, we republish for the record accounts of both actions, on the theory that those who know their history may be less inclined to repeat it.
March 2, 2007
Dean Foods Announces Plan to Return Approximately $2.0 Billion to Shareholders Through Special Cash Dividend of $15.00 Per Share
Reflects Strong Confidence in Business and Future Cash Flows; Commitment to Enhancing Shareholder Value Financed By $4.8 Billion Senior Secured Credit Facility
DALLAS, March 2, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Dean Foods Company (NYSE: DF) today announced plans to return $15.00 per share to shareholders through a one-time special cash dividend totaling approximately $2 billion. The special dividend will be financed by a recapitalization of the Company's balance sheet through $4.8 billion in new senior secured credit facilities.
"Dean Foods is an organization with strong momentum as reflected in our 2006 results and positive outlook for 2007," said Gregg Engles, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "Over the past several years we've consolidated the industry and developed a leading market position through significant strategic acquisitions and investments in building out our branded portfolio. With this platform in place, we are now entering the next phase of our evolution. Over the next few years, we will be focused primarily on leveraging our scale to drive internal growth through maximizing productivity and efficiencies across our business."
Engles continued, "Given our internal focus, our strong cash flows, and the incredible liquidity and flexibility of today's debt capital markets, the appropriate finance decision for Dean Foods today is to increase our exposure to the debt markets and return equity capital to shareholders, while enabling them to continue to participate in the Company's future performance and growth."
February 29, 2008
Dean Foods to issue 19 million shares
Dallas company hopes to make progress on debt repayment
10:44 PM CST on Thursday, February 28, 2008
By KAREN ROBINSON-JACOBS / The Dallas Morning News
Dallas-based Dean Foods Co. said Thursday it will issue 18.7 million shares of stock, in part to pay debt from a dividend it gave shareholders last year.
The new stock offering, being underwritten by Lehman Brothers, will help bring the nation's largest dairy producer closer to the debt repayment schedule it planned on when it issued the dividend last spring, the company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"The operating environment in 2007 was extremely difficult, and operating results were below the expectations" Dean had when it issued the dividend, the company said in the SEC filing.
"As a result, the company entered 2008 approximately a year behind its original debt reduction expectations."
"Momentum," as Engles found out the hard way, changes frequently.
Debt, of course, never does.
Jeff Matthews
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2008 Jeff Matthews
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews also acts as an advisor and clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews' recommendations. This commentary in no way constitutes a solicitation of business or investment advice. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Been to a Dairy Queen Lately? Concluded.
"Dairy Queen is a business that I like, run by an outstanding management team. Dairy Queen will be a great addition to the Berkshire family."
—Warren Buffett, October 21, 1997
"Too many of our restaurants are simply not competitive…. Our name has been tarnished and aged because we have a system that is relatively inconsistent, lacking commitment and investment, and lacking enthusiasm and excitement."
Is Dairy Queen "A great addition to the Berkshire family"? Or "Not competitive…tarnished and aged?"
By any standard, International Dairy Queen—the company's official name—should have been the "great addition" promised by Warren Buffett, neatly fitting as it does his definition of a good business.
First and foremost, Dairy Queen possesses one of the most recognized brand names in America. This alone has kept customers coming through its doors or walking up to its stainless steel counters—"tarnished and aged" though they might seem, even to the company's own CEO—for sixty seven years, and counting.
Good too is the fact that its signature product—soft ice cream—is not a luxury item, a fad, or prone to technological obsolescence. Consequently, sales tend to be steady in good times and bad.
And that strong brand name has one more benefit: it means Dairy Queen can raise prices in times of inflation, when a less well-known outfit might not have the clout—an attribute Warren Buffett especially admires, and seeks in the companies he acquires.
Digging deeper into the Dairy Queen business model, what at first appears to be a huge drawback—the fact that its stores offer a more limited menu compared to some competitors (many Dairy Queens do not even sell food)—turns out to be no great drawback at all. While the typical "DQ" generates only about one-third the revenue of a typical McDonald's, the 'footprint' of a typical DQ unit is likewise smaller, and therefore cheaper to build and operate, than the typical McDonald's.
Furthermore, another apparent disadvantage—that Dairy Queen has not always kept pace with changing American eating habits as aggressively as other "quick serve" restaurants—does not necessarily make it a less attractive business.
It may be true that Dairy Queen's last major hit new product was "The Blizzard" ice cream treat, officially introduced more than twenty years ago. And the company's ballyhooed 2005 introduction of the "GrillBurger" did not exactly set the world on fire, a "GrillBurger" being—brace yourself, now—a quarter-pound hamburger, with fixings.
McDonald's—which introduced its quarter-pounder in 1973—expanded beyond burgers, fries and shakes early in its development and continued evolving, most notably through the introduction several years back of healthier salads with Paul Newman's dressing, and this year's nation-wide roll-out of espresso drinks in direct competition with Starbucks.
Still, all these new products cost money, thanks to the necessary equipment upgrades and labor training involved—costs borne largely by McDonald's store operators. If the 2005 quarter-pound "GrillBurger" is any indication, Dairy Queen store operators have little to worry about when it comes to shelling out money for new equipment upgrades or better-trained in-store labor.
All in all, International Dairy Queen has a great brand name, a steadily growing business, pricing power in its major product line, little risk of obsolescence, and a low cost of operation.
What could be better?
Perhaps only this: if the company didn't have to perform the down-and-dirty duties of actually owning and running the stores, but instead made its money by collecting license fees for the brand name from territory operators and franchisees and by selling Dairy Queen ice cream and paper products to the store operators at decent mark-ups.
And that is precisely how International Dairy Queen is structured.
Consequently, it is the men and women who own and operate the stores—and not the parent company owned by Berkshire Hathaway—who deal with the day-to-day aggravation of upkeep, scheduling, broken equipment, employee turnover, bad weather, utilities, employee theft and vandalism—not to mention the occasional insurance claim for whatever happened in the parking lot over the winter when the place wasn't even opened.
Now, this is not to say that Dairy Queen territory owners and store franchisees haven't done quite well for themselves.
They do, after all, reap the same benefits of a great brand name, steady business and pricing power as the parent company. In fact, estimates of the typical Dairy Queen store owner's income have put the figure at roughly 15% of sales, about the same as the parent company. Furthermore, many operators now own their land and buildings free and clear, having long since paid off the mortgage.
Still, the next time you drive by a tired-looking, weather-beaten Dairy Queen down the road from a sprightly-looking McDonalds, or Dunkin' Donuts, or even Starbucks, and you scratch your head wondering who'd want to own International Dairy Queen what with all those competitors serving cold treats to the parents and kids who used to go to the local "DQ," keep in mind the owner of that Dairy Queen is likely buying supplies from, and paying license fees to, Warren Buffett's company, year in, year out.
And that's a good business.
All this does not, however, automatically mean Dairy Queen has been "a great addition to the Berkshire family," as Buffett predicted in 1997.
First—as we saw while working through some rough calculations earlier—by paying for the company partly in shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock, Warren Buffett may well have reduced what could have been a spectacular return on his investment to something more ho-hum.
Furthermore, as International Dairy Queen's own CEO has plainly admitted—and as anyone who has in fact been to a Dairy Queen lately may have experienced—the company's store network does not necessarily measure up to the kind of standards normally associated with a "great" business.
Finally, when Buffett agreed to buy International Dairy Queen, he agreed to buy a company with not just a well-known brand and a steady business selling cups and ice cream to franchisees.
He agreed to buy a company with a lawsuit. And a class-action lawsuit, at that.
Filed in 1994 by six franchisees seeking to buy some supplies outside the Dairy Queen "system," the suit charged International Dairy Queen with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. By the time the company had become a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, the suit had gained class-action status, reportedly involving about a third of the Dairy Queen franchisees.
Lawsuits in corporate America are, of course, commonplace, and investors don't often see them rise above the general category of a nuisance. This one did, however, and in 2000 the company settled it (while denying any wrongdoing) for millions of dollars. Fifty million of them, in fact, according to published reports, including a six-year, $5 million a year commitment to a national advertising fund.
Details of the precise financial impact on International Dairy Queen's income may never be known given the company's small impact on Berkshire as a whole. But $5 million a year in extra advertising spend would have been the equivalent of nearly 10% of the company's pre-tax income the year before Berkshire acquired it—assuming insurance did not cover the costs.
And the fallout from the lawsuit went beyond the financial kind, pitting as it did the company against the very franchisees upon which the health of the "Dairy Queen system" depended. CEO Mooty described the aftermath this way in an interview in QSR Magazine, 2001:
"We are a fragmented system in many respects, and we've gone through a real battle with a group of our franchisees in a litigation that took over eight years, and that creates erosion, fragmentation."
Today there are Dairy Queens that sell food (usually under the mysterious "Brazier" logo), and there are Dairy Queens that sell only ice cream. Dairy Queen stores in warm markets are open year-round; hundreds of stores in northern states are closed for winter. Some Dairy Queen units are painted red, white and blue; some aren't.
The parent company—Buffet's company—doesn't even set the retail price of its products: store operators have that power. And royalty rates to the parent are said to vary widely: in fact, some stores aren't even obliged to pay any franchise fee at all.
I am not making that up.
All of which may help explain why Dairy Queen's growth has lagged its competitors for so many years, both before and after it became a part of "the Berkshire family."
McDonald's, which did not start franchising until 1955 (when Dairy Queen already had 2,600 units opened in North America), now has more than 30,000 restaurants around world, five-times the current Dairy Queen total.
And if comparing the growth of a chain selling something as prosiac and discretionary as ice-cream to that of a hamburger chain such as McDonald's seems unfair, then let's compare it to a chain specializing in something equally prosaic and discretionary.
Let's compare it to a chain of stores selling coffee.
This particular coffee chain did not exist prior to 1972, did not bother to expand outside its home market of Seattle, Washington until after 1987, and did not even go public until 1992. Yet it currently has over 11,000 stores in the U.S. and more than 4,500 internationally, generating over $9 billion in annual revenue with operating margins comparable to that of International Dairy Queen.
The coffee chain, of course, is Starbucks. And, current growing-pains aside, Starbucks shows what an aggressive, forward-thinking management team can do when it's willing to spend the dough to make growth happen.
But it's not just by comparison with hamburgers and coffee that Dairy Queen's growth seems paltry. Even the vendor of such a uniquely American specialty as fried chicken has grown faster and further around the world than Dairy Queen and its soft-serve ice cream.
Dairy Queen, meanwhile, recently opened its 100th store in China.
So, has Dairy Queen really been a "great addition to the Berkshire family"?
Warren Buffett would certainly say it has, given the excess cash flow generated by its steady, slow-growing business model. After all, Warren Buffett loves nothing in the world so much, perhaps, as cash flow he can invest wherever he sees fit.
And who wants to argue with Warren Buffett?
But let's flip the question around and ask ourselves if Berkshire Hathaway has been a great home for International Dairy Queen.
To do this, we return to the original premise of John Mooty, the Dairy Queen Chairman at the time of the sale, who wrote the following in a letter to shareholders explaining the Board's decision to sell to Berkshire Hathaway:
"In considering this merger, we took into consideration the best interest of the entire Dairy Queen system, consisting of our employees, our franchisees, our territory operators, our suppliers, our customers and our shareholders."
As far as Dairy Queen employees go, at least one such employee—Mr. Mooty's son Chuck, who was Chief Financial Officer at the time and now runs the place—must certainly be glad the company wasn't sold to a less hands-off manager than Warren Buffett.
As for the Dairy Queen franchisees and territory operators, however, a few appear no happier as part of the Berkshire "family" than before. In 2006, just six years after the class-action suit was settled, the Dairy Queen Operators Association filed suit in Illinois "claiming the company is trying to force its mom-and-pop restaurant-owners out of business," according to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal.
Regarding Dairy Queen's suppliers, it's anybody's guess how they're feeling about being part of the "family," although some might wish they'd hitched their wagons to a more ambitious organization growing faster than what looks like a rather paltry one-quarter-of-one-percent annual unit growth rate.
And here we come to the end of Mr. Mooty's list: the shareholders of International Dairy Queen, including those who vocally complained about Buffett's seeming low-ball offer. Today those former shareholders are, most likely, of two minds about the 1998 transaction that transferred ownership to Berkshire Hathaway.
Shareholders who followed John Mooty's own strong convictions and accepted $26 in Berkshire Hathaway stock—and watched it triple to a current value around $75 in the decade since—probably agree that Berkshire Hathaway has indeed been a "great family" to have joined.
Those who elected to take $27 per share worth of cash instead of Berkshire Hathaway stock, however, might still be ruing the day they went for the extra dollar, thereby missing out on another $48 for each of their shares that accrued over the years.
Still, they probably skip reading the stock tables starting with the letter "B."
Jeff Matthews
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2007 NotMakingThisUp, LLC
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews also acts as an advisor and clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews' recommendations. Readers who make investment decisions based on this material are making a mistake. This commentary in no way constitutes investment advice, nor is it intended to be a solicitation of business in any way. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Weekend Edition: Wisdom of Solomon?
Easily the most-read section of the New York Times Sunday Magazine, besides the crossword puzzle, is the "Questions For…" column by Deborah Solomon.
I say this without a single statistic to validate the claim, but it's the only thing I read every weekend in the Magazine. For some reason it just seems to pop out as you open the thing up.
Besides, who wants to read the cover story about Mike Huckabee or whoever the politician-of-the-week happens to be? You can read Solomon's column, feel like you've read the Magazine, put it in the recycle bin and move on with your day.
Solomon herself comes across as witty and direct, with an extra-liberal agenda. Not that there's anything wrong with that—it just seems that every series of questions, whoever the person being interviewed, ends up with her insinuating how great it would be if Hillary became President.
The page is usually interesting, funny and sharp.
Not so was a recent "Times in the Air"—a New York Times television 'magazine' appearing on JetBlue TV sets in planes across the country—featuring an interview with comic Steve Martin.
Martin recently published a book about his stand-up comedy career, and for anybody interested in the process of creativity—how people create stuff, whether it's great literature, great software, great companies or just great standup comedy—the book is fascinating.
So I watched the Steve Martin interview with some anticipation and much interest.
What I didn't anticipate, however, turned out to be the most interesting part of the interview, aside from Martin's stories of his early career: how poor the interviewer from the New York Times would prove to be.
She seemed particularly interested in taking the interview in a certain direction, regardless of what Martin was actually talking about. So interested was the interviewer in getting to a particular subject that while Martin was making a very funny point about how undeveloped he had been as a young comedy writer for the Smothers Brothers, she actually began skimming through Martin's book, head bent, nodding and saying "uh-huh" while Martin spoke.
He noticed she wasn't looking at him, so he turned to the audience and finished his story. When the audience began laughing, the interviewer gave a half-hearted, pro-forma chuckle and then proudly said "I found the paragraph I was looking for," and promptly asked her own, entirely different, question.
But the worst was yet to come.
Asked why he stopped doing stand-up abruptly, rather than gradually, Martin explained that stand-up is something you have to do constantly, "300 nights a year," to stay sharp. To stress the point, he said he always worked the night before a "Tonight Show" appearance, because if he didn't do that, he wouldn't be at his best with Johnny Carson.
To this, the interviewer asked the whopper that stopped her subject cold: "You can't practice at home?"
Now, Steve Martin, to his credit, didn't burst out laughing or make a remark—although you could see he held himself back. Instead, he smiled and politely said no, you need an audience.
The interviewer, I learned as the credits rolled, was—as you might have guessed by now—Deborah Solomon.
But I didn't make the connection until this week's "Questions for Gov. Rick Perry: Troop Leader" in the Sunday Magazine.
In it, Solomon focuses on Perry's involvement in the Boy Scouts, pressing him on the issue of gays in the Boy Scouts, which apparently is a huge issue among, well, gays and the Boy Scouts.
Having never been involved in the organization, we here at NotMakingThisUp take no sides, our interest being in Solomon's habit of moving the interview into a narrow area of her own special interest.
And here, after taking Perry to task that "the Scouts are alienating so many American kids," Solomon hones in on what really seems to bother her: Boy Scout merit badges.
She asks, and I am not making this up:
I know they have a dog-care merit badge, but why not a child-care badge?
When Perry says he has "no problem with that," Solomon bores in harder with this line of inquiry, which, again, I am not making up:
How about a merit badge in vegetarianism?
To Perry's credit, he—like Steve Martin on the "Times in the Air" interview—avoids the easy, sarcastic come-back.
Like, oh, "How about a merit badge on interviewing people competently?"
Jeff Matthews
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2008 Jeff Matthews
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews also acts as an advisor and clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews' recommendations. This commentary in no way constitutes a solicitation of business or investment advice. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Roof Sold, and a Hard Rain Is Falling
Yesterday, the credit crisis hit two national retailers: San Francisco-based Sharper Image, which sells high-tech gadgets such as air purifiers and massage chairs, and Lillian Vernon Corp., which sells low-cost gifts such as Easter baskets and welcome mats. Both filed for federal Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
—The Wall Street Journal
And so The Sharper Image yesterday declared what it had been rumored for months to be preparing: Chapter 11.
What goes around, as they say, comes around, and in this case, what went around at Sharper Image was a hubris during its salad days when everybody in America plus their cat seemed to need a tall, thin, plastic air filter supplied by Sharper Image.
Back then—only three or four short years ago—the company, which attracted short-sellers the way a cat attracts fleas, actually had a slide in its investor presentation showing the short interest in the stock, which the CFO at the time would cheerfully discuss at length.
The implication being, of course, that Sharper Image shares—despite having begun to suffer from missed earnings and a growing glut of air filters in the market—could be squeezed not by management skill at turning around the business, but by forced short-covering.
Air filter market gone, sales collapsing and the short-bashing CFO long gone, even a new management team, brought in by financial backers who forced out the old CEO and bought his 2.7 million shares of near-worthless stock for $9.25 a share, could not stop the bleeding.
And so today we read that the company's bank—Wells Fargo—failed to place the last $10 million of financing necessary to avert a bankruptcy filing, and pulled the plug.
The synchronicity here is quite something, for back in 2005 Sharper Image spent roughly $10 million to repurchase its own stock, no doubt to "return value to shareholders," as the mantra-of-the-month went during the financial salad days of yesteryear, not to mention "squeeze the shorts."
Yesterday that $10 million could have come in handy.
What other "return-value-to-shareholder," short-squeezing boards of directors are going to wish they hadn't sold the roof during the sunny days...just in time for the rain to start falling?
Jeff Matthews
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2008 Jeff Matthews
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews also acts as an advisor and clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews' recommendations. No reader of this material should make any investment decisions based on this commentary. Furthermore, these writings in no way constitute a solicitation of business or investment advice. They are intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Hillary's Campaign In Trouble? Introducing CLINTONS
Big Clinton Fund-Raisers May Run Their Own Ads
Rich Backers Huddle With Lawyers to Help Cash-Strapped Effort
Days after the revelation that Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign had borrowed $5 million from the candidate's own fat bank account to make ends meet comes this word the Clinton campaign is so hard up for cash it's trying to figure out a way to farm out fund-raising to other entities, without violating pesky campaign laws.
The fact that Senator Clinton's campaign is in crisis is fairly clear to everybody...everybody except the front page editors of the New York Times. The Times, of course, endorsed Clinton when she appeared invincible, which may be why the paper relegates every new report of either an Obama primary victory or a Clinton super-delegate desertion to thin, single-column articles with the muted headlines normally used for cricket matches.
But the diminishing power of the Times' withering old-economy muscle can't seem to stop Obama, and the Clinton team, which has blown through more than $100 million with fewer delegates than Obama to show for it—at an average cost of about $100,000 per delegate—needs cash.
So much so that the self-styled "middle class" candidate is loaning millions of her own wealth just to keep the lights turned on, and her staff is hatching some rather far-out schemes to enable her to stay in the race.
In the spirit of this President's Day Weekend, may we here at NotMakingThisUp suggest another way?
A way that might not only jump-start the troubled Clinton campaign, but also the troubled American economy;
A way that would give hope not just to legions of Hillary fans across the country desperate to see their candidate recover her lead, but to legions of once-highly-paid mortgage-backed securities bankers desperate to find ways to pay the lease on their personal G-5s;
A way that could provide not just enough adrenalin to help the Clinton campaign get back on its feet, but help today's skittish mortgage-backed credit market get back on its feet.
How, you ask?
Mortgage the White House.
That's right: we here at NotMakingThisUp officially urge Congress to allow those Titans of Leverage—the mortgage-backed securities bankers who once used their computers to find new ways for status-hungry Americans to satisfy short-term urgings for better cars, bigger plasma TV sets and bathrooms the size of department stores through long-term debt—to help the Clinton campaign borrow all the money it needs against a house Hillary and Bubba don't yet own, but just might in a year's time: The White House.
And why not?
White House occupants have been monetizing the place for decades by doling out goodies to large donors—sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom during the last Clinton administration being one of the less subtle examples.
So just make it official. Let Wall Street's Best and Brightest help the Clintons the way they helped so many Americans during the housing bubble, consequences be damned!
Precisely how is a point we leave to sharper minds with faster computers, but in the fine tradition of CDOs, CMBSs, HELOCs, RMBSs, REMICs and other financial instruments Wall Street excels at inventing without regards to the human consequences, we suggest the following: "Collateralized Election Obligations."
Or, in short, "CLINTONS."
Simply mortgage the White House, room by room, from the Lincoln Bedroom all the way down to the White House Theater and the below-ground hidden bunker. Test the markets with a $100 million face value initial offering and see how it goes. Expand or shrink the deal depending on market demand.
Best of all, with the backing of all those rooms in America's most famous house, occupied by America's most powerful woman and Washington's most fun-loving husband, we'd expect CLINTONS will be rated enthusiastically by the rating agencies.
Here then is a brief summary of the prospectus we came up with after, oh, five minutes' worth of analysis:
Security: CoLlateralized electIoN obligaTiONS (CLINTONS)
Face Value: $100 million (can be increased by adding rooms)
Oval Office Tranche: $25 million
Sit in the chair! Get that famous White House operator to track down your friends and invite 'em over!
Moody's: AAA++
Situation Room Tranche: $25 million
The world at your fingertips! Hidden microphones and secret cameras in places you never even heard of before! Help Bubba keep an eye on his latest "situations."
S&P: Two thumbs up!
Lincoln Bed Room Tranche: $20 million
Bubba and Hillary plan to invite David Geffen back for the weekend, to patch things up...then make the little rat spend the night on the couch in Hillary's room.
Moody's: AAA++
The Presidential Emergency Operations Center: $20 million
Legendary bunker hidden under the East Wing, at your disposal!
S&P: Two Thumbs Up!
Cabinet Room Tranche: $5 million
Big table, lots of chairs! By day, you'll witness Hillary conduct long, serious meetings about health care and stuff. Yawn!
Moody's: AAA++
White House Movie Theater Tranche: $5 million
Bubba's personal video collection, ready to roll!
Jeff Matthews
© 2008 Jeff Matthews
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Most Interesting Sentence in a Press Release Today
Thus far—and the day is still young—the most interesting sentence in a press release might well be the following:
"In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company also experienced a softening of demand for certain of its International products due to declining European economies."
The company is Masco Corporation, maker of all things faucet, cabinet and plumbing related, and therefore one of the larger corporate victims of the sub-prime collapse.
Given that international revenues account for a modest 20% or so of Masco's sales, the highlighting of European demand issues in today's disappointing earnings release is somewhat of a surprise. Today's conference call should be quite interesting.
Not bloody likely.
Jeff Matthews
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2008 Jeff Matthews
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews also acts as an advisor and clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews' recommendations. This commentary in no way constitutes a solicitation of business or investment advice. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Business Gets It. When Will Politicians?
Staples Cuts Off Paper Supplier
By TOM WRIGHT
February 8, 2008; Page A4
Office-supplies retailer Staples Inc. has severed all contracts with Singapore-based Asia Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd., one of the world's largest paper companies, in a move that shows concerns over forest destruction and global warming are having an impact on big U.S. paper buyers.
Until recently, Staples sourced about 9% of its total paper supply from APP and used the paper for its own Staples-branded stock, mainly photocopy and office paper. Staples had stuck with the company even as other large paper sellers in the U.S., Europe and Asia, including Office Depot Inc., stopped buying from APP in recent years because of alleged environmental misdeeds.
The Framingham, Mass., company canceled its contracts late last month, said Mark Buckley, vice president for environmental issues at Staples. Staples is expected to announce the move next week.
"We decided engagement was not possible anymore," Mr. Buckley said. "We haven't seen any indication that APP has been making any positive strides" to protect the environment. Remaining a customer of APP was "at great peril to our brand," he added.
—The Wall Street Journal
As long-time readers know, it is the official policy of NotMakingThisUp that global warming is no mere figment of the imagination of "pot-smoking journalists," as Warren Buffett's partner, Charlie Munger, ventured during last year's otherwise pleasant and enlightening Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, in what was one of several Grumpy-Old-Man pronouncements that served more to highlight Munger's age than his famous wit.
Yet, as today's article demonstates, the ranks of skeptics—several of whom will, no doubt, post caustic rebuttals as soon as this hits their screens—ascribing the horrendous and staggering climate change that has occurred since the advent of the internal combustion engine to random temperature fluctuations comparable to past warming patterns, is growing thinner.
GE—to name but one of many large capitalist enterprises that could very well run its business without the least nod to global warming, but don't—sees both the writing on the wall and the business opportunity inherent in the problem of slowing, if not reversing, the change.
Of course, companies like GE and Staples don't do stuff just because "pot-smoking journalists" write alarmist stories about something. Consider how long it took for GE to settle on a Hudson River cleanup of the 1.3 million pounds of PCBs GE's plants dumped in its waters.
And since NotMakingThisUp normally prefers to tweak captains of industry than praise them, we thought it worth highlighting Staples' move, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, cutting off Asia Pulp & Paper as a supplier of paper stock.
Knowing, as we do, something of APP's past—an old friend used to buy paper from APP, and said exactly the same thing companies like Staples are saying—we are not at all surprised at the link being made between Indonesia's rapidly depleting rain forest and APP's rapidly growing topline in the last two decades.
At the risk of stretching "fair use" standards to include the entire Wall Street Journal story—we always urge everyone read the Wall Street Journal cover-to-cover every day, and not just for the business stories—we continue with the rest of today's article.
APP representatives didn't return calls seeking comment. In the past, it has said it is moving toward relying for all of its wood on plantation trees but needs to cut natural forest to maintain production levels.
APP runs one of Asia's largest pulp mills on the Indonesian island of Sumatra and has operations in China. The retailers worry that APP is destroying natural rainforest to feed its mills.
Concerns over rainforest destruction have been heightened in recent months because new data show that Indonesia is the world's third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping greenhouse gas, behind the U.S. and China. Fires set to clear natural forests and forested peat swamps after they have been logged are the major cause of those emissions.
APP last year sought permission to use an environmentally friendly logo issued by the Forest Stewardship Council. In October, after inquiries from The Wall Street Journal about APP's planned use of the logo, the FSC barred the company from using it.
Write to Tom Wright at email@example.com
Next time NotMakingThisUp needs new copy paper, we'll be going to Staples.
Jeff Matthews
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2008 Jeff Matthews
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews also acts as an advisor and clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews' recommendations. This commentary in no way constitutes a solicitation of business or investment advice. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Serge Already Knew What the ISM Just Figured Out
Once again, Wall Street's economists have finally—thanks to an economics statistic painstakingly compiled and reported by an upright and earnest institution (in this case the Institute for Supply Management, or IMS)—learned something the rest of America pretty much already knew.
This time, it was the following startling fact: the U.S. economy is quite weak.
At least that's what yesterday's ISM number—a measure of non-manufacturing business activity—revealed to shocked number crunchers on Wall Street, hitting its lowest level since 2003.
And while the number dropped jaws on Wall Street, I doubt it surprised too many people on the main street where I live.
For on that main street is a small family restaurant—highly successful over many years and many business cycles. And in that restaurant is a busboy named Sergio—one of the hardest working guys I know. And just last week Serge was gesturing at a room full of empty tables and telling me he was worried about his job.
"If it stays like this…" he said, "I don't know what I'm going to do." Serge is not a complainer. In fact, I've never heard him talk about anything but his family, his grandson, and the New York Yankees.
I asked him if it wasn't just a slow Tuesday night, and he shook his head: "It's been like this every night." And the owners are taking measures, cutting hours, cutting staff.
So, precisely why the ISM number was as startling as it appeared to be to so many professionals is not entirely clear.
After all, if they're not eating at family restaurants and noticing empty tables, a few recent earnings reports would have filled them in.
Just last week Starbuck's reported a 3% decline in customer traffic. A couple days before that, McDonald's reported no increase in comparable-store U.S. sales.
And if those data points from two of the largest bellwethers of the American service economy hadn't registered with the Wall Street economist types, you might have thought the previous week's commentary from the parent company of the ubiquitous Chili's restaurant chain would have done the trick:
"Add to this [increasing competition] the uncertainty about the economy, a decline in consumer confidence and increased commodity costs, and we are operating in one of the toughest environments in our company history."
That history, for the record, goes back almost 33 years.
But if Wall Streeters can be shocked by something so easily visible in their own backyards, imagine the chaos sweeping the Fed!
Maybe they should talk to Serge. I've got his cell phone number if Ben wants to call...
Jeff Matthews
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2008 Jeff Matthews
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews also acts as an advisor and clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews' recommendations. This commentary in no way constitutes a solicitation of business or investment advice. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Been to a Dairy Queen Lately? Part III
"In considering this merger, we took into consideration the best interest of the entire Dairy Queen system, consisting of our employees, our franchisees, our territory operators, our suppliers, our customers and our shareholders."
—John Mooty, Chairman of the Board, International Dairy Queen, October 21, 1997
Thus the Chairman of International Dairy Queen Chairman explained, in a letter to his company's shareholders, how it was that he and the rest of the Board had decided to sell an American icon to Berkshire Hathaway for approximately $26.50 a share—a price well below what some of those same shareholders considered fair value:
"He [Buffett] should be paying north of $30," said [Bruce] Sherman... "There are a lot of shareholders unhappy with this deal. It's not that the company is being sold. It's strictly the price."
—Bloomberg LP, November 6, 1997
In fact, one of those shareholders was so "unhappy" he sued to block the deal, but lost.
Still, nobody can say Mr. Mooty tried to mislead those shareholders or anyone else as to their place in the scheme of things. After all, in the above-quote letter where he enumerates the components of "the entire Dairy Queen system" taken into consideration during the Board's deliberations, Mr. Mooty lists the shareholders dead last.
Even after "suppliers."
Consequently, while Mr. Sherman and other shareholders might have disagreed with the end result, they at least ought to have appreciated Mr. Mooty's straight talk.
Lawsuit and protestations notwithstanding, in the end Warren Buffett paid precisely the price he and the Dairy Queen Board had agreed on: $27a share in cash to those who preferred cash; or $26 in Berkshire Hathaway stock, to those who preferred stock.
No more, no less.
Looking back at Dairy Queen's weak performance prior to the deal, however, an observor might ask why all the beef over a nice pay-day for shareholders of a stock that had bounced anemically between $14 and $21 a share for more than half a decade?
Well, for starters, for a total price tag of $585 million, Buffett picked up roughly $50 million of cash and cash-equivalents already on Dairy Queen's books, meaning his net outlay to acquire the business was only about $535 million.
And $535 million amounted to only 9.2-times Dairy Queen's annual pre-tax income in 1996, while shares of Dairy Queen's most visible publicly-traded competitor, McDonald's, were changing hands at nearly 15-times pre-tax income in the public market.
Of course, some might say the comparison between Dairy Queen and McDonald's is not entirely fair. McDonald's, after all, has a reputation for, and track record of, faster growth and greater innovation than the slow-moving Dairy Queen.
However for the first nine months of 1997—Dairy Queen's last year as a public company—its core revenue growth and earnings growth were only modestly lower than McDonald's.
The numbers are as follows: excluding the impact of a divestiture, Dairy Queen's sales grew nearly 4%, while operating earnings grew 3%. McDonald's, meanwhile, reported full year 1997 sales growth of 7% and earnings growth of slightly less than 5%.
Thus the Board of a company with only marginally slower earnings growth than its largest public counterpart accepted a substantially lower valuation from Warren Buffett than Buffett would have had to pay for shares of that counterpart in the open market. And, for that discounted price, which Buffett negotiated directly with the Board of Directors, Berkshire got control of an entire company.
Is it any wonder some Dairy Queen shareholders griped?
Now, an astute observer would certainly argue that the valuation of McDonald's in the stock market on a given day provids a meaningless yardstick of the true, underlying value of International Dairy Queen in a negotiated transaction between rational human beings.
After all, stock market valuations fluctuate from month to month, week to week, hour to hour, and minute to minute, depending on breaking news, political scandal, plague, war and federal economic policy, not to mention the serotonin levels in the brains of Wall Street traders apt to fly to pieces at the slightest whiff of something as momentous and earth-shattering as the replacement of an adjective in the Federal Reserve's latest interest rate statement by a slightly different adjective.
Thus a more objective way to look at the sales price of Dairy Queen would be to simply compare it to the cost of money, which is how most rational buyers—Warren Buffett especially—determine valuation.
Let's start with the government's cost of money: in late 1997, the time of the Dairy Queen transaction, the ten-year Treasury note was yielding something in the neighborhood of 6%. A well-heeled AAA-rated buyer like Berkshire Hathaway would, of course, have a somewhat higher borrowing cost than the Federal Government, so we'll assume Berkshire could have borrowed the $535 million needed to acquire Dairy Queen (and its $58 million in pre-tax income) at an 8% interest rate.
8% interest on $535 million would amount to $43 million in annual interest payments. And $43 million in interest payments would be substantially less than Dairy Queen's $58 million of annual income at the time.
In effect, Warren Buffett would be buying Dairy Queen with Dairy Queen's own money, much like a leveraged-buyout.. Most galling to "DQ" shareholders, perhaps, is that Buffett would be paying practically no premium for the intangible but presumably substantial value of the Dairy Queen brand name.
Now, these observations are not meant to suggest the Dairy Queen Board did not do its duty.
First, the calculations are our estimates only: not actual numbers.
Second, no information anywhere exists to suggest that any alternative to the Berkshire offer was made to the Dairy Queen Board of Directors.
Third, as evidenced by Mr. Mooty's letter to shareholders, there clearly was much more to the sale of one of America's best-known brands than mere money—at least as far as Mr. Mooty and his fellow Dairy Queen Board members were concerned. And well there should be in any business transaction.
Finally, and most importantly, Berkshire did not pay all that $535 million for Dairy Queen in cash.
Rather, as we stated at the beginning, Buffett agreed to pay slightly more than half the purchase price in Berkshire Hathaway stock, the remainder in cash.
And stock, unlike cash, can appreciate over time, meaning Buffett gave the shareholders of Dairy Queen—at least those smart enough to take $26 a share worth of stock rather than $27 a share worth of cash—a chance to participate in the subsequent growth of Berkshire Hathaway.
That growth would prove to be substantial.
Shares of Berkshire Hathaway closed at $47,500 apiece the day the Dairy Queen transaction closed. They are now trading above $130,000 a share. Thus, the entire value of the Dairy Queen transaction has almost doubled, from the original $535 million value (net of DQ's own cash) when Berkshire's stock was $47,500 a share to nearly $1.1 billion at today's $130,000 a share price.
Recall Mr. Sherman, the broker whose clients owned 1.7 million shares of Dairy Queen at the time, complaining that the price should have been "north of $30." In fact, thanks to the near-tripling of Berkshire's stock price, the current value of the deal amounts to well "north of $30," .
It amounts to almost $50 a share.
Now, what precisely does Dairy Queen add to Berkshire Hathaway's bottom line, in exchange for that $1.1 billion investment?
This is not an easy question for an outsider to answer.
For financial purposes, at least, International Dairy Queen has all but disappeared inside the $100 billion conglomerate that is Berkshire Hathaway. In fact, it is lumped anonymously into a segment labeled "Other Service," along with airplane time-sharing company NetJets; pilot training pioneer Flight Safety; kitchenware outfit Pampered Chef; and the Buffalo News.
A kind of negative clue as to Dairy Queen's current size and profitability can be gleaned from the fact that Dairy Queen does not even get a mention in the "management commentary" segment of Berkshire Hathaway's public filings. This means "DQ" neither helps nor hurts Berkshire's quarterly income enough to rise to the level of significance required for such disclosure.
Consequently, the only hint as to whether any dramatic changes in Dairy Queen's operations or profitability have occurred under Berkshire's ownership is the statement in Berkshire's recent filings that Dairy Queen services "about 6,000 stores," which is up a little more than 200 from the 5,790 units in operation at the time of the acquisition.
And 200 new units on a base of 5,790 amounts to only one-quarter of one percent annual growth over the last ten years.
Assuming no prices increases on top of the low unit growth, Dairy Queen's current revenues may not much higher than when Berkshire first acquired the business—perhaps $440 million. If margins haven't changed from the 14.1% last seen in 1996, the business would be generating roughly $62 million a year in pre-tax income.
Is a $62 million annual return on a $1.1 billion transaction up to Berkshire's usual snuff?
Think of Dairy Queen as a bond that Berkshire Hathaway paid $1.1 billion to acquire. Think of the estimated $62 million income as the current "coupon" on that bond. Berkshire Hathaway's yield on its Dairy Queen bond? A mere 5.6%.
5.6% is not much better than a risk-free government bond, and it is far lower than many current investment alternatives.
Of course, all this assumes our calculations are correct, which they are almost certainly not.
For example, Dairy Queen's revenue growth might have been substantially higher than we guessed if the company had raised prices all this time. So let's assume prices rose 2 1/4 % a year over the last decade—bringing the annual revenue increase to an even 2.5% since the Berkshire acquisition. The current revenue contribution of Dairy Queen would rise to roughly $560 million, and our estimate of pre-tax income to $79 million, a "coupon" of 7.2% on Berkshire's $1.1 billion outlay.
7.2% is, likewise, hardly eye-popping, and no better than a decent preferred equity available in today's market.
Why such a low apparent return on one of Buffett's more cherished investments?
Unlike the cash half of the Dairy Queen deal, which is forever fixed, the stock half of the transaction amounted to a currency that could, and did, appreciate over time. In fact it appreciated far more rapidly—approximately 10% annually—than Dairy Queen's paltry growth (assuming our calculations are within the bounds of reason).
Had Berkshire paid $585 million for Dairy Queen entirely in cash, and extracted the $50 million already in Dairy Queen's coffers immediately, the return on investment would be substantially better, turning that $79 million "coupon" into a handsome 15% yield on a $535 million net investment—double our estimate for the stock-and-cash deal structure.
Perhaps the only comfort to shareholders of Dairy Queen still ruing the day they accepted cash, instead of Berkshire Hathaway stock at $47,500, is the notion that Warren Buffett might, likewise, still be ruing the day he paid with Berkshire stock valued at $47,500, instead of cash.
Of course, if Buffett had not offered his stock to Dairy Queen's shareholders, he might never have clinched the deal, and Dairy Queen Blizzards would not have become a welcome, carb-loading reprieve at the Berkshire annual meeting.
This is because stock-for-stock deals are not considered taxable events, the way cash deals are, and individuals who control companies through stock acquired at negligable cost, such as John Mooty, whose investment in Dairy Queen dated back to 1972 generally much prefer stock deals to cash.
Furthermore, Mr. Mooty clearly enjoyed the prospect of becoming part of the Berkshire family, as opposed to becoming a relatively insignificant subsidiary of, say, McDonald's, or a mere holding in the vast portfolio of a heartless, numbers-obsessed private equity outfit.
Recall his letter to shareholders recommending approval of the transaction:
"Our family will vote our entire 35% of the voting shares of Dairy Queen in favor of the merger and will elect to receive Berkshire Hathaway Common Stock for all the Dairy Queen shares owned by us. We are not interested in trading our Dairy Queen shares for any other securities. I personally consider Berkshire shares to be one to the finest investments that our family could make and we anticipate holding the shares indefinitely."
You can't say he didn't warn 'em.
Having attempted to gauge how well the Dairy Queen deal served Berkshire Hathaway shareholders' best interests, we will conclude by examining the original premise of the Dairy Queen Board of Directors and consider whether the transaction with Berkshire Hathaway served the best interests of the "entire Dairy Queen system."
To be concluded…
Jeff Matthews
I Am Not Making This Up
© 2007 NotMakingThisUp, LLC
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews also acts as an advisor and clients advised by Mr. Matthews may hold either long or short positions in securities of various companies discussed in the blog based upon Mr. Matthews' recommendations. This commentary in no way constitutes investment advice, nor is it a solicitation of business in any way. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author.


text:
Clawdeen Parody Party
Serving the Entire Orange County, California Area
Our Clawdeen Parody party character is a talented fashion designer who draws inspiration from her life as a werewolf. She's fiercely loyal to her friends and family, and she's always full of energy. She's also generous, and she uses her resourcefulness and fantastic sense of smell to help out whenever she can. She loves spending time with her friends and sharing her school spirit. Have Party Princess Productions send a Clawdeen Parody party character to your party. She'll show you how the monsters celebrate!"